Wry Catcher
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #261
So that is what you want? Reduce the number of guns which are in the wrong hands? OK. By statute? How will that work, exactly?Gun rights are inviolate, as are first amendment rights. That doesn't mean they are unconditional. The SC has repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of reasonable gun restrictions. As far as the effectiveness of such restrictions goes, it's just nibbling around the edges of the problem."My personal opinion is that gun rights are inviolate and that gun control, as it has been practiced to date, is ineffective."
You're entitled to your opinion, with the understanding that it is wrong.
As a fact of Constitutional law the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not absolute, they are subject to reasonable restrictions by government.
And specific gun control measures have been effective with regard to their intended regulatory scope and purpose, where it is disingenuous to assail such measures because they haven't prevented criminal acts beyond that intended scope and purpose, as no one measure is a 'panacea' for the violence and crime related to guns.
The thread does serve a purpose to illustrate that there exists far too many unwilling to enter into good faith debate concerning the subject, too many who refuse to acknowledge settled and accepted facts of law, seeking instead to continue to propagate ridiculous lies and fallacies for some perceived partisan gain.
The simple fact is that this discussion, and every other discussion I've seen on this topic, failed before it began. Everyone talking past one another, and no one defining what they want. I want to prevent unnecessary death. This has nothing to do with gun rights or the second amendment. It has nothing to do with the constitution. It has everything to do with a depraved indifference to human life on the part of far too many Americans and a willingness on the part of politicians to sell the control of this issue to the gun industry.
See: I found great synonyms for "inviolate" on the new Thesaurus.com!
I object. I have posted exactly what I believe will reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should never own or possess one. I've done so a number of times and each time my comments have resulted in ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies.
I think the SC have done a reasonable job with regards to balancing gun rights and gun control. Blanket bans are unconstitutional. Reasonable regulations are not. Your fundamental right to own a gun is inviolate, but it entails responsibilities and consequences In other words, nothing in the constitution is an impediment to dealing with gun violence.
The people who shouldn't have guns in their hands are principally depressed people and alienated people. That's the problem, and that's where the resources should be used. I don't see how gun violence of these kinds can be impacted by laws. It can be addressed to some extent with education and innovation, but I wouldn't rule out public opinion reaching a tipping point. People may come to think of gun violence as a public health issue.
MAY come to think of gun violence as a public health issue?
A breakdown of the $229 billion gun violence tab that American taxpayers are paying every year
Q. Now why would people begin to think such a thing?
[Solyndra? Chump change! And yet for how long was this a hot issue for so many who post on this message board]
A. Propaganda
Hey, what's that sound? Everybody look - what's going down? Propaganda strikes deep. Into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid, guns will be taken away.
Last edited: