I am curious to know who and where there is a policy on the table to ban all guns?
Unless you can produce such a proposal that has a punchers chance in hell of becoming a law
quit mischaractorizing the stance of people that see a need to have weapons regulated.
It further proves you are regurgitating the rhetoric of Pro-Gun Lobbyists.
thank you/
///////////////////////////
just to be clear
People of color and the majority of US citizens pre - Civil Rights Movement viewed the state governments of the Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia,Tennessee, S Carolina and the rest of the Rebel States as tyrannical.
So it really isn't too much of a stretch to say MLK non violently overthrew a tyrannical government . He probably went a little further than that. He overthrew a way of life.
Non violently
you can ban guns all you want, but it won't change a thing.
but criminals who want to use them will get them regardless....even this nutcase could get a weapon if he really wanted to do this.
NO ONE IS SERIOUSLY TALKING ABOUT BANNING ALL GUNS
It further proves you are regurgitating the rhetoric of Pro-Gun Lobbyist
Screaming like a little girl is going to get you no where.
Where did I say, to quote you..with screaming and bold "NO ONE IS SERIOUSLY TALKING ABOUT BANNING ALL GUNS"?
I didn't. So go somewhere else with your screaming.
I said, since you lack reading comprehension, <paraphrasing> that banning any weapon: guns, knives, bare knuckles, even a brick, is not going to deter any criminal or those with criminal intent from obtaining said weapons.
You do know there is a difference between ANY and ALL?
obviously anarchy is the only way to go then
It's already here I'm afraid.
Most of the violent crimes are 2nd time felons who for the most part can't obtain any weapons (a law, aka ban), so that banned weapon they procured must have come from somewhere.
Criminals will be criminals and if anything is banned it hurts the non-criminals more and won't be able to defend themselves, George Zimmerman notwithstanding.
Or you approach it from a different angle. Banning alcohol didn't work, just like banning guns won't work, but it's still illegal to drink and drive. Go after those who use guns irresponsibly without trampling on the rights of the 99%+ (or whatever the number is) that are responsible owners/users.
bravesnumberone (09-19-2013)
Last edited by 57Brave; 09-19-2013 at 02:53 PM.
See
cigarette smoking
seat belt laws
safety lids on over the counter medicines
food inspections
traffic lights
need to go on? Government (We the People) making laws is how we keep order in a society.
What are your proposals for keeping order. Scolding everyone to be more responsible .
Mostly, those you mention, when violated, don't have the intent of harming someone like a crazy person with a gun does.
Background checks should be able to have worthy merit, but like with anything else, there will need to be some discussion of what goes into those. Just banning the manufacturing or selling of certain fire arms to put on a political pose isn't solving anything.
The question is frequently asked "Why does a person need to own this type of gun?" Then, there's that absurd graphic earlier in the thread. Dianne Feinstein, specifically, has actively tried to ban, yes, ban, some of these weapons.