Could Guns Really Be Effectively Banned in America?

[Avatar4321]

And yes, Guns could be banned. But you would just see more violence.

 

[PixieStix]

Could Guns Really Be Effectively Banned in America?

Maybe on the same day that abortion is banned

 

[GoneBezerk]

It is all about power to liberals, not gun control. They want to rule over the lives of others and taking their guns away is a powertrip.

They know the criminals won't turn in their guns, but making those Red State Americans turn in their guns or go to jail gives them a boner.

 

[Truthmatters]

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.



the right wing scotus already said we can ban certain guns

 

[Staidhup]

Yes you can pass a worthless law, yes you can send people to prison, however, they are over populated, result, probation at best. The government tried it with Alcohol, Drugs, Prositution......even down to seat belt laws, however, the result was the same, if someone wants to do something or have a need, there is an energetic entrepreneur there willing to supply it at a cost.

Fact, convicted criminals are prohibited from purchasing or owning a firearm, do you want to wager on how many crimes are committed each year by convicted criminals in possession of a firearm? How about the number of felons found in violation of probation as a result of firearm possession?

The problem with the liberal mind set they think passing a law, throwing money at a problem, will solve the problems of society. The travail of liberalism about sums up the results.

 

[Truthmatters]

when a gun law was passed in 1994 it greatly reduced gun crimes.


then the right refused to reup and and guess what happened?

that facts oar NOT on thegun worshpers side.

The NRA has just lied to them for years.

 

[Truthmatters]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/268114-my-take-on-the-second-3.html#post6510227


you can find the links to these facts here

 

[asaratis]

As the child among us weighs in....

Let me explain how it works and then you can pretend you are one of the adults on the board.

This is America. We have a FIRST AMENDMENT which allows you to voice your opinion on the SECOND AMENDMENT.
We also has a legislative process that is responsible for passing laws. It is these laws that would initiate the confiscation of all guns. Given that there is no legislation currently in the works that calls for complete confiscation of 270 million guns we can safely say that NOBODY IS TRYING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS

Now, let me make it simple for you.........OPINION IS NOT LEGISLATION

Except Obama said he would use the full weight of his office to STOP any further attacks, only one way to stop them and that would be ban all guns and somehow confiscate all guns.

Why don't rw's know that we have three branches of our government?

Why don't they know that the only gun legislation the president has signed was a move to loosen gun control?

More than anything else, why don't rw's care more about human beings than they care about their high capacity magazines, tear gas canisters and their ability to kill a little 6 year old with 11 bullets?

BTW, has even one pubpot politician made even ONE teeny weeny sound of sympathy for those people? Surely, by now, one of them has come forward to pretend they give a damn for the deaths of those babies? Surely, by now, they've been rehearsing their lies that they don't get MILLIONS of dollars from the gun cartel that controls this country.

You do bring out one salient point in this ridiculous discussion. This crazed maniac actually shot one child's body 11 times. Such an expression of anger should convince you that the shooter was a deranged, mentally unstable person. His instability was NOT caused by the guns.

What we need, not just here but around the world...is anger control. Read this article to the end.


Very strict gun control exists in China. So the crazies use KNIVES instead!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/w...en-in-china.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

In one of the worst attacks, a man described as an unemployed, middle-aged doctor killed eight children with a knife in March 2010 to vent his anger over a thwarted romantic relationship.
*****************************************************************

ALL of you people that think weapons are the root of the problem have a simplistic view of a complicated problem. Ban all you want...others will be used...including explosives, chemicals and biological means.

Evil is the enemy...not the weapons available to evil people.

 

[daveman]

no one is going to ban all guns.


that is just right wing bullshit.


We may just end up banning semis.


We know all the tuff talkers here will just hand them over no matter how much they pretend they will start a civil war over it.

The AWB didn't work.

I hope they reinstate the ban on assault weapons...

Why? It didn't do any good.

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf

Myth: The 1994 (former) Federal Assault Weapons Ban was effective
Fact: “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.”382
Fact: The ban covered only 1.39% of the models of firearms on the market, so the ban’s effectiveness was automatically limited.
Fact: “The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.”383
Fact: “The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated.”384
Fact: “The ban triggered speculative price increases and ramped-up production of the banned firearms.”385
Fact: “The ban … ramped-up production of the banned firearms prior to the law’s implementation”386 and thus increased the total supply over the following decade.
Fact: The Brady Campaign claims that “After the 1994 ban, there were 18% fewer ‘assault weapons’ traced to crime in the first eight months of 1995 than were traced in the same period in 1994.” However they failed to note (and these are mentioned in the NIJ study) that:
1. “Assault weapons” traces were minimal before the ban (due to their infrequent use in crimes), so an 18% change enters the realm of statistical irrelevancy.
2. Fewer “assault weapons” were available to criminals because collectors bought-up the available supply before the ban.​

 

[daveman]

No shit. There NRA whack jobs are just an all or nothing bunch of idiots.

Either we all need to be carrying or the guvmint is gonna take away ALL guns.

Fuking idiots.

And the NRAers are in this position BECAUSE they would do NOTHING to promote sensible gun control. So the ceded the entire gun control debate to crazies with guns and those that don't like guns at all.

Brillant.

I NEED my 50 round magazine!
I need to go to gunshows and pick up whatever I want with no verification
I NEED to make sure the second amendment rights of crazy people are not violated

You forgot making sure criminals can get guns just as easily as law abiding citizens.

Its obscene that NRA and rabid gun nuts are running around screeching that the sky is falling.

Remember, just after Columbine, NRA and that old whore, Charlton Heston scheduled a gun show at Englewood, Colorado -- just to rub people's noses in it. They wanted to make the point that they were more powerful that a few dead kids and they did.

So your solution is to make it impossible for law-abiding citizens to get guns, while doing NOTHING about criminals getting guns.

Moron.

 

[NLT]

Timothy Mcviegh did not use a firearm.

 

[daveman]

Nobody is looking for a total gun ban no matter how much bullshit the NRA throws at you

Yes there are people looking for a total ban, they are just smart enough not to say it.

The one ban that may try to gain traction is a ban on semi automatic rifles, given the scary boo boo name "assault rifle."

if there are, i'd think they are a miniscule and ineffective minority.

but every time people try to have rational discussions on the issue of guns and how to deal with them in a common sense manner, the right goes full tilt bozo.

Okay, if you want to discuss this in a common sense manner, please answer this question:

How do you propose to get criminals to obey the law?

 

[Seawytch]

Timothy Mcviegh did not use a firearm.

Nope, but after he blew up the OK City building we did start regulating nitrogen-rich fertilizer.

 

[Duped]

There are many Americans that would fight the collectors to the death, before they capitulated - blanket confiscation is not viable!

 

[daveman]

when a gun law was passed in 1994 it greatly reduced gun crimes.


then the right refused to reup and and guess what happened?

that facts oar NOT on thegun worshpers side.

The NRA has just lied to them for years.

I've seen your "facts". They're all bullshit.

 

[candycorn]

How many more massacres of children do we need to endure before we say enough?

 

[daveman]

How many more massacres of children do we need to endure before we say enough?

Indeed. Obviously, gun-free zones don't work. We need armed citizens defending our most defenseless.

 

[WillowTree]

by Robert Wenzel

Economic Policy Journal





In this post, I will not discuss the very strong libertarian philosophical arguments as to why individuals should be allowed to carry guns. Instead, I want to take a look at the practical issue.
Suppose Congress passed legislation that banned all guns. Legislation so strong that it required that all guns be turned in. There are 285 million guns in the United States. I wonder how many of those guns would be turned in.

The most conscientious law abiding citizens might turn them in, but the bad guys won't. So that means bad guys will have even more of an edge. If they want to rob, they are going to know their upstanding citizen/prospective-victim walking down the street is most likely unarmed.

A ban on guns is really legislation that helps out the bad guys. It is the equivalent of a TSA policy that would allow no one to carry guns on board a plane – other than terrorists. Even the TSA isn't that nuts.

I wonder, if people, calling for a ban on guns, have really thought out their position. It just doesn't make sense. Guns won't be effectively banned – only guns owned by the good people will be turned in.

And, of course, anything less than a full ban will make for even greater problems. Gun control programs won't stop the determined from getting guns. The shooter, Adam Lanza , in the shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, simply grabbed the guns properly registered in his mother's name. How did that deterrent work out?

If a "full ban" were enacted, it would be as easy to buy guns on the black market in any big city as it is now to buy drugs or for illegals to buy fake IDs.

Are the people calling for bans or more controls actually thinking this out?

The only solution for dealing with guns is not gun controls but gun freedom. The shootings at Sandy Hook were in a "gun free" zone. The only ones that observed that law are the dead teachers, not the bad guy, Adam Lanza.

Chicago bans most from carrying guns and yet gun toting gang-bangers shoot it out nearly every night in Rahmaland.

I'm not calling for any policy that calls for schools, or any other public institutions, to be required to handle protection in any certain way. Let each institution choose for itself.

The smart solution, though, to the gun problem is gun freedom. Those who want to carry guns should be allowed to do so, then the bad guys will have to think twice. Right now, about the only time we hear about a bad guy getting caught in the act of a street robbery is when he attempts to rob an FBI agent. The agents nab them because they are carrying. But street robberies turned bad for the robber are so infrequent that the FBI collars make the news. If robbers ran into gun carriers regularly, robberies would plunge.

Bottom line: Those who want to ban guns, or certain types of guns, really aren't thinking things out. The fact of the matter is that bad guys will continue to use guns. The solution isn't screaming at the top of ones lung to ban or control guns. The solution is to find ways to protect oneself against gun carrying bad guys – and that is a lot easier to do if you are free to own and carry any guns you want.

Could Guns Really Be Effectively Banned in*America? by Robert Wenzel

Didn't the libtards try that in Chicago? How's that working out?

 

[WillowTree]

How many more massacres of children do we need to endure before we say enough?

Indeed. Obviously, gun-free zones don't work. We need armed citizens defending our most defenseless.

We have guards in all the banks, aren't our children worth armed guards?

 

[daveman]

How many more massacres of children do we need to endure before we say enough?

Indeed. Obviously, gun-free zones don't work. We need armed citizens defending our most defenseless.

We have guards in all the banks, aren't our children worth armed guards?

Some people don't think so. But then, they're the same people who think nothing of killing unborn children. It's not like human life means much to them.