Does that include the right to send your children off to schools in the morning without the fear that they will be shot to pieces by an AR15?
How about the right to attend school without the fear of being bullied? A co-worker's daughter has been bullied by the same child since the start of the school year. The attention has be brought to the attention of the teachers, principal and district office nearly 20 times the last we discussed it. He has recently resorted to filing police reports with every incident. Additionally, the district has denied him a variance for his daughter to attend another school. There are many days where she is crying and begging not to go to school.
And yet, if the child fights back, she will be suspended or expelled. Her older brother came to her rescue twice that I am aware of. They ended up with a counselling session with the principal the first time and an in-school suspension the second time. Nobody wants to take responsibility for what is actually going on, on a daily basis. They only want to fix the extremes.
Hi, it's not guns, it's people. I appreciate having the right to anything a criminal has, gun wise.
I think the focus is on assult rifles because you can kill more people with a single pull than you can with a gun. The problem nowdays is kids with assult rifles in schools. Why is it schools and not airlines and public buildings? Are schools less important?
In the typical assault rifle that they are trying to ban, you can not kill any more people with a single pull of the trigger than a typical handgun. A single pull of the trigger fires a single round. A machine gun will fire three-round bursts or fire fully automatic with each pull of the trigger, but those are extremely expensive and extremely rare. I am not aware of a single mass-shooting on American soil with a machine gun, since the mafia era and their subsequent ban.
This highlights the huge misunderstanding of what an assault rifle really is and what they are trying to ban. Fully automatic machine guns are highly regulated. They require a Class III firearms license, registration of the weapon and a much more extensive background check. My understanding is that even in Arizona, where there are no waiting periods and a majority of people can walk in and walk out the same visit with a firearm, buyers still end up waiting days or weeks to complete their Class III purchases.
And it is public buildings, too. The theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado was public. The shooting at the mall in Clackamas, Oregan was public. The shooting at the Sikh Temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin was a public place. The four Officers killed in the cafe in Seattle, Washington was a public place. The politicians are focusing on schools because they are the most emotionally successful. "Save the children. Save the children. OH, SAVE THE CHILDREN."
If politicians really wanted a legitimate, honest conversation about firearms, Americans as a whole would be better informed. The gun control propaganda has been far reaching. And, as I've mentioned before, we have had a great loss of "gun culture" over the last several generations, so as a whole, Americans have a lack of understanding about what different firearms really are and what their capabilities are.
If a ridiculous argument is presented that is against restrictions on guns, I am quick to point it out. So, in the case where an argument that may be in favor of restrictions is put forward, I should be just as fast to object to that if it too is ridiculous. I must say that I do not think that tranquilizer guns are an answer. To make my position very clear, I am a strong advocate of gun ownership by individuals and a believer that the second amendment applies to individuals. That said, where I see most of the gun advocates going wrong in their arguments is their failure to recognize that it is obvious that the second amendment permits some restrictions on the right to own and use firearms. That was obvious back in colonial times where at the time of the writing of the constitution there were permitted restrictions on firearm ownership. That permitted type of restriction continued right up until very modern times when Justice Scalia (one of the most conservative Justices on the Court) said in his opinion in Heller vs. DC that "undoubtedly the second amendment permits some restrictions on firearms". So, all your screaming that the second amendment is the absolute word and can not be restricted in any way is just nonsense. The right to own and use firearms is not one of the inalienable rights granted by God, but was merely a right granted by the Constitution and despite some of your childish previous retorts to that premise, it is an absolute truth.
Why do they want to ban the guns that kill the least number of people and not the guns that kill the most number of people ?
Because it isn't truly about saving lives or reducing crime. It is about "feel-good measures" to get them re-elected. And Americans have fallen for it many times over. Again, I've mentioned it before, but if you calculate the firearm rates used in homicides since 2000 based on numbers from the F.B.I.'s UCRs, you will find that 4% of homicides were committed with a rifle. Not an "assault rifle," just a "rifle." In comparison, shotguns account for an average of 18%, with approximately 16% being unidentified. The remainder are handguns. It is about government control.
