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.
My replies:
(a) If you define "assault weapons" as fully automatic rifles identical to the ones the military uses, that's already highly regulated and extremely expensive. The cheapest ones are about $15,000. And there's a 6-12 month wait before gov't approval. That's with the non-refundable $400 application fee per firearm. If you're talking about rifles that LOOK like assault weapons the military uses, then that's purely cosmetic.
(b) The supreme court defined militia. It's also "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", not "the right of the militia".
(c) That's a little unfair, isn't it? It's like saying America values the right of someone to drink alcohol more than the right of someone to be protected from being killed by drunk drivers.
Now and then the SCOTUS gets it wrong … as in Heller …
Those creepy mass shooters hardly constitute a "militia" ...
The thread is over just with the title. There is no way to prevent it. Stricter gun laws? Lol how does that prevent someone from going on a shooting spree? You know how easy it is to get an illegal gun? Just download tor go on a dark market place and order one lol. How about we focus on people's mental health.
Wait, I thought we had laws to prevent that crazy guy with a gun from entering any school, playground, mall or movie theater?
I wouldn't wish you held responsible when another car owner drives drunk and kills someone… just because you're a car owner/driver yourself.
If I systematically lobbied against things like DUI checkpoints, tried to dismantle AA and everything else the police and society tries to do to prevent drunk driving, then yes, I would be just as responsible for the drunk driving deaths other people cause. We all have a choice to be part of the problem or part of the solution. Threads like this do an excellent job demonstrating the many fundamental ways. "Law abiding gun owners" choose to be part of the problem.
And to the crowd that devolves into personal attacks on anyone you disagree with, keep talking guys. The more crazy and offensive your pro-gun rants, the more people like me become convinced there is simply no reasoning with you people and all guns should just be banned. They call that a self-fulfilling prophecy and you've got no one but yourselves to blame.
Now and then the SCOTUS gets it wrong … as in Heller …
Those creepy mass shooters hardly constitute a "militia" ...
One of the core purposes of the SCOTUS is to interpret the constitution. They are the final say on the definition of "militia", not you or me. So no, the SCOTUS didn't get it wrong, you did.
And if you took a moment to read the ruling, you'd notice that you and the SCOTUS agree that creepy mass shooters do not constitute a militia:
"The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed."
RIF
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoriBee62
If I systematically lobbied against things like DUI checkpoints, tried to dismantle AA and everything else the police and society tries to do to prevent drunk driving, then yes, I would be just as responsible for the drunk driving deaths other people cause. We all have a choice to be part of the problem or part of the solution. Threads like this do an excellent job demonstrating the many fundamental ways. "Law abiding gun owners" choose to be part of the problem.
Did you miss the post in this thread from someone that linked to some NRA articles showing where they're looking to add/strengthen gun laws? If so, I'd suggest going back and reviewing that, then revising your statement above. The NRA wants to strengthen some gun laws and loosen others, to suggest they do one without the other is disingenuous.
I did not propose ANY solution in this thread, but I did make a few jokes.
The problem with not recognizing the dif is that you think that everyone wants to "take away all your toys" (I mean guns.)
FALSE PARANOID CONSPIRACY!
Hard to have serious conversations if you cannot put aside this propaganda.
The propaganda that you wish to ban specific property that I own? We both know you do. It is certainly not propaganda that millions will refuse. See CT.
Do you have any statistics on how many people are killed each year from pressure cookers and fireworks? I'm guessing it's something less than 10.
Kind of a cavalier statement in light of the Boston Marathon bombing. By that argument children killed in school shootings are a statistical non-event.
I think the vast majority of people would be in favor of universal background checks, gun owners included.
Just about every bad story I hear somehow has alcohol attached to it. The CDC states 80,000+ deaths a year are linked to alcohol. Yet I don't see any thinking people railing against California vineyards as purveyors of death, such a silly argument would be dismissed out of hand.
So I guess I ask again what is your realistic solution to this problem.
I read the article, head didn't explode. The article is correct.
But what does it have to do with the issue of mentally ill people doing crazy things?
The VAST majority of gun owners want to shoot skeet, hunt, collect, shoot paper targets without being vilified.
Most adults don't go around asking to be treated with respect, but when you start treating people with disrespect the odds of a workable solution are pretty slim.
I'm still asking for a viable solution to the problem.
How about until we start controlling access to guns and ammo more effectively … ???
It is not possible.
I make my own ammo, I can make my own guns; anyone with some relatively inexpensive machine tools can make a functional gun.
I have some guns that do not require cartridges, and the powder to fire them is fairly easily made from common, easily obtained materials. Guns can be made that do not require powder at all.
I have bows and arrows, which can be made from easily available materials.
I have knives made for throwing, and I can throw a number of them accurately and in rapid succession.
The world will not be rid of weapons, or objects used as weapons, even a rock can be a weapon.
Humans, killing humans with weapons, will not end until there are no humans left to kill. Humans have been killing humans since the dawn of their time on the planet.
Guns are not the problem, humans are.
The only sane response, is to be armed against those who would do you harm.
To be unarmed, is to be a sheep, ripe for slaughter...just as were those who have been slaughtered.
Having no guns, does not free the sheep from being slaughtered, in fact, it widens the choice of weapons that can be used to slaughter them. A $20 machete can slaughter just as many sheep as a gun, if the sheep have no weapons with which to defend themselves.
If you choose to be a sheep, then so be it, you certainly have the right to do so.
But remember, your freedom to be a sheep, comes from those of us who are, and have been, willing to take up arms to ensure it.
Those of us who do not wish to be sheep, will not be so, no matter how much bleating comes from the sheep. The Constitution guarantees us the Right to NOT to be [forced to be] sheep, great numbers of us have sworn to defend it, and great numbers of us will do so...by virtue of the Constitution if need be, as it was meant and designed to be.
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.