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.
Would just like to get an idea on where the bulk of City-Data Members stand on the issue.
Please Explain your vote in the forum
all legislation, bills and laws concerning firearms, ammo and any other accoutrement concerning the firearm culture should be made illegal to pass at any level, to include federal, state, county or city.
after all, that is what "shall not infringe" does mean.
all legislation, bills and laws concerning firearms, ammo and any other accoutrement concerning the firearm culture should be made illegal to pass at any level, to include federal, state, county or city.
after all, that is what "shall not infringe" does mean.
all legislation, bills and laws concerning firearms, ammo and any other accoutrement concerning the firearm culture should be made illegal to pass at any level, to include federal, state, county or city.
after all, that is what "shall not infringe" does mean.
Never happen.
To Bear arms, what does that mean? To bear means to carry or hold, I would be fine with leaving it there, any firearm a person can bear would be legal with two exceptions, no nukes and no chemical or biological weapons are legal. Plus I believe I would add that, while there would no resistration to own weapons capable of fully automatic fire, that potential owners must complete a safety and training course to ensure they understand proper operation and use prior to taking ownership of the weapon. And once again I would qualify that to excempt anyone that served in the military, police or other field that firearms training is mandatory and/or part of their profession, gun range owners or security operators and such.
Fair enough, or do you insist on that nuke?
Never happen.
To Bear arms, what does that mean? To bear means to carry or hold, I would be fine with leaving it there, any firearm a person can bear would be legal with two exceptions, no nukes and no chemical or biological weapons are legal. Plus I believe I would add that, while there would no resistration to own weapons capable of fully automatic fire, that potential owners must complete a safety and training course to ensure they understand proper operation and use prior to taking ownership of the weapon. And once again I would qualify that to excempt anyone that served in the military, police or other field that firearms training is mandatory and/or part of their profession, gun range owners or security operators and such.
Fair enough, or do you insist on that nuke?
Our rights are not subject to safety or training requirements.
Never happen.
To Bear arms, what does that mean? To bear means to carry or hold, I would be fine with leaving it there
That isn't entirely correct. When a country brings to bear, it certainly does not mean small arms.
bring to bear, to concentrate on with a specific purpose
Private citizens owned cannon back in revolutionary times. A cannon is certainly not a weapon one can "bear" in your narrow definition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gunlover
If only that 90% of those common sense persons would vote in elections and the low and no info voters would stay home.
I hear that... you're preaching to the choir.
The fact that over 7% (1 in 14 people) chose to ban semi-auto weapons shows that they are absolutely clueless. Basically they want muskets and flintlocks back. It would have been more honest to simply ban all guns, as that's really what they want.
That isn't entirely correct. When a country brings to bear, it certainly does not mean small arms.
bring to bear, to concentrate on with a specific purpose
Private citizens owned cannon back in revolutionary times. A cannon is certainly not a weapon one can "bear" in your narrow definition.
I hear that... you're preaching to the choir.
The fact that over 7% (1 in 14 people) chose to ban semi-auto weapons shows that they are absolutely clueless. Basically they want muskets and flintlocks back. It would have been more honest to simply ban all guns, as that's really what they want.
Well they can wish in one hand and crap in the other, I wonder which will fill up faster?
Its is great our rights are not subject to the minority, or majority at least in theory....
Just goes to show you that short minded and stupid people ruin everything for everyone.
Well they can wish in one hand and crap in the other, I wonder which will fill up faster?
Its is great our rights are not subject to the minority, or majority at least in theory....
Just goes to show you that short minded and stupid people ruin everything for everyone.
Actually I think it's the more intelligent people who are trying to keep you crazies intact
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.
