Gun Control--Why it's so Very Important:

[independent minded]

explain how banning an arm is Constitutional, and then when you can't....

The 2nd Amendment does not guarantee the right of individuals to bear arms. It only applies to people serving in our military, cops and other law-enforcement people, and security personnel.

Wrong.

I disagree with you here!

 

[hadit]

explain how banning an arm is Constitutional, and then when you can't....

The 2nd Amendment does not guarantee the right of individuals to bear arms. It only applies to people serving in our military, cops and other law-enforcement people, and security personnel.

Wrong.

I disagree with you here!

And with the SC.

 

[independent minded]

explain how banning an arm is Constitutional, and then when you can't....

The 2nd Amendment does not guarantee the right of individuals to bear arms. It only applies to people serving in our military, cops and other law-enforcement people, and security personnel.

Wrong.

I disagree with you here!

And with the SC.

I stand by everything I've said.

 

[defcon4]

The military is controlled by the government of a country, because the government of a given nation, including the United States, makes the policies. Inotherwords, the decisions come from the very top, and that's what our government, or any government, in general, is. When citizens serve in the military, they're military personnel. When they're not serving in the military, they're civilians.

Maybe this will help. A country's armed forces are called military. Apparently you think the words of military and militia are interchangeable. Here is what militia means:
"A militia /mᵻˈlɪʃə/[1] generally is an army or other fighting unit that is composed of non-professional fighters, citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government who can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel,"
Militia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The military, also called the armed forces,..[...] All militaries, whether large or small, are military organizations that have official state and world recognition as such. Organizations with similar features are paramilitary, civil defense, militia or other which are not military.
Military - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You're welcome my dear....

 

[hadit]

explain how banning an arm is Constitutional, and then when you can't....

The 2nd Amendment does not guarantee the right of individuals to bear arms. It only applies to people serving in our military, cops and other law-enforcement people, and security personnel.

Wrong.

I disagree with you here!

And with the SC.

I stand by everything I've said.

Feel free to do so, as long as you understand that it is only your opinion and others with far greater understanding of the law and the Constitution say you are quite simply wrong.

 

[independent minded]

The 2nd Amendment does not guarantee the right of individuals to bear arms. It only applies to people serving in our military, cops and other law-enforcement people, and security personnel.

Wrong.

I disagree with you here!

And with the SC.

I stand by everything I've said.

Feel free to do so, as long as you understand that it is only your opinion and others with far greater understanding of the law and the Constitution say you are quite simply wrong.

No! People like you regularly twist the 2nd Amendment of the U S. Constitution towards your beliefs. I refuse to buy into that.

 

[independent minded]

The military is controlled by the government of a country, because the government of a given nation, including the United States, makes the policies. Inotherwords, the decisions come from the very top, and that's what our government, or any government, in general, is. When citizens serve in the military, they're military personnel. When they're not serving in the military, they're civilians.

Maybe this will help. A country's armed forces are called military. Apparently you think the words of military and militia are interchangeable. Here is what militia means:
"A militia /mᵻˈlɪʃə/[1] generally is an army or other fighting unit that is composed of non-professional fighters, citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government who can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel,"
Militia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The military, also called the armed forces,..[...] All militaries, whether large or small, are military organizations that have official state and world recognition as such. Organizations with similar features are paramilitary, civil defense, militia or other which are not military.
Military - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You're welcome my dear....

Oh, why...thank you again, defcon4 Militias are armed underground organizations that're not held accountable according to government's policies. They do whatever they want, and operate underground, and away from the law. That's the big problem with these militias that you're referring to.

 

[PredFan]

These idiot gun grabbers keep popping up like a retard Wack-a-Mole game. How many times do we have to slap down and debunk this same nonsense?

 

[defcon4]

The military is controlled by the government of a country, because the government of a given nation, including the United States, makes the policies. Inotherwords, the decisions come from the very top, and that's what our government, or any government, in general, is. When citizens serve in the military, they're military personnel. When they're not serving in the military, they're civilians.

Maybe this will help. A country's armed forces are called military. Apparently you think the words of military and militia are interchangeable. Here is what militia means:
"A militia /mᵻˈlɪʃə/[1] generally is an army or other fighting unit that is composed of non-professional fighters, citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government who can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel,"
Militia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The military, also called the armed forces,..[...] All militaries, whether large or small, are military organizations that have official state and world recognition as such. Organizations with similar features are paramilitary, civil defense, militia or other which are not military.
Military - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You're welcome my dear....

Oh, why...thank you again, defcon4 Militias are armed underground organizations that're not held accountable according to government's policies. They do whatever they want, and operate underground, and away from the law. That's the big problem with these militias that you're referring to.

Again, you are mistaking some independent groups calling themselves "militia."

 

[hadit]

Wrong.

I disagree with you here!

And with the SC.

I stand by everything I've said.

Feel free to do so, as long as you understand that it is only your opinion and others with far greater understanding of the law and the Constitution say you are quite simply wrong.

No! People like you regularly twist the 2nd Amendment of the U S. Constitution towards your beliefs. I refuse to buy into that.

How is it "twisting" to be consistent with the original intent as it was understood for a very long time? The intent as the SC has stated?

 

[Two Thumbs]

explain how banning an arm is Constitutional, and then when you can't....

The 2nd Amendment does not guarantee the right of individuals to bear arms. It only applies to people serving in our military, cops and other law-enforcement people, and security personnel.

The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.


you're welcome

It's people like you, who deliberately and knowingly misinterpret the 2nd Amendment, who help make firearms far too accessible here in the United States, and make it possible for dangerous people like the Orlando shooter, to mention countless others who've posed special dangers when using guns, to get access to firearms.

for ~ 200 years, no one told the lie you are telling.

why?

b/c it's an ignorant lie, a completely moronic and utterly unfounded lie that got started just a couple of years ago.


you are the kind of person the government wants, you are the perfectly obedient child of the government


four legs good
two legs better

explain how banning an arm is Constitutional, and then when you can't....

The 2nd Amendment does not guarantee the right of individuals to bear arms. It only applies to people serving in our military, cops and other law-enforcement people, and security personnel.

The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.


you're welcome

It's people like you, who deliberately and knowingly misinterpret the 2nd Amendment, who help make firearms far too accessible here in the United States, and make it possible for dangerous people like the Orlando shooter, to mention countless others who've posed special dangers when using guns, to get access to firearms.

for ~ 200 years, no one told the lie you are telling.

why?

b/c it's an ignorant lie, a completely moronic and utterly unfounded lie that got started just a couple of years ago.


you are the kind of person the government wants, you are the perfectly obedient child of the government


four legs good
two legs better

Ha ha ha! Speak for yourself!

the government thanks you for your mindless support

 

[independent minded]

These idiot gun grabbers keep popping up like a retard Wack-a-Mole game. How many times do we have to slap down and debunk this same nonsense?

Frankly, I think you're the retard Wack-a-Mole gamesters, PredFan!

 

[independent minded]

I disagree with you here!

And with the SC.

I stand by everything I've said.

Feel free to do so, as long as you understand that it is only your opinion and others with far greater understanding of the law and the Constitution say you are quite simply wrong.

No! People like you regularly twist the 2nd Amendment of the U S. Constitution towards your beliefs. I refuse to buy into that.

How is it "twisting" to be consistent with the original intent as it was understood for a very long time? The intent as the SC has stated?

'
You're the one who's inconsistent, because you're spewing out all kinds of opinions that masquerade as facts, when they're really not.

 

[hunarcy]

explain how banning an arm is Constitutional, and then when you can't....

The 2nd Amendment does not guarantee the right of individuals to bear arms. It only applies to people serving in our military, cops and other law-enforcement people, and security personnel.

Wrong.

I disagree with you here!

And with the SC.

I stand by everything I've said.

I'm sure you do, but all you plagiarized was someone else's OPINION. Therefore, you cannot be taken seriously.

 

[Wyld Kard]

 

[HUGGY]

The people not the government were expected to form militias if needed

I still disagree with you, Skull Pilot. I'm of the opinion that guns, especially the assault rifles, really have no business in civilian hands, and I stand by that.

Nobody is ever going to force you to purchase an assault rifle. Standing between someone else and theirs might prove to be problematic. Good luck with that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There must be an understanding as to what constitutes ‘gun control,’ where there are measures and policies that can be implemented which have nothing to do with the ‘regulation’ of firearms, but can contribute to a decrease in gun violence.

 

[westwall]

As you probably all know, I have a relatively liberal bend to my thinking, which has been tempered by a good dose of realism since the mid-1970’s, when, due to years of extreme recalcitrance and malfeasance by an all-white Boston School Committee that, in addition to being racist, was steeped in patronage, politics, and no small amount of opportunism, a (relatively) unwanted Federal Court-Mandated large-scale, cross-city school busing program (which came about as a very last ditch effort to get Boston’s public schools desegregated) took Boston by storm, resulting in much turmoil and upheaval, which lasted well into the 1980’s.

Today, however, I’m writing about something else that has long been another one of my concerns and consider extremely important: Gun Control. Banning the snub-nosed handguns would be good, but, unfortunately, it’s not realistically possible, due to the omnipotence of the NRA (National Rifle Association) and the Gun Lobby, both of which are quite well-organized and well-funded. However, the banning of assault rifles like the ones that are picture above would definitely be something to be re-instated. Let’s hope the next Administration in Washington that gets voted into the White House will do that. I honestly don’t see much hope for that, however, if Donald Trump should clinch the Oval Office in November, however. This is not to deprive hunters of their right to own a hunting rifle so they can go out and hunt for dinner, or to deprive people who like to simply collect guns of their right to collect them, or for people who keep certain guns just to go out and shoot at targets. Gun control is necessary for handguns and assault rifles (the latter of which really should be banned)

The United States, as a society and a culture, has depended upon and revolved around firearms since day one….inotherwords, since this country’s founding, and, as the number of mass-shootings, including the most horrific one that we’ve had in a long time, the most recent one down in Orlando, FL, as well as many assassinations, from Allard Lowenstein, to David Halberstam, to JFK and RFK, to Martin Luther King, Jr., and even the attempted assassination on (former/late) President Ronald Reagan, as well as the high rate of murder by guns in many of the United States’ poorest urban areas, where unemployment is often quite rampant, not to mention the high incidence of suicides, homicides (most of which are committed by people who know each other), and arguments between friends, neighbors, relatives, kids on a street corner, drinkers at a local bar or tavern, and, of course, the classic example of a guy who comes home and finds his wife or girlfriend in bed with the mail carrier or the milkman, as well as occasional strangers that, all too often, turn quite deadly when firearms are present, all indicate, the United States’ dependency on firearms has come home to roost, in more ways than one.

All of the above not withstanding, however, guns are just far too accessible here in the United States. Far too many people have access to guns who have alcohol abuse/drug addiction and abuse problems, a history of mental illness, anger-management issues, and emotional instability. All too often, whatever background checks exist and take place are far too arbitrary, and not extensive and intensive enough. All that’s necessary for one to purchase a firearm, whether it be through a regular gun dealer, or at a gun show, is to not have any sort of criminal record. That, imho, is not enough. Intensive and more extensive background checks, as well as a mandatory waiting period, are necessary, if the incidence of gun violence here in the United States is to be significantly reduced, and lives saved.

One reaction to mass shootings that all too often takes place here in the United States is for many people to go out and purchase firearms, and/or arm themselves to the teeth. That is not a healthy way to react to such shootings. When Norway had a similar mass shooting 3 or 4 years ago, rather than go out and arm themselves to the teeth the way so many people here in the United States do, the Norwegian people called on their government to implement stronger, stricter and more affective gun laws, which they ultimately got. Had people here in the United States called on the U. S. Government to implement stronger, more affective gun laws in the wake of all the assassinations that occurred here in this country, many more lives would’ve been saved, and the incidence of gun violence wouldn’t be as high as it is today.

Another problem is the fact that not all gun owners, unfortunately, live up to their responsibility to prevent horrific home incidents from happening. One rather grisly example of such an incident occurred roughly 10 years ago, up in Vermont. A 13-year-old boy, who'd been the constant target of cyber-bullying by classmates, took one classmate’s suggestion that he kill himself, which the distraught boy ultimately did...with his father’s shotgun, which was unlocked, loaded, and readily accessible.

Another grisly incident occurred somewhere in Indiana afew short years ago, when a 4-year-oid kid accidentally shot himself in the head, killing himself. The parents, who kept their gun (which was loaded, and unlocked) on a high shelf in their bedroom closet, had not expected this grisly incident to happen; While the parents were in another room in the house taking care of their 1-year-old child, the 4-year-old climbed up to the high shelf in the parents’ bedroom closet, got hold of the loaded gun, and shot himself in the head with it. In both instances, had the parents acted more responsibly and kept their firearms safely locked up and unloaded, their kids would still be alive right now. Not withstanding incidents where shots are fired in anger during familial disputes, or disputes among friends/acquaintances, or, occasionally, even strangers, and the equally grisly incidents where kids get hold of the family firearms, and play a game, pretending to shoot each other, with “bang, bang!”, not realizing the gun is actually loaded, resulting in serious injury or death, there are many more incidents like the ones that resulted due to the parents’ not being responsible and keeping their firearms locked up in a safe place, and unloaded, to boot. Many years ago, back in the mid-1970’s, another grisly incident occurred, outside of a bar in Boston’s Allston-Brighton section, a neighborhood with a high college student population, as well as many families. Two young men got into an argument over a woman just outside an Allston bar. A passing stranger, unknown to either of the two young men, overhearing the dispute, stopped and said “Okay, I’ll settle this argument, once and for all.”, pulled out two handguns, shot, and killed both of the men who’d been arguing. Families who also have members that are prone to suicidal/homicidal moods should also keep firearms locked up, and unloaded in a safe place, where emotionally unstable people cannot get to them.

Most guns that fall into the hands of criminals are stolen from private homes. Often enough, when burglars break into people’s homes, guns are the very first thing that they look for! Firearms (unloaded) and ammunition must be kept safely locked up. All too often, stolen guns are used in violent crimes, such as armed robberies and assaults, as well.

Having said all of the above, I believe that the NRA propaganda “Guns don’t kill, people do”, is absolutely and totally false. Guns can and do kill people! Many people who are against any kind of gun control resort to non-sequiturs such as “Well look how many people get killed in car accidents each year.” Or, “Plenty of people commit suicide by sleeping pills or other ways than guns.” Or “Look how many people get bludgeoned, strangled, or beaten to death.” Or, why don’t we ban cars, baseball bats, hammers, forks, kitchen knives, etc.?” None of these arguments even begin to hold water!

Cars are designed for transportation, baseball bats are a piece of sports equipment for use in a sport, hammers are designed for use in crafts and construction, for example. Guns, on the other hand, are weapons of war, that are designed to kill other human beings, and, contrary to the NRA’s propaganda, they do kill people. Guns will either instantly kill or permanently cripple the person(s) that they’re being aimed at. It’s all too easy to pick up a gun, in a fit of anger or in the throes of depression, aim it, either at oneself, or at another person and pull the trigger.

Sometimes, depending on the depth, area, and intensity of a beating, bludgeoning, attempted strangulation, or even a stabbing, the chances of the victim serving and fully recovering from such events can be and are somewhat better than the chances of survival and/or recovery from a gunshot wound. Guns do much more horrific and extensive damage to the human body, first because they’re fired from a distance, and also because a bullet, which is generally made of metal, travels at a far greater velocity than a foot, a fist, or even a knife can travel.

When a person wants to beat, stab, bludgeon, kick, punch, or even strangle another person, in a fit of anger, it’s necessary for the attacker to be up quite close, if not on top of their victim. There’s always the chance that maybe the attacker will cool off, think better of it, and not bother to carry through with it. This is not to say that beatings, bludgeonings, stabbings and strangulations or attempted strangulations don’t take place, because they do, but, again, the chances of survival of these latter kinds of violence can be and sometimes are a little better.

Suicides, on the other hand, are a different matter. A person with a gun is more likely to be successful at his/her attempt at suicide, or to be permanently incapacitated. Sleeping pills, for example, although people can and do die from sleeping pill overdoses, don’t always work in suicide attempts, either. One person that I heard about who’d attempted suicide by swallowing a whole bottle of sleeping pills had swallowed all but one of the sleeping pills in the bottle before she threw it all up, therefore saving her own life and recovering. People without guns at hand are also more likely to get over their suicidal depression and choose life over death, and often enough, that, too, occurs. Sadly, many years ago, back in the late 1960’s, a woman in the town where I and my siblings grew up in shot herself to death. Although she’d had a nice husband and three attractive-looking and nice children, she had a ton of problems, which ultimately got the best of her. Had she not had a gun around the house, she probably would’ve gotten over it, she’d still be alive today, and the kids (now all grown up.), would still have a mother to this day.

Since a ban on handguns has been rendered unrealistically possible by the NRA and the Gun Lobby, as well as politicians, from all of our Presidents on down, who have failed to stand up to the bullying tactics of the NRA and the Gun Lobby and to pass more affective, more stringent gun laws, the best that people could request is for:
A) More regulation of the manufacturing of guns here in the United States.

B) Requiring firearms manufacturers to install tamperproof locks on firearms to prevent tampering and/or unauthorized use of a firearm(s), in the event that they’re either lost or stolen.

C) More intensive and extensive background checks, followed by a mandatory waiting period.

D) All too often, when the name of a person who’s known to have a criminal record, a history of alcohol/substance abuse, mental illness, or anger-management issues, appears on a gun dealer’s computer, the gun dealer all too often ignores that and sells it to the person anyway. Had Omar Mateen, the Orlando mass-shooter had a more intensive and extensive background check than he had prior to getting access to firearms, he would not have gotten access to a firearm, and the horrendous Orlando nightclub shooting wouldn’t have happened. Rogue gun dealers, as well as gun dealers who refuse to comply with extensive, intensive background checks and the mandatory waiting period regulation, should be forced out of business entirely.

E) At gun shows, dealers should also do more intensive/extensive background checks for the above-mentioned criteria, and screen prospective buyers, and not permit illegal firearm sales, which are often conducted when a person comes in, buys a gun for a friend/relative, and says that the the friend/relative will buy the gun later.

F) Individual firearm owners would do well to keep their guns (unloaded) and ammunition under lock and key, even inside their homes/apartments, either in a locking cabinet, or in a safe, where burglars, kids, or emotionally unstable people, generally, can’t get to them. Too many disasters have happened due to not locking up guns/ammunition safely.


G) More extensive mental health services would also be helpful, but that’s not nearly the root of the problem. A moratorium on guns is the best that can be hoped for.

H) People should either write or call their state governors/representatives in Congress, City mayors, or town halls to implement stronger, more affective gun laws.

I) Gun owners should also avoid keeping guns in their cars or trucks out in plain sight, either on the dashboard, near the rear window, or even in the front or back seat.

I’ll also add that the notion that handguns are mainly used in self-defense is pure malarkey. In fact, more guns are used in homicides, assaults and armed robberies, as well as suicides. There are also additional dangers in the idea that guns are good for self-defense, and keeping a loaded gun at one’s bedside when they go to bed at night.

First of all, many incidents, where people end up inadvertently shooting and/or killing a family member who has either gone into the kitchen for a snack or a drink of water, is coming home late at night from work, a party, etc, due to having heard footsteps, and thereby mistaking that person for an unwanted intruder, can and do occur. Guns often make people more twitchy in that way.

Secondly, in the event that one tries to shoot somebody who is an unwanted intruder, the gun can be taken away from its owner. Ever heard the expression “No matter how great you are, there’s always somebody who’ll be your master.”? That applies here, perfectly. Inotherwords, there’ll always be somebody who’s even quicker on the draw with their gun(s) then they are.

Another thing that’s worrisome to me is the fact that either open or concealed carrying of firearms is allowed in many places. Fortunately, however, there’s a law against carrying here in the Bay State. If I go to a movie theatre or a restaurant, and I think that someone’s being rude, I often don’t hesitate to speak up on it. If people have guns, however, there’s more of a chance that an aggrieved person might shoot somebody for speaking out against their rudeness, or at least threaten the person who called them out by pointing the firearm at the one who had the temerity to speak up. Also, guns can and do discharge by accident sometimes, as a couple of incidents, one in a Wal*Mart somewhere here in the US, and a similar incident elsewhere, in Texas. One guy carried his gun in his pocket, and it discharged accidentally, injuring him somewhat. Another incident where a gun accidentally went off was in a Wal*Mart someplace, resulted in the bullet hitting an older woman. Fortunately, the woman was alright, but these are both rather scary things to hear about.

Not all violence and crime(s) per se would be stopped through more intensive and extensive background checks and mandatory waiting periods, more regulation of guns and how many are manufactured each year, but the number of crimes of passion, which most homicides are, for example, would be reduced, considerably.

France and Norway have EXACTLY the sorts of laws that you so desire and the TWO mass shootings that have occurred in those two countries have a higher death toll than ALL of the mass shootings in the US over the last 20 years. It appears to this thinking person that your laws don't work, and in fact make it easier for evil people to do bad things. The statistics certainly bear this out.

 

[westwall]

explain how banning an arm is Constitutional, and then when you can't....

The 2nd Amendment does not guarantee the right of individuals to bear arms. It only applies to people serving in our military, cops and other law-enforcement people, and security personnel.

That's a load of horse dung. More to the point, if it were true we would already be disarmed. You are flat wrong as even a cursory study of the English language, historical fact, and the actual writings and letters of those who wrote the Constitution will attest. Furthermore do you have any idea how incredibly stupid it sounds for a government to give itself the Right to "bear arms" when it is the very power that manufactures them in the first place? The very notion is laughable.

 

[Wyld Kard]