- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 6, 2014 at 1:26 am #611573
JayDeeParticipantSecond Amendment Text:
“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.”
I have read that there are 300 million guns in America…how many more do we need to be “safe”? I have also heard that more people have been buying guns recently because they think our President, who in certain policy areas is a Bush clone, is coming to get their guns.
I find the wording of the Second Amendment pretty clear: Unless you have been to the Washington State Militia training sessions, you do not not have an inherent right to keep and bear arms. Don’t know why the Supremes parsed this any differently. Not being a lawyer, but in the 93rd percentile in the English Skills of the GRE I cannot fathom how they screwed this one up. (Ditto with saying a corporation has personhood rights). Yes, I am trying to start a debate. I do not own a gun because I’ve read the studies showing owning one, esp a handgun is more dangerous to you and yours.
http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gun-home
The CDC cannot even study the public health aspects of owning guns because Congress forbid it to spend money on such a study. If you were thinking of buying a gun for your own safety, wouldn’t you want to know if you would really BE safer?
June 6, 2014 at 5:57 am #809223
JeannieParticipantThank you, JayDee. Frankly, I don’t know what it’s going to take to change people’s minds. I find that debating this issue does little good – people who love their guns tend to ignore the facts. And, if Sandy Hook, Columbine, Isla Vista, etc., etc., don’t change people’s minds, I don’t know what it will take.
June 6, 2014 at 6:14 pm #809224
JoBParticipanti don’t either
June 6, 2014 at 6:49 pm #809225
wakefloodParticipantNobody does, unfortunately. I can only think of looking at two scenarios.
One is to figure out what changed the wild west? In some towns, the sheriff instituted “no carry” laws. I’ll leave it to historians to offer thoughts on whether that or some combination of other factors eventually tamed the escalation of gun violence.
The other would require a few million folks who support sensible gun laws to join the NRA and have a few of them get elected to positions of power/influence and defang them from the inside.
I think there’s some percentage of current membership who think they’ve gone too far and would break ranks to change things. George Bush Sr. being one who’s already voiced such thoughts, if memory serves.
The main problem being that the NRA can always find a boogeyman to gin up fear. It used to be “urban” thugs and then it was politicians who wanted to disarm ‘merica, now they’ve added protection from OTHER GUN OWNERS who just happen to have lost their judgement temporarily but still deserve the right to own all the guns they want.
Logic plays little to no part in any of this insanity…
June 6, 2014 at 9:43 pm #809226
JanSParticipantit took maybe an hour after the shooting at SPU yesterday to see a post about how we are misguided. We should blame the shooter only, the gun was innocent. I have a hard time with that.
(You know the ones…”it could have been a knife, or ________. Outcome would have been the same”)
June 7, 2014 at 2:01 am #809227
seaopgalParticipantI agree with every single word in this string!
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.