Non Gun Owners talking about guns...

Nonsense. A significant percentage of you would like guns to be banned outright, and you know it. According to a 2008 Gallup poll, about 20% of people, meaning a majority of self-described liberals, do not believe individuals have the right to bear arms.

Given that reality, we are from from paranoid when we assume that the goal of many on the left is to eventually ban guns. Considering the fact that you guys control the media and education, it is reasonable for us to oppose any potential progress toward banning firearms.

 

it was enacted to address unintended abuses by previous gun laws and to protect gun owners from unneccessary prosecutions relating to travel with guns.

 

Wrong.

The Bill of Rights ensure personal freedoms and restrict the government from interfering in such.

Why do you continue to ignore facts about the Bill of Rights? Do you think the 2A got lost and stumbled into the BoR?

 

If that were true, laws would be based around severe penalties for those illegally using or in possession of firearms. Such is not the case.

If they made a concerted effort to put all gang members behind bars for life, our homicide rate would drop below 1.5 per 100k.

 

no, that was the main bill that was going to pass anyway I specifically asked about the mid night surprise poison pill that was improperly attached to the MVFOPA

 

u asked about the Hughes Amendment.

- - - Updated - - -

you want to make membership in a gang punishable by life without parole?

 

i did ask about the hughes amendment that had one purpose-to derail the bill by banning machine guns made after the date of the amendment from being owned by private citizens. That was clearly not motivated by any crime control desire since there had been no crimes committed with privately owned legal machine guns in almost 50 years

 

prove it

LOL!!!! i saw your caveat there.

"legally owned" machine guns.

how about ones illegally owned?

 

What about them? I think the answer to this question would actually support OUR position rather than yours.

 

For violent crimes? Absolutely.

Our murder rate would be the same as pre-invasion Europe if we did.

 

At a recent party I had what turned into an argument with a person on this topic who was angered at me for being so dismissive about the event and her position was 'we have to do something because nothing is not acceptable'. When I asked what should we do...the person had no tangible answer...just that we must do something. Thinking about this some it is obvious that politicians are responding because constituents demand that 'something' be done. So politicians throw out nonsense and never follow up on any of it because none of it is a solution to anything. Just as with most any issue today there are common sense choices which must be in place...like 10 year old kids can't buy a gun, or drive a car, or drink alcohol, or smoke cigarettes, etc. Regarding guns, all the common sense stuff should be in place, and if not, put it in place. Idiots keep blaming the NRA but the NRA does not make the laws of this nation...they provide input. And IMO their input is valuable but it's Congress' and Presdent's job to make sure our laws have common sense and actually solve problems...

 

Show us where, in the original united states constitution, it specified that the rights of the people applied only to white males, and not anyone else.

 

If what you're implying is true why did they have to amend it to include blacks and women.

 

To combat individual states acting in bad faith by victimizing minorities by maintaining slavery when it was abolished, and enacting arbitrary restrictions that preventing the full enjoyment of constitutional rights.

None of the above, however, proves conclusively that the founding fathers fully intended for the united states constitution to protect the rights of only those that were rich and white.

 

machine guns are too dangerous for regular folk to simply buy at Walmart.

their incredibly dangerous nature warrants extra regulations for their possession

 

The NRA CONTROL the GOP. Vote against their wishes and you get a NRA backed challenger next time you come up for re-election instead of a cake walk

 

Do you have any evidence of this claim (what I believe to be a completely FALSE accusation)?

 

Of course they didn't abolish slavery for another 80 years......that's what they meant, right? Fight a bloody war about it but they that's what they meant. Sure, got it.

 

What does that have to do with our discussion? In fact, if you did any research you would find that it was gun control laws that were "racist." Stop listening to your politicians and think for yourself.

http://www.theacru.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/ACRU_GunControl_v3b.pdf

America’s founding fathers understood that the right to own firearms—the right
to use effectual force to defend oneself, one’s family, one’s neighborhood, one’s
nation—was the difference between a mere subject and a free, independent, equal
citizen. The United States was designed to enjoy a government of, by, and for the
people, as President Lincoln put it. To that end every citizen was entitled, and
often required, to own firearms. On the frontier, defending the community was
the responsibility of every man.
For black communities, however, the threat has rarely come from invading
Redcoats or marauding Indians. Few Americans remember today, as this ACRU
paper reveals, that the first task of the Ku Klux Klan was to disarm the black
population in the South. Even fewer know that citizen militias repelled white
mobs attacking black neighborhoods in many Northern cities in the days before
the Civil War. On at least two occasions, those militias were composed entirely of
black gun owners. Few Americans realize that during the freedom struggles of the
1960s, civil rights workers of all races were protected by organized black militias
in at least three Southern states.
In spite of this heritage of responsible and effective use of firearms, equal
citizenship has frequently been denied to black Americans through the use of gun
control laws. Such laws were used to keep firearms out of the hands of AfricanAmericans—to
deny their very equality as human beings—from the earliest
colonial days through the end of Jim Crow in 1965. Many would argue that even
today, blacks continue to suffer disproportionate harm from gun control laws, as
major cities deny legal firearms to the residents of high-crime urban neighborhoods.

 

Here you go

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...48aad8-ace6-11e2-a198-99893f10d6dd_story.html

 

So, the NRA decides to back another candidate, and this woman is angry. This proves absolutely nothing. Your accusations sound more like paranoia and conspiracy theories with no hard data to back them up.

 

Opinion noted and rejected as being based on a lack of information sufficient to accurately make such a claim.

'incredibly dangerous" is a fraudulent claim and rejected on that ground

 

How about making an effort to actually refute what was said. what you have done is intellectually lazy and a cop out

 

He cannot refute it, that's why. It's all true.

 

It is central to the discussion but not surprised your not following.
Like you think for yourself, sure
Your quote is from

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=10196

Compared to

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3247

Which doesn't have an agenda

https://www.aclu.org/second-amendment