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.
Gun control is one of the most bipartisan of the major divisive issues in America.
I would say the divide between those who support or reject gun control fall more along an urban/rural divide rather than Right/Left.
In other words, a liberal living in an area where guns are part of the culture are likely to oppose gun control and may well own and use guns. A conservative living in the city may well want restrictions on gun ownership.
For example, in New Mexico, a lot of Left-leaning people like their guns. In New York City, a lot of staunch conservatives support restrictions on gun ownership.
1. The Second Amendment was not added to the constitution. It was a part of the original Bill of Rights.
2. It was included for one reason and one reason only. Because "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".
You were not the author of it, so we don't need your spin on it, about "self defense from criminals". The founding fathers were very smart people. If that was what they had in mind, they would have had no problem writing that in themselves. They don't need a wanabe constitution writer to do it for them 200+ years later.
What I find most sad is that very few supporters of the Second Amendment, can actually quote the entire amendment word for word correctly. At least not without adding their own spin on it.
The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments, therefore the 2nd amendment WAS added to the Constitution
Most of the gun restrictors are primarilly concerned with keeping the poor or the "wrong people" disarmed. This is more consistant than even racial gun controls.
I, as a very left wing liberal, believe all people have a basic right to own firearms to protect themselves from violent assailants. I would even go so far as to eliminate the 1934 Federal Firearms Act that established the ATF and remove any federal regulation of firarms.
The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments, therefore the 2nd amendment WAS added to the Constitution
Technically speaking, only the first eight amendments make up the Bill of Rights. The Ninth Amendment acknowledges that not all inherent rights are included in the first eight amendments. While the Tenth Amendment pertains to State Rights. However, all ten Amendments were added at the same time in 1791, which is what causes the confusion.
We already can own Class III weapons here as long as you pay your Federal NFA BATF $200 tax stamp per item, are over 21, can pass all the Federal requirements and background checks, fill out all the forms..........and WAIT! These include select fire (semi/full autos), suppressors, SBR (short barrel rifles).
The .50 BMG is only a rifle here as long as it's in semi auto/bolt action form with at least a 16" barrel to comply with standard rifle regulations. One 4473 and a FBI NICS check, and it's yours in as little as 5 minutes.
We also can own a AOW (any other weapon) you speak of. The tax stamp on that is only $5.
Federal Class III BATF paperwork and regulations the same as the above ^ to get one of those too. I'm toying with the idea the last few years to get one. It's a neat toy!
I like how that shorty 12 guage still has a bead on it for aiming LOL
So are you in support of legalizing fully automatic weapons? Should I be able to go purchase a mountable full auto .50 BMG at a sporting goods store? Where do you draw the line as to what is legal. The 2cnd amendment gives us the right to bare arms but what does that exactly mean these days? Doesn't an RPG or a tank classify as "arms". Where do we draw the line?
Also I'm not saying I'm for or against fully auto weapons an such, I just would like to hear other americans opinions on this subject
sure thing, as long as you can afford it. I would love to own quite a few firearms that are not available now but i could have bought 80 years ago with no interference from the fedgov. they knew back then that the people were the militia and not the goverment.
also, if you look into miller vs US, you will see where the feds lied in the SCOTUS. if the feds would not have lied in their testimony, then NFA34 would not even exist.
Most of the gun restrictors are primarilly concerned with keeping the poor or the "wrong people" disarmed. This is more consistant than even racial gun controls.
I, as a very left wing liberal, believe all people have a basic right to own firearms to protect themselves from violent assailants. I would even go so far as to eliminate the 1934 Federal Firearms Act that established the ATF and remove any federal regulation of firarms.
Yeah but for you lefties you get Jennings, Ravens and Sterlings.....
Gun control is one of the most bipartisan of the major divisive issues in America.
I would say the divide between those who support or reject gun control fall more along an urban/rural divide rather than Right/Left.
In other words, a liberal living in an area where guns are part of the culture are likely to oppose gun control and may well own and use guns. A conservative living in the city may well want restrictions on gun ownership.
For example, in New Mexico, a lot of Left-leaning people like their guns. In New York City, a lot of staunch conservatives support restrictions on gun ownership.
You might well have a point there....... I can't say as i thought of it in that way before...
I tend to think of most city people as lefty liberals..... I am a rural dweller and mostly around here it seems were have Indies and rightists.....
I consider myself Indy leaning right....
I also don't have any plan to abide any more gun regs than NH has right now... Right now NH has the about the best of any states gun law except for Vermont.
I'm annoyed by both hysterical sides of the debate.
In the heyday of the militia movement in the 1990s I was sympathetic to, if not exactly in, the extreme pro-gun fringe. I believed in the possibility and desirability of armed revolution. I thought the American government was incontrovertibly evil while the American population was incontrovertibly good.
After April 19, 1996 passed and nothing at all happened, and then Clinton was reelected, that idea of mine vanished. Then in 2002 I read Bertrand Russell's "Practice and Theory of Bolshevism" and came across what struck me as a pretty unanswerable argument for why revolution was impossible, not just accidentally absent from the U.S. scene: that no revolution could succeed in an advanced democracy without the support of enough of the population to enforce its will without a revolution. To say I was gobsmacked that I hadn't thought of this myself was an understatement.
So between this epiphany and my total revulsion against the Iraq War, I kept away from anything connected to the right for a while. Largely this is still the case, and I no longer believe that gun ownership keeps us free (we aren't very free anyway) but I still want to smack weenie nitwits like Piers Morgan when they take a fanatical all-or-nothing anti-gun stance. Even when Michael Moore made Bowling for Columbine he made pretty clear that legal private gun ownership, by itself, is not the problem in the United States. I applaud the Democrats for largely abandoning their efforts to significantly change gun ownership laws. Both sides have been guilty of hyperbole and fear-mongering.
I'm annoyed by both hysterical sides of the debate.
In the heyday of the militia movement in the 1990s I was sympathetic to, if not exactly in, the extreme pro-gun fringe. I believed in the possibility and desirability of armed revolution. I thought the American government was incontrovertibly evil while the American population was incontrovertibly good.
After April 19, 1996 passed and nothing at all happened, and then Clinton was reelected, that idea of mine vanished. Then in 2002 I read Bertrand Russell's "Practice and Theory of Bolshevism" and came across what struck me as a pretty unanswerable argument for why revolution was impossible, not just accidentally absent from the U.S. scene: that no revolution could succeed in an advanced democracy without the support of enough of the population to enforce its will without a revolution. To say I was gobsmacked that I hadn't thought of this myself was an understatement.
So between this epiphany and my total revulsion against the Iraq War, I kept away from anything connected to the right for a while. Largely this is still the case, and I no longer believe that gun ownership keeps us free (we aren't very free anyway) but I still want to smack weenie nitwits like Piers Morgan when they take a fanatical all-or-nothing anti-gun stance. Even when Michael Moore made Bowling for Columbine he made pretty clear that legal private gun ownership, by itself, is not the problem in the United States. I applaud the Democrats for largely abandoning their efforts to significantly change gun ownership laws. Both sides have been guilty of hyperbole and fear-mongering.
very true in part. but remember that the part of the population needed for revolution is 3% fighting and 6% support. 3% fighting would be 10 million fighting. also remember that it means that the whole of the USA is in revolution. if that revolution only effects 2-3 states, then 3% might be alot lower than 10 million active participants.
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.
