seems to me this basic approach would have the most effect here. Of course limiting the number of guns in circulation means big reductions in gun sales, and since the gun sellers own our politicians this sensible approach becomes impossible.

A: "One bite at a time."

How do we get rid of the politicians the gun lobby owns? One butt at a time.........

It's not impossible, but it will take a LOT of work, a LOT of time, and a LOT of money (sadly....)--AND a LOT of WILL!! Taking the small steps, first at the local level, then at the national level.

But WE CAN WIN!! (Defeatism, not Wayne LaPee-Error, is our worst enemy)

There is NOTHING in the 2nd Amendment that says the "right to bear arms" means there should be cheap or unfettered access to dangerous weapons. They're DANGEROUS, can we all at least agree on that? Requiring permits and safes and insurance in no way hinders the ultimate "right" to be armed. If you want to argue that this means only the rich will be able to afford guns, then the answer is perhaps. I can't go buy a Ferrari because I can't afford to maintain it. I can't buy a tiger because I can't properly take care of it. And if you can afford to spend thousands on weapons, you can afford a goddamn safe and insurance and every safety precaution necessary so that some kid or your mentally ill son can't get at it. And truly, you've got two hands, how many guns can you shoot at once to defend yourself?

Nor does the 2A say anything like, "And as many guns as you fucking want." Let's face it, the nutters HAVE ruined it for the rest of you "responsible owners". You didn't check that shit when the NRA was pushing their poison, so now you get to live with new rules.

(I'm sorry to say that I got into it on another thread and tried to get off the subject but here I am. I'm sure my new friends will be along shortly. I just cannot see how people can argue that their right to own killer toys trumps everyone else's right to live.)

I guess my international friends are correct that this obsession with death makers is a purely American problem.

... welcome to DU BrotherIvan

That last sentence sums it up. I have been told I have no right to want to know who owns a gun in my area (registry) and that I have no right to make it harder for decent law abiding citizens to acquire a gun. (background check) Well it's not the latter I'm worried about. We now have more weapons than people in America but haven't seen any evidence that we're safer. Scares me that most of this well armed militia do not practice gun safety. Kids killing kids lately. Now this:

Nucla, Colo. Passes Ordinance Making Gun Ownership Mandatory

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/20/nucla-colo-passes-ordinan_n_3306189.html

Help us all.

Very eloquent.
Amen!

. . .

I keep telling them that without life, you don't need rights. So, the 2A right becomes null and void at death. To me, that would place life before 2A rights, but they don't seem to get it.

Then they veer off on the definition of militia, and what it actually meant back then, what it means now, etc.

Most of them sound just like Wayne LaPierre.

Over and over again.

in some unreasonable belief that those who actively wish you harm and work to that purpose will somehow be equally unarmed. And like it or not, you cannot just pretend a codified right affirmed in multiple court precedents can be wished away or ignored. That doesn't diminish the need for the 2A, it underscores it.

Those who mean no harm (aka "the good guys&quot are only a second away from causing harm. Once they pass that point, they are no longer good guys and someone is likely dead--forever--because of it.

I think the 2A was been misinterpreted, and amendments are just that: amendable. They can be changed, updated, modified. The founding fathers did not intend that no restrictions be placed on the right to bear arms, as the SCOTUS has already ruled on.

The fact is, some people SHOULD NOT have guns. They are mentally unfit to possess them.

The 2A includes the words "well regulated" and they're there for a reason. Well regulated does not mean anyone who wants a gun can have one, as many as they want, and with as much fire power as they want. Machine guns are off limits. Other types of guns now available should also be off limits because no law abiding citizen needs one, and they are often used to kill multiple people.

Attitudes are changing. With every gun accident, mass murder, suicide, etc., more people begin to look at guns differently. Repeating talking points from the NRA isn't going to work. The NRA doesn't care about you, me, or anyone else except the gun manufacturers who profit from the bullshit talking points we keep hearing.

You can't pick and choose which parts of the 2A you want to ignore. We do not have a well regulated militia in this country when anyone can go out an anonymously buy a gun capable of killing dozens of people in a matter of seconds.

What's unreasonable is to expect that this situation will continue.

The right of the people shall not be infringed.



Yes. They're guns.



Except for the poor.



You have no right to those things. Self-defense is a human right.



You assume a person with one gun is a person with thousands of dollars worth of guns. This is a fallacy.



Different guns are used for different purposes. That's why there are so many different guns.



This is silly. Does the 1A have limits on the number of books you can read or the number of protests you need to attend?



No one gets to arbitrarily and unilaterally dictate new rules; which is why a free state demands the right of the people to keep and bear arms not be infringed.

I will admit at the top, I know nothing about guns in their particular. That seems to be a requirement by gun enthusiasts for some reason. I do know one thing: they kill people; they can kill me. That seems to be sufficient to put forth an opinion.

When you say guns are used for different purposes, I would like to know for what purposes besides subsistence hunting, farmers defending their farm or livestock (or defense from wild animals in general) and "self-defense" (which I assume means defense from home invaders) do you propose? If those are the case, many more expert than I have argued right here on DU that this can be accomplished far better with single shot rifles and shotguns. Many countries with a fraction of the US gun deaths allow for these types of weapons. That is owning a firearm for self-defense and not infringing upon your rights.

But when you argue "the poor" should be allowed to own a gun but are too poor to afford any of the necessary safety measures in order to secure that gun, I vehemently oppose this. Too many guns are involved in accidents or are stolen to be used in crime to allow them to just float around. Apparently, civilized societies all over the world agree. This line of argument also assumes that gun ownership is NECESSARY for safety which I am sure I and a whole bunch of other people can tell is absolutely not true.

They have no capabilities except what a human being gives them. They are incapable of acting under their own motives or power.

We would be far better served if we addressed violent criminals, particularly repeat offenders who commit the majority of gun crime and the mentally ill who need treatment rather than having their underlying conditions ignored in a useless and unconstitutional dash to slay a political opponent's totem.



The 2A is not about hunting or the protection of livestock. It specifically states its purpose is for, "the security of a free state."



You only call them civilized because you agree with them. Plenty of despotic, uncivilized societies also ban guns. Do you accept them into your camp as well?



Argumentum ad populum

Some of these Brady Campaign talking points being tossed around are in dire need of a trip to the wastebasket.

If so why?

I'm guessing you have some dress shoes, maybe work boots, gym shoes and sandals. All serve different purposes.

I have multiple guns for the same reason. You might hunt deer with a 12 gauge shotgun, but you wouldn't use that same shotgun to go trap shooting on the weekend. I use 28 gauge for trap shooting.

They're just here to repeat right-wing talking points (for example, post #18).

Get your memes straight, please.

I have my doubts to how well any of these would work here. I mean alot of Americans seem to get hot and bothered when anyone makes any recommendation not even a law as to helping our health and safety

now throw Israel under the bus as a state which lacks basic rights to be armed freely everywhere?

Please media, get the GOP and NRA talking points on this!

Where's Palin?

Last edited Wed May 22, 2013, 04:34 PM - Edit history (1)

One can always hope...

has something like our 2nd Amemdment.
So it usually is not a fare comparison IMHP.