PFellas, there are ways to change amendments, so no need to argue this point any further. Division is caused by folks continuously arguing on boards like this everywhere. Get involved, get organized, and get your ass off the couch. But get ready to hit a wall. Pro gun folks like me won’t just lay down our arms. You better have a better argument than what you’ve put forth here. Canadiens need not apply, eh......
Dumbest Thing I've read today, via the internet......
- Edited
That's a simple matter of common sense .
Those using the constitution as their defence really miss the point. Likewise is using the argument that if those in the crowd had a gun this tragedy would have been prevented. It's highly unlikely more guns , even if everyone in he crowd had one would have prevented this, it might have made matters worse in the ensuing panic. This fellow had dozens of high powered , semi and automatic weapons capable of discharging rapid fire and was in a concealed vantage point some distance away and under the cover of night. Not sure a pistol toting country fan was going to stop anything from a wide open space 400 plus feet away in the dark.
So the justifications of more guns would have helped is dubious at best.
its not about removing ones right to arms at all, the other commonly cited justification or defence. It's about common sense and considering the value and impact of changes that would limit a person such as this shooter from gaining access to 47 weapons with the capabilities to massacre dozens of people in seconds. It doesn't seem like a big compromise.
Again, the Heller decision said the Second Amendment is not limitless. Restrictions can be made. We as a country choose not to do it because of the gun lobby.
What pro gun safety advocates need to do is become like many of the pro gun right people do. Become a one issue voter. But we'll be onto the next story shortly if we haven't moved on already and all of this carnage will be forgotten.
Pro gun rights advocates adhere to the Archie Bunker theory. Archie was asked how to combat hijacking airplanes (back in the day when they didn't blow them up or crash them into buildings).
He said it was an easy fix. You simply arm all the passengers when they get on the plane and collect all the guns when they get off the plane. 
Gun rights people think arming everyone will solve the problem, when all it will do is cause more gun fights at the OK Corral type scenarios. People not trained shooting at each other. A first responders nightmare.
Oh my... Glad I've been busy...
And, btw regarding FGI and P&R: As a result of said sub-forum I now to this day maintain in contact and claim to have several real friends beyond the prudent and charitable Lefty9155. I'd 'laugh out loud' except this discussion is clearly seriously disturbing and disturbingly serious.
We can debate this all day long, but nothing will come of it without going thru the proper channels. Constitution outdated? Change it. But don't expect to EO folks into giving up their guns, ain't gonna happen. And try looking at it from another perspective for once..........
Sneakylong arming everyone will solve the problem, when all it will do is cause more gun fights at the OK Corral type scenarios.
You say that like that scenario has ever played out. Please, name one instance when an "OK Corral" type confrontation has played out in modern history. I'll get my 
and await your answer.
- Edited
Amending the constitution is a very difficult thing to do. My starting position would be pretty strict, but I'm willing to compromise which many gun rights people are not willing to do.
I had a golf buddy who when Obama got elected went out and bought a magnum 357. He was sure Obama was going to take away everyone's guns. 
He was very confused as to how hard it is to change the constitution.
The gun lobby uses irrational fear to scare gun owners. The slippery slope argument isn't valid because of the Second Amendment.
And besides the Heller (Supreme Court) Case ruled that you can own a gun, but limits can be legislated. Polls show a majority of gun owners are for reasonable things like expanded background checks.
Until the gun safety side can match the NRA with money then nothing will change. Irrational fear will continue to rule the day.
- Edited
Sneakylong owning a gun doesn't help if you are legislated out of the right to use it to defend yourself, your love ones, and other innocent bystanders in public or even in your own home.
Sneakylong you got one thing right there. Barry Soetoro was a hell of a gun salesman.
OK, i'll bite......what's your starting position?
There are many on your side that believe everyone should be armed. I don't buy into the theory that a well armed society is a more polite society. Here in Florida we have one of those crazy shoot first ask questions later laws (stand your ground).
I buy into the theory that if you're armed you're more likely to shoot yourself, a family member whether by accident or intentional then you are shooting an intruder. I believe the stats show that.
puttnfool Sorry, but this kind of thing strikes me as at least slightly paranoid.
It also seems to me that the gun advocates in this thread are trying to have it both ways: on the one hand they want you to believe that gun deaths are almost all suicides and gang-banging and that they are limited to a very few geographical areas; on the other they want to make sure they have their guns so they can protect themselves from intruders, murderers, etc.
So which is it? Are murders rare, or do you need your gun because you might be murdered? Hard to argue both sides.
I hope you guys click on an ad banner every time you visit this thread. 
- Edited
Well my starting position is to get rid of the Second Amendment.
But short of that.
- Expanded back ground checks (mental health etc.). I would make gun owners jump thru at least as many hoops as we do regulating buying and selling automobiles.
- Limit the type of guns available. Re-authorize the assault weapons ban. Yes I know a hunting rifle can be made into a semi automatic assault rifle.
- A buy back program to reduce the amount of guns out there. Australia just did that will good results.
- Having a gun in your home for protection, hunting or target shooting would be fine, but I would put stricter limits on what type. Military type assault weapons should be left to the military and law enforcement. At least restrict those type weapons to gun clubs where they stay.
- Limit the number of bullets in a magazine, so if some nut opens up on a crowd he has to reload more often, giving the prey (victims) more time to get out of the line of fire.
Just some ideas off the top of my head.
The Heller Case reaffirmed you can own a gun. But remember, you're more apt to shoot yourself, a family member, or someone you know (non-intruder), than an intruder.
Yup, gun nuts aren't short on paranoia and ignorance. 
Just clicked on one to help you out. 