“The “gun-show loophole” is an exaggeration designed to foster the false impression that this is how the bad guys acquire firearms.”
“The “gun-show loophole” is an exaggeration designed to foster the false impression that this is how the bad guys acquire firearms.”
sorry, aerin.
No, “strong gun control laws” do not work.
Every country that gives up the rights of self-defense for the individual increases in violent crime.
The Supreme court ruled and explained this: “a well regulated militia” is not part of the 2nd amendment.
The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Today I heard a talk on “women’s safety” by a deputy sheriff. His advice was that everyone should own a gun. Sorry — an armed society is completely uncivilized, and I’m not ready to give up on civilization quite yet. Other countries have shown that strong gun control laws work. Why is the U.S. so stubbornly clinging its gun culture? Don’t tell me about the second amendment unless you actually know what a “well-regulated militia” is. It is well established that firearms in the home significantly increase the risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home, regardless of how guns are stored, the type of gun, or number of guns. Unfortunately, there are NO reliable statistics on defensive use of guns in homes — people on both sides of the debate are just guessing. In the most famous case from my home town, a white homeowner in a “nice” subdivision found a couple of black kids in his garage checking out his motorcycle. He went back in the house, got a gun, and when the kids saw the gun and ran away, he shot a fleeing 14-year-old in the back, killing him. Disgustingly, the murderer got off. So much for defensive use of guns!
An armed society is a polite society.
A firearm is several times more likely to be used in righteous self-defense than in the commission of a crime. If your actual interest is in reducing crime, more gun ownership would be better than less gun ownership.
Ipso facto, Mizz Feinstink isn’t really interested in reducing crime.
Let’s give Feinstein her full 40% of sales with no background check. Since only a very small percentage of gun owners commit crimes each year, and only a very small percentage of guns are used in crimes each year, that 40% clearly doesn’t represent a lot of criminals or guns used in crimes.
I agree that, planned or not, the idea of universal background checks ties closely to universal registration and that does open the door to seizure. Montana has no way to register firearms and no tracking of who has what weapons, although we do have a system for concealed carry.
We register cars and real estate but that has a lot to do with using cars and real estate as collateral for loans and the need to show clear title for lending purposes. We also tax cars and real estate and they can both be seized.
““The law already requires licensed gun dealers to run background checks, and over the last 14 years that’s kept 1.5 million of the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun,” said Mr. Obama”
“Wrong people?” How many were inner-city people under direct threat of violence? How many died because they couldn’t get a gun?
“Getting their hands on a gun.” What a maroon. The only way to keep an adult from getting a gun is to lock them up. The NICS denial stops one transaction. One is to believe that the person denied will simply give up trying to get a gun. And that they don’t already own guns.
The theory of the Libtards is that they can stop crime by preventing the “wrong people” from getting guns. It has never worked, and it’s absurd on its face.