1. Personally, I would like to see any statistics or research reports for how many related people including not only family and friends but also anyone nationally who do feel hurt/ unwell/ uncomfortable due to each of the death figure in the table. 2. Perhaps more importantly would be to Do the right thing in people's heart, rather than just arguments. Rationality and conscience are useful, and they should not be neglected. imo 3. Guns are also related not only to hurting others, but also to crimes. Deaths are only probably a small % comparing to injuries and gun crimes. Abortion and Obesity do no harm against any others, basically. Comparing apple and orange does not help rationality. All these issues, not only guns control, must be studied and remedied. Only a matter of priority. Whatever amendments can be further amended, that's why they are called amendments. imo 4. ... ...
How about the right to defend against home invasion, where the gun owner may have the advantage against even an armed intruder? If the Government really wanted you, yes, you’re screwed. However, they would need to use the bomb on you are some other costly method. The point is, they would need to use more resources on an armed population rather than an unarmed one. In addition, in a widespread revolt, other countries may come to the rebels aid, as well as some or many law enforcement and even some U.S. millitary could possibly join in on the rebel side. A population being armed makes their job a whole lot easier. Criminals now have two major things to worry about when committing a crime: cellphones and guns. Taking our guns away makes their job easier. Look at the crime rates in certain Third- World countries that limit guns. It is very high, even though they may have low gun-crime rates. The second amendment was created by people far wiser than the media talking heads of today. The same media who considers Bruce Jenner as some sort of hero, for example. The same media who appears more concerned about the welfare of other countries than our own. These talking heads also seem to like to stir up discontent. Whether the underlying reason is ratings or more sinister, the negative effects are the same: people are generally fighting against each other, rather than cooperating each other. Whether it is young against old, rich against poor, black against white, man against woman, Liberal against Conservative, Christian against Muslim, and so on. The media is clearly using the First Amendment to our detriment. However, we dare not limit free speech, right? The same goes for the Second Amendment. This amendment as it is means our enemies can never feel they can do whatever they want, how they want, and when they want without fear that someone may “sincerely disapprove” of their actions.
1. Unlawful possession: of guns were registered we wouldn’t have an unlawful possession problem. 2. Unlawful use: explain how to prevent that 3. Lack of action: with what resources? 4. There’s a lot of people posting on the internet. Should the government track them all down or just those that own guns? The point is the government does prevent 100s if not 1000s of incidents like this every year already. We would need a massive surveillance program to be effective. It’s just better to 1. Have mental heath screenings for gun owners 2. Registration of firearms That would solve the majority of our gun problems.
Who wants to take your guns away? Unless your nuts, have at it. If you can’t pass a comprehensive background screening should you really have a gun?
Who decides what is comprehensive? Once that has been enacted, how will it evolve? We have seen trial by media, where someone is accused with limited or false evidence and effectively convicted. For example, remember the basketball team owner? There was no trial and the “charge” by the media may not have met legal requirements. He was forced to sell his team apparently against his will. There was no cross-examination of the witness. Even gun registration does not really work because it gives the Government a list of names to go after when they want to seize guns. We have seen this recently in a U.S. Possession before an impending hurricane. The Governor ordered the residents to turn in their guns. Should not property owners have the right to protect against likely looters? Our Founding Fathers said “The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.”. Not a lot of wiggle room there. Our Founding Fathers are those people who experienced tyranny first hand or their recent collective memory and decided to do something about it. Hopefully we are not so stupid to unwind what many have died for in order to meet the agenda of some sort of anti-American force.
Absolute nonsense, Mr. Slartibartfast, like most of what you post. The U.S. Army was founded in June of 1775 and the Second Amendment was adopted in December of 1791, more than 16 years later.
Apparently your limited education excluded the Federalist Papers, Mr. UsualName. You may want to read Federalist No. 46 by James Madison to preclude embarrassing yourself by posting such colossal displays of ignorance in the future. You're welcome in advance.
How bout starting with a guy who they had already starting to track down but dropped the case- someone who said he wanted to be a "professional school shooter." ie. the florida wackjob. A guy who others had reported to school authorities. Oh, that's right. The FBI has other things to do. Like locking Carter Page up and putting Ivanka Trump in prison for advertising her brand of lipstick as rouge-colored rather then red. But sometimes things don't go well with America's "See Something-Say Something-Be Branded a Racist" policy. "Cruz" is a Hispanic name isn't it? Be careful. Look no further than San Bernadino for the consequences of that. People saw a muslim family acting weird moving stuff in and out of the house and did not want to report it because they were afraid of being labeled a racist- which was the reaction they got from others when they tried to talk about it. The florida guy belonged to a bombmaking-bomb interest forum online. Take his guns away and he would have used a bomb just like the guy in Manchester England or mowed down students with a truck. But yeh, I expect the government to find him and investigate him with the warnings and material they had to work with. So go do that before taking my rights away. And put security measures in place and more armed people in the schools as the Israelis did. What security checkpoint did the students pass through and why was he not intercepted there?
Edit:Just to add, I'm fine with the 2nd, I myself am a gun owner though mine is locked up safely in California (and I was military trained). I do object to ARs specifically as they are too lethal by far and abused as consumer items which the are not. The 2nd never foresaw this kind of firearm. As I said, they should be pulled from sale, a voluntary buy-back and all advertising for them banned. Alternatively only allow over ~25s to buy. It won't reduce all but it will stop some, the Florida shooter is 19. Congress officially created the U.S. military on September 29, 1789. You are correct that there was a fear that the federal government would disarm the state militias however that was short lived, certainly settled after the civil war. I poorly worded though I was aware of much of the details. The national guard having finally taken over that role in the early 20th century for practical purposes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903 Dick act, good name. As the majority of states gave up their militias in preference to the guard and army, that part of the 2nd became redundant. Yes California and Connecticut have additional active & state recognised "well regulated" militias and the 2nd applies to them, not to the other 48 states. Eventually a law becomes a relic if not updated and is ideally written out. Wayne LaPierre is a psychopath, talented maybe, however I am not a fool to allow often repeated NRA bumper-stickers affect my judgement. Much of the neo-religeous gun nut fervor was his creation.