Expert Actress on Gun Control

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bon_Croix
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No one said 100%, but that is the problem. If you get your assault weapons ban and it cuts school shooting by 25%. Liberals will then come back for another round then another and another and another. Liberals never stop trying to remove an individuals liberty. They won’t do it all at once but little by little. That is why I am unwilling to give an inch.
 
JanSobieskiIII said:
Unfortunately, sometimes the wrong people get dead. But that’s a price free countries that believe in self defense should be willing to accept.
Click to expand...
It is a free country, but with limits when one’s person’s freedom becomes a threat. We do have self-defense, but people are not allowed to drive tanks, plant a mine field and patrol with a rocket launcher. No one is arguing that there should be no right to self-defense does not mean unlimited right to a certain amount of firepower.
As such access to the tools to do so is protected under the right to self defense. You can’t say someone has a right to defend their own life and then say they don’t have the right to the tools necessary to effectively do so.
Click to expand...
What is necessary cannot be left to individual opinion. And yes, society most definitely can protect citizenry by limiting what is allowed and what is not. Except for a few paranoid extremists, this is not an issue of what is actually needed for protection, but about protecting a hobby. That much is quickly made clear when conversing with any gun enthusiast.
 
Last edited:
JanSobieskiIII said:
What I don’t agree with is obtusificating the clear wording to try and say it allows extensive gun control legislation as it stands. It doesn’t.
Click to expand...
That is your opinion, as is your definition of “extensive.” The right to bear arms secretly is not protected and a national registry and database does not contradict the Second Amendment. The right bear arms does not include the right to trade arms, so the right to re-selling guns and the whole gun show thing is not protected.
 
pnewton said:
is not protected and a national registry and database does not contradict the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...
A registration would be worthless, you’d never even get half of what’s out there on a registry.
pnewton said:
include the right to trade arms, so the right to re-selling guns and the whole gun show thing is not protected.
Click to expand...
I think that’s just a given that people are allowed to willingly buy and sell their own property, you may be able to argue that all those sales need to be run through an FFL so that a background check can be completed. But again, without knowing exactly who has what (impossible to ever accomplish) that’s completely unenforceable.
 
Making drugs illegal is in and of itself moral. A gun registration is amoral. It is neither moral or immoral. Therefore, efficiency is what makes it have merit or not. Spending tons of time and money on something ineffective is dumb.
 
JanSobieskiIII said:
I think that’s just a given that people are allowed to willingly buy and sell their own property,
Click to expand...
You cannot use a gun you sell to defend yourself. If what is really wanted is the right to self-defense, and not a hobby, then having any trade and re-selling highly restricted would not be a problem. Your defensiveness, and that of every gun owner I know, tells me that self-defense is not the primary reason for owning multiple guns.

But no, you do not have the right to sell your own property. You have the right to sell some property. For example, if you get a prescription for Oxycontin, you do not have the right to sell it to a neighbor.
 
JanSobieskiIII said:
Spending tons of time and money on something ineffective is dumb.
Click to expand...
I find it far more lacking in gray matter arguing over something that may not be totally effective (lacking divinity, you do not know), while kids are being killed. I find it even more of a scandal of how much of this comes from people who consider themselves pro-life.
 
Expecting something to be totally effective and knowing it won’t be effective at all are totally different things. A gun registration would not have stopped a single one of these shootings.
 
JanSobieskiIII said:
Expecting something to be totally effective and knowing it won’t be effective at all are totally different things. A gun registration would not have stopped a single one of these shootings.
Click to expand...
I do not agree with your conjecture.
 
That’s because you don’t really grasp the gravity of what you’re trying to do and the level of distrust the average American has for the government.

The stare of New York couldn’t even get people to comply with the safe act. And that’s not exactly a bastion of right wing gun nuts.
 
Sandy hook - stolen guns
Texas Church one - Air Force didn’t properly report his criminal history, so he wasn’t prevented from purchasing
Every other one - no previous criminal record, no reason to deny a sale
Florida- fbi dropped the ball after he was reported.

Registry would have done nothing for these
 
That’s not what I’m saying. I’m just saying you’re ideas hinge on compliance, and there won’t be much if any compliance with a gun registration in the United States. It’s a waste of time and resources.
 
Just have to look to Canada and it`s failed and very expensive long gun registry. I voluntarily registered my two long guns and bought some that had to be registered when purchased. And all that money spent doing that (info collected) is supposedly shredded.
i bet back in the old days that bump stock would felt nice on a m-1
 
Last edited:
Exactly. There’s roughly 300 million firearms in the US. No way in hell to keep track of that without draconian legislation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top