Question

The problem here is, guns are different from anything else. There is nothing else, that can kill someone a mile away, or the damage that carrying one around with you can do.

There is nothing else that it can be compared too. It's the only tangible thing mentioned in the Bill of Rights, the rest is a concept of what we do to each other. Just because it is mentioned does not mean there can be no limitations on it. Public safety is more important than one person's rights to own a dangerous weapon with no limitations.

Because it is so dangerous, we have to know that a person is capable and responsible, before they can have one. The right to bare arms has to come after our obligation to public safety.

There is no doubt that we have the right to protect ourselves and our families, but that does not mean by whatever means we want without any type of limitations. For a lot of people in this country, the chance they might have to protect themselves and their families is so small, that it can't really be used as a excuse to own a gun.

Determining what type of arms can be used, does not go against the right to bare arms, and once again,the obligation to public safety has to come before the right to bare arms.

If England had as many people as we do, we would still kill 5 times as many people, so obviously we have issues beyond gun control. The harder it is to kill each other, the less people die. We have the least amount of gun control of just about any other country and we kill each other for the dumbest reasons possible on a regular basis.

#guncontrol #rights #guns

MikeFlora 7

Answer 1

Mike,

A one mile shot is nearly impossible. Only a hand full of people in the world can do it. I'd guess you've never fired a firearm in your life. If you can pull off a 1+ mile shot, you need to be trained extensively. Most people can't do trigonometry in their head, and they have a spotter. Even if someone fires off willy nilly it would be happenstance. A 300 yard shot is tricky. Even if military trained.

I do agree with your point about what types of firearms should be allowed. You brought up the UK. Per capita, they have more robberies than in the US. Next to no guns. How do you recon that one out?

Not being a troll at all, but I'd like some input.

Answer 2

I've never read up on all these constitutions, bills of rights etc. But as I understand it aren't guns protected by the 2nd amendment? If so surely by it's very nature an amendment can be amended? Which buries the whole inalienable right argument.

Answer 3

It's sickening that any of this needs saying, but im.glad you did

Answer 4

I much as I agree,rational thinking is largely ignored by the opposition. Solution for that? I honestly don't know. But until that can be resolved, any argument is pointless. Also, not trying to be a pain in the ass, but if you want to be taken seriously, grammer is a must. It's "bear arms", not bare.

Answer 5

No doubt it is a serious problem

Answer 6

We are an incredibly immature country, full of ignorant rednecks, led by a man-child. It will take at least one or one and a half generations to pass on before there is a chance this country will take a rational view of guns.


Author	Author:
Type of abuse	I think this violates the community guidelines. Chat or rant, adult content, spam, insulting other members I think this is illegal. Harm to minors, violence or threats, harassment or privacy invasion, impersonation or misrepresentation, fraud or phishing, etc.
Additional Details If Needed

Post a comment Author doesn't reply Reply Author doesn't reply Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

6 comments

Recent Visitors 42

Photos 507 More

Members 918Top

Moderator

Related GroupsMore

Share this post with your group