I don’t understand what you’re trying to imply.
Maybe there should be another civil war then.
IIRC Texas has actual facilities to produce weapons, where as the north has jack shit. Also the Cherokee allied with the south cause they felt like they gave a better settlement then the north.
If you’ve never been convicted of a felony, then strictly speaking you’ve not forfeited your 2nd Amendment rights.
Background checks are mostly in place to pick up felonies or previous mental admissions. They do need more work, but you’d need new legislation to add watchlists to the background checks.
Texas can leave. The north would be better off.
Do you live in a country with homogeneous population?
I thought that was obvious.
The terror watch list is so broken that even NYT complained about it a year ago, yet now the same people turned around and supported using this broken list to take away guns. The congress and the leftwing writers are being criticized for doing reactionary empty gestures that is counterproductive and doesn’t solve the problem.
Ah, I see.
While the list is flawed, it should still be used to temporarily restrict firearms to those on it. If later the person is taken off the list, their ability to purchase firearms would be reinstated.
I don’t see the problem with this.
Would you have it in any other way?
I cannot believe what i am reading.
72 Department of Homeland Security employees are on that list. How are they supposed to do their job without guns? No no I know what you are saying, I just wanted to make that joke.
The point is they need to use a better list, not that shitty list. People are put on that list without any evidence, any one could end up on that list if they said something stupid on the internet and the homeland security’s web crawler picked up keywords they are looking. What kind of system punishes people without being proven guilty first?
They most definitely need a better list. They also need to scrub parameters and come up with better ones. I still don’t understand how anyone ends up on it but if it’s going to exist and be used it should be updated to actually work as intended.
THIS is the best example of how fucked up the terror watch list is.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/01/new-york-police-terrorism-pressure-cooker
Lol
No, I’m from Singapore. We’re as multi racial as it gets.
Now answer my question- how do you expect to control the number of guns in your country without controlling your borders? It’s an honest question.
Our borders aren’t free. Unless you’re talking about EU in which case France has reestablished its borders.
With 11 million illegal immigrants, I’m inclined to be believe that the de facto status of your borders is more “free” than “secure”.
What the law says doesn’t matter if it isn’t effectively enforced.
If Democrats want to get serious on gun control, wouldn’t it make sense to also talk about increasing border security as part of a holistic policy position?
The border issue is the fault of southern states, who refuse federal help and are opposed to raising taxes to pay for the security necessary on that border.
Either way I’m glad we have Mexican illegals. They are hard working as fuck and have bolstered our economy.
Not in a constitutional republic that has rights defined and outlined, to prevent shit like this. We are at a point where in 20 years free speech might be restricted because reasons, and not based on philosophy or law. You aren’t fine with the current speech trends on campus, but that’s a majority saying it needs to happen. This is no different. The freedom of choice matters no matter the context.
Why are you bitching about that? Society demands it now in that enviorment. Because you think it’s not the same? Society can fuck itself when it infringes upon the rights guaranteed by the constitution, especially when society refuses to address questions and ignore facts. Society or democracy isnt an argument for anything when society goes against the very fabric and idea behind this particular state. It was framed that way for a purpose.
And what are your reasons? Because society? Because those arguments wouldn’t fly with anybody having a I intellectually honest discussion. We are not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic first, and the will of the people is not the rule of the land.
Since when is legislation infringing? You can still own a gun, but within limits set by legislators. Last I checked that power was also granted in the constitution.