I suppose the real question is should people be able to do any mad thing they want?
And on a good day this is a positive about Trump a man who does whatever he wants. I don't want to see 6 year olds walking around with assault rifles but I want to see you talking like it's a good idea, and people to know that for the real reason which is because you like shooting guns. All pretenses of doing the right thing washed aside you don't shoot guns for security or your consitution, you do it because it's fun. Trump shows how it's all for sport.
PeKaatje: Without weapons there wouldn't be many murders. In a world with way to many people, I say, go ahead, kill each other, but leave me out of it.
yep,that's how we stopped Deaths from Drugs!No one has any!All made illegal!
ChesneyChrist: In one way it wouldn't matter because we wouldn't arm ourselves to the teeth even if they were legal. Gun culture is not the same as guns being legal and clearly there's something murderous in the American psyche which shares responsiblity for all the mass murders.
Americans should have guns restricted because they're a more criminal and selfish people, more decent people don't create lands of mass murder even they're armed. In Switzerland they shoot themselves at an unprecedented rate. We should assume the American is a serial killer, they need more laws to help restrict mass murder because their way of life is more likely to do a murder. Their general attitude is closer to sociopathy and their concern for the welfare of others is less than rest of mankind, law-abidingness is the sole reason they wouldn't murder and when you don't have a conscience all you have is the rules.
which is why you keep inviting Americans when you're losing wars...
CossackCat: Let me get this straight... You are an American, asking if there should be gun law restrictions, in America, but in an advice thread, in international forum? (Instead of USA forum) Do you REALLY care, what the rest of the world thinks about your rights or removing them?
SMFH Self sabotaging? Drama seeking?
Doesn't matter.. I am out have fun
Pardon me? i do not see America mentioned in the thread topic.
M4_Mischief: why not...have a revolution against yourselves and get it over with....mass shootings are already killing out the next generation so have at it...
The funny thing is that people strut about these threads making faux sighs that they have this right and nothing can be done. When of course it could. The 2nd ammendment can be removed - its called an ammendent of the constitutition.
PLUS even the SCOTUS judgement they most love - District of Columbia v. Heller - which the NRA says and which they think means they can own any gun they like and walk around with it freely, actually says no such thing. There is no legal reason in the US why they could not have faitly restrictive gun control, and court cases since Heller have borne that out as legal challanges to more gun laws have failed.
Lets look at what Heller says about gun rights in general. Read it yourself here
In response to: 2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56
Seems pretty clear to me, and this is in a judgement Gun rights people hold up as ANTI Gun Control and vindication of their rughts to wander around with an assault weapon.
Sir_T: The funny thing is that people strut about these threads making faux sighs that they have this right and nothing can be done. When of course it could. The 2nd ammendment can be removed - its called an ammendent of the constitutition.
PLUS even the SCOTUS judgement they most love - District of Columbia v. Heller - which the NRA says and which they think means they can own any gun they like and walk around with it freely, actually says no such thing. There is no legal reason in the US why they could not have faitly restrictive gun control, and court cases since Heller have borne that out as legal challanges to more gun laws have failed.
Lets look at what Heller says about gun rights in general. Read it yourself here
Seems pretty clear to me, and this is in a judgement Gun rights people hold up as ANTI Gun Control and vindication of their rughts to wander around with an assault weapon.
2nd only affirms the Right,doesn't bestow it! Do some Research,Snowflake!
Conrad73: 2nd only affirms the Right,doesn't bestow it! Do some Research,Snowflake!
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Sorry dearheart, but there is nothing in the second Ammendment about defending yourself. It says stuff about the Mititia, but thats it. The plain reading of it is that people whould be allowed to have guns so that they can be called up to defend the Republic, sod self defense. And thats is also why people in Switzerland are allowed guns, by the way.
It also says nothing about not bieng able to regulate what guns they have just that they be allowed to "Bear arms." Not own, just be able to bear them.
So say hello to bieng armed with a stick that is issued to you by the Goverment in time of war. By the text of the 2nd Ammendment that would be acceptable.
And even if there was some right to own a gun, DC V Heller says that right is not unlimited.
So ya, the goverment can regulate the guns you can own. There have literally been dozens if not hundreds of court cases in the USA saying so. Suck it.
I do give you props for using more than 3 sylables in your reply, however. Oh and there is no such thing as a natural right, but thats a discussion for another day.
You're still wrong! What part of Shall Not Be Infringed do you not understand? Besides,the Amendment does not confer a Right,it merely spells out what Rights the People do have! Something hard to understand for a Collectivist like you! Besides,all through the Constitution The People is The Individual,yet somehow you are trying to tell me that in the case of the 2nd that meaning has suddenly changed? Go tell that to the Ferryman!
2 The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government.
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
3 The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;...
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824
4 The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and 'is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.
Texas Court Decision Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]
I messed up my quotes in the second quote above so my reply is buried in it, but ya, whatever site she copied and pasted out of truncated and chopped bits off. Jefforson was talking about Militias only and never spoke about an indivitual right to arms in that quote in context.
It will be noticed that the Cockrum v. State, 24 Texas 394 court case he cited talks about rights bieng handed down by the state, nothing about the 2nd decleratory of existing rights. In fact, the language "Decleratory of existing rights" was used in the debates over passage of the 14th ammendment, not the second, which is ironic as Conrad would probably be all about repeal of the 14th.
Sir_T: I messed up my quotes in the second quote above so my reply is buried in it, but ya, whatever site she copied and pasted out of truncated and chopped bits off. Jefforson was talking about Militias only and never spoke about an indivitual right to arms in that quote in context.
It will be noticed that the Cockrum v. State, 24 Texas 394 court case he cited talks about rights bieng handed down by the state, nothing about the 2nd decleratory of existing rights. In fact, the language "Decleratory of existing rights" was used in the debates over passage of the 14th ammendment, not the second, which is ironic as Conrad would probably be all about repeal of the 14th.
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
The arrow went straight through her heart.
It doesn't matter that they were black immigrants, it illustrated if some one wants to kill they will regardless of guns being banned.
Its a wonder someone hasn't had a go at Mister know it all.