By the way, I've seen gun supporters actually advocating suppressing 2nd Amendment rights in this thread. So I'm really confused on what argument some of the pro gun people are actually making at this point.
Manchin-Toomey presented an 884 page bill. Hello, sledgehammer. Pass piecemeal solutions to address the real problem and that is mentally disturbed people getting ahold of guns and committing mass murder at schools because they are easy, gun free zones. That is what needs addressed. That is the problem that needs solved.
Looks like the Victim Mother of Sandy Hook was given a real message today.....to bad it isn't sinking in!
You don't regard the obstacles as significant. Others do.Someone who is truly wanting a gun for self defense will have no problem hurdling those obstacles, especially with the understanding these obstacles are also a measure of defense.
Last edited by Federalist; 04-18-13 at 04:52 AM.
However, I'm very curious as to how you can claim to stand for 2nd Amendment rights for law abiding citizens, and then actively work to remove 2nd Amendment rights for law abiding citizens, just because you fear them (and how that differs from the perception pro gun people have of pro gun control people). That's not an attack, it's an honest question. You claimed you would have the law determine who could not be able to own a gun, so essentially you made the argument the government should get to decide which law abiding citizens get to own a gun.
Does that not defeat the basic premise of 2nd Amendment rights?
As far as your sledgehammer goes, you do realize that quite a bit of that legislation actually supported gun rights, correct? I don't think the Manchin-Toomey bill was a sledgehammer nearly as much as it was a flyswatter with a hole in the middle.
And I find the opinion of those to think these obstacles as significant to be silly. We register items with the government all the time. We require background checks for employees in government positions (and many times private jobs) all the time. Every person in this country is likely registered with the government. I find it silly to say that an instrument which is designed to cause destruction should not be more regulated. The idea that as many as 40% of gun purchases in this country are made absent a background check is absurd. But more than absurd, it's dangerous.You don't regard the obstacles as significant. Others do.
My point was CLEARLY about pointing out that most people really didn't care that this woman got to speak, but rather what she spoke about. It's right there in front of you. I wasn't comparing cancer, I was pointing out the faux outrage being expressed in this thread.
Last edited by Slyfox696; 04-18-13 at 07:28 AM.
I wasn't comparing them. I was pointing out ridiculousness with parallel example.and it is still a bad comparison.
Instead of getting guns off the streets, Obama and law enforcement agencies should be working harder to get criminals and crazy people off the streets.