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.
If you don't want guns, then fine. However, do not tell other people what to do. Every nut and criminal can get guns if they want them (sometimes through our own government, illegally- see Fast and Furious). I will offer to you that had the gunman in Aurora tried the same thing in one of our local theaters, at least ten people would have unloaded on him and killed him before he could empty one magazine.
Totalitarians have always been for gun control. Given that, it is not surprising that liberals are for marked gun control.
You talk as if its some sort fantasy world. "unloaded gun on him and killed him before"... Are you really serious? You will have the presence of mind for this? Colorodo allows CCW.. So i am assuming few people in theater did carry concealed weapons. But natural instinct is save ones own self first. Nobody acts a hero unless its gun on their head. Case in point is what happened in Gabby Gifford shooting.. There were 2 people with guns but they never shot the gunman. They just ran away.
Again you just seem to jump the liberal v/s conservative mode. It's just diversionary tactic. I am a conservative but hate guns. I don't want anybody to have guns except the army and service folks.
By now, those of you who know my posts and political stance know that i'm best described as slightly left of center. I'm usually going toe to toe with the conservative element. In this case though, I have to defer to the right. they get it. Some republican gun owner once said to me, "If a republican doesn't like a gun he doesn't buy it. If a democrat doesn't like a gun they ban it."
Well, I'm starting to think that's true. For the life of me I can't comprehend why otherwise sane democrats deny themselves the freedom of gun ownership. If that is the case, then only right wing conservatives will own all the guns and the democrats will be powerless. I for one would like to keep the balance between the two parties on an equal footing, on all levels.
I can see and accept the fact that high powered weapons in big cities may be a candidate for reasonable restriction. you have a problem, you call the cops. They're everywhere in the big city. Out here in the Desert, police reaction time is 30-40 minutes. You better be able to defend yourself.
The founding fathers WERE ANTICIPATING changes in weapon technology. That is why they did not say the right to bear "muskets".
The only reason that we are a nation is due to the ability of free men to take up arms against an oppressor with force equal to that of the ruling entity. If one does not have relatively equal firepower, you lose the ability to prevent a tyrannical government from taking control.
I think that the 2nd Amendment does not go far enough, in that most citizens are prevented from having full auto machine guns, rocket launchers, grenades and anti-tank weapons. This would put citizens more on par with the army and provide a strong deterrent to using military forces against the public. Hell, I think that there should be at least three or four anti-tank weapons available on every block and a few SAMs. Look at the losses the Russian suffered in Berlin due to the simple panzerfaust. The public should have the ability to defend itself and currently we are at a disadvantage.
I am assuming you are being sarcastic.
I would say every house hold should have a mini nuclear bomb
Much as i'd like to say ban all guns it wouldnt have made a bit of difference in this scenario as he would have just acquired the guns through illicit means and perpetrated the massacre anyway.
Banning guns or strictly curtailing their sale may be a good move to prevent a spontaneous emotional usage but a dedicated murderer will take the time it takes to acquire the weaponry needed weather its a week a month or a year.
This logic is flawed. Fear of unknown is not the right reason to avoid changes.
The founding fathers WERE ANTICIPATING changes in weapon technology. That is why they did not say the right to bear "muskets".
The only reason that we are a nation is due to the ability of free men to take up arms against an oppressor with force equal to that of the ruling entity. If one does not have relatively equal firepower, you lose the ability to prevent a tyrannical government from taking control.
I think that the 2nd Amendment does not go far enough, in that most citizens are prevented from having full auto machine guns, rocket launchers, grenades and anti-tank weapons. This would put citizens more on par with the army and provide a strong deterrent to using military forces against the public. Hell, I think that there should be at least three or four anti-tank weapons available on every block and a few SAMs. Look at the losses the Russian suffered in Berlin due to the simple panzerfaust. The public should have the ability to defend itself and currently we are at a disadvantage.
There is a definte need for more regulations as to who can acquire what type of weapon. How about the right for an individual to bear nuclear arms? That would be included within the 2nd amendment too, right? The Founders must have forseen those... If there is a govt takeover, you'd better have some on hand.
The founding fathers WERE ANTICIPATING changes in weapon technology. That is why they did not say the right to bear "muskets".
The only reason that we are a nation is due to the ability of free men to take up arms against an oppressor with force equal to that of the ruling entity. If one does not have relatively equal firepower, you lose the ability to prevent a tyrannical government from taking control.
I think that the 2nd Amendment does not go far enough, in that most citizens are prevented from having full auto machine guns, rocket launchers, grenades and anti-tank weapons. This would put citizens more on par with the army and provide a strong deterrent to using military forces against the public. Hell, I think that there should be at least three or four anti-tank weapons available on every block and a few SAMs. Look at the losses the Russian suffered in Berlin due to the simple panzerfaust. The public should have the ability to defend itself and currently we are at a disadvantage.
This is again an example of why I think the right's embrace of Heller and McDonald is hilarious. As I said they are essentially an embrace of Liberal views on Constitutional interpretation, which I cannot say I think is all that bad. If they were truly giving a Conservative interpretation they would say. The 2nd Amendment applies to the federal government and it applies absolutely against the federal government. Therefore if Illinois wants to ban guns as a state they can. If Oklahoma wants to allow its citizens to own anti-tank weapons, truck mounted machine guns and anti-aircraft weapons that is Oklahoma's prerogative in forming state authorized "militias".
Instead the Scalia and the GOP have embraced incorporation which applies the 2nd Amendment against the states. While at the same time qualifying it and creating a significant space for federal regulation. Yet the right tends to like them. I don't know why save to say that people don't have a clue what they are talking about when they discuss Constitutional issues.
For many of us guns and reloading is a hobby and a necessary tool used to kill varmints. My parents got me my first centerfire rifle and shotgun by my early teens. Many of the kids around here get 22s at a young age. Heck my little nieces already have bb guns. The anti gun nuts should spend some time around firearms instead of being so over the top terrified of them cause guns are here to stay.
I can see and accept the fact that high powered weapons in big cities may be a candidate for reasonable restriction. you have a problem, you call the cops. They're everywhere in the big city. Out here in the Desert, police reaction time is 30-40 minutes. You better be able to defend yourself.
AR 16's might be a reasonable restriction in big cities, seriously, seems like assault rifles should be a restriction everywhere.
Many people see the writing on the wall, this country is on very, very wobbly legs. And you want to take their protection away from them....................HAHAHA, good luck with that one!!!
I predict a Mad Max scenario will play out across the USA within the next 10 years.
Absolutely not! And to propagate such action is sedition, and to perpetrate it treason.
The argument that we, as citizens, have a constitutional right to take up arms against our lawfully constituted government is without any foundation. There is no support for such right, either historically or constitutionally. The American Revolution was a war waged for separation of the American colonies from the rule of the English monarchy, and not a rebellion against the established colonial governments. The colonies were being taxed under English laws in which they had no elected representatives in Parliament; and when the Crown refused to grant representation, the colonies, in Continental Congress, declared their separate statehood and independence. Likewise, the reliance on the supposed historical record of the founding fathers is wrong. George Washington, who is considered the father of our nation and who commanded the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, was the president of the Constitutional Convention that drafted our Constitution that is the framework of our government of laws; and thereafter elected to be the first President of the United States. During his term in office, President Washington put down the Whisky rebellion of 1794, which was an armed insurrection against the government in protest of the tax enacted by Congress in 1791. Washington personally lead the organized militia to quash the rebellion and assert the federal government’s authority over the states and their citizens.
You - and people like you - would do well to learn from history, and stop trying to rewrite it.
Did you sleep through history class?
Read the Declaration of Independence. It makes it pretty clear under what circumstances the founders considered it justifiable to rebel. That tax on whiskey was not enough of a reason. It was constitutionally and lawfully enacted by an elected government. When the government steps beyond its bounds, when it murders people, strips people of their rights, etc., it's justifiable to overthrow it. It wasn't just taxes and a lack of representation. That was the straw that broke the camel's back. It was micromanaging their affairs, limiting where they could live, quartering soldiers in private homes, etc., etc.
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.
If there is a govt takeover, you'd better have some on hand.
