It Was Done on Tobacco. It Can Be Done on Guns.

[2aguy]

OK You talked me into allowing carries Now can I talk you into checkups for priors or mental instability to NOT let those folks carry ?

Now can I talk you into checkups for priors or mental instability to NOT let those folks carry

Should be covered under Background Checks.

From what I read there are places to go and just buy a weapon ,,no questions no wait

And those people who are criminals already know that is against the law. They can't buy, own or carry any gun from any source....and we can already arrest them when we catch them. The problem? The democrat judges let these repeat gun offenders out of jail on Bond...often not even requiring money, and out of prison with short prison sentences...that is what drives our gun crime rates...not John and Jane citizen who own and carry a gun for self defense

 

[rightwinger]

Govt took actions limiting cigarettes banning smoking in workplaces and public spaces. Did a lot to reduce smoking

And it has already made carrying firearms illegal in many places. If gun ownership really is dying, there should be no need for further action.

We don’t stop requiring safety measures on cars

Is auto ownership dying out?

So you have no problem requiring safety measures on guns

You the MAN

If mandatory safety measure raised the price of guns too much for some people to be able to buy them, they would violate the seconon amendment, but that's really what you want to do, right?

Second says nothing about price

 

[rightwinger]

A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.

A theory ?

The Supreme Court already ruled the obvious.....that's why Chicago and Washington D.C. gun ban was ruled unconstitutional.


.

And then you mock Chicago for its gun deaths

You do know it was a law for over 10 years, right, before it was ruled unconstitutional.


It took a long time before someone challenged it and made its way to the supreme court.


Edit: Chicago gun ban started in 1982 and ended 2008... over 25 years before it was ruled unconstitutional



.

Unfortunately, Chicago is miles away from asshole red state Indiana which allows unrestricted access to guns

Thank god for the NRA

No...dumb ass.....Houston has gun stores on every corner, you can easily openly carry a gun and carry it concealed, and it borders the narco state of Mexico....chicago has a higher gun murder rate........Houston criminals don't have to go out of state, you doofus, but they kill fewer people than Chicago criminals...

The reason Chicago has gun crime is the democrat judges keep letting every violent, repeat gun offender out of jail on bond, often with no money required, and out of prison with short prison sentences...

You don't know what you are talking about.

I hope you are not bragging about Texas’ lack of gun crimes

 

[2aguy]

Doesn't it seem a little on the privileged side for the average American to have unregistered semi-automatic weapons when the military can only fire their's once a year at the rifle range? People who have never gone to defend this country are demanding privileges they aren't entitled to. Register these weapons of war.

Where did you get that? Are you really that stupid? The 2nd Amendment explains the Right to keep, and carry guns.....the military works for us, doofus, we don't belong to them.

Semi-automatic rifles are not weapons of war, you troll....a 5 shot, pump action shotgun is an acutal weapon of war.....but the AR-15 has never been used in war...

 

[Auld Phart]

And it has already made carrying firearms illegal in many places. If gun ownership really is dying, there should be no need for further action.

We don’t stop requiring safety measures on cars

Is auto ownership dying out?

So you have no problem requiring safety measures on guns

You the MAN

If mandatory safety measure raised the price of guns too much for some people to be able to buy them, they would violate the seconon amendment, but that's really what you want to do, right?

Second says nothing about price

Second says nothing about price

you have a point.

and since the Second say the PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms, the government should just give them to us.

 

[2aguy]

A theory ?

The Supreme Court already ruled the obvious.....that's why Chicago and Washington D.C. gun ban was ruled unconstitutional.


.

And then you mock Chicago for its gun deaths

You do know it was a law for over 10 years, right, before it was ruled unconstitutional.


It took a long time before someone challenged it and made its way to the supreme court.


Edit: Chicago gun ban started in 1982 and ended 2008... over 25 years before it was ruled unconstitutional



.

Unfortunately, Chicago is miles away from asshole red state Indiana which allows unrestricted access to guns

Thank god for the NRA

No...dumb ass.....Houston has gun stores on every corner, you can easily openly carry a gun and carry it concealed, and it borders the narco state of Mexico....chicago has a higher gun murder rate........Houston criminals don't have to go out of state, you doofus, but they kill fewer people than Chicago criminals...

The reason Chicago has gun crime is the democrat judges keep letting every violent, repeat gun offender out of jail on bond, often with no money required, and out of prison with short prison sentences...

You don't know what you are talking about.

I hope you are not bragging about Texas’ lack of gun crimes

No, moron, I am pointing out that access to guns doesn't create gun murder.....since access to guns is easier in Texas, but they have more gun crime in Chicago....where they let repeat gun offenders out of prison over and over again.

 

[Rustic]

A theory ?

The Supreme Court already ruled the obvious.....that's why Chicago and Washington D.C. gun ban was ruled unconstitutional.


.

And then you mock Chicago for its gun deaths

You do know it was a law for over 10 years, right, before it was ruled unconstitutional.


It took a long time before someone challenged it and made its way to the supreme court.


Edit: Chicago gun ban started in 1982 and ended 2008... over 25 years before it was ruled unconstitutional



.

Unfortunately, Chicago is miles away from asshole red state Indiana which allows unrestricted access to guns

Thank god for the NRA

No...dumb ass.....Houston has gun stores on every corner, you can easily openly carry a gun and carry it concealed, and it borders the narco state of Mexico....chicago has a higher gun murder rate........Houston criminals don't have to go out of state, you doofus, but they kill fewer people than Chicago criminals...

The reason Chicago has gun crime is the democrat judges keep letting every violent, repeat gun offender out of jail on bond, often with no money required, and out of prison with short prison sentences...

You don't know what you are talking about.

I hope you are not bragging about Texas’ lack of gun crimes

Firearm violence mostly happens in progressive controlled urban America, With extremely strict gun control laws. Fact

 

[SaxxyBlues]

to keep and bear arms is a general statement saying we can defend ourselves as a country against foreigners not that you have a right to unregulated ownership

The Constitution is quite clear, " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Considering that it was written soon after the people had fought a war to free themselves from England, it is more likely the right to bear arms was to defend themselves against a too strong federal government than against foreigners.

All the more reason to register automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

You haven't presented any reason to register them.

To give the Federal Government numbers so it can plan appropriately.

 

[2aguy]

to keep and bear arms is a general statement saying we can defend ourselves as a country against foreigners not that you have a right to unregulated ownership

The Constitution is quite clear, " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Considering that it was written soon after the people had fought a war to free themselves from England, it is more likely the right to bear arms was to defend themselves against a too strong federal government than against foreigners.

All the more reason to register automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

You haven't presented any reason to register them.

To give the Federal Government numbers so it can plan appropriately.

Yes...you are a fascist...we get it.......just like fascists all over the world you realize it is hard to fill mass graves when the victims can shoot back...

 

[SaxxyBlues]

to keep and bear arms is a general statement saying we can defend ourselves as a country against foreigners not that you have a right to unregulated ownership

The Constitution is quite clear, " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Considering that it was written soon after the people had fought a war to free themselves from England, it is more likely the right to bear arms was to defend themselves against a too strong federal government than against foreigners.

All the more reason to register automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

You haven't presented any reason to register them.

To give the Federal Government numbers so it can plan appropriately.

Yes...you are a fascist...we get it.......just like fascists all over the world you realize it is hard to fill mass graves when the victims can shoot back...

What you don't trust Trump and his government?

 

[2aguy]

The Constitution is quite clear, " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Considering that it was written soon after the people had fought a war to free themselves from England, it is more likely the right to bear arms was to defend themselves against a too strong federal government than against foreigners.

All the more reason to register automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

You haven't presented any reason to register them.

To give the Federal Government numbers so it can plan appropriately.

Yes...you are a fascist...we get it.......just like fascists all over the world you realize it is hard to fill mass graves when the victims can shoot back...

What you don't trust Trump and his government?

I don't put my trust in any government.......the Germans trusted their government, as did the countries of Europe....12 million innocent dead men, women and children is a lesson a wise individual only needs to learn once....

 

[SaxxyBlues]

All the more reason to register automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

You haven't presented any reason to register them.

To give the Federal Government numbers so it can plan appropriately.

Yes...you are a fascist...we get it.......just like fascists all over the world you realize it is hard to fill mass graves when the victims can shoot back...

What you don't trust Trump and his government?

I don't put my trust in any government.......the Germans trusted their government, as did the countries of Europe....12 million innocent dead men, women and children is a lesson a wise individual only needs to learn once....

So your thinking the 7,000,000 gun owners can stand down the federal government?

 

[SaxxyBlues]

So you would never take the oath?

, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

 

[Flopper]

By Dennis A. Henigan

The American people can overcome the gun lobby, but only if we confront, and expose, three myths that have long dominated the gun debate and given the politicians a ready excuse for inaction.

First, we must not let the opponents of reform get away with the empty bromide that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Does any rational person really believe that the Sandy Hook killer could have murdered twenty-seven people in minutes with a knife or a baseball bat? Guns enable people to kill, more effectively and efficiently than any other widely available weapon.

Second, we must challenge the idea that no law can prevent violent people from getting guns. This canard is refuted by the experience of every other western industrialized nation. Their violent crime rates are comparable to ours. But their homicide rates are exponentially lower because their strong gun laws make it harder for violent individuals to get guns.

Third, we must not accept the notion that our Constitution condemns us to the continued slaughter of our children. It is true that the Supreme Court has expanded gun rights in recent years; it is equally true that the Court has insisted that the right allows for reasonable restrictions. In his opinion in the Heller Second Amendment case, Justice Scalia listed restrictions on "dangerous and unusual weapons" among the kinds of gun laws that are still "presumptively lawful." Assault weapons that fire scores of rounds without reloading surely are "dangerous and unusual."

The tobacco control movement overcame some equally powerful mythology to fundamentally alter American attitudes toward tobacco products. The tobacco industry's effort to sow confusion and uncertainty about the link between smoking and disease eventually was exposed as a fraud. The entrenched view that smoking was simply a bad habit that individuals can choose to break was destroyed by evidence that the tobacco companies knew that nicotine was powerfully addictive and engineered their cigarettes to ensure that people got hooked and stayed hooked. The assumption that smoking harms only the smoker was contradicted by the overwhelming evidence of the danger of second-hand smoke.

Once these myths were exposed, attitudes changed, policies changed and we started saving countless lives. Since youth smoking peaked in the mid-1990s, smoking rates have fallen by about three-fourths among 8th graders, two-thirds among 10th graders and half among 12th graders. A sea change has occurred on the tobacco issue.

Similarly fundamental change can come to the gun issue as well. The myths about gun control, however, still have a hold on too many of our political leaders and their constituents. We will hear them repeated again and again in the coming weeks of intense debate. Every time we hear them, we must respond and we must persuade.

There is too much at stake to be silent.

More: Dennis A. Henigan: It Was Done on Tobacco. It Can Be Done on Guns

There isn't a Constitution right to Tobacco
There is one for firearms

One of the silliest propositions put forth by the NRA and gun enthusiast is putting more people on streets with guns will reduce gun violence. The United States Research Counsel 16 member panel addressed right to carry laws and it's effect on crime. Despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime. What they did find was confirmation of number of other studies that shows there is a very strong correlation between the number of guns on the street and violent crime. The proposal to put more guns on streets is a deflection from the real problem, too many guns in hands of public.

 

[toomuchtime_]

And it has already made carrying firearms illegal in many places. If gun ownership really is dying, there should be no need for further action.

We don’t stop requiring safety measures on cars

Is auto ownership dying out?

So you have no problem requiring safety measures on guns

You the MAN

If mandatory safety measure raised the price of guns too much for some people to be able to buy them, they would violate the seconon amendment, but that's really what you want to do, right?

Second says nothing about price

But if you pass a law mandating safety devices that price the guns out of the range of a buyer, you are infringing on his or her right to bear arms. I understand Democrats always see the Constitution as an obstacle to be overcome, but real Americans see it as a document to be respected.

 

[toomuchtime_]

to keep and bear arms is a general statement saying we can defend ourselves as a country against foreigners not that you have a right to unregulated ownership

The Constitution is quite clear, " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Considering that it was written soon after the people had fought a war to free themselves from England, it is more likely the right to bear arms was to defend themselves against a too strong federal government than against foreigners.

All the more reason to register automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

You haven't presented any reason to register them.

To give the Federal Government numbers so it can plan appropriately.

lol Plan for what?

 

[JimH52]

Hardcore NRA wingnuts need to be thinking about two words: "Compromise" and "Consensus"...

Never and the 2nd amendment SUCK IT!

Naw....they will wait until their kids or grandkids are shit up....then it will be too late like my Repub friend with COPD....who refused to say nicotine is addicting.

It will take years....but the old hard liners will all due out and common sense gun laws will prevail....

 

[Flopper]

We don’t stop requiring safety measures on cars

Is auto ownership dying out?

So you have no problem requiring safety measures on guns

You the MAN

If mandatory safety measure raised the price of guns too much for some people to be able to buy them, they would violate the seconon amendment, but that's really what you want to do, right?

Second says nothing about price

But if you pass a law mandating safety devices that price the guns out of the range of a buyer, you are infringing on his or her right to bear arms. I understand Democrats always see the Constitution as an obstacle to be overcome, but real Americans see it as a document to be respected.

There is nothing in the 2nd amendment requiring guns be affordable. When the 2nd amendment was written guns were too expensive for a large segment of the population. The cost of a gun in today's dollars would be nearly a thousand dollars. Guns (muskets) were so expensive, inaccurate and slow loading, a knife or hatchet was the weapon of choice for self protection.

Citizens armed with muskets in a militia firing in volleys at a charging force were considered and effective means of using untrained citizens against trained solders. Fear of those loyal to the crown resulted in talk of restricting access to guns. Congress created the 2nd amendment to make sure that citizens would have access to firearms so they would be able serve in the militia. Had Washington had an army trained so they could go toe to toe with the British with fixed bayonet, there probably have been no militia and no 2nd amendment.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Is auto ownership dying out?

So you have no problem requiring safety measures on guns

You the MAN

If mandatory safety measure raised the price of guns too much for some people to be able to buy them, they would violate the seconon amendment, but that's really what you want to do, right?

Second says nothing about price

But if you pass a law mandating safety devices that price the guns out of the range of a buyer, you are infringing on his or her right to bear arms. I understand Democrats always see the Constitution as an obstacle to be overcome, but real Americans see it as a document to be respected.

There is nothing in the 2nd amendment requiring guns be affordable. When the 2nd amendment was written guns were too expensive for a large segment of the population. The cost of a gun in today's dollars would be nearly a thousand dollars.

But a law that mandated expensive additions to guns would make them unaffordable to some buyers and violae the their right to buy a gun. The government is clearly forbidden by the second amendment from preventing an American citizen from acquiring a gun, so if the government believes these additions are important, the government should pay for them. If you are only concerned with safety and not just harassing gun owners, that should be ok with you.

 

[rightwinger]

We don’t stop requiring safety measures on cars

Is auto ownership dying out?

So you have no problem requiring safety measures on guns

You the MAN

If mandatory safety measure raised the price of guns too much for some people to be able to buy them, they would violate the seconon amendment, but that's really what you want to do, right?

Second says nothing about price

Second says nothing about price

you have a point.

and since the Second say the PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms, the government should just give them to us.

Makes absolutely no sense