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.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.â€"
(set 3 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,180 posts, read 13,461,836 times
Reputation: 19488
Ownership of semi-automatic centre-fire rifles is restricted in a number of countries, as are shotguns with a capacity of more than three cartridges, whilst handguns are only usually allowed in relation to sports shooting or for the for humane dispatch of larger animals such as deer.
There are two basic types of licence, a shotgun licence and firearms licence (rifles and other guns).
In terms of rifles they are usually .22LR Rimfire, with a special licence required for those who need to cull deer or other larger mammals and require more powerful weapons and ammunition. There are also strict laws in relation to animal suffering which must be abided by when culling large mammals such as deer.
Most of the countries who have brought in restrictions didn't have the same type of gun culture as the US and there licences were never granted in terms of protection or self defence in the first place.
Last edited by Brave New World; 03-31-2019 at 04:06 PM..
There are over 300 million guns in the US. Guns last a long time. if we banned gun sales tomorrow, it would be literally centuries before they were eliminated.
Bullets, on the other hand, are used only once. Without bullets, he gun becomes a useless hunk of steel. Rep Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D,FL) has taken the lead on this. As she says:
Read the Second Amendment all you wish, it's not in their. Sorry, NRA. I think that is fairly brilliant by DWS.
A friend of mine used to say, the gun is really just a dispenser. You wouldn't expect to control cigarettes by banning high-tech, electronic, push-button cigarette machines. Going back to the old-fashioned spring-controlled mechanical machines wouldn't help. The problem lies in the actual cigarette. Same with guns--the problem lies in the BULLET.
DWS wants to apply the same background checks for guns, to ammunitions. Even the NRA supported background checks; how could they now possibly object to the same for bullets?
This would also allow restrictions on certain, extra-deadly types of bullets. New Jersey actually passed a law banning rapid-fire ammunition that was struck down by an ignorant Trump-appointed judge.
What do you think?
Supreme Court already made a ruling on this and the reason there are no ammo bans today.
Ownership of semi-automatic centre-fire rifles is restricted in a number of countries, as are shotguns with a capacity of more than three cartridges.
In terms of rifles they are usually .22LR Rimfire, with a special licence required for those who need to cull deer or other larger mammals and require more powerful weapons and ammunition.
Most of the countries who have brought in restrictions didn't have the same type of gun culture as the US and there licences were never granted in terms opf protection in the first place.
The enemy, telling you what you can fight them with....
Logical?
There are over 300 million guns in the US. Guns last a long time. if we banned gun sales tomorrow, it would be literally centuries before they were eliminated.
Bullets, on the other hand, are used only once. Without bullets, he gun becomes a useless hunk of steel. Rep Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D,FL) has taken the lead on this. As she says:
Read the Second Amendment all you wish, it's not in their. Sorry, NRA. I think that is fairly brilliant by DWS.
A friend of mine used to say, the gun is really just a dispenser. You wouldn't expect to control cigarettes by banning high-tech, electronic, push-button cigarette machines. Going back to the old-fashioned spring-controlled mechanical machines wouldn't help. The problem lies in the actual cigarette. Same with guns--the problem lies in the BULLET.
DWS wants to apply the same background checks for guns, to ammunitions. Even the NRA supported background checks; how could they now possibly object to the same for bullets?
This would also allow restrictions on certain, extra-deadly types of bullets. New Jersey actually passed a law banning rapid-fire ammunition that was struck down by an ignorant Trump-appointed judge.
What do you think?
More folks will do what a lot of folks do...Reload
i watch these threads on gun control and read about restrictions on "constitutional rights" and so on and so on...
truthfully any ban on something as small as a bullet will go no where as in "effective"
more people are killed by small hand guns in what is called "street crime"...a whole lot of "street crime" revolves around the prohibition of drugs and stupid as it sounds "jealousy of supposed romantic relationships"...
take the large money out of drugs..crime will drop a whole lot..WE cannot control hand guns any better than WE have controlled drugs...twenty years ago i gave a known crack dealer a ride only to find out two days latter he killed his girlfriend over jealousy and drugs lol (helicopter news crews and all)...
i am a drug prohibition opponent..support the elimination of the war on drugs as "unconstitutional" and i would surely give much more credence to the wolf cry's about 2nd amendment and all
The Gov. needs to hand out free drugs of all kinds to those who want them. Encourage them to take all they want. Let all the dope heads overdose and die. Of course, this would never happen, but I'd be curious about the outcome if it did.
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.