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.
So once again we stand at a impasse those on the right don't want to do or spend a damn dime so this won't happen again and all the left wants to do is ban all guns thinking that that's the answer.
Talk about warped.
The moment you drive your car on public road, you put other people in danger. So, yes you need insurance.
The moment you carry your gun outside, you put nobody in danger. Why should you need insurance? You need someone to pull the trigger to shoot.
The moment you carry your guns on public grounds, you put others in danger. You could be struck down, and your gun stolen.
Sooo... People who want to own guns, should need insurance, if they are planning on walking on public grounds.
Yea I've seen that video, the one where he is firing into the side of a hill with around a 10' spread pattern? Look, if using rubber bands was just as effective as shelling out 150 bucks on a bump stock, bump stocks would not exist - fact. With a bit of mechanical expertise you could home brew a bump stock that WOULD be as effective, but it would take more than a rubber band - fact.
The only long term solution that will make a significant impact on gun violence in the U.S. is to have a national ban on all firearms. Anything short of that, such as state to state bans, assault weapons bans etc. will have little impact on mass shootings in the U.S. (though starting the conversation on bans and heavy regulations is a step in the right direction).
For people who support gun rights, it doesn't matter what you say about your rights to gun ownership, or about who arming the "good guys" will make society safer etc. the reality is, if the U.S. doesn't have a national ban on all gun ownership, gun violence in the U.S. will not change, and mass shooting and school shootings will continue.
I know people will respond by saying the "bad guys" will not give up their guns, and that's why the "good guys" need guns… but the long tern strategy is for the "bad guys" guns to get confiscated, and not let them replenish their supply.
This is the ONLY way to make a significant dent in U.S. gun violence. Regardless of your politics, how responsible of a gun owner you think you are, your belief in gun rights etc. No other solution will make a difference.
The court is gives an 'opinion' on how they interpret it. Just because the Supreme Court interpreted in such a way, doesn't mean it can't change.
To me, the English is pretty straight forward. The intent was to not allow the government to take away militia's weapons in the case of a national emergency where the national government couldn't defend.
So all this home self-defense, hunting, sporting is pure BS UNLESS you're in a militia.
The government had no power to take away the militias weapons if they wanted to.
There were no standing armies then, so the only military force available to the government to enforce taking away weapons from the militia WAS THE MILITIA THEMSELVES
That's why they included "the rights of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
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.
