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.
I assume this is a real question, so I will tell you the real answer. The only way for guns to be banned in America, is if the vast majority of our population lived in very densely packed cities.
The reason guns are banned in places like New York City, isn't a matter if it being liberal. There are liberal cities/states which don't ban guns, and have no desire to ban guns. The reason New York City wants to ban guns is because the people in New York City are stacked right on top of each other. No one wants a gun going off in a high-rise apartment building, and no one wants to see someone open-carrying a gun onto a bus/train.
Basically, liberals tend to be opposed to guns because liberals tend to live in places where guns are impractical. Even if you wanted to be a "good guy with a gun" in New York City, having a "shoot-out" with the perpetrator on a busy street is likely to inflict significant collateral damage. As a result, places like New York City have decided the best way to prevent crime is just to put a "police officer on every corner". And most of the "good guys" would rather just not have to worry about carrying a gun at all, it is a liability. Thus the majority of private citizens who carry guns in New York City, are usually the criminals. From that perspective, it makes perfect sense to want to get rid of all guns. Especially since the guns which end up in criminals hands in New York City, usually come from other parts of the country. The idea is that, if they can ban guns across the country, the criminals will no longer be able to acquire a gun.
Since the majority of Americans don't live in densely packed cities. And since a very large percentage of Americans live far away from a police station. And since America has a fairly high crime rate already. In most of the United States, banning guns is a really really really bad idea.
With that said, I think those who want to ban guns are playing a stupid and dangerous game.
First, banning guns would not lower crime rates. Although I would concede you would see a small reduction in accidental deaths and suicide rates. But you would not see an overall reduction in crime. It is more likely that you will see an increase in crime in some parts of the country. And crime would remain largely the same everywhere else.
Even if you think banning guns is beneficial to where you individually live. Then you should set your sights at decentralizing the gun issue. Letting it be a "local issue". The problem with the gun grabbers is that they can't leave it as a local issue. They want to ban guns everywhere. Regardless of the fact that a gun ban is about as effective as banning meth, cocaine, or alcohol.
As Mencken said,
"The strange American ardor for passing laws, the insane belief in regulation and punishment, plays into the hands of the reformers, most of them quacks themselves. Their efforts, even when honest, seldom accomplish any appreciable good. The Harrison Act, despite its cruel provisions, has not diminished drug addiction in the slightest.... Oppressive laws do not destroy minorities; they simply make bootleggers."
Location: East St. Paul 651 forever (or North St. Paul) .
2,860 posts, read 3,387,163 times
Reputation: 1446
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk
It would require absolute tyranny.
I suspect you'd love it.
Well at least I'd be able to protect myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jertheber
You are already a defenseless caricature of the person your masters want you to be. You are typing posts in CD on mom's computer, talk about cowardice....
Says the person posting on CD? You calling the kettle black?
Like Tyrants of any kind care about your gun rights. They always will have bigger guns than you. They will always be able to turn your neighbors against you. What a fantasy world where you sit there and think you will be some savior against the evil US govt.
at which point the US govt becomes your Tyrant
1 - a lot of people will think your crazy, and like the tyrant (China is popular with its people)
2 - if you don't conform, it can do with you legally what it wishes
3 - at that point it would be easy to take your guns
your about as likely protecting us from a Zombie invasion as a tyrannical united states. I do have a tin foil song for the conspiracy theorist . . here.
Regulating the guns isn't about tyranny
its about wanting a fricken homicide rate on par with other western nations
What completely irrelevant post, especially the part about gun restrictions reducing homicide rates. That's just pure fiction.
We are a western nation with many parts resembling third world nations in it. Hence the high murder rates in certain parts of Chicago's South and West sides. However, gun ownership in many of Chicago's suburbs and downstate Illinois is high, but murder rates are just as low as other western nations. I live in the far south suburbs now, (Bourbonnais) and own a couple of very high powered rifles, and have many neighbors that also own guns yet you don't see us pulling driveby's.... I wonder why?
Just as people who want illegal drugs can get it, people who want guns will get it. Whether they are legal or otherwise.
As for repealing the 2A, not happening, but the Feds can limit/regulate the type of guns citizens can own. Though I believe that the citizens should be able to own the same handheld weapons as the police if not the military.
Of course, because gun restrictions past a reasonable point have zero impact on crime. Chicago is a great example of this. The city (if you can call the tiny thing that) is the crappiest place I ever visited. The outskirts look like a war zone and the city itself is just one big sports orgy and too many snooty white people with whiney accents. Plus it's cold. But on topic, Chicago and DC had complete gun bans for a while and of course it did nothing for violent crime. Yet states like Vermont have relaxed gun laws and almost no violent crime.
It's the usual, "get the gun message back on page one of P&OC" thread. As if they've been under constant attack.
The OP put out the soapbox. People are in line to jump on it.
Same old, same old.
do not worry, after all, both democrats and republicans are for gun control. I do not see any politician wanting to repeal all gun control laws and getting rid of f-troop, as then it would be as the founders intended with no laws at all against the peoples right to keep and bear arms.
Plus 218 Representatives, 51 Senators, and a President, all of whom don't care if they lose their next election.
????
Actually it would be 290 Representatives and 67 Senators (or 34 state legislatures) to just propose the amendment and most importantly, the legislates of 38 states to ratify it . . . The President has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Article V: The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this constitution, or on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states . . .
If by some tragic turn of events the federal government did ban guns I think you'd see many states passing laws to ignore the feds as many have already started to do.
I feel like I'm the only one who sees it as much closer than people think. Pro-2A guys on other forums say it will never happen, but I don't believe it.
So what would it take to get restrictions similar to those in Britain and Australia? (As you may know both those places enacted draconian laws on guns following Hungerford, Dunblane and Port Arthur.)
I'm curious to know, as I see it closer and closer in the attempts of the coward elites to turn us into a defenseless populace.
Why would we want to ban guns?
Do we want to ban the football because of NFL concussions?
Do we want to ban swimming pools because of the many drownings?
Do we want to ban the car because of the car accidents resulting in injury and death?
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.
