So is our rate of knife homicide and bludgeoning homicide. Our gun homicide rate is also far, far higher than that of the two European nations with liberal gun laws: Estonia and the Czech Republic. The problem isn't guns. It's wealth inequality, systematic racism, and failed prohibitionist policies. Banning guns would make those problems worse. Most mass shootings use handguns. Rifles are used in a very small number of crimes, and the AR-15 is actually less deadly than most common hunting rifles. I don't think Assault Weapons Bans are "evil", but they are certainly misguided-- they are laws targeting common firearms that are rarely used in crimes on the basis of what liberals think "looks scary". I don't oppose them because they violate my gun rights... I oppose them because they are stupid, pointless laws that hassle law-abiding citizens for no good reason.
if we banned them federally it will keep them out of states where it is already banned like california. but then you look at paris where the entire country banned them, and they still smuggled it in. so only donald trump is making a good argument?
Donald Trump is making the argument that we should suspend fundamental human rights on the basis of suspicion with no due process. He's fascist scum.
i don't understand what is fascist here, in England they recently had a politician die from gun violence. England is an anti gun country. isn't it more fascist to ban rights from our second amendment?
I explained why it was fascist: he is trying to suspend human rights to his political enemies on the basis of unsubstantiated suspicions. He is denying people due process rights. I don't understand your question. I would argue that gun control is always morally wrong, but it isn't necessarily fascist.
Yes and no. Germany's gun control laws were very strict before Hitler, and when he came to power he actually loosened them-- except for "unreliable persons" like Jews and Communists. He systematically disarmed citizens of countries the Nazis conquered.
Trump wants to stop them from coming here to buy guns in the first place. It is the left that wants to import hundreds of thousands of them, then stick them on watch lists and take away their guns. The question isn't why do we allow terrorists to buy guns, the question is why do we let them in the country in the first place.
Effectively yes. Hitler recognized that arms are power, and so he sought to disarm populations that were naturally aligned against him (Jews, native pops in any conquered state, etc.) while he generally loosened policies for "loyal" German citizens. However they still maintained a requirement for gun permits with a short duration so that they had to be renewed, but rifles and shotguns were generally deregulated under Hitler.
Unless there has been some new comment on the subject made by Trump that I'm not yet familiar with, you're quite mistaken. While there are other issues with a ban (even temporary) on immigration of followers of a particular religion, it doesn't violate their due process rights. A violation of due process means that, basically, someone has been denied their rights without the formal processed due them by law. For such a ban to violate rights, you'd first have to show that foreigners have a RIGHT TO immigrate. They don't.
<Mod Edit> When your precious "gun rights" actually do a damn thing, like stop the NSA from violating your Fourth Amendment right, you can come talk to me about "gun rights."
If you dont see the connection there is nothing I can write that will connect the dots for you. If the television doesnt turn on there is no need to fiddle with the rabbit ears.
He is supporting the Democrats' scheme to prohibit guns to the people on the "no fly list" and has convinced the NRA to go along with it. I'm not talking about immigrants; I'm talking about American citizens, and if this passes, I'm going to be talking about a lot of American citizens.
Then stop playing if you are upset with the fact that you cannot win on your own. A motor vehicle can just as easily maul fifty human beings, especially if it is driven into a crowd of people that cannot move out of the way. Do you dispute that fact? The obvious question of "so what?" must be asked with regard to the above. What difference does it make to the discussion? Anything that is misused can harm others. If you are tired of such, come down harder on those most prone to misusing legal products.
The homicide rate in general is higher in the united states than in any other nation. Why do you feel the need to focus exclusively on the homicides that involve a firearm, rather than homicides in general? Because it will do no good. The homicide rate for the united states, whether limited specifically to firearms or not, will always be higher than any other country. Do not pretend that new laws will do anything to change that fact. Do not lie to others that new laws will do anything to change that fact. Mass shootings with firearms such as the AR-15 are very isolated events, they are not the norm. Nationally they account for a statistically insignificant number of deaths annually. At the very best, all mass shootings added together, they contribute to one percent of the annual homicide rate. - - - Updated - - - Discussing a matter does not amount to supporting the matter.
Yeah, I just don't see the entire point of ISIS being "let's diminish one of their constituinal rights".
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. In my opinion, a firearm is a machine designed to kill. It has no other function. Killing machines that can perform the task on a large scale (grenades, machine guns, nuclear weapons, etc) ought to be banned. Most of the world and a sizeable chunk of the American public sees it this way.
And what would happen to those countries that destroyed all of their weapons and disbanded their military? The same thing that happens to a disarmed populace. The aggressors in nature would feast on their bones.
Like I said before, if you don't see ISIS wanting to destroy our freedoms, there is no point in me explaining it. But recently in the news, 49 people were mowed down by ISIS for the crime of being gay. Here in the United States you have the freedom to be openly gay without being arrested, imprisoned, thrown off rooftops or cornered in a bar and mass murdered. Can you tell us why ISIS killed these people if it has nothing to do with taking our freedoms? Seems to me ISIS took the ultimate freedom of 49 people but Ill wait for your explanation as to why ISIS isn't doing what I am saying. Maybe we can see it from where you are coming from.
