.
.
because she would not show him her puppies.. nobody has to tell you what country this happened in, you already know.. source.
This is a topic for another thread, but I sincerely believe that Russia could have defeated Germany on its own. In fact, they contributed more to the war effort on the German front than the US did.
However, without the US keeping Japan busy, it likely would have been a different story.
.
.
because she would not show him her puppies.. nobody has to tell you what country this happened in, you already know.. source.
Many good ideas have been put forth in this thread. Some I agree with. Some I think are overboard.
The fact of the matter remains that in the current political climate, you would be hard pressed to pass some sweeping form of federal legislation.
On the federal level, if any steps are to be taken to solve this issue of crazy people getting guns, there needs to be baby steps. Any legislation that puts out a ton of regulations in one fell swoop is doomed to fail.
Honestly, the low hanging fruit on the subject of this thread is requiring gun owners to secure their arms and penalizing them severely if they do not. I think even most gun nuts would agree on that. And I bet that if you don't include any other regulations in that legislation that the NRA would get behind it. Traditionally, they're pro gun-safety. Currently, they're run by a bunch of nut jobs and it's only getting worse.
How do you eat an elephant?
One bite at a time.
.
.
because she would not show him her puppies.. nobody has to tell you what country this happened in, you already know.. source.
There is absolutely NO reason to own an assault rifle
How do you define assault rifle?
Because I can think of plenty of hunting situations where a semi-auto rifle is useful. (Predator, Hog and Invasive species.)
.
.
because she would not show him her puppies.. nobody has to tell you what country this happened in, you already know.. source.
Good question, having more people ask it would be an excellent start. How about a ban on assault and high capacity weaponry? What about a ban on using weapons in public places, in other words the use of guns is restricted to shooting clubs and in areas designated for hunting.
I'm a Brit' who's never even seen a gun in all my 51 years so I know I don't have the answers. America needs to have and adult dialogue and sort it's own problem out before it leaps the Atlantic...
Excellent responses.
In regards to the ban on using weapons in public places except shooting clubs, that is already illegal just about everywhere. Now there are some places where it's legal to carry weapons openly in public places. Banning that, I have no problem with, and I think most liberal and moderate conservatives would feel the same way. It's only the most extreme of the extremists that think open carry is a good idea.
On to the ban on assault and high capacity weaponry. The only reason I balk at that is because I know how guns work. And I know how politicians work. They ban things like barrel shrouds and pistol grips which do nothing for how deadly a gun is. They limit magazines to 10 rounds, not realizing that it takes maybe a day's worth of practice to learn how to eject and insert a new magazine in 1-2 seconds efficiently. I don't think a ban on assault and high-capacity weapons would be effective in curtailing violence.
I remember the last Assault Weapons Ban...all the features they banned were cosmetic. It basically boiled down to, "If your rifle is semi-automatic, it can't have a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds, can't have a pistol grip, a barrel shroud, a threaded barrel..." The guns that were legal shot the same bullets at the same rate of fire, but just looked different. And like I said, the magazine issue isn't going to prevent crime or mass killings when all it takes is a second or two to swap an empty magazine with a full one.
Banning all guns will help prevent the severity and frequency of rampage killings. But it won't prevent violent crime or inner city gun violence. Those guys already have the guns and are already breaking the law.
http://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/by-region/world/jehovahs-witnesses-in-prison-2/.
the witnesses make reference to article 18 of the international covenant on civil and political rights, in reference to their not being able to practice their religion in certain places.
how despicable when (in my mind) their policy of disfellowshipping, apostasy, etc, causes them coerce members to keep this religion.
Since the WTS is speaking about witnesses actually being imprisoned because of their belief, your arrogant and stupid comment to equate the two as being the same just shows how pathetic you people are. Especially when you’re trying to justify your own stupidity. Mark negative like any child should.
You have a good day too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The hypocrisy is them using Article 18. Yes, it's wrong to be imprisoned for your beliefs.
However, it's also wrong to treat a friend or family member as if they are dead to you because they changed their belief.
Don't you see that both things are wrong??????????????????? (<--added a bunch of question marks in your honor.)
.
.
because she would not show him her puppies.. nobody has to tell you what country this happened in, you already know.. source.
I'd happily give up my firearms right this second if doing so would stop the madness of human-on-human violence I see.
Same here. Sadly, it would only cut it by a percentage, at best.
The US has mass shootings, yes. But those tragic mass shootings are a very small percentage of the overall number of deaths by firearm.
Most of the firearm related homicides come from inner city violence. The US has more heavily populated metropolitan areas, the areas where most gun violence takes place, than the other countries mentioned above.
.
.
because she would not show him her puppies.. nobody has to tell you what country this happened in, you already know.. source.
look at the price your country is paying.
What would you like to realistically see happen in our country to solve this issue?
Idealistically, I'm guessing a total gun ban. But let's be realistic. That's going to be a hard sell in this system of government.
hello simon.
first off, let me thank you again for all your time and effort in maintaining this site.
i really appreciate it and am a frequent visitor.
.
.
because she would not show him her puppies.. nobody has to tell you what country this happened in, you already know.. source.
I'm sure that would be a great comfort to the victims family.
There may not have been a victim's family in this case if the laws and penalties regarding properly securing fire arms were stricter.
can you explain your comment [regarding being attached to guns] to someone who just doesn't get it?
In the same way I'm attached to my fly fishing equipment, I'm attached to my guns. I enjoy fly fishing and I enjoy shooting sports and hunting for wild game. I don't want to see either go away.
.
.
because she would not show him her puppies.. nobody has to tell you what country this happened in, you already know.. source.
Most of you know, I'm very attached to my guns. So I won't comment on whether bans should be in place or whether more guns is better, etc.
But there needs to be some serious penalties for parents and other gun owners that fail to secure their fire arms. I think we can all agree that regardless of whether guns are legal or not, an 11 year old should not have unrestricted, unsupervised access to a fire arm. And that if that 11 year old DOES have unrestricted access to a fire arm, there should be some serious consequences for the negligent gun owner including wrongful death civil liability and criminal manslaughter charges if the unthinkable should happen.
