- Joined
- Sep 22, 2012
- Messages
- 42,403
- Reaction score
- 12,587
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
I pretty much agree with this. The problem isn't guns. The problem is mental illness.
Then why do you support registration and FOID cards?
I pretty much agree with this. The problem isn't guns. The problem is mental illness.
Then why do you support registration and FOID cards?
The problem isn't guns, it's the people who have access to guns.
The problem isn't guns, it's the people who have access to guns.
But once you take away the guns and the knives and the bomb-making chemicals in everyone's homes and cars, etc., you're still left with the PEOPLE! Why not stop worrying about all the things that can cause damage and deal with the actual problem?
That's what gun laws ought to do...keep people who shouldn't own guns from owning guns.
No. I don't care about the element of utility when condemning sacrificing liberty for security. Liberty is a priority.
Now, some folks are more utilitarian, so it doesn't hurt to be able to speak their language, and it helps in this case to note that there is no such utility, no upside to restrictive gun policies, they just render law abiding citizens helpless.
What about people who steal guns or get them through the black market? What about people who read on the Internet how to make bombs out of common household chemicals? When do we stop trying to put a bandage on the problem and just deal with the problem?
Just wondering, do you think that those 26 people who died in CT had their liberties taken away? Liberty is a priority, everybody should have the liberty to live, those 26 didn't? Thoughts on that?
Sometimes solving problems requires a many-pronged approach. Illegal access is one. Mental health services accessibility is another. Keeping weapons secure is another. Stricter punishment for committing a crime with an illegal gun is another. Stricter punishment for being in possession of an illegal firearm is another. The list is pretty long.
It absolutely is not the Supreme Court's place to decide that part of the Constitution is outdated, and no longer needs to be fully obeyed. The only legitimate way for this determination to be made and put into effect is by ratifying a new amendment to the Constitution, to supersede that which is deemed to be outdated.
But you're missing the whole point. In many of these cases, the Supreme Court is basically inventing new application out of whole cloth because what came before simply does not apply in any way, shape or form to new technologies, new ideas, etc. It's not a matter of deciding what the founding fathers intended, they didn't intend anything, they couldn't have imagined these things in their wildest dreams, it's just making up new ideas and trying to shoehorn them into the writings of people who died almost 250 years ago. I seriously doubt they intended their ideas to be the only driving force for the nation for centuries to come, nor could they have foreseen the kind of polarization that's come to pass that makes ratifying any new ideas into the Constitution basically impossible.
How about the fact that we're routinely medicating people with drugs that are causing many of these problems in the first place?
Everybody dies. Do they have their liberty taken away if they die by natural causes? Seems absurd.
Does every 6 year old die of natural causes? They had their WHOLE life left. Who knows what could have became of them.
What difference does it make? If a kid dies in a traffic accident that is no one's fault, did they have their liberty taken away? Stop trying to avoid the question and just answer it.
No because nobody took it away. Somebody who dies in a traffic accident, somebody is punished, but there is no intent.
Reality "takes away liberty" all the time. Why is it suddenly a horrible thing that some person did it as opposed to it just happening because it's how reality works?
I have always been against guns, not to the extent of repealing the 2nd amendment, but to limiting it. Times have clearly changed , they did not have assault rifles back then. It was common for people to have guns because we relied on militias.
I have always been against guns, not to the extent of repealing the 2nd amendment, but to limiting it. Times have clearly changed , they did not have assault rifles back then. It was common for people to have guns because we relied on militias.
What do you believe an assault rifle is?I have always been against guns, not to the extent of repealing the 2nd amendment, but to limiting it. Times have clearly changed , they did not have assault rifles back then. It was common for people to have guns because we relied on militias.
I have always been against guns, not to the extent of repealing the 2nd amendment, but to limiting it. Times have clearly changed , they did not have assault rifles back then. It was common for people to have guns because we relied on militias.
If you are looking for some new federal legislation, upon which one of Congress' enumerated powers would such legislation be based?
Of course, you know that "insure domestic tranquility" is not one of Congress' enumerated powers."insure domestic Tranquility"