Members Khan Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 The NRA and other anti-gun control laws advocates would argue "for purposes of food and self-defense." Of course, they tend to leave off the other part of that amendment, which states "in order to maintain a well-regulated militia." Also, they rarely, if ever, keep in mind that that amendment was drafted at a time when this nation didn't have the strong military and defense sector we do today, when it was literally up to "common folk" to defend themselves against an outside threat. To be perfect and frank, I find the argument that some indigent citizens need guns in order to hunt and forage for food a load of b.s. We have food stamps and other forms of government welfare for that. Moreover, vegetable seeds, which you could plant and then harvest the crop from, cost next-to-nothing at your local dollar store. (Don't know how to grow crops? Head on over to your local public library and check out a book on gardening. I've heard the books there are free.) And last time I checked, you needed only a rod and lure to fish, not an A.K. or an Uzi. But that isn't to say I believe all guns should be banned forever. Frankly, that's an unrealistic proposition. As marceline said, we need to work harder on enforcing the many gun control laws that exist on the books, making it more difficult for individuals to purchase handguns and other weapons. Would that solve the problem? No. As Carl said, people still could buy the guns illegally. However, it is somewhere to start; and once that is under control, we can focus next on how to the illegal weapons off the streets. I mean, for God's sake, twenty children. We have to do something, and start somewhere. Don't we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members marceline Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 These are the guns used by this lunatic to commit that massacre. I get that some people believe that guns should be available for defense and sport and whether or not I think that's a positive belief, I understand it but I challenge anyone to explain to me why that assault rifle is available for sale to the general public. Defense? Hunting? No. It's one and only purpose is to kill as efficiently as possible. http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1220784.1355546806!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/newtown-guns-12152012-390.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vee Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 Ed Schultz, who can be a blowhard but has a good heart, was on TV last night saying he'd been a "sportsman" (hunter) for forty years but knew well that gun control laws had to change. I hope more people like that with a line in that culture speak out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ReddFoxx Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 These weapons were not allowed to be sold to people, until a certain President allowed the Assault Weapons Ban to expire, you can guess who that genius was. A renewal hasn't even been able to get out of committee in the House. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 People are terrified that if anything changes, they will have their guns taken away, and they will be put into camps. This is what they are told, and what the media turns a blind eye to. Any time someone blows dozens of people away, they can be written off as an aberration, a headcase, an other. The cycle just continues and continues. As others have said, this has to change from the bottom up, community by community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Khan Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 William McKinley? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members marceline Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 Reauthorizing the Federal Assault Weapons Ban should be the first and loudest cause of the gun control movement. It's sensible legislation that was in effect, it didn't result in people "taking our guns" which is the default hysteria of NRA, and it's supported by law enforcement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ChitHappens Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 You rock, Chris Evert! Chris Evert @ChrissieEvert Mental illness should be addressed and treatment more accessible. We have thousands of gyms for the body- what about the mind? Discussions.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vee Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 NBC News reports that Lanza was at the school the day before for some reason and got into an altercation with four school officials. Three of them apparently are among the dead. I'm also reading that his mother, Nancy, was the gun enthusiast and often took him to the range. Because that's where I'd take a developmentally disabled or autistic child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ChitHappens Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 It's was also reported that the guns used belonged to the family, so that blows the gun debate right out the window. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vee Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 Not really, no. We knew she owned those guns. She had no business owning an assault rifle. And she had no business leaving them around her son, who killed her and 26(?) other people with them. Same old story. Most of these guns are legally bought and owned and then oops! How could we have known Little Johnny would take it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members marceline Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 I realize that she's a victim like everyone else but honestly I hope that she's look down or up from wherever she is and realizing that she helped to create this horror and if the brother and father shared her love of guns, I hope they realize the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vee Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 I really have very little sympathy for the dead mother at this particular moment, I'm afraid. If that's wrong and the facts end up bearing that out, okay. All I know at the moment is that she may or may not have been tied to the school, she lived with him and supposedly was his caregiver, and that after killing her he took her car and her guns and went on the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ReddFoxx Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 It's an effective law and if it's framed right, passage would be easy. Of course, you have the NRA and all their millions to go on a huge campaign of demagoguery. No, it doesn't "blow anything out the window", because it is wrong for glocks and assault rifles to even be available on the market for consumer purchase. Rather he bought the guns himself is not the issue, the fact that guns like that are readily available period is the issue. Other shooters have purchased guns like that. This is exactly a "no harm, no foul" situation here. People died here, children at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vee Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 Apparently, two days before the massacre - and before the altercation at the school - Lanza went to a sporting goods store in Danbury and attempted to buy more weapons. He backed out either due to the waiting period or due to not wanting to submit to a background check, or both. Instead he just used Mom's, which were more than sufficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.