>the left argues about banning guns altogether
>the right doesn't want to set rules on owning guns altogether
Is that right or am I mistaken? Aren't the majority like that? Why not just make it necessary to have a license in order to own a gun, have a psychological test twice an year, make it so you can't sell guns to really poor people, check criminal records in order to see if that person should be allowed to carry a gun.
>>80034742
>its another "eastern european doesnt know about american gun laws" thread
Shouldnt you be using a romanian proxy like last time?
>>80034742
Because it's a Constitutional guarantee that requires a more intense degree of scrutiny to change than a dozen fucktards sitting around eating catered food.
If you want to change a part of the Constitution, there's a process for it. The people who want to change the rules want to take shortcuts, right or wrong.
>>80034816
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state
For a lot of states
>Permit to purchase required?
>No
So what are you talking about?
>>80034742
The right has tried to pass a more unified back round system and also for the FBI to show without a reasonable doubt that a person on a list can or can't buy a gun.
Yet the left doesn't want that and wants to basically ban anything that looks military like.
We should ban night clubs, schools, and movie theaters. There obviously to dangerous.
>>80034742
The right are defending and standing the ground. The left are constantly attacking and gaining ground.
>>80034742
>Why not just make it necessary to have a license in order to own a gun, have a psychological test twice an year, make it so you can't sell guns to really poor people, check criminal records in order to see if that person should be allowed to carry a gun.
because americans have never owned more guns yet crime is down. if it aint broke don't fix it
>>80035014
As it seems for a lot of states you're not required a permit to buy a gun, I think that should be necessary for every state and acquiring one should be stricter as to make it that only decent people, in good mental health (no chance of going wacko), not very poor (because I mean, if you're really poor, why would you waste money on a gun except for something bad), and not scary criminal records (because you know, criminals).
>>80034742
Go fuck your self, hope the USA wrecks your shithole country
>>80034742
>Why not just make it necessary to have a license in order to own a gun, have a psychological test twice an year, make it so you can't sell guns to really poor people, check criminal records in order to see if that person should be allowed to carry a gun.
Because that would be illegal. The constitution is a grant of limited powers by the people to the government, not the other way around. The second amendment states clearly that we have not granted the government any power whatsoever when it comes to restricting our access to firearms.
Whether or not this is morally right or wrong, it's the reality of the situation.
>>80035271
Mental health is barred by HIPPA , poor people need protection as well and of course criminal records go without saying.
Only thing we agree are on the mental health and backround of the individual. Licenses are a OK idea but it i's already in a database that a person is tied to that gun he just bought , if through private trade it's still tied to someone just not yourself unless you want it to like a car or other sensitive equipment. Also the poor should be allowed guns since protection is a right for everyone not just the wealthy
>>80035271
M8 if you ban poor people from having guns they will have literally nothing to lose and will riot and run you out on a rail with ILLEGAL BLACK MARKET GUNS
>>80034742
>Is that right or am I mistaken?
You're a bit mistaken. Some on the left are delusional enough to think they still "believe in the Second Amendment" and want to "preserve gun rights but with more restrictions." But usually their views fall apart under even the slightest scrutiny (either the "additional restrictions" they want are actually already in place i.e. universal background checks or ban on military-style assault rifles, or they end up revealing that they actually do ultimately want all guns to be gone and are just trying to seem "reasonable").
>>80034742
SHALL
NOT
BE
INFRINGED
>>80035573
But a lot of the states already require a permit, so what are you trying to say? I'm just saying that all of the states should require one, not like half of them, and that they should be stricter.
>>80035694
I'm not talking about the minimal wage poor people that work two jobs to feed their kids or whatever, I'm talking about the people who live off on social services and are NEET.
>>80035855
They have money for it then why not let them have it for protection , same as barring them from having vehicles.
>>80036024
Because if you are a poor NEET who can barely afford anything, then why would you waste your only money on a gun rather than food? It's suspicious, isn't it?
Gun control in the states has been decreasing lately, and the crime rate is falling. One town made it law for every household to own a gun, and crime rates hit the floor over night. Vermont, has some of the loosest gun laws in the country, and was rated the safest state in the Union this year. Why do you want stricter gun laws? Its like you want more mass shootings.
Obligatory SHALL
>>80036381
That's good, but just because everything is fine for now doesn't mean that it will be forever. It's not like the crime rate is going to increase just because you have to pass a psychological test, or have no criminal records, or not be a NEET who refuses to work and rather than spend the little money he has on food he'd spend them on a gun, the majority of people should still be able to own guns, It's just that the permit will cut off the potentially dangerous ones, a normal person shouldn't have any trouble passing those tests at all.
>>80034742
and what happens if you refuse to go to one of the mandated tests, or fail a background check for a nonviolent crime, which can include driving incidents...
Would you recommend that a SWAT team shows up and retrieves that weapon?
Fuck, you liberals really have no sense. Putting something in place that complex in a country as big as the united states is just not feasable for small towns and villages because of the spread of people. a large population town or city would have that same issue, only it would be because of the high population...
Just think of how much money it would cost to uphold those regulations.
>>80034742
>No rear sight
0/10
>>80036644
>There is no problem now, and statistics show an inverse relationship between gun ownership and crime.
>"FUCK STATISTICS! Those wont stay the same! LETS INFRINGE ON PEOPLES RIGHTS because guns are scary!
Why the do foreigners try to weigh in on American politics? You dont understand our culture, our laws, our history, or our Constitution. Just because something Arguably works (but really doesn't) in Europe doesn't mean it will work here.
>>80037569
Of course not, just the police will come to investigate what happened and you will have to pay a fee
>>80034742
>Why not just...
Anti gun people don't want anyone to own a gun. Any regulation is just another step toward that goal.
Say I am DPRK and you are USA. If we make a compromise between our two systems who loses more?
>>80034742
HERE'S THE THING FUCKBOY AND LISTEN CLOSE
THE ONLY WAY TO PREVENT SHOOTINGS IS ONE EXTREME OR THE OTHER
THE ONLY WAY TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE USING GUN CONTROL IS TO BAN GUNS AND REMOVE THEM FROM THE COUNTRY ALL TOGETHER
THE ONLY WAY TO HAVE EVERYONE BE SAFE FROM CRIMINALS AND BE ABLE TO SHOOT BACK IS TO MAKE GUN LAWS ABSURDLY LOOSE WITH THE ONLY QUALIFICATION NEEDED BEING A TRAINING COURSE
IN BETWEEN DOES NOTHING EXCEPT CAUSE WHAT BOTH WANT TO AVOID. SHOOTINGS BY CRIMINALS AGAINST UNARMED PEOPLE.
GUN CONTROL DOESN'T WORK IN AMERICA LIKE THEY DO IN UK/AUSTRALIA/JAPAN BECAUSE WE AREN'T A FUCKING ISLAND AND WE HAVE MORE GUNS THAN WE DO PEOPLE. THE ONLY WAY WE COULD MAINTAIN THOSELAWS IS COMPLETELY FUCKING IMPORTATION AND DESTROYING ALL GUNS WE CURRENTLY HAVE
THE LATTER FOR US IS FUCKING STUPID.
Also you're wrong both sides want middle ground leaning one way or another because they're both retards.
>>80038494
There are places in the United States where they literally would not follow that law for any reason. The police would not investigate those incidences. They have much more important things to be doing than checking up on people to ask them why they didn't attend their "bi-yearly psych exam"... That might work in a country the size of one state in The US but not the entire country..
