alleghany

Hammers come in all sizes, yet none of them are marketed as weapons potentially used to inflict violence.

And?

Neither is a hammer. Check it out.

The 2nd amendment is old and needs updating or better yet to be done away with completely this is not the old west if you want to play with guns join a army...

WTF does that even mean?

As a woman don't I have a right to say no?

A trash bag is not manufactured for the purpose of killing, guns are so there is a big difference. The gun nuts always mention hammers, knives, etc. Certain size knives are a bit more regulated, check it out for yourself.

You miss the point, anti. It is a part of human nature to exhibit violence. If you legislate away every tool that could possibly be used to commit violence folks would be left with their bare hands. Why do you think boxing has the following it does?

Compare this to a driver's license. They are recognized the same in all 50 states.

OK, this is confusing.

I agree that a concealed carry permit should have the same logic. That it should be managed federally, so that all states have the same law.

And you seem to think so, too.

So, are you saying that you're a liberal loser for agreeing with this? I really don't understand your insult.

You need to get past the "gun", anti. Where do you draw the line? What about knives, axes, machetes or archery equipment? What about the newest fad for islamists, the claw hammer? This all goes to intent. If someone intends to do harm, they will find a way.

Maybe you're right. But right now, firearms are the #1 weapon used in homicide and violent crimes. According to the FBI, 68% of all murders, 41% of robberies, and 21% of aggravated assaults are committed with firearms:

https://www.nij.gov/...lcome.aspx

So it just makes sense that we should tackle the largest issue first. If criminals switch over to start using knives and hammers, we'll cross that bridge next.

I'm not saying that guns should be banned, just that the owners should be "well regulated." If there was a system in place to make sure that people with mental disorders or that lack basic competency are restricted, then at the very least we might remove some of those crimes from the equation.

It's also interesting to see that in only 0.1% of crimes was a firearm used for self protection:

https://www.bjs.gov/...fv9311.pdf

Why should anyone need permission to carry. It is a right not a privilege

I guess you haven't read the thread. The very first line of the 2nd Amendment calls for it to be "well regulated." So yes, it's a right, but the founders always intended for it to be regulated.

AR-15's are $550 right now. Some of these nuts paid $1500 to $2500 for their woman's gun.

An impaneled jury can vote for the death penalty in the sentencing phase of a capital murder trial.

You can kill their illegitimate " right to vote" if the do not have one. People carry every day and no one gets hurt

YOU CAN'T KILL SOME ONE WHEN YOU VOTE, ****.

If you don't need a ID to vote I don't need one to carry

Compare this to a driver's license. They are recognized the same in all 50 states.

THIS IS NOT THE OLD WEST.

Why should anyone need permission to carry. It is a right not a privilege

I THOUGHT YOU DEPLORABLES WERE AGAINST MORE FEDERAL CONTROL.

You need to get past the "gun", anti. Where do you draw the line? What about knives, axes, machetes or archery equipment? What about the newest fad for islamists, the claw hammer? This all goes to intent. If someone intends to do harm, they will find a way.