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.
you see that part of the 2nd Amendment that reads "shall not be infringed"? that means no laws written against that 2nd Amendment. when will you learn how to read what is written, rather than reading into the 2nd Amendment.
Ah, so by your logic, my 7 year old sister should be allowed to buy a Barrett 50 cal with an infared scope and ammo piercing ammunition.
Oh, wait - you admit that the amendment is not absolute, don't you? In that case, your argument falls apart, and you have to actually start to argue against gun control from a utilitarian, rather than a blind absolutist, perspective, and you have no argument whatsoever.
The thought of having more guns in schools is just an accident waiting to happen. LIttle Johnny jumps up, points his look alike squirt gun at Sally, and the teacher blows Johnny's brains all over the classroom.
That would be a highly unlikely scenario, and I don't think it's even arguable that had the two brave teachers at Sandy Hook who lunged at Lanza, had a gun, and were trained to use it, that lives would have been saved. As the saying goes, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Bear
No, i don't think we need that, nor do i think we want to put that kind of pressure on our teachers. They already have WAY to much on their plates being parents, social workers, dieticians, psychotherapists, and ultimately, teachers.
Since when are teachers supposed to be "parents (except to their own children) dietitians, social workers, and psychotherapists?
Teachers are supposed to teach the subjects of the particular grade level. Period! They are not to be inculcating students with their own biases, psychoanalyzing them (they aren't trained for that), monitoring their food, or playing "social worker!" If they are doing those things, they are overstepping their authority and usurping the authority of the parents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Bear
The solution to gun violence is pure and simple: less guns. Like everything in America, we want an answer today. Well, on this issue, there is no 'today' answer. There is a long period of education, understanding, and a gradual winnowing down of America's huge arsenal of unnecessary guns.
The problem at Sandy Hook, and every place else where such crimes take place, is that the shooters knew they would not be met with equal force. Fewer guns mean more crime and violence. This has been proven over and over again. So called "gun free zones" only place people at greater risk. Nothing could be more obvious!
What would be the likelihood of you being robbed in your home at gun point if you had a sign out front, "Protected by Smith & Wesson?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Bear
Guns have a place for many, but not for everybody. Clearly that has been demonstrated over and over again through senseless tragedies. Arming more people is not a solution. Reducing the amount of useless hardware out there is an appropriate first step.
No such thing has been demonstrated. The right to self defense is a natural right, which is why the Founders protected it with the Second Amendment. No person can be free, and secure in their person, or property, without the right of self defense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Bear
(BTW, i would guess that along the way we will also get a clarification on the Second Amendment. "People" could be referred to as plural the way the Amendment reads. I would hate to see it defined as more than singular and have all guns eliminated, but clerarly we have demonstarted as a whole that society cannot handle guns in the manner in which our founding fathers intended.)
"The people" as used in our Constitution (including the Second Amendment) meant "citizens." This means all citizens. This needs no clarification. It has already been argued and decided many times in the past.
Your final statement is pure baloney! Well trained "citizens" (militia) are what the Second Amendment refers to, and the vast majority of gun owners are "well trained" and responsible.
The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, (and more bullets)!
You are exactly right, and I have read numerous articles written by active and former law enforcement officers (you'd be supprised how many people in other professions also write) who have said exactly that. It is also important to note that they argue that low capacity magazines are often not enough to stop a criminal. Limiting people to seven rounds, as is being proposed, may mean the difference between life and death --- theirs!
It isn't worth it if an entire family is left unprotected and is murdured by a "bad guy with a gun." Many childrens lives would have been saved at Sandy Hook if "even one" person had a gun!
Location: Anchorage Suburbanites and part time Willowbillies
1,708 posts, read 1,861,253 times
Reputation: 885
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p
Because this is a forum and this is where people express their opinions. Duh!
*This is the full text from the exchange:
Originally Posted by beb0p It's also irrelevant. What's relevant is that the number of crimes committed with guns far outnumbering crimes stopped with guns.
So take away the guns and you take away gun crimes. It's simple. And it's irrefutable.
My response: "So why are you even posting your opinions here?"
Never said that you should not post your opinion. It’s you First Amendment right, (which I fully support). What I meant was as you are so sure, “And it's irrefutable”, that you are wasting your time posting here as you are so much more enlightened than the rest of us.
(Actually naïve would be more accurate).
No one is proposing to take all your guns away. However, you have no reason to own/use automatic/assault wepons.
Says who? Is that in the Second Amendment?
"Assault Weapon" is a loosley defined and made up term. There is no such thing. I is what the politicians say it is.
The AR-15 is not an "assault weapon", and so far, reports have been so confused that it isn't even clear that Lanza had an AR-15 (a popular target shooting rifle, for which it was designed) inside the school. The media has done a great job of muddying the waters on this tragedy.
Further, it is absolutely clear that Barack Obama and the left would indeed like to ban all guns.
Reading his comments after Sandy Hook, and comments made in his inaugural address, on close analysis, one can certainly conclude that he is against armed citizens. We know that Obama is not a fan of the Constitution. He sees it as an obstacle to get around. He ignores it on a regular basis, pushing the limits. I have no doubt that one of his goals is to ban private ownership of guns.
Oh, but it IS. When you have a house full of automatic weapons, it's more likely they someone who has mental issues will pick one up and head to the nearest school and open fire. If the kid in Newtown only had access to a hunting rifle, someone could have tackled him before he killd all those innocent kids.
The AR-15 is a semi-automatic. It fires one shot with each pull of the trigger. At present, it has not been made clear that he had an AR-15 inside the school. One teacher, with any weapon and the skill to use it, could have saved many lives. By the time the first responders arrived (20 minutes I think I read) 26 people had been killed. If the teachers that lunged at him had been armed, and trained, perhaps no lives would have been lost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by denverian
If he'd started throwing books at people, I highly suspect there would have been no deaths
Let's not be funny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by denverian
My personal thought is that there is just a very disturbing gun culture in this country where people have some sort of gun fetish.
Yeah, as Barack said, "They cling to their guns and religion ... " Obviously, we are "hicks," right? Ignorant "hicks." That's what Obama meant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by denverian
I've known people like this, and just didn't get it. They like watching war movies, action movies where people kill with big guns, enjoy war reinactments... I see it as a sickness. There are legitimate uses for guns. Especially if you live in a rural area where wild animals could attack you or your livestock.
But not for protection from home invasions, of course. Right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by denverian
Or for hunting, even target practice if that gets you off. But stockpiling all sorts of weapons seems to be a sign that something is very wrong with that person.
Oh, really? Some people collect cars. Some collect stamps. Some collect a variety of other things. Others love guns.
"What difference does it make?" — Hillary Clinton
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.
Right on the money!
