Gun Owners and Non-Gun Owners should come to a Meeting of the Minds

[Buster52]

Quote:
Well, no it wasn't. It was created to defend against an invading army.

So, when The People is used in the other amendments, it's an individual, but in the Second, it's a group?

No, it's an individual. But it is meant for an individual who participates in a group event, a group event that no longer takes place.

Hence, outdated.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Quote:

Let's take a look at the country of Mexico for an example where gun ownership by law is very restrictive YET all the bad guys have guns. Now there was a claim by our so ill informed SOS that those weapons came from us. I believe that the actual figure was around 17% not what she claimed. Here is the kicker those weapons were full auto military weapons that are not readily available. Most of them supplied by south american socialist countries. And the ones from the US surprise surprise what Hillary did not tell you was they were stamped property of the US government. Yes that's right surplus M-16s that our wonderful government supplied to the Mexican army that they could not control.

During the fighting in Northern Ireland illegal guns always found away in. They are finding their way to other non gun countries too, England, Australia, and so on. Make no bones about it socialists are not against guns or the firearm industry. THEY ARE AGAINST PEOPLE ABLE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES FROM OPPRESSION. Let these anti gun politicians show their true feelings by first giving up their 24 hour armed guards before meddling in our rights.

 

[BlackBart]

people with mental problems are denied owning or getting a permit for handguns....... so those you are talking about obtained their guns illegally anyways.

If they are declared mentally unfit they can't own a handgun but what about a rifle?
Are there different laws in different States? is it easier to get a gun in one State but not another?
I don't remember all of the particulars but a couple of years ago a mentally unfit man went to another State and bought some weapons and killed people at a eastern University.

People slip through the cracks all the time here.

I haven't read all the posts but from what I have read people carry guns for their own protection from other people who carry guns that might be mentally unstable and "snap" and go on a shooting spree. Sort of I going to get him before he gets me.
I can understand that feeling, but are US civilians, allowed by law, to shoot other civilians? are there any consequences?

If you life is in immediate peril I can understand but if anybody in Canada "takes the law and puts it in their hands" (as the phrase goes) we would get in all sorts of trouble.

Comes to mind those two adults in Texas that shot the family quadding because they thought they were trespassing.
In Canada if you threaten a person with a gun because they are trespassing, you get into trouble, might have your guns taken away, if you shoot them, jail time.

Most of the gun related murders around here are gang related. Immigrant gangs who shoot each other over turf wars and drug deals. As long as they stick to killing each other I think it saves on court costs.

Lately in Canada there has been some murders involving knives, axes and hammers. One guy snapped on a Greyhound bus and slit the throat of another passenger.
So as several posters have said before, guns don't kill people, people kill people and if they want to kill somebody they will find something to do it with.
Most people in Canada don't have any fear of being shot without provication.It is a pretty safe place to live considering the state of the world in general.

Maybe the key isn't gun restrictions and registries but a stricter screening process and a longer waiting period to weed out the unstable mentally ill.

 

[chickendude]

Walkingwolf sums it all up in a nutshell "Let these anti gun politicians show their true feelings by first giving up their 24 hour armed guards before meddling in our rights." These same politicians are now trying to force govt health-care down our throats and they won't even participate in the program. They keep their health-care plan they use now. It's a do as I say not as I do govt. And with this new administration our 2ND amendment is even more important.
Never let the Govt take any of your rights away from you. AND I MEAN NEVER!

 

[kagedgoddess]

BLACKBART here in va felons and ppl on paroll for violent crimes are not supposed to have ANY firearms in their "possesion" however that can be interpretted differently. there is a well known (to the courts) family here that has SEVERLY mentally unstable members and the dad is a felon, on paroll, However the districts attorney ordered the sherriffs office to Return all the rifles to this family because the mother said they were Her guns, she wasnt a felon or mentally unstable,and the guns were registered to the felon !? what sense does that make??

 

[Buster52]

Quote:
They steal them from the good guys who have way too many?

 

[highcountrychickens]

This has been a fascinating thread... I have for once taken the time to read each post, and really respect the strength of logic and thought that has gone into the posts to create what the title said... a civil, open Meeting of the Minds. Through my prickly opinion, I understand more. I see what is driven by passionate misunderstanding, passionate belief, pride, and readiness to challenge and stand by freedom - whatever it is. This is what it takes to make it real - not a single leader, but by this... this cumulative voice informing, enraging, protecting, agreeing and disagreeing one another... for once it is a mechanism that doesn't divide we the people... divided by the mechanism of our leadership...

Wouldn't it be something if balance of government, people, and the constitution was brought to peace...

by a bunch of chickens?

 

[Ladyhawke1]

Quote:
And “ee” makes breakfast too!

 

[SallyF]

Highcountrychickens,
Well thought, and beautifully said. Thanks for a great post.

 

[AnnieOakley379]

Quote:
Outdated? By your argument, the First Ammendment would also be outdated, right? Or is it only applicable in a group setting? What about the rest of the Constitution?