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.
They're not, though. 41% of households have at least one gun. 59% of adults have friends who own guns. And the fact is that as gun ownership has increased, gun homicides have decreased rather significantly.
Again you keep misunderstanding my point. Please respond when you have ownership data over time. Only then will it actually agree with the argument you're making. It won't prove a causal linkage, but it will certainly make your argument stronger.
You keep equating gun ownership with total guns/number of people (which is what your plot is). They are likely not conveying the same information because it gives no indication to how the number of guns per gun owner has changed over time.
I put forth a proposal that would definitely help lower gun violence in a now buried thread.
No more plea bargains for gun crimes ( DA has no choice), maximum sentence with no chance for parole (a judge could add to it but cannot lower it)
Caught stealing a gun, or caught with a stolen gun, illegally modified gun, felon with a gun, concealed carry without a permit, etc.... Your going to trial and getting the full sentence with no parole.
I put this out there and the anti-gun liberals scattered to the four winds, I guess the thought of actually punishing criminals scared them off...
How long have police been going house to house, at every house in America, collecting them to totally dry up the supply? That's why I pointed out the kind of enforcement the liberals are leading us into - the scheme won't work without it.
Voting is not part of the Bill Of Rights, So yes restrictions can be made to voting.
And there are already plenty of 2nd amendment restrictions, Background checks, there are restrictions on full auto's and suppressors, both of which is used by the military and thus constitutionally should be available to the people.
RR
not to mention that federal laws do not allow for government to make lists of who owns guns or not, nor does federal law allow for registration of guns.
yes it would work and it is constitutional unlike secret gov. no fly list, and gun bans, and I'm sure most gun owners and the republican's in congress would support it.
But i guarantee the Dem's would fight it tooth and nail, would anyone care to take a guess why?
How long have police been going house to house, at every house in America, collecting them to totally dry up the supply? That's why I pointed out the kind of enforcement the liberals are leading us into - the scheme won't work without it.
A ban can't work. There aren't enough federal cops to do it. State and local law enforcement in most states wouldn't do it and many would actively try to thwart the fed police.
Hardly, US contribution to global culture, science, engineering and technology particularly within the past 100 odd years is without parallel. There is no study or realm of human expression that Americans have not had a large influence in. These are thing we as Americans should be immensely proud of.
In terms of the Second Amendment its been an absolute curse to this nation. A cancer on the lungs of a great nation.
Quite the opposite. For the most part it's kept us free from the cancer of progressive Liberal social policies. The real reason that Liberals wish to abolish it. It's not about making the country safer. They can never enslave an armed populace to their socialist agenda. The very same reason that the Venezuelan government does not allow their subjects to bear arms. The very reason why we have the 2nd Amendment in the first place.
But you're just gonna' have to live with it, as the Supreme Court has already ruled in Heller/McDonald that the 2nd Amendment is indeed an individual right unrelated to service in a militia and applies to firearms that are in "common use". Semi automatic rifles and handguns along with their magazines are ubiquitous and are indeed in "common use".
It would be impossible to ban and confiscate every privately owned firearm in the United States without starting a civil war. Even Democrats know this otherwise they would have tried it when they controlled all three branches of the federal government under different administrations. Even in your own state of California one of thee most anti gun and Liberal states in the country. Why hasn't your state government sent out swat teams and national guard units employing Gestapo like tactics? Barging down doors and turning every single home upside down in order to search for and confiscate weapons? That's about the only way you're gonna' do it. Go ahead give it a try. Democrats control your state government with an iron fist. What's to stop you? I'd love to see what the end results will be.
But how ironic in that it's gonna' take people with guns to do it. So I guess you're okay with guns as long as they're being used to force an agenda on those who are against it?
Last edited by Ex New Yorker; 10-04-2017 at 05:45 PM..
Well... if you want a nighthawk or a Les Baer there's 5k.
10k for a rifle gets you a Barret 50...
An average american does not have this kind of items. Anyway, pay 10 times market value on any rifle and you solve the problem 90% with law abiding citizens.
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.
, So yes restrictions can be made to voting.
