but it being in the Constitution isn't justification for it staying in the Constitution, if it's no longer in the nation's best interest as a whole.
Are you giving "power to criminals" by locking your doors at night when they threaten to break in?
Maybe we can stop of this before it happens.
Yes. But each of us has to make the decision as to whether our community is the type where we feel like this is a wise move, and whether that compromise of our freedom is warranted by the perceived benefit of locking the door.
No, we really can't. We can sure destroy personal liberties in the attempt, though.
Much like locking your door at night, it's more to make you feel like you did something... you can implement all the laws and regulations you want, but in the end a dedicated individual will kill masses if they are intent on doing it.
And someone who is prowling around your house with the intention of getting inside, probably took the doors being locked into account and is prepared to handle that minor inconvenience.
Are there mass killers who would be dissuaded by some additional laws? Sure. Are there burglars who only go into houses that are unlocked? Yep. Still, it's a cost benefit equation.
Locking your doors doesn't impact your own freedom of movement much, you just have to remember a key and most of us are comfortable with that bargain. It has enough benefit to be worth it to most of us.
The kind of far-reaching trade offs and inconveniences to millions required to stop these mass killings isn't worth it.
I think trade offs and Inconveniences to stop mass killings are worth it.
I don't know what the solutions are or should be, I think one issue is we can't agree to address the problem.
Doing nothing and just accepting it as the price we pay, is not acceptable to me.
FYI this is a hoax and not something Morgan Freeman said (moreover, while I enjoy Morgan Freeman as an actor, his off-screen life is notable mostly for rumors that he had an affair with his step-granddaughter - I'm not sure why his opinion on matters political would be anything of particular note).
You would trade freedoms wholesale, collapse an entire industry, put people out of work, and deprive a great number of individuals a sense of security, just because you think (that is, there is no guarantee it'll do anything) it might reduce gun crime by a negligible fraction?
I'm glad you are not on Congress.
You would trade freedoms wholesale, collapse an entire industry, put people out of work, and deprive a great number of individuals a sense of security, just because you think (that is, there is no guarantee it'll do anything) it might reduce gun crime by a negligible fraction?
I'm glad you are not on Congress.
Why do you guys resort to idiotic and absurb false comparisons? No one is asking you to go to an extreme to address a growing issue.
You guys kill me... not willing to sacrifice one single thing for the benefit of everyone. Boy, people are really selfish these days....
Tradeoffs and inconvenience, like I said I don't know what the solutions are but doing nothing is not acceptable.
Absent of effective alternatives I Do support more gun control.
So if you want to keep or expand gun rights start coming up with ways to solve the problem. Because too bad nothing we can do about it is no longer acceptable.
What?
Historically, whether it be something like an "assault weapons ban" or a handgun ban in metropolitan areas, increased gun control has not been effective in reducing gun crime rate.
If it has historically been ineffective, why do you keep focusing on this issue? As opposed to trying to improve, I don't know, mental healthcare?
I didn't propose a "weapons ban". However, nutbags need both a fried brain and a gun, so both need some adjustments without including an extreme weapons ban.
Please, PLEASE don't pull a "car" or "knife" analogy because that isn't the issue -- those are not weapons designed to kill and maime.
Also, doing nothing isn't addressing the issue, either.
So basically you want to do something. Even though that something has not done anything to help in the past.
"Don't re-post celebrity quotes from the Internet without fact checking them first, even if they look like they come from a cool sounding black guy"
- James Earl Jones
Sure more gun control may not impact overall gun violence statistics much, but if it reduced rampage killings i'd be all for it.
If that's not the right solution I can accept it, then start coming up with better ones. But no solution is not acceptable.
So which issue are you talking about? The number of deaths due to gun related crime in this country, or the fact that CNN's reporting on a particular gun-related tragedy is making you feel bad?
Because if it's the former, well, the rate has been steadily decreasing since the mid 90s.
Why do you think rampage killings are a major issue that deserves nationwide attention? Because it's been on the news a lot?
The issue of access to dangerous weapons combined with who's accessing them (legally), such as doing more than a simple background check, which addresses availibily and mental health.
By tightening requirements, you can control who gets them and how easy it is in one swoop.
I think trade offs and Inconveniences to stop mass killings are worth it.
I don't know what the solutions are or should be, I think one issue is we can't agree to address the problem.
Doing nothing and just accepting it as the price we pay, is not acceptable to me.
The issue of access to dangerous weapons combined with who's accessing them (legally), such as doing more than a simple background check, which addresses availibily and mental health.
By tightening requirements, you can control who gets them and how easy it is in one swoop.
You believe this can practically be accomplished? With the current state of our national healthcare system?
If this person was any indication, the laws were already in place that prevented the man in CT from legally acquiring weapons. He willfully broke laws already in place and stole the firearms he used to commit those murders.
At some point, don't you think the solution stops becoming more laws, more regulations?
Just to be clear, are you saying that the murder of 20 children in a single school, plus 6 school employees, is not "a major issue that deserves nationwide attention"?
That's why I said "legal". It's really hard, if not impossible, to prevent a determined mass-killer from obtaining weapons.
More regulations will improve national healthcare system. More laws/regulations aren't always a bad thing. It helps with Wall Street!
I'm OK with tightening, but the danger is that most people making tighter laws are clueless or build in extra measures on purpose to make things overly complicated for law abiding owners.
Why do you think rampage killings are a major issue that deserves nationwide attention? Because it's been on the news a lot?
I am of the belief that more regulation of the gun industry will lead to just that, more regulation. Many, including myself, will view it as an infringement of rights. I really don't see the benefit in this case.