What UBC would mean is that Federal Government would be taking over State control of law which is something Progressives would love, going from interstate commerce to control intrastate commerce by cental authority.
One would think so but during this most unlawful Presidency and the alleged 'will of the people', law no longer matters, except if you are a Christian clerk.
Evidently not by the response to your post that I posted that disproved all of your claims, Reminds me of the 90 percent claim you parroted from bloomy, eh?
Strawman argument. Nobody thinks ALL gun control measures are bad. We already have over 20,000 federal, state, and local laws and no gun organization, including the NRA, is advocating eliminating every single law. These already exist. Any professional gun seller with a federal firearms license (FFL) must perform a background check. We generally oppose background checks for private sales/transfers for multiple reasons: 1) It essentially would create a national gun registry 2) It would criminalize a father giving his adult son a gun 3) It would criminalize two lifelong hunting buddies from borrowing each others firearms if they went on separate hunting trips Most states do not require background checks (a.k.a. license checks) for private car sales, which is a privilege, and cars kill many times more people than guns do. Thus, if you were truly honest about saving lives, you and your gun control ilk would be better served by advocating for background checks for all private car sales. This is one of the dumbest gun control proposals out there. First of all, why should we give the government the power to arbitrarily limit the amount of bullets a "legal" magazine can carry? It is a very obvious violation of the Second Amendment. We might as well give the government the power to limit the amount of negative things we can say against the president. After all, nobody needs to speak out against the president more than 10 times per year, right? Second of all, it would save absolutely zero lives: Dylann Roof was able to reload 5 times using normal capacity magazines. Third, it would create tens of millions of criminals out of peaceful law-abiding people for merely keeping an object that they bought legally. I thought you liberals were for shrinking the prison populations, not vastly expanding them? Lastly, this is an unenforceable statute. Tens of millions of gun owners already have multiple "high-capacity" magazines, and all these magazines are is some sheet metal (or plastic) and a spring. Thus, the hundreds of millions of magazines already owned will last essentially forever, since they only require a new spring when the old one gets worn out, and the government will have a difficult time banning springs. Moreover, if the government somehow bans the production of new magazines, you will very quickly start to see the production of contraband magazines, since (like I already mentioned), magazines are nothing more than some metal/plastic and a spring. This already exists: If I live in NJ and want to buy a gun from Arizona, then the seller from Arizona must first ship his gun to a dealer in NJ with an FFL. If the gun does not meet New Jersey's strict limits for firearms (e.g. it has a collapsible stock) , then the dealer FFL will not let me have the gun. This has been in place in Federal Firearms Act of 1934. No pro-gun organization is advocating for the repeal of this law. I believe you mean straw purchases. Again, there are already laws against these, and nobody is advocating that these laws should be repealed. *Sigh* Already laws regarding these (obviously). Nobody is advocating the sale of gun to children or convicted felons. In conclusion. You OP was attacking a strawman, and you have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have no understanding of gun laws that are already in place.
The 2nd is the shortest and most succinct of the amendments, just reading it once would be enough to understand why people would oppose all gun control.
The 1934 NFA violates the constitution as explained in Heller. Most pro gun groups are opposed to the tax on machine guns and the current ban on those made after 1986. so you are wrong-pro gun groups want to get rid of that idiocy
Why shouldn't crazy people be allowed to own firearms? Troiiani already had a thread on it but go ahead.
If I have to explain the problem with your question you would never grasp it anyway. Let's just say Common Sense.
No, you're trying to say they are more dangerous when statistically speaking are just as likely as the black population to commit a crime with said firearm. Should we also ban them from owning firearms?
I predict the word "racist" being used soon. What is it called when you're biased against crazy people?
Do not ever attempt to speak for me, I said no such thing and you are obviously not qualified to even guess what my words mean. But to answer your question; even though the two groups have nothing to do with each other, Convicted Felons that are black should have the same rules that those that are white, brown or purple have just as blacks that are not Convicted Felons should also have the same rules, not really complicated.
not all, I support banning guns from the court room, airplanes, I support people not being able to walk into a bank with gun in hand like speech, gun use that incites violence or mass panic can be a crime I support free speech, but not yelling fire in a theater or bomb on a plane too .
When some anti-American contingent comes after my property armed with fully auto weapons...Where can I get mine? OOPS too late.
*sigh* why shouldn't crazies be allowed to own firearms, are they not citizens? Are they less than human thus not earning the humanly rights given to us? Let's hear it. I'm waiting. You've yet to tell us why.
Crazy (mentally ill) is not synonymous with dangerous. ADHD, autism, ocd, are mental illnesses but people with them are not dangerous. Even most people with bipolar or depression are not dangerous. Few people have the serious (and rare) mental illnesses that could cause them to be dangerous. There's one big problem with "common sense" gun control - "common sense" is often wrong.
I have to agree. I have read every word in the Constitution and nowhere does it say words to the effect "This document doesn't apply to anyone convicted of a felony or simply accused of domestic violence", yet sometime in the past, I'm sure with cries of "Common sense legislation" and "It's for the children" the right was taken away, meaning it was never a right in the first place, and we now have 2 distinct classes of citizens, on with the protection of the Constitution and one without. And if you insist on saying it is common sense for public safety to prohibit a felon from owning a gun then why is there no common sense legislation to prohibit a convicted drunk driver from owning a car?
When they are a danger to themselves or others they should not have access to guns. I am sure that is too complicated so hence that is all you get. Once again Common Sense should have been all the information you needed but I guess that is also outside the skill set.
Not when a professional )a Doctor) says you are not safe to yourself or others. Always find it interesting that Some are stuck on the law not allowing some to have access to guns due to a mental illness, it makes me wonder why some people are afraid to deal with that issue, if one is not moonbat crazy why would one have an issue with something that does not relate to them.............
It does relate to all of us, they are a citizen just like you and I, the constitution doesn't make exceptions.
Go for it, that is what groups of people/citizens often do get legislatures to pass laws, some are based on common sense some not so much. I will point out that those same legislatures often pass laws that defy Common Sense, an example is that here in Texas was have some fairly good laws and most are based on good old Common Sense yet we still have a laws in some cities requiring the wearing of a helmet yet we have state and even those same cities that do not require a person riding a motorcycle to wear a helmet, something is just not right there. - - - Updated - - - All rights have limits and restrictions, you need to learn to understand that Fact.
