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.
Yup, write off what you don't comprehend as "mental disease"
In much the same way, you wish to write off certain styles of firearms because you do not comprehend their existence. Research would show the issue you are combatting to have very little to do with what you want to deprive others of. If your battle is with gun violence and you are determined to focus on the tool and not the circumstance, you would be benefitted by looking into the statistics on handguns versus the mythical "assault weapon".
I believe in localized laws. Having blanket federal laws for millions of people , beyond what our Constitution entails is an exercise in frustration, at best. States should be able to enact or ignore any federalized suggestion and that state will suffer our thrive based on its decisions. A union of united states is no such thing under federal rule. Beyond that I believe high population areas are best governed differently than rural ones. The real divide in our country has become the differences between rural and urban.
What I'm saying is, we should keep that in mind when imposing regulations on people who didn't need or want them to begin with.
Actually, the ones who have no idea are the ones who claim that guns equal safety, or that having a gun makes one safe. The only thing that will change America's culture is a radical change in law. An all out ban on most guns combined with an intrusive background check, health history assessment and strong regulation is the way forward. The 2nd A would be repealed and replaced, tons of anti-gun commercials (like smoking) would also be part of the plan, along with hefty sentences for anyone in violation .
in other words what you really want, but are afraid to say, is an outright ban on all guns, and anyone caught with a gun is an automatic criminal that you want to sentence to prison for a long period of time. instead of trying idiocy like that, why not apply that to criminals already out in the world. put them away for a long period of time, and work to take away their guns, and other weapons, and lave the law abiding citizens alone. you might find that works better.
but if you really like strong gun regulation, why move to a country that already has those regulations? say australia or the UK, or even japan or china.
What would you call someone who hold on their own belief while refusing to even look at any facts?
The facts are on my side. Have you ever looked at gun statistics in America? Maybe studies on whether or not they actually make one safe? Then maybe thought to compare to every other developed nation on the planet? Pro-gun attitides in this country are what I consider a mental illness.
You are entitled under the constitution to bear arms, I am not denying that. But to think that the rate of ownership today, and the type of weapons available are what the founding fathers envisioned, is ludicrous to say the least.
in other words what you really want, but are afraid to say, is an outright ban on all guns, and anyone caught with a gun is an automatic criminal that you want to sentence to prison for a long period of time. instead of trying idiocy like that, why not apply that to criminals already out in the world. put them away for a long period of time, and work to take away their guns, and other weapons, and lave the law abiding citizens alone. you might find that works better.
but if you really like strong gun regulation, why move to a country that already has those regulations? say australia or the UK, or even japan or china.
I am from the UK. All the countries you listed, well, are all countries that have the tough laws I speak of and yet hardly any gun crime. Go figure..
Yup, that's right. All 67m that voted for Obama, which are a larger majority than conservatives are all blinded from facts. Even conservative governments in Europe are left of Republicans in this country. Hell, they're left of the Democratic party. All blind though. If only they had your intellect, reasoning and education
Location: When you take flak it means you are on target
7,646 posts, read 9,956,572 times
Reputation: 16466
I would suggest that as a foreigner and SUBJECT of the Queen, that you not come to the FREE country of AMERICA, that kicked England's BUTT with our GUNS and tell us CITIZENS what to do.
Oh and please take that British anti gun fool Piece Morgan with you when you go home.
Location: When you take flak it means you are on target
7,646 posts, read 9,956,572 times
Reputation: 16466
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo302
In much the same way, you wish to write off certain styles of firearms because you do not comprehend their existence. Research would show the issue you are combatting to have very little to do with what you want to deprive others of. If your battle is with gun violence and you are determined to focus on the tool and not the circumstance, you would be benefitted by looking into the statistics on handguns versus the mythical "assault weapon".
I believe in localized laws. Having blanket federal laws for millions of people , beyond what our Constitution entails is an exercise in frustration, at best. States should be able to enact or ignore any federalized suggestion and that state will suffer our thrive based on its decisions. A union of united states is no such thing under federal rule. Beyond that I believe high population areas are best governed differently than rural ones. The real divide in our country has become the differences between rural and urban.
What I'm saying is, we should keep that in mind when imposing regulations on people who didn't need or want them to begin with.
Local laws with firearms are not realistic if we have free travel between states. It is nuts as it is. One state your gun is legal, next door it isn't. I can carry a bazooka in AZ, but across the river in Commiefornia I'd be a felon.
Local laws with firearms are not realistic if we have free travel between states. It is nuts as it is. One state your gun is legal, next door it isn't. I can carry a bazooka in AZ, but across the river in Commiefornia I'd be a felon.
Think if driver licenses were local.
Why? Firearms are not a means of travel and not necessary for travel. The correlation between the two is not applicable as a firearm is not necessary to interstate travel. The regulations in question are usually more about style of the tool rather than licensing for it any way.
Unless you are implying the ease of breaking a law is the problem with enforcing them. In which case the entire point of imposing regulations comes into question.
Yup, that's right. All 67m that voted for Obama, which are a larger majority than conservatives are all blinded from facts. Even conservative governments in Europe are left of Republicans in this country. Hell, they're left of the Democratic party. All blind though. If only they had your intellect, reasoning and education
That's all well and fine, and the next time you meet a republican, you tell him that. As an Independent who has no allegiance to either the Democrat OR the Republican party, I can say that I wouldn't vote for a Liberal if they were the only one on the ticket. I would and have voted for an actual Democrat, but they are becoming impossible to find.
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.
