moodyblue
Drama Llama
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
Posts: 6,200
Location: Western Illinois
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2014 21:07:23 GMT
|
Post by moodyblue on Jul 25, 2015 18:56:48 GMT
Because I will not be run out of my country by bullies with guns. Period. Bullies? I offered a solution for you (that has what you said you desired) and if you elect not to accept it then fine. Don't. Knock yourself out, LOL.Have you offered any solutions to prevent the mass killings that we have so many of in this country? I've seen you fervently defend your right to a gun, suggest people leave the country, and repeatedly refer to the 2nd Amendment. I don't think I've seen any ideas from you about how we stop this madness. Are you OK with things as they are now? It isn't a simple thing to fix because it is not a one-legged stool of gun control OR mental health issues OR crime OR poverty OR culture. It's terribly complicated, and dealing with even ONE of those issues isn't easy - but if we don't at least discuss some of the ideas we never move forward on fixing any of the problems.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 2, 2024 11:46:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2015 20:06:44 GMT
I saw a a great response to this tired cliché the other day - " Saying "guns don't kill people" is like saying "defibrillators don't save people" You still need someone to operate the defibrillator in order for it to save someone. It doesn't do it all on its own..just like a gun doesn't kill someone all on its own. There is no legislation that will solve this problem...without affecting the rights and liberties of others. The problem lies within the hearts of those who are doing the killing; that's a good place to start. Now the problem is...where do you go from here? A gun may not killed someone on its own but boy it sure is the weapon of choice by many. I mean that is the purpose of a gun. To kill. And here in the United States we certainly excel in using a gun for its intended purpose. You talk about rights and liberties of others. Two points. Yes it would affect the rights and liberties of gun owners if guns were banned but that is not what is being proposed. Limitations is not trampling on the right to own a gun. Also when you talk about rights what about mine? Don't I have the right to go about my business without getting shot and killed? One right is no more important than another and right now I feel my rights are being trampled left and right as more and more of these senseless killings happen and nothing is done. I agree that in most cases the people who kill are damaged and the causes need to be addressed. But it is foolish to assume guns don't play an important part in this equation of killing and shouldn't be addressed just like the reasons for the killings. We must find a way to make sure these damaged people cannot get guns while we try to understand and fix why they are damaged in the first place. Damaged might not be the right word but there are so many reasons one person will kill one person or many it's hard to come with one word to fit all.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 2, 2024 11:46:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2015 20:12:19 GMT
I think you should be very careful in changing what rights we're entitled to. Of course we should be careful. Any change to the constitution should be very carefully considered. That does not mean that we should never consider changing it. The rest of it is a straw man argument. No one is proposing changing voting rights or anything of the kind. I would like to think that we could be a thoughtful society that could carefully consider the need for and usefulness of one right in modern times without throwing the rest of them out. It's not a straw argument. If you get rid of the 2nd amendment, there is no getting it back if we're ever faced with tyranny. The 2nd defends the rest.
|
|
|
Post by M~ on Jul 25, 2015 20:17:09 GMT
Not all people who kill have mental health issues. I hate to sound so dismissive, but this won't change unless the gun culture in this country changes. I'm not surprised, shocked, disheartened, sad, etc. I just can't afford to anymore.
|
|
|
Post by katieanna on Jul 25, 2015 22:26:25 GMT
[ I agree that in most cases the people who kill are damaged and the causes need to be addressed. ...We must find a way to make sure these damaged people cannot get guns while we try to understand and fix why they are damaged in the first place. I agree.
|
|
grinningcat
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,663
Jun 26, 2014 13:06:35 GMT
|
Post by grinningcat on Jul 25, 2015 22:53:25 GMT
Why should owning a gun be a right? Hasn't time changed so much that it's time to change this "right"? I don't really understand why it's a right, but I wonder if the time has come to amend this right and begin to change the attitude that everyone has a right to a gun rather than it being a privilege. Really? Along those lines...maybe we should do away with the right to free speech as well. I mean look how many people say things that really upset others, even drive crime! People speak out against the government too! Better to shut them up so we don't have so many arguments. The fourth amendment too! Hey, maybe the law should just be able to come in and search your house whenever they want! Some people have dangerous things in there, so let's make it easier to check it out. Hey, if you have nothing to hide, you won't mind the law dropping by and searching your home whenever they want, right? I could go on, of course. But here is another BIG why. My husband is a Veteran. He and billions of other men have served our country to protect our freedoms. Many have given their body parts, their mental well being and even their lives to protect those freedoms. I almost hate to say this, but if you don't like the freedoms we have, think about living in another country that doesn't have them. Our country isn't perfect, but it is the home of the free. Oh, and again, take away that right and guess what? There will still be people with guns. The bad guys. And they'll have a free for all! The only ones to protect you from one of them will be the police. I'm not willing to put my life in the hands of a 20 minute response time. Seriously? Are you finished with your hysterics? Sheesh. It was an honest question. Why is owning a gun a RIGHT? Not a privilege? Why is owning the gun the same as having clean water, safe housing, free from discrimination, ability to speak freely, education, etc. Those are rights. I don't understand why owning a gun is considered a right like those. Is it essential to life?
|
|
grinningcat
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,663
Jun 26, 2014 13:06:35 GMT
|
Post by grinningcat on Jul 25, 2015 22:54:40 GMT
Why should owning a gun be a right? Hasn't time changed so much that it's time to change this "right"? I don't really understand why it's a right, but I wonder if the time has come to amend this right and begin to change the attitude that everyone has a right to a gun rather than it being a privilege. I've never heard a reasonable, relevant explanation for WHY it has to be a right. Generally the narrative is that it is a right, and you'll pry the gun from my cold, dead hands, blah blah blah. The people who view the 2nd amendment as some kind of sacred right generally also hold the founders of our country in a weird, God-like regard, as if they were superhuman people who could see hundreds of years into the future and predict exactly what the country and its people would need. They refuse to acknowledge that times change, and that our country has evolved from a wild frontier only recently won from the control of the English to a modern, mostly urban, industrialized society with strong standing military protection. The way I see it, our founders were great guys for their times, and I think the idea of a bill of rights is important, but that a rational society recognizes that what was necessary 200+ years ago is not necessarily in the best interest of the country today. Some things may have to be re-visited to see if they still make sense. I think it's laughable that people here think that John Adams or Thomas Jefferson would say, "Yeah, you all can stop thinking now - we've thought of everything for you." The thing that our founders left out of the constitution, in my opinion, was some kind of list of responsibilities. The way our constitution is written has created a culture of me, me, me without any regard for the responsibility we bear to ourselves and our fellow citizens. The mantra that it's MY right needs to be tempered by the acknowledgement that it's MY responsibility to consider others besides myself. I believe the socially responsible thing to do is to get rid of guns. I think their manufacture and sale in the US should cease immediately. You may have the right to own one, but we don't need to make it easy for you to get one. I think that if you still choose to have one in your home, and keep it in such a way that it can be easily stolen (i.e., on your bedside table, in your car, or really anywhere besides a stationary, locked biometric safe), and it is stolen and used in the commission of a crime, you should be held accountable. I believe if there is a gun "accident" in your home, or if you choose to open fire to "protect" someone in a public place and innocent bystanders are killed or injured, you should be charged with a crime. I think the narrative around guns in our country needs to change from protecting the rights of people who choose to own guns, to emphasizing the great risk and responsibility they take on if they choose to do so, and the great risk with which they're choosing to burden the rest of us. Thanks for replying. I really don't understand how it's a right or a necessity for life.
|
|
grinningcat
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,663
Jun 26, 2014 13:06:35 GMT
|
Post by grinningcat on Jul 25, 2015 23:00:22 GMT
Why should owning a gun be a right? Hasn't time changed so much that it's time to change this "right"? I don't really understand why it's a right, but I wonder if the time has come to amend this right and begin to change the attitude that everyone has a right to a gun rather than it being a privilege. I think you should be very careful in changing what rights we're entitled to. Are you going to be as equally on board when it's a right that you happen to enjoy and appreciate?
Maybe a man will decide that women should no longer have the right to vote. That'd be cool with you?
How is owning an object the same as equal rights for all? I ask this seriously because I don't understand how an object and the ownership of said object is considered a right. Owning a phone or a car isn't considered a right but a privilege... so why is the object called a gun and that ownership considered a right?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 2, 2024 11:46:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2015 23:03:11 GMT
Different kinds of rights, grinningcat. The right to bear arms, upheld as an individual right by the SCOTUS, is a constitutional right (as opposed to human or civil rights.)
|
|
grinningcat
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,663
Jun 26, 2014 13:06:35 GMT
|
Post by grinningcat on Jul 25, 2015 23:07:02 GMT
Of course we should be careful. Any change to the constitution should be very carefully considered. That does not mean that we should never consider changing it. The rest of it is a straw man argument. No one is proposing changing voting rights or anything of the kind. I would like to think that we could be a thoughtful society that could carefully consider the need for and usefulness of one right in modern times without throwing the rest of them out. It's not a straw argument. If you get rid of the 2nd amendment, there is no getting it back if we're ever faced with tyranny. The 2nd defends the rest. Is tyranny really something feared in the States? What's the possibility of a tyrant taking power and your need to defend yourself against said tyrant through the use of a gun? Do people really think this? Why? What makes people think of this doom and gloom scenario?
|
|
grinningcat
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,663
Jun 26, 2014 13:06:35 GMT
|
Post by grinningcat on Jul 25, 2015 23:08:57 GMT
Different kinds of rights, grinningcat. The right to bear arms, upheld as an individual right by the SCOTUS, is a constitutional right (as opposed to human or civil rights.) But what's the basis of this right? Why is owning a gun considered a right not just something one needed when the Constitution was written but has changed as society changed? Why is amending this amendment such a horrible thing to consider? Other constitutions and amendments have been changed, why is this one so different?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 2, 2024 11:46:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2015 23:46:26 GMT
Different kinds of rights, grinningcat. The right to bear arms, upheld as an individual right by the SCOTUS, is a constitutional right (as opposed to human or civil rights.) But what's the basis of this right? Why is owning a gun considered a right not just something one needed when the Constitution was written but has changed as society changed? Why is amending this amendment such a horrible thing to consider? Other constitutions and amendments have been changed, why is this one so different? Making changes to the Constitution is a pretty big deal...not something to be taken lightly. In addition, while I agree that the Constitution is a living document, able to change, I cannot think of one example that took away a right already granted. I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong (LOL) but I think that any changes were ADDING rights previously not there.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 2, 2024 11:46:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2015 23:49:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by coaliesquirrel on Jul 25, 2015 23:51:50 GMT
So, remind me again which one of those constitutional rights it is that specifically states it should be "well-regulated"? The first, or was it the fourth? NO. The second. You know - the one about GUNS. So maybe - just maybe - it'd be just fine to require insurance, training, and mental competency tests from a constitutional standpoint. Since even the framers thought that right should be WELL-REGULATED.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 2, 2024 11:46:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2015 23:54:03 GMT
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
This is pesky little amendment that is part of The Bill Of Rights. There has always been some confusion as to what this amendment actually meant. For years and years people believed that it meant that only the men that were part of the militia had the right to keep arms.. At that time the men in the militia had to use their own guns as the state didn't provide the guns. The powers to be wanted to make sure these guys had guns if they needed to protect the state. This is what I was taught in school.
Then in the 70's the NRA decided to change the prevailing interruption from the members of the militia were the only ones that had a right to bear arms to all people had that right. In 2008 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of some guy that pretty much cemented the NRA's version of the 2nd Amendment. Prior to that the Supreme Court had always sided on the side that it wasn't the right of the individual to own guns.
So while the Founding Fathers did a pretty good job on the Constitution and most of the Bill of Rights they sure left a mess with this amendment.
Now shall we say the most enthusiastic gun owners will say no there was no confusion in the meaning of the 2nd amendment. But all the decades prior to the 1970's say otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by coaliesquirrel on Jul 25, 2015 23:57:40 GMT
Well, there was all that stuff implicitly allowing owning slaves. I think a good chunk of people in the South felt like that was their Constitutional right and was taken away.
|
|
Just T
Drama Llama
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
Posts: 5,587
Jun 26, 2014 1:20:09 GMT
|
Post by Just T on Jul 26, 2015 0:00:34 GMT
Well...there are some members of my family who honest to goodness believe that Obama is the Anti-Christ who is trying to take over the world and first declare marshal law in the US so he can stay on as president. They think that we all need lots of guns and lots of ammunition (that they have stocked up on!) so that we can defend ourselves and overtake him. (Just so you know, I do NOT subscribe to this at all!)
So yeah, there are people in the US who really think this. Why? I have NO idea.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 2, 2024 11:46:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2015 0:03:24 GMT
Well, there was all that stuff implicitly allowing owning slaves. I think a good chunk of people in the South felt like that was their Constitutional right and was taken away. Well I guess I look at the 13th Amendment as GIVING people their freedom. I guess it's all how you look at things. Glass half full...glass half empty.
Another example I just thought of...we don't look at the 19th Amendment as "taking away the rights of men to be the only ones voting". We look at it as GIVING women the right to vote.
Have you ever heard of anyone referencing the 19th Amendment as rights being taken away?
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Jul 26, 2015 0:46:27 GMT
Well, there was all that stuff implicitly allowing owning slaves. I think a good chunk of people in the South felt like that was their Constitutional right and was taken away. Well I guess I look at the 13th Amendment as GIVING people their freedom. I guess it's all how you look at things. Glass half full...glass half empty.
Another example I just thought of...we don't look at the 19th Amendment as "taking away the rights of men to be the only ones voting". We look at it as GIVING women the right to vote.
Have you ever heard of anyone referencing the 19th Amendment as rights being taken away?
There was Prohibition...we voted to amend to take away the right to access alcoholic beverages (18th amendment.) Of course it was repealed not too long after (the 21st((?)) amendment.) So I guess maybe that isn't a great example of an amendment that takes away rights-it wasn't in effect for very long. ![:laugh:](//storage.proboards.com/5645536/images/Ivm7lm0DayrhoRpwvCeH.jpg)
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 2, 2024 11:46:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2015 1:21:31 GMT
![:nod:](//storage.proboards.com/5645536/images/U60p50mxzUNFaJHP0XeB.jpg) It's tough I tell you! It's hard not worrying about being randomly shot at the mall, or the theatre or school....having to 'decide' not to live in fear rather than actually not living in fear. It's a nightmare knowing that even if my home is broken into, they won't be armed with a gun. And hardest of all is not thinking that I need to have a gun to defend myself from anyone and everyone else who might have a gun and might just not be a responsible gun owner. ETA - not proud on myself for sinking to the level of sarcasm but you know......I'll be leaving this thread now. It frustrates me no end, I can't imagine how it must feel to actually have to live this crap. I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but there IS in fact gun violence in London. I've been doing some reading on the gun problems that STILL exist in both the UK and Australia, despite gun bans.
This was especially heartbreaking.
Campaigners today called for extra resources to be spent on tackling gun crime in the capital after a five-year-old girl and a shopkeeper were caught in the crossfire of a gang-related shooting in south London.
The young girl and 35-year-old man are in a critical condition in hospital after being shot inside the Stockwell Food and Wine shop on Stockwell Road, south London.
Detectives said they were innocent bystanders in gang shooting. Witnesses said two black youths ran into the shop to hide from a group chasing them. As they sheltered inside, one of the attackers opened fire shooting the five-year-old in the chest and the man in the face.
You must be really scrapping the bottom of a barrel to prove your point Genny if you find an incident which happened in March of 2011.London has a population of 8.6 million roughly the same as New York and in the last four years police have fired just 13 shots and one person, Mark Duggan, has been killed by police marksmen.
Police say the statistics support evidence that armed crime in London is falling. Recent figures show gun crime down by up to 16 per cent while the number of firearms murders in London fell to just six in 2012. And just to be clear as to what constitutes gun crime in the UK........it includes all types of guns including air guns and possession of fake guns if they are used in a crime,as a threat or in the criminal's possession. Nice try though!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 2, 2024 11:46:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2015 1:25:19 GMT
Well I guess I look at the 13th Amendment as GIVING people their freedom. I guess it's all how you look at things. Glass half full...glass half empty.
Another example I just thought of...we don't look at the 19th Amendment as "taking away the rights of men to be the only ones voting". We look at it as GIVING women the right to vote.
Have you ever heard of anyone referencing the 19th Amendment as rights being taken away?
There was Prohibition...we voted to amend to take away the right to access alcoholic beverages (18th amendment.) Of course it was repealed not too long after (the 21st((?)) amendment.) So I guess maybe that isn't a great example of an amendment that takes away rights-it wasn't in effect for very long. ![:laugh:](//storage.proboards.com/5645536/images/Ivm7lm0DayrhoRpwvCeH.jpg) Doesn't matter that it wasn't in effect long...you found one that takes away the rights previously given. Sure, the 18th Amendment was repealed with the 21st Amendment...and as of today, the only Amendment facilitated to repeal a previous Amendment.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 2, 2024 11:46:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2015 1:28:55 GMT
I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but there IS in fact gun violence in London. I've been doing some reading on the gun problems that STILL exist in both the UK and Australia, despite gun bans.
This was especially heartbreaking.
Campaigners today called for extra resources to be spent on tackling gun crime in the capital after a five-year-old girl and a shopkeeper were caught in the crossfire of a gang-related shooting in south London.
The young girl and 35-year-old man are in a critical condition in hospital after being shot inside the Stockwell Food and Wine shop on Stockwell Road, south London.
Detectives said they were innocent bystanders in gang shooting. Witnesses said two black youths ran into the shop to hide from a group chasing them. As they sheltered inside, one of the attackers opened fire shooting the five-year-old in the chest and the man in the face.
You must be really scrapping the bottom of a barrel to prove your point Genny if you find an incident which happened in March of 2011.London has a population of 8.6 million roughly the same as New York and in the last four years police have fired just 13 shots and one person, Mark Duggan, has been killed by police marksmen.
Police say the statistics support evidence that armed crime in London is falling. Recent figures show gun crime down by up to 16 per cent while the number of firearms murders in London fell to just six in 2012. And just to be clear as to what constitutes gun crime in the UK........it includes all types of guns including air guns and possession of fake guns if they are used in a crime,as a threat or in the criminal's possession. Nice try though! This is the SECOND time you have not used my correct name. I assumed the first time was a mistake. If you continue to address me by a name or even username not mine, I will only assume you're doing it to be an asshole.
I found plenty of other evidence of gun crimes in the UK. I had so many tabs open in my browser that I was having trouble navigating. I also read something interesting about the reporting of crime in the UK. We report ALL crimes. In the UK (well at least England) they only report crime where a criminal has been caught, brought to trial and found guilty. We're not really comparing the same numbers if you're looking for a true comparison of either crime in the UK or even gun violence, gun crime, or gun deaths in the UK.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 2, 2024 11:46:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2015 2:05:45 GMT
You must be really scrapping the bottom of a barrel to prove your point Genny if you find an incident which happened in March of 2011.London has a population of 8.6 million roughly the same as New York and in the last four years police have fired just 13 shots and one person, Mark Duggan, has been killed by police marksmen.
Police say the statistics support evidence that armed crime in London is falling. Recent figures show gun crime down by up to 16 per cent while the number of firearms murders in London fell to just six in 2012. And just to be clear as to what constitutes gun crime in the UK........it includes all types of guns including air guns and possession of fake guns if they are used in a crime,as a threat or in the criminal's possession. Nice try though! This is the SECOND time you have not used my correct name. I assumed the first time was a mistake. If you continue to address me by a name or even username not mine, I will only assume you're doing it to be an asshole.
I found plenty of other evidence of gun crimes in the UK. I had so many tabs open in my browser that I was having trouble navigating. I also read something interesting about the reporting of crime in the UK. We report ALL crimes. In the UK (well at least England) they only report crime where a criminal has been caught, brought to trial and found guilty. We're not really comparing the same numbers if you're looking for a true comparison of either crime in the UK or even gun violence, gun crime, or gun deaths in the UK.
Maybe you would care to share the link of the found " evidence" of the gun crimes in the UK if you think the numbers are so high that you can justify comparing them to the US. You might also want to provide the evidence that we do not officially record crime unless the criminal has been caught and brought to justice, because you can't, for the simply reason that it's not accurate. I apolgize for getting your name wrong,it wasn't intentional it's habit as I have a friend that is called Genny ( Gennifer) but nice of you to assume that I'm being an asshole!
|
|
|
Post by Kelpea on Jul 26, 2015 2:52:33 GMT
To me, that simple query is the crux of the entire gun dilemma in our country. Who in the hell do you think you are that you think you have the right to shoot me while I'm in a damn movie theater? Or a grocery store? Or, hell, just driving around in my car?
This past week our local residents' FB site lit UP when a resident posted a photo of an asshole who, IN HIS BUSINESS CAR, pointed a gun at the resident and his two toddler daughters over a road rage incident. Who does he think he is? Unbelievable.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 2, 2024 11:46:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2015 3:09:28 GMT
To me, that simple query is the crux of the entire gun dilemma in our country. Who in the hell do you think you are that you think you have the right to shoot me while I'm in a damn movie theater? Or a grocery store? Or, hell, just driving around in my car? This past week our local residents' FB site lit UP when a resident posted a photo of an asshole who, IN HIS BUSINESS CAR, pointed a gun at the resident and his two toddler daughters over a road rage incident. Who does he think he is? Unbelievable. Nobody has the right to do any of those, kelpea. That would be why they're all against the law.
|
|
|
Post by Kelpea on Jul 26, 2015 4:04:23 GMT
and yet, continues to happen daily.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 2, 2024 11:46:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2015 4:08:58 GMT
To me, that simple query is the crux of the entire gun dilemma in our country. Who in the hell do you think you are that you think you have the right to shoot me while I'm in a damn movie theater? Or a grocery store? Or, hell, just driving around in my car? This past week our local residents' FB site lit UP when a resident posted a photo of an asshole who, IN HIS BUSINESS CAR, pointed a gun at the resident and his two toddler daughters over a road rage incident. Who does he think he is? Unbelievable. Nobody has the right to do any of those, kelpea. That would be why they're all against the law. Because of the limitations the NRA is demanding when it comes to buying guns crazies can legally buy guns which puts our right to be safe at a greater risk. It's not going to mean much to the people killed by this guy that he is breaking the law because well they are dead. As is the case with the man who was the subject of this thread and the two women he killed.
|
|
|
Post by birukitty on Jul 26, 2015 17:57:34 GMT
Of course we should be careful. Any change to the constitution should be very carefully considered. That does not mean that we should never consider changing it. The rest of it is a straw man argument. No one is proposing changing voting rights or anything of the kind. I would like to think that we could be a thoughtful society that could carefully consider the need for and usefulness of one right in modern times without throwing the rest of them out. It's not a straw argument. If you get rid of the 2nd amendment, there is no getting it back if we're ever faced with tyranny. The 2nd defends the rest. I've heard this argument before and personally think it's ridiculous. Sure, it made since back when the constitution was written and our country was still new. But now? Do you really think you can defend yourselves with your guns against the U. S. Armed Forces with their tanks, missiles, drones, and all of their other sophisticated equipment? Obviously you think it might happen in your minds so I'm asking this question. Debbie in MD.
|
|
|
Post by birukitty on Jul 26, 2015 18:10:35 GMT
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This is pesky little amendment that is part of The Bill Of Rights. There has always been some confusion as to what this amendment actually meant. For years and years people believed that it meant that only the men that were part of the militia had the right to keep arms.. At that time the men in the militia had to use their own guns as the state didn't provide the guns. The powers to be wanted to make sure these guys had guns if they needed to protect the state. This is what I was taught in school. Then in the 70's the NRA decided to change the prevailing interruption from the members of the militia were the only ones that had a right to bear arms to all people had that right. In 2008 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of some guy that pretty much cemented the NRA's version of the 2nd Amendment. Prior to that the Supreme Court had always sided on the side that it wasn't the right of the individual to own guns. So while the Founding Fathers did a pretty good job on the Constitution and most of the Bill of Rights they sure left a mess with this amendment. Now shall we say the most enthusiastic gun owners will say no there was no confusion in the meaning of the 2nd amendment. But all the decades prior to the 1970's say otherwise. This is what I have always believed it meant. The right of the militia to keep and bear arms. Of course that's a moot point now. Sadly. So here we are. It has become a huge mess and people are dying every single day from gun related injuries in droves. We can stop this, we must stop this. I personally believe your right to own a gun doesn't top my right to live. You might believe owning a gun for protection secures your right to live. But studies prove otherwise. The facts are this-every single country that practices severe gun control has drastically reduced their gun deaths. You simply have to look at Australia to see this. You can stomp you feet like a toddler and say, "but it's mine, it's mine and I'm not giving it up!" Well, I feel the same way about my life, and the lives of those who died in the recent theatre shooting, and the lives of those who will die in the next mass gun killing, and the lives of those precious children who died in Sandy Hook. Enough is enough! How many more have to die before your selfishness is willing to give a little-yes I said it. That's how I see it. Debbie in MD.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 2, 2024 11:46:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2015 18:33:21 GMT
204 mass shootings in 204 days
Last night I ran across this article in The Washington Post. There have been 204 mass shootings in 204 days in 2015. This activist site called "Guns are Cool subreddit" has a Mass Shooting Tracker. This Mass Tracker uses a broader definition than the one used by the FBI to determine what is considered a "mass shooting". Instead of 4 or more people murdered these guys use 4 or more people shot. A couple of sentences I think say a lot about guns and this country. They are... "The shootings happen so often the circumstances become so familiar, that we tune them out." "Will anything change? Probably not. The Charleston shooting did produce a fruitful national conversation - not on guns, but on the symbolism of the Confederate flag, which the shooter adopted as a banner of his racist beliefs." Bottom line to me is this article is depressing as hell. Way to go USA! ![:thumbdown:](//storage.proboards.com/5645536/images/SCylSBljj3e3QKjxF2vn.jpg)
|
|