Second Amendment rights lead to Second Amendment Remedies

[Sallow]

Our Founding Fathers thought it was important that Americans have the right to bear arms. Since our inception, guns have played an important role of who we are as a country. Guns are part of being an American. Every child grew up playing Cowboys and Indians. With millions of guns out there, there is no turning back. Guns are a part of America.
With our Second Amendment rights come the accessibility of Second Amendment Remedies. Those aspects of our society that some are not happy with can be dealt with by a gun. If you don't like the way someone is using their First Amendment rights to free speech...you have Second Amendment Remedies available to you. If you don't like someones politics....there are always Second Amendment Remedies
This has become part of who we are. Throughout our history, individuals have relied on Second Amendment Remedies to resolve their grievances. Somebody cuts you off in traffic...you have Second Amendment Remedies available to you. Somebody disses your girlfriend? Second Amendment Remedies.
You want to know what we can do about it? Nothing
We have to live with it. It is part of being an American. We have set our path and now must live with the consequences. Some of those consequences of universal gun ownership are good....some are bad. But thats the way it is

That's if you hold the current narrow Supreme Court view..that it's an indivdual right. It's not.

Be that as it may..we have many indivduals that own guns and there ought to be compromise between those that want open carry everywhere and anywhere..and those that don't want indivduals to have guns.

As it stands..the NRA does not feel that way. Hence the consequences. Arizona has open carry. That did nothing to stave off this incident. However, the lax regulatory structure which governs the sale of guns and ammunition..all but assured something like this was going to happen.

And it did.

Specifically, what did Jared Loughner do to merit being denied the purchase of a gun? Marijuana possession? Running a red light?

The insanity defense is being mocked even after he shot the place up. Are we supposed to declare him too insane to get a gun BEFORE he shoots anyone?

Perhaps a competency and licensing protocol should be in order. Especially when purchasing a weapon like a high powered automatic. It's the same sort of thing states use to determine who can own and operate a car or truck.

 

[Sallow]

Guns aren't the problem

They're the symptom of the problem.

Guns will also not be the solution to the problem.

If guns could have solved the problem of intrusive and ineffective government, they'd have done it already.

Guns do not solve the problem of crime, either. In fact they exascerbate it.

Guns serve a few people's need to feel safer in an increasingly unsafe world, and that's about the best that can said for them.

But if you're one of those people living in one of those places where the nutters and criminals seem to outnumber the sane people, that's probably justification enough to own guns.

If I lived in some of the shitholes where civilized life is impossible, I'd arm myself, too.

But don't EVEN try to tell me that you're having guns is going to solve anything in this society other than your own sense of safety.

The problem is not too many guns, but not enough.
I am constantly amazed by the left's failed logic.. In an attempt to illustrate, I'll use failed logic to advocate increased gun ownership. Perhaps those of you who ridicule my scenario will see themselves.
Jared Loughner owned just one gun that he had purchased in November. He killed 6 people and wounded 13.
I own 12 firearms of various types and calibers and I have never killed or wounded anyone.
Obviously, the solution to gun violence is more guns, not less.

This nation is number one in civilian gun ownership. Yemen is second.

Tells you something.

List of countries by gun ownership - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Revere]

Guns aren't the problem

They're the symptom of the problem.

Guns will also not be the solution to the problem.

If guns could have solved the problem of intrusive and ineffective government, they'd have done it already.

Guns do not solve the problem of crime, either. In fact they exascerbate it.

Guns serve a few people's need to feel safer in an increasingly unsafe world, and that's about the best that can said for them.

But if you're one of those people living in one of those places where the nutters and criminals seem to outnumber the sane people, that's probably justification enough to own guns.

If I lived in some of the shitholes where civilized life is impossible, I'd arm myself, too.

But don't EVEN try to tell me that you're having guns is going to solve anything in this society other than your own sense of safety.

The problem is not too many guns, but not enough.
I am constantly amazed by the left's failed logic.. In an attempt to illustrate, I'll use failed logic to advocate increased gun ownership. Perhaps those of you who ridicule my scenario will see themselves.
Jared Loughner owned just one gun that he had purchased in November. He killed 6 people and wounded 13.
I own 12 firearms of various types and calibers and I have never killed or wounded anyone.
Obviously, the solution to gun violence is more guns, not less.

This nation is number one in civilian gun ownership. Yemen is second.

Tells you something.

List of countries by gun ownership - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The wrong people have the guns in Yemen. Or not enough of them.

 

[daveman]

The closest guy who was armed was in a nearby Walgreens at the time.

I mean, really. Who goes to see a Democrat Congresswoman with a concealed weapon, or one openly carried, for protection?

If it were a Republican, there would have been people there packing.

yea cuz only Republicans concealed carry.

They think only republicans have guns.

That is why they dont care about the violent imagery , they think only dems wilkl be effected by the violence that emerges.

There is a dead republican in this.

Oh, you finally admit the judge was a Republican? You were fighting that idea all weekend.

 

[rightwinger]

You're still missing the point.

Killers using guns, now, would go ahead and use those other things if guns weren't available to them, and so blaming guns instead of just flat out----the killers, isn't really a cogent point.

Political Assasinations happen with guns. So do most of the murders in this country. The gun is our weapon of choice....always has been

Still missing the point.

They'd happen regardless.

Without guns in the picture of life, people will still murder.
People will still be assassinated.

But they don't happen regardless. Political Assassination is primarily an American phenomena. In my lifetime I have seen JFK, RFK, MLK, Malcolm X, Moscone and John Lennon killed. I have also seen attempts on Ford, Reagan, Wallace, and now Giffords.
Second Amendment Remedies seem to prevail in the US as a way to take care of your political grievances. Very few countries have a problem the magnitude of the US

 

[Ernie S.]

This is america

It used to be and can be again. The mid-terms were a good start.

 

[Revere]

Political Assasinations happen with guns. So do most of the murders in this country. The gun is our weapon of choice....always has been

Still missing the point.

They'd happen regardless.

Without guns in the picture of life, people will still murder.
People will still be assassinated.

But they don't happen regardless. Political Assassination is primarily an American phenomena. In my lifetime I have seen JFK, RFK, MLK, Malcolm X, Moscone and John Lennon killed. I have also seen attempts on Ford, Reagan, Wallace, and now Giffords.
Second Amendment Remedies seem to prevail in the US as a way to take care of your political grievances. Very few countries have a problem the magnitude of the US

John Lennon was killed for his politics?

Was Selena killed for her politics?

 

[rightwinger]

Guns aren't the problem

They're the symptom of the problem.

Guns will also not be the solution to the problem.

If guns could have solved the problem of intrusive and ineffective government, they'd have done it already.

Guns do not solve the problem of crime, either. In fact they exascerbate it.

Guns serve a few people's need to feel safer in an increasingly unsafe world, and that's about the best that can said for them.

But if you're one of those people living in one of those places where the nutters and criminals seem to outnumber the sane people, that's probably justification enough to own guns.

If I lived in some of the shitholes where civilized life is impossible, I'd arm myself, too.

But don't EVEN try to tell me that you're having guns is going to solve anything in this society other than your own sense of safety.

The problem is not too many guns, but not enough.
I am constantly amazed by the left's failed logic.. In an attempt to illustrate, I'll use failed logic to advocate increased gun ownership. Perhaps those of you who ridicule my scenario will see themselves.
Jared Loughner owned just one gun that he had purchased in November. He killed 6 people and wounded 13.
I own 12 firearms of various types and calibers and I have never killed or wounded anyone.
Obviously, the solution to gun violence is more guns, not less.

Logic? Loughner didn't have enough guns?

 

[Truthmatters]

yea cuz only Republicans concealed carry.

They think only republicans have guns.

That is why they dont care about the violent imagery , they think only dems wilkl be effected by the violence that emerges.

There is a dead republican in this.

Oh, you finally admit the judge was a Republican? You were fighting that idea all weekend.

Umm dude, I am the one who provided the PROOF he was a republican.

People kept claiming he was and I asked them to PROVE the claim. I went and found within seconds Proof and being an honest person I posted it.


The fact remains that none of you can prove this kid set out to kill a republican, It is well known fact that he set out to kill a democrat.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Leftist like the OP, Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot prefer the unarmed

 

[G.T.]

Leftist like the OP, Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot prefer the unarmed

For differing reasons I'm sure you'd concede.

 

[daveman]

They think only republicans have guns.

That is why they dont care about the violent imagery , they think only dems wilkl be effected by the violence that emerges.

There is a dead republican in this.

Oh, you finally admit the judge was a Republican? You were fighting that idea all weekend.

Umm dude, I am the one who provided the PROOF he was a republican.

People kept claiming he was and I asked them to PROVE the claim. I went and found within seconds Proof and being an honest person I posted it.


The fact remains that none of you can prove this kid set out to kill a republican, It is well known fact that he set out to kill a democrat.

Proof was posted long before yours. You refused to accept it.

The fact is, people are dead and you and people like you are dancing on their graves. You're disgusting.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And if more people in the crowd were armed the wack job shooter might not have done the damage he did.

I for one refuse to be anyone's target so I carry.

More Second Amendment remedies

Defending oneself is only a remedy for violence and not the cause of said violence.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Oh please....now honestly, while I support everyone's right to won a gun or guns, do we REALLY want to return our society to the good old days of the wild, wild west, where every disagreement was settled with a gun fight? REALLY?

Since when would taking out a wacko who is shooting innocent children the same as solving every dispute with a gun?

It's these insane leaps of so called liberal logic that make you guys look like fucking morons.

Let me put it another way. I own a handgun for self protection. After purchasing the gun, I immediately went to the firing range to make sure I knew how to use it. I bought a cleaning kit to make sure it stays in perfect working condition and I regularly retrain with this gun to make sure I know what I am doing and can be proficient with it, should the need arise. I know for a fact that many gun owners do not bother with any of these steps. Do you want any idiot running arouund with a gun, who hasn't been trained on how to use it, or trained in aiming it "coming to the rescue" in a large crowd situation? REALLY? You conservatives try to paint things as being so simple, when in fact they not always are. An armed moron could do just as much damage, if not more trying to "help" with a gun as did Loughner.

And you just "know" that most gun owners are morons?

Gee what's it like to be so fucking superior?

 

[Skull Pilot]

And if more people in the crowd were armed the wack job shooter might not have done the damage he did.

I for one refuse to be anyone's target so I carry.

It was in Arizona for hells sake.
There were people there packing and the smartest way to take him down was like he was taken down.

It has been stated already people were packing.

Its been on the news.

No one was able to shoot him for fear of shooting a by stander.

Then you walk up to him and shoot.

♠

 

[Skull Pilot]

Oh please....now honestly, while I support everyone's right to won a gun or guns, do we REALLY want to return our society to the good old days of the wild, wild west, where every disagreement was settled with a gun fight? REALLY?

Since when would taking out a wacko who is shooting innocent children the same as solving every dispute with a gun?

It's these insane leaps of so called liberal logic that make you guys look like fucking morons.

Where exactly does a bullet go? Assuming you're trained to fire your weapon in a stressed environment where chaos is the rule, how sure are you that you won't become the 'wacko' who fired the round which killed a child?

I happen to be a very good shot. And I would like to think I would close the distance between to make sure i was accurate.

 

[Truthmatters]

And bullets can go through people and hit other people

 

[Skull Pilot]

And bullets can go through people and hit other people

Not a hollow point which is the only type of ammo one should be using for self defense.

Maybe you should learn a little more about weapons before you start giving advice about them.

 

[Ringel05]

And bullets can go through people and hit other people

This is true with high powered, heavy caliber sniper rifles firing FMJ. When's the last time you saw someone carrying a sniper rifle in public for personal protection?

 

[Truthmatters]

bullets can travel through one person and hit another.

If you only hit soft tissue and its close range, it grazes a skull it can hit someone else.

You can be an amazing shot but people move.