Probably because America is a very black and white, either or nation as far as things go and you either have something or you don't. People are smart enough to understand that and to understand that the idea of banning and disarming is the wet dream of every single overreaching authoritarian in the entire world. This isn't like any other country in the world, and their solutions are certainly not our solutions.
There's no middle ground, just an either or that advances to one conclusion or another so it's better to maintain what we have as far as the 2nd, work on the shit that actually matters like mental health and societal well being than try to fight a fight that is utterly wrong to begin with but also is extremely detrimental to peoples' legitimate self defense needs. If the discussion wants to be had about what do we do with our people that's actually a conversation worth having, the gun control one is a catastrophe and pointless.
The Fresh Prince of Baudelaire
Banned at least 10 times. Don't give a fuck, going to keep saying what I want how I want to.
Eat meat. Drink water. Do cardio and burpees. The good life.
He wasn't on a no-fly list, I don't think the California guy was either? It wouldn't have affected those shootings.
What I do give Trump credit for is not glorifying the shooter, calling him murdered/shooter/terrorist in the stuff I saw rather than refering by name. It really irritates me to see a mass murderers face plastered on covers, I feel it just encourages more.
"I only feel two things Gary, nothing, and nothingness."
Watching people, with or without warrant, is different than barring them from flying or purchasing a firearm or any other penalty they may choose to add to the NoFlyFolks.
- - - Updated - - -
The bill, last I saw, had like 2 people backing it. I'm waiting on my third silencer, they were never bought as investments, so I have no vested interest in them being registered, but I just don't see it passing the Press-Mob.
"I only feel two things Gary, nothing, and nothingness."
Good idea to alert someone that they are going to be monitored even more extensively in everything they do.
What better way to catch them doing something illegal than if they know they are being watched?
It could be something as simple as the gun shop saying: "Hey, we can't sell you this gun because you came up on XX watch list. If you feel this was a mistake, call 1-800-XXX-XXXX and ask for more information."
Do people get put on there accidentally because they have a name that is spelled exactly like an actual terrorist suspect? Sure.
Is it so bad and out of control that it would possibly block that legislation? Absolutely not.
Try not to fall back to "denying their constitutional rights" and then give us the real reason you don't like it.
So comparing UK's gun crime to European nations with more guns/ easier access you see an issue?
As it is illegal to by a gun outside of your own state, you're presupposing that it's the lax laws in other states (though even Illinois outside of Chicago has easier laws) that facilitate this. It's nearly entirely illegal activity. So you're falling back to the "in order to stop illegal guns, we have to stop all legal possession", because eventually it may help.Something like 50% of the crimes committed in Chicago are sold in other states, many in Indiana which has lenient laws. So the only way to really stop the spread of guns is to let no one buy them (or very few).
Like drugs, they can be easily transported from nations to our south that run tankers full of products under the radar.Unlike drugs, you can't easily produce guns in a lab in your garage or grow them hidden deep in a forest. Their production is easier to control. So banning guns means the big manufacturers will stop producing them and that will very quickly have an effect. Most of these other laws won't have a real effect because they'll be produced legally then at some point make their way into the hands of people who shouldn't have them (or into places where they shouldn't be).
"I only feel two things Gary, nothing, and nothingness."
Well yeah. Obviously. It's hard for something to be banned (i.e. legally prohibited) within a state, when it is in fact, legally obtainable. Particularly when there's tens of thousands of examples otherwise.
Pro-gun advocates throw around the word "ban" incorrectly all the time. "Obama wants to ban firearms. Hillary wants to ban firearms. De facto bans."
There are no such bans.
Sure, though that's really more of an opinion. I mean a Federal Court must have known the implication of their ruling, and one would think they wouldn't have ruled in such a manner if the outcome was blatantly unconstitutional.How about de facto Constitutional right-violation? Does that work better for you? If it happens to a single person, it's not Constitutional.
Sounds like there are several issues in many of California's counties. Were they just waiting for the litigation to clear? Again, in my opinion, I favor may-issue, but certainly not a never-issue. Connecticut does it right, as I pointed out. Thoroughly screen applicants, and hand out licenses when everything is clear.There won't be that many denials anymore because people in those counties know they won't be able to get one.
Eat yo vegetables
I don't think people should have access to semi automatic weapons, handguns included. Your average dip shit person shouldn't have the ability to fire off 30-40-50 rounds in less than a min. Bolt action rifles for hunting, breech and pump shotguns for hunting/home defense.
Rudimentary creatures of blood and flesh. You touch my mind, fumbling in ignorance, incapable of understanding.
You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it.
Sovereign
Mass Effect
Rudimentary creatures of blood and flesh. You touch my mind, fumbling in ignorance, incapable of understanding.
You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it.
Sovereign
Mass Effect
Is it any different from the gun-control advocates that say it's not a gun ban if it's not a total gun ban? It's banning guns, it's a gun ban. An assault weapons ban is still banning guns, just not all of them. Selective Gun Bans still ban guns, and are obviously a big infringement on gun rights and purchases, if you find that acceptable so be it, but it's disingenuous to say it's not banning.
"I only feel two things Gary, nothing, and nothingness."
there are many things I disagree on with Larry Correa but when it comes to gun control - he is always on point.
http://monsterhunternation.com/2016/...a-human-right/