Should America have gun control?

CYDdharta

Here's an example of gun control that may actually be helpful;

Gun safety courses will be mandatory for some Iowa middle school students

TTKDB

https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/02/oregon-college-shooting-guns-kill-people-in-us-pervert-second-amendment?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE=#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/02/oregon-college-shooting-guns-kill-people-in-us-pervert-second-amendment

From the article:

"Guns kill people in the US because we pervert the Second Amendment

Our founding fathers put the right to bear arms in the US Constitution to protect us. Now we must protect our country from those who misuse it

America’s gun violence, like our grief in Oregon, seems to know no bounds, no limits, no end. The reason is deadly simple: our very lives are chained to a constitutional amendment that is willfully misinterpreted by many and perverted by gun rights advocates for political ends.

Oregon killings: US reels from another school shooting – live updates

That sullied amendment is the United States constitution’s Second Amendment which states, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The gun industry and its supporters have turned that simple statement into a clever marketing tool, and Americans are paying the price in blood."

TTKDB

@CYDdharta

Does the debate on gun control, pertain to your Individually owned guns, yes or no?

Has anyone ever come to your Individual residence, and instructed you to give your weapons up, because the ongoing debate over gun control, yes or no?

Because if the likely or probable answer, is a (no) then I'm guessing that your weapons are fine, and they aren't going anywhere, right?

Or does the debate on gun control, pertain mainly to the guns used by the criminals or the offenders who used their individual gun or guns to kill innocent people via mass shooting crimes, or other various crimes involving the illegal use of a gun or guns?

The questions I have been asking, pertain to the offenders and criminals who used their guns to harm, maim, and kill innocent people with.

John_C_87

The second Amendment “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Is acknowledging the united state/single idea as Constitutional right, meaning by basic principle and legal precedent for a person to be capable of finding/identifying, and locating principles of common defense, this including fire-arm, with in the right to assembly of 1st Amendment with others to identify/obtain modernization/knowledge of political governed arms that may be brought to bear against the people by Nation both of foreign and domestic origins.

The whole truth is that politically law is misused to try negotiate and address an Amendment that should made on the united state declaration of independence, to be legally effective, and not on the United States Constitution. The united state here is a medical needle with a liquid, chemical, and air bubble held by person, a vehicle be it truck/car with person, or computer as driver, the gun/fire-arm with a bullet/projectile held by person at the trigger are equal as a united state, and the resolution is only one of these states should independently be removed. Is a political move to place a governed loss of independence on a public without telling the whole truth.

Blaming a child for the mistake is something that questions honor. Not being forthwith with that child at telling them that a ballistic shield or bullet resistant protection is equal to not having proper life boats on the Titanic. The legal president was set long ago with fire, earthquakes, and other forms of danger to the public. Shame on you California, New York, New Jersey and other states.

cheesycheese

Why is the second amendment even being brought up. We don't need to pay attention to a few words written down by some random person 200 years ago.

cheesycheese

Why is the second amendment even being brought up. We don't need to pay attention to a few words written down by some random person 200 years ago.

CYDdharta

TTKDB said:

@CYDdharta

Does the debate on gun control, pertain to your Individually owned guns, yes or no?

Has anyone ever come to your Individual residence, and instructed you to give your weapons up, because the ongoing debate over gun control, yes or no?

Because if the likely or probable answer, is a (no) then I'm guessing that your weapons are fine, and they aren't going anywhere, right?

Or does the debate on gun control, pertain mainly to the guns used by the criminals or the offenders who used their individual gun or guns to kill innocent people via mass shooting crimes, or other various crimes involving the illegal use of a gun or guns?

The questions I have been asking, pertain to the offenders and criminals who used their guns to harm, maim, and kill innocent people with.

You appear to be oblivious as to the point of gun control and how it works. Reducing crime isn't the objective, it's purpose is strictly to reduce and diminish the number and types of guns owned by the public. I can only assume you support an "assault" rifle ban, based on your promoting the so-called "March For Our Lives", your refusal so say you'll protest the "assault" rifle ban and associated confiscations in New Jersey, and because that's a goal of a lot of the links you post, like the idiotic Guardian piece above. "Assault" rifles are rarely used to commit crimes. According to FBI crime stats, in 2014, of the 13,750 murder victims, only 258 people were murdered by rifles. That stat includes rifles of all types, not specifically "assault" rifles. In comparison, that same year 205 people were struck by lightning. "Assault" rifles just are not used in a statistically significant number of crimes.Yet in spite of these facts, the gun control movement has made a new "assault" rifle ban a priority. We already know that such a ban would do NOTHING to reduce crime. How do we know that? BECAUSE WE ALREADY TRIED IT. As a DOJ-funded study notes of the 1994 "assault weapons" ban;

there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury, as we might have expected had the ban reduced crimes with both AWs [assault weapons] and LCMs [large capacity magazines].

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf

It did nothing before, it will do nothing if reinstituted. So to answer your question, "Or does the debate on gun control, pertain mainly to the guns used by the criminal", the answer is a big fat NO!!!!!!! Gun control isn't about crime, it isn't even about guns; it's about CONTROL.

TKDB

@CYDdharta

How about answering the following questions.

Instead of pushing your apparent (individual, one sided pro gun owner politics) then?

CYDdharta: Does the debate on gun control, pertain to your Individually owned guns, yes or no?

Has anyone ever come to your Individual residence, and instructed you to give your weapons up, because the ongoing debate over gun control, yes or no?

Because if the likely or probable answer, is a (no) then I'm guessing that your weapons are fine, and they aren't going anywhere, right?

Or does the debate on gun control, pertain mainly to the guns used by the criminals or the offenders who used their individual gun or guns to kill innocent people via mass shooting crimes, or other various crimes involving the illegal use of a gun or guns?

The questions I have been asking, pertain to the offenders and criminals who used their guns to harm, maim, and kill innocent people with.

CYDdharta

TKDB said:
@CYDdharta

How about answering the following questions.

Instead of pushing your apparent (individual, one sided pro gun owner politics) then?

CYDdharta: Does the debate on gun control, pertain to your Individually owned guns, yes or no?

Of course it does. If the "assault" weapons ban passes, when it fails as it is destined to, then the ban will be expanded, maybe to handguns, maybe "sniper" rifles. And when that fails to stop all gun crime, it'll be expanded again, and again, and again until it covers all modern firearms and all ammo components.

Has anyone ever come to your Individual residence, and instructed you to give your weapons up, because the ongoing debate over gun control, yes or no?

Not yet, but if someone is knocking on your door, it's too late.

Or does the debate on gun control, pertain mainly to the guns used by the criminals or the offenders who used their individual gun or guns to kill innocent people via mass shooting crimes, or other various crimes involving the illegal use of a gun or guns?

The questions I have been asking, pertain to the offenders and criminals who used their guns to harm, maim, and kill innocent people with.

I've already answered this. NO, Nein, Non, Nee, Nyet!!!!!!!!!! The debate on gun control does NOT pertain mainly to the guns used by the criminals. The guns that gun control proponents are focusing on are NOT used by many criminals to kill innocent people.

TKDB

@CYDdharta

Does the debate on gun control, pertain to your Individually owned guns, yes or no?

CYDdharta

cheesycheese said:

Why is the second amendment even being brought up. We don't need to pay attention to a few words written down by some random person 200 years ago.

I don't consider the Founding Fathers to be some "random person".

The entire Constitution is "a few words written down by some random person 200 years ago". Maybe we should dismiss the whole thing and let the government and government officials do whatever they want.

TKDB

@CYDdharta

"Of course it does. If the "assault" weapons ban passes, when it fails as it is destined to, then the ban will be expanded, maybe to handguns, maybe "sniper" rifles. And when that fails to stop all gun crime, it'll be expanded again, and again, and again until it covers all modern firearms and all ammo components."

Exactly what purpose does a citizen owning an assault rifle serve?

Exactly what purpose would a citizen owning a sniper rifle serve?

Making a guess, a 22 rifle, or a 38 revolver, as home or property protection, (would maybe get snubbed at) when someone can buy an assault rifle and or a Glock 17, in a neighborhood where families, live less than 50 yards from each other, when the homes aren't that far from each other?

The average assault rifle can fire how far, say 300 meters?

So if an assault rifle owner has a weapons malfunction, and the rounds from one neighbors property, travels from that assault rifle to another neighbors property, then what?

CYDdharta

TKDB said:

@CYDdharta

Does the debate on gun control, pertain to your Individually owned guns, yes or no?

Already answered.

Of course it does. If the "assault" weapons ban passes, when it fails as it is destined to, then the ban will be expanded, maybe to handguns, maybe "sniper" rifles. And when that fails to stop all gun crime, it'll be expanded again, and again, and again until it covers all modern firearms and all ammo components.

TKDB said:
@CYDdharta

"Of course it does. If the "assault" weapons ban passes, when it fails as it is destined to, then the ban will be expanded, maybe to handguns, maybe "sniper" rifles. And when that fails to stop all gun crime, it'll be expanded again, and again, and again until it covers all modern firearms and all ammo components."

Exactly what purpose does a citizen owning an assault rifle serve?

Competing in tournaments up to and including the Camp Perry National Rifle Matches, hunting vermin; what difference does it make? What purpose does it serve to own a monster truck, a sports car, or a crotch rocket?

Exactly what purpose would a citizen owning a sniper rifle serve?

There's no significant difference between a sniper rifle and a hunting rifle.

Making a guess, a 22 rifle, or a 38 revolver, as home or property protection, (would maybe get snubbed at) when someone can buy an assault rifle and or a Glock 17, in a neighborhood where families, live less than 50 yards from each other, when the homes aren't that far from each other?

The average assault rifle can fire how far, say 300 meters?

So if an assault rifle owner has a weapons malfunction, and the rounds from one neighbors property, travels from that assault rifle to another neighbors property, then what?

A .22 is a very poor choice for protection. It lacks power. If you have to use it, you're more likely to piss off your target than put him down. A .38 and a 9mm (Glock 17) are very similar in terms of ballistics, so there's no significant difference to the neighborhood. In fact, the only time there would be a difference to the neighborhood from a handgun is with exceptionally high calibers, which aren't chambered in automatics, only revolvers and single-shots.

As for "assault" rifles, they're rifles, so they are more powerful than most handguns, but less powerful than most rifles. They're too weak for hunting anything larger than vermin, so almost all hunting rifles are significantly more powerful. A lot of states prohibit their use for hunting deer or larger game because they're underpowered.

TKDB

@CYDdharta

Can a monster truck, a sports car, or a crotch rocket, legitimately shoot and kill innocent people?

Let's see, what other things that aren't legitimately a gun, can legitimately hurt people, CYDdharta?

CYDdharta

TKDB said:

@CYDdharta

Can a monster truck, a sports car, or a crotch rocket, legitimately shoot and kill innocent people?

Let's see, what other things that aren't legitimately a gun, can legitimately hurt people, CYDdharta?

Can an "assault" rifle legitimately run over people and crush them to death?

Are you going to try to regulate everything that isn't legitimately a gun that can legitimately hurt people, TKDB?

TKDB

@CYDdharta

"Can an "assault" rifle legitimately run over people and crush them to death?"

"Are you going to try to regulate everything that isn't legitimately a gun that can legitimately hurt people, TKDB?"

What does the above have to do with the theme of the forum?

"Should America have gun control?"

CYDdharta

TKDB said:

@CYDdharta

"Can an "assault" rifle legitimately run over people and crush them to death?"

"Are you going to try to regulate everything that isn't legitimately a gun that can legitimately hurt people, TKDB?"

What does the above have to do with the theme of the forum?
"Should America have gun control?"

It has every bit as much to do with the theme of the forum as;

TKDB said:
@CYDdharta

Can a monster truck, a sports car, or a crotch rocket, legitimately shoot and kill innocent people?

Let's see, what other things that aren't legitimately a gun, can legitimately hurt people, CYDdharta?

"Should America have gun control?"

TKDB

@CYDdharta

Just as much as you love and cherish your guns, and the right to bear them, the victims who were killed by gun violence, I can only imagine, that they as well, loved and cherished their individual lives, and the lives that each and everyone of them were living, they don't get to enjoy their lives, like you're doing, do they?

Because someone with a gun, or a collection of guns, committed a gun violence crime, and took their lives away from them?

And those lost lives deserve to have whoever wants to fight and defend their lost lives by protesting gun violence.

When I went to the March for our lives rally, it was awing, to see the kids who survived a offenders gun violence crimes, protesting gun violence, and to see those same survivors, fighting for others by protesting gun violence.

So just like you, protesting anything that apparently doesn't go along with your individual pro gun points of view, and how things, other than guns can kill people, might be used as a pro gun narrative counter talking point, you can create a protest to protect your guns, while others are protesting gun violence crimes, and defending those kids who lost their lives to the offenders with their guns?

Which is the bigger right?

The right to bear arms?

Or the right to live and enjoy ones life, without it being infringed upon, by someone committing an illegal gun violence crime, against someone?

Which is the bigger right?

CYDdharta

TKDB said:

@CYDdharta

Just as much as you love and cherish your guns, and the right to bear them, the victims who were killed by gun violence, I can only imagine, that they as well, loved and cherished their individual lives, and the lives that each and everyone of them were living, they don't get to enjoy their lives, like you're doing, do they?

Because someone with a gun, or a collection of guns, committed a gun violence crime, and took their lives away from them?

And those lost lives deserve to have whoever wants to fight and defend their lost lives by protesting gun violence.

When I went to the March for our lives rally, it was awing, to see the kids who survived a offenders gun violence crimes, protesting gun violence, and to see those same survivors, fighting for others by protesting gun violence.

So just like you, protesting anything that apparently doesn't go along with your individual pro gun points of view, and how things, other than guns can kill people, might be used as a pro gun narrative counter talking point, you can create a protest to protect your guns, while others are protesting gun violence crimes, and defending those kids who lost their lives to the offenders with their guns?

Which is the bigger right?

The right to bear arms?

Or the right to live and enjoy ones life, without it being infringed upon, by someone committing an illegal gun violence crime, against someone?

Which is the bigger right?

Yes, yes; you've already made it clear you're anti-gun and only listen to one side of the debate, you don't need to reiterate it. But what do kids blubbering on about evil gun have to do with the theme of the forum?

"Should America have gun control?"

What specific steps do you believe should be taken to ensure that the horrendous events that those children were discussing never happen again?

Keep in mind, the right to bear arms is an actual right enshrined in the Constitution. There is no right to ban arms or limit that right to make one feel better in the Constitution.

TKDB

@CYDdharta

"Yes, yes; you've already made it clear you're anti-gun,"

Wrong, I'm pro second amendment. And I've stated that before.

"And only listen to one side of the debate,"

Wrong, I've listened to both sides of the debate.

But, I have come to believe, that there are "gun owners," along with gun owner extremists, along with individuals who are tired of living with the aftermaths of the previous mass shootings that have occurred in the past.

"you don't need to reiterate it. But what do kids blubbering on about evil gun have to do with the theme of the forum?"

"Should America Have Gun Control"

Is it any of your business, if some kids, that have nothing to do with you to begin with, who are crying over the other kids, who were killed by an offenders gun violence crimes?

Look at the points of view, in how you expressed yourself in regards to (Kids?)

"But what do (kids blubbering) on about evil gun have to do with the theme of the forum?"
(How should people view the above?)

"What specific steps do you believe should be taken to ensure that the horrendous events that those (children were discussing) never happen again?
(And then the above?)

My response to your question:
The offenders, criminals, and first time gun violence offenders, should value their individual values more, instead of maybe placing so much value on a gun?

And then you come full circle, by making sure to express the below?

"Keep in mind, the right to bear arms is an actual right enshrined in the Constitution. There is no right to ban arms or limit that right to make one feel better in the Constitution."

And keep in mind, that no individual, criminal, offender, or a lawfully purchased gun owner, who then turn, themselves into a first time offender, because of their gun violence crime, should be treating the second amendment better, instead of abusing it with their mass shootings, or gun violence crimes.

(Which is the bigger right?

The right to bear arms?

Or the right to live and enjoy ones life, without it being infringed upon, by someone committing an illegal gun violence crime, against someone?

Which is the bigger right?)

This is the bigger right:

This right is the bigger right:
The right to live and enjoy ones life, without it being infringed upon, by someone committing an illegal gun violence crime, against someone?

Regardless of how some may individually choose to view the Second Amendment with their individual narratives.

TKDB

https://amp-businessinsider-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.businessinsider.com/second-amendment-bullets-2012-12?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE=#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s

Some excerpts from the article:

"How About Banning Bullets? The Constitution Doesn't Say Anything About Those...

Henry Blodget
Dec 24, 2012, 2:56 PM ET

ammo ammunition guns weapons bullet bullets

One of the arguments invoked by those who think we should keep assault weapons freely available in this country is that the Constitution says we have a right to own and buy them.

The Constitution actually doesn't say that.

All the Constitution says is that we have the right to "bear arms."

And that "right to bear arms" is actually supposed to support the existence of a "well-regulated militia," an important qualifying clause in the Second Amendment that those in favor of free access to assault weapons usually ignore.

But even leaving aside the "well-regulated militia" clause, the Constitution doesn't specify what "arms" we're allowed to bear.

And we have long set limits on the type of arms we are allowed to bear, thus establishing clearly that we have the Constitutional right to do that."

For example, we're not (individually) allowed to own aircraft carriers, tanks, ballistic nuclear missiles, fighter aircraft, or attack submarines.

We're not even allowed to own fully automatic machine guns.*

All of those are "arms."

"And yet we have established that, despite the Second Amendment, we're not individually allowed to bear them.

So if we decided to establish that we are not individually allowed to bear semi-automatic assault rifles and pistols while still being allowed to own single-shot hunting guns, this would be perfectly in keeping with how we have interpreted our Second Amendment rights under the Constitution.

But it will still make lots of people scream that we have tromped all over the Constitution, even if we haven't."

So, how about if we limit access to something that factors into every gun massacre that the Constitution doesn't address at all:

Ammunition.

What if we keep semi-automatic weapons freely available but strictly control the manufacture, distribution, and sales of bullets?"

TKDB

https://www.businessinsider.com/im-just-not-ready-to-accept-that-we-have-to-have-mass-shootings-all-the-time-2012-12

Some excerpts from the article:

"I'm Just Not Ready To Accept That We Have To Have Gun Massacres All The Time"

After the horrific slaughter of 12 people at a movie theater last summer, I was hoping it would be a few years before the next crazy American armed himself with legal guns and opened fire.

Unfortunately, it was only 6 months.

And this latest massacre is even more horrifying than the Colorado tragedy, with 20 children and 8 adults shot at point-blank range by a boy-man who, before Friday, d id not appear to have been particularly deranged.

Of course, the Sandy Hook bullets had barely stopped killing people before everyone opened fire in the ongoing gun debate.

The no-gun-control folks, who never seem to be the parents or relatives of people killed by gunmen (or are remarkably undisturbed by this), calmly weighed in with their standard talking points:

The Second Amendment gives us the right to own guns (at least in the service of a "well-regulated state militia," a seemingly important qualification that always appears to be ignored).
Guns don't kill people--people kill people.
There are ~300 million guns in this country, so we need guns to protect ourselves from all the guns.
If the shooter hadn't used a gun, he'd have used a bomb or fire or knife or some other weapon.
Gun control won't stop people from going crazy: We need more focus on mental health, not guns.
If we allow the government to limit our access to guns, we'll soon be a tyrannical police state in which citizens have no means of overthrowing the government.
If there were only MORE guns in schools and theaters and malls, etc., stuff like this wouldn't happen, because sane would-be shooters would be "deterred" and nutbags would just get popped in the head by gun-toting citizens before they started shooting.
Banning assault weapons wouldn't stop all shootings.

I've listened to these points for years. And I have considered them carefully.

The pro-gun argument that resonates most viscerally with me is this:

Given that there are at least 300 million guns in this country, I don't relish the thought of an armed gang barging into my house and shooting my family without my being entitled to have some means of protecting them.

And I really do not relish that."

"But then I remember that more people are shot in houses with guns than in houses without guns — from accidents and moments of rage. And I think through how readily available my guns and ammo would have to be for me to successfully protect my family after being awoken in the middle of the night by an intruder pointing his own guns in my face (I'd basically have to sleep near a loaded pistol and somehow manage not to shoot it in the dark at my wife, kids, pets, or friends). And that logic tempers my emotional desire to keep "protection" around.

The other no-gun-control arguments, meanwhile, just seem naive, self-serving, and/or ridiculous:

The "Second Amendment" was written 220 years ago when 3.9 million people lived in America and the most powerful guns available were single-shot flint-lock muskets.Even if you ignore the "well-regulated state militia" clause in the Amendment language, it is reasonable to wonder whether the "Framers" had today's commonly available modern assault weaponry in mind. (Also, the Constitution is occasionally modified when it becomes outdated and/or inappropriate. Slaves were legal in those days, too.)
It's true that guns don't usually kill people unless they are aimed and fired by people, but guns make it much, much easier for people to kill people. It's hard to make a bomb powerful enough to kill dozens of people, for example. And it's hard to set a fire that is big and fast enough to kill dozens of people before they have a chance to escape. It's not impossible, obviously. If you're really determined to slaughter dozens of innocent people, you can probably find a way to do it. But it's harder.
It's true that tighter gun control won't stop people from going crazy, butnothing will stop people from going crazy. Every time there's a shooting, the pro-gun folks blame the mental health professionals who failed to spot insane feelings brewing in the shooter and didn't "help" him or put him away. There are certainly instances in which obvious signs were overlooked, but in a country of 300+ million people, there is no way we are ever going to identify every potential shooter in advance. (And even if we could, what would we do with them? Lock them up to prevent the crimes they might commit? Require them to "get help"? Ask them to please not shoot dozens of people?)
Anyone who thinks a few assault weapons will allow citizens to resist tyranny and overthrow our government hasn't seen the weaponry our military has developed in the past 200 years. Your little "militia" is going to hold off the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines? Keep dreaming.
The only thing having MORE guns in schools, malls, theaters, and other public places would do is increase the number of gun-related deaths. About10,000 people are murdered with guns every year in America, and another 17,000 kill themselves with guns. Given the frequency with which people get angry at each other, and/or drunk, and/or scared, and/or depressed, the number of gun deaths would likely increase directly with the availability of guns. There are also ~700 accidental gun deaths in America each year, many of which happen when people point "unloaded" guns at people and fire them as a "joke." These deaths would also presumably decrease. If there are many cases in which a gun-toting citizen or police person has stopped a random massacre by a crazy person, meanwhile, these incidents don't get much press.
Banning assault weapons would not completely eliminate mass shootings, but they might help. And "might help" should be enough to consider banning them.

The alternative to supporting tighter gun control, it seems to me, is accepting that random mass shootings and tens of thousands of gun-related deaths each year are just a "cost of freedom" ... and accepting that cost.

I'm not ready to do that.

Other civilized countries have "freedom," and they don't have anywhere near as many gun-related deaths as America does.

Banning all guns in this country isn't practical: We love them too much.

But can we please finally talk seriously about banning some guns?

I'm just not ready to accept that we just have to have regular mass shootings and tens of thousands of annual gun deaths in this country. And I don't see any other practical way to try to reduce the number of these incidents without reducing the availability of assault weapons. And I'm sick of our national policy of standing by and doing nothing while we all wait for the next massacre."

An article that covers both sides of the gun control debate/ conversations.

CYDdharta

TKDB said:
@CYDdharta
Wrong, I'm pro second amendment. And I've stated that before.

Wrong. as YOU have pointed out sooo many times in this thread, I'm pro 2nd Amendment. You and I do not agree with each other on this issue, therefore you have demonstrated you are NOT pro 2nd Amendment and thus, by your own words, you are anti 2nd Amendment.

Wrong, I've listened to both sides of the debate.

If you have, you didn't comprehend the pro 2nd Amendment side as you have yet to acknowledge this side.

Is it any of your business, if some kids, that have nothing to do with you to begin with, who are crying over the other kids, who were killed by an offenders gun violence crimes?

Look at the points of view, in how you expressed yourself in regards to (Kids?)

If these children are being used to push legislation that would affect me they certainly have something to do with me, and thus it is my business.

"But what do (kids blubbering) on about evil gun have to do with the theme of the forum?"
(How should people view the above?)

They should be disgusted at seeing children being used by politicians and political operatives to push an agenda that isn't supported by the American public.

"What specific steps do you believe should be taken to ensure that the horrendous events that those (children were discussing) never happen again?
(And then the above?)

They should see that for just what it is, my 10th or 20th request asking you WHAT DO YOU WANT????? WHAT GUN CONTROL PROPOSALS DO YOU SUPPORT AND WHY???????

My response to your question:
The offenders, criminals, and first time gun violence offenders, should value their individual values more, instead of maybe placing so much value on a gun?

And then you come full circle, by making sure to express the below?

"Keep in mind, the right to bear arms is an actual right enshrined in the Constitution. There is no right to ban arms or limit that right to make one feel better in the Constitution."

And keep in mind, that no individual, criminal, offender, or a lawfully purchased gun owner, who then turn, themselves into a first time offender, because of their gun violence crime, should be treating the second amendment better, instead of abusing it with their mass shootings, or gun violence crimes.

Criminals are not treating the 2nd Amendment better than anything. If fact, the 2nd Amendment doesn't even pertain to them. The 2nd Amendment covers LEGAL gun ownership and usage. ILLEGAL gun ownership and/or usage is not protected by anything. That's what ILLEGAL mean, as in, against the law. The US Constitution, in case you've forgotten or didn't know in the first place, is the foundation of US law.

(Which is the bigger right?

The right to bear arms?

Or the right to live and enjoy ones life, without it being infringed upon, by someone committing an illegal gun violence crime, against someone?

Regardless of how some may individually choose to view the Second Amendment with their individual narratives.

Have you ever read the US Constitution and Bill of Rights? I've read the entire Constitution and all of the Amendments. "The right to live and enjoy ones life, without it being infringed upon, by someone committing an illegal gun violence crime, against someone" doesn't appear anywhere in that document. On the other hand, the right to bear arms is explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights.

CYDdharta

TKDB said:

"How About Banning Bullets? The Constitution Doesn't Say Anything About Those...

Is this something you support?

CYDdharta

TKDB said:

"I'm Just Not Ready To Accept That We Have To Have Gun Massacres All The Time"

Do you support all of these points and proposals?

TKDB

To all of the first responders who have dealt with the various gun violence crimes over the years, thank you all, for your tremendous efforts.

TKDB

@CYDdharta

"Wrong. as YOU have pointed out sooo many times in this thread, I'm pro 2nd Amendment. You and I do not agree with each other on this issue, therefore you have demonstrated you are NOT pro 2nd Amendment and thus, by your own words, you are anti 2nd Amendment."

Understand something, as long as you're not living my life for me, your individual opinion, is yours to individually lament over, as much as you wish to.

But you will not tell me how l view something.

So, I would appreciate you, keeping your pro gun views, off of my words CYDdharta.

Am I telling you, how you are viewing things?

Nope, so please refrain from trespassing on my words.

Again, I'm pro second amendment, pro family, pro kids, pro law abiding, pro community, and (pro any person) who deserves, to live and enjoy their lives without their lives being unlawfully infringed upon by an offender, or criminal committing an illegal gun violence crime against innocent people who deserve to live, just like anyone else ,who's participating in this gun control forum, or the other forums.

CYDdharta

TKDB said:

@CYDdharta

"Wrong. as YOU have pointed out sooo many times in this thread, I'm pro 2nd Amendment. You and I do not agree with each other on this issue, therefore you have demonstrated you are NOT pro 2nd Amendment and thus, by your own words, you are anti 2nd Amendment."

Understand something, as long as you're not living my life for me, your individual opinion, is yours to individually lament over, as much as you wish to.

But you will not tell me how l view something.

So, I would appreciate you, keeping your pro gun views, off of my words CYDdharta.

Am I telling you, how you are viewing things?

Nope, so please refrain from trespassing on my words.

Again, I'm pro second amendment, pro family, pro kids, pro law abiding, pro community, and (pro any person) who deserves, to live and enjoy their lives without their lives being unlawfully infringed upon by an offender, or criminal committing an illegal gun violence crime against innocent people who deserve to live, just like anyone else ,who's participating in this gun control forum, or the other forums.

...and yet you have told me what my views are and what @Zombieguy1987 's views are and what @Applesauce 's views are so frequently throughout this discussion that they have stopped replying. If you're going to label people, EXPECT TO BE LABELLED.

TKDB

@CYDdharta

Why can't you focus on the below?

"Wrong. as YOU have pointed out sooo many times in this thread, I'm pro 2nd Amendment. You and I do not agree with each other on this issue, therefore you have demonstrated you are NOT pro 2nd Amendment and thus, by your own words, you are anti 2nd Amendment."

Understand something, as long as you're not living my life for me, your individual opinion, is yours to individually lament over, as much as you wish to.

But you will not tell me how l view something.

So, I would appreciate you, keeping your pro gun views, off of my words CYDdharta.

Am I telling you, how you are viewing things?

Nope, so please refrain from trespassing on my words.

Again, I'm pro second amendment, pro family, pro kids, pro law abiding, pro community, and (pro any person) who deserves, to live and enjoy their lives without their lives being unlawfully infringed upon by an offender, or criminal committing an illegal gun violence crime against innocent people who deserve to live, just like anyone else ,who's participating in this gun control forum, or the other forums.

Instead, this is your response:

"...and yet you have told me what my views are and what @Zombieguy1987 's views are and what @Applesauce 's views are so frequently throughout this discussion that they have stopped replying. If you don't want to be labeled, DON'T LABEL PEOPLE!"

TKDB

@CYDdharta

Please focus on the below?

"Wrong. as YOU have pointed out sooo many times in this thread, I'm pro 2nd Amendment. You and I do not agree with each other on this issue, therefore you have demonstrated you are NOT pro 2nd Amendment and thus, by your own words, you are anti 2nd Amendment."

Understand something, as long as you're not living my life for me, your individual opinion, is yours to individually lament over, as much as you wish to.

But you will not tell me how l view something.

So, I would appreciate you, keeping your pro gun views, off of my words CYDdharta.

Am I telling you, how you are viewing things?

Nope, so please refrain from trespassing on my words.

Again, I'm pro second amendment, pro family, pro kids, pro law abiding, pro community, and (pro any person) who deserves, to live and enjoy their lives without their lives being unlawfully. infringed upon by an offender, or criminal committing an illegal gun violence crime against innocent people who deserve to live, just like anyone else ,who's participating in this gun control forum, or the other forums.

Instead of this as your response:

"...and yet you have told me what my views are and what @Zombieguy1987 's views are and what @Applesauce 's views are so frequently throughout this discussion that they have stopped replying. If you're going to label people, EXPECT TO BE LABELLED."

TKDB

@CYDdharta

When a criminal or an offender kills someone with a gun, what kind of labelling might you call that?

TKDB

@CYDdharta

What do you value more, when it comes to the gun control debate?

You own weapons, or the millions of US citizens who deserve to live their lives, without an offender or a criminal infringing on their lives, by committing their various gun violence crimes, against those millions of US citizens?

CYDdharta

TKDB said:

@CYDdharta

Please focus on the below?

"Wrong. as YOU have pointed out sooo many times in this thread, I'm pro 2nd Amendment. You and I do not agree with each other on this issue, therefore you have demonstrated you are NOT pro 2nd Amendment and thus, by your own words, you are anti 2nd Amendment."

Understand something, as long as you're not living my life for me, your individual opinion, is yours to individually lament over, as much as you wish to.

But you will not tell me how l view something.

So, I would appreciate you, keeping your pro gun views, off of my words CYDdharta.

Am I telling you, how you are viewing things?

Nope, so please refrain from trespassing on my words.

Again, I'm pro second amendment, pro family, pro kids, pro law abiding, pro community, and (pro any person) who deserves, to live and enjoy their lives without their lives being unlawfully. infringed upon by an offender, or criminal committing an illegal gun violence crime against innocent people who deserve to live, just like anyone else ,who's participating in this gun control forum, or the other forums.

Instead of this as your response:

"...and yet you have told me what my views are and what @Zombieguy1987 's views are and what @Applesauce 's views are so frequently throughout this discussion that they have stopped replying. If you're going to label people, EXPECT TO BE LABELLED."

Once again, if you're going to label people, EXPECT TO BE LABELLED. Now back to the topic,

TKDB said:

"How About Banning Bullets? The Constitution Doesn't Say Anything About Those...

Is this something you support?

TKDB said:

"I'm Just Not Ready To Accept That We Have To Have Gun Massacres All The Time"

Do you support all of these points and proposals?

CYDdharta

TKDB said:

@CYDdharta

When a criminal or an offender kills someone with a gun, what kind of labelling might you call that?

I label them as criminals, and I label the above as a question.

CYDdharta

TKDB said:

@CYDdharta

What do you value more, when it comes to the gun control debate?

You own weapons, or the millions of US citizens who deserve to live their lives, without an offender or a criminal infringing on their lives, by committing their various gun violence crimes, against those millions of US citizens?

My weapons aren't being used to commit various gun violence crimes, against those millions of US citizens. You might as well ask me what I value more, my deck of Magic cards, or the millions of US citizens who deserve to live their lives, without an offender or a criminal infringing on their lives, by committing their various gun violence crimes, against those millions of US citizens?

TKDB

@CYDdharta

"My weapons aren't being used to commit various gun violence crimes, against those millions of US citizens."

So because some of the offenders and criminals have killed innocent people, with their guns.

The Second Amendment should be amendment to address those offenders and criminals gun violence crimes with it preamble.

"You might as well ask me what I value more, my deck of Magic cards,"
The above comment has nothing to do the theme of the forum.

(or the millions of US citizens who deserve to live their lives, without an offender or a criminal infringing on their lives, by committing their various gun violence crimes, against those millions of US citizens?)

And the above points of view should be added into the Second Amendment.

CYDdharta

TKDB said:

@CYDdharta

The Second Amendment should be amendment to address those offenders and criminals gun violence crimes with it preamble.

How, exactly, would you amend it? What, exactly would the wording be that, in your opinion, would address those offenders?

"You might as well ask me what I value more, my deck of Magic cards,"
The above comment has nothing to do the theme of the forum.

It had just as much to do with the theme of the forum as the quote to which I was replying.

TKDB

@CYDdharta

"How, exactly, would you amend it? What, exactly would the wording be that, in your opinion, would address those offenders?"

I've already answered tbe above question.

But I'm guessing that didnt agree with the answer?

When a criminal or an offender kills someone with a gun, what kind of labelling might you call that?

"I label them as criminals,"

"and I label the above as a question.,

Would your pro gun extremist stance, maybe have anything to do with you labelling the question as ?

When offenders and criminals kill people with their guns, that's what stupidity looks like, when a mass shooter kills a group of innocent people, that's what stupidity looks like, right?

When an offender goes home, and murders their family, and then commits suicide afterwards, thats what gun violence stupidity looks like, right?

Applesauce

#1 there's no such thing as an "assault rifle"
there are semi auto
there are full auto aka machine guns
and various other single shot etc
"Assault" is a verb, if a person assaults someone are they an assault person or assault human?
these fanciful labels are disingenuous and ignorant of the truth, AR stats for Armilite the designers. ArmaLite - Wikipedia
there is no legal or universal definition of what an "Assault weapon" is, that's why you see states using it so freely to apply their control. In Va anything that holds more than 20 rounds is an "Assault weapon" but why? what does that mean? how does that help or benefit society and the general public?
There is no gun control, it's people control plain and simple. Those who don't know that are being fooled like the wizard of oz, look behind the curtain, don't be afraid of the truth.

so now it's ammo control ROFL go to duckduckgo.com because that's the least bias search engine I have found thus far and search "how do I reload ammo" then you will get a good laugh as I did.

TKDB

@Applesauce

#1 there's no such thing as an "assault rifle"
there are semi auto
there are full auto aka machine guns
and various other single shot etc"

"there is no legal or universal definition of what an "Assault weapon" is, that's why you see states using it so freely to apply their control."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

Some excerpts from the webpage:

"An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.[1][2][3][4][5] Assault rifles were first used during World War II.[6][7][8] Though Western nations were slow to accept the assault rifle concept, by the end of the 20th century they had become the standard weapon in most of the world's armies, replacing full-powered rifles and sub-machine guns in most roles.[8] Examples include the StG 44, AK-47 and the M16 rifle.[8]"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault rifle

An excerpt from the webpage:

"assault rifle

noun

Definition of assault rifle

: any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as theAK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic firealso : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire"

"There is no gun control, it's people control plain and simple."

@Applesauce , please take note of the below information?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968

Some excerpts from the webpage:

Gun Control Act of 1968

"The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA or GCA68) is a U.S. federal law that regulates the firearms industry and firearms owners. It primarily focuses on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers."

"The GCA was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on October 22, 1968, and is Title I of the U.S. federal firearms laws. The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) is Title II. Both GCA and NFA are enforced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

History

Passage of the Gun Control Act was initially prompted by the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy in 1963.[1] The President was shot and killed with a rifle purchased by mail-order from an ad in the magazine American Rifleman.[2]Congressional hearings followed and a ban on mail-order gun sales was discussed, but no law was passed until 1968. At the hearings NRA Executive Vice-President Franklin Orth supported a ban on mail-order sales, stating, "We do not think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this bill the instrument which killed the president of the United States."[3][4] "

"The Gun Control Act of 1968 was enhanced in 1993 with the passage of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. The Brady Act created a background check system which required licensed sellers to inspect the criminal history background of prospective gun purchasers, and the Brady Act created a list of categories of individuals to whom the sale of firearms is prohibited. As quoted from 18 U.S.C. 922 (d):

It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—
(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;(2) is a fugitive from justice;(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;(5) who, being an alien—(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26)));(6) who [2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;(8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that—(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and(B)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

Exceptions as quoted from 18 U.S.C. 921 (a)(33)(B):

(ii) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter if the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the law of the applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such an offense) unless the pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms."

Applesauce

@TKDB
what's a machine gun then, or a fully automatic gun?
why should semi auto fall in the same category?
If they are so similar by classification why are full auto so heavily regulated or banned?
does this seem logical to you?

the term is meaningless because it's too broad and incorrectly used. it's a dishonest and phrase. the broad definition which is practically all inclusive is only useful in bans, confiscations and does absolutely nothing to prevent murder and crime.

Assault weapon is a non-technical term referring to any broad category of firearms with certain features. Assault weapons include some semi-automatic rifle, some pistols and some shotguns.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/assault-weapon/

TKDB

@Applesauce

"what's a machine gun then, or a fully automatic gun?
why should semi auto fall in the same category?
If they are so similar by classification why are full auto so heavily regulated or banned?
does this seem logical to you?

the term is meaningless because it's too broad and incorrectly used. it's a dishonest and phrase. the broad definition which is practically all inclusive is only useful in bans, confiscations and does absolutely nothing to prevent murder and crime.

Assault weapon is a non-technical term referring to any broad category of firearms with certain features. Assault weapons include some semi-automatic rifle, some pistols and some shotguns."

Why don't you address your statements to the Merriam Webster website?

And the Wikipedia website?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/contact-us

"Contact Us

Thank you for your interest in Merriam-Webster.

We find that many questions can be answered at our Help Pages, so you may find your answer more quickly if you browse those options first.

Otherwise, use the form below to send your comment or questions, and don’t forget to select the topic you are contacting us about!

Contact Form"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

CYDdharta

TKDB said:
@CYDdharta "How, exactly, would you amend it? What, exactly would the wording be that, in your opinion, would address those offenders?"

I've already answered tbe above question.

But I'm guessing that didnt agree with the answer?

No, no you didn't, unless you really want the 2nd Amendment to go from;

Amendment 2
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

to;

Amendment 2
- The Right to Bear Arms
Amending the Second Amendment, so that it addresses the offenders and criminals who used their weapons in an illegaI manner, thus abusing their second amendment rights?
That addresses, those gun owners who lawfully purchased their weapon, but then used that lawfully purchased gun to commit gun violence with it?
This way the victims of gun violence and the families, are recognized within the preamble of the Second Amendment, just as the first time offenders and criminals are for their crimes of gun violence?
Fair and equal representation, being represented within the dialogue of the Second Amendment itself?

It really doesn't make any sense, but that's the closest you've come to actually answering the question.

TKDB said:
@CYDdharta

Would your pro gun extremist stance, maybe have anything to do with you labelling the question as ?

Nope, but maybe your anti 2nd Amendment stance prevents you from understanding what you're asking. Your question was "what do you label a criminal who commits a crime". And what's the difference between a "criminal" and "offender"?

CYDdharta

TKDB said:

@Applesauce

#1 there's no such thing as an "assault rifle"
there are semi auto
there are full auto aka machine guns
and various other single shot etc"

"there is no legal or universal definition of what an "Assault weapon" is, that's why you see states using it so freely to apply their control."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

Some excerpts from the webpage:

"An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.[1][2][3][4][5] Assault rifles were first used during World War II.[6][7][8] Though Western nations were slow to accept the assault rifle concept, by the end of the 20th century they had become the standard weapon in most of the world's armies, replacing full-powered rifles and sub-machine guns in most roles.[8] Examples include the StG 44, AK-47 and the M16 rifle.[8]"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault rifle

An excerpt from the webpage:

"assault rifle
noun
Definition of assault rifle
: any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as theAK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic firealso : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire"

"There is no gun control, it's people control plain and simple."

@Applesauce , please take note of the below information?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968

Some excerpts from the webpage:
Gun Control Act of 1968
"The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA or GCA68) is a U.S. federal law that regulates the firearms industry and firearms owners. It primarily focuses on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers."
"The GCA was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on October 22, 1968, and is Title I of the U.S. federal firearms laws. The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) is Title II. Both GCA and NFA are enforced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).
History
Passage of the Gun Control Act was initially prompted by the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy in 1963.[1] The President was shot and killed with a rifle purchased by mail-order from an ad in the magazine American Rifleman.[2]Congressional hearings followed and a ban on mail-order gun sales was discussed, but no law was passed until 1968. At the hearings NRA Executive Vice-President Franklin Orth supported a ban on mail-order sales, stating, "We do not think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this bill the instrument which killed the president of the United States."[3][4] "

"The Gun Control Act of 1968 was enhanced in 1993 with the passage of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. The Brady Act created a background check system which required licensed sellers to inspect the criminal history background of prospective gun purchasers, and the Brady Act created a list of categories of individuals to whom the sale of firearms is prohibited. As quoted from 18 U.S.C. 922 (d):
It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—
(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;(2) is a fugitive from justice;(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;(5) who, being an alien—(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26)));(6) who [2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;(8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that—(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and(B)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
Exceptions as quoted from 18 U.S.C. 921 (a)(33)(B):
(ii) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter if the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the law of the applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such an offense) unless the pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms."

So what you're saying is that assault weapons are already banned, and thus there is not need for a secondary assault weapons ban.

Applesauce

@TKDB
nice taking out the link from the legal definition site I posted, you are so dishonest.

John_C_87

It should be mentioned that the fear and question of children are left unaddressed and abused. First Fire-arm safety is not a United State constitutional issue. Therefor amendments on United State constitution have all been meaningless and a waste of time in that regard. Truth so far? yes or no. This is not the fault of the United States Constitution, it is the application of human error, or human deception, intention. By legal precedent safety and the pursuit of happiness are an issue of the United States Declaration of Independence. This is truth? Yes or no.

Whole truth really the truth has been openly Amendment while the declaration of independence has not been directly amended in any way since its first writing. Change is simply carried out undocumented for posterity. Wrong or right? Legal precedent, that in line with salty, and pursuit of public happiness. A brief history lesion. Public Fires like the great Chicago fire and/or forest fires equate to the public fire alarm, fire fighters, fire extinguisher, fire exits. not the legislation of fire as legal or illegal Accidents and injury equals, emergency transportation, trained medical application, placement of first aid kits. Not the legislation of injury only as illegal or legal. Theft and robberies equals to alarms as monitor or protection, police, sheriff and deputies, locks and limitations on access, detention, armed guards. Okay and now sometimes the litigation of personal belongings. Sinking ship equates to life boats, Coast Gard, Marine police, radio distress channels, and personal floatation devices. Not legislation of the use of water by its quantity….. yet.

Now let’s look at Fire-arms/guns equalization into society, the formation of one sided detection, protection, and use in common defense in contradiction to the United States Constitutions truth of common defense, the use of legislation of laws set on human safety that are not relevant to the document that is to be altered or amended in the first place. We the people in order to form a more perfect union assume what? A declaration of independence in safety and pursuit of happiness.

Is there a common defense to assault rifle? Yes, the second assault rifle. Is there an additional common defense to an assault rifle? Yes, the bullet proof shield/ ballistic shield. A third? Yes, body armor. Is their a Fourth? Yes, detection devices of gun powered.

TKDB

Is there a difference between being (pro Second Amendment oriented only,) verses a pro gun extremist, being pro Second Amendment oriented as well?

When it's in regards to the theme of the forum?

"Should America have gun control?"

And as stated before, there is a Gun Control Act already in place:

"Gun Control Act of 1968"

"The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA or GCA68) is a U.S. federal law that regulates the firearms industry and firearms owners. It primarily focuses on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers."

"The GCA was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on October 22, 1968, and is Title I of the U.S. federal firearms laws. The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) is Title II. Both GCA and NFA are enforced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). "

TKDB

@Zombieguy1987 ;

@Applesauce

Please explain why you apparently view the below as irrelevant?

Is there a difference between being (pro Second Amendment oriented only,) verses a pro gun extremist, being pro Second Amendment oriented as well?

When it's in regards to the theme of the forum?

"Should America have gun control?"

And as stated before, there is a Gun Control Act already in place:

"Gun Control Act of 1968"

"The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA or GCA68) is a U.S. federal law that regulates the firearms industry and firearms owners. It primarily focuses on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers."

"The GCA was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on October 22, 1968, and is Title I of the U.S. federal firearms laws. The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) is Title II. Both GCA and NFA are enforced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). "

And an add on question for you both:

@Zombieguy1987 ;

Are you pro Second Amendment only oriented, or are you maybe, a pro gun extremist, while being pro Second Amendment oriented also?

@Applesause ;

Are you pro Second Amendment only oriented, or are you maybe, a pro gun extremist, while being pro Second Amendment oriented also?

CYDdharta

TKDB said:

Are you pro Second Amendment only oriented, or are you maybe, a pro gun extremist, while being pro Second Amendment oriented also?

It's all a matter of perspective. To an anti gun extremist, anyone who doesn't fully endorse gun bans is a pro gun extremist.

TKDB

@CYDdharta

Are you pro Second Amendment only oriented, or are you maybe, a pro gun extremist, while being pro Second Amendment oriented also?

"It's all a matter of perspective. To an anti gun extremist, anyone who doesn't fully endorse gun bans is a pro gun extremist."

From your individual perspective, or from the perspective, of someone who is pro Second Amendment only, but not a pro gun extremist, and Second Amendment oriented?

Would it be fair to say, that there maybe is a difference?

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

Japan zoo discovers male hippo is actually a female

In this Debate

Should America have gun control?

Debra AI Prediction

Arguments

Gun safety courses will be mandatory for some Iowa middle school students

"Guns kill people in the US because we pervert the Second Amendment

"Should America have gun control?"

"Should America have gun control?"

"Should America have gun control?"

"Should America have gun control?"

"How About Banning Bullets? The Constitution Doesn't Say Anything About Those...

"I'm Just Not Ready To Accept That We Have To Have Gun Massacres All The Time"

"How About Banning Bullets? The Constitution Doesn't Say Anything About Those...

"I'm Just Not Ready To Accept That We Have To Have Gun Massacres All The Time"

"How About Banning Bullets? The Constitution Doesn't Say Anything About Those...

"I'm Just Not Ready To Accept That We Have To Have Gun Massacres All The Time"

"assault rifle

Definition of assault rifle

Gun Control Act of 1968

"Contact Us

"assault rifle

Definition of assault rifle

Gun Control Act of 1968

History

"Should America have gun control?"

"Gun Control Act of 1968"

"Should America have gun control?"

"Gun Control Act of 1968"

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch