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.
OP, you assume that the second amendment doesnt apply to gun control laws, or that obama or congress can magically come up with a law that satisfies both the prevention of firearms falling into the wrong hands, while protecting the second amendment.
you also assume that the democrats in congress at the time actually wanted to do something about gun control. the fact is they couldnt even if they wanted to. but lets say the could do something, they wouldnt anyway since they can then hang anything bad happening around the necks of the big bad NRA who controls the republican party, along with the koch brothers, and big business, etc. if they did do something, even if it was unconstitutional, they would lose their edge, and one of their talking points.
Republicans like Giuliani passed strict crime laws like stop and frisk, strict gun control laws and even a former cesspool city like NYC is one of the safest big cities in America. Stop and frisk , no one should be selling guns from pawn shops and flooding the streets with guns,much stronger law enforcement ,broken windows theory.
Republicans lie Giuliani made a Democrat city safer at least until dems took over , Obama did nothing for Chicago
There is good argument to "Stop and Frisk" it did reduce crime; but that comes down to racial profiling and worse.
The hardest part about racial profiling or Stop and Frisk, unless a person is breaking the law, you have to leave them alone. Which in of it's self is tough knowing that targeting certain types of people, you know they are breaking some type of law, and getting them off of the streets prevents other laws more serious one from being broken, you are still violating their rights if you arrest them; detain them with out having that person first brake a law.
You can try choking 17 people to death if you wish but I have a hunch you'll be stopped quickly before you get very far in trying to do so.
Because the 17 people all have the same weapons you do. And the hundred of others in the crowd do too. And there's more of them than there are of you. And they're not on your side. And so you'd likely decide not to commit your crime in the first place.
And guess what: The same is true if you have a gun, in a society that obeys the 2nd amendment and lets all law-abiding adults have a gun if they want to. Most people still wouldn't bother carrying, but a few would. Especially in likely-target areas such as schools. So you could be pretty sure that a few people in the crowd would have guns and know how to use them. And you would have no idea who they were, until their first bullet hits you.
So, once again, you'd likely decide not to commit your crime in the first place, knowing you'd never be able to rack up the huge body counts you want before you were stopped. It wouldn't always work, but it would often work.
Voila! A reduction in crime, all without a shot being fired.
Liberals are dead set against this idea. So they keep making laws that disarm the law-abiding while letting lawbreakers have all the guns they want. And they turn around and tell you, "See? we did something about it!"
BUT, it HAS been said that they would LIKE TO and WOULD if the could.
" just asking for more sensible gun laws."
I have NOT SEEN any NEW LAWS suggested that are "SENSIBLE"
What do YOU suggest?
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Just out of curiosity, what do YOU think the word "infringed" means?
Gaslighting is a tactic used to break someone down and some surrender. Makes people doubt themselves until they just give in. The manipulator infers the targeted person/people are not being reasonable.
I see what you are saying but deep down I dont care about the civil rights of criminals. I love the only real freedom which comes from law and order, discipline and a law abiding society . Rights only mean anything if you are alive to practice them, criminals today have more rights than law abiding citizens do
Agreed, but the rub to that is if we start down that path of violating rights first on the criminals, where does it stop; how long before someone else does not like the way you look, or the things that you are doing and now violate your rights.
The rights and the laws governing them are there to protect not only society; but to protect society from it's self; and that is one of the hardest parts to do.
Americans have had guns for 400 years. Just because a few weirdos and immigrant stock can't handle having gun rights doesn't mean real Americans are going to give up their heritage. I don't agree to give up any endowed rights just so liberals can easily lord over us.
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.
