The Gun Control Laws The United States Needs

[JusticeHammer]

The Gun Control Laws The United States Needs

In order to purchase a firearm, an individual must do the following:

01. Attend three month class on firearms

02. Pass a written test when the class has been completed

03. Achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test

04. Pass a Mental Health evaluation at a hospital

05. Pass a background check in which the government digs into their criminal record

06. Pass a background check involving interviews with friends and family

07. Only shotguns and Air Rifles may be purchased, no handguns

08. New magazines can only be purchased by trading in empty ones

09. When a gun owner dies, their relatives must surrender the deceased members firearms

10. Every three years, the individual must pass the above tests and investigations

By those standards demoncraps would lose their citizenship.

 

[busybee01]

1. Military style weapons should be banned and any other variants should be banned.
2. Magazines should be limited to 15 rounds maximum.
3. Background checks should include social media posts

You cannot demonstrate the necessity for or the efficacy of these restrictions.

You would do nothing and let the mayhem and killing continue.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

On top of that, Japan relies on our military for protection.

Half the world relies on our military for protection.

Our military is under the control of our government, and WE THE PEOPLE keep it in check because we are armed.

I am SICK of this FACT being ignored and dismissed.

.

Only 31% of households in the United States have guns. They don't keep anything in check, let alone the U.S. military that would easily slaughter them in a shoot out.

Good luck with that. There were an estimated 357 million firearms in this country in 2013, with a population of 317 million. That rounds out to about 113 guns per 100 people, or 1.13 guns per person. And since gun sales have been increasing faster than the population, the divide has likely only massively widened since then.

Now your statistics give a 31% number, which would mean that those 31% own an average of 3 firearms. That's BS. I don't know anyone who owns a measly 3 firearms. Most people in my neck of the woods own anywhere between 10-50.

Someone's math isn't adding up.

Well, then according to your math I guess as little as 2% of the households in the United States own firearms. Or maybe its 10%. Either way, the non-gun owning households have the numbers to change the laws and restrict gun ownership for the smaller minority!

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy – citizens’ rights and protected liberties are not subject to majority rule.

Indeed, Constitutional case law exists to protect the minority from government excess and overreach, to protect the minority from the capricious whims of the majority.

Any part of the constitution can be amended if you get enough votes. That's the reality. The non-gun owning population, at 70% and rising, will at some point in the future, demand these laws and regulations. Its only a matter of time.

 

[U2Edge]

Any part of the constitution can be amended if you get enough votes. That's the reality. The non-gun owning population, at 70% and rising, will at some point in the future, demand these laws and regulations. Its only a matter of time.

It takes 13 states to stop an amendment.
The 13 states most likely to vote against a repeal of the 2nd - that is, the 13 most pro-gun states - contain about 7% of the US population.
Why do you think you will get 38 states to agree with you?

Eventually, even in the 13 most pro gun owning states, non-gun owning households will become the majority. Notice how the most pro-slave states no longer own any slaves today.

 

[Crixus]

The Gun Control Laws The United States Needs

In order to purchase a firearm, an individual must do the following:

01. Attend three month class on firearms

02. Pass a written test when the class has been completed

03. Achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test

04. Pass a Mental Health evaluation at a hospital

05. Pass a background check in which the government digs into their criminal record

06. Pass a background check involving interviews with friends and family

07. Only shotguns and Air Rifles may be purchased, no handguns

08. New magazines can only be purchased by trading in empty ones

09. When a gun owner dies, their relatives must surrender the deceased members firearms

10. Every three years, the individual must pass the above tests and investigations

Na, just go blow a goat.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The constitution can be amended as needed so society can be safer from firearm owning civilians.

Why do you think you can get 38 states to agree with you?

01. Because the number of households that own guns has fallen from 50% in 1977 to 31% in 2014.
02. The non-gun owning population have the numbers on their side.
03. It will be the majority vs. the minority.
04. The NRA and gun owners continue to resist any regulation while mass shootings increase shocking the public.
05. The media and non-gun owning population will eventually be able to get the laws and regulations in place that they want. Its only a matter of time.

So, you have no - rational - reason to believe 38 states will agree with you and repeal the 2nd.
Thanks.

I just listed it for you. 70% of households don't own guns.

Which does nothing to support your fantasy that 38 states will agree with you and repeal the 2nd.
You have no - rational - reason to believe 38 states will agree with you and repeal the 2nd.

 

[U2Edge]

Only 31% of households in the United States have guns. They don't keep anything in check, let alone the U.S. military that would easily slaughter them in a shoot out.

Good luck with that. There were an estimated 357 million firearms in this country in 2013, with a population of 317 million. That rounds out to about 113 guns per 100 people, or 1.13 guns per person. And since gun sales have been increasing faster than the population, the divide has likely only massively widened since then.

Now your statistics give a 31% number, which would mean that those 31% own an average of 3 firearms. That's BS. I don't know anyone who owns a measly 3 firearms. Most people in my neck of the woods own anywhere between 10-50.

Someone's math isn't adding up.

Well, then according to your math I guess as little as 2% of the households in the United States own firearms. Or maybe its 10%. Either way, the non-gun owning households have the numbers to change the laws and restrict gun ownership for the smaller minority!

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy – citizens’ rights and protected liberties are not subject to majority rule.

Indeed, Constitutional case law exists to protect the minority from government excess and overreach, to protect the minority from the capricious whims of the majority.

Any part of the constitution can be amended if you get enough votes. That's the reality. The non-gun owning population, at 70% and rising, will at some point in the future, demand these laws and regulations. Its only a matter of time.

View attachment 273605

Well, your free to try to tell them that if your possession of firearms in the future causes you to be in conflict with the law.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

1. Military style weapons should be banned and any other variants should be banned.
2. Magazines should be limited to 15 rounds maximum.
3. Background checks should include social media posts

You cannot demonstrate the necessity for or the efficacy of these restrictions.

You would do nothing and let the mayhem and killing continue.

Is that the standard by which we are supposed to protect rights?

All a tyrant has to do is make conditions for exercising rights intolerable to the masses and the rights go bu-bye?

Do you see why we have reason to be highly suspicious?

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

1. Military style weapons should be banned and any other variants should be banned.
2. Magazines should be limited to 15 rounds maximum.
3. Background checks should include social media posts

You cannot demonstrate the necessity for or the efficacy of these restrictions.

You would do nothing and let the mayhem and killing continue.

Since you cannot demonstrate the necessity for or the efficacy of these restrictions, what rational basis do you have for your "idea" that they will do "something" to reduce gun violence?

 

[U2Edge]

The constitution can be amended as needed so society can be safer from firearm owning civilians.

Why do you think you can get 38 states to agree with you?

01. Because the number of households that own guns has fallen from 50% in 1977 to 31% in 2014.
02. The non-gun owning population have the numbers on their side.
03. It will be the majority vs. the minority.
04. The NRA and gun owners continue to resist any regulation while mass shootings increase shocking the public.
05. The media and non-gun owning population will eventually be able to get the laws and regulations in place that they want. Its only a matter of time.

So, you have no - rational - reason to believe 38 states will agree with you and repeal the 2nd.
Thanks.

I just listed it for you. 70% of households don't own guns.

Which does nothing to support your fantasy that 38 states will agree with you and repeal the 2nd.
You have no - rational - reason to believe 38 states will agree with you and repeal the 2nd.

It shows you that the non-gun owning population is rising. The gun owning population is decreasing. Eventually, the numbers will line up for those advocating the gun control restrictions I mentioned at the start of this thread.

 

[U2Edge]

1. Military style weapons should be banned and any other variants should be banned.
2. Magazines should be limited to 15 rounds maximum.
3. Background checks should include social media posts

You cannot demonstrate the necessity for or the efficacy of these restrictions.

You would do nothing and let the mayhem and killing continue.

Since you cannot demonstrate the necessity for or the efficacy of these restrictions, what rational basis do you have for your "idea" that they will do "something" to reduce gun violence?

The examples from other countries have already shown this can and will happen eventually.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I am terrified at the easy at which tyrants can manipulate the masses to give up freedom for the false sense of security.

We are in big trouble.

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Any part of the constitution can be amended if you get enough votes. That's the reality. The non-gun owning population, at 70% and rising, will at some point in the future, demand these laws and regulations. Its only a matter of time.

It takes 13 states to stop an amendment.
The 13 states most likely to vote against a repeal of the 2nd - that is, the 13 most pro-gun states - contain about 7% of the US population.
Why do you think you will get 38 states to agree with you?

Eventually, even in the 13 most pro gun owning states, non-gun owning households will become the majority.

And thus, you reinforce the fact you have no - rational - reason to believe 38 states will agree with you.

I give you a C+ on your trolling. Try harder.

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
It shows you that the non-gun owning population is rising. The gun owning population is decreasing. Eventually, the numbers will line up for those advocating the gun control restrictions I mentioned at the start of this thread.

Quite the fantasy you have there.

 

[M14 Shooter]

1. Military style weapons should be banned and any other variants should be banned.
2. Magazines should be limited to 15 rounds maximum.
3. Background checks should include social media posts

You cannot demonstrate the necessity for or the efficacy of these restrictions.

You would do nothing and let the mayhem and killing continue.

Since you cannot demonstrate the necessity for or the efficacy of these restrictions, what rational basis do you have for your "idea" that they will do "something" to reduce gun violence?

The examples from other countries have already shown this can and will happen eventually.

You are fully aware of the fact you cannot demonstrate a necessary relationship between the gun laws in those nations and their lower level of gun violence.
Thus, you have no rational basis for your claim.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

1. Military style weapons should be banned and any other variants should be banned.
2. Magazines should be limited to 15 rounds maximum.
3. Background checks should include social media posts

You cannot demonstrate the necessity for or the efficacy of these restrictions.

You would do nothing and let the mayhem and killing continue.

Since you cannot demonstrate the necessity for or the efficacy of these restrictions, what rational basis do you have for your "idea" that they will do "something" to reduce gun violence?

The examples from other countries have already shown this can and will happen eventually.

Or, those who want the lack of freedoms those countries provide can go live there.

This is the last place on earth with any measure of freedom to resist. If we lose it here, the world is doomed.

In other words, go live elsewhere.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Why do you think you can get 38 states to agree with you?

01. Because the number of households that own guns has fallen from 50% in 1977 to 31% in 2014.
02. The non-gun owning population have the numbers on their side.
03. It will be the majority vs. the minority.
04. The NRA and gun owners continue to resist any regulation while mass shootings increase shocking the public.
05. The media and non-gun owning population will eventually be able to get the laws and regulations in place that they want. Its only a matter of time.

So, you have no - rational - reason to believe 38 states will agree with you and repeal the 2nd.
Thanks.

I just listed it for you. 70% of households don't own guns.

Which does nothing to support your fantasy that 38 states will agree with you and repeal the 2nd.
You have no - rational - reason to believe 38 states will agree with you and repeal the 2nd.

It shows you that the non-gun owning population is rising. The gun owning population is decreasing. Eventually, the numbers will line up for those advocating the gun control restrictions I mentioned at the start of this thread.

If the gun-owning population is decreasing, why are you worried?

.

 

[Siete]

The Gun Control Laws The United States Needs

In order to purchase a firearm, an individual must do the following:

01. Attend three month class on firearms

02. Pass a written test when the class has been completed

03. Achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test

04. Pass a Mental Health evaluation at a hospital

05. Pass a background check in which the government digs into their criminal record

06. Pass a background check involving interviews with friends and family

07. Only shotguns and Air Rifles may be purchased, no handguns

08. New magazines can only be purchased by trading in empty ones

09. When a gun owner dies, their relatives must surrender the deceased members firearms

10. Every three years, the individual must pass the above tests and investigations

“09. When a gun owner dies, their relatives must surrender the deceased members firearms”

To whom?

The government?

“Must surrender” means through force of law – and absent due process and just compensation such a law would be in violation of the 5th Amendment’s Takings Clause.

To make the Takings Clause moot, the possession of all guns must be made illegal, rendering firearms contraband – which would violate the Second Amendment.

Moreover, how would government know where the guns of a deceased family member are, how would government enforce the “must surrender” law? In order to enforce the law a search warrant would be needed predicated upon probable cause as to the location of the now illegal guns.

Are you proposing to amend the Constitution to repeal the 4th and 5th Amendments along with the Second?

I recently gave my daughter and son in law ( a former US Marine) a portion of my collection and the Browning gun safe where they were kept .. they get the other Browning safe and remainder of the collection when I croak.

dont tell edge, its a secrete --

 

[Weatherman2020]

 

[22lcidw]

1. Military style weapons should be banned and any other variants should be banned.
2. Magazines should be limited to 15 rounds maximum.
3. Background checks should include social media posts

You cannot demonstrate the necessity for or the efficacy of these restrictions.

You would do nothing and let the mayhem and killing continue.

Since you cannot demonstrate the necessity for or the efficacy of these restrictions, what rational basis do you have for your "idea" that they will do "something" to reduce gun violence?

The examples from other countries have already shown this can and will happen eventually.

We are not other countries. Our IQ's just in one example range in massive differences which can also affect attitudes.