What is the solution? Or at least what action should be taken?

[progressive hunter]

those are all part of the arms it refers to

Show us where it says that?

the burden is yours,,,

You are the one that made the claim. Not sure if you are aware but if you make the claim its your burden to prove.

the claim is yours,,,

Nope. Youre the one that claimed ammo and mags were part of the second amendment.

I said the 2nd is about arms and those are part of them,,,so to restrict them is an infringement,,,

 

[EvilCat Breath]

A guy in Paris, France gets pissed…he gets over it eventually since a mini arsenal isn’t available to him.
A guy in Paris, Texas gets pissed….he gets a gun and kills people since a mini arsenal is available.

2016 Nice truck attack - Wikipedia

Again…
A guy in Paris, France gets pissed…he gets over it eventually since a mini arsenal isn’t available to him.
A guy in Paris, Texas gets pissed….he gets a gun and kills people since a mini arsenal is available.
And please shelve the argument that they are somehow different….
They watch the same movies
They read the same books
They have the same internet
They have the same socioeconomic pressures
What they don’t have is a 2nd Amendment that allows the arsenal to be purchased.
It’s that simple.

Do you understand that Texas and France contain completely different cultures? People in one of those places do not even speak, read, or write the same primary language as those in the other.

No, they do not watch the same movies, or read the same books, and they do not have the same socioeconomic pressures. They are completely different societies, with completely different cultures.

What happened in the Bataclan night club attack? The Charlie Hebdo attack.

Democrats want to make sure that only invaders can be armed.

That you can itemize the mass killings in France is a very stark endorsement that they are handling the issue of gun violence correctly and we are not.

France, like the UK has a different form of acceptable immigrant killings. They would not itemize machete attacks.

Assailant Shouting ‘Allahu akbar’ Attacks Soldiers With Machete in Paris

 

[progressive hunter]

I would say those with nukes shouldnt have them,,,and going to the most extreme is a dumbass move

Limiting the possession of certain types of guns is not extreme. Pretending it is would be a dumbass move.

yes it is,,,

I'm glad you agree that its a dumbass move to pretend limiting possession of certain types of guns is extreme.

when did I agree with you??

When you said "yes it is"

try reading it again,,,

 

[Asclepias]

Show us where it says that?

the burden is yours,,,

You are the one that made the claim. Not sure if you are aware but if you make the claim its your burden to prove.

the claim is yours,,,

Nope. Youre the one that claimed ammo and mags were part of the second amendment.

I said the 2nd is about arms and those are part of them,,,so to restrict them is an infringement,,,

And I said prove that ammo and mags are part of them. You made the claim so lets see you prove it.

 

[progressive hunter]

the burden is yours,,,

You are the one that made the claim. Not sure if you are aware but if you make the claim its your burden to prove.

the claim is yours,,,

Nope. Youre the one that claimed ammo and mags were part of the second amendment.

I said the 2nd is about arms and those are part of them,,,so to restrict them is an infringement,,,

And I said prove that ammo and mags are part of them. You made the claim so lets see you prove it.

already did,,, you prove they are not,,,

 

[Asclepias]

Limiting the possession of certain types of guns is not extreme. Pretending it is would be a dumbass move.

yes it is,,,

I'm glad you agree that its a dumbass move to pretend limiting possession of certain types of guns is extreme.

when did I agree with you??

When you said "yes it is"

try reading it again,,,

It still says "yes it is" Let me know when you change it to "no it isnt".

 

[Asclepias]

You are the one that made the claim. Not sure if you are aware but if you make the claim its your burden to prove.

the claim is yours,,,

Nope. Youre the one that claimed ammo and mags were part of the second amendment.

I said the 2nd is about arms and those are part of them,,,so to restrict them is an infringement,,,

And I said prove that ammo and mags are part of them. You made the claim so lets see you prove it.

already did,,, you prove they are not,,,

You didnt prove anything. You just made the claim. Thats not proof.

 

[August West]

The Supreme Court`s Heller decision stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership will continue to be regulated. So yes, we can regulate the hell out of them legally.
District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

 

[progressive hunter]

yes it is,,,

I'm glad you agree that its a dumbass move to pretend limiting possession of certain types of guns is extreme.

when did I agree with you??

When you said "yes it is"

try reading it again,,,

It still says "yes it is" Let me know when you change it to "no it isnt".

you said it wasnt extreme and I said it was

 

[progressive hunter]

The Supreme Court`s Heller decision stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership will continue to be regulated. So yes, we can regulate the hell out of them legally.
District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

they once said slavery was legal,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

the claim is yours,,,

Nope. Youre the one that claimed ammo and mags were part of the second amendment.

I said the 2nd is about arms and those are part of them,,,so to restrict them is an infringement,,,

And I said prove that ammo and mags are part of them. You made the claim so lets see you prove it.

already did,,, you prove they are not,,,

You didnt prove anything. You just made the claim. Thats not proof.

then prove they arent

 

[Asclepias]

I'm glad you agree that its a dumbass move to pretend limiting possession of certain types of guns is extreme.

when did I agree with you??

When you said "yes it is"

try reading it again,,,

It still says "yes it is" Let me know when you change it to "no it isnt".

you said it wasnt extreme and I said it was

I said..."Pretending it is would be a dumbass move."

You said. "Yes it is"

 

[Asclepias]

Nope. Youre the one that claimed ammo and mags were part of the second amendment.

I said the 2nd is about arms and those are part of them,,,so to restrict them is an infringement,,,

And I said prove that ammo and mags are part of them. You made the claim so lets see you prove it.

already did,,, you prove they are not,,,

You didnt prove anything. You just made the claim. Thats not proof.

then prove they arent

I will when you prove they are. Lets see your mental capacity and ability to prove your argument.

 

[Asclepias]

The Supreme Court`s Heller decision stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership will continue to be regulated. So yes, we can regulate the hell out of them legally.
District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

they once said slavery was legal,,,

Thats because it was. Whats your point?

 

[Taz]

Arm everyone, even children.

---------------------------------- arm everyone that WANTS to be armed at their expense same as it is today and Maybe tomorrow [maybe] . And OK that so called children 18 or older are armed though i got my first rifle and shotgun at 10 or 11 Taz .

No, ALL children should be armed as per the 2nd, no infringement whatsoever.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment is express not implied.

This is the common law for the common defense:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[Brain357]

I am not looking for "We needs armed good guys!" or "Ban all privately owned guns!".

I am looking for actual, workable things that can be done to prevent the kinds of tragedies we have seen in the last week.

For conservatives, the time for Thoughts & Prayers is over. If you won't come up with solutions, someone else will. If the population is afraid, they will surrender their freedoms for a sense of safety. You have to do something.

For liberals, the knee-jerk reaction of banning guns is not a viable answer. **** party lines. This is about a balance of safety and individual freedom (especially the freedom to defend ourselves).


So what are the answer(s)?

We absolutely need more gun laws. Notice that countries with strong gun control don't have this problem. The question is how far do we need to go? We need to start with universal background checks and limits on magazine capacity and any rifles that can hold high capacity magazines. We need to take away easy access to guns for mass killing. Red flag laws are another good step. A derringer is a good defensive weapon, but not so good for mass killing. People can have defensive weapons that aren't mass killers.

 

[Asclepias]

Our Second Amendment is express not implied.

This is the common law for the common defense:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Thats what the national guard is.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

God? How many people have died or killed in the name of God? Billions.

That is not a reflection on God, but on the black souls of many humans.
What number of people have been saved in the name of God? Perhaps more than have been killed. We cannot know.

 

[Asclepias]

God? How many people have died or killed in the name of God? Billions.

That is not a reflection on God, but on the black souls of many humans.
What number of people have been saved in the name of God? Perhaps more than have been killed. We cannot know.

I have a Black soul. Are you saying thats a bad thing?