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 think the firearms debate is simple. You ban or restrict guns. Bad guys will have guns. You allow the sale of guns. Bad guys will have guns.
What's the difference? When you allow the sale of guns a lot of good guys will have guns too! Might make a bad guy think twice!
Let's break it down to...the right to bear arms is an inalienable right and enumerated such in the US Constitution.
Article II (second amendment) to the US Constitution
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to bear Arms, shall not be infringed.A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It should initially be read after editing out that within commas. 'A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed.'
That within commas should read as...'The right of the people to bear Arms being necessary to the security of a free State.'
It could be reworded as...
''The right of the people to bear Arms, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.''
'Militia' isn't really necessary when worded as such. A Militia follows no commands from any deemed an unconstitutional enemy, friend or foe.
When dissected such it reveals the true intent.
It was masterfully written as the latter passage intertwines within the former making it near impossible to repeal anytime within the next few centuries. If the USA remains the USA.
People talk the talk about owning a gun, and I own guns, but even still, to actually use one is a big decision and can carry a lot of legal risks both criminal and civil. Very important to know the laws in your state.
I see nothing wrong with firearms just like I see nothing wrong with people having the right to use drugs and think they should all be decriminalized. When law abiding citizens own firearms, more crime will be prevented and more criminals stopped than the occasional story you hear blown up where a kid gets a hold of a gun because of an irresponsible parent, or some loon loner goes and shoots up a theater.
News flash.. if more people in that movie theater were packing heat, the shooter would have been taken out quickly. Criminals will still get the guns... because of mexico and canada.. it's not like Australia where the nation is landlocked and it's easier to control the supply... especially because of Mexico, criminals will always have guns.
The only disaster is you're illogical imagination. The only thing that would happen is your life being saved from a bad guy or otherwise, nothing at all. The movie would be played as it normally would have been.
In that case, all drugs should be legal.
Right?
You just said so!
I think drugs, prostitution, gay marriage, and polygamy should all be legal. It's my body and as long as I'm not harming anyone else, it should not be the government's business when it comes to what I or other consenting adults choose to do with it.
I think drugs, prostitution, gay marriage, and polygamy should all be legal. It's my body and as long as I'm not harming anyone else, it should not be the government's business when it comes to what I or other consenting adults choose to do with it.
Fair enough
In response to your other post, not all gun owners are trained properly. Hence the reason why my safety is concerned when too many citizens are armed.
This is called collateral damage.
Let's break it down to...the right to bear arms is an inalienable right and enumerated such in the US Constitution.
Article II (second amendment) to the US Constitution
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to bear Arms, shall not be infringed.A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It should initially be read after editing out that within commas. 'A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed.'
That within commas should read as...'The right of the people to bear Arms being necessary to the security of a free State.'
It could be reworded as...
''The right of the people to bear Arms, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.''
'Militia' isn't really necessary when worded as such. A Militia follows no commands from any deemed an unconstitutional enemy, friend or foe.
When dissected such it reveals the true intent.
It was masterfully written as the latter passage intertwines within the former making it near impossible to repeal anytime within the next few centuries. If the USA remains the USA.
You think Obama cared about what is in the constitution?
In response to your other post, not all gun owners are trained properly. Hence the reason why my safety is concerned when too many citizens are armed.
This is called collateral damage.
Never thought of that. I have heard that conceal carry licences are being issued at an all time high, and firearm sales are at an all time high as well. With all these new firearms being sold and carried concealed, can you link me to a post where what you're suggesting would happen has happened?
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.
