What regultions/controls do you Gun Grabbers want

and I blame you for not allowing students to go into classrooms armed.

I bet if you asked any of the many dead that have been shot in these mass murders in your gun free zones if they would have liked to be armed prior to being shot, I'm guessing the answers would be unanimous.

You want fish in a bucket, and you got your fish in a bucket. Congratulations.

 

You forgot "being rich".

 

Well yeah - if you're rich you can always hire armed bodyguards. Gun control doesn't affect their security - only ours. Only mine.

The inner cities force fascist policy on rural areas. We have no voice. Competitive federalism is the only form of government congruent with liberty: give local populations complete control over their internal policy.

 

I am not sure what is causing these mass shootings
But i doubt it is a shortage of guns
Among other things, these shooters all seem deranged
And deranged people are not usually thinking real clearly
Which is kinda the problem
So i dont think they would be more rational if faced with more guns

Besides which.... We apparently already have about 350 million guns
How many more guns do we need?

 

Nice. I heartily recommend the Swiss model for the United States.

 

You might want to start with letting sane people have guns. Just a thought, since you obviously can't keep guns out of the hands of the crazies. That way you don't have anymore fish in a barrel, which you don't quite seem to understand.

Your gun free zone had a gun! Oh noes!!!! Well how about making a double gun free zone? That ought to work, right? Or maybe a triple gun free zone?

At what point do you consider the possibility that people intent on murder don't care about committing a crime? When does that razzle dazzle moment happen? Maybe when the politicians like Obama that want people to not have guns decide to tell the secret service that their service is no longer needed.

Sorry, but I think you are dead wrong on wanting fewer guns. I know the logic is simple enough to understand. But it's a bit too simplistic. I know what it is.

"What if there were no guns? If there were no guns, nobody would be killed with guns!"

That's the extent of your logic, and it is as pollyannish as you can possibly get. Sorry, but your utopia ain't happening in the states. Maybe on gilligan's island, but not in a country that already has plenty of guns.

 

Open carry nationwide.

- - - Updated - - -

Bayonets are weapons of mass destruction.

- - - Updated - - -

Your message presents the quality of your analysis on topics in general.

 

Not to mention misogynistic to all the women out there that own guns.

Not that the US has plenty of guys with sports cars, hair transplants, $400 shoes.

Not to be misogynistic as well, women have their breast jobs, botox and $400 handbags.

Guess that means 90% of us are trying to have bigger genitalia.

 

Oh my,
You have read a lot into my comments that i did not say and do not feel

But as far as letting sane people have guns
I do hope that at least a few of those 350 million guns are already in the hands of sane people

For me personally
I choose not to live my life with a concealed carry every day
Just in case
So far, it is a decision i have not regretted
Otoh
You seem like a fine fellow and i mostly have no interest in whether or not you feel it is important to carry a gun

But i aoso feel that one wonderful thing about this country is our ability to choose how we live
And i would like the option to live in a community with like minded people who also prefer fewer guns

 

That's fine. I just hope you are aware that those communities are the prime targets for maniacs looking for easy targets.

 

Obviously, this is no longer an on topic discussion.

 

For the 3rd time.....Nope. Just as YOU cannot tell ME what "enumerated powers".allowed for making drunk driving illegal.

 

Congress has no power over state laws concerning drunken driving, so why would they be enumerated for non-existent authority? Unless of course it's on federal property, and that's pretty clear.

The Federal government was never given any power to regulate the right to keep and bear arms. Intentionally.

 

THAT is total nonsense. H&K, Sig, FN, CZ, Bersa, Rossi, IWI, Beretta, Taurus, Glock, Daewoo, Citadel, Chiappa, FEG, Firestorm, Girsan, Uberti, Steyr, Zastava. That's a very partial list of handgun manufacturers only that are foreign. Where you people get these ideas?

And background checks for a passport? Really?

 

How so? A commenter made a statement about why a citizen couldn't own a tank and was proven wrong. Very much on topic.

 

Probably from the same place he/she thinks unarmed citizens are tackling mass murderers bare handed and stopping them.

 

Blaming us? Really? He's a quote from one of your favorite leftists. "What difference does it make." That's Hillary Clinton if you didn't recognize it.

 

It' not federal jurisdiction, it's state law. End of that discussion.

 

I already said that! /sulk

 

It did probably warrant repeating considering how he's stuck on the idea. Besides great minds think alike.

 

Exactly...nor does it have the power to "Regulate" fire arms...yet you are asking ME to provide YOU with this data. I have repeatedly told you I cannot, for the very reasons you state concerning drunk driving. Yet criminal background checks are used for firearms, and drunk driving is illegal.

I would hope this is clear enough to allow this thread to continue without pointless disreaction.

- - - Updated - - -

It has nothing to do with the actual topic.

 

I'm not sure what you're "nope"ing. Are you saying that congress may enact laws beyond the scope of its enumerated powers? Or are you saying that one of congress' enumerated powers allow it to restrict the acquisition, keeping, and bearing of arms by the people of the several states? Maybe you can clarify.

None of congress' enumerated powers allow it to make drunk driving a federal crime.

 

No, that is not true.

And even Constitutional rights have inherent restrictions upon them. There is NO ONE who can do whatever they please; and nothing in the Constitution validates such a view or behavior.

We have a major public safety crisis over our heads and firearms are weaved into it. Correcting the issue requires political 'will'... not so much any altering of the U.S. Constitution.

 

Damn dude...you asked the question in the first place.

What part of "NOPE" is confusing you?

 

I see. So you're affirming that congress has no power to enact gun control legislation, which means that any federal gun control laws would be unconstitutional and illegal.