100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Gun Control | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Yes. I do believe the purpose and location of use should be a part of the regulations for gun sales. I believe those who have them should have the documented purpose of how they will be used (like car insurance) and then regulated by the stated specs of the weapon being used. just like a Car that goes three hundred miles an hour has no business on the roads in the US where that is not the speed limit anywhere. There are weapons that have no business in civilian communities where there is no rational legal use for them. I also want to see guns not placed so easily in the hands of the unstable, regardless of type. My brothers have guns and my mother. I am not against guns AT ALL, I do not support BANNING any and all guns or even most guns, Im for honesty and common sense use and regulations. purpose or location of use should be regulated? wow There are only 3 reason why people have guns Ms.harmony. Defense, sport or hunting. The car analogy is silly , because F1 cars are legal to drive on the road but its not made for street traffic, it takes 8 engineers to star the car and it cant operate in speeds under 100 miles an hour for a long period of time. F1 are made for certain tracks not the street road or highway/freeways. You want guns out of the mental stable hand but you have not offered any solutions You say certain weapons Im assuming you mean AR 15's dont belong, but most women find it easier to handle. Yes, but we dont see F1 cars being rampantly driven on the streets huh? And Im sure even they have to be registered and have licenses that document their PURPOSE and use, and also have to meet certain requirements to be safer ON THE STREETS. if people use guns for defense, hunting, or sport, there should be no issue with them stating so during registering or purchase. Keeping guns out of the mentally unstable can be done with mandatory Mental Health background checks I think most women can find many other guns that are 'easy' to use, most dont take rocket science to figure out, point and pull the trigger. convenience should not overrule safety. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and why would an ar 15 a semiautomatic rifle be singled out? one trigger pull one fire just like a springfield 30.06 hunting rifle because it looks like the full auto m16 military rifle? I haven't singled out a gun, but mass killers sure seem to have a preference. and there must be a reason for that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i actually only used that model for it's recent mention by multiple posters. you personally do keep saying that certain kinds of guns should be regulated specifically so once again which guns should be regulated out of law abiders hands to remove them from whack jobs hands?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
undrboss
on
Mon 05/21/18 02:44 PM
|
|
Yes, but we dont see F1 cars being rampantly driven on the streets huh? And Im sure even they have to be registered and have licenses that document their PURPOSE and use, and also have to meet certain requirements to be safer ON THE STREETS. if people use guns for defense, hunting, or sport, there should be no issue with them stating so during registering or purchase. Keeping guns out of the mentally unstable can be done with mandatory Mental Health background checks I think most women can find many other guns that are 'easy' to use, most dont take rocket science to figure out, point and pull the trigger. convenience should not overrule safety.  dear lord.
F1 cars are not made for street driving, your analogy is silly Ms.harmony. I just told you why, it takes 7 to 8 engineers to get it started, the average person cant afford that, and the cars are not made for driving under 100 miles an hour for long period of time, you would kill the car in rush hour traffic. the majority of people buying guns is for defense, hunting or sport, oh I forgot Gun collectors. Criminals dont buy guns legally why do you that is? The problem with mandatory health check is it could very from state to state, I cant imagine doing one in the people's republic state of California with all their bureaucrats, I imagine it would easier in states like Rhode Island with their smaller population If the federal government gets in involved there will be too much red tape. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i actually only used that model for it's recent mention by multiple posters. you personally do keep saying that certain kinds of guns should be regulated specifically so once again which guns should be regulated out of law abiders hands to remove them from whack jobs hands? I dont know gun names, but the ones that seen to be the preference of 'mass killers' which can shoot up multiples of targets in a split second with little effort and no reloading. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
those would be full automatic and typically military configured for extremely high capacity magazines and they already have extra federal regulation regarding owner ship and purchase
an m16 or an ak47 would be examples by designation number. almost no hand gun qualifies all are semi automatic and require one trigger pull per fire. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Mon 05/21/18 05:35 PM
|
|
Yes, but we dont see F1 cars being rampantly driven on the streets huh? And Im sure even they have to be registered and have licenses that document their PURPOSE and use, and also have to meet certain requirements to be safer ON THE STREETS. if people use guns for defense, hunting, or sport, there should be no issue with them stating so during registering or purchase. Keeping guns out of the mentally unstable can be done with mandatory Mental Health background checks I think most women can find many other guns that are 'easy' to use, most dont take rocket science to figure out, point and pull the trigger. convenience should not overrule safety. dear lord.
F1 cars are not made for street driving, your analogy is silly Ms.harmony. I just told you why, it takes 7 to 8 engineers to get it started, the average person cant afford that, and the cars are not made for driving under 100 miles an hour for long period of time, you would kill the car in rush hour traffic. the majority of people buying guns is for defense, hunting or sport, oh I forgot Gun collectors. Criminals dont buy guns legally why do you that is? The problem with mandatory health check is it could very from state to state, I cant imagine doing one in the people's republic state of California with all their bureaucrats, I imagine it would easier in states like Rhode Island with their smaller population If the federal government gets in involved there will be too much red tape. I actually researched the claim, and RACECARS that can be LEGALLY driven on the road, STILL have to meet certain regulations in order to do so, that was my point. We can always find outliers. but the analogy stands that there are regulations before a vehicle can legally be on the streets, (and I made an error as I have not found any example of F! specifically, but just 'race cars). Mass shooters HAVE bought guns legally and that is the primary context behind renewed interest in looking at guns being retailed and to whom. Many countries have implemented the 'red tape' of government involvement and seem to have gained a better hold of the mass shootings than we have. No one said it will be simple but new rules and laws rarely are. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Tom4Uhere
on
Mon 05/21/18 05:44 PM
|
|
So, lemme see if I got this straight...
Guns Kill People Take away the Guns. That Doesn't Work. Bullets Fired From Guns Kill People Take away the Bullets. That Doesn't Work. Fingers Pull Triggers Take away Fingers. That Doesn't Work. Brains Tell Fingers to Pull Triggers Lobotomize Everyone. Solution: Give Everyone a Gun and a whole bunch of bullets and allow things to progress as they will. Meanwhile, I'll be in my cave in the mountains and wait till the shooting stops. Problem Solved... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
only if 'working' is considered the complete eradication of killing, harm, or death, which nothing 'works' for.
but regulating products does 'work' in trying to be safER, ( never totally safe) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
undrboss
on
Mon 05/21/18 06:34 PM
|
|
I actually researched the claim, and RACECARS that can be LEGALLY driven on the road, STILL have to meet certain regulations in order to do so, that was my point. We can always find outliers. but the analogy stands that there are regulations before a vehicle can legally be on the streets, (and I made an error as I have not found any example of F! specifically, but just 'race cars). Mass shooters HAVE bought guns legally and that is the primary context behind renewed interest in looking at guns being retailed and to whom. Many countries have implemented the 'red tape' of government involvement and seem to have gained a better hold of the mass shootings than we have. No one said it will be simple but new rules and laws rarely are. ms.harmony, A race car can drive on the road in america but they don't because they are not made for driving on the street, they are called race cars for a reason, whether its F1, nascar or any single seat car designed to race at high speed. 2) you cannot compare other countries to America when it comes to guns only 3 countries have in their constitution the right to own gun as you know the US is one, the other two Mexico, and Guatemala. But the U.S is the only country in the world that gives their citizens the right to bear arms without a constitution restriction Here is a piece of useless trivia, In Mexico there is only one place for their citizens to buy guns at a heavily armed army base and you cannot own guns that the military or police use. Getting a permit is very difficult hence the corrupition Guatemala,is also difficult to get a permit, long lines and you cannot buy fully automatic Only semi's, rifles, hand guns , shot guns and you're limited on the amount of ammunition tell me would you like to live in Mexico ,Guatemala or the USA? You mentioned many countries have implemented better gun control? well I just showed you only 3 countries gives their citizens the right to bear arms. Every other country is its a privilege to own guns and its a long process to even get one and you cannot buy it for self defense. you cant compare our countries to those countries. makes sense? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Tue 05/22/18 05:32 AM
|
|
I actually researched the claim, and RACECARS that can be LEGALLY driven on the road, STILL have to meet certain regulations in order to do so, that was my point. We can always find outliers. but the analogy stands that there are regulations before a vehicle can legally be on the streets, (and I made an error as I have not found any example of F! specifically, but just 'race cars). Mass shooters HAVE bought guns legally and that is the primary context behind renewed interest in looking at guns being retailed and to whom. Many countries have implemented the 'red tape' of government involvement and seem to have gained a better hold of the mass shootings than we have. No one said it will be simple but new rules and laws rarely are. ms.harmony, A race car can drive on the road in america but they don't because they are not made for driving on the street, they are called race cars for a reason, whether its F1, nascar or any single seat car designed to race at high speed. 2) you cannot compare other countries to America when it comes to guns only 3 countries have in their constitution the right to own gun as you know the US is one, the other two Mexico, and Guatemala. But the U.S is the only country in the world that gives their citizens the right to bear arms without a constitution restriction Here is a piece of useless trivia, In Mexico there is only one place for their citizens to buy guns at a heavily armed army base and you cannot own guns that the military or police use. Getting a permit is very difficult hence the corrupition Guatemala,is also difficult to get a permit, long lines and you cannot buy fully automatic Only semi's, rifles, hand guns , shot guns and you're limited on the amount of ammunition tell me would you like to live in Mexico ,Guatemala or the USA? You mentioned many countries have implemented better gun control? well I just showed you only 3 countries gives their citizens the right to bear arms. Every other country is its a privilege to own guns and its a long process to even get one and you cannot buy it for self defense. you cant compare our countries to those countries. makes sense? of course we can compare. we do it all the time. we can speculate as to the reasons we find differences or similarities in those comparisons, but we can always compare gun advocates use CHICAGO to 'compare' for the purpose of their argument against gun laws ... even though CHICAGO is an outlier in its VICINITY to legally obtainable guns and its culture of poverty and desperation Mexico is the same in its since of strict laws that become useless when guns are so easily ACCESSIBLE outside of the area in the UNITED STATES and in the sense of the poverty and desperation these suburban kids, not the same desperation and poverty, and guns that can mow down large numbers in moments basically being PLACED In their hands by the state itself.. are using them for mass killings.. thats the comparison. and when we compare countries with similar CULTURE (not mexico or venezuelan) like other WESTERN countries, the comparison becomes relevant. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why not just set aside a special day all the gun nuts?
When that day comes around, you keep your kids home from school, and every time you see someone with a gun, you can wish them a Happy Mass Shooter Day! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
of course we can compare. we do it all the time. we can speculate as to the reasons we find differences or similarities in those comparisons, but we can always compare gun advocates use CHICAGO to 'compare' for the purpose of their argument against gun laws ... even though CHICAGO is an outlier in its VICINITY to legally obtainable guns and its culture of poverty and desperation Mexico is the same in its since of strict laws that become useless when guns are so easily ACCESSIBLE outside of the area in the UNITED STATES and in the sense of the poverty and desperation these suburban kids, not the same desperation and poverty, and guns that can mow down large numbers in moments basically being PLACED In their hands by the state itself.. are using them for mass killings.. thats the comparison. and when we compare countries with similar CULTURE (not mexico or venezuelan) like other WESTERN countries, the comparison becomes relevant. You can compare all you want Ms.Harmony, it doesn't make it a fact, comparing apples to apples is ideal. I wish my 2nd amendment loving brothers and sisters would stop using Chicago as their so called proof. Chicago isn't the gun murder capital of America, that honor belongs to St.Louis and Baltimore with Charlotte N.C sneaking up. how do you explain that? 2) Mexico, and I hope you did some research to either refute or agree with it, In Mexico there is only one place where you can buy a gun legally, ONE PLACE, yet there are tons of people with guns not purchased legally like the major cartels. this is one reason why you cannot compare mexico to the U.S. 3) explain this to me ' hese suburban kids, not the same desperation and poverty, and guns that can mow down large numbers in moments basically being PLACED In their hands by the state itself.. are using them for mass killings.. thats the comparison.. this makes no sense. 4) comparing western cultures like America to lets say the U.K. doesn't make sense, the U.K or any European country doesn't have a second amendment, no country in Europe or practically every country around the world except two others, give their citizens a right to bear arms. There is no comparison, I cannot compare a pineapple to an apple just because it contains the word "apple" in it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I actually researched the claim, and RACECARS that can be LEGALLY driven on the road, STILL have to meet certain regulations in order to do so, that was my point. We can always find outliers. but the analogy stands that there are regulations before a vehicle can legally be on the streets, (and I made an error as I have not found any example of F! specifically, but just 'race cars). Mass shooters HAVE bought guns legally and that is the primary context behind renewed interest in looking at guns being retailed and to whom. Many countries have implemented the 'red tape' of government involvement and seem to have gained a better hold of the mass shootings than we have. No one said it will be simple but new rules and laws rarely are. ms.harmony, A race car can drive on the road in america but they don't because they are not made for driving on the street, they are called race cars for a reason, whether its F1, nascar or any single seat car designed to race at high speed. 2) you cannot compare other countries to America when it comes to guns only 3 countries have in their constitution the right to own gun as you know the US is one, the other two Mexico, and Guatemala. But the U.S is the only country in the world that gives their citizens the right to bear arms without a constitution restriction Here is a piece of useless trivia, In Mexico there is only one place for their citizens to buy guns at a heavily armed army base and you cannot own guns that the military or police use. Getting a permit is very difficult hence the corrupition Guatemala,is also difficult to get a permit, long lines and you cannot buy fully automatic Only semi's, rifles, hand guns , shot guns and you're limited on the amount of ammunition tell me would you like to live in Mexico ,Guatemala or the USA? You mentioned many countries have implemented better gun control? well I just showed you only 3 countries gives their citizens the right to bear arms. Every other country is its a privilege to own guns and its a long process to even get one and you cannot buy it for self defense. you cant compare our countries to those countries. makes sense? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript#toc-amendment-ii
Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Amendment III No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. Amendment VII In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
of course we can compare. we do it all the time. we can speculate as to the reasons we find differences or similarities in those comparisons, but we can always compare gun advocates use CHICAGO to 'compare' for the purpose of their argument against gun laws ... even though CHICAGO is an outlier in its VICINITY to legally obtainable guns and its culture of poverty and desperation Mexico is the same in its since of strict laws that become useless when guns are so easily ACCESSIBLE outside of the area in the UNITED STATES and in the sense of the poverty and desperation these suburban kids, not the same desperation and poverty, and guns that can mow down large numbers in moments basically being PLACED In their hands by the state itself.. are using them for mass killings.. thats the comparison. and when we compare countries with similar CULTURE (not mexico or venezuelan) like other WESTERN countries, the comparison becomes relevant. You can compare all you want Ms.Harmony, it doesn't make it a fact, comparing apples to apples is ideal. I wish my 2nd amendment loving brothers and sisters would stop using Chicago as their so called proof. Chicago isn't the gun murder capital of America, that honor belongs to St.Louis and Baltimore with Charlotte N.C sneaking up. how do you explain that? 2) Mexico, and I hope you did some research to either refute or agree with it, In Mexico there is only one place where you can buy a gun legally, ONE PLACE, yet there are tons of people with guns not purchased legally like the major cartels. this is one reason why you cannot compare mexico to the U.S. 3) explain this to me ' hese suburban kids, not the same desperation and poverty, and guns that can mow down large numbers in moments basically being PLACED In their hands by the state itself.. are using them for mass killings.. thats the comparison.. this makes no sense. 4) comparing western cultures like America to lets say the U.K. doesn't make sense, the U.K or any European country doesn't have a second amendment, no country in Europe or practically every country around the world except two others, give their citizens a right to bear arms. There is no comparison, I cannot compare a pineapple to an apple just because it contains the word "apple" in it. fortunately or unfortunately, the second amendment does not say anything about manufacture or retail, just possession... so it does not really keep us from looking at how other western countries have handled the manufacture and retail in their countries ... and not having the answer to every instance should not make us feel entitled to just be complacent and not act upon any instance ,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript#toc-amendment-ii Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Amendment III No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. Amendment VII In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. thank you WELL REGULATED to regulate: control or supervise (something, especially a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulation KEEP - have or retain possession of. BEAR-(of a person) carry. we can HAVE possession of and CARRY the weapons, nothing there that states every type of conceivable weapon must be made available or sold ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The 2nd amendment says citizens should maintain a Militia to Protect the Free State.
To form such a militia people have the right to KEEP and BEAR arms. It says nothing at all about guns specifically. ARMS is a broad term that includes many things of which guns is one example. It DOES NOT say Right to Keep and Bear muskets, swords, rockets, sling shots, guns, rocks or clubs, its says ARMS. Arms constitutes anything needed by the militia to protect the free state. In this intent of the 2nd amendment lies the solution. not sure how it would work exactly but... 1. The United States should be in a condition of threat to need its free state protected by its citizens. 2. The Arms of the militia should be effective for protecting the free state. 3. The effectiveness of the arms should be assessed against the threat to the free state. 4. An assessment of the readiness of the militia should be periodically assessed for effectiveness against possible threats to the free state. 5. The militia should have access to arms during times of low threat as a preparation to protect the free state. 6. The militia should be trained to use such arms as a preparation for when they are called upon to protect the free state. 7. Threats can be foreign or domestic. If the threat to the free state is our own government, the militia must be ready and prepared to bear arms against itself. Brain got stuck.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why not just set aside a special day all the gun nuts? When that day comes around, you keep your kids home from school, and every time you see someone with a gun, you can wish them a Happy Mass Shooter Day!
I dont think we can lump most gun holders into one barrel, it could be happy sporting day, or happy eating day, or happy hunting day, or happy protection day. it frustrates me too that we keep hiding behind the constitution to avoid taking some common sense actions for keeping unstable citizens and mass shooter weapons as far from each other as possible but it doesnt help if we turn the discussion to personal attacks upon either side. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. The United States should be in a condition of threat to need its free state protected by its citizens.
In a sense, we do have a militia of citizens. They are police. Police are there to protect the free state and serve the citizens. They bear arms. Their leaders are elected by the citizens with the intent to office for protecting and serving the citizens. The 2nd amemdment does not say only police may keep and bear arms, it says The People. The people is not a select group, it includes all the citizens of the free state. If a militia group threatens the free state, even a militia group of police, the citizens have the right to keep and bear arms to protect the free state. So, if a community has no arms except police and the police threaten the free state, the citizens will be unable to act to protect the free state from the threat. The 2nd amenment keeps the government from threatening the free state. Without it, we live in a forced dictatorship. |
|
|
|
|
