My stance is that we put a limit on lethal ammo and only make bean bag rounds available for Americans to purchase.
What’s your stance on Gun regulations?
Posts
Total:
30
We need more regulations such as universal background checks, magazine capacity limits of 10 rounds for pistols, 5 for rifles, and red flag laws in every state.
We need to seize half the guns in America starting with brown skinned people. Like New York tried to do with stop and frisk before the ACLU shut them down.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
We need more regulations such as universal background checks, magazine capacity limits of 10 rounds for pistols, 5 for rifles, and red flag laws in every state.
Universal background checks are already in place for 22 states and DC. Yet the Feds haven't instituted it despite all their rhetoric to do so.
Law abiding citizens have nothing to hide, so fine, close the private sale loophole and force people to use federally licensed gun dealers to be the middleman in private sales. It isn't that hard. I've used it before. It was simple.
Magazine capacity limits of 10 for pistols has already been done. It was done back in like 1996 or thereabouts. I remember because I got a pistol late 1995 early 1996 that came with a 15-round clip, after that, all clips that came with a pistol or sold were 10 or less (depending on size of the pistol).
Red flag laws are patently unconstitutional and unnecessary. There are already enough laws on the books that can do the same once an actual legal case has been brought to the Courts for a judge to sign off on this after evidence has been presented to justify it. Not before without due process.
-->
@valkyrie67
My stance is that we put a limit on lethal ammo and only make bean bag rounds available for Americans to purchase.
Yeah, bad guy breaks into your home intent on raping you and all you have are bean bag shots, which will do nothing to a 225lb guy high on PCP or meth intent on doing his deed, holding a pistol with lethal rounds.
That's tantamount to bringing a knife to a gun fight.
Dumb. Just dumb.
-->
@TWS1405
Please don’t come on my post bashing people or even me. It was a idea. Not like it’s going to pass in Law. It’s a SUGGESTION.
Fortunately my husband makes his own ammo. Often and gun discussions people forget their people that still hunt for their food. Why you don't have to it's certainly saves quite a bit of money to stock a freezer full of deer meat.
-->
@valkyrie67
Please don’t come on my post bashing people or even me. It was a idea. Not like it’s going to pass in Law. It’s a SUGGESTION.
It was NOT a suggestion. The very title of your OP is a question. Hence the "?" at the end of it.
Constructive criticism is not "bashing people or even you." If you are that sensitive, then perhaps you found the wrong forum to debate/discuss real world issues.
Guns nowadays should be less available to the public and more expensive so they generally end up as luxury in the wealthy of the more etiquettes. The more the gun availability is and the cheaper it is, the more crime there will be(unless we get to a point where everyone has a gun and we have threat duels every single day on the streets of every single concentrated settlement, which is unlikely and also, steel is not free).
If you don't like how much guns intrude society like me, but live in that specific part of society where banning guns is banned(the US, obv), I believe another thing we can aim to do is to make guns(or even just ammos) less profitable and thus they will be made in a gentler rate. People will willingly buy less guns knowing how costly they could be.
I would prefer more guns and less regulation,
Though I'm not bothered by cities and/or states voting to,
Requiring background checks for purchases,
Limiting the ownership of guns for convicted criminals 'depending on their history,
Individuals being investigated, counseled, for insanity, drug use, malicious intent
Citizens not being able to own nukes.
valkyrie67 blocked me. LOL!
Typical sophomoric liberal intellectual cowardice move. Demonstrates she has zero interest in legitimately debating/discussing the topic.
-->
@Intelligence_06
Guns nowadays should be less available to the public and more expensive so they generally end up as luxury in the wealthy of the more etiquettes. The more the gun availability is and the cheaper it is, the more crime there will be(unless we get to a point where everyone has a gun and we have threat duels every single day on the streets of every single concentrated settlement, which is unlikely and also, steel is not free).
Why do they need to be less available and to whom? Any and all gun controls and restrictions only hurt law abiding citizens, not criminals.
Making it harder for law abiding citizens to acquire means of protection makes no sense. Especially in a day and age where police are stretched thin and in reality, the only thing standing between you and an armed criminal is whatever you do or do not have for effective protection. Having the means to defend yourself and your family saves lives. Good guys (law abiding carrying) with guns save lives.
-->
@TWS1405
Universal background checks are already in place for 22 states and DC. Yet the Feds haven't instituted it despite all their rhetoric to do so.Law abiding citizens have nothing to hide, so fine, close the private sale loophole and force people to use federally licensed gun dealers to be the middleman in private sales. It isn't that hard. I've used it before. It was simple.
Ok, so we agree. The Congress needs to institute background checks for all gun purchases in all 50 states!
Magazine capacity limits of 10 for pistols has already been done. It was done back in like 1996 or thereabouts. I remember because I got a pistol late 1995 early 1996 that came with a 15-round clip, after that, all clips that came with a pistol or sold were 10 or less (depending on size of the pistol).
Even in California you are allowed to purchase and possess handgun magazines that exceed 10 rounds. Perhaps this is part of the problem - you don’t know exactly what the laws are.
Red flag laws are patently unconstitutional and unnecessary. There are already enough laws on the books that can do the same once an actual legal case has been brought to the Courts for a judge to sign off on this after evidence has been presented to justify it. Not before without due process.
Red flag laws include due process. A family member or police believe someone who owns a gun is a danger to himself or others. They petition a judge and hear the facts. Then the judge makes a decision on removing the firearm. What are these “laws on the books” you believe do the same thing? Why aren’t they “patently unconstitutional” but red flag laws are?
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Red flag laws are patently unconstitutional and unnecessary. There are already enough laws on the books that can do the same once an actual legal case has been brought to the Courts for a judge to sign off on this after evidence has been presented to justify it. Not before without due process.Red flag laws include due process. A family member or police believe someone who owns a gun is a danger to himself or others. They petition a judge and hear the facts. Then the judge makes a decision on removing the firearm. What are these “laws on the books” you believe do the same thing? Why aren’t they “patently unconstitutional” but red flag laws are?
Red flag laws fly in the face of due process.
A cop or family going before the judge with unsubstantiated claims is NOT due process.
What part of this: "There are already enough laws on the books that can do the same once an actual legal case has been brought to the Courts for a judge to sign off on this after evidence has been presented to justify it. Not before without due process." did you fail to comprehend?
Procedural law is not unconstitutional (when never challenged as being such), but red flag laws are because they violate the 5th and 14th due process clauses, among others.
Yeah, this is why an E4 Military Police Investigator is more intelligent than a mere butter bar Jar Head Marine.
-->
@TWS1405
Typical sophomoric liberal intellectual cowardice move. Demonstrates she has zero interest in legitimately debating/discussing the topic.
So if I block you doe sit prove that too?
If I unblock you does it prove the opposite?
-->
@TWS1405
unsubstantiated claims is NOT due process.
It’s not? A witness testifying under oath in front of a judge sounds like due process to me.
So if I block you doe sit prove that too?If I unblock you does it prove the opposite?
Q1. No. We have had no engagement here. But to just arbitrarily block me demonstrates something else.
Q2. No. It just demonstrates something else.
-->
@TWS1405
Yeah, this is why an E4 Military Police Investigator is more intelligent than a mere butter bar Jar Head Marine.
Lol. This is painful. The article you cited from the Military News says the cops took the gun without a warrant. Red flag laws involve a warrant from a judge to take the guns. Red flag laws provide due process. Now you wouldn’t learn that on FOX News, but you need to do more research and understand what you are talking about.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
unsubstantiated claims is NOT due process.It’s not? A witness testifying under oath in front of a judge sounds like due process to me.
Subjectivity does not equal objective fact-based evidence. It's opinion.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Yeah, this is why an E4 Military Police Investigator is more intelligent than a mere butter bar Jar Head Marine.Lol. This is painful. The article you cited from the Army News says the cops took the gun without a warrant. Red flag laws involve a warrant from a judge to take the guns. Red flag laws provide due process. Now you wouldn’t learn that on FOX News, but you need to do more research and understand what you are talking about.
Warrants are NOT issued without fact-based evidence. They are not given willy-nilly. Something you clearly do not understand having never worked in law enforcement, state or federal. Unsubstantiated claims are not evidence.
-->
@TWS1405
Yeah, this is why an E4 Military Police Investigator is more intelligent than a mere butter bar Jar Head Marine.
Unbelievable! Court is court. If you won’t trust the judicial system, “ all testimony is unreliable” then there’s nothing we can do as a society to establish law and order. The judge makes a decision on what is real and credible. If you don’t like it, you can appeal. If the appeal fails - it’s tough shit.
-->
@TWS1405
Warrants are NOT issued without fact-based evidence.
Ok great, we agree. Red flag laws will provide warrants for the removal of weapons from persons believed to pose a danger and warrants are not issued “Willy-Nilly”. Perfect. We agree.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Warrants are NOT issued without fact-based evidence.Ok great, we agree. Red flag laws will provide warrants for the removal of weapons from persons believed to pose a danger and warrants are not issued “Willy-Nilly”. Perfect. We agree.
We do NOT agree.
It matters NOT what anyone thinks, feels or believes.
The ONLY thing that matters is what one can PROVE!
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Yeah, this is why an E4 Military Police Investigator is more intelligent than a mere butter bar Jar Head Marine.Unbelievable! Court is court. If you won’t trust the judicial system, “ all testimony is unreliable” then there’s nothing we can do as a society to establish law and order. The judge makes a decision on what is real and credible. If you don’t like it, you can appeal. If the appeal fails - it’s tough shit.
Court is NOT court.
There is a hierarchy to the court system in the United States.
I trust the judicial system, it's the rules of evidence you clearly do not understand.
The judge rules on what he is told thereof, and those telling the tale are presumed trustworthy. The judge is in no position to [know] absolutely what is being disclosed is "real and credible." It's all about who presented the better argument.
Wouldn't expect you to "get it," since you have ZERO education in the legal criminal justice system, whereas I do, academically and professionally.
-->
@TWS1405
The ONLY thing that matters is what one can PROVE!
So if I point a gun at your head add cock the hammer, you can’t defend yourself just because you believe I am going to shoot you. You must wait until I fire the gun? Is that correct?
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
The ONLY thing that matters is what one can PROVE!So if I point a gun at your head add cock the hammer, you can’t defend yourself just because you believe I am going to shoot you. You must wait until I fire the gun? Is that correct?
Wow. Way to demonstrate to the proverbial "T" what a Jar Head you are.
-->
@valkyrie67
What’s your stance on Gun regulations?
Eliminate all regulations.
-->
@Athias
yes
Before asking the question "why can't government fix this," we should first be asking ourselves why we think government can fix anything.
-->
@Greyparrot
yesBefore asking the question "why can't government fix this," we should first be asking ourselves why we think government can fix anything.
Well stated.
-->
@Athias
Ask not what your country can do for you, ask instead what you can do for yourself.