Well to be technical they were decided by others. We didn’t originally have a bill of rights. And people have disagreed with what they mean since the beginning.
Well to be technical as well, the Bill of rights doesn’t grant individual rights.
1 Like
My thought in guns is nobody needs a ton of guns, but there are lots of things nobody needs that we allow that are also dangerous. I don’t like the argument, because it seems inconsistent. I don’t think guns kill more than sports cars for example.
1 Like
The one we are talking about…but I think we are going down a place we have been before!
Sports cars specifically? Or vehicles in general?
The number I think is less important than what types of guns people have. You’re far more/less likely to kill a bunch of people depending on what one has.
I’d prefer we tried to limit guns that make mass killing easy if we are going to do anything.
Sure, but those guns are fun. I’ve shot guns that make absolutely no sense other than they are fun. .308 handgun was just ridiculous, same as the 500 magnum (tbh I thought the .308 kicked harder). Ar-15 is really fun too. I don’t need to own one though, but understand why someone would.
Maybe we treat these similar to some of the hyper cars that aren’t road legal (track only). People could own them, but only use them at a range. A condition could be in place to require them to be stored at a range. I think that is fairly consistent. Maybe the government covers the storage fee. I feel that for the typical gun owner, that is really the only place these type of guns (not referring to the handguns mentioned) are used anyways.
It does go against the “keep arms” thing.
1 Like
I get this.
I wouldn’t have a problem with that. I don’t think that keeping someone from buying 100 AR-15’s is bad. But I realize some people do. We have an issue with mass shootings that most other countries don’t have on our level. Looking for why that is and discussing solutions makes far more sense (to me) than pretending the problem isn’t real.
1 Like
I certainly think a compromise is far more likely to get support than a ban.
I know that people shriek they are going to take all the guns but that’s really something very few people are advocating for.
However, many are advocating that very thing. Just like any issue of liberty, you can’t give an inch. With this particular issue, look no further than Canada. What started as registration in 1995 has turned into incremental confiscation.
3 Likes
How about the fact that people in the USA are prescribed all kinds of medication as if it were candy. We blow all other countries away. Seems all shooters are on a cocktail of meds.
You can wiki “List of mass shootings in the United States” and then search the names. Most were on one or more medications.
1 Like
Could have an impact. Hard telling. I do think we are an over medicated bunch of people on the whole.
How many are necessary to carry out a mass shooting?
That press conference was painful.
“Mr President, your predecessor was such a racist bigot and you’re not. Do you believe the public loves you because of this fact or what is your favorite ice cream flavor?”
“The filibuster is old and racist. Mr President, are you in favor of bypassing it to advance compassionate and common sense legislation that your racist predecessor would disapprove of?”
1 Like
“Conservatives”(for lack of a better word right now) need to rid themselves of their fear of being called “racist.” Racism is bad because it’s about the most base form of collectivism. Conservatives should be attacking all forms of collectivism any time someone mentions racism. Enlighten people instead of cowering.
2 Likes
I think that’s the least of their fears.
This is the way people need to handle that situation.
1 Like
Firearm registration bill. Its cleverly disguised, but ultimately is registration and we all know what that leads to.
2 Likes
Maximum safety?