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'm sure Obama has no idea what kind of 'gun control' laws already exist in the US (like every other anti gun nut), he clearly doesn't think that the current 20,000 laws are enough or somehow don't cover "common sense".
The government can't ban guns until they can gain public support to do it otherwise they risk massive protests and more importantly votes to keep them in office. Changing public opinion is not an easy task. Many people though the Sandy Hook mass shooting was going to be the tipping point ... but they were wrong.
Australia doesn't have a constitution that limits government from banning guns.
The US government can't ban guns until the 2nd amendment is repealed, it has very little to do with public opinion.
In spite of the media dancing in the victims blood and crowing about more 'gun control' Sandy Hook wasn't any kind of tipping point because while sad and tragic people who live 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 miles away aren't going to be pushed to alter the constitution because of it.
The NRA crowd advocates "common sense gun laws" to mean "No real gun laws or enforcement whatsoever." That's the only real conclusion one can draw. Then they post fake concern troll posts about "gun violence in Chicago" as if they give a crap about street level violence.
Anti gun nuts are amazing, it's like they're all suffering from terminal aphasia, they hear one thing and get it 100% completely wrong. "The NRA crowd" says 20,000 laws are enough and the anti gun nuts manage to translate that to "no gun law enforcement at all".
"Common sense" has become code for yet another liberal who has no idea what he/she is talking about.
I have a couple of rifles that are almost entirely identical. One was manufactured before the 1994 "assault weapons ban," and one was manufactured shortly thereafter. The only difference is that the 'pre-ban' rifle has a small protrusion near the end of the barrel, a 'bayonet lug' where a bayonet could be attached. On the 'post-ban' rifle, the lug was milled off. That's the only difference.
We don't hear of very many drive-by bayonet attacks. And in any case, I've never heard of criminals using a Springfield MIA rifle. It's large, unwieldy, and fairly expensive.
Yet liberals concluded that it was "common sense" to ban that bayonet lug. Okaaaaay.
The U.S. Federal government should require all states to have the stringent gun regulations that exist in Illinois. Gun permits, background checks, waiting periods... It's done wonders for the city of Chicago
I'm sure Obama has no idea what kind of 'gun control' laws already exist in the US (like every other anti gun nut), he clearly doesn't think that the current 20,000 laws are enough or somehow don't cover "common sense".
Also, while you won't like the messenger here, this segment provides an interesting overview of how newer laws written by the NRA prevent ATF from enforcing laws on the books, meaning there really are very few enforceable gun laws in the U.S.: There Goes the Boom - ATF - The Daily Show - Video Clip | Comedy Central
I just want the full story to be on the table for this important discussion.
nonsense. if someone has been found insane through DUE PROCESS, then their rights should be suspended as if they had committed a crime. teh key words here are DUE PROCESS. you cannot just decide to suspend someones civil rights just because you think they may commit a crime, or harm someone else or themselves.
background checks are acceptable, as long as they do not interfere with one rights to purchase a firearm.
that depends, are you trying to eliminate guns from society, or are you really willing to let law abiding citizens have their firearms while stopping criminals from getting firearms illegally?
Do you realize how productive it is when you make childish posts like this, mocking people who might see the world differently from you? I use guns, have a family history of using guns. You seem to think anyone who doesn't stake out a radical position must be against you. The world isn't that simple. I will answer your questions but please show some basic respect for your fellow man. The loss of Christian values in this country has been so detrimental and this is a good example.
1. The individual said he believes individuals should have the right to the same arms as the military possesses. I listed arms the military possesses.
2. There are many types of mental illness that could render someone unfit to possess a firearm, not just straight-jacket insane. It's reasonable to have legislation that establishes that protocol.
3. Well, if a background check brings up a sordid background, then it most certainly should interfere with a person's right to buy a weapon. What else would the purpose of a background check be?
Unfortunately, the NRA lobbyists have staked out such a radical position that they won't even support common sense laws a vast majority of people and gun owners support.
The U.S. Federal government should require all states to have the stringent gun regulations that exist in Illinois. Gun permits, background checks, waiting periods... It's done wonders for the city of Chicago
This is a common argument but I'm honestly not sure how much impact more guns in low income urban neighborhoods would help. I know firsthand people who live in those areas and carry a gun. It's reasonable to do so, but the reality is the shootings are often feuds between criminal gangs. There's no "good guys with a gun" in those scenarios. They're drug dealers coming up short, surprise drive-by shootings in retribution for another shooting.
If I were theoretically living in such a situation and gunned someone down who was about to murder a woman, let's say, I'm a hero for a day but they're coming for me or my boys or my family. Someone's getting gunned down.
I don't know if you've ever been shot at, but it's often out of the blue, a sneak attack with the element of surprise. You have no time to react and they're gone before you have time to recover.
Anyway, it's all good on paper but I'm just not sure how it plays out in those neighborhoods. Of course, people can and should arm themselves for self-defense in areas like that.
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.
