Gun control

[kotha]

He'd find out sooner or later - if not by his dad he'd find out in the school playground and be bullied for it. The latter bit of that post is sad though

I thought maybe his dad could move house or something.. Can never guarantee of course that the kid won't find out,but atleast in my eyes it's worth trying once..

Edit:just googled open carry.. If I see someone like that carrying a gun,I think Ill just leg it.. Would be out of that store in a flash..

 

[711]

What a healthy and harmonious society that must be.

The equivalent for the British would be those who own intimidating dogs. Cowardly in both cases, for me.

 

[Rado_N]

So the man whose infant child has just suffered the horror of killing his own mother due to her carrying a firearm is AGAINST the idea of tightening gun laws.

Why America will never change, in a nutshell.

 

[langster]

They can be carried in most places, and they've got a section to sell firearms in Walmart too.

As someone else said earlier, search for "open carry" on Google images and you'll see quite a few of people openly carrying/wearing them in supermarkets.

It was me but i'm glad you reposted it as people actually follow your advice

I was looking for one particular picture of two absolute tool-boxes openly carrying assault rifles in a coffee shop. It's everywhere on the net but I found it reposted on USA Carry website, here. http://www.usacarry.com/forums/open...rry-texas-demonstrations-downright-scary.html

There are some very telling posts and it sums up these fecktards perfectly. It started with an almost reasonable post from a gun owner.

"Unless your some "Ranch Hand" out in Montana or someplace, riding the fence line on you horse with your Winchester in a scabbard, & you decide to ride into town for a burger, there are very few reasons to OC a long gun"

Which was replied to with this peach.

"I can think of an extremely VALID one (reason).....I EFFING WANT TO........... So take your anti-gun bias elsewhere...."

And then again with this beauty.

"Wow, where to begin.... how about this one that covers everything you cannot seem to comprehend: My right to exercise ANY of my constitutional rights any effing way I want to has zero, zilch, nada to do with what you or others think about it, period, end of effing story.....
YOU really, really, REALLY need to learn some more about rights before you go spouting off your mouth any more... BTW... fighting for more compromises (like you are so proud of doing) is NOT fighting for the 2nd amendment..."


So it's basically the "i'm alright Jack, feck everyone else" attitude. Exactly the same attitude from those that don't want a Universal Healthcare system. Some of the Open Carry pictures make it look more like some war torn part of Africa or the Middle East.

 

[BAMSOLA]

The equivalent for the British would be those who own intimidating dogs. Cowardly in both cases, for me.

I think it is the same mentality that fuels both, however I'd fancy my chances of escaping/surviving an attack from a mad dog owner most days, also a dog serves a secondary function as a pet so I guess the owner could argue that they were simply attracted (in the non-sexual sense) to that breed (it would be bollocks but I wouldn't say its completely preposterous). A gun however only serves one purpose and if the owner of one decides you are a threat for whatever reason, I'd say that's gonna be over pretty quickly.

I think people also forget the psychological aspect of seeing somebody you don't know in a supermarket/public place carrying a gun. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people in these societies choose to carry a gun simply because they saw some other nut job carrying one and thought it might give them a chance if that nut case one day decided to flip.

It really is a very malignant and vicious circle. Perhaps that is even why this lady was carrying one and look how that turned out for her.

 

[Rado_N]

It was me but i'm glad you reposted it as people actually follow your advice

I was looking for one particular picture of two absolute tool-boxes openly carrying assault rifles in a coffee shop. It's everywhere on the net but I found it reposted on USA Carry website, here. http://www.usacarry.com/forums/open...rry-texas-demonstrations-downright-scary.html

There are some very telling posts and it sums up these fecktards perfectly. It started with an almost reasonable post from a gun owner.

"Unless your some "Ranch Hand" out in Montana or someplace, riding the fence line on you horse with your Winchester in a scabbard, & you decide to ride into town for a burger, there are very few reasons to OC a long gun"

Which was replied to with this peach.

"I can think of an extremely VALID one (reason).....I EFFING WANT TO........... So take your anti-gun bias elsewhere...."

And then again with this beauty.

"Wow, where to begin.... how about this one that covers everything you cannot seem to comprehend: My right to exercise ANY of my constitutional rights any effing way I want to has zero, zilch, nada to do with what you or others think about it, period, end of effing story.....
YOU really, really, REALLY need to learn some more about rights before you go spouting off your mouth any more... BTW... fighting for more compromises (like you are so proud of doing) is NOT fighting for the 2nd amendment..."


So it's basically the "i'm alright Jack, feck everyone else" attitude. Exactly the same attitude from those that don't want a Universal Healthcare system. Some of the Open Carry pictures make it look more like some war torn part of Africa or the Middle East.

Clicked that link before reading the rest of your post and had those exact two posts highlighted to copy in here, absolutely mind blowing stuff.

Thick cnuts like him undermine valid pursuits of Rights.

 

[Moonred]

Well the nutters above are honest, it has nothing to do with 'protection' like Jim Jeffries says in the stand up.

 

[langster]

Clicked that link before reading the rest of your post and had those exact two posts highlighted to copy in here, absolutely mind blowing stuff.

Thick cnuts like him undermine valid pursuits of Rights.

Completely menthol. He might be honest but he's definitely a selfish, senseless cnut!

Here's yet another accidental shooting.

http://news.sky.com/story/1400759/police-chief-accidentally-shoots-his-wife

 

[Vato]

This just blows the mind. Sad state of affairs.

 

[Penna]

This just blows the mind. Sad state of affairs.

There's a big degree of 'look at me, look at my gun' in those pics. I think it's nothing to do with self-defence and a lot to do with personal inadequacy. The woman is ridiculous and the men are like extras from 'Deliverance'.

 

[berbatrick]

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jan/01/georgia-police-chief-shoots-wife-mistake

 

[Dracula]

A

I will do not own a gun but the right to own a gun is guaranteed by our Bill of Rights and I'm not interested in chipping away at the Bill of Rights. But that doesn't mean state laws that allow keeping a gun handy at shopping malls are a good idea.

Actually, no it doesn't. I like America, and Americans but one thing that properly bugs me is (half) bang on about the 2nd amendmen (whilst getting it wrong)t, the other half just seem to accept it.

2nd amendment doesnt allow citizens to have guns

 

[JustAFan]

The wording is a bit confusing, while it does mention militias ( which at the time were just local defense units made up of citizens using their own weapons). The 2nd part of the amendment does mention a citizens right to own a gun.

That is where the confusion and differing legal interpretations have come in.

On a historic note the amendment has its basis in English law.

 

[gooDevil]

You will never be able to "school" me on why your bill of rights entitles your citizens in most states to carry a device which allows them to take a life at the pull of a trigger, and it is that that I am arguing. My reason for raising the point about slavery is because I'm tired of hearing some Americans cling to "the right to bear arms" as if it part of a sacred and unchallengeable text. Freedom of speech is one thing as it doesn't lead direct to the taking of lives and is a benefit to society in most cases. The "right to bear arms" is costing lives either directly or indirectly practically every day in America.

Your founding fathers were not wrong about everything but there are some things that they were profoundly wrong about, slavery and "the right to bear arms" are just two of those things.

PS oh yeah and that whole treatment of Native Americans thing as well.

At the time, the right to bear arms was essential, and in response to an attempt by the British to prevent colonists from arming.

Today, it's the only check against domestic fascism we have, the biggest armed fighting force in the world is the American people.

Maybe one day we'll found a real democracy.

Anyone interested in police attitudes should look up what happened to MOVE in Philadelphia.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

At the time, the right to bear arms was essential, and in response to an attempt by the British to prevent colonists from arming.

Today, it's the only check against domestic fascism we have, the biggest armed fighting force in the world is the American people.

Maybe one day we'll found a real democracy.

Anyone interested in police attitudes should look up what happened to MOVE in Philadelphia.

Such a bizarre concept, that. It's propagated by gun nuts and just seems absurdly paranoid and melodramatic.

In the unlikely event that the American populace ever rise up against the Government it's not going to require a gun battle between civilians and the army. When the public dissatisfaction reaches critical mass the sheer weight of numbers will suffice, without any need for a massive shoot out. Obviously, a lot of Americans are fairly clueless about events outside their own borders but surely at least some of you have seen what's happened in other parts of the world when a government gets overthrown?

 

[UnofficialDevil]

What a joke, I feel sorry for them.Reminds me of this

 

[JustAFan]

Such a bizarre concept, that. It's propagated by gun nuts and just seems absurdly paranoid and melodramatic.

In the unlikely event that the American populace ever rise up against the Government it's not going to require a gun battle between civilians and the army. When the public dissatisfaction reaches critical mass the sheer weight of numbers will suffice, without any need for a massive shoot out. Obviously, a lot of Americans are fairly clueless about events outside their own borders but surely at least some of you have seen what's happened in other parts of the world when a government gets overthrown?

Not always very pretty especially for those who get thrown out of power. Sometimes it is very violent, sometimes it only takes as you say a critical mass to make the sheer weight of numbers suffice.

One other odd thing about the US and SOME (not all) of the people who want a pretty much unlimited right to bear arms, is that while they will talk about the fear of the cops or federal government, many of them are the first to stand up for the cops in situations like the Ferguson shooting, etc.

 

[VidaRed]

They can be carried in most places, and they've got a section to sell firearms in Walmart too.

As someone else said earlier, search for "open carry" on Google images and you'll see quite a few of people openly carrying/wearing them in supermarkets.

 

[Gannicus]

Actually, no it doesn't. I like America, and Americans but one thing that properly bugs me is (half) bang on about the 2nd amendmen (whilst getting it wrong)t, the other half just seem to accept it.

2nd amendment doesnt allow citizens to have guns

Sure it does. The Second Amendment (to the US Constitution, which has equal standing as every other provision of the document) is fairly straightforward:

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.

The Second Amendment clearly contemplates legislative limitations on what "arms" the people "may keep and bear". Congress has banned the private ownership of nuclear weapons and other heavy armaments as well as automatic weapons, quite properly so in my opinion.

The US Supreme Court decided a landmark case in 2008, District of Columbia v Heller: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html (I will quote the holding in full below, lest you think I'm making this up) which holds that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm. It is not contingent on service in a militia nor any other government-sanctioned purpose such. But to be clear, a vast range of limitations on the use of firearms is constitutional.

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendmentproposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.


One may wish to disagree with the Court's decision, but it would be very wrong to suggest that this decision -- that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a firearm -- does not exist.

Now that we've dispensed with the "the Second Amendment doesn't allow citizens to have guns" argument, we can go back to discussing the wisdom of various restrictions on the use of guns. I tend to be fall more on the "gun control" side of the debate than on the "concealed carry" side of the debate. I see no upside to anyone bringing their guns to WalMart and I see a lot of downside to it, as we saw on Idaho. I see great upside and no downside in background check laws and applying those laws to the sale/purchase of guns at gun shows.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Not always very pretty especially for those who get thrown out of power. Sometimes it is very violent, sometimes it only takes as you say a critical mass to make the sheer weight of numbers suffice.

Yeah, there's not exactly a standard process and it's often fairly bloody. It's just this idea that it's somehow necessary for the general populace to own a certain quantity of firearms in order to protect themselves from the government that's fecking barmy. This idea that they would rise up, as one, and out-gun the US military to protect the US citizens from their own government. It's just never going to happen. In the event of some sort of complete social breakdown where that sort of scenario could even come close to coming true, you're far more likely to get various factions shooting at each other than coordinating their efforts to overthrow the government. It's romanticised nonsense, used to justify the ongoing slaughter of men, women and children in America.

One other odd thing about the US and SOME (not all) of the people who want a pretty much unlimited right to bear arms, is that while they will talk about the fear of the cops or federal government, many of them are the first to stand up for the cops in situations like the Ferguson shooting, etc.

I've noticed that. It's weird.

 

[Gannicus]

You will never be able to "school" me on why your bill of rights entitles your citizens in most states to carry a device which allows them to take a life at the pull of a trigger, and it is that that I am arguing. My reason for raising the point about slavery is because I'm tired of hearing some Americans cling to "the right to bear arms" as if it part of a sacred and unchallengeable text. Freedom of speech is one thing as it doesn't lead direct to the taking of lives and is a benefit to society in most cases. The "right to bear arms" is costing lives either directly or indirectly practically every day in America.

Your founding fathers were not wrong about everything but there are some things that they were profoundly wrong about, slavery and "the right to bear arms" are just two of those things.

PS oh yeah and that whole treatment of Native Americans thing as well.

On the first point, a policy disagreement on whether carrying guns around town is a good idea is fair game. I happen to agree with you that laws that prohibit carrying guns into WalMart and the like are a good idea. There is no constitutional right to bring your heat to WalMart or the Superdome but there is a constitutional right to own and keep a gun in your own home. I choose not to own a weapon (for obvious safety reasons) but that's my choice, not yours.

On your second point re slavery, I hope you realize by now that slavery was prohibited by the 13th Amendment. The fact that slavery was once protected (or at least not prohibited) by the Constitution is no more reason to piss on the 2nd Amendment than it is to piss on the 1st Amendment or the 4th Amendment.

The Framers were wrong about a lot of things and right about a lot of things -- after all, they are human beings, just as we are human beings. We get to decide today where they're right and where they're wrong. We decided, for example, that they were wrong about slavery and we dealt with it in the 1860s. We decided a few decades later that women had a right to vote. We may decide that they were wrong about the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and other amendments and other provisions of the Constitution and we have a process for amending the Constitution, which has been used 17 times since the adoption of the Bill of Rights. But to pick and choose which provisions of the Constitution will be enforced is completely at odds with the idea of a constitutional republic. There are those who would like to restrict our right to free speech well beyond anything the Framers contemplated and I trust you would join me in condemning such proposals.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

On the first point, a policy disagreement on whether carrying guns around town is a good idea is fair game. I happen to agree with you that laws that prohibit carrying guns into WalMart and the like are a good idea. There is no constitutional right to bring your heat to WalMart or the Superdome but there is a constitutional right to own and keep a gun in your own home. I choose not to own a weapon (for obvious safety reasons) but that's my choice, not yours.

On your second point re slavery, I hope you realize by now that slavery was prohibited by the 13th Amendment. The fact that slavery was once protected (or at least not prohibited) by the Constitution is no more reason to piss on the 2nd Amendment than it is to piss on the 1st Amendment or the 4th Amendment.

The Framers were wrong about a lot of things and right about a lot of things -- after all, they are human beings, just as we are human beings. We get to decide today where they're right and where they're wrong. We decided, for example, that they were wrong about slavery and we dealt with it in the 1860s. We decided a few decades later that women had a right to vote. We may decide that they were wrong about the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and other amendments and other provisions of the Constitution and we have a process for amending the Constitution, which has been used 17 times since the adoption of the Bill of Rights. But to pick and choose which provisions of the Constitution will be enforced is completely at odds with the idea of a constitutional republic. There are those who would like to restrict our right to free speech well beyond anything the Framers contemplated and I trust you would join me in condemning such proposals.

Well it's taking a long fecking time for the penny to drop that the 2nd Amendment belongs in the same dustbin of history as the 13th. Hopefully you'll get there eventually. Meanwhile, a lot more Americans will die for no good reason.

 

[Balu]

Doesn't the constant threat police officers face through armed civilians play a huge role in why police officers are often overreacting? I'm no expert in all the problems regarding this in the US and definitely don't want to defend wrongdoings by the police. There's no excuse for that. I just happen to know a few German police officers and know how they go about their job and how they describe some of the situations they come into. It's already an insane mental burden without expecting a gun in the hands of everyone. I can't even begin to imagine how to find a sensible approach to do that job with no gun control in the country.

 

[Gannicus]

Well it's taking a long fecking time for the penny to drop that the 2nd Amendment belongs in the same dustbin of history as the 13th. Hopefully you'll get there eventually. Meanwhile, a lot more Americans will die for no good reason.

The 13th Amendment is actually a good thing, unless you don't have a problem with slavery. This is the amendment that abolished slavery.

Americans dying has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, or more specifically, the existence of guns. Statistics clearly demonstrate a positive correlation between "permissive" gun laws and low crime rates.

It's counterintuitive, I will grant you that, but the stats over time show that jurisdictions with strict gun control laws have a higher crime rate than jurisdictions that do not. And not just in the United States.


http://crimepreventionresearchcente...and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

Every place that has been banned guns has seen murder rates go up. You cannot point to one place where murder rates have fallen, whether it’s Chicago or D.C. or even island nations such as England, Jamaica, or Ireland.

This is common knowledge in the United States, although it may be surprising to see this correlation hold up well outside the US, which is probably thought of here on the caf as the most violent place on Earth.

It's best to embrace reality, rather than deny it.

 

[JustAFan]

Well it's taking a long fecking time for the penny to drop that the 2nd Amendment belongs in the same dustbin of history as the 13th. Hopefully you'll get there eventually. Meanwhile, a lot more Americans will die for no good reason.

Why would the 13th amendment need to be sent to the dustbin of history? Outlawing slavery is a good thing is it not?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

The 13th Amendment is actually a good thing, unless you don't have a problem with slavery. This is the amendment that abolished slavery.

Americans dying has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, or more specifically, the existence of guns. Statistics clearly demonstrate a positive correlation between "permissive" gun laws and low crime rates.

It's counterintuitive, I will grant you that, but the stats over time show that jurisdictions with strict gun control laws have a higher crime rate than jurisdictions that do not. And not just in the United States.


http://crimepreventionresearchcente...and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

Every place that has been banned guns has seen murder rates go up. You cannot point to one place where murder rates have fallen, whether it’s Chicago or D.C. or even island nations such as England, Jamaica, or Ireland.

This is common knowledge in the United States, although it may be surprising to see this correlation hold up well outside the US, which is probably thought of here on the caf as the most violent place on Earth.

It's best to embrace reality, rather than deny it.

You know what I mean about the 13th and 2nd amendments.

The bit in bold is bullshit, by the way.

Every country is unique, but Australia is more similar to the US than is, say, Japan or England. We have a frontier history and a strong gun culture. Each state and territory has its own gun laws, and in 1996 these varied widely between the jurisdictions. At that time Australia's firearm mortality rate per population was 2.6/100,000 – about one-quarter the US rate (pdf), according to data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the US Center for Disease Control. Today the rate is under 1/100,000 – less than one-tenth the US rate (pdf). Those figures refer to all gun deaths – homicide, suicide and unintentional. If we focus on gun homicide rates, the US outstrips Australia 30-fold.

 

[Vato]

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

Is that a dude? FFS!

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

Doesn't the constant threat police officers face through armed civilians play a huge role in why police officers are often overreacting? I'm no expert in all the problems regarding this in the US and definitely don't want to defend wrongdoings by the police. There's no excuse for that. I just happen to know a few German police officers and know how they go about their job and how they describe some of the situations they come into. It's already an insane mental burden without expecting a gun in the hands of everyone. I can't even begin to imagine how to find a sensible approach to do that job with no gun control in the country.

Cops tend to respond to all calls as if there are firearms present, at least in Canada and the US. Most of them will tell you it is a fatal mistake to think otherwise so there is an organizational culture that promotes a certain edginess to what they do but I think the recent examples of police overreaction vary in motive and circumstance so it would be difficult to say with certainty based on those alone.

 

[Sparky_Hughes]

I couldn't give two shits what the constitution says, there is absolutely no valid reason for the average citizen to even own guns far less be walking the street with them

 

[JustAFan]

Is that a dude? FFS!

Why you looking for a date? Probably a photo taken in the Middle East, Ohio would by my guess.


Also, thanks for responding to my comment about gun safety. Definitely if you are going to carry a gun around, a holster seems a better option. Not sure what sort of gun pouch or whatever this women had in her purse or if it even is supposed to provide some degree of safety, but it failed miserably, as did the woman as a gun owner.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

Why you looking for a date? Probably a photo taken in the Middle East, Ohio would by my guess.


Also, thanks for responding to my comment about gun safety. Definitely if you are going to carry a gun around, a holster seems a better option. Not sure what sort of gun pouch or whatever this women had in her purse or if it even is supposed to provide some degree of safety, but it failed miserably, as did the woman as a gun owner.

Hehehe, look at that right arm..for me the farmer tan is the giveaway.

Purses with that sort of holster pouch are supposed to offer the same protection from an accidental trigger pull but I've read about cheaper knock off versions that are flimsy and don't have a sturdy barrier at all. I wonder if they'll ever release all the details about this.

 

[gooDevil]

Such a bizarre concept, that. It's propagated by gun nuts and just seems absurdly paranoid and melodramatic.

In the unlikely event that the American populace ever rise up against the Government it's not going to require a gun battle between civilians and the army. When the public dissatisfaction reaches critical mass the sheer weight of numbers will suffice, without any need for a massive shoot out. Obviously, a lot of Americans are fairly clueless about events outside their own borders but surely at least some of you have seen what's happened in other parts of the world when a government gets overthrown?

You're saying guns haven't been crucial elements in democratic movements that removed fascists from power?

 

[Raptori]

You know what I mean about the 13th and 2nd amendments.

The bit in bold is bullshit, by the way.

Reminds me of the whole thing about rates of "violent crime" being lower in the US than in the UK. The reason for that is that things classed as violent in the UK are not classed as violent in the US.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

You're saying guns haven't been crucial elements in democratic movements that removed fascists from power?

Guns purchased over the counter and used by a motley crew of armed civilians? Be interested in some examples if you've got any?

 

[Gannicus]

I couldn't give two shits what the constitution says, there is absolutely no valid reason for the average citizen to even own guns far less be walking the street with them

Problem is, most of us have to give two shits what the Constitution says. The Constituion also provides that the right to free speech shall not be abridged. Most of us give two shits about our right to free speech, as uncomfortable and inconvenient as it often is.

But this is not to say that the government has no power to regulate free speech or our right to keep and bear arms in order to protect public safety. That's why we have perfectly constitutional laws that make it unlawful to engagein various forms of speech that jeopardize public safety or obstruct justice and laws that prohibit the carrying of firearms in public accommodations. The governmenthas vast powers to regulate firearm ownership, such as background check requirements, dealer licensing and time, place and manner regulations.

If it's any consolation to you, I completely agree with you that it should be unlawful to bring a gun to WalMart. But it's absurd to argue that man or woman should never be allowed to keep a gun inside his or her home, even though I can't imagine any scenario. In which I personally would...but I would like make that choice for myself and not have it be the choice of someone else.

 

[Sparky_Hughes]

Problem is, most of us have to give two shits what the Constitution says. The Constituion also provides that the right to free speech shall not be abridged. Most of us give two shits about our right to free speech, as uncomfortable and inconvenient as it often is.

But this is not to say that the government has no power to regulate free speech or our right to keep and bear arms in order to protect public safety. That's why we have perfectly constitutional laws that make it unlawful to engagein various forms of speech that jeopardize public safety or obstruct justice and laws that prohibit the carrying of firearms in public accommodations. The governmenthas vast powers to regulate firearm ownership, such as background check requirements, dealer licensing and time, place and manner regulations.

If it's any consolation to you, I completely agree with you that it should be unlawful to bring a gun to WalMart. But it's absurd to argue that man or woman should never be allowed to keep a gun inside his or her home, even though I can't imagine any scenario. In which I personally would...but I would like make that choice for myself and not have it be the choice of someone else.

Unfortunately not everyone is as reasonable and sensible as yourself. As a general rule gun ownership is like wanting to be a politician, anyone who wants to should be automatically disqualified

 

[Count Orduck]

Problem is, most of us have to give two shits what the Constitution says. The Constituion also provides that the right to free speech shall not be abridged. Most of us give two shits about our right to free speech, as uncomfortable and inconvenient as it often is.

But this is not to say that the government has no power to regulate free speech or our right to keep and bear arms in order to protect public safety. That's why we have perfectly constitutional laws that make it unlawful to engagein various forms of speech that jeopardize public safety or obstruct justice and laws that prohibit the carrying of firearms in public accommodations. The governmenthas vast powers to regulate firearm ownership, such as background check requirements, dealer licensing and time, place and manner regulations.

If it's any consolation to you, I completely agree with you that it should be unlawful to bring a gun to WalMart. But it's absurd to argue that man or woman should never be allowed to keep a gun inside his or her home, even though I can't imagine any scenario. In which I personally would...but I would like make that choice for myself and not have it be the choice of someone else.

But it's not though, is it? I wouldn't be allowed to keep an active nuclear device in my house, even if I was a nuclear phsyicist with a Nobel Prize in both science and peace. I could be the most responsible nuclear device owner in the world who never took the warhead off my own land, yet I'm pretty sure I'd still not be allowed to keep it.

The home isn't this sacrasanct place where anything goes.

 

[JohnDoe]

Freedom isn't free.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

But it's not though, is it? I wouldn't be allowed to keep an active nuclear device in my house, even if I was a nuclear phsyicist with a Nobel Prize in both science and peace. I could be the most responsible nuclear device owner in the world who never took the warhead off my own land, yet I'm pretty sure I'd still not be allowed to keep it.

The home isn't this sacrasanct place where anything goes.

Not to mention that even in countries with far more stringent gun laws (and far less shooting fatalities) like England and Ireland nobody is asking for or expects a scenario where "no man or woman should never (sic) be allowed to keep a gun inside his or her home". I grew up with a double-barrelled shot-gun in my house, because my dad went through the necessary legal formalities to own a gun which he could use for hunting. That's a world away from the insanity of being able to carry round a frigging handgun on your belt, or own an assault rifle.