Driving is not a constitutional right. Comparing part of a drivers license to gun ownership is not apples/apples.
Ok libs, NRA is evil, guns must be limited, I get it
- Thread starter TarHeelEer
- Start date
Search and Seizures are constitutional rights......and many on here want to throw that away. But my point, if you were capable of comprehending, is that a gun is just as much capable of taking a life as someone driving a car. And if the government wants to keep people protected on the roads by not having competent drivers, then why the Hell don't we do that with guns????
But, hey, let's keep putting band-aid fixes on the problem or just better yet stick our head in the sand while taking millions in NRA money for campaigning.
So you can keep spouting this non-sensical rhetoric and blaming the other side. You label PATX's ideas as Gestapolike yet what you propose turns legal law abiding gun owners exercising their constitutional rights into criminals. Further, your plan will require the same level of Gestapolike personnel to police these people not submitting for mental exams that they are going to have to pay for just so they exercise their comstitutional right.
The government owns the roads and licenses those who can use them. Driving is not a right. It is a privilege. Gun ownership is a right guaranteed by the constitution. The government cant violate that right. It can tell you that you cannot drive. I shouldn't have had to explain this twice.
But they can certainly place qualifications/restrictions on that right, e.g. fully automatic rifles have special requirements.
They already do but most jihadist and anybody else who wants to, can modify to get around it.
Overreact much? You need a reason to stop someone and check them. The threat of being caught and violate your parole and being sent to prison was the reason gun deaths went down in NY. This is only proven way to stop gun deaths in large cities. If you are ok with deaths from homicide in excess of 500 every year, then that's what you have. I'm not sure that there's anything else you can do that will really impact gun homicides in large cities in the US.
Me thinks a psych exam is in order. This is what nuts resort to when they have nothing.
You're so stupid you don't even realize the implications of your own idea. Talk about a police state. How many federal marshals will it take to go door to door across this country and confiscate guns from people that won't go through your psych test? How many will die because the police are trying to confiscate their guns? You're not a bright guy but even for you this is absurd.
At the peak of s&f in NYC, 2011, they had over 685,000 stops. They found 819 guns. So that a little more than 800 random searches per gun found. That isn't effective use of resources, especially when it is unconstitutional.
With all due respect, you don't know the constitutionality of it. SCOTUS has not ruled on it and Bloomberg certainly feels it is constitutional (and he's no conservative). It needs to go to SCOTUS for a final decision. Your stats are misleading as well. How many people didn't carry guns because of the possibility of stop and frisk? There is no question it reduced murder rates according to NYC officials.
Here it is in a nutshell:
1. If you are crazy, you can carry a gun
2. If you are blind, you can carry a gun
3. If you are on a terror watch list, you can have a gun
Now, tell me where that's not crazy?
1. If you are crazy, you can carry a gun
2. If you are blind, you can carry a gun
3. If you are on a terror watch list, you can have a gun
Now, tell me where that's not crazy?
Would you rather have 75% more murders that impact the poor disproportionately? If a felon knows that a gun found on them violates their parole and they go back to jail, do you really think they would carry it? Good police work but I guess your are ok with more murders but I would rather the sCOTUS to rule on it before we say it's unconstitutional.
Whoa **** boys!!! He put the paint brush away and brought out the spray gun!