I may be wrong, and I am definitely no BO fan, but I don't think he is actually stupid enough to call for confiscation.
You are right. Probably not yet... If there's another shooting or two on his watch, you can bet what is about to be put into executive order will be deemed "not enough".
Yes, actually the number of people that die by legal drugs is somewhere around 250k per year, in other words your dr is more likely to (unintentionally) kill you than cancer.
Next, you are around 80 times more likely to be saved by a gun owner than killed by one, and more than Half the time guns stop / prevent crime it's done without firing a shot.
Yes, the left and right are both horribly corrupt and the vast majority in the house and congress have no concerns of the people they are intended to represent. Which, the left would never admit, is the stronger argument for a well armed society.
Ya, about 70-80% of those 9000 deaths are gang related... That's gangs killing gangs.
Yes, and since people are going to cause needless death with or without guns, and so, had you not approached this short sightedly, the rate of murders with knives an hammers will just increase.
The point you missed was the one of getting priorities straight, you should ban hammers based on your logic long before you ban guns.
So, by banning guns you will prevent people from being able to defend themselves against criminals, and I'd say a death as a victim of crime is more needless than the death of the criminal commuting the crime... And even then, leaving the good citizens with Guns does not guarantee that the criminals won't still win in some encounters, but why not allow them to increase the odds??
Get this through your head though, before you push to hard for gun control: if you make the laws prohibitively difficult to get guns, then the guns will move through the black market. Also, people will fight back at any confiscation, and if only 1% fights back, well, what else would you call a million plus people with guns intent on keeping them?? I'd call it a war.
No, I would not call 1% a war, at least not a serious one. Nor am I pushing legislation. I've said I don't care, and that your side lacks support. These are not really debatable. I've also said the courts have allowed for restrictions, so some restrictions can take place. The debate comes in at which ones can be restricted, which will largely depend on the rationale delivered to the courts.
It could very easily be argued that the courts will not allow ANY restriction by executive order but only by legislative action.
It has also been proven that even legislative restriction is fairly limited as some gun restrictions have been overturned by SCOTUS.
Don't disagree. But we have a process in place for this. I'm OK with allowing the process to work.
Really? If the process were working properly, we wouldnt have a President trying to pass legislation via executive order, which is the point. Constitutional scholar my ass.
No, I would not call 1% a war, at least not a serious one. Nor am I pushing legislation. I've said I don't care, and that your side lacks support. These are not really debatable. I've also said the courts have allowed for restrictions, so some restrictions can take place. The debate comes in at which ones can be restricted, which will largely depend on the rationale delivered to the courts.
Really? If the process were working properly, we wouldnt have a President trying to pass legislation via executive order, which is the point. Constitutional scholar my ass.
Umm... Gun sales are at record levels, in some places, it's been reported that people must grab any guns in stock evacuee manufacturers can barely keep up with the demand.
Don't think for a second that there is a lack of support for firearms.
1% of gun owners is somewhere between 1-2 million people... You really think the military can sweep that many people??
At the very least that would be VERY UGLY.
But there is not the support for semiautomatic weapons that you need to prevent a ban.
No they aren't...handguns are.The majority of privately owned weapons are semi-automatic. What the hell are you jibbering about?
If the intent of the second amendment was to protect the right to self defense from government then why limit it to firearms? Why not include canons, swords, axes and other methods of self defense?
The majority of privately owned weapons are semi-automatic. What the hell are you jibbering about?
swords and axes aren't illegal.
The majority of privately owned weapons are semi-automatic. What the hell are you jibbering about?
No they aren't...handguns are.
Are you suggesting a majority of the entire population own semi-automatics? If not, you're missing the point.
Not exactly what I said.
This country still has a weird love of guns. But there is not the support for semiautomatic weapons that you need to prevent a ban.
And yes, while ugly, the military could, it it so desired, sweep the people fairly easily. We won't get to that, nor is there a need to. But don't pretend you can hold back a modern army with the number of weapons your speaking of.
No they aren't...handguns are.
Oh yeah, ur right.You'll have to use english to make yourself understood, whatever do you mean? Most rifles, shotguns, and handguns are semi-automatic.
I'm not sure if your fact is accurate, but I know your comment has no relationship to what I said unless you were making the suggestion I stated. So are you just throwing random **** into the conversation?You'll have to use english to make yourself understood, whatever do you mean? Most rifles, shotguns, and handguns are semi-automatic.
I didn't "suggest" anything. I stated a fact. Most firearms owned in the United States are semi-automatic, as in the majority of those manufactured and owned.
I'm guessing you two have no idea what "semi-automatic" means. lol
No, what you said was effectively that we live in a democracy as opposed to a democratic republic...
Just cause you got 51% in votes does not mean that you can vote to remove the rights of the other 49%.
You do know that semiauto only means one bullet fires for each pull of the trigger, right?
Ya, people have this weird love of freedom and self-determination... And you are claiming there's a majority of people that feel the criminals do not have enough of an advantage and so you want to limit law-abiding citizens to bolt action rifles, revolvers and pump shotguns??
Leave all the good weapons (reliable, accurate and powerful weapons) in the hands of cops and criminals, right?
No, I think you convinced me... I vote for more home invasions too.
You don't understand what guerrilla warfare actually entails do you?? That's why the afghan people are still killing soldiers today, in spite of the modern technological military.
And not me personally, the fact is though that there are millions out there that are armed to the teeth and training for just that type of situation to begin....
The point is, the more you restrict guns, the more likely the situation is to get ugly.... And do you really want a rebellion / war / massacre going on in your back yard?? Do you really think that will make you safer?
There are many people who will not surrender their firearms under any circumstance, there are criminals who woul much prefer knowing that their targets are not armed, and just like historical precedence, once a people is disarmed then comes the culling.
All I'm saying is; think about what you are ultimately pushing towards, do you REALLY HONESTLY BELIEVE that this is going to be a good thing??
I just wish I could separate myself from society and let you have your way and see the horrors that would be unleashed if your side gets its way...
And no, I'm not saying the republicans are good, they just pretend to care about rights of individuals.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?