Originally posted by: Jack Flash
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: Jack Flash
Originally posted by: palehorse
More licenses, more laws, more regulations, more national databases, more tax-payer dollars, MORE GOVERNMENT, OH MY!!
:roll:
Hey if you want to try to discredit any attempts to make carrying a gun more publicly acceptable be my guest but don't cry to me when people blame guns for their problems.
Only fools would "blame guns for their problems."
I don't cater my beliefs or my actions to the delusions of fools.
Only a fool would believe that regulation of firearms is unnecessary.
There are plenty of innocent victims of the mentally ill using firearms. I've presented my case and clearly you're unwilling to listen to any opinion other than 'Laissez-faire 2nd Amendment'
I'll say it one more time: a mandatory federal gun permit to be renewed every 5 years with significant background checks and psychological evaluation is a good idea to safeguard both constitutional rights to bear arms as well as protect against those who are unfit to wield a deadly weapon.
I'm glad they're are posters like daishi5, though. Rational posters.
Unfortunately a mandatory gun permit would not protect the second amendment, but would be the rope used to hang it from the gallows. Once a person has to apply to own a gun, the only thing gun control needs to do is add a new small requirement every now and then until no one qualifies. Gun registries were proposed as methods of fighting crime in Chicago and Washington D.C.. Both registries were closed to handguns, and neither registry shows any sign of decreasing their crime rates. And, despite claims that liberals are "rational" when people point out that crime went up after the registries were closed, the "rational" liberals just say "imagine how much worse it would have been without the registry." I hope the failure of logic in that statement is clear.
You must understand why I am against all of these restrictions, registries, and the such. The more and more I learn about them, the less effective they seem and the less logical the people behind them seem. Just a few days ago when I was looking into the British crime rate, I learned that the per capita murder rate went UP after the hand gun ban. Before the ban, they all said how good it would be at lowering crime, after crime started to increase no one seemed to think that it could have had any effect on crime at all. In other words, if crime went down, the handgun ban has an effect on crime, if it goes up, the handgun ban could not have caused that. There is an implicit assumption on the part of supporters of gun control that it cannot fail, that any bad side effects must be from another source. A person who believe that more regulation will always have good effects cannot be trusted to be a source of regulation, but there are many who believe this way.
The machine gun registry was closed in the united states, even though falling coconuts have proven to be almost 100 times more dangerous. That registry may have been the single most effective form of gun control ever, but it was closed. I would support registries just like it, IF and ONLY IF you could convince me somehow that those registries could never be closed or used to restrict a persons right to own a gun. However, history has shown that such registries are always used to restrict rights to a gun.
Facebook
Twitter