Is it time to restrict gun ownership?

Is it time to restrict gun ownership?

  • Yes

    Votes: 22 64.7%

  • No

    Votes: 12 35.3%
  • Total voters
    34
  • Poll closed .
its pointless to participate in a poll by this asshole legion....all he does is log in with his numerous trolls, votes, thus giving a false poll result

he is nothing but a dishonest hack who is too scared to actually debate without creating numerous trolls
 
Yurt said:
its pointless to participate in a poll by this asshole legion....all he does is log in with his numerous trolls, votes, thus giving a false poll result

he is nothing but a dishonest hack who is too scared to actually debate without creating numerous trolls
Click to expand...

Whereas Yurt is your real name.
 
Smarter Than All Y'All said:
America doesn’t need militias to protect the country. Is it time to restrict gun ownership?
Click to expand...

I don't think it would help. You'd just create a new black market and make things worse then better. But if I didn't think That gun prohibition wouldn't go the way of Drug prohibition I would say get rid of every gun in the U.S.
 
WinterBorn said:
No its not. The overwhelming majority of the privately owned guns are not attached to militias. It is private citizens who own them.

If you think you have enough of a majority for a constitutional amendment, go for it. Few politicians will back removing the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...

Gun ownership is already restricted. That's the will of the people.

There are currently over 20,000 "gun control" laws on the books.

Anyone who has been convicted of a felony is banned by federal law from ever possessing “any firearm or ammunition."

Specifically, a person "convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" cannot possess any firearm in any location. 18 U.S.C. 922(g) is the federal law that prohibits anyone ever convicted of any felony to ever possess any firearm either inside or outside of his home.

The federal punishment for felon gun possession is up to 10 years in prison.

There are many other federal gun ownership restrictions.

For example, a conviction for a misdemeanor domestic battery results in a loss of gun rights.

A person who is the subject of an order of protection may not possess a weapon.
 
Smarter Than All Y'All said:
Gun ownership is already restricted. That's the will of the people.

There are currently over 20,000 "gun control" laws on the books.

Anyone who has been convicted of a felony is banned by federal law from ever possessing “any firearm or ammunition."

Specifically, a person "convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" cannot possess any firearm in any location. 18 U.S.C. 922(g) is the federal law that prohibits anyone ever convicted of any felony to ever possess any firearm either inside or outside of his home.

The federal punishment for felon gun possession is up to 10 years in prison.

There are many other federal gun ownership restrictions.

For example, a conviction for a misdemeanor domestic battery results in a loss of gun rights.

A person who is the subject of an order of protection may not possess a weapon.
Click to expand...

and all of them unconstitutional, if you take 'shall not be infringed' seriously.
but I understand that for most people, too much freedom is BAAAAAAAD!!!!!! must. have. reasonable. regulation. no right is absolute, that about it lemming?
 
any attempt has to start with a massive removal of guns from criminals, which won't happen but would take a decade.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
and all of them unconstitutional, if you take 'shall not be infringed' seriously.
but I understand that for most people, too much freedom is BAAAAAAAD!!!!!! must. have. reasonable. regulation. no right is absolute, that about it lemming?
Click to expand...

I don't personally make the laws. Nor do you.

But we'll have to obey them or take the consequences unless we work to legally change them. Is that so hard to accept?
 
Smarter Than All Y'All said:
I don't personally make the laws. Nor do you.

But we'll have to obey them or take the consequences unless we work to legally change them. Is that so hard to accept?
Click to expand...

actually, yes. especially if there's no way to legally change them when you have a majority of people want a law in place, despite knowing its unconstitutional, and having a supreme court that acknowledges its unconstitutionality and lets it stand anyway.

as far as obeying them, don't have to.

any law that violates the constitution is invalid.
 
Sure. But only if we take them away from police and the military as well. Why would they need guns if we don't?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
actually, yes. especially if there's no way to legally change them when you have a majority of people want a law in place, despite knowing its unconstitutional, and having a supreme court that acknowledges its unconstitutionality and lets it stand anyway.

as far as obeying them, don't have to.

any law that violates the constitution is invalid.
Click to expand...

Don't have to?

What will you do if you are charged with a violation of law? Tell the judge that you don't recognize his/her authority on Constitutional grounds?

So you admit that we "have a majority of people" who "want a law in place" but you feel cheated because you don't agree?

If you had your way, the US would be like this place: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/13/AR2010041302187.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top