|
jlf1961 -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/12/2017 3:38:11 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Drakvampire
We really do not give a flying fuck what you think of him, or true narratives, or the collective (do you even know the difference creepy ooze)? – But at least get your facts straight as we expect that from you and nothing less. Or do you enable Trump, become him? To cite but two examples. Even my favorites (WM HB & lucy) on here will incur our wrath. One can actually tell the difference between us all, did you know that?
HIs contribution was most valid. We are sorry it was not to your liking or its original contributions which you patently ignored for a meek dig.
The second amendment is obsolete.
I am waiting for someone to propose an alternative?
The second amendment will become obsolete when humanity as a whole stops trying to fuck each other over in the name of progress.
And, when you take the incidents of gun related violence in countries where there are presently extremely strict gun laws (which people claim is no comparison) it makes the point that if someone wants a gun to commit an act of violence there is always a way to get one.
And when people propose new regulations without even an attempt or acknowledgement of the problems with the present regulations, what good is going to be accomplished?
What I and others are trying to get people to understand is a very simple concept, fix the problems with the old regulations first and see how well it works. Hell the results should be clear within the first six months of implementation.
Funny thing is that people and elected lawmakers never seem to grasp the concept of fixing a problem, they are quick to blame someone for the problem.
And while I admit that I paint anti gun people with one brush, I can hardly be blamed when they are using blanket terms, avoid addressing an issue that gun owners have been raising for years, or seem to take the position that every gun used in a crime was used by someone who legally had the right to buy a gun.
In the case of Virginia Tech, the shooter was allowed to buy a gun because the fact he had been committed for mental problems that manifested themselves in acts of violence was not in the database, so no one knew he was not legally allowed to buy a gun, because it did not show on a back ground check, because it was not mandatory for that information to be put in the system EXCEPT on a federal level.
In the case of Sandy Hook school shooting, the shooter killed his mother, stole the key to her gun safe and stole the guns.
After the incident, it came out that she had actually tried to have him institutionalized because he had attacked her previously, and the ONLY thing that happened was a 72 hour observation stay, during which he was forced to take his medication.
Something he would not do when he was NOT institutionalized.
While some blame the mother for owning the guns, which admittedly if she did not own them, he would not have shot up the school, but he still may have killed her because he lived there, or had access to the home.
So, blame mom.
Personally I blame the people she had turned to for help with the son, and who basically gave her the fuck you, he is your problem.
I guess she could have kicked him to the curb, changed the locks on her house and every time he showed up, had him arrested....
In the case of Columbine, or I should say, after Columbine, the law was changed that firearms purchased online have to be shipped to a licensed dealer to be picked up.
So, despite what people claim, the laws have changed, but what has not changed is the flaw with what may have prevented some of these acts.
So, instead they call for more laws which cant work for the same reasons the present laws dont.
But hey, let both sides continue to fight, in the end nothing changes in the long run, and wont until the obvious problem is fixed, or ....
|
|
|
|
