[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49235546]Calling gun ownership a human right cheapens the term 'human right'[/QUOTE]
Not more than claiming internet access is a human right, like the UN says. Everybody has the right to defend themselves from attackers, and the gun is the only method amongst them that doesn't require superior strength over your opponent.
The old saying was "God made men, Samuel Colt made them equal."
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49235843]Start up a "gun owners database" with mandatory registering of firearms + require declaring when a firearm changes hands with regular checkups to make sure those people still own those guns. Only apply to guns kept at home (The hassle/paranoid factor will mean hobbyists and hunters might decide to keep their guns at the club) people hate this stuff so it would be like a disincentive[/QUOTE]
Fuck that. Any legislation even hinting at something like this will get shit on in the US, and with good reason. We've seen what happens with databases many times before. It consistently comes back to bite anyone who was honest enough to sign up for it.
There is zero incentive to ever register a firearm that is not already "in the system," because it has repeatedly been shown that attempts will be made to confiscate it. Multiple governments have tried to do this multiple times.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49235843]Good question. I'll try and give you a useful answer.
I see stuff as pros and cons.
you need to make people want to do "the right thing"
Ie making guns harder to get will probably lead to more illegal dealing to bypass restrictions.
So:
Stricter limits on who can have a gun at home, forms, home gun database, possibly some kind of tax
Let people have easier access to much more interesting weaponry than they currently do, on the condition that the guns are kept inside the club meeting certain security requirements. (so you can play with a 50 cal or full auto ak or auto shotgun or sawed off relatively easily but you can't take it home; something similar for hunting where hunting firearms are kept at a club and returned at end of trip in some way) People like the tacticool, automatic, qwerky stuff so this is like a postive incentive.
Start up a "gun owners database" with mandatory registering of firearms + require declaring when a firearm changes hands with regular checkups to make sure those people still own those guns. Only apply to guns kept at home (The hassle/paranoid factor will mean hobbyists and hunters might decide to keep their guns at the club) people hate this stuff so it would be like a disincentive
Gun hand in schemes + arrest people illegally selling arms (ie not informing the database, selling to people not in the database or criminals).
Give and take/carrot and stick etc etc[/QUOTE]
the problem with the gun owners base are possible leaks
remember when gawker doxxed everyone in NYC who owned a gun?
[QUOTE=Ridge;49236693]Not more than claiming internet access is a human right, like the UN says. Everybody has the right to defend themselves from attackers, and the gun is the only method amongst them that doesn't require superior strength over your opponent.
The old saying was "God made men, Samuel Colt made them equal."[/QUOTE]
My only reason I'd want a gun is in case the world went to shit I'd be on an even playing field. And personally I think this is a basic human right. Especially in the US where there are so many guns around to begin with. And I dont even mean like a crazy apocalyptic scenario; just if shootings like this happened in my neighborhood Id feel a little more self sufficient in my own protection.
[QUOTE=Ridge;49236693]Not more than claiming internet access is a human right, like the UN says. Everybody has the right to defend themselves from attackers, and the gun is the only method amongst them that doesn't require superior strength over your opponent.
The old saying was "God made men, Samuel Colt made them equal."[/QUOTE]
internet access enables whistleblowers and international action. if there's a pocket-sized cannon that can silently shoot instant mail and video footage directly to the Hague from continents away i'm sure they would be very interested in ratifying it.
[QUOTE=Aldawolf;49235346]
I really doubt a lot of gun owners outside of rural areas use it to hunt, a lot of do it for their own superiority gun nut complex[/QUOTE]
Or, ya know, they enjoy going to the range and shooting as a hobby. Not every gun owner is a paranoid nutjob, despite what you might think.
[QUOTE=hhcheese;49236795]Or, ya know, they enjoy going to the range and shooting as a hobby. Not every gun owner is a paranoid nutjob, despite what you might think.[/QUOTE]
Sshh. That doesn't fit the narrative. How can you expect him to argue if he doesn't have any strawmen to attack? What's he supposed to do, [I]admit[/I] that everyone who disagrees with him may not actually be a mass murderer?
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49236158]Or maybe I don't have to support arbitrary new restrictions that pointlessly change the way things are in the name of ineffectually addressing a problem that doesn't even exist in my area and barely exists in others???? Because I'm the person your half-baked idea would affect, not the person who would actually be committing crimes?
I've been suggesting tightening up the slack in these systems for the entire thread, "indefinite waiting period" is not and never will be a good idea, legally obligating the FBI to respond to the background checks it's supposed to be handling, however, is. Maybe if you people made an effort to argue with what we're actually saying instead of blindly railing against this image of us that you've invented to justify your paranoia of other humans you wouldn't sound so much like Jack Thompson after a new GTA game comes out.
Remember him? Yeah, he was a guy who formed all his opinions from misleading statistics reported by the profit-driven sensationalist media and became so convinced of them he tried to legislate video games away. Know what gamers said? "No, that's dumb, you don't know all the facts and you don't understand how this will actually affect the majority of us versus the disturbed people who were going to commit crimes anyway."
That sounds familiar...[/QUOTE]
What's arbitrary about performing a full background check in order to get a fire-arm, as opposed to the current system where they just say "Well golly they're taking an awful long time, just go ahead and take it", or requiring a license that proves that you've at least shown some degree of competence with the object you're about to use? You need a license to do hobby rocketry past a certain point because it's dangerous, and it's required to prove that you're knowledgeable and qualified to use larger rocket motors. Which much like guns, are a tool and a hobby for many, but on top of how dangerous the process of creating these larger hobby engines can be (who DOESN'T love cooking sugar and potassium nitrate on a stove? You know, potassium nitrate?), there are terror groups that use an identical, if not similar method, to launch rockets into Israel, so these hard-ware store rockets CAN be dangerous, and so a license is required for their construction/use. On top of that, you need a license to show competency with a motor vehicle to show that you can safely operate it, so why not a license to operate a fire-arm?
And you should probably re-read what you were initially responding to, because I added more:
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;49236104]Personally I wonder if this violence comes from the twisted way we seem to romance violence in media and literature, never mind gun violence. Think about it, even in movies where the protagonist is shooting the fuck out of some evil dude, the audience is enthralled with this sense of "justice" for some reason. "Yeah, fuck that/those guy/s! Kill him/them all!" and feeling justified in doing so for any reason is kind of twisted. I'm not saying this in a "BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" manner, I'm talking from a purely psychological stand-point in terms of how one can possibly justify doing something so fucked up to anybody. What we perceive as evil (killing people, as an antagonist would usually do) may be perceived as good for others (killing people, as a protagonist might for "justice"), and it's a twisted cycle that won't stop until we get to the root of this line of thinking which somehow seems to be naturally integrated into who we are as a species/civilization.
I think the problem lies less with people not being taught compassion and love for their fellow man, so much as it's a problem with people feeling justified in tossing those ideals out the window when it suits them.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;49236971]What's arbitrary about performing a full background check in order to get a fire-arm, as opposed to the current system where they just say "Well golly they're taking an awful long time, just go ahead and take it"?
And you should probably re-read what you were initially responding to, because I added more:[/QUOTE]
Did you read the part of my post where I said to [B]require[/B] the FBI to actually perform its complete background checks rather than allow it to just not because it doesn't want to? Not requiring the FBI to do its job while also removing the 3 day limit for a response creates indefinite waiting periods, which are a method through which a [I]de facto[/I] ban can be created without legislation.
As for your addition, yes - but keep in mind "people feeling justified in tossing those ideals out the window when it suits them" feel that way because they were not raised with compassion and respect for other people. It's a multi-faceted issue.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49237025]Did you read the part of my post where I said to [B]require[/B] the FBI to actually perform its complete background checks rather than allow it to just not because it doesn't want to? Not requiring the FBI to do its job creates indefinite waiting periods, which are a method through which a [I]de facto[/I] ban can be created without legislation.
As for your addition, yes - but keep in mind "people feeling justified in tossing those ideals out the window when it suits them" feel that way because they were not raised with compassion and respect for other people. It's a multi-faceted issue.[/QUOTE]
Did you read the part where I mentioned possible fixes for that? If they're taking too long, bring it to their attention. If they still take so long as to "de facto" ban fire-arms, they're clearly in the wrong since they're violating your constitutional rights, take it to court (but the check should still be done). If they [i]still[/i] take too long, request enhancements on the back-ground check program to ensure a tolerable wait period. Like I said, that's what Congressmen are for. You don't elect them in so they can sit pretty and make bank while yelling at each other. If your solutions are truly reasonable they have no reason to object, and may even be willing to work something out that suits your needs while still filling the cracks in the system.
As for your response to my addition, that would be the result of "us vs. them" mentality. If they truly had no such respect, they certainly wouldn't make it that far in modern society without tipping somebody off that there may be an issue.
What's wrong with creating a legal requirement for the FBI to do its job? That saves everyone a lot of trouble, doesn't it?
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49237101]What's wrong with creating a legal requirement for the FBI to do its job? That saves everyone a lot of trouble, doesn't it?[/QUOTE]
The FBI does a lot more than back-ground checks for gun-owners, you know. They investigate a lot of shit, hence the name "Federal Bureau of [I]Investigation[/I]".
Besides that, isn't that what I've just been arguing with you these past few posts, that they be mandated to do their job? I never said they shouldn't have to if they don't want to, I said the "well this is taking too long so here you go" is a crack in the system that needs to be filled, and the problems that created THAT crack as a result need to be patched. I'm not a lawyer or legislator so I can't pretend to know with certainty exactly how to do just that, that's what Congressmen are for.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;49237112]The FBI does a lot more than back-ground checks for gun-owners, you know. They investigate a lot of shit, hence the name "Federal Bureau of [I]Investigation[/I]".
Besides that, isn't that what I've just been arguing with you these past few posts, that they be mandated to do their job? I never said they shouldn't have to if they don't want to, I said the "well this is taking too long so here you go" is a crack in the system that needs to be filled, and the problems that created THAT crack as a result need to be patched. I'm not a lawyer or legislator so I can't pretend to know with certainty exactly how to do just that, that's what Congressmen are for.[/QUOTE]
Background checks are a responsibility that they adopted and something I think it's fair to expect them to do in a timely manner, not whenever they get around to it or not at all if they can't be bothered.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;49236971]What's arbitrary about performing a full background check in order to get a fire-arm, as opposed to the current system where they just say "Well golly they're taking an awful long time, just go ahead and take it", or requiring a license that proves that you've at least shown some degree of competence with the object you're about to use? You need a license to do hobby rocketry past a certain point because it's dangerous, and it's required to prove that you're knowledgeable and qualified to use larger rocket motors. Which much like guns, are a tool and a hobby for many, but on top of how dangerous the process of creating these larger hobby engines can be (who DOESN'T love cooking sugar and potassium nitrate on a stove? You know, potassium nitrate? The same stuff McVeigh used in OKC and has become difficult to acquire if you're not a licensed farmer as a result?), there are terror groups that use an identical, if not similar method, to launch rockets into Israel, so these hard-ware store rockets CAN be dangerous, and so a license is required for their construction/use. On top of that, you need a license to show competency with a motor vehicle to show that you can safely operate it, so why not a license to operate a fire-arm?
And you should probably re-read what you were initially responding to, because I added more:[/QUOTE]
Uhh, dude? Mcveigh used ANFO in his truck bomb. Ammonium nitrate (fertilizer, from walmart, or wherever) and fuel oil (aka diesel fuel). Piss easy to make.
[editline]3rd December 2015[/editline]
Also there's no right to drive a car in the constitution. Right to travel, not drive on taxpayer funded roads. There is a right to keep and bear arms however. It even says "Shall not be infringed. "
[QUOTE=viper shtf;49237454]Also there's no right to drive a car in the constitution. Right to travel, not drive on taxpayer funded roads. There is a right to keep and bear arms however. It even says "Shall not be infringed. "[/QUOTE]
And has been interpreted by the supreme court as referring to an individual right, not a militia right.
Was just watching CNN headline news or whatever where they were talking about the pipe bombs these two had. Me and my dad laughed our asses off because one of the two friggen examples of a pipebomb that they used was a picture of the one from L4D taken off of the L4D wiki.
I'm ~95% certain it was this picture:
[t]http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/left4dead/images/9/96/Pipe_1.png/revision/latest?cb=20140322002736[/t]
edit:
I know it was definitely the one from left for dead because it had the fire alarm bits stuck to it.
[QUOTE=viper shtf;49237454]Uhh, dude? Mcveigh used ANFO in his truck bomb. Ammonium nitrate (fertilizer, from walmart, or wherever) and fuel oil (aka diesel fuel). Piss easy to make.
[editline]3rd December 2015[/editline]
Also there's no right to drive a car in the constitution. Right to travel, not drive on taxpayer funded roads. There is a right to keep and bear arms however. It even says "Shall not be infringed. "[/QUOTE]
I think you forgot the "well regulated" part
[QUOTE=Lambeth;49229647]I don't know if you're joking or not but it really pisses me off how people immediately shift the conversation to mental health after a mass shooting. Most people with mental disorders do not go on mass shootings, even in America's broke ass health care system. It's just an attempt to shift the conversation away from guns.[/QUOTE]
[img]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/965202/ShareX/2015/12/2015-12-03_13-56-36.png[/img]
I haven't been keeping up with the news, but even if this isn't mental health, we can make the case that it's tied to some form of terrorism, and we can and should talk about the cause, not just the symptoms.
[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;49238513]I think you forgot the "well regulated" part[/QUOTE]
That's referring to the militia, not the individual owning of guns.
[editline]3rd December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=wauterboi;49238530][IMG]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/965202/ShareX/2015/12/2015-12-03_13-56-36.png[/IMG]
I haven't been keeping up with the news, but even if this isn't mental health, we can make the case that it's tied to some form of terrorism, and we can and should talk about the cause, not the symptoms.[/QUOTE]
I don't really think he's right. The main difference between a mass murder and terrorism is that terrorism can be attributed to an ideology while a general mass murder is generally attributable to personal reasons like disputes, mental illness, etc.
[editline]3rd December 2015[/editline]
I definitely agree that we need to look at the cause, but I don't think the cause is always mental illness. Sometimes the cause is an ideology that condones violence that must be faced head on and clearly argued against.
I'll add that I'm always up for tightening up gun laws but to draw the line from guns to killing is not looking at the full picture - people still have to put those guns to use, and there's still that chance that guns used aren't obtained legally (even though they were this time and in some instances of shootings throughout the last few years).
[QUOTE=sgman91;49238559]That's referring to the militia, not the individual owning of guns.[/QUOTE]
I don't see that at all. The full text is "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." It's very obviously pointing to both the regulation of militas [I]and[/I] guns, especially with its lack of punctuation between them
In the end it should be up to the states, not the federal government, on the requirements of guns, in my opinion. The necessity of a hunters gun in virgina is completely different than the gun in the house of a business man in long beach. Different gun laws and different types of laws should be present for each state so if california doesn't want any guns in the hands of civilians, and it goes through proper legislation, it should very well have the right of doing that.
To further build upon that, i also support a secessionist california as well. We pay far too much into the federal government for all the hate we recieve from other states, and what we get back is far less as well.
[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;49238598]I don't see that at all. The full text is "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." It's very obviously pointing to both the regulation of militas [I]and[/I] guns, especially with its lack of punctuation between them[/QUOTE]
I've yet to ever care about what the constitution says or how I would personally interpret it, because by my interpretations we have gone so incredibly far past its original intentions with nearly everything. It doesn't matter to me what a group of long-dead people said about a country that doesn't remotely resemble the country we live in today in a global context that doesn't resemble the context we have today. But, for the sake of not wanting to argue about whether or not people deserve the right to have guns, compromise should be the solution with a major emphasis on the relationship between mental health and obtaining guns, and focusing our energy on the illegally obtained guns would be a better use.
The world ain't ready for my politics, though. I'd require mental health check-ups for gun owners annually (and probably add way too much money to the debt anyway).
Focusing on people with mental illness would either not be reliable enough to help much or begin a witch hunt where every third person is attacked for being mentally ill and accused for being future mass murderers, which could have the opposite of the intended effect. These killers as far as I know didn't openly display symptoms to others that screamed mass murderer.
[QUOTE=Fapplejack;49238646]Focusing on people with mental illness would either not be reliable enough to help much or begin a witch hunt where every third person is attacked for being mentally ill and accused for being future mass murderers, which could have the opposite of the intended effect. These killers as far as I know didn't openly display symptoms to others that screamed mass murderer.[/QUOTE]
You don't focus on people, you focus on mental health as a whole. Banning firearms won't help every single person in the entire United States, but improving mental healthcare will.
[QUOTE=Fapplejack;49238646]Focusing on people with mental illness would either not be reliable enough to help much or begin a witch hunt where every third person is attacked for being mentally ill and accused for being future mass murderers, which could have the opposite of the intended effect. These killers as far as I know didn't openly display symptoms to others that screamed mass murderer.[/QUOTE]
That's the wrong way of dealing with it. We're already skeptical of the mentally ill to an extent that makes it easy to see why some people snap.
We've got movies that portray people with schizophrenia as people who are uncontrollably violent, and we're willing to feel bad for the person that collapses because of lung cancer yet want to separate from people who have mental breakdowns. We teach the mentally ill that they are worse than nothing, that they are burdens and that they should be ashamed of who they are. Sometimes, they believe it. These people get pushed to the fringes of society, hopefully enjoying at most a place to live in a piece of shit area with a piece of shit job with a high chance of ending up in a jail cell instead of a hospital bed. Sometimes, they commit suicide. Others reject it, and want to take revenge, or display a defense that allows them to love themselves.
Think about it - what connects [url=http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/18/vtech.shooting/index.html?eref=onion]Seung-Hui Cho[/url], who is quoted as saying "You forced me into a corner", [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings]Elliot Rodger[/url], who is quoted as saying "I will have my revenge against humanity, against all of you", and [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Gravure_shooting]Joseph Wesbucker[/url], who attempted to commit suicide 12-15 times before his horrific shooting? What connects a person like Jeffery Dahmer who kills over a long period of time with these people? Mental illness, the feeling of being unable to ask for help, and snapping towards acts of revenge or indulgence. Dahmer, in particular, had violent thoughts as early as puberty combined with difficulties with accepting his homosexuality - I remember him saying "I didn't know how to ask for help, so I didn't" in one of his interviews I watched.
What's the difference between this and terrorism? The rejection is the same, but the difference is that people [I]do[/I] offer them help - help in the form of a "family", funds, "education", and a purpose. While we're bombing the shit out of everyone in the Middle East, a lot of people don't stop to think if maybe we're conditioning them to embrace the gang mentality and fight back.
People love to look at these people and consider them as "not human", and it pisses me off because they are 100% human. I full-heartedly believe that humans are capable of committing horrible acts and all it takes is the motivation to do so, or to be pushed farther than a normal human being can handle. People snap - some differently and with different intensities than others. The more we treat this area as unexplorable darkness, the more that darkness is going to come back and bite us again and again.
[QUOTE=viper shtf;49237454]Uhh, dude? Mcveigh used ANFO in his truck bomb. Ammonium nitrate (fertilizer, from walmart, or wherever) and fuel oil (aka diesel fuel). Piss easy to make.
[editline]3rd December 2015[/editline]
Also there's no right to drive a car in the constitution. Right to travel, not drive on taxpayer funded roads. There is a right to keep and bear arms however. It even says "Shall not be infringed. "[/QUOTE]
My bad, all I remembered off the top of my head was it was some sort of nitrate.
But you're seriously calling training/licensing "infringement"? So you WANT people who haven't the slightest clue or sliver of responsibility to own and operate a firearm, simply because "it's their right"?
By that logic, why do we even bother with back-ground checks? That's infringement of their rights! Just let ANYBODY buy a gun, it's their right! Mentally ill? Convicted felon? Sure, why the hell not? It's their right, after all! Fire-arms for everybody!
On that note I'm going to assume you're not familiar with the phrase "my rights end where the other fellow's nose begins".
[editline]3rd December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=sgman91;49238559]That's referring to the militia, not the individual owning of guns.
[/QUOTE]
People argue that gun ownership is key in case of a tyrannical government, which would require militia intervention, which means the gun owners.
[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;49238513]I think you forgot the "well regulated" part[/QUOTE]Well let's provide some context to that,
[quote=Brian T. Halonen]The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.[/quote]You see, it doesn't necessarily mean control, restrict, guide, or otherwise in this case; instead it refers to the properly-working militia being necessary to a free state. With that context in mind the entire text of the amendment actually makes much more sense, so with a modern vocabulary it would read, [quote]A properly functioning militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.[/quote]You have to remember that this was written in the 1700's, they used what we would refer to as "legalese" now in the document. Actually because of ambiguity like this (certain usages of words dropping out of favor, etc) it's the reason why laws are specifically written in a certain way and why it looks convoluted compared to our everyday vernacular.
Oh, and for those of you who said guns aren't a human right? This is why I feel they are, and while we may disagree on what is or is not a [I]human[/I] right the fact of the matter is we do have a right to arms in this country and it is codified into law.
[QUOTE=Anderan;49235839]Also it's worth pointing out that according to the FBI armed citizens are only responsible for stopping 3% of active shooter situations. So either armed citizens aren't actually responding or the shootings aren't happening near armed citizens.
[url]https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/september/fbi-releases-study-on-active-shooter-incidents/pdfs/a-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013[/url][/QUOTE]
We're at something like 4 to 5 percent of the population having a CC permit depending on where you look. Accurate numbers are difficult because states issue the permits, so you need 50 states to cough up their numbers. Given that most of those people don't carry on anything approaching a daily basis, a 3 percent stop rate is shockingly high. Like I would have guessed a fraction of a percent.
[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;49238513]I think you forgot the "well regulated" part[/QUOTE]
well regulated in the 1700s-1800s referred to something that was in working order
in regards to the 2nd amendment, well regulated refers to a functional militia (composed of the people who possess their own arms). it does not mean that they have government regulations imposed upon them
[editline]4th December 2015[/editline]
jack flash beat me, god bless him
[editline]4th December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;49238598]I don't see that at all. The full text is "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." It's very obviously pointing to both the regulation of militas [I]and[/I] guns, especially with its lack of punctuation between them
In the end it should be up to the states, not the federal government, on the requirements of guns, in my opinion. The necessity of a hunters gun in virgina is completely different than the gun in the house of a business man in long beach. Different gun laws and different types of laws should be present for each state so if california doesn't want any guns in the hands of civilians, and it goes through proper legislation, it should very well have the right of doing that.
To further build upon that, i also support a secessionist california as well. We pay far too much into the federal government for all the hate we recieve from other states, and what we get back is far less as well.[/QUOTE]
imposing government regulations on the 2nd amendment isn't up to the states or federal government
[editline]4th December 2015[/editline]
the 2nd amendment was not intended to be regulated away and neither were any other amendments in the bill of rights because thats foolish
[editline]4th December 2015[/editline]
if you think government can do something meaningful about the issues were facing, you're being played like a fiddle [img]http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/kazpeace_8888.jpg[/img]
Also of note is the choice of punctuation in the original document. There's actually been careful study regarding this, and it's been decided by a supreme court ruling (as sgman91 has mentioned) that the right to bear arms belongs to the individual citizens. I truly consider it a civic duty to exercise my rights as much as possible, including this one, and to help ensure that everyone else gets to keep their own. We don't live in a vacuum, we all need to collectively work together to ensure our society functions correctly, which includes reminding people to vote, encouraging them to express their rights, and to help those of us in need. Society's neglected and forgotten are responsible for all our woes and it's our responsibility, all of us, to help pull them up from that and contain the damage when we can't.
That's why gun owners always say "guns aren't the problem, people are!" because we truly are the problem; it isn't just the bad guys either. In some way we all share a sliver of collective guilt for making the circumstances that cause normal people to do bad things, and honestly most of us don't do our part to help fix the problems in this country. I do volunteer work for homeless people, addicts, and other disenfranchised people, I donate to the food shelf and I try very hard to get people to open up their heads and use the common sense and critical thinking that is standard software for all humans; if more people did that it would solve [I]a lot[/I] of our problems. If you want to stop people the violence and stop the killing, to save people from destruction, then you should sit down and really ask yourself what you can do to help. We can all do something, even if it's a little thing.. a lot of little adds up you know.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
