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.
As a gun owner what would it take for you guys to seriously consider some type of gun control compromise? At this point you're not even willing to give a little in regards to your rights?
Because every time there is compromise we give up a little more until one day it is all gone. That is the end goal of gun prohibitionists. When it comes to individual civil liberties there can be no compromise. The Constitution and Bill of Rights have kept us free from a dictatorship as they were originally intended.
Don't kid yourself there are many people in this country along with the politicians they elect that wish to enslave and rule over the masses. They have an insatiable lust for power and control. No different than any other of the world's despotic regimes. It's no different now than it was back in 1776 when we won our independence from Great Britain. That's why we have a 2nd Amendment as a bulwark against a tyrannical government.
Some think that an armed populace could never win another revolution against government forces. But what they fail to take into consideration is that it is highly unlikely that the military and law enforcement agencies would come in and obliterate their own family, friends, and neighborhoods. As there would be nothing left for them to come back to. They do not take into consideration that members of those organizations have their own privately owned weapons and are advocates of the 2nd Amendment and Constitutional law. It is more than likely that they would turn the nations sophisticated weapons against those that ordered them to use them against civilians.
There are already thousand's of federal, state and local laws that address the criminal mis-use of firearms as there should be. Just as there are laws against committing any type of criminal act imaginable.
So the $64,000 question is: How can we stop an individual(s) from committing an act that they know full well that they are not going to come out of alive? As that is their original intention. If guns were not available they will always find other means to commit acts of mass destruction. Such as in the Happy land fire in which 87 people were killed with a dollars worth of gasoline.
Quote:
The Happy Land fire was an act of arson that killed 87 people trapped in the unlicensed Happy Land social club at 1959 Southern Boulevard in the West Farms section of the Bronx in New York City on March 25, 1990. Most of the victims were young Hondurans celebrating Carnival. Unemployed Cuban refugee Julio González, whose former girlfriend was employed at the club, was arrested soon afterward and ultimately convicted of arson and murder.
González went to an Amoco gas station, then returned to the establishment with a plastic container with $1 worth of gasoline. He spread the fuel at the base of a staircase, the only access into the club, and then ignited the gasoline.---wikiepedia
Should gun control be reframed as a National Security issue?
I’m beginning to think that this issue is no longer simply about the right to bear arms. When some crazy person has the ability to shoot an arsenal of automatic weapons randomly at tens of thousands of helpless people, it is not about gun rights. It is an act of war.
When American citizens no longer feel secure to go out and live their lives in a free society, then we have a National Security issue on our hands.
There is some truth to what you are proposing. But the logistics of such a move are nearly impossible. Not enough people or equipment to secure public sites - sports stadiums, amusement parks, city streets. Not sure we're ready yet to cross that line, because under the premise of terrorism, that would be fear winning. Tough call.
Last edited by metalmancpa; 10-03-2017 at 09:42 AM..
Come on. I think you know what I mean - multiple fires with a single trigger pull is what I consider semi-automatic. One shot per one pull is not IMO, despite what a definition might say. We can be logical about this.
In order to be logical, one must first be factual. What you "consider" semi-automatic is in reality a full-automatic, and as has been pointed out repeatedly, is banned for all citizens except those in possession of a Class III license.
See, in order to have an honest discussion on this topic, people in favor of more gun control must first educate themselves about guns. Nobody can take a person too seriously when they don't have any body of knowledge of the subject matter yet are full of opinions and ideas all the same.
Come on. I think you know what I mean - multiple fires with a single trigger pull is what I consider semi-automatic. One shot per one pull is not IMO, despite what a definition might say. We can be logical about this.
Come on. I think you know what I mean - multiple fires with a single trigger pull is what I consider semi-automatic. One shot per one pull is not IMO, despite what a definition might say. We can be logical about this.
Can you tell me one "semi-automatic" gun that fires multiple rounds from one pull? Because in your opinion full automatic = semi-automatic, even though they are completely different words and definitions...
Because, of course, you would support gun laws to address this as well.
I don't advocate for gun laws. I am aware that we are too far down the road for that. I just watch the morons that have lobbied for the situation we are now in trying to lay blame elsewhere, and laugh at guys like you who make these silly ass remarks to try and deflect from the fact that you have almost certainly supported laws that have brought us to the place where mass shootings have become a routine way of life in America.
Pssstttt......how about enforce current gun laws.......
These silly ass gun laws are knee jerk reactions from silly ass people such as you...who although now may not advocate gun laws, but did prior....
I'd like to know your definition of what a mass shooting is...do tell....1, 2, 3....
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.
Should gun control be reframed as a National Security issue?
