It's 1994 all over again.

Post Reply New Topic

Already de facto banned, if you want one you've got literally months worth of paperwork and background checks in store, plus the gun itself is going to cost a minimum of $5,000 or so. They are simply not used in crime, the amount of red tape, money and scrutiny involved, not to mention the impracticality of the weapons themselves, makes them a non-factor in violence. Name one crime committed with a legally owned fully automatic weapon; I'll wait.



Depending upon the state, you get all or part of your wish already. At the minimum you're going to get a background check when you buy a gun, and the local law varies on the rest. Interestingly, none of the extra restrictions correlates with a reduction in gun crime.



Your sentence actually illustrates part of the problem, you need a license to drive a car, not own one, and you already need a license in most states to carry a gun, or conceal one upon your person. The other part here is that a license is an entry in a database, and while there are people who don't like cars, as far as I'm aware there aren't any radical anti car groups out there pushing for legislation to ban certain makes and models who might use registration records as a later confiscation list, as is the situation with guns. There's also the Constitutional issue, as the Constitution doesn't grant a right but rather codifies an existing one, and a "right" that requires permission from the state to exercise isn't a right at all.

Has there ever been a more cynical intellectually cowardly politician than Obama? How did he come to this conclusion? By testing it in front of some focus group and seeing what polls well? I'm convinced that's how he came to his current opinion on gay marriage. Anything and everything is a game of politics and image with Barry, he's obsessed with power.

Romney isn't any different by the way,

As an American, I would just like it noted that there are many, many Americans who do not own guns and have no interest in them whatsoever. Those who enjoy them are generally more vocal, that's all.

We are more vocal because a certain percentage of the population wants to take our guns away.

I don't own a gun anymore, but when I lived in a crappy neighbourhood, I did because I didn't feel safe. I felt much safer knowing that if someone broke into my apartment I could pump him full of 9mm hollow points.

If a criminal wants a gun, he will get one, just like a man who want heroin will find that too. Banning guns only takes them away from law abiding citizens.

Nonsense. This is an argument the NRA uses to scare people into opposing any and all types of gun regulation.

what if the gov't simply declared ammo [and all of its constituents] to be a controlled substance, like plutonium?

So all the people calling for this gun or that accessory to be made illegal are just figments of our collective imagination? We've seen where this road ends, we won't become another UK or Australia.

Did that stop the alcohol trade back in the 20's, or the drug trade currently? I imagine that quite a few people also might turn in their now contraband ammunition at a slightly higher velocity than the government would like.

Also, are you really going to seriously propose making copper, lead, brass, nitric acid, cellulose, etc controlled substances? I'm sure that would really help the economy, and be completely useless to boot. I assure you, ammunition is not difficult to fabricate, even if you discount the billions of rounds currently in circulation.

Or Kalifornia.

you're a sharp person, so would you tell me then, in your opinion, which of those substances, if they were taken out of circulation, would put the most serious crimp in making practical gun ammo? IOW one wouldn't have to restrict them ALL, just key ones.

There should be no ban of any type. We need less regulations, not more.

its impossible, the chemsitry of all the alternative propellants are so simple that you would have housewifes buying large amounts of controlled substances, the admin, the hassle and the futility of such actions in the light of how many alternatives there are.

you would have to ban hydrogenperoxide,
any and all acids
most nitrates

and that is for one of the few dozen workable propellant alternatives.
this is a bare minimum of controlled substances required since there are so many substitutes when you knwo the chemistry.

and i dont mind reasonable limitations on gun ownership, there are certain aspects of danish gun control that should be abolished because of the sheer lack of practical effect, but to limit the freedom of law abiding citizens.

registered guns, background checks and reason to have the gun (member of a shooting club, hunting license, collector(they can even get dispensation on on fully automatics), all good precautions.

going in the opposite extreme, what if EVERYBODY were armed, with compulsory gun training starting in elementary school? where would we be then?

i think its switzerland where every citizen is required to own a gun, automatic rifles as far as i can tell. sig 550,
they also have one f the highest murder and suicide rates in europe(involving guns)
still far lower than the us though but there are probably population densities and many other variables to take into account.

there is a golden road somewhere in between, the only crimes where actual gun proliferation has any tangible effect are passion crimes, i think the swiss situation speaks to that.

suicides are easier with a gun, so easy access compounds that.

so [short of martial law] is america's situation hopeless then?

For a Liberal, I'm a little more moderate in regards to guns. The only reason I'm more apathetic towards Gun Control is because in the event of the present regieme bending back the bow too far, I'd want more guns than the defenders of it.

...I can't tell if that's Center-Left or Revolutionary Far-Left.