prohibiton

alcholo prohibition, pot prohibition and now gun prohibition.

None of those worked, so what's the problem.

Assholes still want to put them back into place.

>>3

So kill them.

>>1
What's this "alcholo" you speak of?

>>2
The problem is that none of those worked.  Duh.

>>6
So the problem is not the policy, but the expense used to attempt to enforce something that can't be enforced.

Gun bans work in many European countries.  I would like them in the U.S.

>>8
Gun bans only disarm the law abiding.

Al Cholo, the Arab Mexican

>>9
What a load of shit.

>>11]
so your saying that criminals obey gun laws.

i lyks ma guns turhur

>>12
that dumb nigger down the street can't carve a gun out of his chicken bones, but you keep making more so he doesn't have to genius, gotta make a buck by any means necessary

The only legitimate way that the right to bear arms can be altered is by constitutional amendment.

>>14
He may have obtained a gun before the ban or on the black market. I can't believe you didn't think of this yourself. Admit you are an idiot.

>>8
Crimes committed with guns increased in England by about 40% following the institution of their gun ban. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm

If blacks couldn't buy darts they'd use blowdarts with poison frogs.  I saw it on Mythbusters.

>>15
I thought the constitution only applied to federal law and that state law was not bound by the constitution.

>>19
In some cases this is still the case, but it has changed with the addition of the 14th Amendment (I think it was the 14th).  The courts have recently been applying the Federal Bill of Rights to the states.

>>19
There's a reason why the US Constitution is called the "law of the land".  It governs all the USA, even though the individual states were designed to be fairly independent and run with their own, subordinate constitutions.  It's only because the federal government has grown so large and invasive, that you've been fooled.  The federal government was supposed to be minimal by design, and such a minimum of law would have been very pleasing to Americans as they applied their own, subordinate laws at the state and local levels.

Although the Liberal dipshits try to say otherwise, it's not Constitutional in the USA to ban guns since it's a violation of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.  The gun ban in Washington DC stood in this unconstitutional condition for over 20 years, before it was overturned.

As a first approximation, the US Constitution is the law of the land and largely expresses the limitation of federal government.  The Bill of Rights are AMENDMENTS and provide the second approximation of the document's design ... as an affirmation of individual rights.  Several sections and amendments explicitly state that further rights are the possession of the states or the people ... hence, the US Constitution doesn't contain a list of things you're legally able to do.  In short, if it's not forbidden, it's legal for you to do it.

States can have their own constitutions, which cannot overturn the federal one, but they can create laws that go further than the nation one does.  Roughly speaking, the US Constitution says nothing about abortion, so if New Jersey wanted to outlaw it within their state, they can.

You might note that each state constitution roughly mimics the federal one, even going through the same affirmation process with the Bill of Rights.