Interesting way to phrase it. I would say that if we are a violent society that the violence needs to be regulated not the implement.
Dude, you're the one citing a) the wrong ****ing theories surrounding those restrictions, making YOU the one who is incorrect and b) citing the wrong ****ing theory to try to accomplish what you think you can. General welfare does not allow commands to the populace to come and tug their forelock for the crown. That would be the police power, which the federal government lacks. General welfare allows them to levy taxes and to SPEND. It is not an open remit to DO or COMMAND whatever the **** you want, even HAMILTON didn't think so. Nukes: Legitimate nat sec issue, classified tech and all. Hughes amendment: Never been tried in court.
And that is where you are wrong. Get rid of the gun and the violence still exists. Until we figure out the violence the problem will continue.
If someone can present a better plan I am all ears. I am fine with criminal justice reform being part of the plan but am also realistic about what that costs. Gun control will have to be part of any plan that has a chance at success.
I am not talking about criminal justice, I am talking about why we are such a violent society. Also why we have so many young people deciding to kill themselves. I see those as the real problem. Gun restrictions may stop a few deaths but they will not ultimately address or help the true problem.
The general welfare clause does not do as is being claimed by yourself. Stop repeating such a blatant falsehood.
I find it interesting that you don't seem to be able to see things on my side of the argument. I feel I see your side. I don't agree with it but I do understand what you are saying. I understand how it would be implemented and how it theoretically would work.
Then let us discuss proposals on how to address the problem. Any prohibited individual, regardless of circumstances, who is found in possession of a firearm, is to be immediately executed by law enforcement on the spot. No lengthy trials, no incarceration in prison, just straight execution and then move onto the next one, all typed up in an after-incident report by the law enforcement officers at the scene.
No, there are violent people in society, these few are the problem, most people in society never run afoul of the law. You need to blur the line between law abiding people and Criminals in order to call everyone violent in today's society.
I do see your side. I don't agree with it but I understand the priority you place on rights. I feel we do need to consider the balance between rights and the need to save lives whenever we talk about gun control. This is why I am not an extremist. I do not believe in gun bans, magazine bans....etc. I believe in the right to own and bear arms. I just think a few minor inconveniences will not impair that right significantly for those that should own a gun. I know you disagree and I don't think your position is not well intended.....I just think it is not the best way to go.
Thank you. I agree with and would implement at least some things you have outlined in your many posts. I actually feel some of them have merit. The one thing that keeps me from supporting those things, and it just scares the hell out of me, is proverbial question: Where will it stop? In 230 years we have gone from not being infringed through all the federal laws of the 20th century to where we are now. States like California and Washington have passed or are passing laws making guns and accessories, already owned by law abiding citizens, illegal. I just wonder if the next step will be the federal government making some already-owned guns illegal. Do we end up like Australia with certain types of guns becoming illegal with the requirement to turn them or be a criminal? That last step becomes increasingly easy to enforce if everyone has had their information recorded through background checks, forms and registrations. Do we end up with confiscation from those who decide not to turn them in? It has always seemed a slippery slope to me. Rich
I hear you. There are some extremists in the gun control movement like Diane Feinstein that will not stop until she can ban all guns. I think she is nuts and I would never support that. I know people fear registration which is why I have suggested a plan to keep that info at the local level unless a warrant is provided. I don't really trust the government either and want to give them as little power over me as possible. But the turning point for me was sandy hook. A school full of little kids gunned down is just a nightmare. I know we can never fully prevent that from happening again but there is a lot we can do to make the system better....not perfect....just better. If that means I get called every name in the book by people on here so be it. I am not changing hearts and minds......just expressing my opinion. At the end of the day I get just one vote like everyone else. But if people on here just think I am going to roll over just because they attack me then they are hilarious. They lost the debate when they made it personal. We can disagree and still be civil.....or at least you and I can.
I agree Sandy Hook was tragic. What frustrates me about it is there appears to have been so many warning signs. Had the people who knew Adam Lanza just put in a little effort it might have been prevented. He might have gotten help to live a normal life and all those lives might not have been lost. So far.
your thousands of posts have proven to most of us that YOU don't even believe that claim. We sure don't. wrong as usual the purpose of gun control is to pretend those who push it are trying to control criminals when in reality they don't want to impede criminals and to harass honest gun owners due to how we tend to vote if crime control was really your goal you'd push laws that make things tougher on criminals. You don't so its obvious your real goal is not trying to further restrict violent crime
The purpose of gun control is to save lives. Not just crime control but to reduce all gun deaths. You know this, I know this and everyone knows this. And I will correct you every time on this issue when you get it wrong
Precisely what firearm-related restrictions could have been implemented, that could have actually prevented Sandy Hook from taking place?
Yes, we are all aware of your opinion. The reality remains, a national CCW law is no different than any other firearm law/regulation.
