Yes, we do. We ban cars with poor emissions - big stiff penalty plus a boot for driving one that hasn't passed the smog test. The U.S. government banned high mileage cars in the U.S. (Volkswagon Passat; gets 70+ mpg) last year for tax reasons; go here to read about it: http://www.libertariannews.org/2012/...revenues-high/ ...and that is from a Libertarian source, no less!...we dont really ban anything.
We ban narcotics in the U.S. We ban pharmaceuticals produced in certain countries (India and Pakistan, to be specific). We ban certain chemicals (pesticides and pollutants).
We even ban drunk drivers when they've had one DUI too many. Some alcohols are banned from being sold on Sundays, or through certain outlets (no Jesus Juice or beer currently sold in grocery stores in Tennessee).
You probably drive a car and you probably drink, and you may take prescription drugs from time to time, not to mention OTC cold remedies on occasion.
What part ofguns are you so freaked out about?regulating and restricting
Prohibitions most certainly do work; the civil rights movement wouldn't have succeeded without them, and neither would the lowering of hate crimes in the U.S.
It's pretty clear you're not willing to substantiate your argument beyond pro-gun organization rhetoric, so I'm guessing that you're mistaking logic and cold hard fact for what you believe to be hostility. Ain't no hostile parties here, other than the ones who believe your support of any choice of firearm on any given day, with any variety and amount of ammunition, is both threatening and unnecessary. Quit the feral pig argument already; the chances of encountering a feral pig during each of our lifetimes are probably less than lightning striking twice in the same place.
That's what I said when I cited hate speech turning into outright crimes. So you DO understand the concept of regulation when it comes to the First Amendment, but you don't regarding the Second? Hypocrite much??Absolutely speech is regulated....when it is a crime.
Then I assume that since you're not in favor of outright bans that you'd support stiffer fines and consequences for ignoring legal requirements to register, own and operate firearms? Ignoring required bills of sales when transferring ownership of weapons, similar to the ones required for the sale of a car to another person? At some point, gun owners and gun rights supporters need to take clear accountability and responsibility for their decision to own and operate guns. If truancy laws affecting parents of hookey-players (parents get fined or go to jail), then the same should be enforced for gun owners who don't pony up the cash to own and operate a firearm. I think that's fair, in lieu of a ban, don't you?