Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2017 12:57:35 GMT -5
The 2nd amendment has really lost all meaning, though. Do gun owners really think that they can stop a tyrannical government with their weapons? Have you seen the power of our military? People do it all over the world. Insurgents forced the US to change tactics in Iraq. So are you proposing giving up firearms? The large majority of First World Nations have restrictions on firearms. They seem to be doing just fine in terms of maintaining their freedom and have been doing so for many, many years. We, on the other hand, are more like a Banana Republic every day. This nation has become an armed camp and people here live with the knowledge that they could be indiscriminately slaughtered any place at any time. Thanks for "insuring my freedom."
|
|
|
Post by alicechalmers on Oct 2, 2017 13:03:42 GMT -5
No place is safe. That's pure fantasy. It's also a false dichotomy that either you're okay with the government confiscating your property OR you think it's perfectly fine for terrorists to kill people.
|
|
|
Post by Sprockey on Oct 2, 2017 13:05:43 GMT -5
I have no energy to debate this topic today so I will let AC speak for me.
|
|
|
Post by Tpatt100 on Oct 2, 2017 13:07:00 GMT -5
People are dancing around the facts. Quit with the “sensible legislation” nonsense and just admit the banning of all firearms is the true answer, one nobody wants to admit. I don't think it's an either or proposition though. In Canada we have access to guns but not the same type of weapons available in the States. I come from a family of farmers and hunters and I don't think guns are evil but at the same time the guns I grew up with could never kill so many people at once, isn't it reasonable to crack down on the capabilities of weapons that are available to the general public? From everything being reported about this horrific situation there were no red flags about this guy, I don't see how there's any way to legislate people not going off of the deep end. You can get the same exact guns in Canada as in the United States if this article is correct www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/getting-an-ar-15-style-rifle-is-much-harder-in-canada-than-the-u-s-1.2945990The only difference are laws restricting magazine size which in the most recent shooting would have reduced the kill count because the guy was cranking out rounds almost nonstop. Not even sure if his weapons were even legal in the first place. The US gun statistics are greatly inflated due to inner city violence. Canada didn’t import a bunch of people against their will, give them no opportunity for years in cities where there was reduced economic opportunities. Which is why I always try to break out gun statistics into categories rather than as a whole group which the gun control types like to do in order to inflate the numbers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2017 13:07:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Tpatt100 on Oct 2, 2017 13:09:46 GMT -5
People do it all over the world. Insurgents forced the US to change tactics in Iraq. So are you proposing giving up firearms? The large majority of First World Nations have restrictions on firearms. They seem to be doing just fine in terms of maintaining their freedom and have been doing so for many, many years. We, on the other hand, are more like a Banana Republic every day. This nation has become an armed camp and people here live with the knowledge that they could be indiscriminately slaughtered any place at any time. Thanks for "insuring my freedom." Show me which laws in other countries would have an impact on mass shootings? I’m all for it but the problem is proposing similar laws and using events that were not taken into consideration when those other laws were created.
|
|
|
Post by Tpatt100 on Oct 2, 2017 13:11:34 GMT -5
Ok are you proposing gun confiscation and restricting firearms? Mandatory selling of your guns that the government made illegal is still confiscation
|
|
|
Post by andrea on Oct 2, 2017 13:11:53 GMT -5
Our culture right now is heavily focused on grievances. We've turned it into a pastime with the media aiding and abetting it 24/7. I bet this guy had a long list of grievances that he catalogued and nursed. Filled with rage turned outward (homicidal) and inward (suicidal). He was going out and he was taking folks with him.
|
|
|
Post by maurinsky on Oct 2, 2017 13:13:24 GMT -5
So you don't think there is anything between the existing madness and tyrannical government? Nothing you can think of?
I'm an American woman, so I think I have a sense of what you are talking about in terms of giving up rights.
But you cannot possibly think what we have right now is working.
|
|
|
Post by Tpatt100 on Oct 2, 2017 13:21:46 GMT -5
So you don't think there is anything between the existing madness and tyrannical government? Nothing you can think of? I'm an American woman, so I think I have a sense of what you are talking about in terms of giving up rights. But you cannot possibly think what we have right now is working. I still see you avoiding “what should we do”. It’s still “we can’t keep doing the same”.
|
|
|
Post by alicechalmers on Oct 2, 2017 13:48:50 GMT -5
You just cited a massive loss of personal freedom. They may be just fine with it. I am not, nor are many other Americans. I am not obligated to offer up my rights in order to appease every problem that exists.
|
|
|
Post by Sprockey on Oct 2, 2017 13:53:30 GMT -5
Population of Australia: 24m Population of US: 323m
not to mention that "mass shootings" are loosely defined.
|
|
|
Post by stellarfeller on Oct 2, 2017 15:07:54 GMT -5
You just cited a massive loss of personal freedom. They may be just fine with it. I am not, nor are many other Americans. I am not obligated to offer up my rights in order to appease every problem that exists. So apparently the right to bear arms is more important than victims’ rights not to be shot and killed.
|
|
|
Post by Lor on Oct 2, 2017 15:42:26 GMT -5
You just cited a massive loss of personal freedom. They may be just fine with it. I am not, nor are many other Americans. I am not obligated to offer up my rights in order to appease every problem that exists. I understand that the right to bear arms is a constitutional right but I don't understand the concept of the right to bear all arms. What would the risks be of giving up the ability to own the types of weapons used in these mass-casualty incidents if it is for the greater good? Canada allows ownership of all sorts of weapons common to farmers and hunters but not the types typically used in mass shootings of human beings - what is the reasoning behind the average individual needing to own such powerful weapons? I personally don't feel that I'm stripped of anything by not being allowed to own a machine gun, I think it's very reasonable. I'm not trying to sway your opinion but I am trying to understand it, what is the need for the average Joe to own a weapon like that? From an outsider perspective it seems more likely that people will keep on dying in large number than it does to imagine the government putting people in a position of needing to stick machine guns through their windows.
|
|
|
Post by Tpatt100 on Oct 2, 2017 15:43:54 GMT -5
I would think giving up our rights to privacy would be more effective than the second amendment.
Mass murderers are going to mass murder
|
|
|
Post by Tpatt100 on Oct 2, 2017 15:45:55 GMT -5
You just cited a massive loss of personal freedom. They may be just fine with it. I am not, nor are many other Americans. I am not obligated to offer up my rights in order to appease every problem that exists. I understand that the right to bear arms is a constitutional right but I don't understand the concept of the right to bear all arms. What would the risks be of giving up the ability to own the types of weapons used in these mass-casualty incidents if it is for the greater good? Canada allows ownership of all sorts of weapons common to farmers and hunters but not the types typically used in mass shootings of human beings - what is the reasoning behind the average individual needing to own such powerful weapons? I personally don't feel that I'm stripped of anything by not being allowed to own a machine gun, I think it's very reasonable. I'm not trying to sway your opinion but I am trying to understand it, what is the need for the average Joe to own a weapon like that? From an outsider perspective it seems more likely that people will keep on dying in large number than it does to imagine the government putting people in a position of needing to stick machine guns through their windows. I thought you could buy the same weapons used in these murders in Canada? gun-shop.ca/product-tag/ar15/Machine guns are already illegal here and regulated by the ATF
|
|
|
Post by Lor on Oct 2, 2017 16:01:05 GMT -5
I don't think it's an either or proposition though. In Canada we have access to guns but not the same type of weapons available in the States. I come from a family of farmers and hunters and I don't think guns are evil but at the same time the guns I grew up with could never kill so many people at once, isn't it reasonable to crack down on the capabilities of weapons that are available to the general public? From everything being reported about this horrific situation there were no red flags about this guy, I don't see how there's any way to legislate people not going off of the deep end. You can get the same exact guns in Canada as in the United States if this article is correct www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/getting-an-ar-15-style-rifle-is-much-harder-in-canada-than-the-u-s-1.2945990The only difference are laws restricting magazine size which in the most recent shooting would have reduced the kill count because the guy was cranking out rounds almost nonstop. Not even sure if his weapons were even legal in the first place.The US gun statistics are greatly inflated due to inner city violence. Canada didn’t import a bunch of people against their will, give them no opportunity for years in cities where there was reduced economic opportunities. Which is why I always try to break out gun statistics into categories rather than as a whole group which the gun control types like to do in order to inflate the numbers. So would this be the place to start to try to at least minimize the damage? I appreciate the information, I don't know a lot about this subject but feel as though something has to change. I'll be the first to admit I have no idea what that something is but the status quo is horrible.
|
|
mare
Full Member
Posts: 2,517
|
Post by mare on Oct 2, 2017 16:07:47 GMT -5
Buying new machine guns is illegal but you can own one with the proper licensing and taxation in most states.
The bottom line is US citizens will have to give up some freedoms to stop gun violence. There is no other way because mental illness is not going to be magically cured.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by Tpatt100 on Oct 2, 2017 16:25:40 GMT -5
You would have to give up a ton of freedoms to stop gun violence because it’s connected to “violence” which is already illegal.
The US is a melting pot of different cultures and there is a lot of tension because we are taught to despise/look down on people who are different than ourselves
|
|
|
Post by alicechalmers on Oct 2, 2017 16:29:39 GMT -5
There will always be something. Back in the late 1920s, gun control laws were justified by anti-prohibition "mobs". The government took away our rights and then attempted to quell protest by taking away more rights. Funny, that. Then it was gang violence (Tommy-gun style, not the current gangs). Then it was assassinations of politicians. It's been Tommy-guns, hand guns, machine guns, whatever.
There will always be excuse as to why people shouldn't really have their rights, and that can be applied every single one of the first ten articles.
|
|