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.
If it were not guns it would be bombs, knives, axes, poison, etc. When a person deranged or not makes up his/her mind to kill they will do it one way or the other.
The reason that schools are a common target is that our idiots in charge made them gun free zones. Why attack an armed location when you can attack a place where you know they are not armed?
You clearly haven't looked very closely at the issue, but have listened to the media far to much and have no idea what the source is (it isn't guns). Society doesn't have a problem with "deadly gunfire". If you don't plan on committing suicide with a gun, aren't a criminal, and especially if you're white, the US is safer than almost every country in Europe with not only a lower firearm death rate but a lower homicide rate period.
US firearm deaths 30,000
Minus 61% suicides 11,700
Minus 60-85% criminals killing criminals (72.5% average) 3,218
Minus 400 shot by police 2,818
Minus 300 in legal defensive use of firearm 2,518
If you want to save lives focusing on guns is just about the last thing you should worry about.
Nope, but places with far less gun violence do.
Criminals wii choose any means to abuse , be it a gun or hands around your neck or a bomb .
Yep; but why add guns to the equation.
Laws do not make bad people behave .
Nope; they don't but why give bad people guns to misbehave with.
The only way to retain an equality is for all to have equal access to self defense .
Like saying pollution can be cured through more pollution.
The only law that works is one that is applied the same across the board . no exception for sanity, age, or status.
I'm confused as to what laws are not applied across the board.
It is childish to think taking one thing away is going to solve a humanity problem .
Then you are saying the only country with a humanity problem is America 'cause it seems to work everywhere else.
BTW, many of the statistics for gun owners is not necessarily accurate , I know several folk that were polled and refused to acknowledge their gun ownership.
Wonderful news; more lawbreakers are a good thing.
I was just talking t a gentleman today that does CCW training and many liberals are acquiring their CCW as well.
All parties have confused members.
More people are seeing the light on gun ownership than the media might think. More than the government will admit.
Admitting lot's and lot's of folks have guns would be like stating the sky is blue most of the time.
What country do you people think this is? Hmmm? What will you want to remove next? Mount Rushmore? The Washington Monument? The flag itself?
This is America. The first right is freedom of speech. The 2nd one is the right to bear arms.
So get over it and grow up. The guns are here to stay.
Deal with the real problem of why these loners are doing what they are doing. What is happening to society? Too complicated for you? Well, find another simple solution other than the guns.
How about banning loners from living in their parent's basement?
Very simple, they have no place in society, except in the hands of the military.
Most would be calling me an ultra liberal for my stand on this issue, but I am just the opposite.
I am a conservative republican.
Perhaps we need to understand the word "conservative" as it applies to some, but not all republicans.
Conservative people tend to want to preserve.
To conserve is to preserve something .
As a staunch defender of disarming the public, I am in fact in favor of preserving human life everywhere.
One way to preserve that life is to rid the country of all guns.
I believe they are nothing but killing machines.
There are many ways to eradicate a human life besides guns, but guns seem to be the predominant weapon of choice, so they must be dealt with first.
As a conservative, I see a problem with society, and it's use of deadly gunfire, and my gut feeling is to lash out at the source.
Look at the problem for what it is, and find the best solution to fix it.
With a tough issue like gun control, one can't please everyone.
Some will have to sacrifice long held beliefs, for the good of all.
As a conservative, do I think the 2nd amendment should be preserved ?
To answer that, it would take the best scholars in the world to interpret just what the founding fathers meant in their ambiguous wording of the amendment.
As it is written, I would re-write it to reflect the world we live in today.
'A well regulated militia, the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed."
It is as if two different subjects were being discussed at the same time, and both made it into the second amendment, even tho they are completely unrelated, unless of course they looked on a militia as being ordinary citizens who voluntarily took up arms in the time of war.
I feel this is the thinking behind the 2nd amendment.
Taking it at that value, the amendment would only allow for citizens to bare arms in time of war, and that right will not be infringed.
I would preserve that meaning of the amendment, and not let it be clouded by the unfounded desire of the public at large to be armed and protected under the amendment.
As a conservative, I feel it necessary to preserve the rule of law written into the constitution, but only if those laws are clear, and unabated, which obviously the 2ndamendment is not.
Bob.
the second amendment is NOT ambiguous in its wording, in fact it is quite clear;
a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, is js it as it sounds. well regulated meaning in good working order, and the militia was in fact the people aged between 17-45. in other words the average citizen armed with a proper working firearm.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. this means that the PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms. meaning they dont have to store their arms in some armory somewhere under someone else control. and bear meaning they can carry their firearm with them at all times. shall NOT be infringed means the government will not make laws or rules to prevent law abiding citizens from buying and keep and carrying those firearms.
so tell me, where again is the ambiguity in the second amendment?
and by the way, the militia was set up as citizen soldiers so that during peacetime they would do the things they do to make a living, farming, making alcohol, or what ever. and when war did come, they could grab their firearms and head out to the battlefield to fight as needed, and then when the war was over, they took their firearms home and went back to their civilian life.
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
If it were not guns it would be bombs, knives, axes, poison, etc. When a person deranged or not makes up his/her mind to kill they will do it one way or the other.
The reason that schools are a common target is that our idiots in charge made them gun free zones. Why attack an armed location when you can attack a place where you know they are not armed?
Very simple, they have no place in society, except in the hands of the military.
Most would be calling me an ultra liberal for my stand on this issue, but I am just the opposite.
I am a conservative republican.
Perhaps we need to understand the word "conservative" as it applies to some, but not all republicans.
Conservative people tend to want to preserve.
To conserve is to preserve something .
As a staunch defender of disarming the public, I am in fact in favor of preserving human life everywhere.
One way to preserve that life is to rid the country of all guns.
I believe they are nothing but killing machines.
There are many ways to eradicate a human life besides guns, but guns seem to be the predominant weapon of choice, so they must be dealt with first.
As a conservative, I see a problem with society, and it's use of deadly gunfire, and my gut feeling is to lash out at the source.
Look at the problem for what it is, and find the best solution to fix it.
With a tough issue like gun control, one can't please everyone.
Some will have to sacrifice long held beliefs, for the good of all.
As a conservative, do I think the 2nd amendment should be preserved ?
To answer that, it would take the best scholars in the world to interpret just what the founding fathers meant in their ambiguous wording of the amendment.
As it is written, I would re-write it to reflect the world we live in today.
'A well regulated militia, the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed."
It is as if two different subjects were being discussed at the same time, and both made it into the second amendment, even tho they are completely unrelated, unless of course they looked on a militia as being ordinary citizens who voluntarily took up arms in the time of war.
I feel this is the thinking behind the 2nd amendment.
Taking it at that value, the amendment would only allow for citizens to bare arms in time of war, and that right will not be infringed.
I would preserve that meaning of the amendment, and not let it be clouded by the unfounded desire of the public at large to be armed and protected under the amendment.
As a conservative, I feel it necessary to preserve the rule of law written into the constitution, but only if those laws are clear, and unabated, which obviously the 2ndamendment is not.
Bob.
Thank god we have the 2nd amendment, for your right to say that(1st amendment) without getting shot....
Location: When you take flak it means you are on target
7,646 posts, read 9,950,661 times
Reputation: 16466
Forget secession, is there some way we can just kick Kommiefornia out of the US and build a wall (make them pay for it) to keep them from infecting the rest of us.
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.
