|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Jan 25, 2013 7:45:21 GMT -6
Also Anita, pro-life... you know that I do not believe that life begins until birth. I dislike second/third trimester abortions unless the health of the mother is an issue(notice I do not say the "life" of the mother). The first trimester I have no issue with at all. It gives a woman a reasonable amount of time to determine that she is in fact pregnant and make the decision whether to keep the child or no. BUT, I am disinclined to force my values on another individual. I found it IRONIC however that the Catholic Church finds that pro-life is something that we need to use as a basic moral value UNLESS...It would seem that basic moral values stop at the corporate bottom line... apparently an inconvenient truth
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Jan 25, 2013 8:23:25 GMT -6
Gordon, you are the only one who I have heard say that the child victims are the price of freedom. Is this some straw man that you are constructing?
You say with a straight face that you believe life begins at birth but roll your eyes if someone express agnosticism toward some climate model (which has been pretty far from the mark) as though they were flat earthers. In some states babies survive the abortion process only to be left untended to die . This is barbaric. I can understand allowing first trimester abortions or abortions in the case of unhealthy fetuses, but it has gone too far. I know that there is a big regional difference in attitudes toward adoption, but with so many parents in the South seeking children to adopt, perhaps we should come up with a 21st century version of the orphan trains which ran from New York to Texas from the 19th century through the 1920s. There are good homes waiting here for all of the unwanted babies that the compassionate folks wanted to toss in the dumpster.
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Jan 25, 2013 8:30:37 GMT -6
Tex... here you go Caps-Lock ranting aside, I completely agree with the esteemed Dr. Bob. Yes, it's sad that a bunch of grade school kids got croaked. But is that sadder than all the people who die in car crashes, lightning strikes, rogue elephant accidents, bathtub drownings, subway mishaps, ad nauseum? No; they are all sad. But that's life. The bottom line is, these kinds of deaths are the Price Of Freedom. Sure, we can ban private ownership of firearms. Would that decrease gun deaths? Many of us think not (and it would probably increase them), but even if it did, is it worth is? No, it is not. As they say, Freedom isn't Free. We could ban cars, and save millions of lives. We could ban tobacco and save millions of lives. We could ban alcohol and save millions of lives. No, wait; they tried that. It only increased gang activity. Never mind. My point is, these deaths, statistically insignificant as they are, are the price of freedom. Deal with it. The alternative - lack of freedom - is too horrific to even contemplate. And should be anathema to all real Americans.
|
|
|
Post by Robin Hood on Jan 25, 2013 9:04:46 GMT -6
I'm guessing that Gordon is also pro-life with all his compassion toward the life of children. Anita, in case you have not "gotten it" yet, my issue here is the nonchalant attitude that the deaths of these kids and other victims of mass shootings and of anyone who is collateral damage can be swept under the rug as the "Price of Freedom"... that is just wrong on so many levels that I cannot fathom the misguided mental processes that go into making such a statement. The only people that are dishonoring the victims are the politicians and media who LOVE to tap dance on their graves to push an agenda...
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Jan 25, 2013 9:24:39 GMT -6
... and those who choose to ignore their deaths rather than face a stark reality.
If remembering those who served this country and died in battle is honorable because they fought and died as part of the Price of Freedom, then it is no less honorable to remember those who died for the Price of Freedom for the Right to bear arms... if that is in fact what their deaths were.
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Jan 25, 2013 9:27:44 GMT -6
OK Gordon, I stand corrected on the "Price of Freedom" but we hear you already
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Jan 25, 2013 9:41:56 GMT -6
I know that you hear me Tex.. not sure that others do. Apologies to you, but you may have to block your ears for a while.
|
|
|
Post by nolaflacav on Jan 25, 2013 10:16:33 GMT -6
I hear you too but I have tinnitus so it is all a constant drone to me.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Jan 25, 2013 12:21:10 GMT -6
Anita, in case you have not "gotten it" yet, my issue here is the nonchalant attitude that the deaths of these kids and other victims of mass shootings and of anyone who is collateral damage can be swept under the rug as the "Price of Freedom"... that is just wrong on so many levels that I cannot fathom the misguided mental processes that go into making such a statement. Please explain logically some of the "so many levels" on which it is wrong. If you can.
|
|
|
Post by New Mama on Jan 25, 2013 13:26:04 GMT -6
I agree that anyone should earn the right to have and carry a gun just like driving a car. Both issues are about freedom. We do pay a price in deaths for both. Both drunk drivers and people who commit acts of violence with a firearm should loose their rights to have them. Banning cars or guns will not end the violence associated with either.
When Roe vs. Wade was passed some 40 years ago I was all for it being a young hipster women of the love child revolution. As the decades have passed I have grown to have mixed feelings about this issue. I believe too many women now use abortion as a birth control method vs. exercising caution and or planning. Moreover, many want me to pay for their unprotected sex through government funded abortion. I do believe there are circumstances that warrant abortion but not because it is inconvenient to carry a child full term. As Tex mentioned adoption is a right to life for an unborn child vs. death of an unborn child. I a have also heard that the wait time to adopt can be lengthy.
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Jan 25, 2013 13:37:35 GMT -6
Jake, I would love to do exactly as you ask, but I am struggling to bridge the philosophical chasm. I find no quotation of any kind, anywhere on the internet that relates the concept that you put forth, that "these kinds of deaths are the Price Of Freedom".
None of the founding fathers of this nation approach anything akin to this. None of the philosophers of the past couple centuries have expressed anything close to this.
I just want to make sure before I go forward, that I have not totally misread your statement. Because what I read is that you find the deaths that occurred in Newtown, and I would presume the mass murders that have occurred all to frequently of late, both to be expected and accepted as the burden we as a society must bear for our right to possess guns.
Am I reading your statement correctly?
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Jan 25, 2013 13:48:42 GMT -6
In 38 states, including Michigan, BTW, a person can be charged with various degrees of murder by killing a fetus as the result of an assault on the mother. How can you be charged with murdering something for whom life has never begun?
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Jan 25, 2013 13:49:43 GMT -6
As to abortion/adoption, the laws vary from state to state on WHO can adopt. For example, in Texas the only people who can legally adopt are a M/F MARRIED couple. A single individual or any other combination of individuals cannot. On average there are 130,000 kids out there ready to be adopted, the fact is that most will go unadopted if they are over 5 years old or if they are a minority. On average the cost of adoption is about $25,000, so the average couple is unlikely to be able to afford to adopt. The rest of the kids go through the Foster Care system, which Anita, ends up costing the government a helluva lot more out of your tax $ than an abortion would. Anita... I am very much afraid that you are working under a false precept regarding government funded abortions in any case. "However, in 1977 Congress passed the Hyde Amendment which put limitations on Medicaid coverage of abortion, allowing it only in the cases of rape, incest, or if the mother's life was physically endangered. Over the years, those two exceptions were eliminated. In 1979, abortions performed if a mother's life was endangered were no longer allowed, and in 1981 abortions performed due to rape and/or incest were denied. As the Hyde Amendment must be passed by Congress annually, the pendulum of opinion over abortion coverage has swung back and forth very slightly over the years. In 1993 Congress permitted abortion coverage for victims of rape and incest, and the current version of the Hyde Amendment also permits abortion for women whose lives are endangered by their pregnancies. The ban on federal funding for abortion affects more than low income women. Abortion is not covered for women in the military, the Peace Corps, federal prisons, and those who receive care from Indian Health Services."
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Jan 25, 2013 13:52:29 GMT -6
In 38 states, including Michigan, BTW, a person can be charged with various degrees of murder by killing a fetus as the result of an assault on the mother. How can you be charged with murdering something for whom life has never begun? I dont know, ask the Catholic Church who successfully argued that they were not liable in the case I posted at the top of this page. It would seem that NO ONE has this pinned down. If they are inconsistent on this subject, is there any hope for any of us?
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Jan 25, 2013 14:00:54 GMT -6
As to abortion/adoption, the laws vary from state to state on WHO can adopt. For example, in Texas the only people who can legally adopt are a M/F MARRIED couple. A single individual or any other combination of individuals cannot. On average there are 130,000 kids out there ready to be adopted, the fact is that most will go unadopted if they are over 5 years old or if they are a minority. On average the cost of adoption is about $25,000, so the average couple is unlikely to be able to afford to adopt. The rest of the kids go through the Foster Care system, which Anita, ends up costing the government a helluva lot more out of your tax $ than an abortion would. Anita... I am very much afraid that you are working under a false precept regarding government funded abortions in any case. "However, in 1977 Congress passed the Hyde Amendment which put limitations on Medicaid coverage of abortion, allowing it only in the cases of rape, incest, or if the mother's life was physically endangered. Over the years, those two exceptions were eliminated. In 1979, abortions performed if a mother's life was endangered were no longer allowed, and in 1981 abortions performed due to rape and/or incest were denied. As the Hyde Amendment must be passed by Congress annually, the pendulum of opinion over abortion coverage has swung back and forth very slightly over the years. In 1993 Congress permitted abortion coverage for victims of rape and incest, and the current version of the Hyde Amendment also permits abortion for women whose lives are endangered by their pregnancies. The ban on federal funding for abortion affects more than low income women. Abortion is not covered for women in the military, the Peace Corps, federal prisons, and those who receive care from Indian Health Services." I don't agree with your statement about Texas law. Singles can and do adopt and there is no restriction on sexual orientation. We know a gay couple in east Texas who adopted a baby girl.
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Jan 25, 2013 14:34:01 GMT -6
Very well, my information is outdated.
|
|
|
Post by New Mama on Jan 25, 2013 14:34:41 GMT -6
Planned Parenthood performs over 300,000 abortions a year and receives about a third of its funding from government grants. I know they claim that the government money does not pay for the abortions but I'm skeptical. The Gates Foundation also funds a huge chunk and also prohibits use of their grant money for abortions. Again, I'm skeptical.
The funding of abortions will increase under ObamaCare.
Again, I am not against all abortions but I do believe this right is being abused to the detriment of the unborn.
Regarding adoptions. Newborns have families waiting to adopt them. The 5 year old waiting for adoption in foster care typically did not start out unwanted but ended up in foster care due to some life event of the parent(s).
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Jan 25, 2013 14:36:40 GMT -6
Jake, I would love to do exactly as you ask, but I am struggling to bridge the philosophical chasm. I find no quotation of any kind, anywhere on the internet that relates the concept that you put forth, that "these kinds of deaths are the Price Of Freedom".
None of the founding fathers of this nation approach anything akin to this. None of the philosophers of the past couple centuries have expressed anything close to this.
I just want to make sure before I go forward, that I have not totally misread your statement. Because what I read is that you find the deaths that occurred in Newtown, and I would presume the mass murders that have occurred all to frequently of late, both to be expected and accepted as the burden we as a society must bear for our right to possess guns.
Am I reading your statement correctly? You are reading it correctly, but probably not thoroughly. I'm not talking about the freedom to collect and admire guns, or the freedom to hunt game with them. One could argue that innocent lives are too high a price to pay for those freedoms. The freedom I'm talking about is the freedom to defend yourself and your loved ones against bad guys with guns. I'm sure that far more lives are saved nationwide by easy access to weapons for ordinary folks than are lost to the occasional nutjob. Study after study shows that vioent crimes and access to guns are inversely correlated. I'm in favor of fewer deaths overall. Aren't you?
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Jan 28, 2013 5:44:25 GMT -6
So basically, you want to backtrack and qualify on you statement that "these kinds of deaths are the Price Of Freedom". Thats fine, I can live with that.
BTW- your first link produces a blank page, the second is for a guy selling a book... and as you have pointed out in the past, authors selling books have a vested interest in playing to their audience. Even if I accepted his argument or similar arguments, I could produce works that would show that you are more likely to be harmed by a gun you think will defend you.
Edited- and Yes I am and believe that fewer guns and guns that require more frequent reloading is the answer.
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Jan 28, 2013 6:01:41 GMT -6
Planned Parenthood performs over 300,000 abortions a year and receives about a third of its funding from government grants. I know they claim that the government money does not pay for the abortions but I'm skeptical. The Gates Foundation also funds a huge chunk and also prohibits use of their grant money for abortions. Again, I'm skeptical.
The funding of abortions will increase under ObamaCare. The Gates Foundation funding is really irrelevant in terms of your taxes. Thats a private foundation and does not affect your pocketbook, unless you consider the monies he gets from every copy of Windows that is sold... dont buy Windows if that is an issue. OTOH- theoretically, those who would receive a "government funded" abortion be the same people who would be on welfare? so isnt paying for an abortion a lot cheaper than a lifetime as a ward of the state?
|
|
|
Post by New Mama on Jan 28, 2013 9:54:57 GMT -6
Planned Parenthood performs over 300,000 abortions a year and receives about a third of its funding from government grants. I know they claim that the government money does not pay for the abortions but I'm skeptical. The Gates Foundation also funds a huge chunk and also prohibits use of their grant money for abortions. Again, I'm skeptical.
The funding of abortions will increase under ObamaCare. The Gates Foundation funding is really irrelevant in terms of your taxes. Thats a private foundation and does not affect your pocketbook, unless you consider the monies he gets from every copy of Windows that is sold... dont buy Windows if that is an issue. OTOH- theoretically, those who would receive a "government funded" abortion be the same people who would be on welfare? so isnt paying for an abortion a lot cheaper than a lifetime as a ward of the state? I only brought up the Gates grants and the string attached to highlight the unlikelihood of both government and Gates money NOT paying for abortions. Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of abortions here and I don’t believe that our tax dollars don’t pay for them especially considering that the Gate grants are not supposed to pay for them either. So who’s paying for them? As for the cost of welfare…I don’t think that should be a reason to kill a child. Welfare barely pays for the cost of raising a child and doesn’t give that child much of a start in life. More reason to make people responsible for their actions. Didn’t Wisconsin phase out welfare back in the late 80’s and 90’s? Seems to me Illinois had a large migration of that dead weight show up on our tax rolls. It was very successful reform for Wisconsin. Again, I’m not for banning abortions but I also don’t think abortions should be allowed because it is inconvenient the women for 6 months. Adoption is an option! If you knew many adoptees you might agree.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Jan 28, 2013 13:37:21 GMT -6
So basically, you want to backtrack and qualify on you statement that "these kinds of deaths are the Price Of Freedom". Thats fine, I can live with that.
BTW- your first link produces a blank page, the second is for a guy selling a book... and as you have pointed out in the past, authors selling books have a vested interest in playing to their audience. Even if I accepted his argument or similar arguments, I could produce works that would show that you are more likely to be harmed by a gun you think will defend you.
Edited- and Yes I am and believe that fewer guns and guns that require more frequent reloading is the answer. I must be suffering from reading comprehension issues. Which part of this explains why my position is "wrong on so many levels"? You having a differing opinion doesn't make my position "wrong" on even one level. Just different.
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Jan 29, 2013 6:13:01 GMT -6
Jake, I think your reading comprehension is just as bad as you claim mine to be
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Jan 29, 2013 7:02:43 GMT -6
Regardless of that... lets explore the philosophy that the deaths of those in Newtown and elsewhere ARE the "Price of Freedom"
Do you gun advocates out there really believe that the shooters in ANY of the myriad mass attacks over the past decades had a constitutional right to own AK-47 assault rifles? Does "right to bear arms" really have to mean any kind of weapon in order for your "right" to be secure?
Do limits on the type of arms available to ordinary citizens really violate your civil rights to such a degree that you are willing to sacrifice innocent lives in your pursuit of opposing them? Is that a "price of freedom" you are willing to live with?
If you say yes, then what you are really saying is that your very literal interpretation of the Second Amendment is more important than the lives of the children, teachers, movie goers, and police officers over the years.
You are saying that your interpretation of the words "shall not be infringed" meant that those people had to die.
Would you be willing to look the parents of those children, spouses of those adults, children of those men/women in the eye and explain that to them?
Go ahead, tell them: "I'm really sorry your sons/daughters/spouse/dad/mom had to die. But, you see, my civil rights would have been violated if that person had not been allowed to purchase assault weapons. You understand that, don't you?"
Would you be willing to do that? Really?
To those victims and their families and the thousands of others whose lives are affected by gun violence and death, debates over limits on the rights covered in the Second Amendment are not some theoretical abstraction. They are the most painful, appalling reality imaginable.
The government should not have to set limits on gun ownership and gun use.
Gun users and Second Amendment advocates should be setting the limits voluntarily. Coercion by the "authorities" should be unnecessary in an intelligent, compassionate society.
Every "sportsman," every hunter, every target-practice-loving gun owner, every person who understands and respects the power and danger of weapons should be crying, "Enough!"
The intent of the Second Amendment was never to make it easier for people to kill each other, which is what every study has shown is the effect of easy access to every kind of weapon.
The freedom to own a firearm, by its very nature, is qualitatively different from freedom of expression and the other rights enumerated in the Constitution.
We must respect our Constitution. But we also understand that no right is limitless. We must understand that our right to bear arms must be balanced with other important considerations.
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Jan 29, 2013 9:54:57 GMT -6
Regardless of that... lets explore the philosophy that the deaths of those in Newtown and elsewhere ARE the "Price of Freedom" Do you gun advocates out there really believe that the shooters in ANY of the myriad mass attacks over the past decades had a constitutional right to own AK-47 assault rifles? Does "right to bear arms" really have to mean any kind of weapon in order for your "right" to be secure? Do limits on the type of arms available to ordinary citizens really violate your civil rights to such a degree that you are willing to sacrifice innocent lives in your pursuit of opposing them? Is that a "price of freedom" you are willing to live with? If you say yes, then what you are really saying is that your very literal interpretation of the Second Amendment is more important than the lives of the children, teachers, movie goers, and police officers over the years. You are saying that your interpretation of the words "shall not be infringed" meant that those people had to die. Would you be willing to look the parents of those children, spouses of those adults, children of those men/women in the eye and explain that to them? Go ahead, tell them: "I'm really sorry your sons/daughters/spouse/dad/mom had to die. But, you see, my civil rights would have been violated if that person had not been allowed to purchase assault weapons. You understand that, don't you?" Would you be willing to do that? Really? To those victims and their families and the thousands of others whose lives are affected by gun violence and death, debates over limits on the rights covered in the Second Amendment are not some theoretical abstraction. They are the most painful, appalling reality imaginable. The government should not have to set limits on gun ownership and gun use. Gun users and Second Amendment advocates should be setting the limits voluntarily. Coercion by the "authorities" should be unnecessary in an intelligent, compassionate society. Every "sportsman," every hunter, every target-practice-loving gun owner, every person who understands and respects the power and danger of weapons should be crying, "Enough!" The intent of the Second Amendment was never to make it easier for people to kill each other, which is what every study has shown is the effect of easy access to every kind of weapon. The freedom to own a firearm, by its very nature, is qualitatively different from freedom of expression and the other rights enumerated in the Constitution. We must respect our Constitution. But we also understand that no right is limitless. We must understand that our right to bear arms must be balanced with other important considerations. Maybe it is worth noting that in several of the places where those rights were infringed, tens of millions of unarmed citizens died just in the lifetime of an eighty year old alive today. The Constitution provides a way to repeal amendments which no longer have the support of the people. It has been done before. If you think your case is so overwhelming, go for it.
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Jan 29, 2013 10:26:00 GMT -6
Tex, rather than obfuscate the discussion, just come out and tell me what you are alluding to.
I could make an educated guess as to what your reference "tens of millions of unarmed citizens died just in the lifetime of an eighty year old alive today" means, but Id rather not commit to addressing it, just in case you are referring to something completely different. Is this the "Hitler did this" argument? If so, I am disappointed, I always figured you for being more thoughtful.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Jan 29, 2013 10:42:12 GMT -6
Gordon, your little diatribe only looks at one side of the equation. Yes, innocent people die because there are guns in America. But how many lives are SAVED because of all the guns owned by regular citizens in America? Can you prove that the total deaths would go DOWN if you rounded up the guns of non-criminals? I doubt it.
Of course, I can't prove the opposite, other than with what you would probably call "anecdotal" evidence, but it is my belief. Just like your belief is yours. (Oh, and by the way, a bunch of really smart guys who wrote the Constitution happen to agree with me.)
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Jan 29, 2013 10:47:49 GMT -6
Diatribe? Really?
I spent the time and effort to lay out what I considered a logical thesis of what I believe and why. The responses are dismissal and implied bumper sticker slogans. Is this is all you have got guys?? Not a single answer to a single question posed above.
If youre not really serious, then what is the point for this forum anymore?
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Jan 29, 2013 10:58:59 GMT -6
Tex, rather than obfuscate the discussion, just come out and tell me what you are alluding to. I could make an educated guess as to what your reference "tens of millions of unarmed citizens died just in the lifetime of an eighty year old alive today" means, but Id rather not commit to addressing it, just in case you are referring to something completely different. Is this the "Hitler did this" argument? If so, I am disappointed, I always figured you for being more thoughtful. I didn't really think I was beating around the bush, but I was alluding to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, et al. I may have to reconcile myself to your disappointment since you are disappointed by those who disagree with your point of view. I am not a gun guy, but I know Texas well, and an attempt to seize private weapons will touch off armageddon.
|
|
|
Post by New Mama on Jan 29, 2013 12:04:59 GMT -6
Regardless of that... lets explore the philosophy that the deaths of those in Newtown and elsewhere ARE the "Price of Freedom" Do you gun advocates out there really believe that the shooters in ANY of the myriad mass attacks over the past decades had a constitutional right to own AK-47 assault rifles? Does "right to bear arms" really have to mean any kind of weapon in order for your "right" to be secure? Yes, a legal right to own an AK-47. I don't believe any of the more recent shooters used an AK-47 nor did they legally own the guns they used in their crimes.Do limits on the type of arms available to ordinary citizens really violate your civil rights to such a degree that you are willing to sacrifice innocent lives in your pursuit of opposing them? Is that a "price of freedom" you are willing to live with? We already have some limits on the type of arms we can own. We also have some procedures and licensing requirements. Did you know that Chicago has already had 50 gun related murders in 2013. Yep, Chicago with the toughest gun laws and restrictions in the country. It's likely that fewer would have died if they had a gun to protect themselves.If you say yes, then what you are really saying is that your very literal interpretation of the Second Amendment is more important than the lives of the children, teachers, movie goers, and police officers over the years. You are not listening to me anyway. Guns are not the problem. Our violent culture and lack of executing the existing laws are the bigger problem.You are saying that your interpretation of the words "shall not be infringed" meant that those people had to die. "shall not be infringed" does not mean those people had to die. Thoughtful and reasonable procedures, with training, checks and balances can compliment our rights. Making us even with the armed criminals does help.Would you be willing to look the parents of those children, spouses of those adults, children of those men/women in the eye and explain that to them? Sure. I'm willing to bet that each one of them wishes their was someone there to blast that crazy son of a bitch's head off that took away their loved ones...including themselves. Go ahead, tell them: "I'm really sorry your sons/daughters/spouse/dad/mom had to die. But, you see, my civil rights would have been violated if that person had not been allowed to purchase assault weapons. You understand that, don't you?" Sure. I'm willing to bet that each one of them wishes their was someone there to blast that crazy son of a bitch's head off that took away their loved ones...including themselves.Would you be willing to do that? Really? YesTo those victims and their families and the thousands of others whose lives are affected by gun violence and death, debates over limits on the rights covered in the Second Amendment are not some theoretical abstraction. They are the most painful, appalling reality imaginable. I don't disagree. What I don't agree with is that they are focused on banning guns rather than controlling guns. More on this belowThe government should not have to set limits on gun ownership and gun use. ExactlyGun users and Second Amendment advocates should be setting the limits voluntarily. Coercion by the "authorities" should be unnecessary in an intelligent, compassionate society. Also true but unrealiztic.Every "sportsman," every hunter, every target-practice-loving gun owner, every person who understands and respects the power and danger of weapons should be crying, "Enough!" How do you know they didn't?The intent of the Second Amendment was never to make it easier for people to kill each other, which is what every study has shown is the effect of easy access to every kind of weapon. Every study? Bullshit! Studies as you point out regularly can show what the writer concludes based on the writer's bias. The freedom to own a firearm, by its very nature, is qualitatively different from freedom of expression and the other rights enumerated in the Constitution. Yes. Your point?We must respect our Constitution. But we also understand that no right is limitless. We must understand that our right to bear arms must be balanced with other important considerations. On this we agree. As you know I do not support gun BANS but I do support strict purchasing requirements and responsibilities upon the purchase of any gun. Some of my thoughts for gun control include: Every person who desires to purchase or inherits a gun should complete an accredited course in gun safety, storage and maintenance. All guns should be manufactured to include locks. All existing guns should be equipped with locks within 12 months. Violations should be fined heavily with jail time for repeat offenders. All gun owners should purchase firearms legally. Violation of this should require 5 years mandatory jail time with no time off for good behavior. Any crime committed with a firearm should require 10 years mandatory jail time with no time off for good behavior. Any murder resulting from the use of a firearm should require 20 years mandatory jail time with no time off for good behavior. Other existing firearm laws such as record keeping in the sale of firearms should be reviewed for more stringent compliance with fines and or jail time for noncompliance.
|
|