Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your post is evidence enough that the government plan is working - to scare Americans into giving up more freedom for more security. Those who would give up some freedom for more security deserve neither freedom nor security.
Jeez! You're supposed to attribute that to Ben Franklin, you know. Not that he would necessarily have agreed with it.
I'd love to see people stop talking to themselves in a delusional attempt to make them feel like they are doing something.
How sad to call for doing nothing ahead of actually doing something. Discussion is what is needed.
More guns is not the solution.
less guns is not the solution.
Education, as per usual, is the solution. No one is taught gun safety, or how to respect a gun. No one is taught to respect the lives of other people. No one is taught to empathize or sympathize.
I was raised to respect life, guns, and to have empathy for others. No, I will not respect anyone's beliefs, but I will respect your right to live.
I was raised around guns, bows, crossbows, knives, and other weapons. I do not currently own any weapons, I have not shot anyone. I grew up with children who went hunting, damn near, every day of hunting season. Not one of them has shot anyone.
It's never a person who grew up around guns, in a positive light, that shoots up gun free zones. It's always some city prick who has no respect for anyone.
The great majority of shooters come from areas of extensive poverty. THAT is a major contributor.
Now that we've cut assistance for millions of people, watch the number of shootings trend upwards.
It really is a common sense issue we could easily address. But no, you're all too busy pointing fingers at the "other" side.
The first step to solving a problem is admitting it's there. Look at the incidents on a map. It is easy to see, right away, that these incidents are clustered in areas known for crime and poverty.
Stop blindly pointing the finger at the surface and look at the goddamn root of the problem.
Just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean you should attack those of us who have faith.
Compassion is what we need more of in this country. Non-stop bickering hasn't saved any lives so far.
The second amendment was written a long time ago, but we've had hundreds of years to change it and we have collectively chosen not to do so.
When was it last voted on? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Meanwhile, the Second Amendment in modern-day jurisprudence is taken to provide an individual right to own weapons appropriate to such traditionally lawful purposes as self-defense within one's own home. That's the extent of it. Control and regulation of this right that is imposed on a basis of legitimate purposes related to police powers or to powers of protecting public health and safety are Constitutionally permissible. No one needs to change anything to enact such things.
See that's another unsourced quote that can't be evaluated as is. Perhaps it's a sort of telephone-game derivative from the Virginia state Bill of Rights of June 12, 1776, which states...
13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state...
It also states...
...that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
See that's another unsourced quote that can't be evaluated as is. Perhaps it's a sort of telephone-game derivative from the Virginia state Bill of Rights of June 12, 1776, which states...
13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state...
It also states...
...that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
Unsourced or not a well regulated militia means a well regulated militia.
Your founding fathers had blunderbusses in mind, not AK47s. Marauding natives not kids in schools.
Laws come and they go. It used to be illegal for a woman to drive or vote.
If the well intentioned gentlemen of the 18th century could look forward in time to a mess like Sandy Hook, do you think they would have amended the amendment?
Technology is not the issue. The second amendment afterall is simply modeled after the English Bill or Rights of almost a century earlier, and even then weapons had advanced. In turn, that was modeled after English common law during the time of edged weapons (which actually were restricted and regulated as well, depending on who had the throne). The founding fathers had no problems comparing swords to the deadly ranged weapon musket or the new-at-that-time and particularly deadly rifled barrel weapons coming out.
Regardless, AK47 assault rifles (not the lookalike) are indeed restricted and regulated in the US and are virtually non-existent in crime usage.
Gmagoo many people still confuse the "well regulated militia" clause with the right to bear arms. One has nothing to do with the other. The confusion is in the writing style of the time and in the founding fathers desire to placate the states rights members. The original versions of this amendment can be seen to have no mention of a militia, while other versions included other provisions not related to gun ownership that in turn don't make sense. It was just the way it was written. This has been fairly substantiated by historical scholars, as well as the Supreme Court, and is generally no longer thought of as a subject of debate.
Regardless, the milita has been defined as, essentially, the people.
I'm grateful that more folks didn't get hurt or killed and sad for those that did.
I think this incident is a perfect eye opener to how useless our current airport security system is.
Jesse Ventura was talking on the radio one night about terrorism and the like at airports. He talked about how he was once a Navy Seal or something and that he would approach the situation like this if he wanted to do a terrorist act... walk right up to the security checkpoint loaded to the hilt and let er rip right there at the bottleneck.
So how to prevent this? Randomness and uncertainty is how terrorism works and is also how you defeat it. Don't have those security checkpoints where you check every single body. Just let people through... and very randomly, grab someone and check them. He says you'll catch more terrorists that way anyway. I think that Israel has a system superior to ours.
As far as concealed carrys, have a person designated to protect a school or a movie theater or a church... who's armed to protect and kill. Don't know where they might be, or if they be. This is better than having a cop parked in front of a school locked and loaded and in plain view... oh imo of course.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
