Common Sense Gun Laws
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
I stand by my statement. Mass shootings went down and exploded after the ban was lifted. |
Anonymous
How are you this stupid? I’m serious. We have a mass murder problem here that exceeds every other developed nation. By a lot. The key ingredient is … guns! |
Anonymous
And when we get rid of the guns, as I’m sure you’ll eventually be successful in doing, what will you blame when mass murderers switch to trucks or fire, or improvised explosives? |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
I have no desire to ban guns, I would like reasonable regulations. I would like the culture of gun worshipers to recede. There are ways to do this that are absolutely constitutional. Let me guess—you’re against these things but want the court to overturn Roe? |
Anonymous
|
I think we should ban guns for 5 years. Have the feds round up all the guns but track (register) ownership. Law-abiding Citizens will get back their guns in 5 years. Criminals and non-citizens will not get their guns back.
Then let’s see what happens over those five years. Let’s see what happens to suicide rates, drug/gang killings, and mass murders. Then based on that five year experiment, establish a constitutional law (amendment) based on the five year findings. |
Anonymous
It would take 5 years to find maybe half the guns in the country. Up until almost 1970 you could buy guns out of the sears catalog and have them mailed to you. No background check,no records of sale. Good luck with your gun round up. |
Anonymous
|
Lol. Bans do nothing.
A 2004 study for the Justice Department found that the ban’s impact on gun violence was mixed, at best, because of exemptions written into the law; if the ban were renewed, the “effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.” The report said that assault weapons were “rarely used” in gun crimes but suggested that if the law remained in place, it might have a bigger impact. James Alan Fox, a Northeastern University professor, collected data back to 1982 showing that assault weapons account for 24.6 percent of public mass shootings. “Assault weapons are not as commonplace in mass shootings as some gun-control advocates believe,” Fox wrote in a 2013 article in the journal Homicide Studies. Instead, “semiautomatic handguns [47.9 percent] are far more prevalent in random massacres than firearms that would typically be classified as assault weapons.” Did the assault weapons ban make a difference in mass shootings? Not significantly, according to Fox’s data at the time. From 1976 to 1994, about 18 mass shootings occurred each year. During the ban — 1995 to 2004 — there were about 19 incidents per year. After the ban, through 2011, the average went up to nearly 21 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/24/bidens-claim-that-1994-assault-weapons-law-brought-down-mass-shootings/ |
Anonymous
Exactly. Rights are political, not absolute. If the conservatives engineer abortion to not be a constitutional right than progressives can engineer assault weapons to not be a constitutional right. It is the same process. |
Anonymous
If guns are a constitutional right the police should not be able to disarm people who are arrested or restrict guns at the SCOTUS hearing. |
Anonymous
The word “abortion” is no where in the constitution. Actually, there no mention of any reproductive rights at all. Guns are called out directly. There is no way to put these two issues on any constitutional debate. Guns were literally the second thing they put in to Americans rights. Child birth or pregnancy termination are not even mentioned. |
Anonymous
Scotus determined I had a constitutional right for 50 years and then they changed scotus and the right was no longer a constitutional right. Those are the facts regardless if you like it or not. Scotus determines what the constitution says. They did it for reproductive rights and they can do it for the what arms the 2nd amendment does and does not cover. |
Anonymous
That’s why states have powers to make their own laws. There are quite a few bad amendments we added after the first 10. But whatever- the 10th amendment was pretty clear that anything not covered in the constitution is up to the states. I really do not care if California bans AR-15s or let’s a mother kill a newborn a week after birth. Let the states decide. California just cannot say “all guns are illegal” because the constitution says the state cannot make that law. |
Anonymous
None of it is clear or there would not be one scotus saying one thing and another scotus saying something different. Either scotus decides for all these issues or none of them. You don't get to pick and choose which ruling you like And which you do not. Let the states decide bull crap was used to justify enslaving people for generation so F that. |