I am starting to see what I consider contrarian dodging. You want those adjudicated mentally incompetent to be able to own firearms Do you want to limit people to ten rounds
if they are considered safe enough to live freely in or society - then yes they have the right to religion, guns, ect... if they are so mentally ill they can't have their rights, maybe they should be committed for their own safety and others I already said, no to limiting the rounds, have as many bullets as you want, carry as many guns as you want, many clips as you want I am also against concealed carry permits as I think concealed is the polite way to carry and you should not have to ask the government permission to be polite I am against the ar-15 being easy to buy though, like machine guns, they should be harder to buy then hand guns
I am of the beleif that everyone being allowed to own a gun makes even those that do not own a gun safer why, cause then crooks do not know which house they may rob has a gun
I never claimed to. But if your posts are any indication of your education, there seems to be little proof you do either.
I would suggest most people who are active on the gun threads are far more likely to believe my arguments concerning gun rights than yours.
it is fun watching a fan of less freedom and more state power accusing anyone of being lackeys. what i do note is that your anti gun views are based on the fact that you hate the GOP, Trump and the NRA so you push stuff you think will hassle your political enemies. Crime control is just a bogus facade you raise as a pretext to hide your real agenda
Your POV is the one promoting less freedom. Under the “more guns makes us safer” delusion, the public has fewer freedoms, not more. We lead the free world in gun violence. That doesn’t sound like freedom. Kids are afraid to go to school while gun fanatics stock pile weapons of war in their homes waiting for a wild pig invasion that never comes. It’s hysterical if it wasn’t ridiculous. Constitutional law “expert?” Excuse me while I hold my side laughing.
Then demonstrate the evidence of such a claim. Demonstrate how the firearm-related restrictions of the state of California are doing anything to prevent the illegal acquisition of firearms by the criminal element, when even the ATF is admitting that such is not working as intended.
Demonstrate the evidence of such. And yet when the subject is changed from "firearm-related violence" specifically to merely "violence" in general, numerous other countries rank far higher than the united states. Indicating the problem is not firearms, but individuals. Due to the actions of criminals, not those who are engaged in legal behavior. The united states constitution is about protecting the people from government. It does not exist to protect the people from themselves.
I never said that owning a firearm makes an individual more responsible. I simply asked on what do you base your opinion that: "The majority of people carrying guns are ill trained accidents waiting to happen." and you either cannot or will not answer that simple question. By they way, paperwork does not make a person more responsible any more than a fishing license makes someone a better fisherman. Only experience and a desire to be cautious makes a person more responsible with a firearm.
Well, if you’re going to use logic instead of science, I deserve the same consideration. I’m using subjective reasoning and simple observation. I separate licensed carriers from unlicensed. So that remark is for unlicensed carriers of which we now have plenty in our constitutional carry state. The point is, buying a gun doesn’t make you safe. It’s the training and the permit/ license requirements that force the issue of more competent carriers. It’s really quite hilarious listening to gun toters brag how permitted carriers are some of the best examples of second amendment rights done correctly....but as soon as someone comes along and uses that premise as a foundation for fewer gun deaths and gun crimes, now we’re stepping on their rights. That’s absolutely two faced. Your rights are not absolute and it’s constitutional to regulare firearms. Move on. “By they way, paperwork does not make a person more responsible any more than a fishing license makes someone a better fisherman. Only experience and a desire to be cautious makes a person more responsible with a firearm.” That’s incorrect. The paper work needed for my fishing license, hunting license, license to drive and license to carry or permit to construct a house, ALL help back up More competent behavior. The loss of a license is a big motivator to obeying the law and practicing safe habits. NOTHING works better then the threat of loss of practicing your rights. Every right you have, is not absolute and subject to some form of regulation. EVERY ONE. Firearms are no different.
Orwellian is having to listen everyday to a self appointed dictator remind us how great he is and only he has the solution to all our problems.
The number of bullets is irrelevant. It's simple. Bad people want any gun control laws they can get, their ultimate goal is no guns , no bullets.
You oppose gun ownership. Quit pretending. And, yes, a person needs 10+ rounds for plenty of lawful uses. There have been many cases where law enforcement has been in close quarters gun fights, with dozens of rounds fired, and not a single person hit. Firing your weapon in a hot gunfight is not as easy as you think. I've never served in combat (but did serve 10 years) and am not a cop so I've never experienced a gun battle but I've read the stories of those who have and hitting your target with a single round is far, far, less common than is taking many rounds to hit them. So, yes, having available more than 10 rounds is always required in a gun battle. I do like my 1911 I carry every day so I accept the risk of having less than 10 rounds immediately available but that's my choice, not your choice to make for me. Well, career soldiers don't get a say on whether untrained armed civilians help defend our nation from invasion, do they? That is why the Founders were so strongly against a standing army. And the militia reports to the states and not the Federal Government so the state can call them up but no one need call me up if the enemy, China for example, is on my street rounding up those with guns or rounding up their guns. I'll get more of them than they'll get of me before they take me out. I need more for both. What I need for home defense is a belt-fed weapon but I just can't afford to buy one or keep it fed.
You need to turn off the Russian news; you're watching politics in the wrong country. They have the problem you describe but that has nothing to do with the United States. We don't have a dictator.
