Discussion in 'Four Corners' started by Smack, Oct 2, 2017.
....against criminals (as I said)
Works like so many other laws, honesty system with a stick should you get caught out. So obviously that'd mean seller limits, but more so you can only have in your possession up to whatever the limit is.
If crime is so bloody high, then pump some funds into the police force to properly deal with it.
These issues of home invaders and home owners being shot is barely heard of anywhere else in the world.
If I had my way, I'd have a full ban on guns everywhere. It would mean police would also not need to be armed. But that's a fantasy that can never be achieved.
that is not even close to the point of the second amendment. It has zero to do with defending oneself. It is all about the people having the power to overthrow the Government if they feel they have failed to do their job.
IT also states it should be a "well regulated militia" Right now it is unregulated, out of control and therefore, unconstitutional.
"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."
shooting animals that cannot defend themselves or fight back isn't sport. It's a massive f**king wank.
I don't give a f**k if animals get shot but don't call it sport. Thats the biggest load of horseshit there is.
A deer eating grass gets mowed down by a semi automatic rifle, real f**king sporting. I don't give a flying f**k about the people who claim to have guns for "sport"
If anything, they should be stripped of their weapons first, because they have no intention to use the weapons for a genuinely reasonable purpose, so are likely to be the first to go postal. f**k them.
But they would only be criminals because they had been cast that way by your proposed new laws.
You can't restrict ammo to subsonic, some animals are hard to kill so need appropriate rounds to do so humanely. Would also pretty much rule out long range target shooting.
I didn't say personal defense, how are you going to defending against tyrannical governments with one single shot weapon per house hold?
So it wasn't satire then?
I don't care what you call it, people hunt pest animals and game animals for food and to test their skill and it is considered a sport. By your examples above you clearly have no idea about firearms and hunting so maybe you should do some research before you get to excited.
What is a genuine reason for a firearm if not sport? Target shooting is also sport.
While I really enjoyed your nonsensical rant you didn't address the point of how someone can be limited to just one firearm? Do people have to choose what sort of animal they want to hunt and just stick to that.
If you want to ban guns just say that and make your case, your half baked idea of people having 1 firearm is just stupid and wouldn't work anywhere let alone the US.
Upon further reading it appears about 45% of the NRA's Revenue (approx 370m pa) comes from its members annual fees ($35) and about another 15-22m from extra donations which has been trending up. Funnily enough they aren't required to disclose corporate donors as they funnel that money into a separate super PAC that doesn't donate directly to politicians and therefore doesn't have the same disclosure requirements (convenient). However the overall figure from corporates is in the 180-200m pa range. More like 50-50 than the majority as i stated above.
You're advocating creating a class of criminals and then violently attacking them.
Sounds a little tyrannical. There are some nut jobs in the militias, but what they base their fears on is exactly the type of thinking that you've demonstrated.
I'd prefer they were proactive instead of reactive. If we take guns from all law abiding citizens away, it won't stop the problem. Mexico has strict gun control and their are roughly 23,000 murders per year.
There is a deeper issue in the US, a lot of people are bat shit insane.
If you have a look at their spending, a significant amount goes to the military. They need to reallocate funds into education, mental health and family care services like CPS, who are horrible.
This is what happens when you rely too much on CNN...
Let's be realistic, a "tyrannical government" is either going to have the support of the army or not, if so, it wouldn't matter what arms Joe Citizen has, he's f**ked.
If not, well, a government without an army is f**ked regardless.
Arguing about the capability of weaponry to perform the intended function of the 2nd amendment is pointless. merkins may as well have muskets.
Yeah just like Vietnam :^)
Good socialist country
Cuba, Afghanistan and Vietnam say hi.
If people are arguing that a single shot rifle per household does not violate the 2a then the argument is going to go back the other way.
You can't just ignore the 2a just because you figure that the military would blow any resistance away, all the people serving in the military are from the general population so I think it more likely that it would fragment into different groups anyway.
I think their whole 2nd amendment thing is the whole reason there are so many nutters there killing each other because it normalises their whole paranoia of the illuminati and new world order and the bilderburg group and the masons and whoever else they think are gonna take their guns away BUT it's their constitution so any solution to their nuttery needs to take this into consideration... as has been mentioned numerous times plenty of other nations with high percentages of gun ownership have very low gun crime statistics... start by trying to see what keeps those countries sane....
What a load of shit.
Separate names with a comma.