15 Dec 12
Concerning the growing number of heinous mass assaults,many concerned citizens have brought back the gun control debate.
I for one support the second amendment, and feel that although deadly, guns are not to blame.
I suggest we start to discuss the real problem of gun owners. We need gun owner control. We need to evaluate what the owner intends to do with the weapon. Does he hunt? Target shoot? Is it for home defense? Is it for homeland defense? Is he more of a collector?
I suggest different levels of gun ownership 1. Being a sportsman or range target shooter. 2. An armed citizen either carrying with permit or just has a weapon at home. 3. militia or other such para-military type owner.
Psychiatric evaluations, training, education, Mental health help when detected. varying degrees of ownership IMO should mean varying degrees of regulation.
just sayin
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by sonhouseThat's the first I heard of it. Look, we all live in some culture or another. Share is good, but withhold the judging.
I guess nobody has any empathy for the 22 kids stabbed in an elementary school in china that happened the same day. I guess American tragedies are more important than Chinese tragedies.
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by phil3000It was the sword a few hundred years ago.
The gun is the problem you have a rising population of 300 million, there will be plenty of deranged ,suicidal people and nut jobs out there with easy access to guns if you dont ban guns in the US expect more to come,i am afraid to say .
While greed exists, so will hate.
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by ChessPraxisThat sounds very practical, but it will be difficult to implement.
Concerning the growing number of heinous mass assaults,many concerned citizens have brought back the gun control debate.
I for one support the second amendment, and feel that although deadly, guns are not to blame.
I suggest we start to discuss the real problem of gun owners. We need gun owner control. We need to evaluate what the owner intends to do w ...[text shortened]... etected. varying degrees of ownership IMO should mean varying degrees of regulation.
just sayin
The second amendment is too vague and does not narrow it down
as to what type of weapon or who should have it.
It just basically says that you have the right to bear arms.
The NRA and the rest of the gun lobby will not be happy with
what you suggest. They do not want any type of watering down
of their precious second amendment.
Shotguns, hunting rifles and pistols are one aspect which will
be difficult to change.
But perhaps they could bring in legislation limiting the use of
automatic weapons like machine guns and assault rifles.
Limit weapons like that to responsible bodies like the police
or the military.
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by johnnylongwoodyYou would have to include militia groups. Our Constitution also provides for state and local militia. This group would have to have the tightest controls for obvious reasons. Point is, I think we need to do something. 😞
That sounds very practical, but it will be difficult to implement.
The second amendment is too vague and does not narrow it down
as to what type of weapon or who should have it.
It just basically says that you have the right to bear arms.
The NRA and the rest of the gun lobby will not be happy with
what you suggest. They do not want any ty ...[text shortened]... sault rifles.
Limit weapons like that to responsible bodies like the police
or the military.
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by ChessPraxisObama believes that something should be done.
You would have to include militia groups. Our Constitution also provides for state and local militia. This group would have to have the tightest controls for obvious reasons. Point is, I think we need to do something. 😞
There have been too many incidents of this type.
But there are far too many lobby groups against him.
In the end, money talks and if they withdraw their funding
and support from him, he'll have an even harder job.
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by johnnylongwoodyIt's my belief that the real powers to be are the ones with the gold.
Obama believes that something should be done.
There have been too many incidents of this type.
But there are far too many lobby groups against him.
In the end, money talks and if they withdraw their funding
and support from him, he'll have an even harder job.
Political leaders are mirror puppets.
Yeah I know... mear
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitThere is no freedom of expression if the expression will cause harm. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater for this reason (unless there is an actual fire, of course). Is it not obvious that since the proliferation of graphically detailed video games depicting horrific acts of violence we have seen a rise in senseless acts of violence within our society? I'm no sociologist, and I'm no environmentalist, but just like I can look outside my window and see that there is no snow on the ground here in mid-december, I can observe this new phenomenon in our society and can draw a conclusion about what looks like a contributing factor. Unfortunately some parents don't seem to understand the implicit danger in these products, so why aren't we insisting that they be removed from the market?
Freedom of expression.
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by sonhouseIt goes to the heart of this discussion, how many did the Knife wielding maniac manage to kill?
I guess nobody has any empathy for the 22 kids stabbed in an elementary school in china that happened the same day. I guess American tragedies are more important than Chinese tragedies.
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by BusygirlWhy not violent films, comics, t.v program's, state foreign policy.?
There is no freedom of expression if the expression will cause harm. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater for this reason (unless there is an actual fire, of course). Is it not obvious that since the proliferation of graphically detailed video games depicting horrific acts of violence we have seen a rise in senseless acts of violence within our ...[text shortened]... anger in these products, so why aren't we insisting that they be removed from the market?