BMEP100

The "Tyrants Overthrown" column has one name missing; King George... which started all of this.

But if you really believe that the "pro gun crowd", and the NRA are okay with sacrificing the lives of children, you must be as stoned as your profile picture.

Be sure to sleep on your side.

Dave Fitzgerald

Well.....I've been reluctant to join this conversation. But, since you brought it up. As you say, the NRA must be in favor of killing kids. Since they vehemently oppose any form of gun control legislation.

I don't think that's what you really meant??

bifff15

Okay so we want to change the second amendment? How do we limit the first amendment to? Hell, why bother with laws we don't like, let along things like that ancient constitution thing. Next thing you know the we will be blowing off laws and having sanctuary cities, giving illegals the "privilege" of voting, all to get votes for a political party.

Gents, the problem isn't guns, it's lack of two parent families, parents not teaching wrong from right, mental illness, and poor performance from the FBI / LEA folks.

Is it guns you are after or saving lives? If it's the latter great, look at what Americans are dying from and jump in to help. We have outlawed guns in certain cities, which oh by the way have the highest death by gun rates in the US (so outlawing them doesn't work). Abortion kills half a million a year with your tax dollars helping. Heart disease, over eating, lack of exercise. Are you going to out law forks? Cars cause 30k a year but not once have I heard the cry for outlawing them.

The MSM repeats it's BS mantra until everyone nods their heads in agreement. Doesn't mean it's correct or right. All it does is distort things grotesquely.

Treat the problem not the symptoms.

Cheers,
Biff

rp2pilot

Hypothetically, change the topic to scope.. Are you willing to budge a little on RJs if it means more profit for the company? Didn't think so, and we have used the term "camel in the tent" for years to describe that slow creep of one RJ at a time to stealthily take away mainline flying. Now change the topic back to 2nd Amendment rights, and liberals are not concerned about that steady erosion of rights to the point of abolition. Honestly, they're probably counting on that.

AllenAllert

The problem is M16/AK47 style assault weapons. None of the other stuff you whine about was designed as killing machines. You want to goose step and play army - have at it but you should be limited to weapons your own speed. Bolt-action, lever-action or semi-auto(limited to 5 shot magazine or less) and not killing machines like the M16/AK47 style weapons.

As far as abortion goes - it’s the women’s decision and not that of the chalky old men.

bifff15

Q: How many guns are responsible for killing people?
A: None. People use whatever tool they can, be it a car, knife, fork or gun.

You didn't answer, or skipped over the erosion of the second amendment, how you want to limit the first amendment, or any others for that matter. You also skipped over what the root cause of the problem is, and I will give you a slow pitch it's not guns that are the problem. And cars kill more than guns (remember to break out those gun numbers and remove suicides since those are (mental health issues or not murder?).

As far as abortion goes it's kick the can, doesn't effect me, oh what a wonderful day it is.

If you really want to fix school safety then what needs to be done is a rethink on what we are doing now that allows an individual to walk into a school and open fire. Fixing that, whether it's fencing, restricted entry, armed security, arming teachers, CCTV, or some combo of all then both parties will make progress and kids will be saved.

I think it's funny in not a haha sort of way, that when cops are getting ambushed and shot, when conservatives are playing ball and get shot by a liberal, when the body counts of gun violence victims are tallied every month in gun free cities there is no cry for gun restriction. Yet now all of a sudden there is.

Guess what limiting guns isn't the answer.

Cheers,
Biff

Regularguy

Ok one post wrote “common sense” as the idea of how to approach this issue. The problem is how people define “common sense.”

I for one understand the abortion issue is out of the box and can’t be stuffed back in. Where I highly disagree is the whole “woman’s body” argument. Why? Because anyone with “common sense” would see it took two to tango and there is the potential third party involved. But others “common sense” see it another way. And “common sense” might ask the question, in these days of proper birth control, “why is abortion a viable option for birth control?”

OK to me “common sense” tells me we need to protect our children as long as they are in our care. Additionally we need to protect the crowd in common areas (think concert), but “common sense” tells me banning all guns isn’t the fix for the issue and yet that is what the “common sense” of others is telling them.

So why isn’t there a real “conversation” over this?

You got it, “common sense.”

BTW I agree that while this is being argued we are ignoring the safety of the innocent.

What am I for? The proper instruction and certification of those who want to enjoy the recreation of shooting in these United States. I also believe that includes the ownership of “assault weapons” (again what a definition and painting of a picture) and other dangerous things.

But the “common sense” of others want to deny such things, even when they include proper training and certification. Basically I believe it eventually becomes a control issue and has little to do with protecting the innocent.

Had enough of this thread. “Common sense” tells me to walk away.

Regularguy

And this is why “conversations” and “common sense” fail. This writer has taken it to an ad hominem attack rather than using solid argument.

Good job!

rp2pilot

If it's the woman's decision to kill her child, why draw the line at birth. Using that logic, she should have the right to kill her children till they reach 18. I have no opinion on abortion, but I find the reasoning you use as severely flawed.

AllenAllert

With the exception of the M16/AK47 style weapon the other things were invented to make life better - not take life.

There has been NO erosion of the second amendment - you can still own a gun and the first amendment has been tested several time in courts and basically has been upheld every time.

You can add all the BS to make you feel like you are justifying the assault style weapons, but most Americans understand it’s an EGO and money thing.