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 thought the only drawback is that gun collecting is an incredibly stupid hobby.
Real strength comes from within.
Good luck with that. Today's center-left American will be tomorrow's right-winger. Meanwhile, our current embarrassing crop of conservatives will be condemned to the dustbin of history. That is when we'll get some sensible gun control.
In 2014, the most recent year for which ratings were available, 27 states received an “F” in the center’s analysis. America Tonight looked at the 10 states with the highest gun death rate and what kind of gun laws they have — or don’t have, according to the 2014 report card.
All the following earned an "F" grade...
1. Wyoming
In Wyoming, private sellers don’t have to run background checks on buyers. The state also doesn’t require gun owners to have a license, register their guns or report when firearms are lost or stolen. It doesn’t regulate the sale or ownership of large capacity ammunition magazines or assault weapons. In 2011, Wyoming became the fourth state to allow residents to carry concealed guns in public without a license or permit.
2. Louisiana
In 2014, the state passed a law that makes it harder for those convicted of domestic abuse and battery to get guns. But in 2013, it also passed a law that blocked schools from getting information about student gun owners. The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence says the state has the weakest gun laws in the country: It doesn’t require background checks for private sellers nor require licenses or permits for firearm owners or sellers. It also doesn’t regulate unsafe guns or ammunition or allow local governments to pass gun legislation. In Louisiana, police don’t have the power to deny permits for concealed handguns.
3. Mississippi
Mississippi hasn’t passed any new gun laws in the past two years. It doesn’t require gun owners or firearm dealers to be licensed and doesn’t have any gun registration requirements. The state also doesn’t regulate sales of high-capacity magazines, assault weapons or unsafe guns. Guns originally sold in Mississippi are recovered in crime scenes more often than guns from any other state in the country, according to 2009 data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).
4. Alaska
Alaska was the deadliest state for gun deaths per capita in 2013, according to the scorecard. State law doesn’t require background checks in private sales or licenses for firearms dealers; it doesn’t ban the sale or ownership of assault weapons or high capacity magazines or regulate unsafe guns or ammunition sales. In Alaska, local governments can’t enact their own gun laws. And according to the 2014 scorecard, Alaska sells guns that are later recovered from crime scenes at more than twice the national average.
5. Alabama
Alabama doesn’t require residents to register their firearms or limit the number of firearms in a single purchase. Private sellers aren’t required to run background checks on those who purchase their guns. The state also doesn’t ban large-capacity magazines or assault weapons. In 2013, the state passed a law that denied police the right to reject concealed carry permits. A constitutional amendment passed by voters in 2014 allows residents to challenge gun laws under a “strict scrutiny” standard, which the scorecard says makes it easier to reverse restrictions already in place.
6. Montana
Montana has the sixth highest rate of gun deaths in the country. While Missoula has put forward its own legislation that would require universal background checks for all private sales, the state of Montana doesn’t require it. It also doesn’t have a ban on assault weapons, large capacity ammunition magazines or 50 caliber rifles. There’s no limit on how many firearms residents can purchase at a time; the state also doesn’t require licenses for gun owners or firearms dealers. Guns don’t have to be registered, either.
7. Arkansas
Arkansas didn’t pass any new gun laws in 2014. In the past two years, the state has expanded its “shoot first” law and passed legislation that allows guns in bars, colleges and universities, and places of worship and their affiliated schools. Gun owners aren’t required to have licenses and firearms don’t need to be registered. In Arkansas, cities can’t develop their own gun laws.
8. Oklahoma
Though Oklahoma got poor marks on the 2014 report card, largely because of legislation that relaxed rules around giving guns to children and allowed guns to be stored in cars parked outside elementary schools, its score could improve next year, according to the LCPGV: In 2014, officials passed a law that requires mental health records to be submitted for background checks.
9. New Mexico
New Mexico hasn’t passed any new gun laws in the past two years. Like many other states on the list, it doesn’t require background checks for private sales, ban assault rifles or require licenses for gun dealers. It also has no restrictions on gun purchases by residents with a history of domestic abuse.
10. South Carolina
In 2013, South Carolina was ranked No. 11 on the state gun law scorecard. It moved into the top 10 in 2014 largely because of a new law that allows guns in bars, along with newly relaxed restrictions on guns in cars. In 2012, the state did away with laws that required state licenses for gun dealers as well as a design safety standard for handguns. But the state’s score in 2015 could improve: This year, it passed a law that would prevent residents with certain histories of domestic abuse from owning guns.
So far in 2015, there have been 307 days — and 318 mass shootings.
Statistics like this are usually compiled by anti-gun organizations, and they are always skewed.
I don't know how you arrived at the "318 mass shootings".. I don't even think it's even close!
This isn't about how I feel, background checks don't really affect my personal feelings. I think they are important because things change in life and that should always be checked when someone is buying a gun, but you seem to think it is a waste of time and money, so I question why you also support having these checks around. Seems to contradict your opinion.
So many restrictions on an Amendment to the Bill of Rights. That says very clearly, that it shall never be infringed(restricted) for any person, for any reason.
Don't want them to have a gun... Kill them with your gun and take it.
Freedom is very scary and those raised over protected from societies evil ways, cannot handle it.
They wish to force everyone to give up their rights, because they are scared of their own freedom.
There are many rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Some not so relevant like back when the Bill of Rights was added, but either way, taking people's rights away is objectionable, yes. Reasoned compromise to balance the importance of those rights with the challenges of modern day society is necessary nevertheless. The striving toward that ideal balance is nothing new and no right we enjoy is immune. Balance is key. Compromise a must.
Compromise to those who say there are some "not so relevant Constitutional Rights" are automatically thrown in the circular file. You broadcast for compromise, but have no intention of doing so. What we need is for progressives to define exactly what their true agenda really is... but then they'd be right back where they were when they tried this a century ago.
Honestly, moderate liberals have been circumvented and discounted right out of their party. Look at how they're treating die hard liberals like Ray Novak, Raven Symone, and a few others who had the audacity to want to see more of the tape and what led up to the altercation. The progressive left went ballistic and off the deep end.
Malissa Perry, an unparalleled media troll took to her self righteous pulpit of progressive hate.
Seriously... this uber-pc thing is going too far and yesterday should have been a wake-up call to them.
This isn't about how I feel, background checks don't really affect my personal feelings. I think they are important because things change in life and that should always be checked when someone is buying a gun, but you seem to think it is a waste of time and money, so I question why you also support having these checks around. Seems to contradict your opinion.
Background checks don't pertain to me. I have never committed a criminal act. It makes you feel better to make me fill out a questionnaire each time, which is all the same answers over and over, I don't have an issue with it. It makes you believe that you have made a great accomplishment and as long as that is as far as it goes, I'll live with it. A lot of legislation is feel good legislation. This is only one piece of it. Is it a waste of taxpayer and time? Absolutely. Is it effective? No it isn't, but it does give the illusion of control to leftists, so as long as they are happy with it, and don't try to push beyond it, I can deal with it. They continue to push, they may well lose this too.
And, what is the OPs idea for securing the borders so illegal weapons don't come in? I would be most interested in that. In order for this to work, after the borders are iron-clad secure, you'll need to confiscate or account for all weapons already out there. After you have completed those two tasks, I am thinking that you should come back here so we can formulate step 3 which is the "compromise" that you speak of.
There are many rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Some not so relevant like back when the Bill of Rights was added, but either way, taking people's rights away is objectionable, yes. Reasoned compromise to balance the importance of those rights with the challenges of modern day society is necessary nevertheless. The striving toward that ideal balance is nothing new and no right we enjoy is immune. Balance is key. Compromise a must.
You folks are reading this ALL wrong. The OP is correct.
Gun Control.
Balance is key.
Compromise a must.
Its a haiku! Agreed 100% Having a sense of balance, and not falling over is a must in order to control your gun well. Additionally you need to make compromises between stopping power, and your ability to control the weapon most effectively.
As history has proven, Compromise means a gradual erosion of freedom.
I do well in "control and balance" of my own guns, you don't need to tell me how to fire a weapon.
Let's try CRIMINAL control instead of gun control - Instead of letting felons out of prisons and feeling sorry for those who attempt to assault police officers and private citizens. Gun control measures only disarm law-abiding citizens, not criminals.
Background checks don't pertain to me. I have never committed a criminal act. It makes you feel better to make me fill out a questionnaire each time, which is all the same answers over and over, I don't have an issue with it. It makes you believe that you have made a great accomplishment and as long as that is as far as it goes, I'll live with it. A lot of legislation is feel good legislation. This is only one piece of it. Is it a waste of taxpayer and time? Absolutely. Is it effective? No it isn't, but it does give the illusion of control to leftists, so as long as they are happy with it, and don't try to push beyond it, I can deal with it. They continue to push, they may well lose this too.
Sorry, but you keep talking about feelings, while I have not said anything about my feelings on this topic. I have however talked about facts and data, which that is what I feel is more important than my feelings.
Well good for you for never committing a criminal act, now if only everyone could say the same thing, then we would have nothing to concern ourselves with and not need background checks.
But we know that isn't the case, one can pass a background check, years later commit a crime, and then try to get a gun and because of that crime would then fail a background due to that crime. Of course if we only had to do one background check, then that future crime would have never been caught....but I am sure that isn't something you are concerned about.
So I am not sure how you see this as "feel good" legislation, to me it sounds like common sense laws.
I also will pose another couple of question that will likely receive no answer.
Are Constitutional rights really so trivial to many of you?
Should restricting these rights be the first course of action or a last resort type of action?
Hadn't we better have damn solid non-partisan facts and statistics piled 6 foot high before we EVEN CONSIDER restricting the rights of law abiding citizens?
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.
