Yes ..to me it is really strange that gun advocates can dismiss the mass deaths of children so easily.
It is amazing that every school in the USA doesn't have volunteer gun advocates guarding their schools gate. (even as a symbolic gesture)
A Gun control solution - perhaps
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
It is amazing that every school in the USA doesn't have volunteer gun advocates guarding their schools gate. (even as a symbolic gesture)
Why would people want their kids to be forced to walk past some random armed gun nut every morning when they go to school? There's a reason it's criminal to impersonate an authority, no one needs self-appointed sheriffs running amok.
Thank you
no it isnt. consider almost half of mass shooters die at the scene this assertion is just plane farcical
the first gun control measure came about because white peopled were terrified of armed minorities. this is bullshit. conservatives are the same people pushing policies that gun down minorities for being thought to be armed.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
There's a reason they're remaking the "Death Wish" movies. Hard core gunners drool at the possibility of being judge, jury, and executioner. "Due process? Process this bullet!"
same at ya!
Why would you want kids to go to school knowing that the police, government, the gun nuts etc are doing little to protect them from being slaughtered?
My point was simply that if the gun nut wants his guns he needs to step up and volunteer to do what he refuses to allow the government to do. If that is not ok then allow the government to do it's job.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
They do that now. Extra guns won't help the situation. We already have hundreds of millions of guns in the US.
I don't think most parents would be comfortable sending their kids to a school where some random stranger decides to show up at the gate one day and start "guarding" the place with his gun. No one knows his motives or training, no one knows what he plans to do in the event of trouble or what jurisdiction he thinks he has to intervene; he could even be planning a massacre of his own and pretending to guard the school in order to position himself and survey. I think most parents would insist that it either be covered by legal authorities or certified private security officers, or else no one at all, regardless of what the gun nuts want.
My pleasure. I think there's countless approaches to dealing with American gun regulation and overcoming constitutional impasses, but in the meantime while that's all going on, there's no provisions against holding armed citizens to extra scrutiny. Police and military officers are held to high standards of personal conduct while they're armed, so these kinds of standards (or even stricter) should apply to anyone else who wants the privilege of being able to blow holes through anyone in their vicinity at any time they please with the simple push of a button. Make owning a gun more of a chore than a toy for the macho types who just want to make their own rules.
Furthermore, I'm not aware of any constitutional rights allowing civilians to carry weapons around in public places whether concealed or otherwise, and if one wants to say that it's not specifically prohibited by the constitution, neither is dumping anthrax in a local lake as far as I'm aware...
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
"Open Carry" is a great way to let criminals know where to get a gun.
Also a great way to create a scene when angry customers demand a refund...
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
I was amused that the NRA convention didn't allow people to carry.
Of all the places in the US where I'd expect to be surrounded by swarms of armed citizenry, that would be the one. I was just picturing yesterday what an NRA convention must look like and imagining everyone mentally preparing to tackle the person next to them if they try to draw. I'm not in the slightest bit shocked by such tales of hypocrisy, but I'm curious what their excuse is, and why it only applies at NRA conventions but not general public situations.
Last edited:
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
They used the excuse that the venue didn't allow carry. Which means they booked a convention for gun nuts without checking the venue's policies. Brainfart or bullshit, you decide.
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
Mass shooters choose gun-free zones so they won't face immediate resistance.
Yep, Democrat "Black Codes." No, there are no policies to "gun down minorities." If there are, you could cite them.
What, so one extreme leftist could get in and attack? Same reason sports stadiums don't allow guns. Too many targets in an inclosed area.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
Are you saying there would be no "good guys with guns" to respond if your mythical leftist did attack? I think you're right. I think they'd be such a crossfire that half the convention goers would shoot the other half and let the dreaded leftist get away clean.
no they don't. thats a myth and a lie. that only holds when you shady statistic manipulation. the simple fact remains a public place gun rules have zero effect on mass shootings
you can repeat that lie its still not true. this is the problem with the republican right, its utter incapability to have any responsibility for its actions
the policies don't call for it they encourage it though
a leftie wouldn't do that. the left wing is overall less violent than the right and is far more likely to attack property as opposed to people than the right
but they would all be armed by your logic a room full of people armed to the teeth should be the safest place in the world. you admit your argument is bs by saying this.
Endorsed.
The editing was just for consistency and sense, and to avoid the obvious authoritarian violations of Rights.
Another of the majority supported gun control approaches that are immediately available.
There's a reasonable argument that transporting them is protected under the "keep and bear" language as a necessity of "keep", and that "bear" means "carry" at least in some sense (could mean carry at specific need only - "bearing arms" is not and never was used to describe hunting, say), and that of course at the time someone carrying a firearm "in public" would have been an ordinary circumstance of keeping a firearm - and a common sight on the public ways, taken for granted by the authors of the Bill of Rights.
But all of that would be subject to regulation in recognition of technological and physical reality - much as building codes have changed over time, without altering the basic search and seizure protections of the Bill of Rights. Even matters such as accidental discharge impose necessities of regulation unknown in the blackpowder past.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
In what fantasy world is that true?