Originally posted by KazetNagorra So if the Constitution is not important, why is it important?
I'm sorry, I misconstrued your use of the word "support." Of course the Amendment would be the Law of the Land. However, I don't have to agree it. In other words, although I would have to abide by those hypothetical restrictions, I would still be free to have ill opinions towards those restrictions.
Originally posted by finnegan You show a touching faith in the potency of mental health services. Woody Allen, of course, is a great admirer of psychanalysis for example, and a tribute to its speedy and economical impact.
Most countries have a simpler way to reduce gun crime. They reduce guns and take the risk of an evil dictator overcoming the forces of democracy as a result. So far this aproach has been pretty good.
Thats because the USA is always there to rescue them
Originally posted by Zahlanzi nobody is taking it away. it is not a fundamental right like the right to a buthole or freedom. you can bear arms or arm bears if you are bloody fit, mentally and phisically.
gun control is about, obviously, controlling guns. making sure they don't reach psychopaths. not about banning them. you don't allow a blind man to get a driving license. and each
and about banning ar-15, well, we also ban bazookas, c4, nuclear weapons and mustard gas.
Originally posted by MoneyManMike Actually, it is a fundamental right to keep and bear arms. See http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2739870581644084946&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr . That right encompasses firearms that are in common use at the time. The AR-15 is certainly in common use right now; therefore, the legislature cannot ban that firearm.
no
it is a fundamental right to be free. the right to life is a fundamental right. to pursuit happiness. and even these can be taken away if the individual is deemed unworthy by the society he lives in.
the right to have a gun must be earned. as is the right to drive a car.
Originally posted by johnnylongwoody Don't get up on your high horse now,
I am only asking a question and the
question is this,
do you not think that the second amendment is outdated
and needs to be brought up to date with today's modern
society and today's modern thinking?
It is unlikely at this stage that you are going to be taken over
again by the British or any other f ...[text shortened]... living in a time warp
where you still seem to think that you are Jesse James or Wyatt Earp.
their forefathers would piss their pants if they knew what arms their descendants want to bear.
they made that amendment thinking about muskets and these gun nuts want sniper rifles
Originally posted by AThousandYoung Those forefathers invented sniper rifles
wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Murphy_(sniper)
Murphy climbed a nearby tree, took careful aim at the extreme distance of 300 yards, and fired four times. The first shot was a close miss, the second grazed the General's horse, and with the third, Fraser tumbled from his horse, shot through the stomach. General Fraser died that night.
compare that with the rifles available for hunting nowadays, and tell me if you made any sense with your wiki link. or maybe you attempted humor? either the case, i am confused.
Originally posted by MoneyManMike While I agree with Mr. Noir that our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms shouldn't be taken away simply because of the wrongful acts of a few psychopaths, I disagree with his argument that conceal carry holders and media self-regulation can stop mass shooters. First, most mass shooters are suicidal maniacs who don't necessarily care about thei ...[text shortened]... ppening, I think he can prevent some from happening by having strong mental health programs.
I agree that mental health is the aspect that is most often overlooked, however as with other issues, it is a matter of trade offs.
First thing is that mentally ill is poorly defined. And not all "mentally ill" people are dangerous psychopaths.
Should it be a given that a person that has seen a psychiatrist to combat depression should be denied his right under the Constitution to keep and bear arms, and to his "natural right" to self defence?
I didn't think Mr. Noir indicated that these incidents would be totally stopped by those means, but that they would be significantly minimized. The facts are that shooting rampages usually stop only when someone with a gun shows up. That's when the psycho shooter takes his own life.
it is a fundamental right to be free. the right to life is a fundamental right. to pursuit happiness. and even these can be taken away if the individual is deemed unworthy by the society he lives in.
the right to have a gun must be earned. as is the right to drive a car.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi Murphy climbed a nearby tree, took careful aim at the extreme distance of 300 yards, and fired four times. The first shot was a close miss, the second grazed the General's horse, and with the third, Fraser tumbled from his horse, shot through the stomach. General Fraser died that night.
compare that with the rifles available for hunting nowadays, and t ...[text shortened]... de any sense with your wiki link. or maybe you attempted humor? either the case, i am confused.
Could you hit a mansized target at 300 yards, with any modern firearm?
Originally posted by finnegan You show a touching faith in the potency of mental health services. Woody Allen, of course, is a great admirer of psychanalysis for example, and a tribute to its speedy and economical impact.
Most countries have a simpler way to reduce gun crime. They reduce guns and take the risk of an evil dictator overcoming the forces of democracy as a result. So far this aproach has been pretty good.
Flanegen, what is it going to take to get you to see that guns are a good thing? We don't want to take the risk of a Hitler or Stalin killing millions over a few school shootings etc... Where is your head man?
How to Stop Mass Shootings
14 Apr '13 18:19
Back to Top