Gun Ownership by State (2023 Statistics)

[BADecker]

Why can't the United States of America just ban the Gun Ownership act in the constitution so that individuals can stop owning guns and carrying guns unneccessarily. I believe the society can be much more peaceful than ever if and only if people will be stopped from carrying guns for owning sake. Since there’s no country run by human beings that is faultless, then I don’t think it is okay for the US government to allow the use of firearms by individuals, therefore, the Gun Ownership should be banned and all sold guns to individuals and other citizens be retrieved by the government.

Due to the nature of Guns, which are dangerous weapons, not everyone, have the psychological capacity to acquire firearms or go near them and that’s why we have recorded an increased gun related violence over the years. All these can be stopped if the goverment reduce that access to guns, regardless of the type of gun.

Alternatively, instead of issuing these guns to people for protection, can implement very strict laws against citizens who break the laws and ensure serious implementation of local police.

The Constitution doesn't have any method to abandon it written therein. The method is to Amend it. We have Amendments already, and we might make more.

Government is made up of people. When you check out the news, you find that at least half of the government people are using their governmental position to do criminal activity. If you don't have guns among the average, non-governmental people, how do you stop government criminals from simply using THEIR guns to make formal slaves of all the rest of the people? After all, without the people having guns, there is no way strong enough to take the guns away from government people.

[Jenwi]

Guns should be given to those that  can control it because anger can cause a man to use his gun and we all know the result which grave.

[BADecker]

Guns should be given to those that  can control it because anger can cause a man to use his gun and we all know the result which grave.

Consider some of the best people who can control guns the best... the military soldiers. They have been trained to shoot well, to protect each other, and to maintain their firearms better than almost anybody. But every now and again we hear about soldiers being killed by 'friendly fire'. They got killed by their own 'friends in the military by accident.

So, who is going to determine who is a good gun controller? If soldiers make mistakes, anybody can.

Who is going to enforce gun control, and how? If police try to enforce gun control without guns, they will be shot dead. If they use guns to enforce gun control, they are fighting the thing they are trying to enforce.


Could This Supreme Court Case End Government Overreach By Three-Letter Agencies?


https://www.activistpost.com/2023/12/could-this-supreme-court-case-end-government-overreach-by-three-letter-agencies.html
What do fishing, Three Letter Agencies, and gun rights all have in common?

Well, thanks to a little-known case called Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, commercial fishing and gun rights are intrinsically tied together. The outcome of this case could change the legal landscape of the entire country when it comes to the ability of three-letter agencies such as ATF to make regulations.

To understand the scope and effect of the Raimondo case, we'll need to first look at two different things. The first is the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The second is a legal principle called Chevron Deference.

Let's start with the Fishery Act, as that's the basis for this case.
[VIDEO INCLUDED]
...

[tvbcof]

For our mutual enjoyment:

  CarJackers Get Swiss Cheesed by Victim
  https://www.bitchute.com/video/mLY40pILAWOM/

Where I live people get 86'd with some regularly.  Honestly, as best I can figure, those who eat the big one by way of a bullet usually kind of deserve it and on balance the community is better off without them.  Since the court system is largely a fail, society has adapted.

Most people don't have guns here because they are quite expensive and probably the leading scenario of murder is 'hacking'.  Expressed mathematically:

  (booze) + (farmer) + (machete)  = (dead_relative).

There actually are a fair number of home-made guns here and they are routinely seized, but oddly they don't really seem to be implicated in most of the fatal shootings that I am aware of.  'Here' probably applies to SE Asia in general.

[btc78]

Guns should be given to those that  can control it because anger can cause a man to use his gun and we all know the result which grave.

it’s hard to measure one’s control especially in times where they seem calm enough what if they get under pressure and knowing they have a gun, they use it on someone? USA seems very lax in their regulations regarding gun laws they have department stores selling guns on the side where anyone can just go up to and buy a weapon for god knows what?

they should really reevaluate their laws considering the rates of mass shooting in the country

[Hispo]

Guns should be given to those that  can control it because anger can cause a man to use his gun and we all know the result which grave.

it’s hard to measure one’s control especially in times where they seem calm enough what if they get under pressure and knowing they have a gun, they use it on someone? USA seems very lax in their regulations regarding gun laws they have department stores selling guns on the side where anyone can just go up to and buy a weapon for god knows what?

they should really reevaluate their laws considering the rates of mass shooting in the country

I think it pretty much depends on the state one lives there in the United States which determines how easy is for someone to get a gun or not. There are states where people are supposed to pass background check and also have a waiting period of a few days before being able to retrieve their new gun from the store. There are also States which can be very tight in the restrictions regarding the handling of the guns and whether can open carry or conceal carry a gun. As far as I understand, conceal carry implies additional permissions and additional processes for a citizen to keep a gun hidden in his clothing for be used at any time. In the north states is the case, while in Texas it is much more flexible so one does not need additional permission or training to get a gun and conceal it on oneself.

The problem when comes to pointing out who is supposed to have the rights to get a gun and who is not, is that people who get guns to commit violent crimes usually have no previous record for authorities to use as a precedent for them to get guns off that person, that is specially true for school shooters, most of them have a clean story and when deciding to get rifles, and they get them all legally. In practical terms, it can be very problematic when law is supposed to punish or restrict people from having guns if they have not committed a crime before. In the USA convicted felons are not allowed to hold guns, for example.