Some of these people are like junkies and will insist that their prophecy about cold, dead hands be fulfilled. Republicans who have authorized the lifting of the ban on assault weapons should be held personally liable. Their names should be on a monument to stupidity somewhere, perhaps to WACO or Ruby Ridge.
I live in the UK where, contrary to popular belief, guns are not totally banned. We make it difficult to obtain: you must show your local police department that you have a legitimate use of the firearm you want to obtain before granting it a firearms license, which will allow you to buy the weapon in question.
It is quite easy to get a shotgun, a little harder to get a shotgun. It is virtually impossible to obtain a license for a multi-shot handgun, although I remember reading about a former IRA informant who one is in. had granted one, because the police had recognized that he had a legitimate need for self-defense. You will not receive a license for a quick fire weapon such as an SMG or an assault rifle, so do not ask.
Here are the guidelines from my local police regarding firearms and explosives licenses: https: //www.scotland.police.uk/about-us/ …
I know the arguments against gun control – cities with strict gun laws actually have more crime, and in any case, the second amendment to the US Constitution gives us the "right to wear weapons. " to a more peaceful country or, elsewhere, the world?
If you asked for a personal solution, I would say, "Eliminate them completely." But I am also realistic. I understand that it will not happen. There are too many exceptions – police, army, etc. – for this to become a reality.
However, we can certainly do better than what we saw recently in Congress, when a minority of senators rejected two bipartite bills that would expand the firearms history audit and ban certain firearms. semi-automatic weapons inspired by military attack weapons. (Can any one tell me, please, why the average person in the community where my family lives – or any other American community from anywhere else – would need to A semi-automatic firearm designed on the model of a military assault weapon?)
We have to do something besides drawing our course of action in the sand and bothering others to cross it.
Two senators tried to get there. Senators Joe Manchin (DW. Va.) And Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), Firearms Owners and Rights Defenders of the Second Amendment, attempted to break through these lines by proposing the amendments that were ultimately made rejected. I congratulate them. But that did not work. The amendments required 60 votes to be adopted by a 100-member Senate. This meant that the Democrats and Independents in favor of the amendments, who hold 55 seats, needed the support of some of their Republican counterparts for the amendments to be adopted. They did not get those five votes. Who knows why?
Tell me, members of Congress, why is it so difficult to work together to find a solution? Are you afraid of not being re-elected? Will you lose donations? Are you determined not to move because something has been proposed by someone from outside your party? Tell me, are some of these things more important than the lives of those who are affected by gun violence? Your inability to work together to find a solution certainly sends this message.
(tagsToTranslate) yahoo (t) answers (t) questions (t) Politics & Government (t) Politics
But it's not the 2nd specifically, it's the vote. 2/3 of the whites and landowners you must be aware of.
Are you 2/3 white? Who is? Oh not a lot. And the property "land" differs from the possession of a "property" or the purchase of a "house" or a "condo".
The "real estate" property has changed, but in the beginning, this property meant that you were willing to hold the land for the United States against all the foreign occupants of the union.
2nd Amendment documents are formulated to give you the rights to do so.
Then come the first third sixth and eighth I think.
Your rights as "land" refer to the greater rights of the United States as a developing country.
Thus, all land ownership in the United States falls on it as a full-fledged business and the Monroe Doctrine states that otherwise all rights accrue to the original English property.
But the truth is that it is very unlikely that their weapon is at home to shoot a ball in self-defense.
This same weapon is much, much more likely to be used by the owner or another person in the house to injure someone by accident, or to injure themselves or another person intentionally in a moment of great heat.
Being a responsible firearms owner, that is knowing these facts. But the crazies deny these facts.
Thanks for contributing a response to the Games Stack Exchange role-playing games!
- Please make sure to respond to the question. Provide details and share your research!
But to avoid …
- Ask for help, clarification, or answer other answers.
- Make statements based on the opinion; save them with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, read our tips for writing good answers.
They could ban firearms today, and criminals would continue to get and shoot with people with them, as in Britain.
The only ones disarmed would be law-abiding citizens.
[ Politics ] Open Question: Country singer Justin Carter died at age 35 after an accidental shootout. Should we forbid all trumpets to possess firearms? .
European country with the largest number of firearms: Switzerland
Moreover, Japan's culture, people and government are very different from those of America or of all European countries. It is a tiny peninsula that is almost entirely homogeneous and has a culture of work, did I mention work? The United States has gangs that have more firearms and manpower than the police and they get most of their money off the black market. None of this exists in Japan.
Freedom and independence are at the heart of American thought. We became a nation with the government we had (at the time) because we opposed a big government. The state of mind is essentially the following: "It's my property, my decisions and my life, do not tell me what to do."
I think the problem for most people "opposed to background checks" is the idea that, over time, all these small increases in the restrictions on the purchase of firearms will lead to gun law (the only things that can really protect us from a tyrannical government.) and an increase in government with a diminished ability to defend ourselves against those who want to harm us.