December 21, 2012 at 9:35 am in DL-Online
Maybe now it’s possible for the people of this great nation to engage in a rational debate about gun violence. Continue Reading
Tags: Opinion, Other Opinions 9 Comments »
Disarming the Americans is against the constitution. If you don’t like it, move. All opposed to law abiding citizens having guns are living in dreamland. A well armed militia to protect against a tyrannical government is the reason we have guns. Self protection second, Hunting 3rd, END OF DEBATE.
Like or Dislike: 17 3
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
The 2nd amendment was written by men with muskets who considered rapid fire getting a second shot off in under 90 seconds. If they had envisioned todays modern weapons and their massive killing potential in the hands of civilians, no doubt these men would have been more careful about the semantics of that amendment.
And then there’s this from a Harvard study on how guns are used in this country –
“The opportunity for a law-abiding gun owner to use a gun in a socially desirable manner–against a criminal during the commission of a crime–will occur, for the average gun owner, perhaps once or never in a lifetime. It is a rare event.” So attempting to qualify the proliferation of people-killing machines with self defense is disingenuous. Of course people have the right to be prepared to defend themselves, their families and their homes. But a .223 Bushmaster with a flash suppressor and 30-round clip is not a defensive weapon.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 1 17
They probably also never envisioned radio, TV or the Internet either. Does that mean the first amendment, your right to free speech, should not apply to these modern forms of communication?
The “men with muskets” argument is the worst of them all. Obviously the bill of rights was written at a different time and times have changed, that’s no secret; but if we give up one, why not give up them all? Its has been and still is a matter of principle.
I wont deny the fact there there are many, many people who use firearms for the wrong reasons, but there are MANY, MANY MORE firearms owners who are 100% responsible with their firearms. Is it worth punishing the masses because of the faults of a few? That should be the question.
Like or Dislike: 14 2
Comparing the free exchange of ideas to the proliferation of firearms that, by design, are intended to kill as many people as possible in as little time as possible is more than a little irrational. And the debate isn’t about “punishing” responsible gun owners (whatever t hat’s supposed to mean). This is about regulating weapons of unnecessary killing potential.
One little fact to consider – of the 23 highest-income nations, the U.S. boasts 80% of all deaths caused by firearms. Another stat we Americans can be oh so proud of, is it not?
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 0 13
Ok, since your argument is mainly against “assault weapons” with high capacity magazines (or clips by your definition), please take the time to compare the rifle column to all other columns in the following link.
Even if the column labeled “Firearms (type unknown)” were all rifles, the numbers still do not compare in most cases. Banning one type of weapon is not the answer! Banning all weapons WILL NOT HAPPEN!
Treat the cause not the effect.
Like or Dislike: 7 0
I also must point out that I realize you have not suggested banning anything or any type of a ban. That is just the terminology I chose to use to make my point.
Like or Dislike: 6 0
The writer says “And therein hides the underlying crime: stifling discussion and debate. Reluctance to talk seriously about what is surely one of the nation’s virulent maladies is not acceptable.”
That is a hysterical comment. Many people are tired of talking about solutions that any rational person knows wouldn’t work. Where is the writers discussion of “fast and furious.” Start there and we’ll see how serious you are about discussion and debate.
Like or Dislike: 16 3
Unfortunately, as illustrated in the preceding comments, America has suffered from a “head-up-the-butt” mentality towards firearms for so long it’s going to be nearly impossible to initiate a debate on reasonable regulations. Like regulating assault weapons and the high capacity clips that are designed not for sporting, but to kill as many people as possible in as little time as possible with minimal effort.
Sadly, too many people value guns and their killing potential more than they do innocent lives. Including elementary school children. As far as they’re concerned, the occasional mass murder is just the price society must pay for the “right to bear arms”.
This comment is submitted and approved by an American gun owner.
❉ Winchester Model 97 “Thumb Buster” 12-guage
❉ Browning BPS 12-guage with Invector Choke
❉ Knight Wolverine .50 caliber smoke pole, 24″ barrel, camo composite stock
❉ Remington 700 CDL SE SF .30-06 w/ nickel Leupold 3×9 scope
❉ Ruger .17 HMR w/ Bushnell scope
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 2 19
Why do people who favor gun-control say people who disagree with them suffer from “head-up-the-butt” mentality towards firearms? Is that constructive? Looking at you rebel.
Would any of the various proposals have actually prevented the tragedy that is supposed reason for them?
Have gun-control advocates talked about “fast and furious?” Do they even know what it is? Do they care less when brown people die?
Like or Dislike: 7 1
Click here to cancel reply.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
To start connecting please log in first. You can also create an account.
Topics is proudly provided by the Forum Communications Company