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.
I don't care about guns, I just want you to pay for your obsession. Mandatory insurance for each gun you own, national register of gun owners so that when a gun turns up in a crime we can trace it back to the last owner, and stiff penalties for any guns that are "lost."
So the fact that we own a gun is an OBSESSION? So you want to make it cost prohibitive for law abiding citizens buying guns, instead of enforcing EXISTING laws when criminals break them. I think YOU are obsessed with fantasy. Registration ALWAYS leads to confiscation. Always, and that it in reality what you ultimately want.
How can someone with a firearm simply walk onto a school campus.
These high schools are big and spread out.
I know that at the high school my kids went to -- all doors but the front doors have a lock - -you close them and they lock behind you. -- you can't get in unless someone lets you in...or....the kids block it open so they can get in and out.
Kids have backpacks, jackets, coats, stuff when they walk in.
As a parent who helped out at the school lots -- the security is relatively tight at most schools. Even if the security officer has seen you a million times -- if you haven't checked in at the front desk and gotten the appropriate ID they make you go. They check the doors -- but as soon as they close them -- the kids block them open or open them for other 'kids'.
Right to bear arms is a man-made right, and as such is subject to re-evaluation. And to continue to hang onto a Constitution written centuries ago in a different world without letting current events dictate the need to amending/updating is either naive or stubborn.
I get freedom and rights, but it is not an absolute.
While we are re-evaluating the Bill of Rights, the 2nd amendment, lets not forget the the 1st amendment, or the 4th and the 5th. Progressives would like nothing more that to just do away with the Bill of Rights all together. The Constitution has work very well for the last 237 years, it has even survived attacks on it like the one you suggest. I suggest if you want to live in a country with limited liberty then the United States is not for you, in other words, go find a country that suits your ideology but don't change my country to suit you. Liberty has its risks.
And bills/laws that remove natural individual rights without due process, but simple whim and whimsy of a panicky few looking to cash in on some shrieked hysteria from the vox populi are why I am and will always be a responsible owner of firearms.
Tyrants can pass whatever laws they like, but when the time comes for them to go out and enforce said laws, an armed populace will be tougher to subjugate than a disarmed one.
That's a joke. You are aware that the government has nuclear weapons, tanks, gas and lots of other war toys? I don't think your gun is going to stop them. If Trump and Kelly decided to take over, implement martial law and become a full-blown dictatorship, how is your gun going to prevent that?
I dunno. I think, regardless of regulations, gun distribution is definitely wider today than 50 years ago.
I can walk down the street to a local pawn shop and get one right now.
50 years ago.... Actually... Maybe not....
America is weird.
Sears and Roebuck catalog ring a bell? Woolworth ring any bells?
What I meant is a right written centuries ago is not an absolute as written because times change. Some people just don't want to admit that and instead hang onto the belief that whatever was right centuries ago still holds true today.
When the Constitution was written, women couldn't vote. There were times when only landowners could vote--how would you have felt if you were renting? Things change and the Constitution changes a little bit to keep up with the times.
We are not ruled by England anymore. And now we have an army. We don't need people like Paul Revere anymore, riding around telling people to get their guns--we have an army instead, we have the National Guard. Just like the fire department--people used to be required to keep a fire bucket in the house and all would run to put the fire out. Now there are fire departments instead.
Now we have an army instead of needing individuals to keep weapons in their homes. If you want a gun for hunting, that's a different story, fine.
That's the problem with the argument. Don't listen to the people who want to walk into your house and take your arms away that you are utilizing legally (I assume) and without harm to others. It's complicated, but people need to stop hanging on the far left/right and instead try to move to the middle.
If the middle is rationalizing away our rights then it's no less radical than the fringes are.
What I meant is a right written centuries ago is not an absolute as written because times change. Some people just don't want to admit that and instead hang onto the belief that whatever was right centuries ago still holds true today.
What you don't understand, is those so called rights are not given to you by the Constitution, you have those rights because you are a human being, they are natural rights. They were added to the Constitution to prevent the federal government from infringing upon those rights.
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.
