1ºTerrill Bennett
I would just like to have politicians that would look at the facts and data and base the regulations on that.
Here’s the thing about those sites you shared: those numbers are over a 30 year period,
That doesn’t show accurately the stark rise in mass shootings. It’s not up for any debate the most deadly mass shootings are with rifles not handguns.
90% of mass shootings happen outside of gun free areas, because states with stricter gun laws
Have fewer gun deaths.
The most deaths per capita come from red states with lax gun laws.
Those are all facts.
I’ve traded an iPhone for a nice ruger, and some Harley parts for a slick AR. Even though I’ve done that, I think it’s too easy.
2ºLorenzo Gregory according to the CDC and annual FBI uniform crime reports less than .00003% of the guns in circulation are ever used in any crime and of that .00003% less than .0002% of the gun used in crimes are legally owned or obtained.
So what solution would you suggest....
One that actually adresses the route underlying causes ....
and doesn't overtly seek to preemptively/blanketly punishing the innocent whole of society (who have done nothing wrong) by taxing reducing restricting or eliminating the individual rights and freedoms of everyone (without individual due process of law) for the actions of the criminal minority...
Cause you are simply never going to sanitize the ills or criminal element in society by subjegating or punishing the innocent for their actions...
3ºJake Diecast BS Needs to be more mental hospitals and cemeteries if they actually want to slow crime down in this country.. Let's face it most of the thugs are not afraid of our weak prisons or justice system!! Like I said how many were killed marching in a parade by a sicko with a vehicle? They will find a way so let's get tough on crime and mental illness instead of banning objects.. If you start that you may as well close every local hardware store in this country because there you can get whatever you need to build bombs etc and YouTube will tell you how..
4ºSharon Knedler Welch
No it was not created for the military. That is a left lie. Do ya not under stand what commas are for ??
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
A well regulated militia is necessary for a free state to remain free.
The people have a right to keep and bear arms
Shall not be infringed
We the people it’s to protect us from the government.
Lord have mercy for the left to act so superior and then use that lame excuse that 2a is for the army is ignorant.
5ºJoan Pellerin yes...times have change and they will continue to change...., but what has not and will never change is the inalienable / fundamental right and freedom of and for individual people to make these most important decisions for themselves... and not have their individual rights and freedoms curtailed or stripped away (without benefit of individual due process of law) based on the hanioud actions of the criminal minority....
If your neighbor drives drunk i am fairly certian you would object if i fined you or impound your car for his actions...
Why...because It's a pretty simple basic principle that we don't punish the innocent masses for the acts of the criminal minority....
not a super hard concept to grasp..
6ºJT Sanders Exactly several here in GA shut completely down! Now the Governments send them mess through the mail and they're walking the streets in a zombie state of mind if they're on their meds at all.. Not to mention when they catch these mass shooters they post them all over the news media and put em in a nice prison wood that's scary smh.. Take Dylan Ruth they should have done put him in front of a firing squad and executed him with an assault rifle then televised it for the world to see and send a message but no they're to weak head hearted on psychos period!! They Don't want to stop it seems like to me anyway.
7ºJoan Pellerin did you know them first hand ...how could you possibly know their state of mind...you can't that is just your personal interpretation which doesn't extend to anyone but you ...
There was no way for them to anticipate the technology innovation of today...does that mean free speech under the 1st amendment is limited to ink / paper or a pulpit in the town square of the time....or that the 4th amendment doesn't apply to the search and seizure of technological devices like computers and phones etc......
Atleast with firearms they could anticipate semiautomatic weaponry ...as it already exisited...
8ºAlan Thomson Or we would rather protect ourselves and our kids since police with guns have absolutely no duty to do so by government ruling.
According to the United States Supreme Court, however, officers are not legally obliged to risk their lives for the community they swore to protect — despite the way their department’s motto brags about their duty to “protect and serve.” Thankfully, it seems that most police officers take such a motto seriously and bravely put their life on the line to help others. However, such praiseworthy attitudes among many in law enforcement don’t erase the fact that no such legal duty exists — regardless of the fact that most citizens believe that is precisely what all those tax dollars are being spent to ensure. https://thenevadaindepend...t-your-children
9ºJake Diecast No. I am trained to fire weapons. I know when to use them and when not to do so. The ones who should not have weapons? Are the ones with zero training. So many articles every day of people shooting themselves, others or their kids finding the weapon and shooting themselves by accident. I do not tolerate your disrespect directed at me just for serving my country. Just remember, you would not be able to give any lip if it wasnt for people defending your right to voice an opinion publicly. Next, your gonna say i have a record because of my ptsd. Stereotype people much?
10ºMarcia Fessenden Bieberich here is how the Supreme Court has ruled on the second amendment so far
Miller the types of arms that the founding fathers intended to be owned by civilians are arms that are useful in forming a militia.
Heller that citizens have the right to keep arms in their homes that are in common use
NYSPRA: that civilians have the right to bear arms outside of the home, and the government has to have an objective standard in issuing concealed carry licenses. That laws regarding the right to keep and bear arms must be viewed through the lens of the text and tradition of the second amendment.