Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The polls in favor of an AWB was around 50%.
Poll taken back in December had 89 percent favor background checks.
Probably right about Cuomo, the SAFE act only required registration of assault weapons.
Quinnipiac University poll, conducted Dec. 16-20: "Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows or online?" Support: 89 percent. Oppose: 9 percent. Unsure/No answer: 1 percent.
The people buying guns at Gun Shows or on line from dealers all already go through a background check.
The Quinnipaic poll misleads when it asks the question.
Criminals, by definition, don't "give a flip" about whatever law is being broken. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws. A murderer doesn't "give a flip" about homicide laws; doesn't mean we should legalize murder.
Laws are put in place to punish action that society considers harmful. Homocide laws punish the killing of another person.
Passing laws to ban something that has the extremely remote possibility of being used to further an action like homicide is like banning cars in order to prevent a person from reckless driving.
No, strike that, it's like banning speech in order to prevent committing perjury or defamation.
Fabulous news. Nice to see Mass have some real courage and to see a state standing up to the NRA.
Hopefully many more states will follow, and the U.S. will be a place governed by the people, not by the NRA loons.
Governed by the NRA? What an absurd perspective.
The people have not been governed by an entity "of-by-and for the people" in decades. You've fallen for the smoke and mirrors foisted on the herd by the establishment.
When you type stuff like this all I can hear is BAaaaaa
Laws are put in place to punish action that society considers harmful. Homocide laws punish the killing of another person.
No, you made that up.
Laws are not put in place primarily for punishment. Laws are intended to regulate behavior, primarily. You don't have a speed limit or a child safety law or a pollution regulation because you wish to randomly punish people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez
Passing laws to ban something that has the extremely remote possibility of being used to further an action like homicide is like banning cars in order to prevent a person from reckless driving.
Makes no sense as 1. No one is banning guns 2. Cars are already extremely regulated, MUCH moreso than guns (There are thousands and thousands of rules re. car production, safety, usage and maintenance) and 3. There is no epidemic of car-related homicide like with guns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez
No, strike that, it's like banning speech in order to prevent committing perjury or defamation.
No, it isn't remotely like that. And certain types of speech are indeed banned, which has been found to be constitutional.
Why is it "absurd"? Conservatives in Congress have refused to pass any gun regulations, even after children were massacred in CT. The only reason they refused is because the NRA provides their marching orders.
Polls show that a HUGE majority of their constituents want tougher regulations but Congress doesn't care. Even a bloodbath of dead babies wasn't sufficient motivation. If that didn't do it, nothing will.
In fact, when the latest massacre in Orlando occurred, and gun regulation again came up for debate in Congress, both Trump and Republican house leadership openly said "they would consult the NRA" before issuing a position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by steven_h
The people have not been governed by an entity "of-by-and for the people" in decades. You've fallen for the smoke and mirrors foisted on the herd by the establishment.
You're absolutely right. This is exactly why the NRA is such a threat to the American people.
For the average American, they're like 1000x more dangerous than ISIS, because they have no problem with your kids being slaughtered, while ISIS can't do much to harm your family from Syira.
Laws are not put in place primarily for punishment. Laws are intended to regulate behavior, primarily. You don't have a speed limit or a child safety law or a pollution regulation because you wish to randomly punish people.
Makes no sense as 1. No one is banning guns 2. Cars are already extremely regulated, MUCH moreso than guns (There are thousands and thousands of rules re. car production, safety, usage and maintenance) and 3. There is no epidemic of car-related homicide like with guns.
No, it isn't remotely like that. And certain types of speech are indeed banned, which has been found to be constitutional.
Actually they are...for the third time. Owning a semi-auto rifle or shotgun is now against the law. All purchases of said firearms is no longer permitted. Because the operation of them (how they work) is a "copy" of the evil black rifle the left is afraid of.
The polls in favor of an AWB was around 50%.
Poll taken back in December had 89 percent favor background checks.
Probably right about Cuomo, the SAFE act only required registration of assault weapons.
Quinnipiac University poll, conducted Dec. 16-20: "Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows or online?" Support: 89 percent. Oppose: 9 percent. Unsure/No answer: 1 percent.
You already have to do a background check when buying online and from anadealer at a gun show.
Plus even obama's doj said universal background checks wouldn't make a difference in crime since most crime guns are either stollen or illegally purchased via straw purchasers.
If you actually want to make a difference pass a law requiring stiff mandatory sentences for people who use a gun in the commission of a crime. You know, Actually punish criminals instead of every American.
When something is done such as this, one side will always feel cheated. What Massachusetts did was listen to the VERY loud national public outcry, and made a move. They did something. If a group wants to challenge the state on constitutionality, then do something about it. And if anyone doesn't think the NRA's power runs deep into government, then they are naive.
OK, I just have to ask this question of the gun owning population.
Why do you feel you need a gun that holds more than one round at a time?
If all of you honed in on your firing skills, one shot would be all it takes to take down a criminal, or in the case of sport hunting, an animal.
Bob.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
