Yeah, I'd rather wait 10-15 minutes for authorities to show up and protect me from someone who doesn't care about laws or life than being able to protect myself.
Should guns be banned?
- Thread starter GsxrBots
- Start date
I deal with unlawful carry all the time. You can't outlaw guns. 1) It's unconstitutional, 2) laws don't prevent people from unlawfully having weapons.
it would be nice to see the federal government make palm print identification mandatory on every gun sold in this country so only the person who's palm print is on file with the FBI and purchased the gun legally can actually discharge that particular weapon.
it would not eliminate our gun problem but would surely be a step in the right direction. people would still be able to own guns and any gun found without palm print identification would be considered illegal.
could even have the federal gov. give ppl a credit for turning in their current gun towards the ppurchase of a gun with a palm print identification and make the purchase a tax write off.
it works for Bond....Bond's New Smart Gun In Skyfall: Science Fiction in the News
Is that really possible? Sounds like a plan if it is. However if it raises the cost of a gun then would that make gun ownership only for the wealthy? (see what I did there? True Liberal noodling
), Anyway, would that also create a federal listing of gun owners so they know where to go if they did decide to disarm the populace?
Why do folks keep thinking the guvmint is all so powerful?
The British once laughed at peasants and said same thing. And look what happened, a country was born.
If the Military here got into a fight with the US populace the military would eventually lose.
Basic 'cave dwellers' as some call them have been doing quite well against our army in a place called Afghanistan. The citizens of this country are better armed and equipped than the Taliban. Armed citizens far outnumber the amount of troops the govt could muster. We'd kick their ass.
The most important right the founders gave us is free speech and after that the next one was designed to protect it. The right to keep and bear arms.
......
Correct in a sense. New purchases are registered by serial number on the form 4473. But when the background check phone call is made only rifle or pistol is spoken. The 4473 is kept on premise of dealer that does the transfer and only if said dealer closes do those forms get passed to ATF. ATF would have to visit each and every FFL holder if they wanted to know exactly what you own. A natl database or gun registry is unconstitutional as well as our govt realizes the danger of one. The perfect example is Nazi Germany. They had registries and it was very easy to round up all gun owners. As anti gun as some think our govt is they have at least resisted the natl registry to protect us from worst case scenarios like an invasion by our enemies.
Here is a simple motto for LAW ABIDING gun owners....
Id rather have a gun and never need it, then to need a gun and not have it.
Id rather have a gun and never need it, then to need a gun and not have it.
Argilbertson
Registered
If we are required by law to register our motorvehicles, I see no valid argument for why we shouldn't register our firearms. Simple as that.
In fact, I think a system similar to our Vehicle Title setup would be close to perfect in terms of tracking...it closes the private sale loophole nicely and allows for a more direct link between the weapon and the responsible party, without being terribly intrusive (yes, anything is more instrusive than nothing, but submitting a form in the mail when you purchase or sell a weapon isn't too much to ask).
In fact, I think a system similar to our Vehicle Title setup would be close to perfect in terms of tracking...it closes the private sale loophole nicely and allows for a more direct link between the weapon and the responsible party, without being terribly intrusive (yes, anything is more instrusive than nothing, but submitting a form in the mail when you purchase or sell a weapon isn't too much to ask).
masterblaster
Registered
Driving a vehicle on a public road is a privilege, owning a gun is a Constitutional right. I think banning video games and Facebook would have more of an impact than anything else, while we are at it we should censor all violence off of tv and in the movies, we could get rid of all the books and magazines that glorify violence, we could censor the news media to stop reporting violence, register reporters so they don't report any violence, get rid of the "if it bleeds it leads" mentality in the MSM by fining any reporter that reports a violent story, have a government approved psychologist at every media outlet to censor anything that might set off some nut case, cleanse the internet of all references to violence, ban motorcycles because 5ooo people a year die on them. How far do you want to go Argil?
jphilipson
Registered
Actually freedom of movement is a constitutional right as well - Freedom of movement under United States law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So regulating driving (a form of movement) is no different than regulating different forms of guns.
Free to move not drive. Don't put words into it. The right to drive or own a car is not enumerated in the bill of rights either. Regulation of vehicles we cannot complain about.
A natl registry for firearms is unconstitutional and prevented by it.
Argilbertson
Registered
Technically speaking, owning a gun isn't a right either, unless you happen to be part of a well regulated militia...just sayin. 
Argilbertson
Registered
Your post kinda confuses me here, since you go all crazy about banning anything remotely violent, when all I suggested is that it's not really all that unreasonable for us to consider the idea of registerring ownership of a firearm...I'm not suggesting banning anything, so where's the connection? Keep in mind as well that psychological studies have shown no conclusive correlation between exposure to violent media and a subject's violent behavior levels.
gueroaero
Registered
Don't go quotin' facts now, it confuses the bleeding heart liberals.
Last year's tally for murder:
Chicago=432 Chicago crime rates and statistics - NeighborhoodScout
Phoenix=119 Phoenix AZ crime rates and statistics - NeighborhoodScout
jphilipson
Registered
So driving is not a form of movement?
and the 2nd amendment simply reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Being regulated does not infringe your right to bear arms. It just means that good Americans will need to take a few extra steps to help ensure that other good Americans are safe.
Let's get into that a bit more. "Arms", by definition: "A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms."
So according the the 2nd Amendment, citizens should be free to keep and bear any "Arms", i.e. any weapon. So, if you are true supporter of the 2nd amendment, then you'd be OK with your neighbors building and keeping nuclear and chemical weapons? Bottom line is that the 2nd amendment is outdated and no longer applies to our modern society. We have standing armies now, so the need for an armed militia is no longer an issue.
That said, I'm not "anti-gun". I think Americans should be able to own guns. I just don't see why people need assault rifles and 30 round pistol clips? I don't see why some people think their right to own guns is more important than other peoples' right to life? What's the big deal if they are regulated? If you're lawful and good person, you will still get your guns.
masterblaster
Registered
Why dont you try...... just reading.... rights are not something that should be taken for granted, never give up your rights, if you do you or your kids will be a slave someday.
District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
McDonald v. Chicago - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What are the Federalist Papers and why are they important to the issue of the 2nd Amendment
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
McDonald v. Chicago - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What are the Federalist Papers and why are they important to the issue of the 2nd Amendment
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Technically speaking, owning a gun isn't a right either, unless you happen to be part of a well regulated militia...just sayin.
An armed society...is a polite society.....
gueroaero
Registered
Absolutely. Although I would argue everyone being able to afford nukes if they were available, but belt fed machine guns etc. yes. If you have to argue "but why hi capacity magazines?", you have never fired a weapon at a moving target in a high stress environment. If you have, then you understand perfectly well why more is better in defense. Technically speaking, one .22 caliber bullet can kill a person; if your life or those of your loved ones is on the line, you don't want to "suppose" that the threat has been stopped. 13 rounds of .45 ACP, sounds about right. As a soldier, I defended the rights and interests of this nation. if you choose to be subdued without a fight, you have that right. But you DO NOT have the right to take away my means to defend lives of those I love, and myself.
Similar threads
