Repeal the 2nd..
The gun DID win the west! When I was a kid, John Wayne proved it every Saturday at the Tower theater. I grew up with a Winchester model 94, and I shot at NRA targets.. We've LOVED our guns from the git go, and I still do. We even made an amendment in the Constitution about 'em.
Now, I'm an old fellow who BELIEVES in personal responsibility.. That is a uniquely American trait.. And, because we all BELIEVED it, and LIVED it, it WORKED.. So, for a 100 years nobody shot up the place.. But that all changed on August 1, 1966, when Charles Whitman ascended the iconic University of Texas tower, and in 96 minutes fired 150 rounds into an unsuspecting student body...
It's gotten WORSE, and it's gonna happen AGAIN. You know it, and I know it. And it's gonna be even worse than the one before.
Clearly, the underpinnings of personal responsibility has been turned on its head.. We CAN'T depend on it to PROTECT us anymore.. At some point, we have to grasp that fact.. Of course, it's only a few. But, as we've seen, a few can take out a LOT of people.
I'm NOT a believer in government control, but when society can't PROTECT us from these shootings, the government MUST. Chipping away at it doesn't work either.. We either END our love affair with the gun, or it will be our undoing..
So, I ask myself what's more important?? A slobbering devotion to the 2nd Amendment, or the future of my country??
excon
It's time
Side Score: 18
|
 |
From my cold dead hands
Side Score: 33
|
|
|
|
|
Where I live we have democracy, law and order. There is no need for our citizens to be armed because our police protect us. The United States has a flawed democracy to be sure but there is no reason to believe that the United States government would turn tyrannical on the civilian population. Secondly, If the United States government did want to fight the civilians, their voters and families, people like the amateur militias in Idaho would not beat the U.S. Air Force. Side: It's time
On mass shooting has occurred every year for the past decade or so and EVERY time there is mass outrage but from the gun nuts the outrage is mostly on the side of "oh no gun control means they are going to take ALL of our guns" or "if we give one inch, they'll take the whole yard." Nonsense. Yet NONE of them can give any suggestions on how to stop this. Obviously doing nothing is getting us no where. I don't think all guns should be taken away, not even a little bit but I DO think there needs to be something done, be it mandatory gun safety courses, better background checks, any loopholes that exist need to be closed and there needs to be harsher penalties for negligence. Side: It's time
0
points
On mass shooting has occurred every year for the past decade or so and EVERY time there is mass outrage but from the gun nuts the outrage is mostly on the side of "oh no gun control means they are going to take ALL of our guns" or "if we give one inch, they'll take the whole yard." Nonsense. Yet NONE of them can give any suggestions on how to stop this. Those are the people you genuinely need to use your guns on. Side: From my cold dead hands
1
point
Is the american police so incompetent that citizens have to protect themselves with guns? Well, I stand corrected on the assumption I had on America. I thought it was a first-world, sustainable country without an need for citizens to buy mass killing machines. Seems like I was wrong. Side: It's time
0
points
Is the american police so incompetent that citizens have to protect themselves with guns? Well, I stand corrected on the assumption I had on America. I thought it was a first-world, sustainable country without an need for citizens to buy mass killing machines. Seems like I was wrong. Well said. Side: It's time
The gun worshipers have gone too far. I grew up hunting and still own several guns, but I don't worship guns which is what I see happening today. Gun worship has become a sick fetish. The Supreme court is supposed to rule according to what's written in the Constitution and they interpret the Constitution by determining what the original intent of the founding fathers was when they wrote it. Clearly, in the era of the muzzle loading musket, the founding fathers could never have anticipated a day when a single man could hold in his hands the destructive power of an entire company or even a regiment of soldiers of their day. Gun fetishists frequently quote only part of the 2nd amendment which is this: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". But that isn't the 2nd amendment, it's only part of it. THIS is the 2nd amendment: "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." Given that the founding fathers obviously wrote the 2nd amendment with the muzzle loading musket in mind, I would maintain that the 2nd amendment should be interpreted as this: You can have all the muzzle loading muskets you can carry PROVIDING you're a member of a well regulated Militia. Period. Let the gun fetishists throw their tantrums. When a baby throws a tantrum you don't humor it and the same should apply with gun nuts. Side: It's time
|
3
points
I told you that you wanted to take the guns. You said no, no, no, yada yada yada. But...you wanted to take the guns. Hope you or your loved ones never need one. Maybe the rapists will be merciful on your female relatives and hold off on doing a train. Perhaps their guns will be fake. Fingers crossed Con. Fingers crossed. Oh by the way, did you notice that in the Bataclan Theatre massacre that guns were illegal in France? How'd those guys get machine guns?... Side: From my cold dead hands
2
points
It's gotten WORSE, and it's gonna happen AGAIN. You know it, and I know it. And it's gonna be even worse than the one before. You're right. Next time it'll be a fertlizer bomb that takes out Circus Circus. Let's illegalize bombs. Oh wait... Places that illegalize guns... keep getting attacked by? Guns. But at least you and I'd pointlessly be disarmed. We don't have the 2nd Amendment to get bad guys guns. We have the 2nd Amendment because there is no way to stop bad guys from getting guns, and the individual has the right to defend themselves against said bad guys. The Bataclan is the perfect example of disarming the public ending in defenseless people slaughtered by those who got guns regardless of the law and having no defense options. Would it have made you feel better if this guy had just made his bomb and took down Mandalay Bay alltogether? What part of this doesn't compute? You tell us how racist and evil the cops and the system are, then want them to be the only ones armed? Really? This is why I'm not a liberal. I make my views on logic, not on whether it makes me feel cozy at night even if it doesn't work and makes the situation worse. Two brown Muslims massacre their coworkers in San Bernardino with guns. You don't want to take guns away. A brown Muslim walks into a gay club in Orlando and kills 50 people. You don't want to take away our guns. A brown Muslim at Fort Hood starts picking off soldiers. You don't want to take away our guns. Young black males slaughter each other like animals in Chicago every week. You don't want anyone's guns. Cops are killed and targeted by black men with guns. You don't want to take our guns. Brown Muslims butcher a theatre full of kids at the Bataclan with guns. You don't want to take away our guns. An apparent "white guy" kills people in Vegas. Now you're concerned.... It's like some skitzed out voodoo how your mind works. Your "concerned meter" depends on skin color and affiliation because it makes you "feel good" to protect Islam even if no discernment of the group as a whole causes carnage and death. Why? You think of them as brown. Ignoring guns when it comes to brown and black men makes you feel nice. Why? Those shooters are black and brown. But you feel racially tolerant and cozy, so logic and results mean nothing. And if outlawing guns is proven to be systematically and statistically making a monsterous black market of unregistered, untracable, and dangerous guns, and home burglaries go through the roof, it won't matter. Why? Because Con feels good that he supports a cause that he thinks "should" do good, even if it causes a culture of shadow weapons and mass murderers still getting guns OR getting really creative in the ways they kill people. Basing your politics on what feels good, rather than what does good is an ethically and morally inferior position. Side: From my cold dead hands
As much as mass shootings suck, we can't have law abiding citizens not be able to defend themselves. If we repeal the second amendment, it will be a slippery slope on what it is people want to ban. People have the right to self-preservation even if its with the use of a gun Side: From my cold dead hands
I'm not a believer in government control, but when society can't protect us from these shootings, the government must. Beautifully spoken and it drips with hypocrisy. Playing your hand shows gun control is gun confiscation. Accepting of what you really believe possibly helps your mental state. Side: From my cold dead hands
I don't think it should be repealed and I'm not trying to take everyone's gun away. But I think it should be clarified. I think a new amendment which cleans up what's in and out should be added. It's ironic actually that communities can ban edged weapons in the name of public safety but supposedly can do nothing about guns. An update could incorporate many kinds of weaponry in a comprehensive message of rights. Anyway, efforts at public safety, whether flawed in the present or not, should not be automatically stonewalled just based on the simple wording chosen over 200 years ago. Clarify the sucker. Side: From my cold dead hands
Gun control is not pushed by political people who wish to protect us. It is pushed by political people who wish to overthrow the system and seize power for themselves or their authoritarian ideals. That is what it looks like to me. I would rather have an intact RIGHT to bear arms even if there are consequences that go along with that. I still also truly believe that an armed society is a polite society. Side: From my cold dead hands
2
points
You should ave stopped with your statement you are an old fella. You are a perfect example why supreme court justices should have age limits. Some become morons when they get old. I wonder why Government has not taken our alcohol since that would save far more lives. It has been shown that our culture will keep getting drunk, and and with the advent of automobiles, laws will no longer protect innocent people from drunk drivers, so therefore Goernment must step in and take our booze. That is what you are saying and it truly shows that your mental capacity has dwindled to one of a child. ARE YOU FOR REAL OR DO YOU JUST LIKE TRYING TO GET POINTS BY SAYING LUDICROUS THINGS? Side: From my cold dead hands
2
points
Excon, I agree with you that the problem stems from an erosion of personal responsibility. Hell, I don't even think the shootings are the worst result of the erosion of widespread personal responsibility. (What a couple of curmudgeons we are: "Back in MY day, we didn't waste bullets on people because we needed them to shoot squirrels for supper. They were stringy and boney, but we were damned glad to have 'em!") I think at the core of that erosion is that our society has let personal accountability slide on major responsibilities. -- We have used jackpot lawsuits to reward people for not looking out for themselves. -- We have used Social Security to mitigate accountability for how well we save and plan for our futures. -- We have used food stamps, TANF, SNAP, WIC, etc. to keep people from being held accountable for how well they provide for themselves and their children. -- We have bailed out failing airlines and banks to keep CEOs from being held accountable for mismanagement and obviously poor business practices. -- We have decided that the crooks in the other party should be prosecuted, but the crooks in our own party should be reelected. Before we repeal the Second Amendment by giving the swamp rats in Congress the chance to mess with the rest of of the Constitution, let's abolish the welfare state (individual and corporate), and allow life to hold the current generation of people accountable for their own damned choices. Maybe a resurgence in personal accountability will improve the problem with irresponsibility and the resulting gun violence. Side: From my cold dead hands
let's abolish the welfare state (individual and corporate), and allow life to hold the current generation of people accountable for their own damned choices. Hello again, marcus: I couldn't agree more.. But, I'm not a fan of throwing out the baby WITH the bathwater.. So, I'd replace the word "abolish", with the word "MANAGE". The welfare system hands out money like it was candy.. With good MANAGEMENT, only the needy would get it.. Will being thrown off welfare make the needy more responsible?? No. It'll make 'em die. Of course, if we're talking about the FAKE needy, you're right.. They'll have to get a job.. But, you understand, of course, that I'm NOT talking about the FAKE needy.. I'm talking about the real ones.. Hence, my use of the word MANAGEMENT.. In terms of corporate welfare, better known as CRONY capitalism, it should be done away with ENTIRELY.. You left religious welfare off your list, but I'd ADD it to mine.. If a church is going to compete in the political arena, it's free to do so, but it should NOT be subsidized by the citizenry. If it sticks to religious matters, it should retain its tax exempt status.. Cause that's what it was designed to do - foster religion.. excon Side: It's time
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 Those who would use the guns for illegal purposes wouldn't care about a law saying not to have guns. Side: From my cold dead hands
1
point
The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Your wobbly gun nut logic works the other way too pal. If you legalise guns then who do you think is going to go out and buy them? Side: It's time
If you legalize guns the people who would buy them are those who would defend themselves. The criminals determined to commit crimes are going to buy guns whether it is legal or not, the only difference is that they'll be attacking a defenseless population. Side: From my cold dead hands
|
