yeah, maybe! maybe you break up with your girlfriend, or even divorce your wife, and in spite, go shoot up her kids school! If no-one had guns, no-one would need guns! bad guys=no guns, then good guys dont need them to stop bad guys!
You can't be serious. You do understand that criminals, by definition, disregard laws, right? So if you were to ban all guns do you honestly believe that the criminal element would suddenly start obeying that law?
Nonsense argument, if guns are not freely available then it is much harder for crminals to get hold of them. It's also easier to spot the criminals and the law abiding people, the criminals are the ones with the guns so you arrest them and prosecute.
It's not that hard America, not other developed country comes to even within a faction of the amount of gun deaths that America does and still people say it's everything else but the guns.
In the US in the last 3 years there has been 75 shootings at schools, in the whole of Europe in the last 105 years there has been 25. Houston, we have a problem.
The problem withthat is people like me...lawful, responsible gun owners who have no criminal history. How do you just take away a right that the people have enjoyed for 200 years? And if you allow them to take away one right what keeps them from taking away other rights in the name of the greater good?
exactly, the greater good, some sacrifices would be made! I respect that you are a gun owner, and have nothing against you, but the gun. I'm sure almost all gun owners would sacrifice their gun for the lives of the innocent.
The gun is an inanimate object and subject to the will of its user. What is to keep someone from telling me okay, you gave us your guns. Now give us your golf clubs, knives, and cars because those are also inanimate objects that people can use to murder innocents. Oh and by the way, you no longer can worship how you choose and if you talk trash about the Fed you will go to prison.
Who would stop it?
0 ups, 5y
It doesn't matter how many laws you pass, bad guys will never follow your stupid laws.
0 ups, 5y
A man shot and killed 5 people in Aurora, Illinois, a town in a state with some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. The man was a known felon which means he was not legally allowed to own a firearm. In Illinois you need a FOID card to own a gun and a concealed carry license to take it in public, yet he had neither and yet he still had a gun and still killed five people! Gun control does not, has not, and will not work, and you know it you liberal retard!
I loved it when Ms. Parks whipped out her AR-15 and gunned down the driver and other passengers as well. How many police officers did she take out?
You're comparing apples to oranges. The civil rights movement did not need to be armed to make way, but the enemies of that movement did. After nearly 100 years of violence toward blacks, some groups did take up arms, but it took that long and the assassination of the movement's leader to bring it to a head.
You have exercises your right to free speech, now let me exercise mine. The type of response you have posted is indicative of a lack of an intelligent rebuttal. You could not think of anything good to say in response that would have actually convinced anyone that what Rosa Parks did is more important or is more worthy than asserting second amendment rights. You are correct that Rosa Parks was fighting for her civil rights and to be treated with equality. However instead of making a good argument for it, you have committed the strawman fallacy and that makes your point invalid and completely unreasonable.
If we were to draw any comparisons, it could be this: let's say white people are banned from owning guns. Only black people are allowed. White people must immediately give up their guns to people of color and not necessarily by any government intervention. Like a non-white can walk right up to you and demand your gun and if you don't quietly hand it over, you go to jail, and might even get beat and lynched on your way over.
And maybe skill tests, a vision test, no felonies, no domestic violence, must pass a mental fitness test, must not belong to an extremist group or have expressed views on social media that are in line with any....
All great ideas. However, a skills test isa requirement in my state to get a concealed carry license. The criminal background comes out during the background checks.
Now for the tricky part. For the mental fitness test, where would that information be stored? Who would have access to it? Would thetest be conducted by my doctor or so.e government lackey with an agenda? HIPAA is real and the government has proven that it cannot be trusted with our medical information. So if you would care to explain how all of this would be implemented I would be very interested to hear your answers.
If it was properly implemented I would be all for it. Unfortunately...or maybe fortunate, depending on your point of view...I have a healthy mistrust of our government and have no reason to believe that my personal information wouldn't be used as a tool to keep me from buying a gun. He had a bad day, no gun. Got a divorce, no gun. See where I'm going with this? So how would you begin to implement something like this?
Set the dividing line at diagnosing for bipolar and clinical depression for starters. There's a huge gap between someone who has a bad day and someone who's batsh*t. Yearly recertification or every six months. If you really want to own one it's a small price to pay for public safety. And if someone who's mentally stable somehow falls through the cracks, oh well. At least we're keeping guns out of the hands of those who have more of a tendency to go postal one day.
"And if someone who's mentally stable somehow falls through the cracks, oh well."
This is a problem because someone has to decide that a citizen's right to keep and bear arms gets taken away for no good reason. Who decides that? The doctor? The government? What if it was you? Once one right is taken away because of a slip-up what is to prevent other rights from being taken away? If that happens, what are the criteria and who makes that determination?
You have a great idea and I'm not being mean. These are questions that would arise during the debates leading up to something like this.
But in other states domestic violence abusers can take their gun license obtained with no background checks across state lines. No more unregulated gun show sales, etc. If Trump can bring ICE out of the woodwork and build a gazillion dollar wall, we can do this, too.