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.
The 2nd amendment is not sacrosanct. The Constitution is not the 10 commandments, it can be amended or it can be interpreted differently. If you're concerned about gun rights, you should want these shootings to stop more than anyone. The only thing that could actually bring about more control in the U.S. is more of these incidents. It may not be today or tomorrow, but if these events continue with the same frequency we'll eventually get supreme court justices who will view the situation differently than the current ones. Heck, we've probably already got 4 that would be willing to change it and only need 1 or 2 more.
The founding fathers would be the first ones to advocate changing the 2nd amendment's interpretation. They would never have condoned the slaughter of first-graders or people in a holiday party. Never. People like George Washington would be lining up to modify it.
To them, bearing arms was more of a responsibility than a right. It was the responsibility of free citizens in a republic to defend their homes and more importantly their country, it was not a childish "because I can" type idea. The founding fathers had NO PROBLEM selectively applying freedoms in their country, so you can bet dollars to donuts they would have be fine with more accurately defining who is and is not "responsible" enough to bear arms.
Someone sent me a rep saying that my statement about convicted felons being able to legally access guns was false. It's not false. There are many ways for a convicted felon to legally obtain guns depending on the state in which they reside.
If you think any of these people should have the right to a gun, YOU probably shouldn't own a gun.
Private sellers are the biggest problem! A few states require the seller to go to a dealer and run a check, but most don't. If I wanted to, I could go on Craigslist right now, type in "gun" and have one by the end of the day, no questions asked. There are also some states, like Texas, that don't require even dealers to do a background check. All you need is a state ID and some money.
I find it interesting that so many gun advocates are unfamiliar with these laws in which they claim to support . That is probably by design.
While I do question the legality of denying the constitutional right of citizens just because they may have committed a crime, I understand the need for violent felons to be restricted. However there are many ways a non violent person could be convicted of a felony, and their 2nd Amendment rights should not be restricted for life in my view.
BTW - Just because that is my view, it hardly constitutes being stripped of my 2nd Amendment rights for exercising my 1st Amendment rights, as you suggest.
The 2nd amendment is not sacrosanct. The Constitution is not the 10 commandments, it can be amended or it can be interpreted differently.
The founding fathers would be the first ones to advocate changing the 2nd amendment's interpretation. They would never have condoned the slaughter of first-graders or people in a holiday party. Never. People like George Washington would be lining up to modify it.
To them, bearing arms was more of a responsibility than a right. It was the responsibility of free citizens in a republic to defend their homes and more importantly their country, it was not a childish "because I can" type idea. The founding fathers had NO PROBLEM selectively applying freedoms in their country, so you can bet dollars to donuts they would have be fine with more accurately defining who is and is not "responsible" enough to bear arms.
You are the best!! You have said it all!!! Thank you, thank you!!
..........The founding fathers would be the first ones to advocate changing the 2nd amendment's interpretation. They would never have condoned the slaughter of first-graders or people in a holiday party. Never. People like George Washington would be lining up to modify it.
.............
Perhaps not.......if they saw how the government was acting these days.
Further, one must remember that back in the Founding Fathers days, children were just viewed as "little adults". It wasn't until the time of Charles Darwin (he's regarded as also one of the early child psychologists) that there was a shift away from that approach.
One only has to do a little research of child labor during the early part of the industrial revolution to realize how little worth children had and how little people were concerned about their well being.
Finally, about attacking people at a holiday party.....who was it who crossed the Delaware on Christmas to make his attack?
The 2nd amendment is not sacrosanct. The Constitution is not the 10 commandments, it can be amended or it can be interpreted differently. If you're concerned about gun rights, you should want these shootings to stop more than anyone. The only thing that could actually bring about more control in the U.S. is more of these incidents. It may not be today or tomorrow, but if these events continue with the same frequency we'll eventually get supreme court justices who will view the situation differently than the current ones. Heck, we've probably already got 4 that would be willing to change it and only need 1 or 2 more.
The founding fathers would be the first ones to advocate changing the 2nd amendment's interpretation. They would never have condoned the slaughter of first-graders or people in a holiday party. Never. People like George Washington would be lining up to modify it.
To them, bearing arms was more of a responsibility than a right. It was the responsibility of free citizens in a republic to defend their homes and more importantly their country, it was not a childish "because I can" type idea. The founding fathers had NO PROBLEM selectively applying freedoms in their country, so you can bet dollars to donuts they would have be fine with more accurately defining who is and is not "responsible" enough to bear arms.
Those of us who are true Americans and who care about our country had better start stocking up on firearms and ammo before the short-sighted start tearing this country down.
Stop all sales of assault weapons....spraying a field to kill deer just is not
what is done by hunters...so what is the reason these are available?
So innocent crowds can be sprayed...that's why.
I do believe in personal carry permits.
If a gunman actually thought someone at an office/restaurant could defend themselves...
would it stop them from shooting
in movie theaters, etc?
It could...doesn't seem to stop anyone in CO, tho.
I've asked this repeatedly with no answer, perhaps you know the answer.
What is the fundamental difference between an AR-15 and any other semi-auto hunting rifle?
Your never gonna get an answer because people like Miss Hepburn have zero experience or knowledge of guns. All they know is they see a big scary black gun that looks similar to the ones carried by our military so they wan't to ban them. If someone takes a car and gets a custom paint and body work to make it look like a nascar racer they don't call for a ban and ask why someone would need that. They see someone driving around in a Lambo and they go "OH cool car!" and not "Why should anyone be allowed to drive a car like that?".
They are like the prohibitionist marching around chanting about the evils of alcohol and wanting it banned until they get their way and find out all they have created is an environment where criminals are rewarded and law abiding citizens are victims.
More people are killed by cars, booze, tobacco and even donuts every year than guns. I don't hear people calling for bans on those.
While I do question the legality of denying the constitutional right of citizens just because they may have committed a crime, I understand the need for violent felons to be restricted. However there are many ways a non violent person could be convicted of a felony, and their 2nd Amendment rights should not be restricted for life in my view.
BTW - Just because that is my view, it hardly constitutes being stripped of my 2nd Amendment rights for exercising my 1st Amendment rights, as you suggest.
I was talking about the specific people in that article. They had been convicted of violent crimes, got their rights restored (which is insane in and of itself) then went on to commit more violent crimes. If you are okay with that, then you probably aren't mentally sound which means you aren't fit to own a gun.
I've asked this repeatedly with no answer, perhaps you know the answer.
What is the fundamental difference between an AR-15 and any other semi-auto hunting rifle?
Fundamentally, absolutely no difference, load a cartridge into the chamber, pull the trigger, and fire. The difference is, the AR was designed for combat, not for hunting although you could, it's not a piece of furniture although a lot of people like it's looks. In combat the AR has a lot of advantages, it's multi role, single shot mode high velocity rounds and it's a decent standoff weapon, drop the velocity and it's tailored for urban situations, switch it to automatic and you can put a lot of lead in front of you. It has all kinds of places to bolt on accessories for specialized missions, it's adjustable to accommodate a soldier of almost any size. It's a great modern weapon. Although I've never fired the civilian version, friends tell me it feels the same as the M16, and a lot of vets will tell you after stripping down your weapon enough times blindfolded, you know what it takes to make it an automatic. Hunting rifles, on the other hand, are built for accuracy, weight isn't so much of an issue, semi automatic is OK because a deer usually isn't shooting back.
So the problem with the current spree of mass shootings is the terrorists or crazy people are choosing weapons built for combat, large magazines, intimidating, their objective is to do as much damage as they can as quickly as possible. Not that it takes an automatic weapon to do a lot of damage, Adam Lanza used hand guns to kill kids in Newtown. What about responsible gun owners? I have a couple of friends who own AR's and use them for target practice, they like the gun, they intend no harm to anyone and if the need ever arose they feel safer with a weapon they understand. But the question becomes, can we save a few lives by compromising our right to own a particular weapon? Smaller magazines? Registration? Any weapon is dangerous in the wrong hands, how serious is the problem? It can get very real when it shows up in your backyard, and don't say it can't happen to you. Let's keep an open mind and talk about it.
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.
. That is probably by design.
