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.
Police were distracted by the number of shoppers pulling out their own guns and contributing to the chaos.
I recall there were several people in the crowds with semi- automatics slung over their sholdiers in the midst of the mass shooting in Dallas. Thst shooter was mobile, thus creating a perception of multiple shooters. Those armed ran for their lives like everyone else, reinforcing perceptions that there were multiple shooters.
Thank goodness, those who were armed chose to flee along with everyone else. Imagine the outcome if all those armed had chosen to engage.
Many of the armed were identified as people of interest/ possible accomplices, based on eye- wittness accounts. At least one turned himself in to clear his name. Others were fracked down.
Very challenging to distinguish between a good vs bad guy with a gun in the midst of chaos.
I vote that we continue to support the 2nd Amendment, these people knew what they were talking about: The Second Amendment: The Framers' Intentions Give them an inch when it comes to removing arms from the citizens, and I guarantee they will take a mile!
Well, if you call 4 guns a stock pile..................
Again, I was speaking not only of you, but in general. Look at how many people accumulate dozens upon dozens of guns. What do you call that? I am a little curious, though. If Hillary had won the election, how many more would you have gotten?
The church shooter was a security guard. He would have had a gun. Another one of these was also done by a security guard. I'd be questioning that. How does one go from a discharge for assault and 12 months of jail to becoming a security guard in a waterpark?
The crux of the problem is firearms easily obtained...
This, however, is the crux of a society with civil liberties, due process and a Bill of Rights that explicitly protects a few natural individuals rights ad implicitly protects (9th and 10th Amendments) all the other ones that are too numerous to list.
In such a society, until the idiotic drunk driver actually kills someone by being drunk behind the wheel, there is no reason for that person to be denied a driver's license, registration, insurance, etc. Until they actually d cause harm to others, they never have caused harm to anyone, and thus are innocent and in no way deserving of having their right denied.
300+ million firearms in this country did exactly no harm to anyone in the last week. The owners of those firearms have never harmed anybody or broken any firearms laws (assumed generalization for purposes of rights discussion), so why should they be denied their explicitly protected natural individual right to keep and bear arms? Innocent until proven guilty, per our due process rules, right? So if a person has never broken a law or being found guilty of harming their fellow man, why would we deny them their rights?
That's the rub. We see the mass shooting and demand "something, anything be done and DONE NOW!!!" Since the shooter is dead, our collective need for vengeance goes unfulfilled. Gotta take all that anger out on someone, so I know, let's ban guns! Because this one sick individual used this tool for evil, and we are denied our ability to exact our vengeance upon him, let us exact that vengeance in his name on anyone who legally ad quite constitutionally possesses the same brand of tool that evil person used in his crime. To do so, we have to simply declare the innocent are guilty and punish them.
Make no mistake, that is the distilled truth of any sort of gun ban - declare the innocent to be guilty by waive of pen and whim of angry mob. It is vengeance by proxy, and requires abject tyranny in order to work. Forget the statistics, the 20,000+ gun regs currently in existence (which btw, did exactly nothing to prevent this idiot from perpetrating serious evil), ad all the hypothetical scenarios and ask what is a gun ban in and of itself? It is declaring millions of innocent people guilty with the waive of a pen, no due process whatsoever, in order to strip them of an explicitly protected, natural, individual right. That's it, that's all.
If you can be intellectually honest enough to say "yes, a gun ban is indeed abject tyranny and insanely unconstitutional, but darn it, I support it anyway" then I can give props for at least the honesty part. Still oppose any ban with every fiber of my being, but I could at least give a nod if the gun grabbers/banners would at least admit to their desire for wholesale tyranny and pretty much redefining rule of law to "whim of the vox populi at any given moment".
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.
