"A Brief History of America"

[515speed]

complex gun laws are not going to do anything but cost us the tax payers more money. Let say we did have some big process to go threw before you could buy a gun. You think someone that ****** up enouth to take someone elses life is going to just say. ehhh **** it. NO You think the people that hijacked planes just two years ago saw the amount of trainng they had to do and just said **** it. NO.
What we should do is take that money they would spend on a new big gun law and put it toward education.

My thoughts go out to the families of 9/11.

 

[charles]

"is no longer civilized IMO" is exactly right. It is your 'opinion'. What makes you think that your opinion is right?

You do know what they say about opinions...don't you?

And you have an opinion too

 

[loj68]

when you regulate and restrict guns you ONLY affect law abiding gun owners who already don't commit gun crimes and are responsible members of society. Criminals are unaffected by such laws and you only leave people at the mercy of the criminal element. I'd feel MUCH safer on commercial airlines if they allowed law abiding gun carriers such as myself on board....say goodbye to hijackings!

Keep in mind, ALL GUN CRIME IS ALREADY AGAINST THE LAW!!!! People should be able to own Uzi's or MP5's or AR15's or whatever they want.....so long as they don't commit crimes with them. I see people shoot these types of guns at the range all the time.....they like the looks of the weapons and the fun of shooting at targets....these people have no intent on carrying such weapons around and killing people. Your problem is with criminals, not with guns. Like Michael Moore showed in Canada, they have just as much gun ownership as us with no gun crime....it's obviously not the guns. Check the gun crime rate in Washington DC where guns are 100% illegal.....yep, gun crime capital of the USA!

 

[GI-]

And you have an opinion too

My 'opinion' agrees with the second amendment of our constitution. What does you opinion agree with?

 

[chuyler1]

when you regulate and restrict guns you ONLY affect law abiding gun owners who already don't commit gun crimes and are responsible members of society. Criminals are unaffected by such laws and you only leave people at the mercy of the criminal element. I'd feel MUCH safer on commercial airlines if they allowed law abiding gun carriers such as myself on board....say goodbye to hijackings!

Most criminals purchase guns from these law abiding citizens who sell them at gun shows and don't do proper background checks. Allowing legally purchased guns to spill into the hands of unlicensed peoople. The rest of the criminals either purchased their weapon from another criminal or, get this, may not have even been a criminal before they use the gun they purchased legally to kill someone. What's the deal with Gun Shows anyway? do you have to provide a gun license to enter or can anyone walk around and buy them?

another thing...background checks...is that invasion of privacy in your opinion?

Keep in mind, ALL GUN CRIME IS ALREADY AGAINST THE LAW!!!! People should be able to own Uzi's or MP5's or AR15's or whatever they want.....so long as they don't commit crimes with them. I see people shoot these types of guns at the range all the time.....they like the looks of the weapons and the fun of shooting at targets....these people have no intent on carrying such weapons around and killing people.

Why do Americans feel the need to celebrate violence? I can make it through the day without shooting a weapon at an imaginary target, why can't others.

Your problem is with criminals, not with guns. Like Michael Moore showed in Canada, they have just as much gun ownership as us with no gun crime....it's obviously not the guns. Check the gun crime rate in Washington DC where guns are 100% illegal.....yep, gun crime capital of the USA!

Because anyone can walk outside D.C., buy a gun, then walk back in.

Regardless of what is legal and illegal, its a fact that more people are killed by guns in the US. How do YOU propose we solve this problem if beefing up the gun laws is not the solution?

 

[chuyler1]

My 'opinion' agrees with the second amendment of our constitution. What does you opinion agree with?

Which was written when the only 'arms' available were swords, muskets, and single-shot pistols that had to be reloaded with gun powder between shots.

If our forefathers could have forseen semi-automatic hand guns, uzis and MP5s, they may have been a little more specific with that clause.

 

[charles]

My 'opinion' agrees with the second amendment of our constitution. What does you opinion agree with?

I have an opinion that might go like that too. No need to make an asinine statement though

 

[GI-]

Which was written when the only 'arms' available were swords, muskets, and single-shot pistols that had to be reloaded with gun powder between shots.

If our forefathers could have forseen semi-automatic hand guns, uzis and MP5s, they may have been a little more specific with that clause.

I see, now you believe our forefathers were not intelligent enough to forsee advancements in firearms and ammunition.

The second amendment is there for a reason. That reason is so free Ameicans can protect themselves and their country from enemies either foreign or domestic.

You personally might not need these firearms today, but what about tomorrow, or the next day, or the day after that.

 

[loj68]

Regardless of what is legal and illegal, its a fact that more people are killed by guns in the US. How do YOU propose we solve this problem if beefing up the gun laws is not the solution?

I wouldn't pretend to know the solution.....if the solution means disarming law abiding citizens then I'm willing to deal with the gun crime to ensure law abiding citizens can arm themselves. There are certain prices that we pay for the amount of freedom we have....if increased crime is one of them then so be it IMHO.......sometimes the costs of perceived safety are far too great.

 

[GI-]

I have an opinion that might go like that too. No need to make an asinine statement though

What the **** is 'asinine' about that?

 

[loj68]

Which was written when the only 'arms' available were swords, muskets, and single-shot pistols that had to be reloaded with gun powder between shots.

If our forefathers could have forseen semi-automatic hand guns, uzis and MP5s, they may have been a little more specific with that clause.

You could also argue that they left that amendment non-specific on purpose so that advances in arms could NOT be outlawed.

 

[TexP5]

It is called the Second Amendment, and if you don't believe in it than you've got some issues.

Gotta dive in here...Here is the Second Amendment verbatim...
"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."

This language was written in a period when the country had been recently occupied by a hostile military force. There was a small standing army, but the nation needed the ability to call on armed citizen soldiers at a minutes notice. The country developed beyond the need for this militia at least 80 years ago, and arguably as far back as 1866. I have ISSUES with people who are dogmatic and don't recognize that the Constitution was written by a set of very human and fallible white men, in a very specific historical and ideological era.

The Second Amendment has long since served its purpose and should have been delted decades ago. In modern America abuse of the right to bear arms has a much greater impact on the fabric of society than the denial of these rights would have. Yes, hunters and gun enthusiasts would be denied an opportunity to use guns in proper and enjoyable ways, but in this instance, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

 

[chuyler1]

I see, now you believe our forefathers were not intelligent enough to forsee advancements in firearms and ammunition.

The second amendment is there for a reason. That reason is so free Ameicans can protect themselves and their country from enemies either foreign or domestic.

You personally might not need these firearms today, but what about tomorrow, or the next day, or the day after that.

They put slavery in there...do you think it was a bad idea to take that out?

They left out women's rights...do you think it should stay that way?

Our forefathers were only human like us, they made mistakes just as we do.

 

[charles]

What the **** is 'asinine' about that?

It is your 'opinion'. What makes you think that your opinion is right?

You do know what they say about opinions...don't you?

What makes you think YOUR opinion is right? Are you saying you don't have an opinion, you only have THE TRUTH? I believe in the Constitution, but that's my OPINION.

 

[GI-]

What makes you think YOUR opinion is right? Are you saying you don't have an opinion, you only have THE TRUTH? I believe in the Constitution, but that's my OPINION.

I never said i think my opinion is right. I just stated that my opinion is based on our country's second amendment.

 

[NRRfrogmanP5]

im a member of the NRA...anyone else here???

 

[charles]

I never said i think my opinion is right. I just stated that my opinion is based on our country's second amendment.

So why bring up the everybody has an opinion, just like everybody has an asshole?

 

[GI-]

It is called the Second Amendment, and if you don't believe in it than you've got some issues.

Gotta dive in here...Here is the Second Amendment verbatim...
"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."

The Second Amendment has long since served its purpose and should have been delted decades ago. In modern America abuse of the right to bear arms has a much greater impact on the fabric of society than the denial of these rights would have. Yes, hunters and gun enthusiasts would be denied an opportunity to use guns in proper and enjoyable ways, but in this instance, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

It should not be 'delted' as you put it. You could also argue, as "loj68" has thet they left that amendment non-specific on purpose so that advances in arms could NOT be outlawed.

You should keep in mind that our country could be invaded and attacked at any time, as it has. You would think a little differently of the people who own these weapons, if they should ever need to use them to protect our contry from foreign or domestic attacks.

 

[GI-]

im a member of the NRA...anyone else here???

I guess that makes two of us.

 

[TexP5]

I see, now you believe our forefathers were not intelligent enough to forsee advancements in firearms and ammunition.

This is laughably immature. It has nothing to do with intelligence of the "forefathers." It has everything to do with the limits of their cultural knowledge and the specific conditions to which they were responding. I would venture to guess that if we could revive Thomas Jefferson, he'd say "Are you people stupid, we didn't mean to write in stone!!!" His intelligence would have led him to adapt when necessary.