Seriously, I think the real problem is lack of access to quality mental health care.

Fixing that problem will do far more good IMHO than putting all of us in a straight jacket by denying access to any potentially dangerous tool.

@Normanbites It makes little difference with this president. Trump reversed legislation that Obama put in place that curbs the mentally ill from obtaining a gun.

@Normanbites 100 thumbs up for this comment in my book. While i was a Reagan Republican, he is the one most responsible for killing public money for mental health treatment. Now, having said that, all other Presidents had a chance to fix that, and none have. Not even President Clinton (my favorite president) did anything.

My "so called rights?" They are called so because they are, in fact, inalienable and unabridgable rights. Are you destroying those magazines in an effort to censor people's reading material at a PUBLIC library?

It broke mine, too, @Crimson67.

Give Hillary's body guards sling shots, see how long she lasts

@jayneonacob Fear monger much? Boring.

I'm not fear mongering. I'm just saying that the biggest supporters of gun laws are protected by them. They are hypocrites and illustrate the exact reason we do need guns. That's why I brought her up.

@jeffy The problem that the gun people forget is that more guns in a society mean more people feel they have to armed to protect themselves from the other gun totters. I remember in England when the Bobby's didn't even carry guns. Now, with the proliferation of guns things are getting more violent - but still not even close to our violence level.

@jayneonacobb Your reasoning only stands up if there are guns everywhere. There don't have to be guns everywhere. That is a choice we are making, not a right.

@jeffy there are guns everywhere. Which makes my position the correct one. You can't dictate my rights, especially with out any way to enforce your ideas. The liberal narrative quickly falls apart under even the slightest scrutiny. Do you know what utopia originally meant? Nothingness or nowhere. That's where your ideal society is, has been and will always be.

@Ignostic_Skeptic I don't think that at all. I know it for a fact.

@Akfishlady the gun didn't kill those kids, the person using it did. If he wanted to kill all of them he could have much more easily by opening a cupboard in his bathroom or kitchen. Slavery was never a right recognized by the bill of rights, that's a terrible argument that I hear a lot. So you think that the US government, or any government for that matter, is trustworthy?

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights. There were no automatic weapons then, The intent of 2nd amendment refers to the national guard, not necessarily citizens, but profits go before reason right, so people die so they can make money.

@jeffy completely wrong. I have the highest degree attainable in the field of firearms. I have held fully automatic weapons from before the drafting of the bill of rights. It says "for the purposes of a well regulated militia" a militia is an army of private citizens. National guard soldiers are not private citizens. The second amendment exists because the framers knew the importance of standing up to tyranny. Would you like to see my militia patch? I am a member of one.

@jayneonacobb Really - what automatic weapons were there in 1791?

@Akfishlady what about my right to protect my life? Also it's a moot point because the same documents that illustrate your right to life, also illustrates your right to keep and bare arms.

@jayneonacobb, I agree with you that people kill people, which is why I believe certain people should not have the right to purchase or keep guns.

There are some markers (such as previous anger events, or unstable mental health, or the use of a gun in a crime) that make some people much more likely statistically to use a gun in a violent manner. Unless you've done any of those, I'm fine with you owning guns.

But I don't understand why you think someone who has those risk factors should have unchecked access to a weapon that has no other use (like a knife does)?

@jeffy this link has a list of types and capacities. [truthrevolt.org]

@Lauren i can buy a bag of revolvers in any major city without a background check for about $80. Laws don't stop crime, a gun is pretty effective at it though. Self defense, hunting, recreation. None of these things constitute murder or assault.

@Ignostic_Skeptic I fired my first fun at age 8. I owned my first gun at age 11. I had access to it whenever I was home, no one else. I was raised to respect firearms, not fear them. Education is important. Criminals are in prison and as such do not have access to weapons. Mentally ill people who want to harm themselves or others should be in a psychiatric facility. Once you've been released you should be treated just like everyone else. That's why they call it paying your debt to society. Once paid you should have your rights restored. If you kill people, you shouldn't be released. If you continue to be a danger to people, you should not be released.

@jayneonacobb Your article is absurd propaganda - there are no references just nonsense. Your argument is moot.

I appreciate all of your arguments. I've made many of the same ones in the past. Particularly the ex-con and mentally ill ones. I have met a lot of gun owners who are absolute idiots. I've met ones that are career criminals. I've met crazy people who own guns. I have met politicians. If there is one form of gun control I promote, it's against governments having them. A good government shouldn't need guns if they are built by a good society. Good meaning logical, educated and rational. That will never happen, so until then, I need my guns like I need a fire extinguisher.

@jeffy I've held and operated some of those firearms. I fixed them, I shot them, I know what they can do. The only argument here that is moot is yours. The underlying argument is that if the government has it, the people need it to ensure their freedom. It doesn't need references, it shows you the picture and gives you the names. Google can corroborate the evidence with a simple search of make and model. Lewis and Clark had a repeating .45 air rifle that could bring down a man. The only propaganda here is what ever liberal crap you've been hearing about guns. Look at all the evidence, not just the cherries.

@jayneonacobb I'm not sure I understand your point about self defense, hunting, and recreation not being murder or assault. I didn't advocate limiting gun access for people who use them for the former, but guns ARE used for murder and assault and should not be available to people who have committed those crimes.

I also don't find the cost argument logical. If illegal possession was punished and the weapons destroyed, the cost of street sales would increase dramatically because their risk factor has increased.

You seem to have a very black and white view of the world. Permanent incarceration for a crime is not cost-effective and it's cruel; likewise permanent institutionalization. And, again, no one wants to take away your guns unless you have something in your background that would indicate you would abuse them.

Cars don't kill people, but drunk people in cars do. That's why we remove their right to have a drivers license after multiple offences. The same should apply with guns.

@jayneonacobb What specific automatic weapons are they. You don't now how to search and post a link? It's your argument, not mine. Right now your argument has no proof other than hearsay. Your misguided concern about the government is absurd and probably means you are one of those who don't even vote. What, you prefer a government by business - completely unaccountable to anyone? That is what it is becoming because people are not involved in being responsible for government anymore, or if they are they are doing so for the sake of business. Government is supposed to be the arbiter between business and the people - not the employees of business out to rip off everybody as much as possible.

@jeffy technically, now, you're making the claim that despite my evidence to the contrary you don't think fully automatic firearms existed pre 1791. You just saw a list of them, but you dismissed it. Thats your failing, not mine. You proved my point. No I don't trust the government. That's why I have guns. Who says that government is the arbiter between business and people? That's an opinion based on your ideals. A government is what ever it's people allow it to be. I have guns in case the government decides to over step their bounds. I vote every time a ballot is available. I'm a conservative, not an idiot.
This one is pre 1776 [en.m.wikipedia.org]

@Lauren that's why I support capital punishment. How do you think those guns get back on the black market? They are either not recovered or they are sold by corrupt police. Banning things creates black markets. Criminals use black markets. That's a fact of life. Also we do commit people for life in psych wards daily. Those are examples of uses that do not involve murder.

@Akfishlady We need to ignore the pro gunners. Their information is obviously self-serving and conflicted. They will believe any inanity because of a lack of critical thinking skills. Remember, this site is supposed to be about the harm religion causes and one of the biggest harms is the support of guns (funny coming from a group that espouses peace).

@JackPedigo your solution is to not engage in civil debate because you think that you know you are right... That's literally the religion stance. Belief based on a set of predetermined ideals. I never advocated war. You assumed that I did because of your bias. You dismiss the evidence that doesn't support your position. The real reason you don't engage is that you know you can't make a good argument that i havn't already destroyed. I thought this was a dating site for atheists and agnostics...

@Crimson67 actually it's been accepted as a reliable open source. Also I've held one of those. So, your denying historical facts is just that.

@Crimson67 tell that to the court system that routinely sentences people to psych wards. Of course they aren't free, neither is prison, or society.

@Crimson67 I wasn't in the military. That doesn't mean I don't have training. I have the highest degree attainable in the field of fire arms. I made a lot of connections that afforded me unique learning opportunities. There is more than one path to knowledge. I graduated with honors from Colorado School of Trades in 2008. The most prestigious school in the field. One of the only two accredited schools for the study in the country. It happens to be the leading gunsmithing school in the world. So yes, i am an expert. What are your credentials in the fire arms field?

@Crimson67 any other leaps of logic or assumptions you would like to make?

@jayneonacobb 9 rounds a minute and it was never put into production hardly qualifies as a machine gun. It is absurd to believe you could defeat the combined arms of today's military with your pop guns. How do you think being conservative prevents the ongoing corruption that is going on with one party rule now?

@jeffy fist of all, it demonstrates that weapons technology advances, and that the founding fathers foresaw better weapons in the future. Thus rendering the musket argument moot. That's not what were discussing here. Stay on topic.

In today's world how is the part about 'a well regulated militia' being addressed? Why was the 2nd amendment written like it was and why has the interpretation changed?

@Ktcyan I've already covered this. A militia is an armed citizenry. The citizens are regulated by the government in accordance with the bill of rights. I've wrote it so many times it was in my auto fill in that exact order. The reserves and or national guard are not a militia as they are not actually citizens. My friend is an E-6 in the national guard, he is not a private citizen. I, being eligible for the draft, am a member of the militia by default.

@jayneonacobb I say post-hoc ergo propter hoc to your argument about the founding fathers foreseeing and sanctioning automatic weapons - it is a logical fallacy; non sequitur. One relationship is clear - industry influences both government and citizens purely for profits - your 'rights' are simply a commodity to be exploited. That people die because commons sense controls can't be implemented is of no consequence to those profiting. At some point, it will end. There is no justification for the right to bear arms without controls - the constitution says "well regulated" and it isn't..

Veritas vos liberabit. "It appears @jeffy is an educated man... Now I really hate him."

You just sound like you hate the fact that people have rights that you choose to wave. Here's the facts, bucko. Capatilism works because people have rights. There is a justification for having guns, it's called the right to self preservation. Your argument isn't based on anything factual that hasn't been misrepresented by omission of the other 99% of relevant data. You're being dishonest and willfully ignorant. You can't really believe that with all the weapons advances that happened in their life times that these intelligent people didn't foresee better weapons. That's absurd.

Here are the complete and actual facts. [gunowners.org]

Thank you, @JustBill. It's a shame that it's so unusual to hear the voice of reason about all this ... but you give me hope.

Nope, not going to happen. I can build a very nice gun out of car parts in about three days. I can make modern powder easily. I can also make primers, cases and bullets by the thousands in a week. Pandora box is open, no amount of whining is going to fix that. Besides, Australia still has lots of guns, and murder hasn't stopped.

It's not the 2nd amendment that is the problem; it's how some people interpret it. It starts out "A well regulated militia..." The amendment neither support gun ownership nor prohibits it. It can go either way and is just a matter of interpretation. Also, we need to remember the time and culture when the Constitution was written. In the late 18th century guns were single shot mostly muzzle loaders. The Gatling gun did not come into use until a hundred years later. All this information is readily available if one were to look into it (and stay away from the conflicted interests put out by the gun industry).

@JackPedigo actually the puckle gun was fully automatic. It was invented before 1776. You can't seriously believe that the framers didn't know that weapons technology advances?

A militia is comprised completely by citizens. The reserves and national guard soldiers are not private citizens. The people are well regulated by the government in accordance with the bill of rights. The bill of rights states that I have the right to bare arms as a male eligeable for the draft I am technically a militia member. Arms means all weapons. Therefore I have the right as a private citizen to keep and bare arms of all types available. The times they were written in were times that they wanted to avoid in the future. That is why they declared indipendence, to escape tyrrany. A militia exists as a construct to depose unwanted rulers. That is why the liberal narrative is wrong.

There is no militia it is just a gun free for all, so people get killed.

Inalienable and unabridgable are words found in the bill of rights. Those words are used to describe the status of all rights. Therefore any gun control law is catagorically illegal and unconstitutional. The gun lobby is actually just fighting for the law to be enforced correctly.

For some there is no common sense. If anyone who takes money from the NRA is forced to forfeit a member of their family for a senseless shooting we might, and I mean might see some representatives grow some balls. No probably not, they will still probably want the money and the power.

When the public is not safe they tend to buy into more fear mongering
which is exactly when we need to not be fearful and take control.

@Ktcyan a truer statement could not be made...

What did Obama ever do to threaten your guns?

How are teachers going to protect kids when a crazed gun toting person with an AK47 coming at you?? We don't need guns in schools. Teachers don't want guns in schools either. Ohh, Obama never took your guns away..ever. Stop making up things that nwver took place.

This is the same as any religious based terrorism, but here it;s the gun that;s sacred. Your dogma is insane fundamentalism. To think that more guns is what;s needed is bat crap crazy.

@vnufall I know teachers who are qualified shooters who would be willing to carry a gun in school. What make a school so dangerous is disarming all the law abiding citizens. How many tiles have we had mass shootings at Police stations? What makes schools so dangerous is only the bad people have guns.

@Trajan61 How do you know that some teacher down in Florida in this school didnt have a conceaLed weapon?? Sorry your thinking on guns is narrow and dangerous and sick. Dont want to take your guns away just need some gun control. Killing children because you can have a military style gun, is just wrong. Every one of those parents who lost a child should sue the NR A. Praying to God about this is ridiculous. Dont need prayers. Can you bring these children back? I didnt think so.

@Yakois Sorry don't agree, teacher with a gun, is most likely just going to get killed when up against an AK47. Most teachers don't want guns in school. Doesn't mix with promoting a safe environment. As a parent I would be mortified to have guns in schools. Need gun control. More guns are making everything worse.

How many guns did you lose during his administration? I still own mine and don't worry about it because there is no threat to take your gun

@Lysistrata Obama did nothing to threaten our guns...the Republican majority in the House and Senate kept him from even trying. Otherwise, you can rest assured he would have tried.

@Lysistrata I seem to clearly remember him saying that he would "Go to every gun owners home and take them." So he wanted to do exactly what Hitler did to the Germans just before he murdered over 6 million Jews and subjugated an empire under fascism.

@vnufall guns kill people like typewriters wrote Mein kampfh. It's a tool, not a murder small children machine.

@jayneonacobb I tried to find this quote online, but can't find a match. Do you have a link?

@dahermit That's foolish. The whole gun scare was to get gun fanatics to buy more guns. And they did. Woohoo. They're all safe from nonexistent threats, but a danger to themselves and everyone else.

@Lysistrata it's not an exact quote, my memory is a bit fuzzy, it was during his first presidential campaign. Either way, any gun control is illegal because of the bill of rights. It's says arms, not muskets. That includes all weapons. Better example is chamber stamping and serial numbered cases. Also a reintroduction of gun control laws, and some new ones. Let's also not forget about operation fast and furious where the Obama administration sold illegal weapons, illegally to illegal drug cartels in mexico.

@jayneonacobb Gun control is not illegal, it's a mandate. "..well-regulated militia.." I'm not interested in diversionary talking points about Mexico. We can't go to the movies, a concert, or even send our kids to school without worrying someone we love is going to get shot by a domestic terrorist. Something's got to be done.

@Lysistrata the militia is to be well regulated. The people make up the militia. The people are regulated. Arms means weapons of all kinds. You can't wake up with out worying that your kid will be hit by a car on the way to or from any of those events or places either. You asked what he did to harm gun owners in america. Many of those guns come back here. All were used for crime. Those stats were added into gun crime stats. That hurts gun owners.

@jayneonacobb Experience informs me that our conversation is going nowhere positive so let's skip the rest of it and remain friends, fellow Mainer.

@Trajan61 Years ago 4 cops were having lunch in a restaurant in Seattle. A crazed gun nut came in and shot all 4 of them, dead and ran away. Having a gun does not protect one. It often makes them a target. Before the CDC and NIH were banned from doing study in gun violence (which is Not protected by any amendment) it was shown having a gun in the house increased one's chances of getting robbed. A gun registered to someone else was the one thing most thieves sought.

@Lysistrata I'm fine with your beliefs, as long as they don't infringe on my rights. I'm not upset at all, nor should you be. I accept and appreciate that you differ in opinion from me. If I didnt respect you at least, I wouldn't engage with you. But I will honor your request and not @ you about this subject any more. For the record, I do think you're a wonderful person from our interactions.

@jayneonacobb Thank you. You seem like a wonderful person too.

@PeppermintDreads Gosh...is it something I said?

@jayneonacobb Can you explain what "well regulated" meant in the terms of the Second Amendment as written in the late Seventeen hundreds?

@dahermit well regulated means governed the least amount to still be effective. As in, a well oiled machine works better than one with no oil, or one that is over oiled. Well means the correct amount. Your scope of ownership of weapons is defined in the wording by the use of arms. Arms means all weapons and armaments. Regulated means within guidelines. In this case that means a correctly, or well governed society. That means a balance of power. As I stated before, a militia is a group of citizens baring arms. If that militia does not regulate its effectiveness against threats it is not well regulated. Hence the need for weapons of military grade to be available to the public. That's the price of freedom.

@jayneonacobb The definition you give for "well regulated", is a modern definition...not the meaning of the Second Amendment. During the Revolutionary War, when militias took part, they were so badly trained they were nearly useless. They could not be relied upon to maneuver and fire by rank, withdraw in rank to reload, etc., and would often run away from the British Regulars. Given their poor performance, the framers of the Bill of Rights, while not wanting a standing army (which as in Europe could be used against the people), they wanted people to form and practice as a military unit. Thus, the "well regulated"...it meant practiced as a military unit. The framers likely thought that the people would naturally like the idea of practicing on the village greens and such, but it never happened to any degree. Nevertheless, the framers of the Second Amendment put a comma after the word "militia" (making it a subordinate clause) and the words "the people" to indicate it was a right of the people to keep and bear arms, not the right of the militia...note that the Constitution only recognizes three entities, the Federal Government, the State Governments, and the "people". Thus the militia has no "rights" according to the Constitution. How the current anti-gun crowd, the "well regulated" somehow is interpreted as the authority for some kind of gun control and regulation is somehow a license to limit the ownership of guns is a mystery to me inasmuch as there were no laws concerning the ownership of arms when the Bill of Rights was ratified.

@dahermit isn't the gun control argument based on modernization? My language is accurate according to the federalist papers, which were written by the same guys that wrote the bill of rights. I'll take their interpritation over yours. You do realize that these people were smart enough to understand that war evolves. Also if it weren't for modern guerilla tactics used in the revolutionary war there wouldn't be a United States. Your argument is moot at best.

@jayneonacobb "isn't the gun control argument based on modernization?" What???

@dahermit your side says that "we don't need guns in this modern society."

@jayneonacobb What are you talking about? My side? What is "My side"? Please post using coherent sentences. Your posts are too cryptic for me to get your meaning. For instance. "isn't gun control argument based on modernization?", makes no sense whatsoever.

@dahermit it auto corrected out "the" it should read: isn't the gun control argument based on modernization. That means that the gun control folks argue that in our modern society that there is no need for citizens to have certain guns. "Your side" sorry, it just seems to me that you're arguing for gun control. That would be a side of the argument.

@Lysistrata Obama never found a gun control bill he didn’t like. If he could have he would have seized all of our guns. He was a gun control nut and received a 4F Rating from the NRA and rightly so as he was a grave threat to the second amendment especially with his liberal judicial appointments. Hell 4 liberal appointed judges on the Supreme Court didn’t even recognize the second amendment as giving private citizens the right to have a firearm!!!

@jayneonacobb I can assure you that my views on the Second Amendment are very strict constructionist. I am avidly against gun control despite my far-left political stance. It is one of the two issues that the far-left are on the wrong side. The Second Amendment's purpose was to enable civilians to operate as a military unit to counter anticipated and unanticipated threats to the country.

@dahermit then we agree that the people constitute the militia and as such have the right to military grade weapons? I applaude your ability to think objectively about this issue. (No that was not sarcasm.)

Teachers want to be teachers not police or they would have went to school to be one. Maybe we should enlarge the National Guard to keep schools safe for kids. That will be the next argument. Oh no it wouldn't be the National Guard, it would be a politicians brother, or friends for big profits mercenary company.

@vnufall How’s a teacher going to tell if a teachers got a gun if it’s concealed as it should be. Also a pistol stands a good chance against an AK47 or a AR-15 in an indoor environment as pistols are a lot more manuverable in confined spaces. You obviously don’t know much about guns.

@jayneonacobb Yes, we are in agreement on the issue of gun control/Second Amendment.

@vnufall the facts disagree with your feelings.
[gunowners.org]

@Trajan61 not arguing with you...your view of guns disgusts me.

@vnufall so you refuse to accept evidence based on your ideology. How religious of you.

@jayneonacobb i could put up pages of facts from the other side. Take your fact page and go tell it to all the parents of the kids who were killed. I don't think they would care very much. You can't being those kids back with your guns.

@vnufall Like most liberals you seem to be obcessed with gun control.

@vnufall im not arguing about the terrible tragedy that happened. I don't build my political platforms on dead children. That's disgusting and wrong. I'm arguing for gun rights because all you liberal gun haters have been bringing it up.

Yeah 17 dead kids don't matter only your precious guns....your the one who is disgusting.

definitely @vnufall