Quote:
Originally Posted by butthead aka 216
i am actually for a registry of sorts
lord, heres the thing about ownin a gun that i think everyone can agree on
1) there are situations in life where havin a gun would be preferable and possibly life preserving
|
I've gone over this so many times, I don't know what else I can post anymore.
Quote:
|
2) there are situations where havin a good could save my life; not havin a gun would result in death
|
Ditto.
Quote:
3) i could accidentally shoot myself or do somethin stupid
4) if i am responsible and careful the chance of that happenin is 0
|
That's like saying if you drive carefully there is zero chance of getting in an accident. It simply isn't true. Everyone who has ever shot himself by accident has said the same thing--"Won't ever happen to me." Famous last words, we call it.
This is the essence of my argument. If people bought guns with the understanding that these things don't make them safer and may kill them or someone close to them but are willing to take the chance, the accidents would be reduced because fewer people would buy them. By making it sound like a gun is the answer to our fears, the NRA only guarantees more needless gun deaths will raking in record profits for the arms industry.
Quote:
|
so what i am sayin is that your entire argument is basically based on a gun owner bein an irresponsible person. and this prob isnt a good argument but just havin the gun on you makes u feel more secure and confident.
|
I never said anything of the sort. I have no problem with hunters owning guns or even people who like to go out and target shoot. I have a problem with people who believe packing heat will protect them. It doesn't and it puts people around them at risk. It may make them "feel more secure and confident" as you write but feeling and being are, of course, completely different things.
Quote:
|
lol@ hillary clinton and pretty much all politicians who say they wanna ban guns. hey guys lets ban guns oh btw say hi to my armed personal guards. these people have no perspective whatsoever
|
More NRA nonsense.
You are referring to the signing of an Arms Trade Treaty where the illegal international sale of conventional arms was being targeted by the UN. That treaty was finalized last March and approved 154 to 3. The US is officially for it. Only Iran, Syria and North Korea are against it. The treaty is not in force at this time and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the 2nd amendment. It deals ONLY with the ILLEGAL trade of arms INTERNATIONALLY.
The Obama administration made clear that US approval of the treaty was contingent upon the the UN's recognition that the treaty has no impact upon the 2nd amendment or upon any US gun laws. The UN agreed. In fact, the treaty stipulates "the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms" within its territory.
Moreover, there is no legal precedent for such a treaty bypassing or usurping the normal legislative process of Congress. So in order to the US to sign the treaty, a 2/3 majority in Congress is required first. If Congress refuses, the US cannot sign the treaty (which requires 50 such signatures and currently has, to the best of my knowledge, none).
There is no legal precedent that would allow any administration to ban all firearms in the US through the signing of an international treaty and the Supreme Court has already ruled on this very point (Reid v. Covert, 1957). Nor can the signing of an international treaty suspend or usurp a constitutionally guaranteed right. Feel free to ignore the following the link:
snopes.com: U.N. Arms Trade Treaty