What's new
By:

SUCCES! the left winning at banning guns!!!!!!!!!

DutchJazzer said:
why should guns be banned? answer me that. because you will just say tl:dr, if u answered, i will explain further because i gotta simplify it for u
a. because they are weapons?
b. because it is a leading cause of death
Click to expand...
I don't think guns should be banned.
You don't know how to answer questions and think swimming pools are like guns.
You are dumber than I thought after all
 
fishonjazz said:
I don't think guns should be banned.
You don't know how to answer questions and think swimming pools are like guns.
You are dumber than I thought after all
Click to expand...

i am arguing from a banned point of view. because this thread is about banning.
this thread is titled left winning at banning guns.
because of all legislation gun shops in san fran closed, if this trend spreads guns hop everywhere closed slowly but surely leading to a ban.

MVP wants em banned, why i don't know if it because it kills children then why stop at guns. why not go to cars and pools?
to me the benefit of a gun far outweigh the benefits of a pool. and depending on your geographical location access to public transportation etc etc a gun might be more important then a car.

a gun is FAR more important than a pool. so if it is about saving llives. i would rather a pool be banned.

if it is about people not being allowed to have weapons only governments, then its a question of promoting TYRANY and a monopoly on self defense. aka royalty is protected by the gun obama, the pope and the "nazi-queen of england"
The peasants their live is not as valuable as the royals so they dont get the same protection.

which mean not everyman is EQUAL
 
MVP said:
Never said I want them banned. They must be strictly regulated.
Click to expand...

then why argue in this thread, go in the other thread titled murica. this one is about all the regulation leading to an outright BAN. because thats what happened in san fran and in california this might happen stateswidde.
 
Stoked said:
Border thing is just a small part of so many things. I don't want us shipping guns to criminals and causing other deaths. While not American deaths how Mexicans were killed with those weapons? No thanks.

Waiting period, what can be done in 10 days can be done in 3-5. Mental health records must be included.
National registry? No thank you. No way, no how.
Measures to restrict straw man purchases? Depending on the measure's exact wording I could be on board.
I could support a modest increase on ammo taxes. Say an additional 5-7%? Thoughts? Should it be earmarked for something? Like gun awareness programs?

I'd also like to see the loophole closed on gun show sales. And depending on how exactly it was written I might be persuaded to support penalties and/or criminal charges to gun shops that are repeatedly bad in their record keeping and who they sell to and have they sell said weapons. Recently saw an article about 2 gun shops (in Chicago I think) where something like 40% of guns in homicides in that city were bought from these 2 shops.
Click to expand...

question is would this have stopped the mass shootings.
some expert say even with these laws the gunman would have still had access to the guns in legal way. and if you allow more and more regulation and it does not work. it will lead to more and more regulations in effect closing down gun shops :P

btw this is a bigger problem:
https://timelines.latimes.com/deadliest-shooting-rampages/
a list of deadliest mass shootings. most on the list all we see is pictures of the shooter.
 
Siro said:
So state level regulations (and their subdivisions) are new?
Click to expand...

So much for the Right's devotion to the sanctity of local sovereignty. So, then, if I understand it, the power of state/local governments to make laws that reflect local context/mores etc. extends only as far the laws reflect conservative ideology?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top