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

[2aguy]

The answer really is quite simple.

But first I pose a question. Which would you rather have....

1 America that is free of guns?

Or

2 America that is free of criminals and nutballs?

I mean if we treat criminals and crazies like what they are and keep them away from society do we really need gun control? If you vanish every single gun in America right now all the criminals and crazies that use guns to hurt people are still left behind.

So the answer is simple. Take the people who want to hurt others the criminals, dopeheads thieves, nutballs, thugs and so on and take them out of society so the vast majority of people can live safe and happier lives.

Gun control is just averting a solution and ignoring the real source of the problem.

At one point in history, guns did not exist......anywhere.....at all.

What was the world like?

The strong enslaved, tortured, murdered, raped, and did what ever else they wanted to do to the weak..............

Guns changed that. Instead of training your whole life to use a sword or bow, with little to no training you could down a bigger, stronger, more aggressive or more numerous violent attacker......which allowed the world to be civilized.......and evil people to be stopped......

The anti-gunners have to do this word problem.....

Europe...

In the 1920s, they began the process of registering guns....to make their people safer. That was the lie. by the mid 1930s, the socialists in Germany began the process of banning and confiscating guns, and the same for the countries they defeated......

By 1939, the German socialists began to murder 15 million people....in 6 years.....men, women and over 1 million children.

6 years, 15 million murdered citizens..not war dead, innocent people rounded up and murdered in camps and forests....

15 million in 6 years.

In the United States, gun murder for our entire 246 year history?

Around 2,460,000

Europe.... 15 million in 6 years.

U.S..... 2,460,000 in 246 years.

Now the math part...get out your pencil....

How many hundreds of years will it take the U.S. to catch up with the number of Europeans murdered by their governments.....

Show your work.

=======..

Also.....

Anti-gunners have to explain....

1) How this will never happen again, considering it has happened all throughout history

2) How they will prevent this from happening if only the government has access to guns

3)Why they think this could never happen again....

 

[ActionJackson]

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.

Here's what makes sense to patriotic Americans: The Second Amendment and the "shall not be infringed" part.

 

[Vrenn]

Here's what makes sense to patriotic Americans: The Second Amendment and the "shall not be infringed" part.

You still are having trouble justifying the murder of our children who have a right to life under the 1st amendment. Your right only extends until it infringes on someone else's rights.

 

[ActionJackson]

You still are having trouble justifying the murder of our children who have a right to life under the 1st amendment. Your right only extends until it infringes on someone else's rights.

You folks murder them daily in abortion clinics, so stop pretending to be concerned for "the kids."

 

[Vrenn]

You folks murder them daily in abortion clinics, so stop pretending to be concerned for "the kids."

You move from one lie to cover another lie. When have I EVER voiced my opinion on Abortion. You cover your support of murderers by attempting to claim the other person does the same. Stck to the subject. Again, what gives you the right to consent to the murder of children?

 

[ActionJackson]

You move from one lie to cover another lie. When have I EVER voiced my opinion on Abortion. You cover your support of murderers by attempting to claim the other person does the same. Stck to the subject. Again, what gives you the right to consent to the murder of children?

Lefties are like the Borg. Group think is a curse that the vast majority of the lefties live by. If a lefty is opposed to guns, then they're for abortion 99.999% of the time.

I've owned a gun (at least one) since I was 12. I'm 63 now and not once did my guns kill anyone.

 

[Vrenn]

Lefties are like the Borg. Group think is a curse that the vast majority of the lefties live by. If a lefty is opposed to guns, then they're for abortion 99.999% of the time.

I've owned a gun (at least one) since I was 12. I'm 63 now and not once did my guns kill anyone.

There you go again. Making up another lie to cover another lie. I support common sense gun laws. And I also support putting the ARs into a special class since that is the one weapon that is used for the real mass murder of children. While you are busy using lie after lie to cover other lies, you want to compare how qualified you are in making a decision and forcing it onto another with me. Okay, let's play.

I am retired Military with over 20 years. I've owned guns all my life. I have USED the Military version of the AR-15. I am a combat Vet with all three of the Vietnam Medals and Ribbons of that time. I KNOW how deadly an AR is and the reasons why. And I also know a Cult when I see it and the Cult45 is real. And fringe members of YOUR cult have a strange game going on to see how high the body count can be. And the winners of the highest body count rely on the Cult45 AR weapon to get it. You aren't qualified to make any decisions nor impress those decisions on other like you do, you piker.

 

[ActionJackson]

There you go again. Making up another lie to cover another lie. I support common sense gun laws. And I also support putting the ARs into a special class since that is the one weapon that is used for the real mass murder of children. While you are busy using lie after lie to cover other lies, you want to compare how qualified you are in making a decision and forcing it onto another with me. Okay, let's play.

I am retired Military with over 20 years. I've owned guns all my life. I have USED the Military version of the AR-15. I am a combat Vet with all three of the Vietnam Medals and Ribbons of that time. I KNOW how deadly an AR is and the reasons why. And I also know a Cult when I see it and the Cult45 is real. And fringe members of YOUR cult have a strange game going on to see how high the body count can be. And the winners of the highest body count rely on the Cult45 AR weapon to get it. You aren't qualified to make any decisions nor impress those decisions on other like you do, you piker.

If you fought for our Constitutional rights, then you fought to uphold the 2A -- unhindered! The AR-15 is a rifle. Nothing more and nothing less. It needs no "special category" or anything else.

The problem isn't nor ever has been the gun. It is an always has been the shooter. That's where the focus should be.

 

[Vrenn]

If you fought for our Constitutional rights, then you fought to uphold the 2A -- unhindered! The AR-15 is a rifle. Nothing more and nothing less. It needs no "special category" or anything else.

The problem isn't nor ever has been the gun. It is an always has been the shooter. That's where the focus should be.

I fought for all the rights including the 1st amendment. And to use another amendment to destroy the 1st amendment is traitorous.

 

[ActionJackson]

I fought for all the rights including the 1st amendment. And to use another amendment to destroy the 1st amendment is traitorous.

Agreed. So the 2A should remain to help protect the 1A.

 

[Vrenn]

Agreed. So the 2A should remain to help protect the 1A.

I support the 2A but find that one can interpret it more than one way. And if that's the case, it needs to be amended. And when 2A threatens 1A then that interpretation needs to be clarified and repaired through another Amendment to the Constitution.

 

[M14 Shooter]

support common sense gun laws.

[/QUOTE]
There's no sense at all in laws that violate the constitution.

And I also support putting the ARs into a special class since that is the one weapon that is used for the real mass murder of children.

"All bearable arms. No."
- US Constitution.

So much for that.

 

[ActionJackson]

I support the 2A but find that one can interpret it more than one way. And if that's the case, it needs to be amended. And when 2A threatens 1A then that interpretation needs to be clarified and repaired through another Amendment to the Constitution.

And the next guy thinks it should be amended HIS way, and the next guy has a different opinion, and so on and so forth. The moment the door is opened to "amend" a person's God-given right to self-defense, then you may as well open a floodgate.

 

[Blues Man]

I support the 2A but find that one can interpret it more than one way. And if that's the case, it needs to be amended. And when 2A threatens 1A then that interpretation needs to be clarified and repaired through another Amendment to the Constitution.

Then you don't understand the Amendments.

The 2nd Amendment cannot threaten the First in any way shape or form.

The first amendment prevents the government and only the government from restricting freedom of speech , religion and assembly.

A civilian cannot violate your first amendment rights by exercising his 2nd amendment rights

 

[M14 Shooter]

Then you don't understand the Amendments.

This is deliberate.

 

[Abatis]

I support the 2A but find that one can interpret it more than one way.

The problem with that is the right to arms is not granted, given, created or established by the 2ndA thus the right does not in any manner depend on the Constitution (including the words of the 2nd Amendment) for its existence.

The RKBA was possessed by the people and exercised for a myriad of purposes before the Constitution was established and the Bill of Rights was added . . . It is a retained right, with no aspect of the right or its exercise ever conferred by the people, to the care or control of the federal government.

And if that's the case, it needs to be amended. And when 2A threatens 1A then that interpretation needs to be clarified and repaired through another Amendment to the Constitution.

I'm confused that you employ some "interpreting" of the words without any explanation of where that interpreting leads you . . . It is encouraging however that it seems you reject what so many anti-gunners do, use their "interpreting" of the 2ndA's words to create legal and logical incongruities, inventing conditions, qualifications or restrictions on the RKBA from words that the right in no manner depends upon.

You seem to recognize that no matter how the words of the 2ndA are twisted, the gun control agenda cannot be realized without removing the 2ndA and granting government new powers to restrict arms possession and use by citizens . . . Because of course, no such power has ever existed, and that condition is the actual "right", the exception of powers not granted.

 

[Vrenn]

And the next guy thinks it should be amended HIS way, and the next guy has a different opinion, and so on and so forth. The moment the door is opened to "amend" a person's God-given right to self-defense, then you may as well open a floodgate.

God given right? How about Constitutional Rights. Once again, you are trying to destroy the 1st amendment to justify your own beliefs. There are some scholars out there that are comparing political groups to religious groups. It pretty well amounts to the same thing anymore. There is quite a few reasons for the Religious part of the 1st amendment. And when we start breying about God Given Rights when dealing with the Constitution, you have introduced the control of any religion.

 

[2aguy]

God given right? How about Constitutional Rights. Once again, you are trying to destroy the 1st amendment to justify your own beliefs. There are some scholars out there that are comparing political groups to religious groups. It pretty well amounts to the same thing anymore. There is quite a few reasons for the Religious part of the 1st amendment. And when we start breying about God Given Rights when dealing with the Constitution, you have introduced the control of any religion.

No....the Founders did that when they created the Declaration of Independence......

 

[ActionJackson]

God given right? How about Constitutional Rights. Once again, you are trying to destroy the 1st amendment to justify your own beliefs. There are some scholars out there that are comparing political groups to religious groups. It pretty well amounts to the same thing anymore. There is quite a few reasons for the Religious part of the 1st amendment. And when we start breying about God Given Rights when dealing with the Constitution, you have introduced the control of any religion.

The Constitution is a document designed by men that simply guaranteed a man's God-given, natural rights. Like it or not, the vast majority of the Founders were Christians of varying denominations. Though they had doctrinal disagreements, they all ended up agreeing on some fundamental issues. One of which was a man's right to defend himself and his property.

If my potential enemy had a catapult that could sling a 100lb stone, then it is my right to have a weapon of equal or greater ability as a means to fend off my potential enemy. If my enemy carries an AR-15, then it's within my right to have the same or better. If my potential enemy knows that I'm as well armed as he is, then he's less apt to exercise aggression towards me.

Free men don't require other men to dictate their personal version(s) of morality. Too much of that sort of thing leads to a Stalinist Russia or a Mao Tse Tung China or a Trudeau Canada. We Americans would like to avoid that.

 

[Blues Man]

You still are having trouble justifying the murder of our children who have a right to life under the 1st amendment. Your right only extends until it infringes on someone else's rights.

And you can't seem to understand that if a person murders another person that only the murderer is responsible for that crime.