Let's put aside your foolish statement. What you're asking for is not practical. It will never happen especially in this political climate, nor even in a situation where the Dems have a super majority, house, senate, white house. Majority of Americans support the 2nd amendment.
Maybe I’m missing something— what’s so foolish about the OPs statement but better yet what was he actually asking in that Statement?
Please elaborate.
Then move to Germany. Germany doesn't have an equivalent right of the people to bear arms in it's constitution.
Germany's laws are more strict than many other EU countries. Norway, Switzerland, Sweeney all have higher rates of gun ownership but very low rates of gun crime. Registration, background checks, an interview with local police, licensure, testing is all required. There are limits on how many guns you can own and what types. You have to get police approval to be able to carry. Some countries track ammunition purchases as well.
Let's put aside your foolish statement. What you're asking for is not practical. It will never happen especially in this political climate, nor even in a situation where the Dems have a super majority, house, senate, white house. Majority of Americans support the 2nd amendment.
The 1st ammendment guarantees free speech but also has limitations (libel and slander laws, public safety etc). The founding fathers never could have predicted we'd invent such killing machines. There's no need to revoke the 2nd amendment and most Americans understand its importance. They just want some common sense applied to it.
Let's put aside your foolish statement. What you're asking for is not practical. It will never happen especially in this political climate, nor even in a situation where the Dems have a super majority, house, senate, white house. Majority of Americans support the 2nd amendment.
Paranoid Republican you are. Don’t be scared and please don’t go postal due to your insecurities.
Seems to be a thing with Trump supporters these days , good picture with Cruz wearing a MAGA hat ... I wonder why Trump didn’t mention that Cruz dosent represent the party but yet Sanders denounced the idiot supporter that shot up the Republican softball game.
The 1st ammendment guarantees free speech but also has limitations (libel and slander laws, public safety etc). The founding fathers never could have predicted we'd invent such killing machines. There's no need to revoke the 2nd amendment and most Americans understand its importance. They just want some common sense applied to it.
Yes there are limitations now on guns and what Trump is proposing are additional reasonable additional limitations.
Germany's laws are more strict than many other EU countries. Norway, Switzerland, Sweeney all have higher rates of gun ownership but very low rates of gun crime. Registration, background checks, an interview with local police, licensure, testing is all required. There are limits on how many guns you can own and what types. You have to get police approval to be able to carry. Some countries track ammunition purchases as well.
Not sure your point, much of what you called out is required here in the US as well.
Not sure your point, much of what you called out is required here in the US as well.
That is absolute bull****.
You can go, right now, to a gunshop in NYS and buy a semi auto rifle or handgun, with a driver's license and credit card. 15 minutes tops, while they run a background check from your driver's license ID.
No questions asked about other guns owned, mental health issues, no interviews and no questions in regards to training.
Not sure your point, much of what you called out is required here in the US as well.
Actually virtually none of that happens here except a few states. Part of the problem is the variable laws state to state. Uniform laws, databases etc are badly needed. People often use Chicago as an example of right laws not preventing violence. But it's surrounded by states with less strict laws.
Trump calling the Dem rebuttal memo a "bust" when in fact it demonstrated that the GOP and Nunes are even bigger fools than first thought
-The F.B.I. used only a small part of the information provided by Mr. Steele (Nunes memo said it was primary source).
- The surveillance court knew that Mr. Steele’s clients had a political motive (yet approved surveillance anyway as they felt there was other sufficient information).
- The Yahoo News article was not used to corroborate Mr. Steele (did they really think the FBI would be that stupid?!).
- Republican-appointed judges approved the surveillance of Mr. Page (claims of political bias are unfounded).
- The wiretap of Mr. Page generated useful intelligence (which is why a continuance was approved).
The wiretap of Mr. Page generated useful intelligence.
Comment