General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGuns in civilian hands kill people.
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Sissyk (a host of the General Discussion forum).
Posted in response to a request to start a discussion.
This needs its own OPThis is the 21st century. It's time to get over the notion that we need firearms in the hands of the average civilian to preserve our freedoms. We are not going to lose our freedoms if guns are taken away from those who have no business possessing them in the first place.
Since I'm a new member, I've been hesitant to start a discussion. However, I've been asked to, so I'll give it a shot. I also saw a post that said, "Ban all guns," so I’m not alone in the way I feel. I checked What can and cannot be posted in the General Discussion forum. I think this qualifies under the following: "Open discussion of guns is permitted during very high-profile news events which are heavily covered across all newsmedia."
If I get my wrist slapped for doing this, so be it. I'm far too old and time is too precious to me for me not to say what I have on my mind while I can. I won't say how old I am, but my son retired from the Army year before last. He graduated from high school in 1980 and from West Point in 1984. Going to West Point was his idea, not mine -- and not his mother's either.
This discussion may not turn up anything new, but it might help keep us focused on what we should aim for.
Here's something I posted to my (private) blog a couple of days ago.
Guns in civilian hands kill people.
First, let me make where I stand clear: I loathe firearms of any kind. With good reason.
If we are to join the community of nations, Congress must pass laws calling for national firearms registration. Doing so is both mandatory and urgent for public safety.
We are well beyond the point where the populace needs to be armed to the teeth to preserve our freedoms. This is the 21st Century. America is vastly different from what it was when the Bill of Rights was passed. We are in no danger of losing our freedoms; the Second Amendment is out-of-date. Although my preference would be to repeal the Second Amendment and leave gun laws strictly up to Congress and the President, chances of repealing it are virtually nil. Therefore, Congress must pass federal laws that limit ownership of firearms -- pushing those laws to the very limits of constitutionality.
Without taking time to refine them, a few of my thoughts follow.Federal law must prohibit gun sales without government authorization, including private sales. Buyers must provide proof of age, residency, mental state, and satisfactory completion of a federally-approved firearms safety course -- at a minimum. A seller must have a federal license to sell firearms. Gun shows must be closely monitored by the The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. All gun shows must have local, state, and federal permits before they can be held.
Nobody needs an assault weapon -- and that includes semi-automatic weapons. They can easily be turned into fully automatic weapons with a readily available and inexpensive conversion kit. Semi-automatic and automatic weapons are simply too dangerous to be in private hands. All semi-automatic weapons for private use should be banned: no buyback, no grandfathering of weapons already owned, and no sunset clause. Private individuals must either turn them in to authorities or face criminal charges.
Currently owned weapons, ammunition magazines, and ammunition quantities above a certain number must be turned in to authorities or destroyed in a timely manner and thereafter their possession in excess will be a crime. (Some gun nuts own dozens if not hundreds of firearms, along with untold thousands of rounds of ammunition. Why do they need so much ordnance?)
Gun nuts will respond that people outside urban areas keep firearms in their cars or trucks for "roadside emergencies, impromptu plinking, and varmint-hunting opportunities." Yes -- and to have them close at hand when road rage hits. What a crock. Let them go to gun and rifle ranges -- and keep their weapons under lock and key in a controlled environment. Let them keep their weapons in an armory, to be signed out when they want to use them -- with a specified return by date that can be enforced. No more than a couple of weeks or so at a time.
Gun nuts will claim that private ownership of firearms results in many life-saving defensive uses -- and that those uses are under-reported by "the liberal media." That's simply not true -- neither the alleged magnitude of the number of life-saving incidents nor that the very few that occur are not reported adequately.
Enforcement? Well, for one thing the TSA's role could be expanded to run random checkpoints for firearms -- like those run by local police to deter drunk driving. Anyone caught without proper registration to carry a firearm in a vehicle could be cited for the violation, facing a stiff fine at a minimum and potential confiscation of all weapons in his or her possession at the other end of the spectrum. For egregious violations of the law, jail or prison terms could be specified in the law.
If it were possible to go beyond what I have proposed and completely eliminate private firearms ownership and possession, I would be all for that. I just don't think that can ever be done. Not in a country as backwards and violent as the United States is.
Make no mistake about it: If the Second Amendment were repealed, guns could be brought under control at the federal level, despite state constitutions that mimic the Second Amendment. That's because of Article VI in the Constitution: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land...." (Emphasis added.) Article IX and Article X of the Constitution might present a slight obstacle -- but not much of one if we can get a conservative on the Supreme Court replaced by a liberal.
It's time to do something.I've said elsewhere that I'm not in favor of repealing the First Amendment the way I'm in favor of repealing the Second Amendment, but I am in favor of amending it to permit hate speech to be controlled better. Hate speech by its very nature is inflammatory and likely to cause violence in the short-term, if not immediately.
Let’s face it -- and most of us feel that way sometimes -- some people don't deserve First Amendment protection. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me for the Constitution to allow Congress to pass laws that reflect the wishes of an overwhelming majority of the people.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)
Response to Cheese Sandwich (Reply #1)
Lizzie Poppet This message was self-deleted by its author.
enough
(13,255 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)-none
(1,884 posts)As things stand now, we are being shouted down by a few fanatics that object to any reasonable weapons regulation.
What kind of background check allowed Roof to legally buy a gun in the first place? It was so easy to see what kind of person he was after the fact, but not before? He had a web site spelling out his hate. Gimme a break here.
pogglethrope
(60 posts)As I understand it, his father gave it to him for his birthday.
EL34x4
(2,003 posts)He purchased the gun himself from a gun store after passing a background check despite a felony indictment for a drug violation.
pogglethrope
(60 posts)As I noted, it was my understanding that the weapon was given to him.
-none
(1,884 posts)Which is it? I keep hearing Roof bought the gun himself, with birthday money from his father.
If Roof passed the background check, then the background check could not have been that thorough - His hate website and all.
Either way our gun laws are too lax.
mythology
(9,527 posts)We, as a species, have proven ourselves incapable of regularly handling guns without killing ourselves, or each other, either intentionally or unintentionally.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Less than .1 percent of gun owners misuse guns in America.
So either Americans way ahead of the curve where the species is concerned, or you're just plain wrong.
Mr.Squirreleo
(21 posts)The thing is though how do you keep guns out of the hands of people like this?
No matter what you do, you can't really prevent tragedies like this from happening. If someone wants to get a gun bad enough they will get it and do whatever they want with it. The key then has to be regulations strong enough to put a barrier in-front of people who wish to do harm with guns to discourage them, put not to interfere to the extreme with those who wish to use guns for lawful purposes.
I couldn't even begin to imagine how that could be accomplished but something should be done, you guys should look at what has worked and failed in other parts of the world. No matter what you do it will not be easy to find a reasonable middle ground between the two extremes of gun regulation 
, but I am sure that some compromise can be found
pogglethrope
(60 posts)I want to get rid of all firearms -- especially guns. I'm willing to concede their limited possession by the military and some law enforcement officers, but not many. England (Great Britain?) basically gets along without LEOs having guns except in unusual circumstances. Why can't the United States?
former9thward
(31,947 posts)then move to Great Britain where it does not exist or attempt to repeal it here.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)America has a very different culture from the UK. UK is a much more densely populated nation, with very little "frontier."
But even Britain permits registered firearms for sporting purposes an we'd have to maintain the same here (at the least) or we'd run into an ecological disaster as the deer population swelled out of control, destroying crops, and upsetting local ecologies.
And then there's that pesky Second Amendment. We're some ways off from that not guaranteeing the right to arms for self-defense.
linuxman
(2,337 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 24, 2015, 02:13 AM - Edit history (1)
We are well beyond the point where the populace needs to be armed to the teeth to preserve our freedoms. This is the 21st Century. America is vastly different from what it was when the Bill of Rights was passed. We are in no danger of losing our freedoms; the Second Amendment is out-of-date. Although my preference would be to repeal the Second Amendment and leave gun laws strictly up to Congress and the President, chances of repealing it are virtually nil. Therefore, Congress must pass federal laws that limit ownership of firearms -- pushing those laws to the very limits of constitutionality.
You talk about restricting people's right to self defense, then turn right around and say that we aren't in danger of losing our freedoms. I'm confused.
Nobody needs an assault weapon -- and that includes semi-automatic weapons. They can easily be turned into fully automatic weapons with a readily available and inexpensive conversion kit. Semi-automatic and automatic weapons are simply too dangerous to be in private hands. All semi-automatic weapons for private use should be banned: no buyback, no grandfathering of weapons already owned, and no sunset clause. Private individuals must either turn them in to authorities or face criminal charges.
That would be ~50-75% of firearms in use today. It is silly and arbitrary. it makes as much sense as if someone were to suggest a return to muzzle-loader after the invention of the bolt action. Semi-automatics are in common use and have been for more than 100 years. Can you link me to some of these readily available conversion kits? I think I'm pretty knowledgeable about guns, but I've not heard of these. Your suggestion that there be no buyback or grandfathering is not only a poison pill which would prevent such a thing from ever happening, it is also a clear violation of the 5th amendment. Nope, no chance of losing our rights there. No siree!
Currently owned weapons, ammunition magazines, and ammunition quantities above a certain number must be turned in to authorities or destroyed in a timely manner and thereafter their possession in excess will be a crime. (Some gun nuts own dozens if not hundreds of firearms, along with untold thousands of rounds of ammunition. Why do they need so much ordnance?)
What does it mater if I own one gun or 50? How many can I use at once? This just just more arbitrary bullcrap that poisons any attempt and legit gun control. How many rounds would your majesty permit me? Why? Why not Less? Or more? would the people who turn those things in (criminals bent on ill intent never will) be compensated? if not, how would you justify it?
Gun nuts will respond that people outside urban areas keep firearms in their cars or trucks for "roadside emergencies, impromptu plinking, and varmint-hunting opportunities." Yes -- and to have them close at hand when road rage hits. What a crock. Let them go to gun and rifle ranges -- and keep their weapons under lock and key in a controlled environment. Let them keep their weapons in an armory, to be signed out when they want to use them -- with a specified return by date that can be enforced. No more than a couple of weeks or so at a time.
Yep, that's why I carry a gun. Road rage opportunities. You see, I'm just champing at the bit to throw my life away on murder charges. Yuk yuk, that's us ignant gun-nuts! Funny, I carry a gun on me when driving. I've been hit, cut off, nearly assaulted, and given the finger more times than I can count (usually up north interestingly enough), but it never occurred to me to even reach for my gun. Funny. It's almost as if people who follow the laws in the first place and get permits to carry aren't keen on murdering people. It sounds to me like you are projecting your own hostilities based on how you fear you's react if armed.
Gun nuts will claim that private ownership of firearms results in many life-saving defensive uses -- and that those uses are under-reported by "the liberal media." That's simply not true -- neither the alleged magnitude of the number of life-saving incidents nor that the very few that occur are not reported adequately.
Take it up with the CDC. They are the ones who've stated defensive gun uses outnumber killings. That is, unless you don't count a defensive gun use without bloodshed.
Enforcement? Well, for one thing the TSA's role could be expanded to run random checkpoints for firearms -- like those run by local police to deter drunk driving. Anyone caught without proper registration to carry a firearm in a vehicle could be cited for the violation, facing a stiff fine at a minimum and potential confiscation of all weapons in his or her possession at the other end of the spectrum. For egregious violations of the law, jail or prison terms could be specified in the law.
Bush and Bloomberg would be proud. Again, nobody wants to take away your rights. Bullshit. You want to stop and frisk/check people for driving down a road under the pretense that they may be carrying a firearm? Holy fucking police state. Yep, no abridgment of right or civil liberties there.
If it were possible to go beyond what I have proposed and completely eliminate private firearms ownership and possession, I would be all for that. I just don't think that can ever be done. Not in a country as backwards and violent as the United States is.
No, it will never be done because controllers like you always tip your hand like you have here. We go from "Nobody wants to take your guns or curtail your right" to "Random searches of vehicles, full bans, and confiscation of personal property without due process and compensation". If it weren't for folks like you, gun registration may have been done years ago. It will never be, now that people can't hear that without associating it with confiscation, raids on private property, and federal prison for exercising the right we have today. The fact is that nobody trusts the controllers due to crap like this. Personally, I'd like to thank you for protecting my 2nd amendment right in your own round-about, fucked up, police state way.
Make no mistake about it: If the Second Amendment were repealed, guns could be brought under control at the federal level, despite state constitutions that mimic the Second Amendment. That's because of Article VI in the Constitution: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land...." (Emphasis added.) Article IX and Article X of the Constitution might present a slight obstacle -- but not much of one if we can get a conservative on the Supreme Court replaced by a liberal.
Yep, again, nobody want to fuck with my right. Except the 2nd, 5th, 9th, and 10th, one you get the chance, it seems.
It's time to do something.
Like poison attempts at real gun control for the millionth time by demonstrating your plans to put the constitution through a wood chipper. Brilliant. No really. This enire post has been a brilliantly enlightening look into how far controllers will go to get their way. 4 constitutional protections laid low and counting.
I've said elsewhere that I'm not in favor of repealing the First Amendment the way I'm in favor of repealing the Second Amendment, but I am in favor of amending it to permit hate speech to be controlled better. Hate speech by its very nature is inflammatory and likely to cause violence in the short-term, if not immediately.
Unpopular, vulgar, and hateful, and controversial speech is the only speech that needs special protections. That's what the 1st is for. If everyone liked what I said, nobody would feel like restricting it. 5 rights gutted and counting. Keep it up!
Let’s face it -- and most of us feel that way sometimes -- some people don't deserve First Amendment protection. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me for the Constitution to allow Congress to pass laws that reflect the wishes of an overwhelming majority of the people.
A side of tyranny of majority to go with the banning of free speech? What more could a guy want? Thanks for showing everyone your endgame.
pogglethrope
(60 posts)Given that local police do random stops to check for drunk drivers, I'm not sure why a check for illegal firearms is so upsetting to you.
Did you perchance miss my qualifier: "Without taking time to refine them, a few of my thoughts follow." Admittedly, they need some work. This was more or less a trial balloon. I was looking for some constructive input, some alternative approaches. You didn't give any -- nothing but negative comments about each and every paragraph.
If I had enough posts, I'd send you an e-mail to better explain myself.
linuxman
(2,337 posts)They are equally upsetting to me as they infringe my rights without just cause, while assuming guilt to do so.
That's your problem right there. I explained to you why being a statist, rights destroying, heavy handed, property confiscating, illegal searching, controller would harm your cause more than help it, yet you want to take my criticism as simple animosity rather than feedback on your terrible, ill conceived idea.
Yes, my comments were negative. Criticism is by its definition. I only responded to the parts I completely disagreed with, as they demanded the most attention. Registration, eh, that's a tossup. Canada had a registration system. Had. They dissolved it, as it was providing next to no benefit for running and maintaining it. Such a system might be handy if we could integrate mental health qualifies into the system, but that would open another can of worms. HIPPA? Who is considered mentally sound? Will people who have mental problems avoid professional help if they think doing so will restrict their civil liberties? Are veterans who get treated for anxiety going to be prohibited? Lord knows they are vilified as dangerous and unstable enough as it is. To top it all off, positions like yours are why registration is doomed to fail, regardless of whether or not it can work out such things as I previously mentioned. With some people/groups so bent on total confiscation of firearms, why would anyone trust TPTB with a list of everyone who owns one? The gun control movement has held registration up as a common sense measure for years, yet turns around and gives gun owners every reason not to trust them with getting such a thing passed.
Telcontar
(660 posts)
sarisataka
(18,500 posts)On DU are fans of stop and frisk, domestic spying, and secret lists- if it is for a (in their eyes) good cause
Telcontar
(660 posts)Spatened
(31 posts)You've blown through at least 5 of the first 10 amendments right of the bat.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Krytan11c
(271 posts)Linuxman, very eloquently showed 5 amendments that would be gutted by the op. I would add the fourth amendment to their tally to being the total to 6.
To me the op is basically saying I really don't like guns or anyone who chooses to own guns so because of that I am willing to take 60% of the Bill of Rights and throw it out with the bath water.
I thought us liberals liked freedom, silly me.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)You hit it out of the park with that one statement. That's exactly what the OP is suggesting.
tblue
(16,350 posts)Welcome to DU!
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Okay, right there you've trashed the Second Amendment. Later on you trash the First Amendment. You complain that the United States is "backwards and violent" then you basically set out a blueprint that makes us no better than some fascist dystopia. You say that "We are in no danger of losing our freedoms," then propose to take away freedoms.
If you're running for office, you probably shouldn't use this as your campaign platform.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)It also makes a sad, ironic joke of your username.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)monopoly on the use of force?
Your username already implies that people are without power and the PTB are inflicting injuries and insults against them. That speaks to the fact that the PTB are not beneficent, they do not have our best interests at heart and are willing to abuse their authority for their own gain.
So why, exactly, do you trust them to peacefully and kindly keep their place once you have given them a populace that is defenseless?
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Ban ALL guns!
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Still, do you really believe the government will suddenly become your kindly and peaceful benefactor?
Do you think you can disarm a population that doesn't want to be disarmed without resorting to the use of guns?
ileus
(15,396 posts)However, you still have 8 that need editing.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Jesus Christ, this has to be a joke.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)One point: the second amendment doesn't need to be repealed. It never had anything to do with civilian gun ownership until a recent 5-4 SC decision that overturned Washington DC's handgun ban. If the right-wing court ends, then so does the myth that the second amendment stands in the way of gun control.
Also, never mind the gun nuts attacking you for this. Attempting to reason with gun nuts is like trying to reason with creationists.
-none
(1,884 posts)As you mentioned, it is not the 2nd Amendment, but a highly biased, Supreme Court decision that said otherwise.
What about the Rights of those killed by people that should not be having any guns in the first place?
Every time this is brought up, the gunners cry 'gun grabber' and try to shut the discussion down. Their only answer is to respond by saying the victim(s) should have been armed themselves, thereby making the victims responsible for their own deaths. People needing to be armed in the sanctuary of their own church? Are you kidding me?
Without meaning to, by exclaiming 'gun grabber' at anyone pushing tougher weapon laws, they are putting themselves into the same category as the deranged killers. They are actually defending the killers by refusing to go along with common sense weapon laws. Think about that the next time you read any of their excuses to maintain the status quo.
But what of the Rights of those killed by people that shouldn't be having any guns in the first place? Such as the nine (9) people killed in their own church, during a prayer meeting? Or the kids in the 1st grade classroom at Sandy Hook? What of their Rights? Their Right to live?
Does the 2nd Amendment over ride their Right to life? It would seem so for some people.
But that still does not change the fact that no matter what, we have way too lax gun regulation in this country.
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)about a couple months shorter than you. I have not seen where gunners have attempted to shut down discussions about gun laws. I have only seen threads where there seems to an active discussion. Or am I missing something?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Which seems to be SOP among the Controllers so you'll have lots of company.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Explain how you plan to handle the following:
1. How are you going to get this passed in Congress
2. How do you think this will hold up to judicial scrutiny
3. How are you going to get ALL 50 states to comply
4. What are you going to do when states refuse to comply
5. What are you going to do when the local police refuse to enforce the law*
6. What are you going to do when people refuse to comply**
* CO, NY and WA police departments have publicly stated they would not/will not enforce the recent laws passed in those states
**While it is, for obvious reasons, impossible to get hard numbers, the laws passed in NY and CT have resulted in widespread non compliance with gun owners refusing to register the firearms and/or magazines as required by law.
And thanks for the early morning laugh
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)The answer usually revolves on the control advocate suddenly finding an affinity for amassed firepower and wide-scale bloodshed.
Want to defend yourself against a rapist, stalker or home invader? Nope. Sorry. The collateral damage is too great. But -- HELL YEAH! -- will show those crazy gunners they can't resist drones and infantry on 'Murikan! soil!
Apparently the hypocrisy/irony eludes them.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)
Inkfreak
(1,695 posts)
sarisataka
(18,500 posts)'so let's eliminate, or circumvent, Amendments I, II, IV, V, IX and X'
clffrdjk
(905 posts)
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)
mnhtnbb
(31,374 posts)[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
I agree there are far too many guns in this country and that the country no longer faces the issues it did over 200 years
ago when the Constitution was written and the 2nd Amendment added. Too few people know that enforcement of
slavery by southern militias was a major consideration for the demand from the southern states for that amendment, too.
Regardless, the prevalence of guns and the irrational belief that having guns will make people safer, plus all the open carry
laws now makes it really feel to me, like this country is going backwards. The gun culture is definitely a factor in
our recent decision to revisit finding a retirement place in another country. The irony has not escaped us, that in fact
we are going on a trip for that purpose, leaving on the 4th of July. Perhaps a time for a new independence day for us.
pogglethrope
(60 posts)Apparently I was mistaken about Dylan Roof. His father didn't give him a firearm for his birthday; Dylan Roof bought the weapon himself. Meaning, the checks were insufficient to stop the psycho from arming himself and murdering nine people.
Why not firearms stores run by the state? I've lived in a couple of states where the only place you could buy a bottle of liquor was a state liquor store. They worked well enough. Why not state firearms stores -- operated by people adequately trained by the state?
Haven't had a chance to read all of the replies to my original post, but I'll get around to doing so eventually. From the subjects of posts -- which I have scanned -- my ideas don't seem to be very popular. Bear in mind -- I want the Second Amendment repealed and firearms control put in the hands of Congress and the Executive Branch. I want firearms to be taken out of the hands of private individuals. Anything less and we will not be able to stop the carnage caused by guns.
Throd
(7,208 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Federal law prohibits transfer of a firearm to anyone under felony indictment. That's precisely the kind of thing the background check system us supposed to catch. Clearly, the system needs improvement.
As a side note, despite all the flak you're getting in this thread (and I should point out that I disagree with most elements of your proposal), this thread represents an excellent contribution by a new poster. You put a lot of thought and effort into your OP. Thanks!
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Yet, even with some states managing all liquors sales alcohol continues to fuel more crime and deaths than guns.
4300 under-aged drinkers die from alcohol poisoning every year. That is the equivalent of 3.75 Sandy Hooks each and every week without stopping.
DUIs kill approximately 10,000 people annually making them comparable to gun homicides.
Approximately 2/3 of the 30,000 gun deaths in the US each year are suicides. Of ALL 33,000 suicides in the US around 1/2 involve alcohol.
Twenty to 40% of crimes involve alcohol at the time of offense
Alcohol fuels most episodes of domestic violence.
Weapons account for less than 10% of sexual assaults with guns less than half of that; yet, alcohol figures is as much as 70% of all sexual assaults.
Add in the cost to the healthcare system for alcohol related illness and alcohol outclasses guns as a public health concern yet no serious person suggests returning to Prohibition. Instead education and cultural changes are the focus.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,476 posts)Regarding NOT your posting history on this site but your overall experience in discussing firearms regulation, you're new at this aren't you?
Since it's simple to infer that want to completely end all civilian firearm use and ownership, I have to ask why and what it is you hope to accomplish with this foolishness?
edgineered
(2,101 posts)Sure, I'll have to feed it for a while, but eventually the old ass will die, leaving a jaw bone, ligaments and hoofs for a bolo, tendons for a sling shot, and other bones for knives.
Not only will all killing stop, but with firearms outlawed, the 2A group won't be the only ones wanting the asses to go away.
Ghost in the Machine
(14,912 posts)then I, and many other gun owners, will simply dismiss anything you have to say, whether you have valid points or not.
Let’s face it -- and most of us feel that way sometimes -- some people don't deserve First Amendment protection. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me for the Constitution to allow Congress to pass laws that reflect the wishes of an overwhelming majority of the people.
There are already restrictions on the 1st Amendment, but you already know that don't you?? You can't yell "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater or other venues. You can sue people for Libel and Defamation of Character. You can be arrested for making terroristic threats to someone.. for example, threatening to kill them, or burn their house down, if you have the means to do it.
So tell us all... Which Right are YOU willing to give up?? Pick any one of them, except the 2nd Amendment, since we already know where you stand on that.
Peace,
Ghost
Sissyk
(12,665 posts)Please consider posting in one of the gun groups. Thank You!
