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.
Guns are a tool. It takes a person for them to kill.
If a person wants to kill someone, they don't need a gun.
.../QUOTE]
Yeah, but a gun makes it a whole hell of a lot easier, if you are so inclined to kill someone.
Oh I don't know... let's see how it's been done in Europe and the middle east... they're pretty inventive over there and seem to do just fine without them...
So then you are willing to live with the consequences and just give up?
Spare me your crocodile tears. You don't care about saving lives only pushing your gun ban agenda. How many people are you willing to sacrifice with your "solution"? Several orders of magnitude of people are saved due to gun ownership every year than innocent lives lost.
Amend the Constitution
Constitutional Convention
US Supreme Court
If that is the desire then such is the procedure.
HOWEVER, despite that the world has changed pretty fast, the US seems to be pretty good, being around under the Constitution for something like 230 years, give or take a few.
The 2nd Amendment does have the "well-regulated militia' part in it that for 220 years allowed states and cities to regulate gun ownership. It has been the conservative activism of the last 30 years that has forgotten that clause.
I'd say, if you want to eliminate the perceived threat of gun control, then the well-regulated militia clause needs to be amended out of the Constitution. If not, then gun regulations will be back in vogue.
Guns are a tool. It takes a person for them to kill.
If a person wants to kill someone, they don't need a gun.
.../QUOTE]
Yeah, but a gun makes it a whole hell of a lot easier, if you are so inclined to kill someone.
Maybe.
This reminds me of a discussion in beginning psychology. You want to kill someone, do you shoot them a long distance with a rifle, knock them over the back of the head, or strangle them face to face.
The psychological answer is shoot them or knock them of the back of the head because most normal people could not handle seeing the eyes of those they are killing.
I got to thinking about that and ..... well, I can't shoot them from a distance because I'm a professional shooter. If I have any connection to the dead person, the law is going to be knocking on my door real quick.
Knocking them over the head? Well, that could work except with what I know about hair loss under stress and DNA evidence methods, that really doesn't seem like a way to keep my freedom secure.
Hand to hand, face to face, cheek to cheek? I could go for that, it goes with my professional pride. Once again, however, there are those two things in a double whammy. The DNA of the matter and as a hand to hand expert on record, if they even suspect me, there is that knock on my front door again.
SIGH! I guess I'd better just learn to live with them!
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.
Sheesh. The song from the anti 2A leftists never changes. Just goes up tempo and adds volume. The truth of things , that the bad people can and will always have firearms, and taking away the good guys means to defend themselves is just a nonsensical notion, just never seems to sink in. I, being one of hundreds of millions, will never relinquish my right to personal firearms.
Give it up radical leftist Dems. Outlawing and eliminating firearms rights in America is a pipe dream.
We don't need a permit to carry a gun (open or concealed) where I live. Everyone that I know owns several. It is not unusual to see people carrying. We have had one gun murder in my county in the last seven years. It has been around 20 years since we had an accidental gun death. Many of the kids, boys and girls learn to handle a hunting rifle by age 8. The 4H still has shooting competitions. Children are taught not to fear guns but to respect them.
There are far more problems where guns are restricted.
The 2nd Amendment does have the "well-regulated militia' part in it that for 220 years allowed states and cities to regulate gun ownership. It has been the conservative activism of the last 30 years that has forgotten that clause.
I'd say, if you want to eliminate the perceived threat of gun control, then the well-regulated militia clause needs to be amended out of the Constitution. If not, then gun regulations will be back in vogue.
The problem with that is that the "Well-regulated" part did not mean regulations, the term back when the constitution was written the term "Well Regulated" meant in good working order. So the Militia was to be made up of the citizens of ones area. It was expected that a person would come bearing their own firearm, and able to use it properly.
This reminds me of a discussion in beginning psychology. You want to kill someone, do you shoot them a long distance with a rifle, knock them over the back of the head, or strangle them face to face.
The psychological answer is shoot them or knock them of the back of the head because most normal people could not handle seeing the eyes of those they are killing.
I got to thinking about that and ..... well, I can't shoot them from a distance because I'm a professional shooter. If I have any connection to the dead person, the law is going to be knocking on my door real quick.
Knocking them over the head? Well, that could work except with what I know about hair loss under stress and DNA evidence methods, that really doesn't seem like a way to keep my freedom secure.
Hand to hand, face to face, cheek to cheek? I could go for that, it goes with my professional pride. Once again, however, there are those two things in a double whammy. The DNA of the matter and as a hand to hand expert on record, if they even suspect me, there is that knock on my front door again.
SIGH! I guess I'd better just learn to live with them!
Move to a state like mine that has a "stand your ground law".
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.
