Why can't the states just decide for themselves how much they want guns regulated? Why do we always have to devolve into the federalist mindset that the federal government must mandate the same 2nd amendment laws everywhere. Obviously it is not the case that every state is the same or we wouldn't need to electoral collage. Why don't small states with less urban populations deregulateguns as they like and more urban states with higher crime and more population density can just regulate ad it please? The fact that some people can buy any type of gun from gun shows or someone can, get it for them without criminal background and mental checks is ridiculous but perhaps works well in smaller states with less crime. So maybe instead, we can set up laws that a person who lives in a certain state that has certain regulations is not allowed to purchase certain fire arms online from another state that was prohibited in their state. Also, every time you go to a gun show to buy a gun, you have to go with a state ID. Good idea know?
Solution for the issue of gun control
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
No. You don't get to pick and choose what amendments you like.
bump for interesting thread
I don't give a fuck, just wanted to post a picture of a Djihadi holding a giant AK.
S H A L L
H
A
L
L
(also OP is a massive faggot)
What? I'm not talking about banning guns in some states, I'm talking about de regulating them in some states that are super for it and regulating them in others states (mostly those with urban centers or whatever they want).
The constitiron clearly states right to "a well regulated militia." If a,state doesn't want to take look it the amendment like that then why force it? Just let the states decide for themselves how strictly they will interpret those words.
Then we stop this whole "the feds trying to screw over all gun owners" b.s.
If you don't like the,law in one state, then move to another, simple. Provided you have no criminal record, you can buy whatever you want after getting instate status.
>The constitiron clearly states right to "a well regulated militia."
"muh militia" argument
No.
How do can keep guns out of the hands of terrorists and criminals without regulation? Honest question to you pro gunners. I'm not even being sarcastic, um actually seeking counsel.
The same way that regulation made it impossible to buy weed or other drugs.... oh wait.
Lovely smell of sage in here.
>militia argument
Why must you spout shit you saw on buzzfeed? You're on the internet, use it.
because the fed thinks it's hot shit
But why is it a big deal to just let the states decide for themselves how much they are willing to interpret that? Again no state should ban guns but certain states based on their unique environment should be able to regulate or deregulation as they please. If you want to move to a less regulated state, then do that, but if yilou decide to come back to a regulatrd one, then all checks apply. Can you please tell me what is wrobg with this idea?honestly I think people in states that are heavily pro gun or who live in certain areas for get that there are higher rates of crime in certain states due mostly to high % of metropolitan areas. States without that seem to think the smallest bit of regulation is worthless since it doesn't effect them. There is obviously a disconnect happening .
Ever heard of the black market?
>alright boys today we're discussing the color blue
>texas and idaho agree that they'll call it blue
>california thinks it looks red
>motion to change the color blue in california?
The only disconnect is between your ears, thinking you understand anything of worth.
Everything you are spouting is shit that doesn't, hasn't and won't work IRL. If you don't want a gun because it hurts your fee-fees, don't buy any. If you want your state to ban guns, have it secede from the USA. Fuck off.
>The most gun regulating areas have the most crime
Wow who would've thought
How do can keep itrucks out of the hands of terrorists and criminals without regulation? Honest question to you pro truck of peacers. I'm not even being sarcastic, um actually seeking counsel.
Because the 14th Amendment imposes constitutional restrictions on all laws made at every level of government.
You leftards love this for everything but the second amendment so just deal with it.
Weed is deregulated in some states already and I think that's how it should be. As for other drugs... while there is no benefit and they are dangerous for everyone, you can't start an instant mass killing with it, so it's illegal trade is the least of our problems.
There are many loopholes for criminals(I'm not even going to say people anymore because regular people buying guns IS NOT the problem and you idiots need to realize this) psychos, and terriorsts to buy guns still.
Is DUDE WEED anywhere in the Constitution you dense mother fucker?
Fuck off and dont buy a gun if you don't like them.
Because guns are like water in that building half-a-wall will just cause them to flow around it rather than to stop them from getting somewhere.
Ergo all the attempts at control would have to be combined with strong intra-country borders for such an approach to work.
The half-assed approach is what leads to "gun-free" zones to being such a joke and what helps crime to spread like wildfire.
Because states cant ban constitutional rights
It hurts the liberal agenda. Puts fear back into criminals, breaks up the underground economy and puts individuals that much closer to their rights.
The federal government has to repeal the NFA, that is the start, then state issues can be decided by the Supreme Court.
Psychos steal guns and terrorists make bombs. Outlawing either of those will not stop it. Give it up, everything you say has been argued a hundred times on Sup Forums, and you're wrong.
Even the chief of interpol has stated the best way to deter terrorist attacks in public places is an armed citizenry.
You don't even need a gun to go on a spree killing. Are you going to regulate kitchen knives as well?
Preventing states from erasing "inconvenient" parts of the constitution or bill of rights does not do any of those things....
them gets tho
I'd jump through a thousand hoops if I could play with a fucking Garand
everything up to AR-15s not enough?
The word "infringed" does not mean ban, it means fuck with. Regulations fuck with the right to bear arms. Therefore they violate the Constitution by infringing on the right to bear arms.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Look up the word infringement in the dictionary. You'll find that one of the definitions is restriction.
You do not get to interpret the second amendment however you want, state or otherwise.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed (restricted.) Period.
That's it, that's all there is to it.
>everything up to AR-15s not enough?
wot m8?
What people don't realize is that places that have legalized weed "a little" have seen massive increases in crime and polupation. They either blame the population of the crime or the crime on the population but not on the fucking weed bringing assholes there to begin with.
The reason its stupid to kinda sorta legalize the shit is that its legal enough to spread everywhere but illegal enough to keep the criminal system at full speed.
Guns are the same way. Legal enough, but so many restrictions that fuckers flock in to abuse the grey area and underground markets.
Gun nut gun friendly towns don't fear guns very often.
NO ONE WANTS TO BAN GUNS FOR EVERYONE WHY THE FUCK DO YOU IDIOTS KEEP SAYING THIS?! I just said it a million times: regulate versus deregulate in some states. NEVER BAN, BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST THE 2ND AMENDMENT! CHRIST!
No. there is no state restricted gun regulation, that's why I'm bringing it up now. It's only mandated nationally through the federal government. I'm saying the feds in washington deciding for everyone isn't going to work, the same way the feds deciding that every state should mandate $15/HR wage is dumb. If states decide they want it, then let them and let people move there if they want it. If a state decides they want to defunderstand planned parenthood with taxes, and make it strictly privately funded, then let them. Bring power back to the states like it should be! People in Nebraska and Idaho have smaller populations and less metropolitan areas ( 2 thing known the breed less crime empirically) obviously they don't need strick gun strict if any regulation. A state like NY which has NYC, and even other city's upstate would benefit immensely from all types of gun regulation, mainly background checks and entry into state registries for people who have guns. Do you get it? Absolutely no state can ban guns however!
Trucks,have WAY more functions than just killing people you dumb fuck. A gun has what? Target practice and killing? Wow you fail at logic mate.
And I never said you were wanting to ban. You cant pick and choose what you want from an amendment, you either get the full package and be happy or you get the full package and be mad.
You're ignoring the fact that regulation is infringement.
>NO ONE WANTS TO BAN GUNS FOR EVERYONE
>regulate
The one begets the other. Every single time.
First comes registration, then bans on certain types, then band then they round people up and it's the gulag for anyone who disagrees.
Gun control is never about the guns - it's about control.
>you fail at logic mate
Pot, kettle.
>oh the irony///
Because our right shall not be infringed on a federal level. Simple as that. States don't get to opt out of protecting the first amendment, they dont get to opt out of the second.
>you can go on a "shooting" spree with a knife? Are serious or just retarded?
A gun is much harder to stop, when some psycho picks it up to go on a shooting spree at your son's school or at your job because one of his uncles can gift him a gun from his gun collection, fuck face. Or when a Bloodz gang members is able to get guns for him and his gang because one of their members has a credit card to buy guns offline.
Even with gun control gangbangers aren't just not going to get guns, They'll just purchase them illegally or steal them.
many statistics would disagree with weed causing crime and that's why it too is going to be well regulated you ass. Some states literally only have medical weed be legal. I'd say heroine cause way more crime with its freaky withdrawal symptoms, same with cracke,cocaine, and meth.
Sorry, wrong thread.
The 2nd amendment means no state has the power to regulate it.
A bomb is harder still, and you could make one from the shit under your kitchen sink.
what part about
>shall not be infringed.
don't you understand?
the constitution is the highest law of the land so you can not usurp it. so all laws regulating guns are unconstitutional. period.
I'm not the one implying that trucks don't serve many other purposes in societywhich is why they would not need to be as heavily regulated as guns. Besides, even then they are STILL REGULATED by some degree.
>no state has the power to regulate it.
But they already do. You can't own a rifle with a threaded barrel and a thumbhole stock with a magazine that holds more than 10 bullets in California, but you can in Texas
States already have their own gun laws...
Read up on DC v Heller and MacDonald v Chicago
What part of "shall not infringe" don't you understand, cunt?
Im not stupid lefty, I know its a bait and switch
they won't opt out though. They must uphold it in someway.
>muh government boogeyman
UGH! even if that somehow happned, which it wouldn't because of the 2nd fucking amendment, thanks to state rights there would still be many places in this country where it wouldn't be banned, with little or no regulation. So what's your point? Let me ask you something where have you ever heard of mass shootings in rural places like Nebraska or Kansas? It's because you they statistically don't really need to worry about that, but many states with big cities do! I think that is why you're so biased. you may live near or close to one of those states.
That one thing that we can't stop though, unless we ban sites that teach the instructions on how to make bombs. Even then, some people are just good at chemistry. Who holds gun is a simple think we can take care of easily to save many more lives. I hate how you guys deflect arguments about gun control to things way harder to control and/or less deadly. Let's focus on things we can control and are more dangerous too.
it is not bait, and the only stupid one here is you.
I just get frustrated by stupidity, especially when I've been sayibg the same thing over and over sometimes but you're right. I must control myself.
that's a stabbing spree user.. not a shooting spree. Please go back to 3rd grade. An idiot like you is the last person we need debating on this issue. thanks
>even if that somehow happned, which it wouldn't because of the 2nd fucking amendment
Stop right there faggot. your "proposal" invalidates the 2a because it allows the states to fuck with it.
Here's a better idea- have you ever heard of any mass shootings being either:
a) in non-gun-free zones
b) that happened when the killer was not televised afterwards
People do that shit for the infamy and because no one can shoot back, retard. Take that away and they stop happening.
>unless we ban sites that teach the instructions on how to make bombs
Already done, the info is already out there, and terrorists don't need a website to teach them the skills. Hell, the CIA teaches them at your expense!
>that's a stabbing spree user.. not a shooting spree.
Tomayto Tomahto...
It's a killing spree either way, and you're an idiot.
So what you all are saying is, the right of criminals, terrorists, and psychopaths to to bare arms shall not be infringed either, because they too are citizens, by the government?
N, that is not a logical fallay because that is what you are saying if you just go on completely deflecting the issue of why anyone wans to regulate (not ban) guns, especially qhen im saying on a state to state level. Not all states of the same, and statistically speaking, you will have more psychos, terriorists, and mentally ill people in high populated areas, especially if urban. But please go on about this idea of infringing the rights of all law abiding citizens. It's funny because you idiots accuse liberals of thinking everyone is inherently "good" yet you are doing the same thing with this logic right now. No I'm not liberal, I am independent, hence why I am not federalist.
Well,dipshit. One killing spree is less deadly than the other by the fact it does not involve a free spray of fast moving metal particles flying everywhere into the vital organs of many people at once.
I swear, some of you need to go back to grade school and should not be invovled in this debate.
>criminals, terrorists, and psychopaths
They aren't until they do something illegal, moron.
How about we take your ability to drive away because you MIGHT be in a car accident?
How about we lock you up because you MIGHT set fire to an orphanage?
>One killing spree is less deadly than the other
Wrong. The most dangerous thing would be to lock the doors to somewhere like a high-rise and set fire to it.
What about that guy in japan who killed a couple of dozen people with a knife? A better kill ratio than most people using guns.
Dickhead.
I don't even care about gun free zones, abolish it if you want. As long as criminals, psychos, and terrorist aren't the ones holding those guns in those "zones " I couldn't give a rats ass.
The moment someone breaks an applicable law, then, give them a trial and incarcerate them until they are deemed no longer a danger.
If you're afraid of them getting a firearm again once they are released, why are you releasing them?
MORE IMPORTANTLY - you cannot incarcerate them without them having committed an offence. This is something you keep forgetting. You really shouldn't.
>what are mentalhealth checks and screening?Oh right two forms of regulation that are trying to be employed as much as possible.
And please, stop acting like if you couldn't have the right to not give cars to women or asians, you bigots wouldn't do it in a heart beat. Anyway, I'm talking about mentally ill and criminals, 2 groups undeniable linked to violence if thwy had a gun.
>
Ok so how easy is it for one to acess locking all the doors in a,building compared to getting a gun?
Idiot, the stabbed in Japan went into a disabled people center. No matter what home or place a psychi or criminal goes to with a gun(full of able bodied or disable people), he will cause massive carnage. And yes that is even if some people have guns on them, how many of you can shoot swiftly and aaccurately while being hailed down by a barrage of bullets without extensive army training? Even if you are able to do this, how many people do you think can?
It's not up to the states or anyone else to decide how I can fucking defend myself pissed off you fucking liberal mother fuck
>if you couldn't have the right to not give cars to women or asians, you bigots wouldn't do it in a heart beat.
Apart from the fact your english is worse than anyone Ive ever seen older than 8, You are literally using a strawman argument here.
Also,
>bigots
feel free to fuck off to whatever website you normally concern troll on, faggot.