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 have to give them credit on this one. An lone, overweight, elderly man armed with a knife or baseball bat, running around a baseball field trying to attack Congresspeople probably young enough to be his children? Laughable, but put a gun in his hand and it is deadly.
THIS is the real issue, not politics, not religion, not even mental illness. Guns. Sorry, NRA, MORE guns are not the solution. "Rounding Third, Carrying an AK-47, and Headed for Home" ???????? NO, NRA. LESS guns is what is needed.
I am a Sanders supporter, who voted for Hillary. Senseless Violence, be that against a Democrat, Republican, Black Churchgoers, or School Children.
Eliminate the MEANS, and the Motive becomes Moot.
As a gun toting, second amendment loving conservative, i have no problem with your ambition to rid the country of guns.
All that i ask is that you summon a Constitution Convention and get 38 states to agree to repeal the 2A first.
But here is the problem in that schooling and education is about regulating a right.
Do we require schooling and education if a person wants to use their right to vote or their right of free speech? Do they need schooling and education before they are free from unreasonable search or being given sodium penathol?
Do we require schooling and education for any of our other rights?
If not, then why do we want to require them so we can have guns?
As others have said, bearing arms is not about duck hunting, it is about keeping the government in check. When things come into play (and quite frankly, there are too many things in play as it is), then there is less ability to keeping the government in check.
Quote:
Originally Posted by metalmancpa
The world has changed incredibly fast, fast enough that maybe the original right to bear arms may need adjusting because life has passed it by.
If "bearing arms is about keeping the government in check" why the horror when shooters go & attempt to do so?
If that's the premise (guns as a means of keeping the government in check) how is it against our other laws for 1 person or a group of people to implement a plan to "keep the government in check" by the use of guns?
No wonder MiddleAgedMom correctly identified that "the US is a violent society". Not only violent but seemingly insane to boot.
Chicago PD confiscated 8000 gun last year, mostly from the 5 neighborhoods where most shootings occur. Most were taken from gang members with long rap sheets.
Of course some will resort to other means if guns were not an option. That however does not seem to be common in those countries, with very strict laws.
The US people need guns because we live in a violent society.
We are a violent society because there are more guns than people.
I have to give them credit on this one. An lone, overweight, elderly man armed with a knife or baseball bat, running around a baseball field trying to attack Congresspeople probably young enough to be his children? Laughable, but put a gun in his hand and it is deadly.
THIS is the real issue, not politics, not religion, not even mental illness. Guns. Sorry, NRA, MORE guns are not the solution. "Rounding Third, Carrying an AK-47, and Headed for Home" ???????? NO, NRA. LESS guns is what is needed.
I am a Sanders supporter, who voted for Hillary. Senseless Violence, be that against a Democrat, Republican, Black Churchgoers, or School Children.
Eliminate the MEANS, and the Motive becomes Moot.
Are you serious? This topic is over. It's settled. The Second Amendment is clear.
I have to give them credit on this one. An lone, overweight, elderly man armed with a knife or baseball bat, running around a baseball field trying to attack Congresspeople probably young enough to be his children? Laughable, but put a gun in his hand and it is deadly.
THIS is the real issue, not politics, not religion, not even mental illness. Guns. Sorry, NRA, MORE guns are not the solution. "Rounding Third, Carrying an AK-47, and Headed for Home" ???????? NO, NRA. LESS guns is what is needed.
I am a Sanders supporter, who voted for Hillary. Senseless Violence, be that against a Democrat, Republican, Black Churchgoers, or School Children.
This debate comes up at every high profile shooting, and it's the same banter, "get rid of guns" vs "the second amendment protects my rights". It's really about puttin.g the debate into perspective, https://www.thoughtco.com/gun-death-...ective-3303385 Not everyone will agree on the solution, and these incidents are going to occasionally happen and gun control and gun advocates are going to argue, that's the price of a free society. IMHO- I'm not sure mental health testing would accomplish much, a lot of these shootings are a spontaneous act or a build up of anger and frustration, that's going to be tough to predict. The darkest example was Adam Lanza in Newtown, mentally, he probably would never be allowed to carry a firearm, but he had access to them. For someone intent on killing, they will always find an instrument of death. The NRA leadership is not helpful to continuously keep bleating "it's your right, it's your right, it's your right", they could just as easily advocate education on firearms and how that makes ownership a safer option. The NRA has an excellent network of qualified trainers and classes, their number one focus is on safe handling, use, and storage of firearms. Tighter regulation violates the rights of our freedoms that many have fought and died for, to ask us to give that up would diminish their sacrifice. It's a delicate balance, we all have different opinions, that's very American.
What the anti gun crowd doesn't understand is that you aren't taking guns away from criminals; you're taking guns away from law abiding citizens who can use them to protect against violent criminals. Criminals will just get guns illegally if they're outlawed. Banning guns also doesn't reduce the amount of crime; all it does is make criminals resort to using other weapons.
That's nice theoretically but numbers prove otherwise
"During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides."
Lots of times, these legally owned guns end up increasing the number of guns in the hands of criminals
"Oh, and match those 259 justifiable homicides with the theft of about 232,000 guns each year, about 172,000 of them during burglaries. That’s a ratio of one justifiable homicide for every 896 guns put in the hands of criminals."
Last edited by personne; 06-15-2017 at 06:42 AM..
Reason: Bad linking
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.
