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.
Often it's because their opponents in the debate want to take away their Constitutional rights based on an opinion formed out of ignorance of the Constitution, a lack of rudimentary knowledge of the topic they're discussing, a lack of interest in learning about the subject before promoting their position or a combination of the above.
People get a little testy when someone that has less knowledge than the family pet is promulgating the idea that their Constitutional rights should be taken from them.
Depends on the State , more Urban and Suburban States are having more problem's with guns then more Rural states. I think the 2nd Amendment needs to be revised. And the NRA needs to jump on board lives are at risk , and the laws are old. This is the 21st century, the 2nd Amendment wasn't mean't for these types of guns or didn't intend for crimnals. If your a law bidding citizen closing the loop holes shouldn't affect you.
The states that are continuing to restrict guns are in the minority: CA, NY, MA, NJ, RI, IL, HI. Just 8 states out of 50. All the rest are moving in the direction of greater gun freedom. The gun laws in the anti-second amendment states have accomplished absolutely nothing other than disarming the victims of crime. You try repealing the second amendment, you'd just end up starting a civil war.
It's less than 1%. Sure, 768k sounds like a big number, but when used in the proper context, it's pretty insignificant and demonstrative of the fact that the NICS background check is a waste of time, money and resources.
And on top of that, there's a large number of improper denials...
If your best friend is a convict on parole, I've got a problem with the both of you.
Yes criminals will. And that's how LE can sort out the good guys from the bad guys swiftly in investigations after the fact of crime.
False. The intent is to impose order. The way they're going about it might result in what you're concerned about if it's done sloppy, but it isn't their intent. That's propaganda.
Delayed- what's the hurry? Wrongful denial can be argued legally and if I saw abuses there most americans would argue your cause. Retracting a gun out of the hands of criminals after the fact is finding out the hard way.
Aside from all of this being anti-gun propaganda, it's totally void of common sense.
Gun control in the form of licensing, registration, tracking, background checks and waiting periods are all illegal acts constitutionally, and just the first steps toward outright gun bans and confiscation.
The infuriatingly short sighted support of such things is a testament to the ignorance of a populace which is completely clueless to the incremental nature of tyranny and the natural tendency for governments to abuse such power and control, which is the rule rather than the exception, documented throughout history.
This is precisely the reason why the framers of the constitution made a point of including the 2nd Amendment to secure the people's rights to keep and bear arms .. not for the purpose of hunting or target shooting or protection from common criminals, but to defend liberty against government tyranny which is the inevitable result of a defenseless and disarmed populace. This is the meaning behind the message "When people fear government, there is tyranny, but when government fears the people there is liberty.
The modern liberal mind cannot seem to grasp this fundamental truth for which our founding fathers understood all too well about human nature and the nature of all governments. The naive idea that somehow our benevolent rulers in Washington DC would never seek to impose their will by force, or act in a manner contrary to the best interests of the people is born of a childish mind. Such childish ignorance is an equal threat to liberty as are those who might seek to impose such tyranny, and must be considered enemies of equal danger.
In short, grow up, and use you head for something other than a hat rack.
To me, the "proper context" is that those 768,000 denials represent people who have forfeited their right to bear arms being prevented from purchasing a firearm. That some people don't care if criminals are allowed to purchase firearms at gun shows is just one of those sad facts of life over which I have no control. I don't understand it, but I realize that's the case. So be it.
Then let me explain it to you. First, there has been a lot of talk within the government of expanding the rolls of those who would be denied the purchase of firearms to include anyone placed on the TSA's no fly list which has grown to more than a Million names today. This list .... including how one gets on it ... and how difficult it is to get off it is kept secret and does not utilize due process .... includes people who's name "resembles" someone else's ... all the way to those who have been targeted as political enemies ... the vast majority of which have no association whatsoever to "terrorism", and whose admission to this list is totally arbitrary.
More radical are the propositions to include ex military who may have been treated for such things deemed mental illness such as combat fatigue, all the way to including anyone with a drug offense as minor as a misdemeanor possession of a small amount of marijuana (Millions).
The one thing you can count on is that such powers to deny rights are never curtailed to it's original purpose or intent, but is always expanded.
Consequently, it is the cost of freedom that some may gain access to firearms for which most would agree should not have them, in order to protect the rights of those who should.
It's the same concept built into the justice system, which may allow a criminal to escape justice via technicality, but the existence of such is designed to protect the rights of the innocent from false conviction of crimes they did not commit.
We have what ... 50,000 deaths a year on the nations highways? Are we to ban automobiles ... or revoke the privilege to drive for anyone that has been involved in an accident?
The facts of gun ownership, and that of restrictions are clear. Violent crime is greater in areas where gun restrictions are most severe and never seem to impact a criminal's ability to secure access to a firearm, while areas with the least restrictions show significant reduction in violent crime.
The only beneficial form of gun control is the ability to hit what you are aiming at.
Picked up a new one today at a local gun show. 15 minutes after I said "I'll take it", the paperwork was filled out and it was in my hands. I was also able to buy additional magazines for it, plus two high-capacity mags for another gun I own and some hard-to-find ammunition at a fair price.
Out of curiousity I looked up gun laws on some European and Commonwealth countries, and was surprised to see how stringent they are. What I did today would be impossible there, yet their crime level is comparable to ours.
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.
