Gun Control - What's the Problem?

[Rigby5]

There is no right to vote.

Americans Don’t Have a Constitutional Right to Vote — Is It Time for a Change?

There Is No Right To Vote | Current Affairs

Keep running with that one! Haha

There is no right to vote.

Americans Don’t Have a Constitutional Right to Vote — Is It Time for a Change?

There Is No Right To Vote | Current Affairs

Keep running with that one! Haha

Did you bother to access the links?

Yes I read the first one and it was good for a laugh. It references amendments in the constitution that literally reference the right to vote but then tries and make the case that we don’t have the constitutional right to vote. Very entertaining to see how these whackos brains work. Goes right in line with my “sell and uzi to a 12 year old scenario” that I brought up earlier... I’m guessing you’d say that should be legal per the constitution.

At what age would you sell an Uzi to someone? What is the justification for the age?

I was using that as an example to the hardline constitutionalist who think all gun laws are illegal. The constitution also doesn’t say that we can restrict a 12 year olds right to have a machine gun so technically with that hardline argument it would be fine for the local 7-11 to sell a uzi and a slurpy to a 12 year old... just pointing out how ridiculous their argument is. Your voting rights articles were right up there on the ridiculous list

No one has ever said all gun laws are illegal.
But everyone should realize all federal gun laws are illegal.
The whole point of the Bill of Rights it to deny federal any federal jurisdiction to various areas, such as weapons.
So your argument about age is pointless.
It is supposed to be state laws that restrict age.
And it likely should vary from state to state.
Older in places like NY, and younger in places like Alaska, where there are greater natural dangers.

 

[Slade3200]

Yes, life should have enough justice and opportunity so that anyone fatally abusing others should just be executed or life incarceration.
But the problem now is that there is no justice or opportunity for the poor, and crime then is not the fault of the criminal.
It is only ok to be draconian when one can be sure it is deserved.
And right now I tend to blame the police, government, corporate interests, corrupt politicians, etc. more than the criminals.

And I blame the individual.

Poverty is a cheap excuse. There are plenty of people in poverty that don't have to break laws or hurt people to live life in America. In fact I would say most don't. You need to graduate high school, you need to stay away from heavy expenses like having children before you can afford them, you need to stay away from drugs, and you need the best paying job you are able to get.

This can be accomplished by most any American at any income level. The exceptions of course are physical or mental disabilities, but not poverty.

I am not talking about poverty, even though poverty is often the main cause of crime.
I am talking about injustice, which I think is not only the current main cause of crime, but is what makes crime justified right now.
For example, around 1957, laws were passed to allow employers to give tax exempt employee benefits.
That resulted in the wealthy all getting free health insurance, while essentially the poor that got no such benefits, had their taxes increased to subsidize that.
That is only one of the first of thousands of unfair an unjust legislative abuses of poor people.
The War on Drugs has harmed tens of millions of mostly poor or Black, and denied them of years of their lives, good job, the ability to vote, etc.
It really is almost to the point where crime is becoming responsible, as an act of rebellion against a very broken system.

Sorry, but I'm not understanding you here: tax exempt benefits affects both rich and poor who receive them. How does it disadvantage the poor?

Secondly, anytime you make something legal that was previously illegal, it increases the frequency of usage.

If you want to make all drugs legal, then expect our OD death rate to rise from 90,000 a year to 900,000 a year. How does that benefit our country?

What do you think would happen if we decided to make rape legal? How about armed robberies? How about murder?

We don't write laws so the individual is protected from themselves in most cases, we write laws to protect those associated with those breaking the laws. I've known or been associated with several people now dead because of opioid usage; one of them my cousins son just a few years ago. I've personally been harmed because of drug usage of other people. One nearly burned my house to the ground. Another ripped all the electoral wiring out of the house. Another busted into my apartment and stole items of value to supply their drug use.

Even if you make all drugs legal, they still need money to buy them be it from an illegal source or a legal source. Given the fact many addicts cannot work, what would you suggest, that taxpayers fund their drug addiction?

Sorry Ray I had to stop at your 90k to 900 k OD rate... that is complete bullshit. Don’t even try to sneak that by

Then try sneaking in the rescinding of drug laws in our country, and see what happens.

A lot of good will happen

 

[Rigby5]

Yes, life should have enough justice and opportunity so that anyone fatally abusing others should just be executed or life incarceration.
But the problem now is that there is no justice or opportunity for the poor, and crime then is not the fault of the criminal.
It is only ok to be draconian when one can be sure it is deserved.
And right now I tend to blame the police, government, corporate interests, corrupt politicians, etc. more than the criminals.

And I blame the individual.

Poverty is a cheap excuse. There are plenty of people in poverty that don't have to break laws or hurt people to live life in America. In fact I would say most don't. You need to graduate high school, you need to stay away from heavy expenses like having children before you can afford them, you need to stay away from drugs, and you need the best paying job you are able to get.

This can be accomplished by most any American at any income level. The exceptions of course are physical or mental disabilities, but not poverty.

I am not talking about poverty, even though poverty is often the main cause of crime.
I am talking about injustice, which I think is not only the current main cause of crime, but is what makes crime justified right now.
For example, around 1957, laws were passed to allow employers to give tax exempt employee benefits.
That resulted in the wealthy all getting free health insurance, while essentially the poor that got no such benefits, had their taxes increased to subsidize that.
That is only one of the first of thousands of unfair an unjust legislative abuses of poor people.
The War on Drugs has harmed tens of millions of mostly poor or Black, and denied them of years of their lives, good job, the ability to vote, etc.
It really is almost to the point where crime is becoming responsible, as an act of rebellion against a very broken system.

Sorry, but I'm not understanding you here: tax exempt benefits affects both rich and poor who receive them. How does it disadvantage the poor?

Secondly, anytime you make something legal that was previously illegal, it increases the frequency of usage.

If you want to make all drugs legal, then expect our OD death rate to rise from 90,000 a year to 900,000 a year. How does that benefit our country?

What do you think would happen if we decided to make rape legal? How about armed robberies? How about murder?

We don't write laws so the individual is protected from themselves in most cases, we write laws to protect those associated with those breaking the laws. I've known or been associated with several people now dead because of opioid usage; one of them my cousins son just a few years ago. I've personally been harmed because of drug usage of other people. One nearly burned my house to the ground. Another ripped all the electoral wiring out of the house. Another busted into my apartment and stole items of value to supply their drug use.

Even if you make all drugs legal, they still need money to buy them be it from an illegal source or a legal source. Given the fact many addicts cannot work, what would you suggest, that taxpayers fund their drug addiction?

Sorry Ray I had to stop at your 90k to 900 k OD rate... that is complete bullshit. Don’t even try to sneak that by

Then try sneaking in the rescinding of drug laws in our country, and see what happens.

We were not discussing recinding all drug laws, but just ending the federal War on Drugs, because it is ILLEGAL!

 

[Rigby5]

There is no right to vote.

Americans Don’t Have a Constitutional Right to Vote — Is It Time for a Change?

There Is No Right To Vote | Current Affairs

Keep running with that one! Haha

There is no right to vote.

Americans Don’t Have a Constitutional Right to Vote — Is It Time for a Change?

There Is No Right To Vote | Current Affairs

Keep running with that one! Haha

Did you bother to access the links?

Yes I read the first one and it was good for a laugh. It references amendments in the constitution that literally reference the right to vote but then tries and make the case that we don’t have the constitutional right to vote. Very entertaining to see how these whackos brains work. Goes right in line with my “sell and uzi to a 12 year old scenario” that I brought up earlier... I’m guessing you’d say that should be legal per the constitution.

Selling is ownership, and a 12 year old must be able to own anything, such as through an inheritance.
Ownership is not possession, and even possession should be legal if supervised by the parent or legal guardian.

Excellent... I’d propose we allow anybody to own whatever gun they want then... we can just regulate their rights to possess them

Again, you totally miss the point.
No one was ever suggesting all gun law be struck down, just all FEDERAL ones, because the Bill of Rights denied any federal jurisdiction over weapons. It is supposed to be a state or local jurisdiction.

 

[Rigby5]

You have to send in a voter registration form in order for them to get your address to mail back to, but that is not very significant.
You ignored the important parts, which is that any gun control or regulations it prohibited from the federal government by the Bill of Rights.
And while it is fine for your address be used for voter registration, it is not fine for government to have the address of all the guns in the country. Government can be better than criminals or foreign invaders, but government do also have a long history of being abusive themselves. No one should want any government to have too much power or private information.

Why is it ok to have your address to vote and not for guns?

Obviously the difference is that no one is going to come knocking in the middle of the night, to confiscate your vote.
But all governments become corrupt eventually, and they all do eventually try to confiscate guns,
In fact, that already happened in California, where they tried to confiscate benign guns like the SKS.

Like I said earlier I don’t play the slippery slope fear tactic game... if you’re scared of these midnight door knocks to take your guns then You go ahead and live with that paranoia... it’s not my thing.

Look at all the treaties with Native Americans that we negotiated in bad faith.
All government always go corrupt.
It is about the most important lesson everyone should have learned about history so far.
And this is not at all hypothetical because I mentioned they already banned the SKS in California.
What possible justification could anyone have for doing that?
Nor is it paranoia to realize that banning Assault Weapons will but almost all gun makers out of business in the US.
What good it is to be able to buy firearms if all the companies are out of business.
So these are NOT just slippery slope scenarios.
And slippery slope scenarios most definitely are valid.
There is more than enough proof the federal government can not be trusted.

I don’t trust the government much but you know who I trust less? Some psycho with a machine gun... so I’m going to support regulating machine guns, and screening the people who buy them and regulating any other element that I deem unnecessary use of power. Get your riffle and go hunt, keep a shotgun and a hand gun at your house for protection, I’m fine with that. But regulations need to be in place IMO

Again you totally ignore reality.
No one has suggested no restrictions.
What is being discussed is how and why there are any FEDERAL weapons laws?
The only way anyone is ever going to figure out who is dangerous is through local agencies, not federal.

 

[Slade3200]

I’m not assuming that. I never said every time. That’s a fake argument

But the facts are that straw purchase/sales are very hard to convict because the person guilty can just claim it was a theft, so they usually get off. That means only about 1 of 1000 get convicted. But the number of convictions really has no correlation to lives saved. The vast majority of criminals with illegal guns are not shooting people. They more likely are using them to just intimidate, either to defend drug turf, at a robbery where not shots are fired, etc. It likely is wrong to imply that laws actually save any lives. People are going to do what they are going to do, regardless of what laws exist.

Do you think regulations like licensing and traffic laws along with highway patrol save lives on the road?

Again that is an absurd and very stupid comment.
The vast majority of the people are honest, but they will still have traffic accidents.
It is not criminals intent on harm that cause car accidents, but simply the fact driving is VERY difficult.
So of course you need licensing, training, laws, etc., for traffic.
But that has nothing at all to do with gun laws, which supposedly are only to catch criminals, while in actuality only harming honest people.
So traffic laws, licensing, and regulations clearly are necessary and save lives, while gun laws only cause harm, and do absolutely no good at all.

That’s a fair point but there are relations... mainly doing our best to make sure responsible people have access to dangerous equipment (guns and cars). for driving we want people to be of age, knowledgeable/obedient of laws and using proper safety equipment. Guns we want responsible people that don’t pose a risk and we want to make sure the equipment being sold doesn’t have the ability to do a tremendous amount of damage if it is used for illegal actions. I don’t think that is unreasonable.

Sure we want responsible gun owners who won't pose a risk, but you have not suggest at all how any additional laws can accomplish that, since criminals already are intending to violate laws that already have far greater penalties than illegal firearms purchase laws.
It does not stop people from driving illegally when you take their license away either.
All it does is allow you to fine them, if you happen to catch them.
If people intend mass murder and suicide, you are not even going to be able to fine them.

Well I’ve spent the majority of this thread justifying why any laws at all are legal because there is a whole faction of kooks saying that everything is unconstitutional... the rest of the thread I’ve made arguments justifying how laws (generically) can help with public safety. See this is the crap I gotta get through just to get to actually productive conversation about what specific laws might help?! It’s crazy.

I’m guessing since you said “additional” laws you have some agreement that current laws do help.

And your right, taking away somebody’s license might not stop them from driving. But they are going to be way more careful not to get pulled over and if they are pulled over the they will get caught. If no laws were in place then they stay in the roads and make them more dangerous. Get the analogy?

 

[Slade3200]

You seem to be having a hard time following... I didn’t bring up voting registration as an example of what we need to duplicate for guns. I brought it up as an example of how other rights are regulated after you acted like guns is the only right that we are wanting to regulate.

There is no right to vote.

Americans Don’t Have a Constitutional Right to Vote — Is It Time for a Change?

There Is No Right To Vote | Current Affairs

Keep running with that one! Haha

That is kind of silly because if there was a right to vote, then felons could not be denied.
But originally women could not vote, and males who did not own land could not vote.
There is no history of voting being considered an absolute right, because it is not in the Bill of Rights.

When you break our laws and get arrested you forfeit some of your rights

The ONLY way rights can be forfeit is when it is absolutely necessary in order to defend the rights of others.
But preventing ex-felons from having the right of self defense can not be shown to make anyone else any safer.
So while you could say they forfeit their right to self defense while in prison, that is to protect the guards, and does not infringe because the guards then protect the inmates. That is not true once the person has finished their sentence and they are released. So it can then no longer be justifiable to prevent their right of self defense.

When people have a history of being unstable and a danger to the public then Arming them is a public safety risk. They can get a taser or a baseball bat for their own personal safety. I’m fine with conditions and expirations to that btw

 

[Slade3200]

I’m not saying anything about taking guns away from responsible people. Please let that sink in, I’m tired of repeating myself

If you are not promoting taking guns away from responsible people, then why would you be taking about any additional federal firearms laws, when clearly there already are way too many?
We know what the causes of crime, suicide, mass murder, etc., are, and weapons accessibility is definitely NOT one of them.

If you do not want to take guns from responsible people, then you would be against all federal firearm laws, not just because the federal government is supposed to be denied jurisdiction by the Bill of Rights, but because it is distant, arrogant, and generally abusive.

When there is an increase in senseless violence like mass murders, suicides, etc., there is definitely serious things wrong. Attempts to suppress the symptoms, so that the serious problems are not addressed and ignored instead, would be criminally irresponsible. One would only do that by more gun control, if the problems with society were deliberate and the intent was to make them even worse.

Look at some of California's approach to firearms. They made the SKS illegal, even though it is only a 10 shot internal magazine. Clearly the ONLY reason for singling out the benign SKS is that it was selling for only $88. So then the motivation by the state of California has to be to deliberately discriminate against poor people. There can be no other motive.

Banning certain guns is not taking guns away. You can still get guns. Having regulations to make sure we are selling guns to responsible people is not taking guns away from responsible people. I don’t get what your problem is. I live in California. I have a dozen guns. Almost all my friends have guns. It’s really not a big deal

Wrong.
The proposed Assault Weapons Ban is deliberately targeting the most popular and affordable of all weapons because if the volume economy of scale.
They not only want to make tens of millions of current gun owners into criminals, but they want to put most gun makers out of business by making their currently legal and popular products, illegal.
That violates the 4th and 5th amendment because it takes away livelihood without due compensation.

The reason why private sales currently do not do background checks, is because the BATF refuses to do them.
People selling privately, want to conduct background checks, but the BATF will only conduct them for a person with a Federal Firearms License. And that adds an addition $20 to any transaction.

And since the reality is that there is no such thing as an assault weapon, and pistols, shotguns, and all small rifles have been used as assault weapons, the slippery slope will allow them to confiscate ALL firearms then eventually.

That’s another interesting point however when I see a situation like in Dayton... where a stoner bought body armor and a 100 round mag for his psycho buddy who shot nearly 40 people in 32 seconds... well that kind of weaponry is totally unnecessary and reckless to sell like that in my opinion. So y’all fighting to deregulate guns should probably hold your breath for a bit... at least wait for the blood to dry.

There was a person who killed several hundred with a gallon of gasoline just a few years ago.
There is nothing exceptional about being able to kill 40 people in 32 seconds. Anyone could do that with a pump shotgun or a pair of pistols. You do not seem to be keeping up with technology.
There is no "that kind of weaponry". All weapons have been able to do that for over a century.

I simply don’t agree. You might be able to find some soldiers who can pull that shit off but not some drugged out kid

 

[Slade3200]

Keep running with that one! Haha

Keep running with that one! Haha

Did you bother to access the links?

Yes I read the first one and it was good for a laugh. It references amendments in the constitution that literally reference the right to vote but then tries and make the case that we don’t have the constitutional right to vote. Very entertaining to see how these whackos brains work. Goes right in line with my “sell and uzi to a 12 year old scenario” that I brought up earlier... I’m guessing you’d say that should be legal per the constitution.

At what age would you sell an Uzi to someone? What is the justification for the age?

I was using that as an example to the hardline constitutionalist who think all gun laws are illegal. The constitution also doesn’t say that we can restrict a 12 year olds right to have a machine gun so technically with that hardline argument it would be fine for the local 7-11 to sell a uzi and a slurpy to a 12 year old... just pointing out how ridiculous their argument is. Your voting rights articles were right up there on the ridiculous list

No one has ever said all gun laws are illegal.
But everyone should realize all federal gun laws are illegal.
The whole point of the Bill of Rights it to deny federal any federal jurisdiction to various areas, such as weapons.
So your argument about age is pointless.
It is supposed to be state laws that restrict age.
And it likely should vary from state to state.
Older in places like NY, and younger in places like Alaska, where there are greater natural dangers.

Several in this thread have made that argument and I’ve been debating them. You came in late. Many people take the 2nd very literally hence “shall not be infringed” makes any and all regulations illegal. I agree with you about state rights, but I we just had a kid shoot up a festival 45 minutes from my house shooting 15 and killing 3 using a gun he drove to Nevada to buy legally.

Sure maybe he could have found one on the black market if Vegas didn’t give him the easy buy. Or maybe not.

 

[Blues Man]

So you think getting one out of 1000 is preventing crime in general?

Are you high?

I dont even know what that means. Seems like a pointless debate. But if 1 life is saved out of a 1000 then I think that’s a pretty great thing.

Not if you intimidate people from having defensive guns, so then you cause thousands of crimes to be successful that would not have otherwise.have been lost.
Over 99.9% of people are honest and make society better when armed.
The 0.1% who are a danger armed, are not going to give up because you made it harder for honest people to be armed.
In fact, you will greatly encourage the criminals because they will know there is will be no resistance because everyone else will be unarmed.

I’m not saying anything about taking guns away from responsible people. Please let that sink in, I’m tired of repeating myself

If you are not promoting taking guns away from responsible people, then why would you be taking about any additional federal firearms laws, when clearly there already are way too many?
We know what the causes of crime, suicide, mass murder, etc., are, and weapons accessibility is definitely NOT one of them.

If you do not want to take guns from responsible people, then you would be against all federal firearm laws, not just because the federal government is supposed to be denied jurisdiction by the Bill of Rights, but because it is distant, arrogant, and generally abusive.

When there is an increase in senseless violence like mass murders, suicides, etc., there is definitely serious things wrong. Attempts to suppress the symptoms, so that the serious problems are not addressed and ignored instead, would be criminally irresponsible. One would only do that by more gun control, if the problems with society were deliberate and the intent was to make them even worse.

Look at some of California's approach to firearms. They made the SKS illegal, even though it is only a 10 shot internal magazine. Clearly the ONLY reason for singling out the benign SKS is that it was selling for only $88. So then the motivation by the state of California has to be to deliberately discriminate against poor people. There can be no other motive.

Banning certain guns is not taking guns away. You can still get guns. Having regulations to make sure we are selling guns to responsible people is not taking guns away from responsible people. I don’t get what your problem is. I live in California. I have a dozen guns. Almost all my friends have guns. It’s really not a big deal

How many times do you have to be told that there is no difference between the AR rifles you want to ban and any other semiautomatic rifle chambered for the same caliber?

 

[Blues Man]

So you think getting one out of 1000 is preventing crime in general?

Are you high?

I dont even know what that means. Seems like a pointless debate. But if 1 life is saved out of a 1000 then I think that’s a pretty great thing.

You are assuming that every time a straw buyer is caught that a life is saved?

There is no evidence of that

I’m not assuming that. I never said every time. That’s a fake argument

But the facts are that straw purchase/sales are very hard to convict because the person guilty can just claim it was a theft, so they usually get off. That means only about 1 of 1000 get convicted. But the number of convictions really has no correlation to lives saved. The vast majority of criminals with illegal guns are not shooting people. They more likely are using them to just intimidate, either to defend drug turf, at a robbery where not shots are fired, etc. It likely is wrong to imply that laws actually save any lives. People are going to do what they are going to do, regardless of what laws exist.

Do you think regulations like licensing and traffic laws along with highway patrol save lives on the road?

Not really because at any one time there are thousands of people driving who don't have a license

 

[Blues Man]

All you need to do is prove you are 18 nd that you are a resident of the town

There is no permit . no class, no fee

What is it called when you prove your age and residency? “Registration” how do most people do it? With a license or passport

Come on man, you’re trying too hard

Voter registration does not require a license, passport or anything at all like that.
They send you voter registration card in the mail.
The main goal is to verify your address.
It is illegal in the US to require an ID, like a license or passport.

And gun control is nothing like that, because first of all it is federal, distant, banned by the Constitution, and pushed by those who have already admitted they want total confiscation of all private firearms.

How do they get your address? Regardless it is a registration process.

You have to send in a voter registration form in order for them to get your address to mail back to, but that is not very significant.
You ignored the important parts, which is that any gun control or regulations it prohibited from the federal government by the Bill of Rights.
And while it is fine for your address be used for voter registration, it is not fine for government to have the address of all the guns in the country. Government can be better than criminals or foreign invaders, but government do also have a long history of being abusive themselves. No one should want any government to have too much power or private information.

Why is it ok to have your address to vote and not for guns?

Because voting is held locally and the best way to prevent people from voting multiple times is to know where they live and where they should be voting

If a town has 500 residents but 5000 people voted in that town then you know there was voter fraud occurring

 

[Lesh]

How many times do you have to be told that there is no difference between the AR rifles you want to ban and any other semiautomatic rifle chambered for the same caliber?

Then we ought to consider banning all semi-auto magazine fed rifles huh...

 

[Blues Man]

How many times do you have to be told that there is no difference between the AR rifles you want to ban and any other semiautomatic rifle chambered for the same caliber?

Then we ought to consider banning all semi-auto magazine fed rifles huh...

Nope

 

[Cellblock2429]

I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.

Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...

Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.


View attachment 59771

/——/ I don’t believe you own guns. And that is just the first issue with your post. But I do own a gun and my family and friends own guns and we see that you gun grabbers’ true agenda is the eventual ban and confiscation.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I dont even know what that means. Seems like a pointless debate. But if 1 life is saved out of a 1000 then I think that’s a pretty great thing.

Not if you intimidate people from having defensive guns, so then you cause thousands of crimes to be successful that would not have otherwise.have been lost.
Over 99.9% of people are honest and make society better when armed.
The 0.1% who are a danger armed, are not going to give up because you made it harder for honest people to be armed.
In fact, you will greatly encourage the criminals because they will know there is will be no resistance because everyone else will be unarmed.

I’m not saying anything about taking guns away from responsible people. Please let that sink in, I’m tired of repeating myself

If you are not promoting taking guns away from responsible people, then why would you be taking about any additional federal firearms laws, when clearly there already are way too many?
We know what the causes of crime, suicide, mass murder, etc., are, and weapons accessibility is definitely NOT one of them.

If you do not want to take guns from responsible people, then you would be against all federal firearm laws, not just because the federal government is supposed to be denied jurisdiction by the Bill of Rights, but because it is distant, arrogant, and generally abusive.

When there is an increase in senseless violence like mass murders, suicides, etc., there is definitely serious things wrong. Attempts to suppress the symptoms, so that the serious problems are not addressed and ignored instead, would be criminally irresponsible. One would only do that by more gun control, if the problems with society were deliberate and the intent was to make them even worse.

Look at some of California's approach to firearms. They made the SKS illegal, even though it is only a 10 shot internal magazine. Clearly the ONLY reason for singling out the benign SKS is that it was selling for only $88. So then the motivation by the state of California has to be to deliberately discriminate against poor people. There can be no other motive.

Banning certain guns is not taking guns away. You can still get guns. Having regulations to make sure we are selling guns to responsible people is not taking guns away from responsible people. I don’t get what your problem is. I live in California. I have a dozen guns. Almost all my friends have guns. It’s really not a big deal

How many times do you have to be told that there is no difference between the AR rifles you want to ban and any other semiautomatic rifle chambered for the same caliber?

He doesn't care. They look scary and must go.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

How many times do you have to be told that there is no difference between the AR rifles you want to ban and any other semiautomatic rifle chambered for the same caliber?

Then we ought to consider banning all semi-auto magazine fed rifles huh...

Over your dead body.

We will NEVER sit back and let that happen. It will be full-blown murderous rebelling if you commies cocksucker try that shit.

.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Not if you intimidate people from having defensive guns, so then you cause thousands of crimes to be successful that would not have otherwise.have been lost.
Over 99.9% of people are honest and make society better when armed.
The 0.1% who are a danger armed, are not going to give up because you made it harder for honest people to be armed.
In fact, you will greatly encourage the criminals because they will know there is will be no resistance because everyone else will be unarmed.

I’m not saying anything about taking guns away from responsible people. Please let that sink in, I’m tired of repeating myself

If you are not promoting taking guns away from responsible people, then why would you be taking about any additional federal firearms laws, when clearly there already are way too many?
We know what the causes of crime, suicide, mass murder, etc., are, and weapons accessibility is definitely NOT one of them.

If you do not want to take guns from responsible people, then you would be against all federal firearm laws, not just because the federal government is supposed to be denied jurisdiction by the Bill of Rights, but because it is distant, arrogant, and generally abusive.

When there is an increase in senseless violence like mass murders, suicides, etc., there is definitely serious things wrong. Attempts to suppress the symptoms, so that the serious problems are not addressed and ignored instead, would be criminally irresponsible. One would only do that by more gun control, if the problems with society were deliberate and the intent was to make them even worse.

Look at some of California's approach to firearms. They made the SKS illegal, even though it is only a 10 shot internal magazine. Clearly the ONLY reason for singling out the benign SKS is that it was selling for only $88. So then the motivation by the state of California has to be to deliberately discriminate against poor people. There can be no other motive.

Banning certain guns is not taking guns away. You can still get guns. Having regulations to make sure we are selling guns to responsible people is not taking guns away from responsible people. I don’t get what your problem is. I live in California. I have a dozen guns. Almost all my friends have guns. It’s really not a big deal

How many times do you have to be told that there is no difference between the AR rifles you want to ban and any other semiautomatic rifle chambered for the same caliber?

He doesn't care. They look scary and must go.

.

/----/ Libs, why not ban scary looking military style Jeeps while you're at it?

 

[MaryAnne]

I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.

Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...

Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.


View attachment 59771

Simple, Barry is a lying POS.
Aside from that he does not have any credibility on the issue and more laws = less freedom.

Do you know how ironic your post is after 3 years of Trump?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How many times do you have to be told that there is no difference between the AR rifles you want to ban and any other semiautomatic rifle chambered for the same caliber?

Then we ought to consider banning all semi-auto magazine fed rifles huh...

There's a typical lib response. Let's ban things that won't make an ounce of difference.

"Folks, liberals measure success by intent. Conservatives measure success by results."
Rush Limbaugh