Congratulations NRA, two media members have fallen to your cause

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by southtown4488

Australia managed to do this fairly successfully after they passed strict gun laws not too long ago

"Australia confiscated 650,000 guns. Murders and suicides plummeted"

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback

You're too stupid and illiterate to understand the article you cited, suckclown:

That does not mean that something even remotely similar would work in the US — they are, needless to say, different countries.... Again, Australian lessons might not necessarily apply to the US, given the many cultural and political differences between the two countries.

And Britain's ban on handguns was met with an increase in knife homicides, suckclown.

Doctors' kitchen knives ban call

Doctors say knives are too pointed. A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.

A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.

The research is published in the British Medical Journal.

The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all.

They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen (BBC)

Key points

• Doctors claim long kitchen knives serve no purpose except as weapons

• 55 out of 108 homicide victims in Scotland were stabbed last year

• Police superintendents say a ban would be difficult to enforce

Key quote

"Many assaults are impulsive, often triggered by alcohol or misuse of other drugs, and the long pointed kitchen knife is an easily available, potentially lethal weapon, particularly in the domestic setting" - Dr Emma Hern, writing in British Medical Journal

Story in full LONG, pointed kitchen knives should be banned as part of a concerted effort to reduce the terrible injuries and deaths caused by stabbing attacks, doctors warned today. (The Scotsman)

Originally Posted by southtown4488

Agreed, it should be on par with what police officers have to pass in training.

Gun ownership is legal and constitutional, get over it, suckclown.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

I understand what you're saying and I agree to an extent. Whether you realize it or not you're idea if it was to come to fruition is diluting the "Right" to gun ownership to a privilege to gun ownership similar to your privilege to drive a car. Which could be a good thing but the second amendment would be null and void.

Jim

Not really. The 2nd Amendment can accommodate reasonable restrictions and all of the cases say that....for instance, if the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow citizens to resist a tyrannical government, then why can't you and I walk into an Academy and purchase an automatic weapon and some fragmentation grenades? You could resist a lot better with an M-249 than a Colt AR-15.

As with all things constitutional, it's a balancing act.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

Well suckclown, that puts you at odds with the "black lives matter " crowd and the libs that say ALL cops are dangerous when armed and are racist rednecks just looking for a homie to cap. Your ilk doesn't want to obey any law they don't like ( just like your hero odummer and the Constitution ! ), so if the police are disarmed more of your "homies" can practice some of that " urban income redistribution " , or what the rest of us call LOOTING the next time they get upset over a "gentle, choir boy " shoplifts and intimidates the store owner and then goes on to try to take a police officers weapon . But iss aah-right in da 'hood !!

Look at everyone else's post on that page... and then look at yours. One of these things is not like the other. Someone who can't even call the President by his correct name does not deserve to be respected or heard.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by timpage

Not really. The 2nd Amendment can accommodate reasonable restrictions and all of the cases say that....for instance, if the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow citizens to resist a tyrannical government, then why can't you and I walk into an Academy and purchase an automatic weapon and some fragmentation grenades? You could resist a lot better with an M-249 than a Colt AR-15.

As with all things constitutional, it's a balancing act.

Agreed. I'm not for confiscating guns. Like rounding up all the illegal aliens, it's not a feasible proposition, so let's start with a reasonable discussion at least.

[southtown4488]

Originally Posted by timpage

Not really. The 2nd Amendment can accommodate reasonable restrictions and all of the cases say that....for instance, if the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow citizens to resist a tyrannical government, then why can't you and I walk into an Academy and purchase an automatic weapon and some fragmentation grenades? You could resist a lot better with an M-249 than a Colt AR-15.

As with all things constitutional, it's a balancing act.

Exaclty, every right has limits. . . we have freedom of speech but u can still be sued for libel. Problem is the NRA and most elected republicans and some dems are not reasonable when it comes to guns.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by southtown4488

Agreed, it should be on par with what police officers have to pass in training.

Yeah. How's that working for you? No crazy cops out there, thank god!

[southtown4488]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Yeah. How's that working for you? No crazy cops out there, thank god!

there is no solution to prevent ALL murders, there are plenty of things we can do to reduce them. Its like saying we cant prevent all traffic deaths so why should we enforce seat belt laws. its not a zero-sum game.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by brianjackson

IF you were shown tomorrow that eliminating gun ownership in the US would result in less murders would you vote for that?

I have asked gun owners this question before and they have always answered no. Said its their right.

I am on record as willing to vote to change the constitution. If it weren't in the way, I'd vote to ban virtually all handguns - especially if Mr. Trump is in charge - I'd trust the government again at that point.

Now, if I have to give up my assault rifles, and handguns, what do I get in return, other than intangible satisfaction for making the world a better place?How about in return we legalize prostitution and eliminate affirmative action?


Additionally, I would be so elated I would publicly apologize to any Hispanic-American or African-American who has felt I used an inappropriate slur.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by timpage

Not really. The 2nd Amendment can accommodate reasonable restrictions and all of the cases say that....for instance, if the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow citizens to resist a tyrannical government, then why can't you and I walk into an Academy and purchase an automatic weapon and some fragmentation grenades? You could resist a lot better with an M-249 than a Colt AR-15.

As with all things constitutional, it's a balancing act.

Fuck, I almost hate myself for agreeing with most of your posts on this thread. It feels so wrong, but I guess even you can be right occasionally.

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by southtown4488

I know its difficult for you but try real hard to think out a coherent statement, maybe you forgot ur meds again.

Maybe if you would have worked harder in school and not dropped out, you could figure it out suckclown.

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Look at everyone else's post on that page... and then look at yours. One of these things is not like the other. Someone who can't even call the President by his correct name does not deserve to be respected or heard.

But it's all right for you libs to go after Bush43 and call him shrub and other shit ! I get it ! More lying liberal "Do as I say, not as I do " BS , right woomby ? ! Keep being a WK for your fellow peter-puffing bath house BOY ! Bet you'd let him pack your fudge if he were to ever travel to Arkansas at want to hit the 'holes !

[Guest123018-4]

OP is an idiot and I seldom will call somebody out for it, but when the facts are the facts you call em as you see em. Idiot.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by timpage

Not really. The 2nd Amendment can accommodate reasonable restrictions and all of the cases say that....for instance, if the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow citizens to resist a tyrannical government, then why can't you and I walk into an Academy and purchase an automatic weapon and some fragmentation grenades? You could resist a lot better with an M-249 than a Colt AR-15.

As with all things constitutional, it's a balancing act.

We have been through this so many times....originally a citizen could buy or build a cannon, a musket, a rifle, or an explosive device (mine or cannon ball).

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Look at everyone else's post on that page... and then look at yours. One of these things is not like the other. Someone who can't even call the President by his correct name does not deserve to be respected or heard.

What is the president's name? His full name. The one he was born with, the one he grew up with, or the one that his using now?

Does your moral tirade also cover ex-presidents named Bush? You know you're as guilty as hell.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by southtown4488

Exaclty, every right has limits. . . we have freedom of speech but u can still be sued for libel. Problem is the NRA and most elected republicans and some dems are not reasonable when it comes to guns.

Please define this word "reasonable" for us.