DaButt
Sunday 26th November 2017 1:39pm [Edited]
14,722 posts
Quote: Kenneth @ 26th November 2017, 9:36 AM
So the following Vermont statutes are meaningless?
Yes. Vermont's firearm laws are intentionally vague, but they do not trump the federal law which prohibits dealers from selling handguns to anyone under the age of 21. Vermont is a bit of an oddity: strongly left-leaning (Bernie Sanders is their senator) yet vehemently pro- individual rights and anti- big government. It all goes back to their roots as one of the original 13 colonies who revolted against tyrannical British rule.
Quote: Kenneth @ 26th November 2017, 9:36 AM
Only 420 gun deaths in Vermont over 2011-2016.
And 90% of them were suicides. The number of firearm murders during that 6-year period was 42, or an average of 7 per year. Despite having the most lenient gun laws in the nation, their murder rate is just about the lowest in the nation at 1.6 per 100,000 residents. Now look at the city of Chicago, which boasts some of the nation's most restrictive gun laws, yet has a murder rate of 27.2, or a full 17 times that of Vermont. Why the difference between the two? You only have to look as far as the numbers of gang members, drug dealers and street criminals in the two locations to find the answer.
Quote: Kenneth @ 26th November 2017, 9:36 AM
You love the right to bear arms? See, you don't understand that gun nuts are the problem.
No, guns and so-called 'gun nuts' (I prefer to call them 'law-abiding gun owners') are not the problem. Gang members, drug dealers and users, street criminals and homicidal maniacs are the problem. Period.
Quote: Kenneth @ 26th November 2017, 9:36 AM
Imagine, no guns. You'll say it's too hard. You'll claim it will cause a civil war.
Because it's true. Describe a workable plan where the nation's criminals are disarmed along with the nation's law-abiding gun owners. Be sure to explain how a million or more criminals who carry and use firearms despite mandatory sentences running from 5 to 30 years in prison (and sometimes the death penalty) will suddenly see the light of the new law and turn in their illegal firearms. Bonus points if it's constitutional, and I'll affix a big gold star to it if you can cite an example of a nation with our number of guns and levels of gun crime (and gangs, drug dealers, street criminals, etc.) which has been successfully disarmed and pacified.
The likelihood of a civil war caused by the government forcibly removing firearms from law-abiding gun owners is very real. The last time it was tried we were a colony without a constitution, but as the British began confiscating gunpowder and weapons, tens of thousands of armed Americans fought back. There is no reason to believe that Americans would react differently today.
Quote: Paul Wimsett @ 26th November 2017, 11:15 AM
Say California did become its own country. Would it want to want the right to bear arms to remain, or would it want a clean sheet?
I assume they'd want to maintain their right to bear arms.
California would be more likely to split into two states than it would be to leave the USA. There's a big divide between coastal areas and the interior of the state. The Bay Area is strongly liberal, but I have quite a few friends there who are very liberal, but strongly pro- gun rights.