Interesting suggestions, Darth. Aside from needing to change the constitution or replace some of the Supreme Court members to do it, I agree that a complete ban wouldn't be effective in preventing cases like this anyway. On #2, even if you were to have different classes or requirements for handguns than for hunting rifles, in theory wouldn't a middle aged teacher with presumably no criminal record be able to qualify for a handgun? Under the current interpretation of the constitution, you can't restrict handguns from the general public, although of course you can restrict them based on background checks, applications, mental health, waiting periods and so on, which vary in strictness from state to state.
"Right to bear arms" should mean ...
by Simon 616 Replies latest members politics
-
-
DaCheech
so we are demonizing citizens, and not attacking the real problem.................
1. crazy people
2. criminals
I sell quite a few knives during the week, where's the knife activist?
-
DaCheech
botw, how many gun stores are there in mexico?
-
darthfader
Chaserious:
If a teacher passes the background check etc. (as you stated above) and proficency exam, sure.
The variations from state to state need to be addressed.
-
darthfader
Cheech,
There are already laws on the books in many states that require background checks (eliminating the crazy and criminals).
Apparently that is not sufficient.
-
Chariklo
The rest of the world simply can't understand why Americans insist on their right to bear arms but weep when they see on the news what bearing arms actually does to people.
That's pretty well exactly what was said on Radio 4 this morning, and I agree with every word.
As they went on to say, just what is the matter with those people? How many more times does it have to happen?
-
harleybear
The right to bear arms should mean the right and the ability to defend oneself from an individual attacker up to an oppressive government. The difference between a citizen and a subject is the ability and right to defend oneself.
The United States sends its military all over the world to defend people whos means and motivation to defend themselves has been eroded. A Firearm is a mechnical device;the use it is put to is in the mind of the holder. As proven many times in the third world you can commit mass murder and mayhem with a machete.
In many of these recent tragedies unarmed people were attacked by an armed individual who more often than not had mental health issues. Why is it that a person who needs help has to commit mass murder to get attention. However once that attack is initiated I DO NOT want my only means of survival to be hiding and hoping no one finds me.
Every creature on Gods earth will defend itself from a deadly attack and if surviving will not agonize over its survival. It may avoid that situation in the future ie my cat not going out after dark because of the foxes, but even if you lived in your home and never left bad intentioned people may still forcibly enter and destroy your life. I will not allow that to happen to me. All my firearms are registered and I possess a Concealed Carry permit. As a women my chances of defending myself is lessed without a fireare, my Glock evens up the playing field.
-
moshe
All first person shooter video games should be banned, too.- and football in the US, that sport is causing brain damage to our youth and professional players- there is plenty of medical proof that the sport should be banned or drastically modified to prevent brain injuries, which have been know to cause violent behavior.
-
moshe
Since we are all for protecting citizens from needless death- Our speed limits are too high- they need to be rolled back, too. After the federal speed limit laws were eliminated in 1995, the American Journal of Public Health reported that 12,500 people died as a direct result of higher Interstate speed limits during the first 10 years after the old speed limits were dropped.
-
Cagefighter
Many people misundestand the purpose of the second amendement. The UNITED STATES is just that 50 or at the time of the constitution 13 INDEPENDENT AND SOVEREIGN NATION-STATES. The Articles of Confederation were a little too loose and we needed to draw in the states to a tighter coalition to keep the Brits up north in Canada or the Frenchies from taking our fledgling nation down. Being that we had just committed high treason (because we had thrown off the crown, something that Canada and Austrailia have yet to do, as they are still under the commonwealth even though they are independent) we were a little paranoid of having a bunch of clandestine tories elected in congress or even worse taking the Presidency and then hanging us all by our necks and restoring the colonies back to the Crown.
THEREFORE: It was very clear that that STATES would have the right to bear arms as well as the citizens and that the FEDERAL goverment should not make any laws on these restrictions. Which means that tje citizens my state of TEXAS has the right to own rifles, tanks, jets, bombs, heck even a nuke or two...However the state and local goverment should decide what I can actually possess on my person and what should be kept under lock and key by the sheriff at a county armory until we need it. I am pretty sure in 1792 Boston had a few cannons but they didn't let that weird kid who was kicked in the head by a mule and hears voices keep it in his barn. It's really just a bit of common sense.