The Gun Control Debate will continue until we find solutions that make sense for people on both sides of the issue.

[miketx]

And yet, many of these same gun owners are responsible for moving firearms around in private sales that easily allow them to end up in the hands of criminals.,

Too bad you can't prove anything, liar.

 

[Flash]

 

[Dagosa]

Too bad you can't prove anything, liar.

Don’t have to foolish. You know you’re a mover of firearms. Everyone of you gun a holics think its your right to shuffle firearms into the hands of any breathing* humanoid. You imbeciles keep preaching that any regulation is a violation of your fictitious version the 2@. So, it’s apparent you want your manhood measured by your insane luv of firearms.

 

[Ace Nova]

/——-/ “Shall not be infringed.” - Our Founding Fathers’ 2 cents.

Let me preface this by saying that I'm in the "middle" when it comes to gun control. A lot of my family has owned hunting rifles, shotguns, etc for as long as I can remember. I've owned firearms as well.

That said, one of the first quotes I hear when the debate arises is the famous, "Shall not be infringed."

The very first words of the United States Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

What happens if the "right to bear arms" infringes on the VERY FIRST RIGHTS of the US Constitution?

"A More Perfect Union" - does dividing the country in two over this debate "infringe" on the "right" to a "More Perfect Union"?

"Establish Justice" - Does "establishing justice" apply to all citizens? If so, how can the "right to bear arms" (especially unregulated) take precedence over "establishing justice"?

"Promote the General Welfare" - does allowing someone the right to bear arms (without regulation) "promote the general welfare"?

"To Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our prosperity" - could the unregulated "right to bear arms" infringe on "securing the blessings of liberty and prosperity." to a good portion of the citizens of the United States?

How can you state that ONE right cannot be infringed upon IF that right could potentially infringe on dozens of other "rights" written in the same exact constitution by the same exact Founding Fathers you quote?


Honest questions.

 

[miketx]

Let me preface this by saying that I'm in the "middle" when it comes to gun control. A lot of my family has owned hunting rifles, shotguns, etc for as long as I can remember. I've owned firearms as well.

That said, one of the first quotes I hear when the debate arises is the famous, "Shall not be infringed."

The very first words of the United States Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

What happens if the "right to bear arms" infringes on the VERY FIRST RIGHTS of the US Constitution?

"A More Perfect Union" - does dividing the country in two over this debate "infringe" on the "right" to a "More Perfect Union"?

"Establish Justice" - Does "establishing justice" apply to all citizens? If so, how can the "right to bear arms" (especially unregulated) take precedence over "establishing justice"?

"Promote the General Welfare" - does allowing someone the right to bear arms (without regulation) "promote the general welfare"?

"To Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our prosperity" - could the unregulated "right to bear arms" infringe on "securing the blessings of liberty and prosperity." to a good portion of the citizens of the United States?

How can you state that ONE right cannot be infringed upon IF that right could potentially infringe on dozens of other "rights" written in the same exact constitution by the same exact Founding Fathers you quote?


Honest questions.

Fool, the 2A has nothing to do with hunting.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ace Nova

The very first words of the United States Constitution:
What happens if the "right to bear arms" infringes on the VERY FIRST RIGHTS of the US Constitution?

It doesn't - and it cannot.
The exercise of the right to keep and bear arms causes no wrongful harm to anyone.
And even if it did, the 2nd amendment -amends- the constitution.

"A More Perfect Union" - does dividing the country in two over this debate "infringe" on the "right" to a "More Perfect Union"?

Nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.
1st, maybe.

"Establish Justice" - Does "establishing justice" apply to all citizens? If so, how can the "right to bear arms" (especially unregulated) take precedence over "establishing justice"?

This makes no send, and demonstrates a misunderstadning of the term.

"Promote the General Welfare" - does allowing someone the right to bear arms (without regulation) "promote the general welfare"?

It doesn't - and it cannot.
The exercise of the right to keep and bear arms causes no wrongful harm to anyone.
And even if it did, the 2nd amendment -amends- the constitution.

"To Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our prosperity" - could the unregulated "right to bear arms" infringe on "securing the blessings of liberty and prosperity." to a good portion of the citizens of the United States?

It doesn't - and it cannot.
The exercise of the right to keep and bear arms causes no wrongful harm to anyone.
And even if it did, the 2nd amendment -amends- the constitution.

How can you state that ONE right cannot be infringed upon IF that right could potentially infringe on dozens of other "rights" written in the same exact constitution by the same exact Founding Fathers you quote?

It doesn't - and it cannot.
The exercise of the right to keep and bear arms causes no wrongful harm to anyone.
And even if it did, the 2nd amendment -amends- the constitution.

Honest questions.

Honest, accurate and truthful answers..

 

[miketx]

Let me preface this by saying that I'm in the "middle" when it comes to gun control. A lot of my family has owned hunting rifles, shotguns, etc for as long as I can remember. I've owned firearms as well.

That said, one of the first quotes I hear when the debate arises is the famous, "Shall not be infringed."

The very first words of the United States Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

What happens if the "right to bear arms" infringes on the VERY FIRST RIGHTS of the US Constitution?

"A More Perfect Union" - does dividing the country in two over this debate "infringe" on the "right" to a "More Perfect Union"?

"Establish Justice" - Does "establishing justice" apply to all citizens? If so, how can the "right to bear arms" (especially unregulated) take precedence over "establishing justice"?

"Promote the General Welfare" - does allowing someone the right to bear arms (without regulation) "promote the general welfare"?

"To Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our prosperity" - could the unregulated "right to bear arms" infringe on "securing the blessings of liberty and prosperity." to a good portion of the citizens of the United States?

How can you state that ONE right cannot be infringed upon IF that right could potentially infringe on dozens of other "rights" written in the same exact constitution by the same exact Founding Fathers you quote?


Honest questions.

You're a fool or a liar. The 2a has nothing to do with hunting.

 

[Dagosa]

You're a fool or a liar. The 2a has nothing to do with hunting.

Exactly. Because, it has nothing to do with the personal use of a firearm. It’s a peoples right as members of a well regulated peoples militia. Glad you finally got it.

 

[Vrenn]

Exactly. Because, it has nothing to do with the personal use of a firearm. It’s a peoples right as members of a well regulated peoples militia. Glad you finally got it.

Incorrect. When you are representing your state, you will be issued the equipment to do the job. AKA State Defense Force (SDF) that every state is authorized by their own constitution and even the Feds agree with their laws. Running around brandishing your weapon and you are NOT with the SDF then you are just a fruitcake with a gun.

 

[Dagosa]

Incorrect. When you are representing your state, you will be issued the equipment to do the job. AKA State Defense Force (SDF) that every state is authorized by their own constitution and even the Feds agree with their laws. Running around brandishing your weapon and you are NOT with the SDF then you are just a fruitcake with a gun.

Nah, as a participant in the real armed forces I dis organized jokers are just a bunch of frauds. Since the beginning of the last century these jokers have yet to contribute to any national defense. All the fear mongering has just managed to make blood run red on the streets of our nation. There is no reason for any position other then for the support of US gun makers who are literally making money by making firearm deaths the leading cause of death of the youths of America.
The well regulated militia are the guard and reserve units.

 

[Dagosa]

Incorrect. When you are representing your state, you will be issued the equipment to do the job. AKA State Defense Force (SDF) that every state is authorized by their own constitution and even the Feds agree with their laws. Running around brandishing your weapon and you are NOT with the SDF then you are just a fruitcake with a gun.

According to every reliable source,
In the United States, the state defense forces are military units that operate under the sole authority of a state government.
They are military units of the reserves and guard units…..not any disorganized made up militia, military wannabes.

 

[Ace Nova]

You're a fool or a liar. The 2a has nothing to do with hunting.

Did I say it did?

 

[2aguy]

Let me preface this by saying that I'm in the "middle" when it comes to gun control. A lot of my family has owned hunting rifles, shotguns, etc for as long as I can remember. I've owned firearms as well.

That said, one of the first quotes I hear when the debate arises is the famous, "Shall not be infringed."

The very first words of the United States Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

What happens if the "right to bear arms" infringes on the VERY FIRST RIGHTS of the US Constitution?

"A More Perfect Union" - does dividing the country in two over this debate "infringe" on the "right" to a "More Perfect Union"?

"Establish Justice" - Does "establishing justice" apply to all citizens? If so, how can the "right to bear arms" (especially unregulated) take precedence over "establishing justice"?

"Promote the General Welfare" - does allowing someone the right to bear arms (without regulation) "promote the general welfare"?

"To Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our prosperity" - could the unregulated "right to bear arms" infringe on "securing the blessings of liberty and prosperity." to a good portion of the citizens of the United States?

How can you state that ONE right cannot be infringed upon IF that right could potentially infringe on dozens of other "rights" written in the same exact constitution by the same exact Founding Fathers you quote?


Honest questions.

Easy.....

It doesn't.

Much like Freedom of Speech doesn't infringe on the other Rights....

 

[miketx]

Did I say it did?

Classic leftist spittle.

 

[Vrenn]

According to every reliable source,
In the United States, the state defense forces are military units that operate under the sole authority of a state government.
They are military units of the reserves and guard units…..not any disorganized made up militia, military wannabes.

If the reader knew anything about the subject, he would recognize that the SDF was formed the same time as the National Guard in 1916/17 in the National Guard Act. The ARE the Organized Militia.

 

[Dadoalex]

Gun control is a legal, philosophical and moral issue.

About half the country wants to live in a society where citizens have the right to buy and carry firearms. Given our country's history, many of them raise valid points. Our country was founded because of a revolution against England and would not have won that war had the citizens not had firearms. Most people back then lived in rural areas where having firearms was essential for both protection and hunting. (Which still holds true in many areas throughout the country, especially in smaller communities and very rural areas where it could take the police a very long time to respond)

Our country also has had somewhat of a violent past, if you think of the Wild West, the Civil War, and numerous other wars internationally. So "Gun Culture" is somewhat embedded in a large part of American Society.

The other half of the country wants to live in a society where most (if not all) firearms are used primarily for hunting purposes but rarely for self defense reasons. They've witnessed the alarming amount of gun violence that's plagued many of the cities throughout the country for decades now. They've also witnessed the increased amount of mass shootings and school shootings over the past few decades. They're also tired of fearing for their lives over road rage incidents, bar fights, sporting event fights, etc etc.

The debate over gun control will likely continue until people on both sides of the issue have a reason to "change" their opinion on the matter.

A good start (in my humble opinion) would be figuring out a way to drastically reduce inner city gun violence. How do you do it? Well, let's take a look at why there's so much violence in some of our cities. It's common knowledge that a large part of the violence is related to various networks of illegal drug trade, human trafficking and various other criminal enterprises.

Our current "War on Drugs" has been going on for 50+ years, yet the violence in most cities hasn't decreased. Is it time for a different approach? Decriminalization of possessing a small amount of drugs could be a start. Decriminalization is NOT legalization. It would simply treat drug possession cases as a civil infraction instead of a criminal infraction. It would also do wonders for our Criminal Justice System, incarceration rates, facilities, etc. It would likely save billions of dollars, which then could be used for rehabilitation programs, etc. Rehabilitating people involved with drugs, instead of sending them to prison, where many come out even more violent than when they went in.

Think of it like this: If you're a drug dealer or drug user, you won't go to jail for the drugs you possess but you will likely face heavy jail time for possessing a gun. The smart ones will likely figure it out pretty quickly and not carry guns. If you're a police officer, how much better would it feel knowing that the drug dealer you just pulled over probably won't shoot you, since he knows he won't go to jail for drugs. Decriminalization won't necessarily end the higher level trafficking but it certainly could help with the street-level drug trade. And could likely drastically reduce street-level gun violence.

The first thing that comes into the minds of gun advocates nowadays when a progressive talks about gun regulation, etc is, "They want to regulate our guns when most of the gun violence is in the cities and they can't even get that under control, despite heavy regulation in many cities". And they have a valid point. BUT if pro-gun culture folks see that inner city gun crime has finally been reduced, would they be more willing to listen to the other side of the argument? I would think so.

There are many other ways to help resolve the gun control issue within the US, including better education, better mental health programs and various other programs that can gradually change our "gun culture".

Mandatory background checks, including gun shows and private trade should be standard. I would also look into mental health screenings, classes, tests, etc If we need to take a class and a test to drive a car, we should require something similar to possess a firearm. I (and I'm assuming most people) would want the peace of mind knowing that if someone legally owns a gun, they are: A. Mentally stable. and: B. They know how to safely use it.

My 2 cents.

The gun lovers are incapable of reason.
So
When the time comes
We will do it for them.

 

[Dagosa]

If the reader knew anything about the subject, he would recognize that the SDF was formed the same time as the National Guard in 1916/17 in the National Guard Act. The ARE the Organized Militia.

You’re reading my mail

 

[Vrenn]

You’re reading my mail

Are you claiming that I can read? I am an old time GOPer and somewhere along the journey I forgot how to read.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘The first thing that comes into the minds of gun advocates nowadays when a progressive talks about gun regulation, etc is, "They want to regulate our guns when most of the gun violence is in the cities and they can't even get that under control, despite heavy regulation in many cities". And they have a valid point.’

Actually not:

“Gun death rates are consistently higher in rural areas than in big cities, two decades of data show. From 2011 to 2020, the most rural counties in the U.S. had a 37% higher rate of gun deaths per capita than the most urban counties, according to research published Wednesday in the journal JAMA Surgery.”

Map of gun deaths shows cities have lower rates than rural counties in the U.S.

The most rural counties had a 37% higher rate of firearm deaths than the most urban counties from 2011 to 2020, an analysis found.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[frigidweirdo]

Gun control is a legal, philosophical and moral issue.

About half the country wants to live in a society where citizens have the right to buy and carry firearms. Given our country's history, many of them raise valid points. Our country was founded because of a revolution against England and would not have won that war had the citizens not had firearms. Most people back then lived in rural areas where having firearms was essential for both protection and hunting. (Which still holds true in many areas throughout the country, especially in smaller communities and very rural areas where it could take the police a very long time to respond)

Our country also has had somewhat of a violent past, if you think of the Wild West, the Civil War, and numerous other wars internationally. So "Gun Culture" is somewhat embedded in a large part of American Society.

The other half of the country wants to live in a society where most (if not all) firearms are used primarily for hunting purposes but rarely for self defense reasons. They've witnessed the alarming amount of gun violence that's plagued many of the cities throughout the country for decades now. They've also witnessed the increased amount of mass shootings and school shootings over the past few decades. They're also tired of fearing for their lives over road rage incidents, bar fights, sporting event fights, etc etc.

The debate over gun control will likely continue until people on both sides of the issue have a reason to "change" their opinion on the matter.

A good start (in my humble opinion) would be figuring out a way to drastically reduce inner city gun violence. How do you do it? Well, let's take a look at why there's so much violence in some of our cities. It's common knowledge that a large part of the violence is related to various networks of illegal drug trade, human trafficking and various other criminal enterprises.

Our current "War on Drugs" has been going on for 50+ years, yet the violence in most cities hasn't decreased. Is it time for a different approach? Decriminalization of possessing a small amount of drugs could be a start. Decriminalization is NOT legalization. It would simply treat drug possession cases as a civil infraction instead of a criminal infraction. It would also do wonders for our Criminal Justice System, incarceration rates, facilities, etc. It would likely save billions of dollars, which then could be used for rehabilitation programs, etc. Rehabilitating people involved with drugs, instead of sending them to prison, where many come out even more violent than when they went in.

Think of it like this: If you're a drug dealer or drug user, you won't go to jail for the drugs you possess but you will likely face heavy jail time for possessing a gun. The smart ones will likely figure it out pretty quickly and not carry guns. If you're a police officer, how much better would it feel knowing that the drug dealer you just pulled over probably won't shoot you, since he knows he won't go to jail for drugs. Decriminalization won't necessarily end the higher level trafficking but it certainly could help with the street-level drug trade. And could likely drastically reduce street-level gun violence.

The first thing that comes into the minds of gun advocates nowadays when a progressive talks about gun regulation, etc is, "They want to regulate our guns when most of the gun violence is in the cities and they can't even get that under control, despite heavy regulation in many cities". And they have a valid point. BUT if pro-gun culture folks see that inner city gun crime has finally been reduced, would they be more willing to listen to the other side of the argument? I would think so.

There are many other ways to help resolve the gun control issue within the US, including better education, better mental health programs and various other programs that can gradually change our "gun culture".

Mandatory background checks, including gun shows and private trade should be standard. I would also look into mental health screenings, classes, tests, etc If we need to take a class and a test to drive a car, we should require something similar to possess a firearm. I (and I'm assuming most people) would want the peace of mind knowing that if someone legally owns a gun, they are: A. Mentally stable. and: B. They know how to safely use it.

My 2 cents.

There is no middle ground, it's either loads of guns or not.