- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Whaaah. I said something about gun ownership you don't like. I must be baiting you. Whaaaah!
I would but you are not interested in an honest debate nor implementing reasonable gun control
Please share.... What reasonable gun control are you talking about?
Thanks for the question.
There are so many.
I like the Israeli model to start
50 rounds a year.
2 guns per person
Insurance required.
No rifles (maybe a 30 aught bolt action if you can prove hunting which is evil).
One month waiting list.
A lot more
see-that proves you aren't interested in reasonable anything because even someone with an IQ of 50 would see that suggestion as extremist idiocy. 50 rounds a year-how would Kim Rhode win 6 olympic medals practicing only 50 rounds a year?
that's also unconstitutional
Why do you hate our Israeli allies? As for Kim she can rent or buy rounds at the range. Problem SOLved.
Survey: Nearly 110 Million Americans Have a Gun at Home
Well, we can throw that old Pew poll away. I still don't believe this one is accurate but it is more accurate than the last one. With all these guns around every household should have at least one death if you follow the logic of gun control fear mongers.
Thanks for the question.
There are so many.
I like the Israeli model to start
50 rounds a year.
2 guns per person
Insurance required.
No rifles (maybe a 30 aught bolt action if you can prove hunting which is evil).
One month waiting list.
A lot more
If I owned a gun range I would rent the rounds so I could have control over the casing. I am smart that way.
If you are not afraid you typically don't own guns unless you hate furry animals.
50 rounds a year? When I shoot 50 rounds is a warm up. I am currently (and legally) reloading 200 .38 in preparation for going to the range....
2 guns per person? Why? What will this solve?
No rifles? Really? What will that solve? The VAST majority of shootings were with handguns.
Looks like you want maximum restriction on law abiding gun owners while not really fixing anything.
If you are not afraid you typically don't own guns unless you hate furry animals.
I don't think that's quite right - it's too high.
Mainly: people who own firearms tend to own more than one.
And people are families . . . multiple people know someone and if they're related then that doesn't mean they know separate people.
For example: no one in my entire family has a single firearm. Yet there was a time during which I owned several. Thus everyone in my family knew me and thus knew someone who owned a firearm.
I think their math is a bit off due to these two reasons. 1/2 of all adults in the US don't have a firearm in their home.
Thanks for the question.
There are so many.
I like the Israeli model to start
50 rounds a year.
2 guns per person
Insurance required.
No rifles (maybe a 30 aught bolt action if you can prove hunting which is evil).
One month waiting list.
A lot more
The "reasonable" or "common sense" criteria should be tested by applying analogous restrictions to 1A rights. The quoted restrictions would be a limit of say 50 posts per year, each with a one month waiting period and background check. If one believes such conditions do not violate the 2A or the RTBA then, logically, they don't for the 1A as well.Your definition of reasonable is my definition of oppressive, stupid, useless and unconstitutional.
The "reasonable" or "common sense" criteria should be tested by applying analogous restrictions to 1A rights. The quoted restrictions would be a limit of say 50 posts per year, each with a one month waiting period and background check. If one believes such conditions do not violate the 2A or the RTBA then, logically, they don't for the 1A as well.
It's very difficult to determine the true state of gun ownership via a survey, or self-reported data on any topic. People lie or skew the random sample by refusing to participate. I suspect that any survey for gun ownership will under-report, as I posit people with firearms are more likely to lie/decline than those without. I know I wouldn't answer such questions, and many gun owners I know think the same. I doubt many people claim to have firearms on such surveys when they don't, while the converse is much more likely to be the case. This is particularly true in the current political climate, where it's probable we'll have another Clinton in the WH and maybe even relive the nightmare of one party government. I suspect that there are drafts for a new "Assault Weapon Ban", and this time it won't have a sunset nor outlaw largely cosmetic attributes. If there's a dem sweep this November, the RTBA will be greatly curtailed.
I've never quite understood how requiring a photo ID for voting puts an unfair burden on the poor, while it doesn't for purchasing a gun. Even more onerous, the CHL fee structure in Illinois: I did a calculation, and the training requirements, fees, etc, to acquire just the ability to purchase a CC firearm in Illinois is at a bare minimum $439: http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...rs-shootings-soar-chicago-post1065731047.html That's to exercise the 2A right to bear arms. Notice that the state-issed driver's license/ID costs $20.. Apparently, that's an unfair burden for voting, but nearly 22x as much is just peachy for the RTBA. And that's just the right, not actually the costs to acquire a firearm.Exactly right. Well said.
Another reasonable comparison is the hysteria some have over showing photo ID to vote, yet having no problem with photo ID, background checks and many other restrictions on 2A rights.
You can think that.
any party that tries to nationally confiscate guns will be in deep trouble in the polls. under Heller, I do not believe the federal government can pass a semi auto rifle ban which is what some Bannerrhoid states have started to attempt
Is it that big of a deal for the numbers to be a little over-estimated?
I've never quite understood how requiring a photo ID for voting puts an unfair burden on the poor, while it doesn't for purchasing a gun. Even more onerous, the CHL fee structure in Illinois: I did a calculation, and the training requirements, fees, etc, to acquire just the ability to purchase a CC firearm in Illinois is at a bare minimum $439: http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...rs-shootings-soar-chicago-post1065731047.html That's to exercise the 2A right to bear arms. Notice that the state-issed driver's license/ID costs $20.. Apparently, that's an unfair burden for voting, but nearly 22x as much is just peachy for the RTBA. And that's just the right, not actually the costs to acquire a firearm.
Oh, and Heller will be reversed in very short order if Garland gets on the court. Barring that, any Clinton nominee would be as bad if not worse.
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?