Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
No.Be VERY specific and explain how the NRA stops the research on the smart gun tech. Then explain how it is banned for the CDC to research firearms deaths, since it is not actually banned, and how the NRA prevents that from happening.I don't know what this has to do with what I wrote. The NRA is wrong on smart guns for the reasons I stated, reasons which you have chosen to ignore. Who is supposed to render judgement on constitutional rights, the Supreme Court or the NRA? It doesn't bother you that the NRA interferes in such matters? Negating the efforts of constitutionally elected legislators and preempting the efforts of constitutionally appointed judges?There are many questions that come with smart gun tech. For instance, how quickly will it be available to fire once you need it? What happens when the batteries run out? How reliable is it/how likely is the gun to misfire? Is it waterproof? Does RFID tech stop a criminal or child from actually firing the weapon when you are in the same room (pertinent to the idea that it stops a criminal from taking your weapon and shooting you with it)? Does the fingerprint method allow for both quick access AND work when the environment is not ideal (dirty or went)? Are these weapons waterproof.And what good reason would that be? Either the NJ law would stand constitutional muster (which I personally doubt it would) or it would be struck down. This nonsense, where the NRA makes it impossible to manufacture or distribute such weapons in the US, is based solely on the fear that maybe what NJ did is constitutional. That's called cowardice. It's also a circumvention of our legislative and judicial processes.I disagree. The problem is that every time the issue is talked about the only ‘solutions’ that anyone talks about is gun control and those are not solutions at all. You are not going to reduce death with more gun control. We already have gun control – what we have unchecked is a cultural problem and a gang problem.
When the entire political discourse centers around a non-solution you are not going to get anywhere.
I can’t tell you what they are ‘afraid’ of or if they are afraid at all. All I can tell you is why I do not support any further gun control and that is because it does not have any real gains.
And gun restrictions are extremely common. The question has never been no gun restrictions. The question is should we add FURTHER restrictions on a right. I say no.
?
If they are pointless than there really is even less reason to do more things that are pointless. I would not go as far as stating they are pointless. What I find pointless is expanding them past the point we are already at.
No one is standing in the way of smart gun technology. What you are talking about is nothing more than a smoke screen. What people have stood in front of is mandating smart gun tech at this point. And for good reason.
Gun control. A very vague term. Hundreds of millions of guns. 3-D printing technology looming. I don't think limiting magazine sizes are the answer to our problem. But of course that's just what I believe, not what I know. I'm in favor of trying anything reasonable in order to deal with the problem. If it works, great. If not, we chuck it.
I would like to see independent testing done The price tag on this tech is also very steep. AFAIK, the most recent iteration of smart pistols is in the iP1 and I cant find anything relating to actually testing how the weapon except by the NRA:
Armatix iP1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And they leave a pretty bad review. I would like to see these tested by someone without an agenda on some of the same metrics - misfires, time to fire ect. Part of my problem with gun restrictions like you mention is that we ALREADY know what these bans do because they have been done before and they are not effective at curbing homicides. I have no looked at how they work against suicide but I suspect that they do not (have no idea how a magazine limit would be able to impact suicides).
The NRA's position is exactly the same with regards to the CDC. The NRA cowardly attempts to circumvent their research.
My position is a simple one. Preventable deaths should be prevented. There is no reason to treat death from gun violence any differently than we treat highway fatalities, or smoking-related deaths. We allow people to proceed, unfettered, to do what they can to bring down the death rates. We don't stop the auto industry from developing safer cars and we don't forbid PSAs which tell us not to smoke.
Then explain why you support a BIASED research by a Government agency that is so biased the Congress had to step in and stop them in the 90's.
I will, however, ask you a simple question. Do you believe preventable deaths should be prevented?
The rest of this so-called debate is pointless and irrelevant to me. I know the avoidable death is real. I don't believe the threat to gun rights is real.
You don't know what that has to do with what you wrote? Seriously?I don't know what this has to do with what I wrote. The NRA is wrong on smart guns for the reasons I stated, reasons which you have chosen to ignore. Who is supposed to render judgement on constitutional rights, the Supreme Court or the NRA? It doesn't bother you that the NRA interferes in such matters? Negating the efforts of constitutionally elected legislators and preempting the efforts of constitutionally appointed judges?There are many questions that come with smart gun tech. For instance, how quickly will it be available to fire once you need it? What happens when the batteries run out? How reliable is it/how likely is the gun to misfire? Is it waterproof? Does RFID tech stop a criminal or child from actually firing the weapon when you are in the same room (pertinent to the idea that it stops a criminal from taking your weapon and shooting you with it)? Does the fingerprint method allow for both quick access AND work when the environment is not ideal (dirty or went)? Are these weapons waterproof.And what good reason would that be? Either the NJ law would stand constitutional muster (which I personally doubt it would) or it would be struck down. This nonsense, where the NRA makes it impossible to manufacture or distribute such weapons in the US, is based solely on the fear that maybe what NJ did is constitutional. That's called cowardice. It's also a circumvention of our legislative and judicial processes.I disagree. The problem is that every time the issue is talked about the only ‘solutions’ that anyone talks about is gun control and those are not solutions at all. You are not going to reduce death with more gun control. We already have gun control – what we have unchecked is a cultural problem and a gang problem.The core of our problem is death. Death is the problem, not guns. It's a simple matter, really. We must commit as a nation to bringing those numbers down.The thing is that there are a lot of restrictions already. The core of our problem is not in the tools available but in our culture and society.
But we can't. And why? Because anytime anyone mentions anything pertaining to reducing gun violence deaths and injuries it is seen as an assault on gun rights. That's the real problem. The problem that makes this issue a joke.
When the entire political discourse centers around a non-solution you are not going to get anywhere.
I can’t tell you what they are ‘afraid’ of or if they are afraid at all. All I can tell you is why I do not support any further gun control and that is because it does not have any real gains.Are there people who dream of a gun-free America? Sure. There are all kinds of extremists out there. Such opinions, just as with the extremists on the pro-gun side, are perfectly fine, as long as they are balanced by more rational perspectives.
1- The constitution protects gun rights. It's done a bang-up job so far. What is the so-called "second amendment" crowd so afraid of?
And gun restrictions are extremely common. The question has never been no gun restrictions. The question is should we add FURTHER restrictions on a right. I say no.2- The constitution does not prohibit gun restrictions. That too has been proven over and over again by SC rulings.
?3- The gun restrictions we have in place are ineffective. Personally I think they're pointless, but that doesn't mean they're the great burden and risk that the absolutists try to paint them as.
If they are pointless than there really is even less reason to do more things that are pointless. I would not go as far as stating they are pointless. What I find pointless is expanding them past the point we are already at.
No one is standing in the way of smart gun technology. What you are talking about is nothing more than a smoke screen. What people have stood in front of is mandating smart gun tech at this point. And for good reason.People who stand in the way of the CDC and gun manufacturers who want to market "smart guns" or other technologies designed to reduce gun violence rates have blood on their hands. They claim it is in defense of a principle, but it is not. We can't tackle the problem of gun violence until we can all commit to addressing the real problem, not these gun lobby-created smokescreens.
Gun control. A very vague term. Hundreds of millions of guns. 3-D printing technology looming. I don't think limiting magazine sizes are the answer to our problem. But of course that's just what I believe, not what I know. I'm in favor of trying anything reasonable in order to deal with the problem. If it works, great. If not, we chuck it.
I would like to see independent testing done The price tag on this tech is also very steep. AFAIK, the most recent iteration of smart pistols is in the iP1 and I cant find anything relating to actually testing how the weapon except by the NRA:
Armatix iP1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And they leave a pretty bad review. I would like to see these tested by someone without an agenda on some of the same metrics - misfires, time to fire ect. Part of my problem with gun restrictions like you mention is that we ALREADY know what these bans do because they have been done before and they are not effective at curbing homicides. I have no looked at how they work against suicide but I suspect that they do not (have no idea how a magazine limit would be able to impact suicides).
The NRA's position is exactly the same with regards to the CDC. The NRA cowardly attempts to circumvent their research.
My position is a simple one. Preventable deaths should be prevented. There is no reason to treat death from gun violence any differently than we treat highway fatalities, or smoking-related deaths. We allow people to proceed, unfettered, to do what they can to bring down the death rates. We don't stop the auto industry from developing safer cars and we don't forbid PSAs which tell us not to smoke.
I cant fathom how you think that the threat to gun rights is not real. That is just ignoring reality. Threats to all rights exist constantly and we must be vigilant against that or we will lose them.No.Be VERY specific and explain how the NRA stops the research on the smart gun tech. Then explain how it is banned for the CDC to research firearms deaths, since it is not actually banned, and how the NRA prevents that from happening.I don't know what this has to do with what I wrote. The NRA is wrong on smart guns for the reasons I stated, reasons which you have chosen to ignore. Who is supposed to render judgement on constitutional rights, the Supreme Court or the NRA? It doesn't bother you that the NRA interferes in such matters? Negating the efforts of constitutionally elected legislators and preempting the efforts of constitutionally appointed judges?There are many questions that come with smart gun tech. For instance, how quickly will it be available to fire once you need it? What happens when the batteries run out? How reliable is it/how likely is the gun to misfire? Is it waterproof? Does RFID tech stop a criminal or child from actually firing the weapon when you are in the same room (pertinent to the idea that it stops a criminal from taking your weapon and shooting you with it)? Does the fingerprint method allow for both quick access AND work when the environment is not ideal (dirty or went)? Are these weapons waterproof.And what good reason would that be? Either the NJ law would stand constitutional muster (which I personally doubt it would) or it would be struck down. This nonsense, where the NRA makes it impossible to manufacture or distribute such weapons in the US, is based solely on the fear that maybe what NJ did is constitutional. That's called cowardice. It's also a circumvention of our legislative and judicial processes.I disagree. The problem is that every time the issue is talked about the only ‘solutions’ that anyone talks about is gun control and those are not solutions at all. You are not going to reduce death with more gun control. We already have gun control – what we have unchecked is a cultural problem and a gang problem.
When the entire political discourse centers around a non-solution you are not going to get anywhere.
I can’t tell you what they are ‘afraid’ of or if they are afraid at all. All I can tell you is why I do not support any further gun control and that is because it does not have any real gains.
And gun restrictions are extremely common. The question has never been no gun restrictions. The question is should we add FURTHER restrictions on a right. I say no.
?
If they are pointless than there really is even less reason to do more things that are pointless. I would not go as far as stating they are pointless. What I find pointless is expanding them past the point we are already at.
No one is standing in the way of smart gun technology. What you are talking about is nothing more than a smoke screen. What people have stood in front of is mandating smart gun tech at this point. And for good reason.
Gun control. A very vague term. Hundreds of millions of guns. 3-D printing technology looming. I don't think limiting magazine sizes are the answer to our problem. But of course that's just what I believe, not what I know. I'm in favor of trying anything reasonable in order to deal with the problem. If it works, great. If not, we chuck it.
I would like to see independent testing done The price tag on this tech is also very steep. AFAIK, the most recent iteration of smart pistols is in the iP1 and I cant find anything relating to actually testing how the weapon except by the NRA:
Armatix iP1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And they leave a pretty bad review. I would like to see these tested by someone without an agenda on some of the same metrics - misfires, time to fire ect. Part of my problem with gun restrictions like you mention is that we ALREADY know what these bans do because they have been done before and they are not effective at curbing homicides. I have no looked at how they work against suicide but I suspect that they do not (have no idea how a magazine limit would be able to impact suicides).
The NRA's position is exactly the same with regards to the CDC. The NRA cowardly attempts to circumvent their research.
My position is a simple one. Preventable deaths should be prevented. There is no reason to treat death from gun violence any differently than we treat highway fatalities, or smoking-related deaths. We allow people to proceed, unfettered, to do what they can to bring down the death rates. We don't stop the auto industry from developing safer cars and we don't forbid PSAs which tell us not to smoke.
Then explain why you support a BIASED research by a Government agency that is so biased the Congress had to step in and stop them in the 90's.
I will, however, ask you a simple question. Do you believe preventable deaths should be prevented?
The rest of this so-called debate is pointless and irrelevant to me. I know the avoidable death is real. I don't believe the threat to gun rights is real.
What you wrote was an evaluation of the state of development of smart guns. I couldn't care less about that. The issue is WHY the NRA has a good reason to block the development of these weapons. You claimed that they were justified. Your statement said nothing about the real issues. The reason they block the development and sale of such weapons is supposed to be the NJ law. What you wrote is in NO WAY a justification for the NRA's interference with the legislative and judicial processes. The reason the technology hasn't been perfected is because the NRA blocks it. You claim they block it because it's less than perfect?You don't know what that has to do with what you wrote? Seriously?I don't know what this has to do with what I wrote. The NRA is wrong on smart guns for the reasons I stated, reasons which you have chosen to ignore. Who is supposed to render judgement on constitutional rights, the Supreme Court or the NRA? It doesn't bother you that the NRA interferes in such matters? Negating the efforts of constitutionally elected legislators and preempting the efforts of constitutionally appointed judges?There are many questions that come with smart gun tech. For instance, how quickly will it be available to fire once you need it? What happens when the batteries run out? How reliable is it/how likely is the gun to misfire? Is it waterproof? Does RFID tech stop a criminal or child from actually firing the weapon when you are in the same room (pertinent to the idea that it stops a criminal from taking your weapon and shooting you with it)? Does the fingerprint method allow for both quick access AND work when the environment is not ideal (dirty or went)? Are these weapons waterproof.And what good reason would that be? Either the NJ law would stand constitutional muster (which I personally doubt it would) or it would be struck down. This nonsense, where the NRA makes it impossible to manufacture or distribute such weapons in the US, is based solely on the fear that maybe what NJ did is constitutional. That's called cowardice. It's also a circumvention of our legislative and judicial processes.I disagree. The problem is that every time the issue is talked about the only ‘solutions’ that anyone talks about is gun control and those are not solutions at all. You are not going to reduce death with more gun control. We already have gun control – what we have unchecked is a cultural problem and a gang problem.The core of our problem is death. Death is the problem, not guns. It's a simple matter, really. We must commit as a nation to bringing those numbers down.
But we can't. And why? Because anytime anyone mentions anything pertaining to reducing gun violence deaths and injuries it is seen as an assault on gun rights. That's the real problem. The problem that makes this issue a joke.
When the entire political discourse centers around a non-solution you are not going to get anywhere.
I can’t tell you what they are ‘afraid’ of or if they are afraid at all. All I can tell you is why I do not support any further gun control and that is because it does not have any real gains.Are there people who dream of a gun-free America? Sure. There are all kinds of extremists out there. Such opinions, just as with the extremists on the pro-gun side, are perfectly fine, as long as they are balanced by more rational perspectives.
1- The constitution protects gun rights. It's done a bang-up job so far. What is the so-called "second amendment" crowd so afraid of?
And gun restrictions are extremely common. The question has never been no gun restrictions. The question is should we add FURTHER restrictions on a right. I say no.2- The constitution does not prohibit gun restrictions. That too has been proven over and over again by SC rulings.
?3- The gun restrictions we have in place are ineffective. Personally I think they're pointless, but that doesn't mean they're the great burden and risk that the absolutists try to paint them as.
If they are pointless than there really is even less reason to do more things that are pointless. I would not go as far as stating they are pointless. What I find pointless is expanding them past the point we are already at.
No one is standing in the way of smart gun technology. What you are talking about is nothing more than a smoke screen. What people have stood in front of is mandating smart gun tech at this point. And for good reason.People who stand in the way of the CDC and gun manufacturers who want to market "smart guns" or other technologies designed to reduce gun violence rates have blood on their hands. They claim it is in defense of a principle, but it is not. We can't tackle the problem of gun violence until we can all commit to addressing the real problem, not these gun lobby-created smokescreens.
Gun control. A very vague term. Hundreds of millions of guns. 3-D printing technology looming. I don't think limiting magazine sizes are the answer to our problem. But of course that's just what I believe, not what I know. I'm in favor of trying anything reasonable in order to deal with the problem. If it works, great. If not, we chuck it.
I would like to see independent testing done The price tag on this tech is also very steep. AFAIK, the most recent iteration of smart pistols is in the iP1 and I cant find anything relating to actually testing how the weapon except by the NRA:
Armatix iP1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And they leave a pretty bad review. I would like to see these tested by someone without an agenda on some of the same metrics - misfires, time to fire ect. Part of my problem with gun restrictions like you mention is that we ALREADY know what these bans do because they have been done before and they are not effective at curbing homicides. I have no looked at how they work against suicide but I suspect that they do not (have no idea how a magazine limit would be able to impact suicides).
The NRA's position is exactly the same with regards to the CDC. The NRA cowardly attempts to circumvent their research.
My position is a simple one. Preventable deaths should be prevented. There is no reason to treat death from gun violence any differently than we treat highway fatalities, or smoking-related deaths. We allow people to proceed, unfettered, to do what they can to bring down the death rates. We don't stop the auto industry from developing safer cars and we don't forbid PSAs which tell us not to smoke.
Your very first question was: And what good reason would that be?
I answered that. You also stated that you would back simply trying things to see if they worked. I also addressed that as well. You also simply assume that gun control is effective at 'preventing death' and that is not a conclusion that I would agree with.
No there is no threat to gun rights. Gun rights are protected by the constitution and the Supreme Court has never ruled, and will never rule, that you don't have the right to own guns. You don't trust the constitution and the Supreme Court. Too bad.I cant fathom how you think that the threat to gun rights is not real. That is just ignoring reality. Threats to all rights exist constantly and we must be vigilant against that or we will lose them.No.Be VERY specific and explain how the NRA stops the research on the smart gun tech. Then explain how it is banned for the CDC to research firearms deaths, since it is not actually banned, and how the NRA prevents that from happening.I don't know what this has to do with what I wrote. The NRA is wrong on smart guns for the reasons I stated, reasons which you have chosen to ignore. Who is supposed to render judgement on constitutional rights, the Supreme Court or the NRA? It doesn't bother you that the NRA interferes in such matters? Negating the efforts of constitutionally elected legislators and preempting the efforts of constitutionally appointed judges?There are many questions that come with smart gun tech. For instance, how quickly will it be available to fire once you need it? What happens when the batteries run out? How reliable is it/how likely is the gun to misfire? Is it waterproof? Does RFID tech stop a criminal or child from actually firing the weapon when you are in the same room (pertinent to the idea that it stops a criminal from taking your weapon and shooting you with it)? Does the fingerprint method allow for both quick access AND work when the environment is not ideal (dirty or went)? Are these weapons waterproof.And what good reason would that be? Either the NJ law would stand constitutional muster (which I personally doubt it would) or it would be struck down. This nonsense, where the NRA makes it impossible to manufacture or distribute such weapons in the US, is based solely on the fear that maybe what NJ did is constitutional. That's called cowardice. It's also a circumvention of our legislative and judicial processes.
Gun control. A very vague term. Hundreds of millions of guns. 3-D printing technology looming. I don't think limiting magazine sizes are the answer to our problem. But of course that's just what I believe, not what I know. I'm in favor of trying anything reasonable in order to deal with the problem. If it works, great. If not, we chuck it.
I would like to see independent testing done The price tag on this tech is also very steep. AFAIK, the most recent iteration of smart pistols is in the iP1 and I cant find anything relating to actually testing how the weapon except by the NRA:
Armatix iP1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And they leave a pretty bad review. I would like to see these tested by someone without an agenda on some of the same metrics - misfires, time to fire ect. Part of my problem with gun restrictions like you mention is that we ALREADY know what these bans do because they have been done before and they are not effective at curbing homicides. I have no looked at how they work against suicide but I suspect that they do not (have no idea how a magazine limit would be able to impact suicides).
The NRA's position is exactly the same with regards to the CDC. The NRA cowardly attempts to circumvent their research.
My position is a simple one. Preventable deaths should be prevented. There is no reason to treat death from gun violence any differently than we treat highway fatalities, or smoking-related deaths. We allow people to proceed, unfettered, to do what they can to bring down the death rates. We don't stop the auto industry from developing safer cars and we don't forbid PSAs which tell us not to smoke.
Then explain why you support a BIASED research by a Government agency that is so biased the Congress had to step in and stop them in the 90's.
I will, however, ask you a simple question. Do you believe preventable deaths should be prevented?
The rest of this so-called debate is pointless and irrelevant to me. I know the avoidable death is real. I don't believe the threat to gun rights is real.
The question about preventable deaths really is a straw man though. I could ask you do you support banning fast food? That is one of the chief killers in the nation - unhealthy eating. Perhaps mandatory exercise should be enforced nation wide - that would prevent a lot of 'preventable deaths' as well. For that matter, you mentioned us not stopping auto manufacturers from preventing deaths. We should outright outlaw motorcycles - they are quite dangerous and doing so would absolutely reduce vehicle deaths. On that same note, skydiving, hiking off trails, spelunking, mountain climbing above 10K feet and pools should all be outlawed immediately.
Of course the above is asinine but that is because we are a free people and no, we do not want to prevent 'preventable deaths.' We make reasonable restrictions which makes society safe in general and protects our rights. Such restrictions are all over weapons already. Background checks, specific regulations on the manufacture and safety devices on weapons and restricting those that are allowed to obtain and carry. All on the books right now. What the anti-gun rights people are trying to do is increase those restrictions to an unreasonable level.
What you wrote was an evaluation of the state of development of smart guns. I couldn't care less about that. The issue is WHY the NRA has a good reason to block the development of these weapons. You claimed that they were justified. Your statement said nothing about the real issues. The reason they block the development and sale of such weapons is supposed to be the NJ law. What you wrote is in NO WAY a justification for the NRA's interference with the legislative and judicial processes. The reason the technology hasn't been perfected is because the NRA blocks it. You claim they block it because it's less than perfect?You don't know what that has to do with what you wrote? Seriously?I don't know what this has to do with what I wrote. The NRA is wrong on smart guns for the reasons I stated, reasons which you have chosen to ignore. Who is supposed to render judgement on constitutional rights, the Supreme Court or the NRA? It doesn't bother you that the NRA interferes in such matters? Negating the efforts of constitutionally elected legislators and preempting the efforts of constitutionally appointed judges?There are many questions that come with smart gun tech. For instance, how quickly will it be available to fire once you need it? What happens when the batteries run out? How reliable is it/how likely is the gun to misfire? Is it waterproof? Does RFID tech stop a criminal or child from actually firing the weapon when you are in the same room (pertinent to the idea that it stops a criminal from taking your weapon and shooting you with it)? Does the fingerprint method allow for both quick access AND work when the environment is not ideal (dirty or went)? Are these weapons waterproof.And what good reason would that be? Either the NJ law would stand constitutional muster (which I personally doubt it would) or it would be struck down. This nonsense, where the NRA makes it impossible to manufacture or distribute such weapons in the US, is based solely on the fear that maybe what NJ did is constitutional. That's called cowardice. It's also a circumvention of our legislative and judicial processes.I disagree. The problem is that every time the issue is talked about the only ‘solutions’ that anyone talks about is gun control and those are not solutions at all. You are not going to reduce death with more gun control. We already have gun control – what we have unchecked is a cultural problem and a gang problem.
When the entire political discourse centers around a non-solution you are not going to get anywhere.
I can’t tell you what they are ‘afraid’ of or if they are afraid at all. All I can tell you is why I do not support any further gun control and that is because it does not have any real gains.
And gun restrictions are extremely common. The question has never been no gun restrictions. The question is should we add FURTHER restrictions on a right. I say no.
?
If they are pointless than there really is even less reason to do more things that are pointless. I would not go as far as stating they are pointless. What I find pointless is expanding them past the point we are already at.
No one is standing in the way of smart gun technology. What you are talking about is nothing more than a smoke screen. What people have stood in front of is mandating smart gun tech at this point. And for good reason.
Gun control. A very vague term. Hundreds of millions of guns. 3-D printing technology looming. I don't think limiting magazine sizes are the answer to our problem. But of course that's just what I believe, not what I know. I'm in favor of trying anything reasonable in order to deal with the problem. If it works, great. If not, we chuck it.
I would like to see independent testing done The price tag on this tech is also very steep. AFAIK, the most recent iteration of smart pistols is in the iP1 and I cant find anything relating to actually testing how the weapon except by the NRA:
Armatix iP1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And they leave a pretty bad review. I would like to see these tested by someone without an agenda on some of the same metrics - misfires, time to fire ect. Part of my problem with gun restrictions like you mention is that we ALREADY know what these bans do because they have been done before and they are not effective at curbing homicides. I have no looked at how they work against suicide but I suspect that they do not (have no idea how a magazine limit would be able to impact suicides).
The NRA's position is exactly the same with regards to the CDC. The NRA cowardly attempts to circumvent their research.
My position is a simple one. Preventable deaths should be prevented. There is no reason to treat death from gun violence any differently than we treat highway fatalities, or smoking-related deaths. We allow people to proceed, unfettered, to do what they can to bring down the death rates. We don't stop the auto industry from developing safer cars and we don't forbid PSAs which tell us not to smoke.
Your very first question was: And what good reason would that be?
I answered that. You also stated that you would back simply trying things to see if they worked. I also addressed that as well. You also simply assume that gun control is effective at 'preventing death' and that is not a conclusion that I would agree with.
As far as the rest of what you wrote, no. I don't assume that gun control is the answer to anything. I think there are people better qualified than me to address the question of reducing gun violence. I just want these people, within the gun industry and without, to have the freedom to try their ideas. No, you don't just "try everything". You try everything reasonable within the limits of the resources available to you. We don't do that. We don't allow the CDC to do its job and we don't allow the industry to develop safer guns. Why? The NRA.
I never justified any such thing. I have stated repeatedly that the CDC should be allowed and encouraged to study the issue. You seem to be debating a position I have never taken.What you wrote was an evaluation of the state of development of smart guns. I couldn't care less about that. The issue is WHY the NRA has a good reason to block the development of these weapons. You claimed that they were justified. Your statement said nothing about the real issues. The reason they block the development and sale of such weapons is supposed to be the NJ law. What you wrote is in NO WAY a justification for the NRA's interference with the legislative and judicial processes. The reason the technology hasn't been perfected is because the NRA blocks it. You claim they block it because it's less than perfect?You don't know what that has to do with what you wrote? Seriously?I don't know what this has to do with what I wrote. The NRA is wrong on smart guns for the reasons I stated, reasons which you have chosen to ignore. Who is supposed to render judgement on constitutional rights, the Supreme Court or the NRA? It doesn't bother you that the NRA interferes in such matters? Negating the efforts of constitutionally elected legislators and preempting the efforts of constitutionally appointed judges?There are many questions that come with smart gun tech. For instance, how quickly will it be available to fire once you need it? What happens when the batteries run out? How reliable is it/how likely is the gun to misfire? Is it waterproof? Does RFID tech stop a criminal or child from actually firing the weapon when you are in the same room (pertinent to the idea that it stops a criminal from taking your weapon and shooting you with it)? Does the fingerprint method allow for both quick access AND work when the environment is not ideal (dirty or went)? Are these weapons waterproof.And what good reason would that be? Either the NJ law would stand constitutional muster (which I personally doubt it would) or it would be struck down. This nonsense, where the NRA makes it impossible to manufacture or distribute such weapons in the US, is based solely on the fear that maybe what NJ did is constitutional. That's called cowardice. It's also a circumvention of our legislative and judicial processes.I disagree. The problem is that every time the issue is talked about the only ‘solutions’ that anyone talks about is gun control and those are not solutions at all. You are not going to reduce death with more gun control. We already have gun control – what we have unchecked is a cultural problem and a gang problem.
When the entire political discourse centers around a non-solution you are not going to get anywhere.
I can’t tell you what they are ‘afraid’ of or if they are afraid at all. All I can tell you is why I do not support any further gun control and that is because it does not have any real gains.
And gun restrictions are extremely common. The question has never been no gun restrictions. The question is should we add FURTHER restrictions on a right. I say no.
?
If they are pointless than there really is even less reason to do more things that are pointless. I would not go as far as stating they are pointless. What I find pointless is expanding them past the point we are already at.
No one is standing in the way of smart gun technology. What you are talking about is nothing more than a smoke screen. What people have stood in front of is mandating smart gun tech at this point. And for good reason.
Gun control. A very vague term. Hundreds of millions of guns. 3-D printing technology looming. I don't think limiting magazine sizes are the answer to our problem. But of course that's just what I believe, not what I know. I'm in favor of trying anything reasonable in order to deal with the problem. If it works, great. If not, we chuck it.
I would like to see independent testing done The price tag on this tech is also very steep. AFAIK, the most recent iteration of smart pistols is in the iP1 and I cant find anything relating to actually testing how the weapon except by the NRA:
Armatix iP1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And they leave a pretty bad review. I would like to see these tested by someone without an agenda on some of the same metrics - misfires, time to fire ect. Part of my problem with gun restrictions like you mention is that we ALREADY know what these bans do because they have been done before and they are not effective at curbing homicides. I have no looked at how they work against suicide but I suspect that they do not (have no idea how a magazine limit would be able to impact suicides).
The NRA's position is exactly the same with regards to the CDC. The NRA cowardly attempts to circumvent their research.
My position is a simple one. Preventable deaths should be prevented. There is no reason to treat death from gun violence any differently than we treat highway fatalities, or smoking-related deaths. We allow people to proceed, unfettered, to do what they can to bring down the death rates. We don't stop the auto industry from developing safer cars and we don't forbid PSAs which tell us not to smoke.
Your very first question was: And what good reason would that be?
I answered that. You also stated that you would back simply trying things to see if they worked. I also addressed that as well. You also simply assume that gun control is effective at 'preventing death' and that is not a conclusion that I would agree with.
As far as the rest of what you wrote, no. I don't assume that gun control is the answer to anything. I think there are people better qualified than me to address the question of reducing gun violence. I just want these people, within the gun industry and without, to have the freedom to try their ideas. No, you don't just "try everything". You try everything reasonable within the limits of the resources available to you. We don't do that. We don't allow the CDC to do its job and we don't allow the industry to develop safer guns. Why? The NRA.
I am not claiming you are against the CDC doing research. The only reason we are having this discussion is that you said you didn't object to that.I never justified any such thing. I have stated repeatedly that the CDC should be allowed and encouraged to study the issue. You seem to be debating a position I have never taken.What you wrote was an evaluation of the state of development of smart guns. I couldn't care less about that. The issue is WHY the NRA has a good reason to block the development of these weapons. You claimed that they were justified. Your statement said nothing about the real issues. The reason they block the development and sale of such weapons is supposed to be the NJ law. What you wrote is in NO WAY a justification for the NRA's interference with the legislative and judicial processes. The reason the technology hasn't been perfected is because the NRA blocks it. You claim they block it because it's less than perfect?You don't know what that has to do with what you wrote? Seriously?I don't know what this has to do with what I wrote. The NRA is wrong on smart guns for the reasons I stated, reasons which you have chosen to ignore. Who is supposed to render judgement on constitutional rights, the Supreme Court or the NRA? It doesn't bother you that the NRA interferes in such matters? Negating the efforts of constitutionally elected legislators and preempting the efforts of constitutionally appointed judges?There are many questions that come with smart gun tech. For instance, how quickly will it be available to fire once you need it? What happens when the batteries run out? How reliable is it/how likely is the gun to misfire? Is it waterproof? Does RFID tech stop a criminal or child from actually firing the weapon when you are in the same room (pertinent to the idea that it stops a criminal from taking your weapon and shooting you with it)? Does the fingerprint method allow for both quick access AND work when the environment is not ideal (dirty or went)? Are these weapons waterproof.And what good reason would that be? Either the NJ law would stand constitutional muster (which I personally doubt it would) or it would be struck down. This nonsense, where the NRA makes it impossible to manufacture or distribute such weapons in the US, is based solely on the fear that maybe what NJ did is constitutional. That's called cowardice. It's also a circumvention of our legislative and judicial processes.
Gun control. A very vague term. Hundreds of millions of guns. 3-D printing technology looming. I don't think limiting magazine sizes are the answer to our problem. But of course that's just what I believe, not what I know. I'm in favor of trying anything reasonable in order to deal with the problem. If it works, great. If not, we chuck it.
I would like to see independent testing done The price tag on this tech is also very steep. AFAIK, the most recent iteration of smart pistols is in the iP1 and I cant find anything relating to actually testing how the weapon except by the NRA:
Armatix iP1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And they leave a pretty bad review. I would like to see these tested by someone without an agenda on some of the same metrics - misfires, time to fire ect. Part of my problem with gun restrictions like you mention is that we ALREADY know what these bans do because they have been done before and they are not effective at curbing homicides. I have no looked at how they work against suicide but I suspect that they do not (have no idea how a magazine limit would be able to impact suicides).
The NRA's position is exactly the same with regards to the CDC. The NRA cowardly attempts to circumvent their research.
My position is a simple one. Preventable deaths should be prevented. There is no reason to treat death from gun violence any differently than we treat highway fatalities, or smoking-related deaths. We allow people to proceed, unfettered, to do what they can to bring down the death rates. We don't stop the auto industry from developing safer cars and we don't forbid PSAs which tell us not to smoke.
Your very first question was: And what good reason would that be?
I answered that. You also stated that you would back simply trying things to see if they worked. I also addressed that as well. You also simply assume that gun control is effective at 'preventing death' and that is not a conclusion that I would agree with.
As far as the rest of what you wrote, no. I don't assume that gun control is the answer to anything. I think there are people better qualified than me to address the question of reducing gun violence. I just want these people, within the gun industry and without, to have the freedom to try their ideas. No, you don't just "try everything". You try everything reasonable within the limits of the resources available to you. We don't do that. We don't allow the CDC to do its job and we don't allow the industry to develop safer guns. Why? The NRA.
I did state that fighting against mandates for 'smart' weapons is something that should be done and I stand by that.
The SC does determine what is and is not constitutional. Weather you want it to or not is immaterial to the fact that it is. We, the people, are allowed to fight these things before they get that far though. The SCOTUS only acts after your right have been violated - iow they act FAR to late. 'Letting the process play out' is a terrible idea IMHO. It is the active obligation of the electorate to ensure that we keep our rights. Leave that entirely to the courts and they will erode not because the courts are bad but because it is the public that truly guards rights. Without any real push the courts will drift away. I may trust that the courts will strike down a defacto ban on guns (as that is what this is) but I absolutely do not want to see people walking away from what they see as a direct assault on their rights.I am not claiming you are against the CDC doing research. The only reason we are having this discussion is that you said you didn't object to that.I never justified any such thing. I have stated repeatedly that the CDC should be allowed and encouraged to study the issue. You seem to be debating a position I have never taken.What you wrote was an evaluation of the state of development of smart guns. I couldn't care less about that. The issue is WHY the NRA has a good reason to block the development of these weapons. You claimed that they were justified. Your statement said nothing about the real issues. The reason they block the development and sale of such weapons is supposed to be the NJ law. What you wrote is in NO WAY a justification for the NRA's interference with the legislative and judicial processes. The reason the technology hasn't been perfected is because the NRA blocks it. You claim they block it because it's less than perfect?You don't know what that has to do with what you wrote? Seriously?I don't know what this has to do with what I wrote. The NRA is wrong on smart guns for the reasons I stated, reasons which you have chosen to ignore. Who is supposed to render judgement on constitutional rights, the Supreme Court or the NRA? It doesn't bother you that the NRA interferes in such matters? Negating the efforts of constitutionally elected legislators and preempting the efforts of constitutionally appointed judges?There are many questions that come with smart gun tech. For instance, how quickly will it be available to fire once you need it? What happens when the batteries run out? How reliable is it/how likely is the gun to misfire? Is it waterproof? Does RFID tech stop a criminal or child from actually firing the weapon when you are in the same room (pertinent to the idea that it stops a criminal from taking your weapon and shooting you with it)? Does the fingerprint method allow for both quick access AND work when the environment is not ideal (dirty or went)? Are these weapons waterproof.
I would like to see independent testing done The price tag on this tech is also very steep. AFAIK, the most recent iteration of smart pistols is in the iP1 and I cant find anything relating to actually testing how the weapon except by the NRA:
Armatix iP1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And they leave a pretty bad review. I would like to see these tested by someone without an agenda on some of the same metrics - misfires, time to fire ect. Part of my problem with gun restrictions like you mention is that we ALREADY know what these bans do because they have been done before and they are not effective at curbing homicides. I have no looked at how they work against suicide but I suspect that they do not (have no idea how a magazine limit would be able to impact suicides).
The NRA's position is exactly the same with regards to the CDC. The NRA cowardly attempts to circumvent their research.
My position is a simple one. Preventable deaths should be prevented. There is no reason to treat death from gun violence any differently than we treat highway fatalities, or smoking-related deaths. We allow people to proceed, unfettered, to do what they can to bring down the death rates. We don't stop the auto industry from developing safer cars and we don't forbid PSAs which tell us not to smoke.
Your very first question was: And what good reason would that be?
I answered that. You also stated that you would back simply trying things to see if they worked. I also addressed that as well. You also simply assume that gun control is effective at 'preventing death' and that is not a conclusion that I would agree with.
As far as the rest of what you wrote, no. I don't assume that gun control is the answer to anything. I think there are people better qualified than me to address the question of reducing gun violence. I just want these people, within the gun industry and without, to have the freedom to try their ideas. No, you don't just "try everything". You try everything reasonable within the limits of the resources available to you. We don't do that. We don't allow the CDC to do its job and we don't allow the industry to develop safer guns. Why? The NRA.
I did state that fighting against mandates for 'smart' weapons is something that should be done and I stand by that.
The NRA had an item on their agenda. The wanted to make sure that the CDC never did gun research. No one else on the planet cared. Just the NRA. The current CDC budget for gun violence research is $0.
New Jersey, specifically State Senator Loretta Weinberg, did something really stupid. So did Chicago, when they tried to impose a gun ban. That's unconstitutional. The Supreme Court decided it was unconstitutional. Banning specific types of weapons is not unconstitutional. They have also ruled on that. What will they say about the "smart gun" law in NJ? Who knows? Why? Because the NRA is standing in the way. My belief is that the NJ law is unconstitutional, and I have faith that the SC will see it that way. You don't seem to share that faith. You also don't seem disturbed by the influence that the gun lobby has on our political system. I am. I want the SC to determine what is and isn't constitutional, not the NRA. Let the process play out.
Again, our out of control violence numbers are bad - guns have nothing to do with it. Take them away as they did in England and watch those numbers continue on the exact same path that they were on in the first place. If you want to address our violence problem then I would agree with you but no one really odes. Instead, the measures that are talked about (such as expanding background checks) are wholly ineffective in doing anything at all. I would say that until we can commit to addressing the ROOT CAUSE rather than putting a bunch of band-aids on the wrong limb those numbers are not going to budge. Every time we pass another gun control measure that does nothing, solves nothing but gives everyone a good feeling that they at least did SOMETHING so they can pat themselves on the back we are going to slide further and further from an actual solution.I don't believe that gun rights are in danger. I don't believe that private ownership of guns is a bulwark against tyranny. What I do believe is that our out-of-control gun violence numbers are bad. They represent many individual tragedies. Families blown apart. The numbers represent a great financial cost. The also represent a cost in soft power. Until we can commit, as a country, towards reducing those numbers we are rightly seen by the rest of the world as a wild-west.
Not only do I not believe gun rights are threatened, I also don't think they're important. They exist, as toaster oven rights exist, but they're no more important.The SC does determine what is and is not constitutional. Weather you want it to or not is immaterial to the fact that it is. We, the people, are allowed to fight these things before they get that far though. The SCOTUS only acts after your right have been violated - iow they act FAR to late. 'Letting the process play out' is a terrible idea IMHO. It is the active obligation of the electorate to ensure that we keep our rights. Leave that entirely to the courts and they will erode not because the courts are bad but because it is the public that truly guards rights. Without any real push the courts will drift away. I may trust that the courts will strike down a defacto ban on guns (as that is what this is) but I absolutely do not want to see people walking away from what they see as a direct assault on their rights.I am not claiming you are against the CDC doing research. The only reason we are having this discussion is that you said you didn't object to that.I never justified any such thing. I have stated repeatedly that the CDC should be allowed and encouraged to study the issue. You seem to be debating a position I have never taken.What you wrote was an evaluation of the state of development of smart guns. I couldn't care less about that. The issue is WHY the NRA has a good reason to block the development of these weapons. You claimed that they were justified. Your statement said nothing about the real issues. The reason they block the development and sale of such weapons is supposed to be the NJ law. What you wrote is in NO WAY a justification for the NRA's interference with the legislative and judicial processes. The reason the technology hasn't been perfected is because the NRA blocks it. You claim they block it because it's less than perfect?You don't know what that has to do with what you wrote? Seriously?I don't know what this has to do with what I wrote. The NRA is wrong on smart guns for the reasons I stated, reasons which you have chosen to ignore. Who is supposed to render judgement on constitutional rights, the Supreme Court or the NRA? It doesn't bother you that the NRA interferes in such matters? Negating the efforts of constitutionally elected legislators and preempting the efforts of constitutionally appointed judges?
The NRA's position is exactly the same with regards to the CDC. The NRA cowardly attempts to circumvent their research.
My position is a simple one. Preventable deaths should be prevented. There is no reason to treat death from gun violence any differently than we treat highway fatalities, or smoking-related deaths. We allow people to proceed, unfettered, to do what they can to bring down the death rates. We don't stop the auto industry from developing safer cars and we don't forbid PSAs which tell us not to smoke.
Your very first question was: And what good reason would that be?
I answered that. You also stated that you would back simply trying things to see if they worked. I also addressed that as well. You also simply assume that gun control is effective at 'preventing death' and that is not a conclusion that I would agree with.
As far as the rest of what you wrote, no. I don't assume that gun control is the answer to anything. I think there are people better qualified than me to address the question of reducing gun violence. I just want these people, within the gun industry and without, to have the freedom to try their ideas. No, you don't just "try everything". You try everything reasonable within the limits of the resources available to you. We don't do that. We don't allow the CDC to do its job and we don't allow the industry to develop safer guns. Why? The NRA.
I did state that fighting against mandates for 'smart' weapons is something that should be done and I stand by that.
The NRA had an item on their agenda. The wanted to make sure that the CDC never did gun research. No one else on the planet cared. Just the NRA. The current CDC budget for gun violence research is $0.
New Jersey, specifically State Senator Loretta Weinberg, did something really stupid. So did Chicago, when they tried to impose a gun ban. That's unconstitutional. The Supreme Court decided it was unconstitutional. Banning specific types of weapons is not unconstitutional. They have also ruled on that. What will they say about the "smart gun" law in NJ? Who knows? Why? Because the NRA is standing in the way. My belief is that the NJ law is unconstitutional, and I have faith that the SC will see it that way. You don't seem to share that faith. You also don't seem disturbed by the influence that the gun lobby has on our political system. I am. I want the SC to determine what is and isn't constitutional, not the NRA. Let the process play out.
Further, the NRA's 'influence' does not bother me more than any other lobby group. It seems to me that you have singled out the NRA as a bad influence but not other groups like AFL-CIO. That is disingenuous at best. Lobby groups represent their members and if the NRA was not petitioning on behalf of those member then such roles would plummet, their influence shrink to nothing and they would cease to exist. As that is not happening I have to at least acknowledge that they are representing what their members want.
The existence of lobby groups is yet another right that we have as there really is no other way to petition your stance on a governmental issue other than to group together and form a lobby. You cannot limit the NRA without removing that right.
Again, our out of control violence numbers are bad - guns have nothing to do with it. Take them away as they did in England and watch those numbers continue on the exact same path that they were on in the first place. If you want to address our violence problem then I would agree with you but no one really odes. Instead, the measures that are talked about (such as expanding background checks) are wholly ineffective in doing anything at all. I would say that until we can commit to addressing the ROOT CAUSE rather than putting a bunch of band-aids on the wrong limb those numbers are not going to budge. Every time we pass another gun control measure that does nothing, solves nothing but gives everyone a good feeling that they at least did SOMETHING so they can pat themselves on the back we are going to slide further and further from an actual solution.I don't believe that gun rights are in danger. I don't believe that private ownership of guns is a bulwark against tyranny. What I do believe is that our out-of-control gun violence numbers are bad. They represent many individual tragedies. Families blown apart. The numbers represent a great financial cost. The also represent a cost in soft power. Until we can commit, as a country, towards reducing those numbers we are rightly seen by the rest of the world as a wild-west.
If you do not think that gun rights are threatened then you simply are not paying attention. Anti-gun laws are passed all over the nation many that are blatantly unconstitutional. There are places in this nation where it is almost impossible to exercise your right. At what point would you consider it 'under threat?' After the SCOTUS completely removed it? If it is not under threat in your mind now then it would not be under threat until it was completely gone and there was nothing that could be done about it.
Which is exactly why they ARE threatened AND why people who believe in those rights MUST stand up for them.Not only do I not believe gun rights are threatened, I also don't think they're important. They exist, as toaster oven rights exist, but they're no more important.
Because they are unimportant?Which is exactly why they ARE threatened AND why people who believe in those rights MUST stand up for them.Not only do I not believe gun rights are threatened, I also don't think they're important. They exist, as toaster oven rights exist, but they're no more important.
No, because there are people such as yourself that view them as such. That is how rights vanish.Because they are unimportant?Which is exactly why they ARE threatened AND why people who believe in those rights MUST stand up for them.Not only do I not believe gun rights are threatened, I also don't think they're important. They exist, as toaster oven rights exist, but they're no more important.
Suicide prevention is the least emphasized aspect of gun violence prevention, but it's impossible to commit to bringing down gun violence statistics without addressing the problem of suicide.
I find it hard to understand how anyone can object to studying the problem of gun suicide rates. Too often these victims are vets, and the debt we owe them requires that we take the issue seriously.
The CDC is prevented from tackling this issue because the gun industry fears that they will recommend a reduction in our gun intake. A gunectomy. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. No one was that thrilled with their preliminary study, which had surprises for everyone.
That doesn't make guns important, though. They're not. All this "bulwark against tyranny" nonsense shows how desperate gun extremists are in the defense of this right. They try to make guns out to be something they're not, in order to justify their fanaticism. They block the CDC because they believe that the CDC is part of a giant conspiracy to take away their guns. That's absurd. No one would give a thought to guns if 30,000 people a year weren't being killed by them.No, because there are people such as yourself that view them as such. That is how rights vanish.Because they are unimportant?Which is exactly why they ARE threatened AND why people who believe in those rights MUST stand up for them.Not only do I not believe gun rights are threatened, I also don't think they're important. They exist, as toaster oven rights exist, but they're no more important.
Who is we? Mental health professionals? Suicide prevention experts?Suicide prevention is the least emphasized aspect of gun violence prevention, but it's impossible to commit to bringing down gun violence statistics without addressing the problem of suicide.
I find it hard to understand how anyone can object to studying the problem of gun suicide rates. Too often these victims are vets, and the debt we owe them requires that we take the issue seriously.
The CDC is prevented from tackling this issue because the gun industry fears that they will recommend a reduction in our gun intake. A gunectomy. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. No one was that thrilled with their preliminary study, which had surprises for everyone.
Because we know the gun suicide rate. We also know that it doesn't matter. Japan, Korea, and the Scandinavian countries all have much higher rates of suicide than the US, they also have very strict gun control. Thus we know that gun control laws would have zero affect on the problem. Suicide prevention is laudable but it IS a mental health issue, not a gun related issue.
That is all your opinion and nothing more.That doesn't make guns important, though. They're not. All this "bulwark against tyranny" nonsense shows how desperate gun extremists are in the defense of this right. They try to make guns out to be something they're not, in order to justify their fanaticism. They block the CDC because they believe that the CDC is part of a giant conspiracy to take away their guns. That's absurd. No one would give a thought to guns if 30,000 people a year weren't being killed by them.No, because there are people such as yourself that view them as such. That is how rights vanish.Because they are unimportant?Which is exactly why they ARE threatened AND why people who believe in those rights MUST stand up for them.Not only do I not believe gun rights are threatened, I also don't think they're important. They exist, as toaster oven rights exist, but they're no more important.
They're going to be registering drones. A reasonable safety precaution, it seems to me. Why no outcry? The government has drones. If we're going to be fighting tyranny, don't we need exactly what the government has? Otherwise, what's the big deal? Home defense? What do you need for that? Fully automatic weapons? Claymore mines?
Much ado about nothing.
Repeal the second amendment? What for? I have no more interest in doing that than I have in taking away your toaster oven rights.That is all your opinion and nothing more.That doesn't make guns important, though. They're not. All this "bulwark against tyranny" nonsense shows how desperate gun extremists are in the defense of this right. They try to make guns out to be something they're not, in order to justify their fanaticism. They block the CDC because they believe that the CDC is part of a giant conspiracy to take away their guns. That's absurd. No one would give a thought to guns if 30,000 people a year weren't being killed by them.No, because there are people such as yourself that view them as such. That is how rights vanish.Because they are unimportant?Which is exactly why they ARE threatened AND why people who believe in those rights MUST stand up for them.Not only do I not believe gun rights are threatened, I also don't think they're important. They exist, as toaster oven rights exist, but they're no more important.
They're going to be registering drones. A reasonable safety precaution, it seems to me. Why no outcry? The government has drones. If we're going to be fighting tyranny, don't we need exactly what the government has? Otherwise, what's the big deal? Home defense? What do you need for that? Fully automatic weapons? Claymore mines?
Much ado about nothing.
It does not display their desperation at all either. it does display that they believe the right should be protected. A belief that is supported resoundingly by the constitution. As has been said before, there is a clear avenue for those that believe like you do - write an amendment to the constitution and get it passed. Then there will not be any worry about protecting the second amendment because it would not exist. As it stands right now, the right to bear arms is no more or less important than the right of free speech or the right to vote - all enshrined in the constitution as protected rights.
Just because you may not like or disagree with a particular right does not diminish the right itself. There are plenty of people that don't support other rights such as freedom of religion or the establishment clause and even operate under the same guise of 'protecting' people in calling for its abolishment yet they too are rebuffed as it is not so simple to remove a right that has been granted protections under the constitution. Nor should it be.
No. Gun rights are not an opinion - they are a protected reality enshrined in the constitution. You can call them unimportant but that is irrelevant. The importance of a right is not an issue that the constitution really deals with - just weather they are protected or not.Repeal the second amendment? What for? I have no more interest in doing that than I have in taking away your toaster oven rights.That is all your opinion and nothing more.That doesn't make guns important, though. They're not. All this "bulwark against tyranny" nonsense shows how desperate gun extremists are in the defense of this right. They try to make guns out to be something they're not, in order to justify their fanaticism. They block the CDC because they believe that the CDC is part of a giant conspiracy to take away their guns. That's absurd. No one would give a thought to guns if 30,000 people a year weren't being killed by them.No, because there are people such as yourself that view them as such. That is how rights vanish.Because they are unimportant?Which is exactly why they ARE threatened AND why people who believe in those rights MUST stand up for them.
They're going to be registering drones. A reasonable safety precaution, it seems to me. Why no outcry? The government has drones. If we're going to be fighting tyranny, don't we need exactly what the government has? Otherwise, what's the big deal? Home defense? What do you need for that? Fully automatic weapons? Claymore mines?
Much ado about nothing.
It does not display their desperation at all either. it does display that they believe the right should be protected. A belief that is supported resoundingly by the constitution. As has been said before, there is a clear avenue for those that believe like you do - write an amendment to the constitution and get it passed. Then there will not be any worry about protecting the second amendment because it would not exist. As it stands right now, the right to bear arms is no more or less important than the right of free speech or the right to vote - all enshrined in the constitution as protected rights.
Just because you may not like or disagree with a particular right does not diminish the right itself. There are plenty of people that don't support other rights such as freedom of religion or the establishment clause and even operate under the same guise of 'protecting' people in calling for its abolishment yet they too are rebuffed as it is not so simple to remove a right that has been granted protections under the constitution. Nor should it be.
No, you're 100% wrong. Gun rights are in no way as important as free speech or the right to vote. Guns were important in the late 1700's. It is 2016, and they no longer are important. If you believe that guns have exactly the same place in our society as they did in 1791, please explain why.
BTW, is your opinion not just your opinion?
