Hutterite, you instruct the reader to not use hyperbole, while you choose to
limit the choice of others to purchase "military grade" firearms.
Perhaps the loss of hyperbole should start at home.
@Redshirt... I know this is a waste of time.... but it says "Regulated"
Militia. I'm not sure how you define regulated... but the dictionary
says;"a :to govern or direct according to ruleb (1) :to
bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2) :to make regulations
for or concerning regulate the industries of a country"So, dance
as one may desire..... the word is in there for a reason. It too isn't
ambiguous. The founding fathers parsed their language carefully here. It adds
context.... just as does the term uninfringed. Being regulated in no way
diminishes ones right to own... it just puts conditions on it.
but But BUT, Freedom, How many more need to die on the false alter of freedom,
the second amendment was written when muskets were single shot operations,
you'll notice it said nothing about the right to possess cannons which were
military devices, you want to shoot a machine gun join the army. Wait who do I think I am... just go say a prayer for the dead, it's all
Guns don't kill people. People WITH guns kill people.Your
rights end where my nose begins.
@hugoI am trying to understand what you are saying here. Are we
talking about gun ownership in general? Or are we talking specifically in the
United States? I don't think we can honestly say to ourselves that gun
ownership up until this point has prevented our government from preforming mass
killings. If that is the case you are then essentially arguing that we need
guns just in case our government one day decides to start killing innocent
people. Continuing the same argument you believe if that ever did happen, that
having guns would prevent THE military superpower from doing whatever it wanted.
Its that last part that I really do not understand. Is it the idea itself that
we should be able to fight back with guns against an oppressive government that
you support? Or do you really think we would be able to fight and somehow keep
our military in check with our household arms? - slightly confused.
"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword;
because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior
to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United
States."Saddam's Iraq had a citizenry armed to the teeth,
but Saddam maintained power. Explain if you will.
When people die in car accidents, we don't ban cars. But we do license
people to drive, require liability insurance, require manufacturers to install
seat-belts and airbags, and pay police officers to enforce traffic laws. It seems like common sense that we should apply these same principles to
firearms. We cannot prevent every death, but we can take action to better
balance our right to live with our right to own firearms. "Gun control"
means things like registering firearms with state agencies, taking classes and
getting licensed before buying firearms, requiring liability insurance for
privately owned firearms , preventing the sale and possession of firearm types
intended for mass killing (ie: automatic guns and devices that modify guns to
make them behave as automatic guns), and requiring proper storage of firearms
(ie: trigger locks). Gun control does **not** mean taking
everyone's guns away. That will not happen. That cannot happen. Nobody with
any wits about them wants that to happen.
So -- If a plane crashes,or a ship sinks,or an apartment
catches on fire, ...killing hundreds of innocent people.Asking
that safe-guards be put in place to keep it from happening again is now
considered to be banishing freedom and HYSTERIA ?Wow?!...Let me ask the Mr. Lawyer letter writer here and his pro-gun fans chiming in -
as very simple Question:Who lost MORE of their
"Freedom" in Las Vegas that night?The guy who bought
accessories to make his 42 semi-auto assault rifle fire faster than a fully auto
assault rifle and dozens of 100 round high capacity magazine clips, and hundreds
of thousands of high power ammoor the 58 DEAD people, the 500+
wounded people, and the remaining 330 million of us Americans who do not feel
safe in the future?Tell us -- Who lost the most
"Freedom"?One more comment -- I would like to
'think' our Constitutional promise of the 'right to Life'
supersedes anybody else's "right to keep and bear arms" and go full
massacre on the rest of us.But what do I know?, I'm not a
To "The Educator" don't worry, it will be a criminal who illegally
purchased a firearm that will kill you. If not that, then it will be somebody
that cleared all of the background checks and training that your ilk imposed.Either way, the NRA won't be responsible nor will the
Republicans.To "airnaut" tell us where in the Constitution
it limits how many guns you can have. Since we are talking about limiting
rights, how about we limit the number of people in the Press. We know that in
the 1700's there were not that many reporters, how about we cut things back
to those levels?
@Mike Richards "...the left's concerted efforts to destroy our
freedoms by taking away the peoples' right to defend themselves against all
enemies including a Left-wing segment of our population who would breach the
Constitution to let government control firearms. "Well Mike this
sort of depends on how we define the "left." Do you mean liberals,
socialists, anarchists, what? I am a socialist and I can tell you none of my
socialist friends are anxious in any way to confiscate guns. Indeed we have
guns and think we may need them to defend ourselves against the Bannon crowd.
At the same time we know sooner or later something will have to be
done to protect the public from random gun slaughter, which will only increase.
We doubt conservatives like you have a solution.
"The hysteria of a momentary crisis seems to always lead to the plea from
many to "give us a king" as we seek to buy a little safety by giving up
more freedom."I guess this explains perfectly how we ended up
with Trump. Regulations that would ban bump stocks that basically
turn semi-auto fire rifles in to fully automatic rifles is common sense. It
should have been done a long time ago.
I really can't believe that the gun-confiscators can be so ambivalent about
the value of human life that they can just shrug when people mention the
irrefutable fact that millions and millions of people have been killed by their
own governments over the last century.Are other peoples lives really
so worthless to you? Do you really want to make it easier for more people to be
murdered just to get a win for your political party?I've always
tried to see the best in people but the anti-gun crowd in this country really
sickens me. You all should go and read the article in the New York
Times about the Rohingya atrocities to see what happens when government soldiers
advance on a defenseless population. Then tell me why these people who were
slaughtered shouldn't have their God-given right to self-defense written
into law as inalienable and not to be infringed!
Everyone has the right to stomp all over our Constitution. A small minority of
Americans are doing that. They are letting those who prey on emotions dictate
what our response should be. Real Americans will first visit the graves of loved
ones who died to keep America free. Those patriots won't listen to
self-serving politicians who use any and every opportunity to destroy our
liberties. Real Americans value freedom over the promises of leftist politicians
who tell us that THEY will protect us even as they try to take away our
guaranteed rights -politicians who are surrounded every minute by hired gun
carrying body guards.
I would like the gun-nuts to please explain why --- 99.999999% of
Americas have to give our rights to live safely in nation and safely:go to
an outdoor concertgo to a private night club, attend a public
Elementary school, to the grocery store, etc..just so
that YOUR perverted and twisted interpretation of the 2nd amendment right to
keep and bear arms can keep being extended to the purchase of 42 assault rifles,
hundreds of thousands of rounds of high capacity 100 round magazine clips, bump
stocks, and armor piercing tips -- can still be protected uninfringed and
unnoticed for LOONATICS!IMHO - the blood on the innocent is spilt
upon you as well.
It's not hysteria that may limit gun rights but the thousands of dead
bodies that are stacking up and the mourning families they are leaving behind.
Don't let NRA money to republicans take away my life.Get
Op-ed: Don't let hysteria take away our freedoms==== And by the same token, let's not let this crazy, unfounded fear and
absolute paranoia article about any sort of imaginary pending government gun
confiscation and false whipping up the ignorant and gullible of a supposed doing
away with anyone's 2nd amendment rights or freedoms -- make anyone else
'hysterical'.Nice try letter writer - that formula may
work for Trump and Fox News, but I'm not gonna sit quietly back and
let it happen here in Utah with the Deseret News.
Teichert has written an excellent, excellent OpEd. He understands the
principles of freedom underlying this country and its Constitution. The Deseret
News should be commended for printing it.Almost always ignored by
the anti-gun and/or regulation lobby is that the presence of a gun stops a crime
about 67,740 times a year (ref. federal Bureau of Justice Statistics’
National Crime Victimization Survey). The bottom line for gun ownership is that
it's for self-protection and protection of family, the last of which is the
primary duty of a parent.Read "Dial 9/11 and Die" by Richard
W. Stevens, featured on the web site: Jews for the Preservation of Firearms
Ownership.A blurb from this site says: "Gun control"
survives as an idea because most Americans believe one single myth: "You
don’t need a gun because the police protect you from crime." Too many very naive people running around. We don't really know what was
behind the Las Vegas shootings. It is most undoubtedly more complicated than
any of the commentators here understand. And too much trust in
'government' for solutions is evidenced here.Quis
custodiet ipsos custodes.
It is not a "large majority" of Americans who demand gun confistication.
It is a very small minority who let the leftist puppeteers pull their strings.
The majority of Americans uphold the Constitution. The majority of Americans do
no riot or loot or burn America. The vast majority of Americans reject the
left's concerted efforts to destroy our freedoms by taking away the
peoples' right to defend themselves against all enemies including a
Left-wing segment of our population who would breach the Constitution to let
government control firearms. That right was guaranteed to the people simply
because our founding fathers knew that government could not be trusted. They put
their trust in the people of America to reject the leftist movement to cripple
our ability to forcefully reject the leftist propaganda that guns, not people,
are responsible. Our forefathers knew that people ignorant of their
responsibility to preserve freedom might listen to "ring masters" whose
spiel demands that government strip us of our rights. We know better. We know
that freedom comes with the responsibility to protect our rights.
I own six guns (all inherited) but am not a "gun guy" by any stretch. I
have no desire to see guns made illegal, and frankly hardly anyone really wants
that. My issue with the "2nd Amendment people" is a cultural one, and
thus something I am resigned to. If you actually put the right to
bear arms up there with the right to freedom of speech, religion, assembly, or
the press, you and I are just doomed to never see eye-to-eye. Everyone benefits
from the ability to speak your mind, attend your church or attend no church,
gather peaceably wherever you want to, and not have a state-controlled media
manipulating you. EVERYONE.The right to bear arms only benefits
people who want to own firearms. It's a preference, and for some, a
lifestyle. I roll my eyes at all the justifications . . we're protecting
ourselves from a tyrannical government or from common criminals . . because what
I see is a culture steeped in the glorification of boomsticks. If
you want a gun for self-defense, one handgun should be sufficient. If
you're a hunter, a couple of rifles will do. I have no clue why my father
owned six different types of guns, or why anyone would "need" to.
Mr. Teichert:There are only two countries that have the gun rights
written into their constitution, Mexico and Guatemala. Does they compare well
with Europe, Canada, and Australia in regards to public safety and protection
against tyranny and government corruption?
@CSC;There was a very interesting documentary on PBS last week about
the 'Knights in Shining Armor'. They were practically invincible
until the gun was invented and that was the beginning of the end for Knights, as
guns were MADE for war and changed the face of war forever.Guns WERE
designed to kill. That is their purpose; sure, we enjoy shooting at targets and
such, but their purpose is to deliver death. Quickly and efficiently.
"The hysteria of a momentary crisis ..."-- Says the author
as we move from "momentary crisis" to "momentary crisis" to
"momentary crisis"."I'm also for a population of
free people who are armed."-- How many arms are enough and how
deadly should we allow? 100 rounds per second? 1000? One man, in just a few
minutes killed and wounded over 500 people!
Common sense conservative - Herriman, UTGuns are not "designed
to kill" anymore than cars, airplanes or alcohol. We require
tests to have a drivers license to drive cars. Youths under 18 have to take
classes and have hours of supervised driving to get a license. A 10 year old
isn’t legally allowed to drive a car. There are numerous laws. And safety
regulation for vehicle.The same occurs with planes. Plane safety is
studied, and new regulations implemented any times a tragic crash occurs.There are legal restrictions to age amount, when and under what
circumstances alcohol can be sold and consumed.We do these thing to
keep the public safe.If you are holding these examples up as a
comparison, why can’t firearms be held to the same scrutiny and
" But let's stop using every tragedy as an excuse to start disarming
the American people."Very few of us are using these tragedies as
an "excuse" to disarm the American people. But many of us see the need
to curb this threat to our persons and our families. Unless we do something I
guarantee the rate of these incidents will accelerate. Will you change your
tune then?Another thing you 2nd amendment first people do not reckon
with: these slaughters will soon become an enormous drag on commerce. More and
more people will seek to avoid public spaces. This is a threat to capitalism.
In fact gun violence and mass murder is another nail in capitalism's
coffin. Focus on this.
Great comments! I think it's virtually impossible to support our freedom to
bear arms without getting mobbed by people saying you're reckless or enjoy
people getting murdered. I think stronger families would prevent murder more
than stripping the people of their choices. Politicians say they can create a
world where not one life will be lost, but then I remember Satan also had a plan
that promised that if we gave up our power of free choice not one soul would be
lost. It's the same argument today. It's a carnally pleasing idea that
politicians can save us from ourselves. The power is in each of us to unite and
strengthen our families, that will do more good than "destroying all the
spindles in the land" in hopes that one won't survive to be used to
kill someone. Even if all murder is prevented you still have rape in the world,
which I think can sometimes be worse than murder. I spoke to a woman who was
once raped, and it was the most horrific thing she had ever experienced, and it
happened in peaceful Canada by a stranger in the streets. Bad things are going
to happen to people even if murder stops. What we need is unity and strong
families, not a sleeping beauty story.
Hysteria? Thousands murdered every day by guns, and you call it hysteria to
want to address the issue? And the overwrought piece of the writer makes
assertions that are absolutely not true. Guns are not totally outlawed in
Europe. There are controls on the types of guns, but they are not outlawed nor
has there been confiscation except when people like Hitler were in charge, and
guns didn't prevent that from happening. Europe is a place where massive
gun violence does not occur, and things are actually pretty good there. So the
fake statements made by the writer here in this piece is where the hysteria
lies, as well as with the gun industry which is more interested in profits than
responsible gun ownership.
Its interesting to me that the principle argument in this article is we need
guns to protect ourselves from our own government. I can get behind an
argument for autonomy. But the idea that we need to rationalize guns for the
purpose of protecting ourselves from a government who in 2012 spent more than
China, Russia, Uk, Japan, France, Saudi Arabia, India, Germany, Italy, and
Brazil's' combined defense budget. We can discuss your right to have
firearms all day. But please lets come up with something more feasible than
defense against the worlds military superpower.
I don't think I've ever read a better opinion piece! Very well stated.
The author just eviscerated all of the arguments of the gun control advocates
who are now posting on here.Since none of the gun control advocates
can seem to understand what the author is saying, let me restate it for you:The percentage of people killed by individual, demented people in mass
shootings is infinitesimally small compared to the millions of citizens who have
been murdered by their own governments over the last century. And
you all want to disarm all free people to ensure that only governments have
guns? No thank you. We are much better at assessing the true threats to our
lives than you think we are.The second amendment does not exist for
hunters or even home protection. It exists to provide the means for a free
people to protect themselves against tyrants in government. And it specifically
DOES apply to military-style weapons.
Common sense conservative - Herriman, UTOct. 12, 2017 7:19 a.m.Guns are not "designed to kill" anymore than cars, airplanes or
alcohol. ======== ???um, your History grade for
today with that comment is a FF- double minusSomebody is trying to
re-write history, deny reality, create propaganda, spew FAKE News, and start a
conspiracy theory all in one to suit his pro-gun agenda.We can argue
the issue using facts all you want, but making garbage up and vomiting it
up to build your case is dishonest and unnecessary.
Let us be honest about gun issues. EVERY "right" that we have is
regulated. I site just a few examples: free speech, drinking, marriage, vehicle
ownership, banking, voting, religion, and even home ownership.In
high school, I was assigned to debate the issue of infringement on the
constitutional right of religion. We all felt that there should be no
government regulation of religion, but I had to debate the issue in the
affirmative. In my studies of the issue, I learned that cannibalism was
practiced as a religious practice. When I asserted that fact, it stunned the
class (and teacher) and earned a tie vote ( a huge victory for my side).The gun issue is no different. We all want our rights to bear arms
protected, but there are those who would be the cannibals of gun ownership, who
want to maximize their ability to cause as much carnage as possible. Like it or
not, this fact is true. We do need logical and practical controls for the
ownership and use of guns to address current and future social needs, for the
good of innocent citizens. Does this mean that we can legislate
responsible gun ownership? Of course not, but it would help.
By the way, the hysteria comes from the gun guys who think any regulation on
guns is an attempt to take those guns. Stop being so hysterical and give common
sense a try.
@Thomas Jefferson-read beyond the first sentence then check back with me. Guns
are used for sport, hunting, target practice, deterrents and self defense. Some
of those uses involve killing, yes. Again-a gun is designed to fire a bullet.
That does not always necessarily mean killing. In fact, the overwhelming
majority of bullets fired are not done so to kill someone.
@Gravedigger...Thank you for taking the time to respond.One addition...The author invokes the nra like it was some
benevolent association representing the people.The nra is the
lobbying arm of weapons manufactures...Period.Reasonable
regulation to the nra means No Regulation.
Nobody is trying to take your gun away. However, nobody needs a bump stock and
nobody needs a fully automatic weapon. Those are designed to do one thing only
- kill large numbers of people very quickly.
Common sense conservative - Herriman, UT You actually said this:"Guns are not "designed to kill" anymore than cars,
airplanes or alcohol."Is your username suppose to be ironic? Have you no shame?
Right. If we have to have 30000 Americans/year die so we can pretend our guns
are what is keeping tyranny at bay then so be it. A few dozen people shot by a
crazy person once or twice a year is a small price to pay for my false sense of
freedom and ability to think of myself as an uber patriot ready to save the
country from some nebulous 'them'.
"I am not opposed to reasonable regulation, including background checks to
identify violent criminals and the mentally impaired."Then you
are already in favor of better gun control than we have now in most states.
I agree 100%. They will take my guns, if they can discover that I even have any
and where I keep them, only after peeling my dead fingers from them. Gun control
will only make criminals of honest people. Any clearly thinking person,
including me, will never give up their guns without a bloody fight.
I do not agree that having reasonable gun control leads to a "tightly
controlled society with authoritarian principles." And the article seems to
suggest that WWI and WWII could have been avoided if the people had more guns.
Such a claim seems like quite a stretch. I have not heard anyone
claim that we should ban guns completely from American society. The only
hysteria I see in this debate is from the gun lobby claiming
"hysterically" that those calling for gun control will apply the "If
you give a mouse a cookie," principle - they will always want more, until
all guns are taken away. There is no basis for these claims. The
other "hysterical" claim I hear from the gun lobby is that the mass
shooting problem can be solved with more mental health care. Not all mass
shootings occur because of mental health problems. Not ever killer is mentally
deranged, otherwise none of them would be put in jail but would all be put in
mental institutions. Mental health care will solve only part of the problem.To my knowledge, the Las Vegas shooter had no fully automatic weapons.
Why? Because they are tightly regulated. I don't buy the argument that
regulation doesn't work.
I'm a gun owner. But, Jeff Teichert is a gun lobbyist. He advocates for
American citizens to be able to purchase and own (without background checks at
gun shows) assault rifles with 100 round clips, flash suppressors, folding
stocks, bi pods, etc. Weapons designed to kill mass amounts of people. Not
hunting. Not home defense. Please recognize this guy for what he is.
Guns are not "designed to kill" anymore than cars, airplanes or alcohol.
Guns are designed to fire a bullet. The outcome of that action is dependent upon
the user. I have fired thousands of rounds in my life and have never killed
anyone, attempted to kill anyone or even come close to killing anyone.
Conservatives generally support reasonable measures of gun control. But the
further those laws go, the more likely you take guns out of the hands of
obedient citizens-not criminals. If someone is willing to violate the law about
not killing someone, they probably aren't going to be too influenced by gun
why must we give up our Second Amendment rights to bear arms and open carry when
we board an airplane or enter a court house? Why must we give up our
right to bear arms just because we helped connect a heroin addict with the
heroin they need on a wholesale level. These laws are crimping our
unfettered right for anyone to bear arms any place. We need good guys with guns
on planes, in court houses, on play grounds, in stadiums full of people, just
anywhere and everywhere.Illegal aliens, felons, wife beaters, 12
year old...show me where in the Constitution where it says no!
Bottom line. .. Passing more gun laws will not bring you the peace that you
It is military grade weapons that the 2nd amendment protects. It isn't
about hunting.Getting rid of military grade weapons will not stop
terrorists or criminals. They can easily make bombs or run people down with
vehicles. In other countries they already do this. Take guns away and they
will do this here instead of using guns.We do not have a gun
problem. What we have is a bad people problem.
Op-ed: Don't let hysteria take away our freedoms======== 1. Finally doing something after the - what? 100th - mass shooting over
the past 30 years is hardly reacting hysterically to a recent tragedy.2. Banning a bump stock or high capacity 100 rounds magazine clips is NOT
taking away your "freedom" or right to bear arms - those are
accessories. You still have your guns. You still have your assault
rifles. You still have unlimited access to them, even for the mentally
ill. You just won't have the ability to gun down 600+ deer, ducks,
geese or pheasants (or people) in 9 minutes the next time you go out shooting.
A demented individual who wants to kill is going to kill whether he has access
to semi-automatic weapons or not. Witness Timothy McVeigh. And I
agree there's no place in society for guns that fire many rounds per minute
on targets 100's of yards away. What bothers me about this
debate comes from another issue currently in the national spotlight.About immigration reform Ted Kennedy in 1986 said this:"We
will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another
amnesty bill like this, ..."We all know how that turned out.Why should anyone believe the left when they say all they want is
sensible gun control? Today it's semi-automatic weapons and tomorrow it
will be the handgun you keep to defend your family and home for that few minutes
it takes for the police to arrive.
Mr. Teichert, if the only argument you're hearing is "abolish
guns," you're probably trapped in a silo of your own making.
I could not agree more with the title:Don’t let hysteria
(about a supposed threat to the Second Amendment) take away our freedoms (to
enjoy a peaceful life without the dangers of automatic weapons among us.)
From the articcle...”Like others, I am tired of the ‘mass
shootings’ in America. But I do not favor giving up the Second Amendment
to achieve that.”So let me ask the author some specific
questions:Do you believe that there should be no restrictions within the
2nd Amendment? - For example, does the 2nd allow us to carry shoulder-fired
rockets?Does the author support the legalization of automatic
weapons (and devices that mimic them), armor-piercing “cop killer”
bullets, high-capacity clips, and silencers?And finally, what is
wrong with drawing a line at traditional hunting? - In other words, if
it’s not used in traditional hunting, it has no reasonable purpose.
Most Americans support the second amendment AND regulations on the second
amendment.If we aren't monitoring gun sales, how easy will it
be for terrorists to get weapons? This is a national security issue! We need to
know who is buying guns. We need to restrict high power weapons. Keep your handguns. Keep your hunting rifles. But I want to walk down the
street without fear of machine guns. This is so ridiculous.
I live in Germany.Many people in Europe own guns, especially in the
countryside. There are shooting ranges and people who hunt. It's maybe not
as popular as in the US but remember that most European countries have a
mandatory one year military service at 18 so most young men know how to use and
handle a gun. To own one privately you have to pass a background check, take a
safety course and register your weapon. The local authorities keep track and
monitor sales. They restrict auto/semi automatic weapons from civilians for
obvious reasons. You say that gun control doesn't work, but it
does. Look at Australia. Look at Europe. They have far fewer gun deaths - both
accidental, suicide and domestic homocides. We need fact based gun control
instead of fear based inaction.
Well, what we have now surely isn't working all that well in preventing
these types of occurrences, is it? This one time let the record show I agree
with Hutterite. In the angst of the common phrase "from my cold dead
fingers" we have become a nation with millions of cheap hand guns, military
assault rifles, and several other types of weapons that no one really needs.
Just because you interpret the 2nd Amendment a certain way, doesn't mean
that particular interpretation makes us any safer as a society. Remember, guns
are designed to kill and they are very efficient at doing just that. So would
we all be safer in the prison yard if everyone had a knife to "protect
themselves"? What the problem is, to large measure, is that too many will
use a weapon to get what they want without working for it themselves. Thus,
robbery, murder, etc are the behaviors of choice. Sad that we have let it
become that way in the name of "freedom." We are in bondage to the
passions of criminals who have zero problem getting a gun. Then there's
the accidental shootings, especially of children. Wow. Enough already.
I'm a gun owner- I may be even classified by some as a "gun nut." I
have lots of weapons. Bows, rifles, shot guns, revolvers, knives. I've
never felt like anybody was trying to infringe on my 2nd Ammendment rights.
Sure, some folks would like to abolish guns, but the vast majority of people are
proposing common sense legislation, like regulating devices that are designed to
destroy as much as possible as quickly as possible, and do more thorough
background checking. We should always have the right to bear arms if we are
sane enough to do so. Should we be infringed to bear arms of mass destruction
and the like? We already are, so infringement is an ambiguous argument at best.
So Hutterite claims nobody wants my guns. Then Moderate makes the case for why
my favorite sport rifle should not be available to civilians. Incidentally, the
Democrats banned these guns in 1994.But Hutterite continues to claim
nobody wants to take away my guns. He is clearly mistaken or worse.He also claims a majority wants to limit my access to guns. Democrats learned
the hard way in 1994 that is a sure path to losing seats. With good reason did
the supermajority democrats that forced Obama care on us not pass any new gun
laws.Fullpresent thinks guns should be regulated like cars. Bring
it on. I can buy all the cars I want without government involvement.
Registration is required only if I want to operate on pubic roads. And once
I'm licensed to drive and my car registered in any State, I can drive coast
to coast.Background check to purchase guns, photo, fingerprints and
FBI background check to get a carry permit, and I still can't legally carry
in Cali, NY, DC, etc.Learn the laws before demanding new laws. And if want my guns, come try to take them. I'm not giving them
Calm heads need to prevail on both sides. We regulate cars, require insurance on
them, require a driver's license that usually includes a written and
driving test. We require people to register their cars if they want to be out on
the road. We require people to follow a multitude of driving laws and rules if
they drive a car. Cars can be killing machines. Why should we treat guns any
differently? Some people have pushed 2nd amendment rights too far with help from
the NRA, lobbyists, and various other groups. Others want to pretend people
don't have 2nd amendment rights. We need reasonable gun laws
that reflect the times we are living in. That means they need to be different
than they were 10 or 20 yrs. ago. And different than what we had in 1791. All the requirements regarding cars and driving do not stop all the
automobile deaths that go on every year. But, hopefully they cut down on them.
Enforcement is part of that too. Gun laws are not going to stop all the gun
deaths out there. But, hopefully reasonable laws and beefed up enforcement will
help to cut down on them.
Let's start with correctly categorizing weapons based on capability. Some
say that "technically" the AR-15 is a semi-automatic weapon. That is a
lie. It is a fully automatic weapon dumbed down to semi-automatic
classification so that it can be more easily sold.We are told the
shooter modified the weapon, but he "wasn't supposed to". We
aren't safe based on what a person is supposed to do. I want to read about
how a shooter could not modify his weapon, because it is physically impossible.
If it is possible to modify, it is automatic. Restrict it.
I fail to see how questioning why a man had enough weaponry in his hotel room to
outfit a light infantry platoon without raising red flags is eroding
It's not just the hated media calling for more control. It's a large
majority of Americans. And it's not anyone, including myself as a gun
owner, asking or demanding the second amendment be abolished. No one, no one, is
calling for all your guns to be taken away. No one. The hysteria
isn't there. The freedoms aren't threatened. Don't,
however, let hyperbole take away our chance to exercise some common sense, and
save some lives. You've not lost any freedom if you're not allowed to
own a military grade weapon, or have to go through a background check before you
can have any guns. You've gained safety and common sense.