Opinions/Discussions on Guns

[Downinthebend]

I would but I would probably miss by a wide margin and hit a innocent person.

Then please don't carry a gun.

 

[cody1smith]

so I'm guessing you don't have school resource officers in your area.

No i am from a very rural area in Missouri there is only 10-15 police officers in the whole county. never one at school other than for the dare program. I think there is in st louis which is 90 miles away. My point is that if bad people want to do bad things its gonna happen. I have personally been touched by murder once by fire and once by a drive by shooting. (1 in Missouri 1 in California) And i never once was mad at the matches or the he guns. Just the gutless bastards that committed the crime.

 

[pkt77242]

Hell lets put a few from each branch of the military there along with some firemen in case someone brings some matches. Oh and as someone told me earlier making laws has nothing to do with taxes so we can do all this with zero tax hike.

It is about how you allocate the money. How about we spend less money on sending our military to other countries and more on keeping our people safe here at home.

 

[Downinthebend]

It is about how you allocate the money. How about we spend less money on sending our military to other countries and more on keeping our people safe here at home.

Yes. We spend between 626 to 680 billion dollars on the military each year.

 

[cody1smith]

It is about how you allocate the money. How about we spend less money on sending our military to other countries and more on keeping our people safe here at home.

All for it!!!

 

[pkt77242]

Say it as many times as you want. I doubt they envisioned that military technology would stop at where it was then. They had just defended themselves against an oppressive government and that was what they were trying to protect. The right of each individual (and a freesociety) to protect themselves.

Just like they foresaw the end of slavery, women being able to vote, no land owners being able to vote, etc. Seriously. People are a product of their time and it is exceptionally rare for a person to be able to rise about their time period and our founders were no different. Also they gave the right because if you read the 2nd amendment and you know anything about our history, we didn't have a standing army at the time and had no intent at the time of creating one (the founders were generally against professional soldeirs), so all we used was a miltia. " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

 

[pkt77242]

Then please don't carry a gun.

Sadly, I am not the problem. The problem would be people who think they can hit a moving target in a combat situation but can't. Which would be most of the US population.

 

[Downinthebend]

Just like they foresaw the end of slavery, women being able to vote, no land owners being able to vote, etc. Seriously. People are a product of their time and it is exceptionally rare for a person to be able to rise about their time period and our founders were no different. Also they gave the right because if you read the 2nd amendment and you know anything about our history, we didn't have a standing army at the time and had no intent at the time of creating one (the founders were generally against professional soldeirs), so all we used was a miltia. " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

You're right. Its not like they just had a group of free citizens with guns fight off the strongest empire of the time that was trying to steal their liberties or anything. Protecting people from oppressive governments would hardly have been on their minds. Also, the the phrasing of the 2nd amendment does not say only for militia members may the right to bear arms not be infringed. It say unequivocally that the right to beat arms shall not be infringed.

 

[cody1smith]

You're right. Its not like they just had a group of free citizens with guns fight off the strongest empire of the time that was trying to steal their liberties or anything. Protecting people from oppressive governments would hardly have been on their minds. Also, the the phrasing of the 2nd amendment does not say only for militia members may the right to bear arms not be infringed. It say unequivocally that the right to beat arms shall not be infringed.

^^^what he said

 

[goldandblue]

I'm sorry but anyone that wouldn't want a gun for defense in a situation where a crazed man is shooting people is a dumb a$$.

Really? You would rather just watch people die than to have at least a chance in stopping him because you might miss the bastard? Jesus Christ...

 

[Kaneyoufeelit]

I'm sorry but anyone that wouldn't want a gun for defense in a situation where a crazed man is shooting people is a dumb a$$.

Really? You would rather just watch people die than to have at least a chance in stopping him because you might miss the bastard? Jesus Christ...

Jesus Christ would not approve this message

It's so frustrating when someone makes a really good point and the reader completely misunderstands it.

Do you think we are safer as a society if we all had guns in public? You think gun violence would decrease if there were more guns?

The problem is that ordinary fights that end in fists would now have guns introduced to them. Compounded with the stress of the situation, the fast paced emotional action, and guns in untrained hands you are asking for tragedy

 

[goldandblue]

Jesus Christ would not approve this message

God is pretty hardcore when it comes to punishing the wicked... Don't think he'd mind one second for putting a bullet in someone who is killing people especially 6 year old kids... God did not create the Justice System...

 

[Kaneyoufeelit]

God is pretty hardcore when it comes to punishing the wicked... Don't think he'd mind one second for putting a bullet in someone who is killing people especially 6 year old kids... God did not create the Justice System...

How does he feel about belittling people and taking his name

 

[HereComeTheIrish]

This thread is getting dopey...

Only thing worse than political threads are religious threads.

 

[pkt77242]

You're right. Its not like they just had a group of free citizens with guns fight off the strongest empire of the time that was trying to steal their liberties or anything. Protecting people from oppressive governments would hardly have been on their minds. Also, the the phrasing of the 2nd amendment does not say only for militia members may the right to bear arms not be infringed. It say unequivocally that the right to beat arms shall not be infringed.

Sigh, I never said it didn't pertain to the individual, though the main purpose of writing it was to deal with the idea of militias and if you disagree go back and read how Madison originally had it written or where he got the actual idea from (shockingly it wasn't his idea).

 

[Downinthebend]

Jesus Christ would not approve this message

It's so frustrating when someone makes a really good point and the reader completely misunderstands it.

Do you think we are safer as a society if we all had guns in public? You think gun violence would decrease if there were more guns?

The problem is that ordinary fights that end in fists would now have guns introduced to them. Compounded with the stress of the situation, the fast paced emotional action, and guns in untrained hands you are asking for tragedy

Why do we have to bounce between extremes? Why can't we have the people that are highly qualified have arms for the self defense of themselves and others. Also a law that required I don't know say 2-3 people per hundred in a building require to do just that wouldn't be that bad.

 

[Downinthebend]

Sigh, I never said it didn't pertain to the individual, though the main purpose of writing it was to deal with the idea of militias and if you disagree go back and read how Madison originally had it written or where he got the actual idea from (shockingly it wasn't his idea).

I for one don't particularly care about forming a militia, so main concern is about individual rights.

Heres your quote (well, part of it): "Also they gave the right because if you read the 2nd amendment and you know anything about our history, we didn't have a standing army at the time and had no intent at the time of creating one"

You said that they gave the right because of that reason, I believed that you were implying that was the only reason. If i'm wrong I'm sorry about using sarcasm in my response, but it is certain that the 2nd amendment pertains not only to forming militias but also to protecting oneself against an oppressive government.

 

[goldandblue]

How does he feel about belittling people and taking his name

First off, I didn't quote said individual because I did not want to attack him personally... Jesus Christ... Really??

Maybe I'll one day become the second sinless person to walk this earth. Until then ill continue to be thankful for Jesus Christ coming to cleanse the blood of sinners like me....

I'm moving on...

 

[phgreek]

Care to explain why you think this would be better handled at the state level?

Do you think that it should be something completely left for states to decide to do on their own, or do you think that the federal government should give guidelines and leave it up to the states to write conforming laws, or......?

Sure...I always believe those at the state level are far more capable of acting in an uninfluenced and reasonable fashion. When you concentrate these issues at a Federal level the strongest special interest tends to win...or at least dominate such that the compromise is crap. This then results in folks being generally unsatisifed with the outcome, potential judicial activism, and incessant continued lobbying and litigation.

States, in my view make it hard for any one view to dominate, and for a deeper discussion that leads to the avoidance of most unintended consequences...

 

[DSully1995]

God is pretty hardcore when it comes to punishing the wicked... Don't think he'd mind one second for putting a bullet in someone who is killing people especially 6 year old kids... God did not create the Justice System...

Then shouldnt he do it before?

 

[phgreek]

Then shouldnt he do it before?

No accounting for instances of divine intervention, but as a general rule...God is a spectator 'til ya die.

 

[JadeBrecks]

Agreed but now its illegal to possess. Or at least purchase. I don't know, it's something.

My brother just bought an assault rifle that was California spec, so it had ten-round clips and is a bitch to switch clips. You can simply go to a gun store and buy a 100-round drum for it! ONE HUNDRED ROUNDS! Jesus. The Founding Fathers didn't know such things could ever exist.

They may not have foreseen it but you can't argue with the fact they put the second amendment in so the government couldn't restrict citizens ability to get firearms to defend themselves from an oppressive government. The main firearms to defend yourself from such a case would be an "assault" rifle. All firearm laws do is restrict law abiding citizens not the criminals. All these mass shooters break countless laws to do these atrocities. None of them are going in to gun stores, buying these guns and ammo, then going and performing these crimes. They are illegally obtaining them. More laws won't stop them they just prohibit the possibility of someone being able to slow/stop this individual before the cops show up.

 

[cody1smith]

bam

 

[chicago51]

I think most gun owners would be okay with resonable restrictions and checks. NRA is a different story as they are in the businesses of selling gun and are going to be against anything that slows down their sales.

If the federal and state legistlatures but as much effort of putting resonbale restrictions and checks in place as do with these voter ID laws (cough cough voter suppression laws) we can make progress. Some states seem to want to make harder vote than to own a gun.

 

[JadeBrecks]

I think most gun owners would be okay with resonable restrictions and checks. NRA is a different story as they are in the businesses of selling gun and are going to be against anything that slows down their sales.

If the federal and state legistlatures but as much effort of putting resonbale restrictions and checks in place as do with these voter ID laws (cough cough voter suppression laws) we can make progress. Some states seem to want to make harder vote than to own a gun.

The problem is you already have these "reasonable" gun laws. All they do is slow down law abiding citizens not someone illegally obtaining them.

 

[Grahambo]

A Guide to Mass Shootings in America | Mother Jones

I've never heard of this website but at the bottom they say where they get their information from. Some statistics in regards to mass shootings.

This isn't me getting involved in the debate, just providing some numbers.

 

[chicago51]

I no that this instance the shooter used hand guns not assault weapons. BUT there is no reason not ban assault weapons. You don't need an assault weapon for hunting or for self defense.

 

[BobD]

They may not have foreseen it but you can't argue with the fact they put the second amendment in so the government couldn't restrict citizens ability to get firearms to defend themselves from an oppressive government. The main firearms to defend yourself from such a case would be an "assault" rifle. All firearm laws do is restrict law abiding citizens not the criminals. All these mass shooters break countless laws to do these atrocities. None of them are going in to gun stores, buying these guns and ammo, then going and performing these crimes. They are illegally obtaining them. More laws won't stop them they just prohibit the possibility of someone being able to slow/stop this individual before the cops show up.

actually most times the police find the guns were obtained through gun retailers by the shooter or someone they know.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

1) Timothy McVeigh conducted his evil with fertilizer.

2) Will "getting rid of guns" work as well as making drugs illegal?

3) Show me a country that has more justice and freedom than we do where the only people who have guns is the government/ military

4) Chicago has the toughest gun laws in the country and one of the highest murder rates (per capita)

 

[JadeBrecks]

I no that this instance the shooter used hand guns not assault weapons. BUT there is no reason not ban assault weapons. You don't need an assault weapon for hunting or for self defense.

if I don't need them for self defense why are police carrying them now? Take a look at why they are. The big push was after a California bank robbery.
2 men with bulletproof armor robbed the bank and then proceeded down the street in the shootout with police. Police could not stop them because all they had were pistols and shotguns. they had to go to a local gun store to get rifles to stop them. say 1 of them entered a house as a barricade should I not be allowed to stop them? should I have to wait for the police to show up and then for them to bring the proper gear?

this is a subject that gets me worked up very easily. I know I shouldn't have come in here but I am going to bow out now before I cause trouble.