Is it time to talk about guns?

I think Retrumplicans forgot that long ago, if they ever knew it. "...our forefathers brought forth on this nation a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." Liberty goes beyond the Second Amendment, and all means ALL!

 

When America was FOUNDED, it was not for the purpose of pleasure for right wing Republican extremists. The original FOUNDED America was flawed, but not to the degree of extreme stupidity which today is expressed by Trump supporters. Over and again, OUR courts have ruled that guns can be regulated, and the ownership/possession thereof can be too!

 

Back in the 1930s and 1960s we had a whole bunch of new laws enacted. I say these Retrumpers should not own an AR-15 or anything like it.

 

My local newspaper has reports of shootings nearly everyday. This morning also included a report of a stabbing, where the man also died, just like the two others who were shot. I think it is time to regulate the right wing extremists, so we don't end up with another take over of a federal facility like the one in Oregon. In Oregon, the Sage Brush Rebellion involved the use of guns against the United States by right wing extremists who felt they had a right to borrow millions of dollars from the government so they could graze cattle on public land and play COWBOY as they wish. Just ask your self: what if the majority of the idiots on January 6th had brought AR-15 style weapons to Washington?

 

what is the point of this thread? the title is a complete misnomer and its just a bunch of mudslinging bullshit nobody is going to change their mind, creating division is easy, scratcho's post #731 is the cold hard fact

 

First question: The History Of The US Gun Control Debate Explained - HistoryExtra
Alex Kozinski, an American federal judge, points out: “The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed – where the government refuses to stand for re-election and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.”

Second Question: Yes absolutely if they felt so inclined they were/are free to die for their cause
(it would have exposed #45 much quicker and quite possibly put him in jail where he belongs) yes people would have died

 

What are the facts here?

Is mortality higher or lower where firearms laws are lenient or stringent? I wonder...


Stats of the States - Firearm Mortality <-- CDC

 

Ok.....


Let's take a step back. What are we really talking about?


Is it sometimes a cavalier attitude about policy or is it a cavalier attitude about gun-ownership? I think it's both!


We're dancing on each other's toes.


The gun debate is problematic for this reason. Let's state the facts! What is there to be gained? How about lost? Where does it stand at present?


To me, it looks like there's a strong argument to modify the current legislation.

 

I'll betcha we're a relatively peaceful buncha' humans compared to the club and rock eras. I bet you had to watch your ass and those of your tribe 24-7-365.

 

Do we also though have a responsibility to society?


Often we speak of our obligation to personal safety. Can we also provide for others?

 

I think the reality is that we're really on thin ice with the second amendment school of thought that we're entitled come hell or high water to own a weapon.


Limit that and you've done a great service. Ignore the issues presenting and you really have impending doom

 

None of that change the fact that his statement/quote is correct

your other questions are only answerable to those that were there
who shot first Han or Greedo?
your other questions/statements are hyperbole and Im pretty sure you know that

 

that seems dismissive though

 

Very well put!





I think that in so far as ownership of a weapon is concerned, the task we have before us is to identify what is necessary and appropriate.





We need to put a limit on the danger of misuse!

 

I don't disagree with this, though I would probably the most important task is to identify what is/makes a weapon.
And that is a really tricky part.

 

I'm thinking about what's necessary and really think it's harmless to go forward saying the bump stocks and rapid-fire we can do without - same as an automatic.

 

I do agree that bump stocks and any rapid fire device as well as full automatic weapons are unessecary, the only real purpose I do see in them is an opportunity for people to spend money faster (ammo cost)

I spend 15 years in the military and the only times I ever fired in full auto was in combat situations using it as surpressive fire, and with guns that only had full auto (and a safety) and those guns were meant for that exact purpose.

 

Combat?!

I haven't been that far... I can't imagine.

I don't understand the need and joke about 'wild hogs' a bit - someone had said the AR was good because they had an infestation. But I don't think that's realistic. Use your Desert Eagle...