Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
My opinion might not matter here, since I'm Canadian, but I thought I'd throw in my two cents anyway.Thousands chanting "no more guns" at an anti-gun rally in Florida (no policy is worse than one made in knee-jerk response to a tragedy).
But my question is...where are the chants demanding accountability from law enforcement who didn't follow protocol to likely prevent this? If they can't handle what is currently on their plate, what makes us think they can enforce new laws?
All opinions are welcome as long as they're factually backed up!My opinion might not matter here, since I'm Canadian, but I thought I'd throw in my two cents anyway.
I'm all for gun ownership. I agree that the right to bear arms against a tyrannical government is important, and I fully support the use of guns for self-defense. That being said, I also can't get behind the Trump Administration loosening restrictions for the mentally ill. I don't think someone who is medically unstable should have easy access to firearms. I think they should be getting treatment, not being effectively encouraged and empowered to do something like this.
My opinion might not matter here, since I'm Canadian, but I thought I'd throw in my two cents anyway.
I'm all for gun ownership. I agree that the right to bear arms against a tyrannical government is important, and I fully support the use of guns for self-defense. That being said, I also can't get behind the Trump Administration loosening restrictions for the mentally ill. I don't think someone who is medically unstable should have easy access to firearms. I think they should be getting treatment, not being effectively encouraged and empowered to do something like this.
You do realize some anti-tank/anti-aircraft guns are legal to own. See, Barrett M82. Perfectly legal in all states but MAYBE California.There was a time when a tyrannical government didn't have tanks and bombs, but they do now. No amount of AR15's can combat that.
Change is coming whether we like it or not. I feel it would be wise for 2nd amendment advocates to get out in front of that change for once or they may not be happy with the results.
You do realize some anti-tank/anti-aircraft guns are legal to own. See, Barrett M82. Perfectly legal in all states but MAYBE California.
Any sort of infringements on current gun owners will probably not end very well.
My question is why would anyone want or need to own one?You do realize some anti-tank/anti-aircraft guns are legal to own. See, Barrett M82. Perfectly legal in all states but MAYBE California.
.
I don't want one. But I don't think the government/myself deserve to decide what law-abiding people need/want so long there is no infringement on anyone else's rights.My question is why would anyone want or need to own one?
If only good law abiding citizens owned them there would be no problem, but we know through recent history high capacity rapid firing guns fall into the hands of evil or mentally sick people and use them to slaughter children and innocent citizens. Unfortunately, this will happen again sometime down the road. Hopefully there will be tips or intelligence to law enforcement that can head more of these off, but it won't stop them all.I don't want one. But I don't think the government/myself deserve to decide what law-abiding people need/want so long there is no infringement on anyone else's rights.
I thought it was a good article that brought up some valid points for consideration. I know it's probably 20 years too late, but one solution for reducing casualties in those situations where the intent is mass killings is to not let the average citizen have access to magazine clips that hold 30/60/100 rounds before the perpetrator has to reload. And eliminating guns that can shoot 4-6 rounds per second. If all guns had only a 6 shot capacity where each round was individually hand loaded, many (not all) lives could be saved. All the guns I own are that way. You don't see killers who want to inflict as much havoc as they can in mass shootings ever choose that kind of weapon... because it would take too long to rip off 100 rounds and multiple round clips in rapid firing arms are much more efficient for their evil purposes. But I don't know what can be done about that now since relaxed laws and unregulated "gun shows" have so many in circulation.
Demonizing me as a law-abiding gun owner and NRA member will never sit well. Those folks who do will never have me on their side when it comes to discourse. This is mainly in reference to the inaudible screeching that is "NRA, it's members, and Congress have blood all on their hands." It's almost as if everyone BUT the perpetrator is guilty....but that is a running mantra in our society today. We do have a responsibility to be our "brother's keeper" by holding those truly responsible accountable, but when folks can't recognize who it actually is, it is futile. And to be fair, it seems like some DID, in fact, perform their due diligence, but the authorities dropped the ball.
But man, I've never seen an organization who has literally done NOTHING but protect a Constitutionally given right be absolutely slandered. You listen to the hysteria by uneducated and irrational folks, you'd think the CEO of the NRA actually planned all of these mass shooting himself.
As always, great discussion Evan. It comes down to one fundamental principle for me...the government has no right delegating what I can and can't have. Where does it stop after guns? Is fast food next? I mean, after all, cardiovascular disease kills over a half million people a year. We don't really NEED that and look at how many lives it would save. I could come up with endless examples.
The government isn't in the business of telling its citizens what it can and can't have. I think that is what it boils down to...personal freedoms.
In 1944, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision, upheld the constitutionality of the removals. Justice Frank Murphy, one of the dissenters, wrote that the exclusion of Japanese-Americans “falls into the ugly abyss of racism,” and resembles “the abhorrent and despicable treatment of minority groups by the dictatorial tyrannies which this nation is now pledged to destroy.” Murphy also compared the treatment of Japanese-Americans with the treatment of Americans of German and Italian ancestry, who were largely unaffected by wartime controls, as evidence that race, and not the wartime emergency alone, led to the exclusion order.
For its part, the court limited its decision to the validity of the exclusion order, avoiding the sensitive issue of the incarceration of U.S. citizens without legal due process. The court’s 1944 decision has never been reversed.