Shooting of the Day
Shooting of the Day
Out of context: Reply #1486
- Started
- Last post
- 2,851 Responses
- ********-6
Well guns are already heavy regulated. What magical plan do you have that will allow people to have the right to own and operate firearms while keeping them out of the hands of people who will abuse them? Nobody has a solution to this that doesn't infringe on gun owners rights. If you don't like firearms think of it like booze. I'd claim booze takes more lifes than guns. Do you want to have your right to drink or buy booze infringed upon because some bad apples. And remember prohibition. Gun advocates see the logical progression of an all out ban from some political talking head who needs a platform to run on.
And gun rights is a natural right that doesn't infringe on anyone. Healthcare isn't a right because it can only be had by taking from others. I'm glad people fight for a right more than forceful wealth distribution.
I'm not a gun owner. But I respect their rights. Maybe other people should too. Its just plain courtesy. You have to think what kind of person you are to deny someone something? How would u like it if someone wanted to deny you something? I find it strange people don't understand that.
- -deathboymoldero
- "Gun rights is a natural right that doesn't infringe on anyone. Healthcare isn't a right because it can only be had by taking from others." HOLY SHIT, man. WTF.********
- Not trying to be a dick, here. Can you not see how gun rights are taking from others? Lives of kids? Victims? Public healthcare costs less to taxpayers than...********
- ...private healthcare does, when you factor in actual costs to the people using it. And everyone eventually needs some healthcare.********
- refreshing clearheadedness********
- I think making guns harder to get than a drivers license would be best. With psych evaluation too. Oh and ban the really big ones.monospaced
- Using the same logic, you could justify owning any kind of weapon. Owning a tank or chemical weapons "doesn't infringe on anyone."yuekit
- i don't think you're being a dick NB. I think your mixin up murder and property rights. If you want a tank buy a tank. Im sure you can. See if u find a market.********
- can't talk about rights around here without everyone getting all poetic lol. mono, pistols are the ones used in most homicides, really big ones aren't an issue********
- just another example of how peoples lack of understanding and fear leads them to come to irresponsible and ineffective 'solutions'********
- So anyone should be able to own chemical weapons and WMDs? Your absolutist way of looking at things is silly, at some point any rational society is going toyuekit
- consider the practical impacts of everyone being armed to the teeth rather than some abstract concept of "rights."yuekit
- the bottom line is that owning firearms in america is a right not a privilege, therefor be very careful how you tread on these specific rights because the other********
- others will follow in suit********
- oh ukit, you have to realize what your saying is a complete red herring, you cannot posses things that violate various international conventions********
- I understand pistols are used often, but so are the AK-47s. I'm not trying to tread on a right, but I think getting some guns out of the picture is a good startmonospaced
- I just find it hard to believe that the ease at which people can get guns and other weapons has nothing to do with the problem.monospaced
- yukit its abstract thinking everyone is going to have a tank and wmds. and impractical. the costs of such things and reason of owning would be pointless accept********
- International conventions are irrelevant...could international law nullify some other constitutional right? Of course not.yuekit
- The fact is that the 2nd Amendment isn't an absolute right to own any weapon, and I think most people, even the NRA, accept that even if they won't admit it.yuekit
- in the case of military which we already have, No home owner would feel the need to own a tank for home safety, unless youre dan blizerian********
- So the question becomes where to draw the line...that's what you should really be asking instead of getting so fanatical about it.yuekit
- I agree, ukitmonospaced
- i understand what you are saying but i don't see how it will have any meaninfull impact. gun homicides are the problem and gun homicides are almost always carri********
- Who's fanatical? You brought in tanks and wmds. All property rights are absolute. Unless law dictates other wise. But than thats laws fault.********
- carried out by pistols. you aren't outlawing pistols so why outlaw ak-47s? because they look scary? it's foolishness********
- I can't see any regulation that isn't already in place to stop the will of crazy people. If you do please put proposal forth to your local politcian. And vote********
- That is the most rational action, and let people and states choose what works for them. if u are going to deny freedom through laws let their be competition and********
- The point is that everyone, even the most pro NRA fanatic, accepts some constraints on weapons ownership for public safety reasons.yuekit
- choice. And see if a state with a ban on guns becomes safer and people move their and other states adopt. best way to find what works********
- So public safety and practicality trumps the absolute right to own any weapon. I don't think many people would make a serious argument against that.yuekit
- you have to show that the dichotomy you have proposed is valid before you can make that argument ukit. start by being more specific in your language********
- The reason I think we should ban guns LIKE the AK-47 and similar is that they are designed to kill many people at close range, for war essentially.monospaced
- It seems reasonable to start at something like that. Maybe getting one would be insanely hard outside the military. Grenades, etc.monospaced
- i get it, i do. but i'm afraid it would have little to no impact on the urban areas like chicago where the bulk of this nation's gun homicides take place. why n********
- not focus on something a little more pragmatic, like the way the media covers these shootings, sensationalizing them. that should be curtailed as it encourages********
- like minded people. and i am not suggesting the government step in, i am say we the people, the consumer should demand the media stop that shit********
- these issues are societal and having the government play daddy and pass laws about it is a cop out of our own responsibilities********
- and I agree that the focus can also be on what you are saying...but there's no way to say for sure it won't make a difference unless we do it.monospaced
- I believe that cracking down on guns will help at a significant level, even more than regulating the media's coverage.monospaced
- well, we can say it won't make a difference because automatic rifles aren't whats being used in the vast majority of the homicides, why waste time. is it just s********
- so that you can then say 'look, we did something'. that kind of self serving and complacent law is why we are in such hot water. no, we as citizens have to tak********
- take responsibility for the fucked up culture we prop up and act accordingly. this is why i react so negatively when people bash religion. religion tries to en********
- instill a moral compass in people, it doesn't always succeed but a moral compass is what so many people are lacking, they just want the gubment to make all the********
- value judgement for them********
- and we can't say that stopping media sensationalism will do shit either, it's certainly not what's being used in a single homicidemonospaced
- And then there's the whole violence culture/games/etc that keep it going. I understand you don't think it'll work, but I truly believe it would help... a lot.monospaced
- Peacemonospaced
- every one of these mass murdering children state that they are inspired by how much attention some previous mass murder got. that's plenty evidence to me********
- and they also had easy access to gunsmonospaced
- As do we all, and always will. Making them harder to obtain legally doesn't change that********
- You don't believe it but I and many others do including the president. You can't just say it won't work flat out.monospaced
- Believe what exactly. Are you really citing a politician as an objective source. C'mon now********
- Believe what? Believe making them harder to obtain will change things, that's what. It's what we've been talking about. C'mon now.monospaced
- Harder to obtain legally. They are everywhere, and if somebody wants to commit a criminal act with a gun they can easily find one. All you are talking about iit********
- *is making it harder to legally obtain one which does nothing in the grand scheme but take away from honest people********