We should try to pass gun control on the ballot.

So now the claim being presented on the part of yourself, is that a resident of the city of New York, who has complied with all of the necessary legal requirements to legally possess a handgun within the city, will commit murder if they are permitted to take their legally owned firearm to a range that is outside of the city limits?

The city of New York is attempting to protect the rest of the state of New York from its dangerous citizens with this ludicrous firearm-related restriction?

Whether or not there is a need for such, it is of no relevance to the discussion. Constitutional rights are not based on the concept of need. No particular individual needs anonymity on the internet, or a phone capable of connecting to the internet and acting as a computer in and of itself. Yet despite these modern conveniences not being needed in society, they are still protected by the first amendment of the united states constitution

 

Amazing. Eight and a half million people and you know every one of them well enough to determine whether they require a gun.

 

Yeah, just a solid no on anything gun related.

Sorry, but just no. Keep the government away from my guns. If they want 'em, they can try taking them. Not as easy as it sounds.

 

The city is so compact and so densely populated that to allow the free carry of guns loaded is a terrible idea. There is no threat of wildlife, police are less than a mile away, and the vast majority is unarmed.

The NYC Democrats are clearly do the will of the city as they have 48 out of 51 seets and have maintained total control since 1977

It was being abused, likely because once outside they would simply buy different guns or ammo and bring them back in as a result of having the travel with guns license.

None of those inherently cause risk, the risk of less than 6% of the population getting the right to carry all around the city is not worth the risk to the super majority which is the other 94% who agree with the cities regulations.

 

Not enough crime in any part of the city where someone might need protection? Or no one with a special need or job where they might need a weapon? With eight and a half million people, there will be circumstances where a weapon is needed.

 

There states

 

Hey. The sovereign states may appoint their electors in any manner they choose, however retarded it might be.

The electors, of course, have the responsibility to cast their votes. That's what election means.

 

Ballot measure to add speech control to the state constitutions.

Licensing Process

1. All persons must submit a request to begin the application process to their county sheriff at which point a check for any outstanding warrants or crimes from traffic violations to felonies will be checked. If anything comes up the request is denied, or if the Sheriff does not feel someone is capable of properly and safely speaking they can withhold their consent and deny permission.
2. After getting granted permission all persons must take a test about the history of speach, the change in how speach is now restricted, how to speak safely, general speach safety, and be able to speak properly and under approved standards. Failure results in having to wait 6 months before they can try again.
3. Applicants will then have to go through a speach simulator where they will be faced with a virtual protestors and as some point they will either pull a phone or a microphone, this will happen 20 times 10 of them being phones, they must survive all 20 by protestors when the revved is used not offending any of the protestors and not complain when the phone or microphone is confiscated and the protestors burn down surrounding buildings Failing even once will result in having to wait 6 months to try the process again.
4. They then must get a note from a doctor confirming they are in a sound mental state, and consent from a family member and a friend.
5. They must acquire liability insurance for the speech for in the event anyone is offended, meaning that the insurance company must pay for all medical/barrial/legal fees of the victim in the event of a shooting.

Storage

1. Phones, tablets, notebooks must be kept separate during transport. They can not be loaded outside of a monitored safe zone. All must have some sort of lock on them in the house where persons under the age of 18 reside.
2. A tool.for speech is an extension legally of a person and the last legal owner of said tool shall be liable for anything that happens to with their tool before ownership is transferred.
3. Loud toolsnof speech are prohibited and are defined as any microphone in excess of 85db or phone connect to more than 10 people in which more than 2 apps can be loaded at one time.

Loss of license

1. Failure to declare anybody audio when stopped by the police
2. Risk complaints by 3 or more people who can prove they know you
3. Being sent to jail
4. Being diagnosed with any mental health issue
5. Any act of violence with or without the use of an audio device.
6. Losing an audio device- Which must be reported to the authorities within 24 hours.

 

They have a cylinder and there are quick load cylinders that can beat a magazine load.

 

And would be on violation of the US Constitution which has supremacy.

 

Not gonna happen, not enforceable and not Constitutional.

 

So you are good living in a country where only law enforcement would be armed?

 

Where a small number are armed with guns, and the rest only have tasers, mace, and batons.

 

You really don't see the far-reaching consequences of an armed government and an unarmed populace?

 

Nope been that way in the UK and they created rule of law.

 

Good luck. Gun control will only control good, non-violent, law abiding citizens. It will not stop anyone from getting a gun if they want one.

I think every State should require a citizen to apply for a gun license and only once issued should they be able to purchase a gun from any source.

The problem with crazy people using guns to kill innocent people is not an easy task. I am not sure there is a way to do it.

But in my opinion it will take a change in Societies morals, a return to faith, allowing teachers to discipline as they use to. Allowing parents to discipline and to criminalize bulling; a misdemeanor for those under 17 and felony for adults.

T.V. Use to be moral. Commercials were moral. No longer, and now we face a moral dilemma. And many young people have no respect for life.

 

Seems to me that the armed citizenry of the US defeated those guys not once but twice. Also, if I recall history correctly, it was US civilians who sent personal firearms to the UK to help them defend themselves during WWII. Interesting, no?

 

Once, lol the war of 1812 was not a win, they burned down the white house, and we lost a war against 500K British North Americans and native tribes. If England had not been at war with france the US would have been screwed.

WWII yeah we helped them.

 

Interesting. I see George Washington's face on the dollars in my pocket and I drive on the right hand side of the road. Guess I would consider that 1812 war as win number two.

500K. Where did you get that number?

And in the Revolutionary War we might also have been screwed had it not been for France. Funny how things work out some times. A win is a win but tougher if you don't have a gun.

 

Sadly, I am guessing that the second amendment has been incorporated, so you can't even do this in your state.

You might enjoy the UK, though.

 

Show the evidence of said abuses being claimed on the part of yourself.

Widespread and unchecked access to digital devices by the public poses a significant risk of injury, due to the increases in the number of individuals who choose to operate motor vehicles in an impaired state because they are too busy talking and texting to keep their eyes on the road.

 

And simultaneously forcing others to accept their definition of rule of law via genocidal practices.

 

That was the governments reason for removing them "wide spread abuse" I don't know what people did but I'll take their word for it.

This is true one thing NYC residents don't drive cars.

 

Because government is never in the business of dishonesty and deceit, correct?

Irrelevant.

 

of course most governments are deceitful at some points, however I am in support of their policies so no need for me to question why they did it,

Nope you said something was a threat pertaining to free speech, but that threat is not an issue in this city.

The city government holds together 6 different distinct cultures and zones in one they can't afford to have federal courts messing with their balancing act.