115
Here is why banning weapons won't set us free from fear : Swingers Discussion 2139541091
Busy Swingers Forum - everything you always wanted to know about swingers.
SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

HELP
FORUMSGeneral DiscussionsPoliticsHere is why banning weapons won't set us free from fear
TOPIC: Here is why banning weapons won't set us free from fear
GoTo Page: Less ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Start   91 to 100 of 167   End
User Details are only visible to members.
Outdoors- I would not sleep well knowing a lunatic next to me had a weapon. The number of lunatics in the population is not high enough for me to lose sleep over worrying about which one is a lunatic and which is not. How would I know there is a lunatic? Do they wear signs that state that?

Just as I don't know if a car approaching me head on in the other lane of a 2 lane highway will suddenly veer into my lane and crash head on into me. I don't lose sleep the night before any road trips wondering if that's going to happen. Nor do I worry if the pilot of a commercial airliner I am on will crash into an office building. I could go on with examples, but...

Yes, I've slept in a tent in a campground with people I didn't know who had firearms. I slept just fine.

Brooklyn Park MN
Username hidden
(3843 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
I was thinking more of Miller.

On the flip side, the 2nd does not guarantee your right to keep and bear any specific arm.

And the same decision specifically states that restrictions on firearms are constitutional. And even Justice Scalia agrees with that ...

Fullerton CA
Username hidden
(17378 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
So many posts in so many threads I’m losing track of what was posted where. I don’t have much time at the moment, perhaps I will later. In the meantime, I want to make a couple of comments that are related to some of the points I was attempting to make…

I was trying to make people think a bit about whether or not an instance of mass murder using a firearm may be avoided IF the murderer felt/knew that one or more in the group of the intended targets may have a weapon that would have rendered the attack futile. Sandy Hook for example, we may never know what or why the attack occurred, but we do know it occurred in a place where the killer knew no one would have a weapon, and his victims, congregated in close proximity to one another, were incapable of putting up any type of defense.

Next, not everyone with a firearm has thoughts of murder or suicide. It is true that there are some people who own or have access to firearms who do have such thoughts, just as it is true that some who do not own or have access to firearms may have the same thoughts. Those intent on committing a murder are going to do so. You can’t “uninvent” something, nor is it possible to keep all of the possible tools of murder already in existence away from someone intent on murder.

There are already laws in place that should have reduced or in some instances, eliminated the mass murders/shootings that are the topic of so many discussions. Enacting more laws without serious consideration as to whether or not they will change the underlying reason for mass murder are merely gestures to appease the immediate uproar that follows these horrific events. Hence my putting a band aid on cancer statement.

Brooklyn Park MN
Username hidden
(3843 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
BTW the federal gov has not been prosecuting or even attempting to make arrest on the GFSZA. The only time the law has been prosecuted was/is as tag along charge to other crimes.

It would appear when the law was drafted in congress for the second time the congress knew the unconstitutionality of the law. After they already had been burned once by the courts.

They left three options to carry within the law.

Carry of a antique firearm, a firearm manufactured within the state, and by possession of a permit from the state allowing carry. GFSZA does not outlaw carry of a firearm within a school, it outlaws within 1000 feet of a school when the conditions for carry do not permit. 48 states actually outlaw within the school grounds and buildings, Utah and Kansas do not. They have had no mass shootings in the schools.

Sanford NC
Username hidden
(19526 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
You are correct TBR, the NC supreme court has ruled in Kerner V State that not only is possession legal but carry of military type weapons. The courts have only given leeway to restrict carry of easily concealed weapons. The intent of the 2A has been interpreted by more than 2A, but writings of many of Founding Fathers.

2A has never been about hunting, sport shooting, or even self defense. The right to self defense is not covered in 2A, it is covered in the tenth amendment. Protection of school children as important as it is, should rest with each individual state. The same way firearm laws have mostly been. This allows for people to live in nanny states such as yours if they desire, or live in a state such as NC.

The federal gov should have not passed any firearm laws because if the court does not change the courts will eventually rule that ALL BOR applies to all states. As has happened in two states, and the District of Columbia in crushing decisions against gun control.

Illinois is now down to 5 months to pass a reasonable concealed carry law, or face constitutional carry for all citizens, except very few. The federal court ruling was post all the shooting this year except Sandy Hooks. It would appear that the judges though mostly liberal are ruling with logic instead of emotion.

TBR thank you for acknowledging what most liberals attempt to deny.

Sanford NC
Username hidden
(19526 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Actually, one can make a better legal case that an "assault weapon" islegal and constitutional than your garden variety firearm is legal and constitutional...

Fullerton CA
Username hidden
(17378 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
The only battlefield weapons ban I've heard proposed is not retroactive. Nobody would have anything taken from them. Except their delusions, maybe.

Flat Rock NC
Username hidden
(2984 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
I only talk to crazy people when I'm paid to do so.

Flat Rock NC
Username hidden
(2984 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Logic like a supposed vet who does not know the nomenclature of military firearms.

Sanford NC
Username hidden
(19526 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Outdoors, don't waste your time with Fjerk.

He's proof that you can't use logic with right wing morons...

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(2789 posts)
GoTo Page: Less ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Start   91 to 100 of 167   End
TOPIC: Here is why banning weapons won't set us free from fear