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.
Ending the 2nd completely is an extreme position and not one that most people would support, even on the left. As much as I don't like guns, I don't support that and wouldn't if it ever came up. My fight is against the unwavering, uncompromising, unreasonable position that there can't or shouldn't be any common sense rules or regulations with something that has an intended purpose of killing.
My God! You sound as though there aren't any laws or regulations whatsoever regarding the lawful and or criminal possession of firearms. As I've stated in another post: "We already have enough laws that address the criminal and negligent use of firearms. Along with laws that address every type of criminal behavior imaginable. Criminals will always have access to all types of weapons just as they do drugs. The black market will never cease to exist. What makes you so sure that another law will make any difference?"
I don't know for sure what the exact figure is? But when you take into consideration both federal, state and every municipality in the country. I'm guessing that there are probably at least a thousand or more laws pertaining to firearms.
If you'll just take the time to read the questions on Form 4473 you will see all of the conditions that are required by law to legally purchase and possess a firearm. Any violation thereof is already a federal crime.
Just about every proposal regarding gun control comes from the Left. Who have made it no secret that their ultimate goal is to abolish the 2nd Amendment and for the confiscation of every firearm that is in civilian hands. If they can't do it in one fell swoop they will try and do it incrementally with each supposedly innocuous so called "common sense" gun law. They're not fooling anybody. They hate the idea of an armed populace.
The ultimate goal of the Left is to turn the United States of America into a socialist aristocracy. But they can never accomplish this with an armed population of at least 100 million or so angry gun owners to contend with. Gun owners that include active duty and retired law enforcement and military personnel. It is highly unlikely that in the event of another revolution or civil war that the military would turn their sophisticated weapons against their own family, friends and neighborhoods. There would be absolutely nothing left for them to return to. More than likely they will use those weapons against those who ordered them to do so. This is why the 2nd Amendment was written into the Constitution in the first place. The reason why we fought and won a revolution against the oppressive government of Great Britain.
Last edited by Ex New Yorker; 06-19-2017 at 08:00 PM..
My fight is against the unwavering, uncompromising, unreasonable position that there can't or shouldn't be any common sense rules or regulations with something that has an intended purpose of killing.
What would you propose that isn't already a rule or regulation?
For something that was never to be infringed by government, our right to keep and especially bear the arms we choose, has over 2000 infringements nationwide.
I'll buy in when it's on a jeep trail in the rockies.
Actually that would be much easier than driving in urban environment where it has to deal with multiple variables. Original testing for these vehicles started in remote areas.
Actually that would be much easier than driving in urban environment where it has to deal with multiple variables. Original testing for these vehicles started in remote areas.
Doesn't take into contrast other off roaders so results could be very bad.
The reactions times of computers are measured in infinitesimally small fractions of a second with multiple sensor inputs. You can never compete with this, if you had a computerized NASCAR vehicle where you have a very well defined set of rules no human could win. Where you may be better is when the need for intelligent decisions arises, is it a puddle or a giant hole? That gap is quickly closing.
Strong Second Amendment advocates have developed this narrative that Democrats, especially under the Obama administration, wanted to confiscate guns from law abiding citizens. The image is typically armies of government agents in black masks going from home to home breaking down doors to take people's weapons. Anybody rational knows that this is paranoia with no basis in reality but the fact of the matter is that the paranoia exists and it was hugely instrumental in getting Trump elected. "Obama wants to take our guns" was the mantra all across rural America. Obama didn't really help the situation when he would use the aftermath of mass shootings to talk about gun control.
Question is, are there Democrats that really want to take it as far as to confiscate guns from law abiding citizens? The things I've heard proposed are things like stricter background checks and bans on certain types of assault rifles, but not the apocalyptic, totalitarian gun grab that the NRA and conservatives fearmonger could happen under Democratic leadership.
What do you think? Is the NRA crowd's paranoia based in reality or is it simply tinfoil hat paranoia? This is important because as I stated, it was hugely instrumental in the election of Trump. A lot of people voted Trump specifically because they feared Obama and/or Hillary wanted to attempt a gun grab.
I think we are in a never land where we cannot effectively become a gun free country even if we passed a Constitutional Amendment to kill the 2nd Amendment because of too many guns in circulation...it would be generations before all the guns were taken out of circulation.
I'm a 2nd amendment proponent and NRA member but I do think we need to have some reasonable measures of control over who gets to purchase what type of guns.
Lastly, as a nod to the Dims, there's little doubt our 2nd Amendment right results in thousands of additional deaths per year....however, we are a nation where the right of the individual exceeds the right of the state so to me, that is the risk that comes with elevating man above the state. The state now cannot easily take rights from an armed populace.
The reactions times of computers are measured in infinitesimally small fractions of a second with multiple sensor inputs. You can never compete with this, if you had a computerized NASCAR vehicle where you have a very well defined set of rules no human could win. Where you may be better is when the need for intelligent decisions arises, is it a puddle or a giant hole? That gap is quickly closing.
I'm a programmer. I know that's it's not perfect and never will be.
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.
