Dangerous Debate: Insane Anger vs. The 2nd Amendment!

[Indy Vidual]

Dangerous Debate: Insane Anger vs. The 2nd Amendment!!!

I'll make a long story short, if you want more details just ask.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Couple who lives less than two blocks away #1:
This couple contains two very nice people, and the man is very anti-gun.
I try to tell him "your house is safer because some 'idiot' down the street owns a gun"
(Meaning the criminals don't easily know which house have guns for protection)


Couple who lives less than two blocks away #2:
These people are experiencing extreme problems.
Sundays (with NFL football) used to be the one and only day when the (very passive) man used to get some freedom from his ridiculously demanding, controlling and very angry wife. Yesterday, set new records for neighborhood drama.

At the moment when she picked up a heavy glass and aimed for his head, what if it had been a well-aimed gun instead of a glass?

The main point: How does a free country control, or regulate, gun ownership for people who haven't yet committed a serious crime?

This lady is nuts! :eek:

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

The main point: How does a free country control, or regulate, gun ownership for people who haven't yet committed a serious crime?To put it simply, we don't. Basing laws on prevention is entirely antithetical to freedom. If you want to be free, you must accept that, sometimes, shit happens.

And statistically speaking, gun ownership tends to help more often than it hurts. If the opposite were true, I'd probably side with the gun-grabbers.

[cheapseats]

To put it simply, we don't. Basing laws on prevention is entirely antithetical to freedom. If you want to be free, you must accept that, sometimes, shit happens.

With respect, I disagree.

Citizen A is not entitled to anticipatory protection that impinges UNREASONABLY on the liberties of other citizens. Citizen A doesn't get to say that, because he has a conscientious objection to guns, no one else can live on his street unless they sign a my-way-or-the-highway agreement to forfeit their right to bear arms.

But guns being statistically overwhelmingly more likely to result in grievous injury and/or to be used in a crime...compared to, say, slingshots...it becomes reasonable to require licensing and registration of guns and it becomes reasonable to require a standardized background and mental health check. This is not the Wild West, where that scrappy, self-sufficient, go-it-alone-on-the-prairie dude can shoot now and ask questions later if a stranger who appears from far off refuses to halt and state his purpose upon a warning shot.

Define standardized background and mental health check, right? As ever, the devil is in the details.

In my world, our Constitution unmistakably grants us the right to bear arms. Indeed, there are passages in our founding documents that command the American People to rise up against their government should certain dark aspects of human nature surmount the restraints on government that the Constitution was intended to compel.

But let us call a spade a spade, there are some nut-period-case-period people walking around as free as you please, and they REALLY ought not to be able easily to waltz in and buy a weapon of, forget mass, ME-destruction.




And statistically speaking, gun ownership tends to help more often than it hurts. If the opposite were true, I'd probably side with the gun-grabbers.

Agreed that, on the whole, in our time, guns are value added. If the opposite were true, it would still be the right of American citizens to bear arms.

Moreover, I will suggest that it would be LUNACY to surrender weapons at this particular crossroads of American history. Isn't it exciting? We're gonna make the history textbooks...with a Big Publisher-read-that-Media spin, if we are not less careful.

On top of THAT, I will argue that gun ownership is not even remotely an issue this go-round. We're up to our eyeballs in alligators...gun control, abortion, gay marriage, these are trusty hot-button non-issues that are hauled out to incite the People against one another.

Divide and conquer.

[Indy Vidual]

To put it simply, we don't. Basing laws on prevention is entirely antithetical to freedom. If you want to be free, you must accept that, sometimes, shit happens.

And statistically speaking, gun ownership tends to help more often than it hurts. If the opposite were true, I'd probably side with the gun-grabbers.I fully agree, in principle. (period)
Some people will get killed in a free society, but it's still better than all other options.

[John of Des Moines]

Use this: On average 15 children are killed by guns everyday in the united States. That's 5475 a year or just over a million children every 100 years here in America where guns have been mostly available to the average person. Conversely, in Europe where governments have controlled purchase and ownership of guns how many children have been killed by their governments in the last 100 years. And, how about Russia, China, Cambodia.