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.
Do we require that one has a license before they can vote? Do we require training and testing before they can vote?
If we do not require such for other rights, then we should not require it for this right.
You are required to register to vote. Many states are requiring various kinds of ID in order to vote, they are restricting the times people can vote, long line-ups etc.---- these states are making it more difficult to vote. Felons are not allowed to vote. You are not allowed to vote multiple times, or in multiple states. You can go online and see if someone is a registered republican or independent or democratic. So there are regulations and control of voting.
So why not require gun owners to register their guns? Why not a limit on owning multiple guns? Why not make it more difficult to acquire multiple guns and a huge arsenal instead of easy? If gun owners had to line up to register their guns the same way we have to line up for hours to vote maybe since they are probably lazy out-of-shape old males they wouldn't want to spend all that time in lines. Why can't I go online and see if my neighbor owns 42 guns, if I can go online and see their party affiliation?
I don't know? But it certainly seems to me that those who want to rid the country of the 2nd Amendment are the same as those who refuse to give this country credit for anything. No one's trying to diminish the great sacrifices that the Europeans made during the war. But it is an irrefutable fact that they could not have won the war without the United States.
I do confess that I started this with post #1137 while trying to prove a point about guns:
Sometimes one thing leads to another.
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.
There's even LESS evidence that an increase in gun ownership has caused an increase in gun homicides. In fact, the exact opposite is true. A decrease in gun homicides has accompanied an increase in gun ownership.
You are required to register to vote. Many states are requiring various kinds of ID in order to vote, they are restricting the times people can vote, long line-ups etc.---- these states are making it more difficult to vote. Felons are not allowed to vote. You are not allowed to vote multiple times, or in multiple states. You can go online and see if someone is a registered republican or independent or democratic. So there are regulations and control of voting.
So why not require gun owners to register their guns? Why not a limit on owning multiple guns? Why not make it more difficult to acquire multiple guns and a huge arsenal instead of easy? If gun owners had to line up to register their guns the same way we have to line up for hours to vote maybe since they are probably lazy out-of-shape old males they wouldn't want to spend all that time in lines. Why can't I go online and see if my neighbor owns 42 guns, if I can go online and see their party affiliation?
Awww, you do know that Gun owners would not comply with any such mandate to register their firearms, so goes that idea.
Oh, as to your last question, because it is none of your business.
You are required to register to vote. Many states are requiring various kinds of ID in order to vote, they are restricting the times people can vote, long line-ups etc.---- these states are making it more difficult to vote. Felons are not allowed to vote. You are not allowed to vote multiple times, or in multiple states. You can go online and see if someone is a registered republican or independent or democratic. So there are regulations and control of voting.
So why not require gun owners to register their guns? Why not a limit on owning multiple guns? Why not make it more difficult to acquire multiple guns and a huge arsenal instead of easy? If gun owners had to line up to register their guns the same way we have to line up for hours to vote maybe since they are probably lazy out-of-shape old males they wouldn't want to spend all that time in lines. Why can't I go online and see if my neighbor owns 42 guns, if I can go online and see their party affiliation?
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.
One method that will cut down on shootings of all kind, including mass shootings... where none others will
Gun-rights-haters have tried every method under the sun, supposedly to try to reduce shootings. They have uniformly failed. The rate of shootings continues to climb, varying only be location and dated, but not in deadliness. And yet they continue to call for the same things to be tried again and again.
But one method WILL work.
Don't pussyfoot around. Ban all private ownership of guns, period. And enforce it. This will dry up the supply until even the worst criminals can't get a gun any more.
Can anyone see a way this would NOT work in reducing shootings in this country?
The gun-rights-haters, of course, throw up their hands in mock horror and insist "We would never ban your guns! What a paranoid idea!" But everything else they try, fails miserably... and their reaction is always, "Well, we just need a little more gun control." There's always the same pattern to their demands... and it leads in only one direction, despite their smooth assurances to the contrary.
There is only one scheme that would actually reduce shootings in this country. Of course, you'd have to repeal the 2nd amendment first. Good luck with that. In fact, you'd probably have to amend the Constitution even further, to specifically give Congress the power to restrict or ban guns, and take that power away from the states. Let me know how that goes.
Then you'd have to get the legislation through Congress to actually ban everything.
And then comes the enforcement. A huge number of households have guns - millions. Does anyone think that all of them will simply bring their guns in to the nearest police station or collection point, once the police have the power to tell them to? You would need to put together police task forces to go house to house, collecting the guns.
It won't be long, of course, before some gun owner politely declines to give up his guns, Constitutional amendments or not. And the police would then insist. And then, the gun owner's refusal would become less polite. And so would the police's insistence. It's just a matter of time before the guns get used somewhere, instead of relinquished.
And the police certainly won't let THAT slide. The police teams would quickly turn into SWAT teams. And a collection mission to the next house, would consist of the SWAT team setting up outside the house, or maybe blocking off an entire street or block, demanding the residents come out, making all of them lie facedown in the grass, cuffing them, and holding them while the cops go house to house checking for newly-forbidden weapons.
They'll probably have to dig up most back yards too, in case someone put his rifles or pistols in a length of plastic pipe and buried them to avoid police confiscation. This is bound to happen in a few places, at least. And maybe QUITE a few places.
When the SWAT team actions start, how long will it be before neighborhoods that have several gun owners, start getting together and making plans for what to do when the SWAT teams show up on their block?
And how many American citizens, who had been innocent, law-abiding people until the new laws got passed, will be injured or killed? They could number into the thousands. Maybe MANY thousands.
How many times would this be repeated, across a country 3,000 miles wide with 320,000,000 people?
This method, once carried through a every house or apartment in the nation, WOULD significantly reduce the number of shootings in the U.S.
Can you say that about any other "gun control" scheme? No, you cannot... because not one of them has ever worked.
Gun-rights-haters are still demanding, however, that the government "do something to reduce these shootings". And they've been doing it long enough to know that none of their schemes have ever worked.
It stands to reason that the officials who keep demanding it anyway, will have one of two results:
1.) Complete failure like they have always had (I doubt they intend that result), or
2.) The only method that WILL work. As described above. Possibly brought on a little at a time, hoping to sneak it in without too many people noticing... but with the ultimate implementation described above.
It's time to stop kidding ourselves. The liberals who want "more gun control" or "just a few reasonable restrictions" today, feign horror and denial when someone says they want to ban all guns. But since nothing else will work, their actions belie their words: They can intend nothing else.
In other words, it's time for them to fish or cut bait. How many more examples of failure do they want, before conceding what normal people already know: That their "usual gun control" methods never work? How long to they expect to be able to fool people with the "just a few common sense regulations" nonsense?
The ones that are still insisting on "more gun control" are clearly not serious in their "just a little" assurances. They know that "just a little more" won't work. They can only have one outcome in mind: The only one that will work.
When you hear liberals on TV calling for more gun control..... get ready. They may say, "Just a little". But they don't mean it.
What laws would reduce gun crimes? Are stricter gun laws working in Chicago?
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...
I wonder why.
RR
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.
One method that will cut down on shootings of all kind, including mass shootings... where none others will
