Thanks for your input. I placed it in the circular file for review
Thanks for your input. I placed it in the circular file for reviewFortunately, people far smarter than you have ruled that you're wrong. See the Supreme Court case - D.C vs. Heller. It will be a long time before that gets overturned. The gun grabbing, fascist, c0cksucker crowd may want to start proposing some solutions that don't involve stripping millions of law abiding Americans of their constitutional rights. That will be met with immediate and over whelming resistance every single time. We can do better screenings, we can limit magazine size, if federal law enforcement can look at every threat to POTUS, they can start looking at other threats, etc.
So you go to vacation where you think you need a firearm to defend yourself? Man that's some fucked up thought process.
When you go to disney world and you not allowed to take you gun in what will you do?
The voice you get in your head when you own one, obviously.
What surprises me is there is this hyper focus on guns as a way of disarming school shooters and mass murderers. Is there anybody out there that can actually say, "If I owned an AR-15, I probably at one point would have done the same, but thankfully I don't, so I didn't"
How many people out there do we feel are capable, but otherwise unable to commit mass murder? Either because they are not the legal age to buy the weapons, or they can't afford it, or whatever.
So your previous statement that the courts need to review it....is what now?It sure is and you aren't interpreting it correctly not to mention the fact that we have SCOTUS precedents on the matter.
Mass shooting deaths aren't that high to begin with and get outsized attention for the same reason deaths via plane crash get outsized attention versus death by the exponentially more common car crash. Gun control to address mass shootings is most definitely a case of "don't let a crisis go to waste."
And you've twisted it to your own devices. The 2A clearly allows for a well regulated state militia. Not for anybody to own weapons of mass casuality like we have now.
The basic right set forth under the 2A has been twisted in our country. Very few states keep a state militia as intended, and the federal government that the 2A was created to defend against has far surpassed any ability for the states to defend themselves.
No shit. Point to a state run militia capable of preventing federal government takeover.Wouldn't you want members of militia to own and be able to use "weapons of mass casualty"?
Do you understand the difference between the Constitution and United States Code?So your previous statement that the courts need to review it....is what now?
So you go to vacation where you think you need a firearm to defend yourself? Man that's some fucked up thought process.
When you go to disney world and you not allowed to take you gun in what will you do?
Sure. Feel free to elaborate as much as you like though.Do you understand the difference between the Constitution and United States Code?
Mass shooting deaths aren't that high to begin with and get outsized attention for the same reason deaths via plane crash get outsized attention versus death by the exponentially more common car crash. Gun control to address mass shootings is most definitely a case of "don't let a crisis go to waste."
You're the one arguing that one would never need a gun in a national park. And you're saying I have an odd thought process. Good show!
More people are murdered by blunt objects like hammers, clubs, bats than are killed by mass shootings. Of course the anti-2A'ers want to limit the rights of 300,000,000+ (100,000,000 actual gun owners) over the smaller statistical killer, but don't care a bit about the bigger killer.
Funny you mention domestic abuse as a really large percentage of gun murders are exactly things like abusive partners killing their wife/husband. If your goal was actually to keep the maximum number of spouses alive you would be for gun control like I am. It's not though, which is why you're making an emotional appeal here instead of looking at the empirical evidence.
You can not use a gun as protection from wildlife in national parks in the lower 48.
As a park rule, no. That'll never hold up in court, though. State and Federal-level Self defense laws trump park regulations when it comes to stuff like this.You can not use a gun as protection from wildlife in national parks in the lower 48.
Wanted to add. You've done absolutely nothing to distinguish national parks from non-national park areas one would carry. Your argument really isn't about carrying in a park, its about carrying. There is nothing unique about carrying in a park vs non-park, other than maybe a higher liklihood of an animal encounter. At any rate, if its legal to carry, there is no reason to limit national parks.
If a bear attacks you, and you have a gun, I bet you use it regardless of the law.
because bears prefer spicy meals?No you use bear spray.
Well. That's absolute BS when you look at the number of mass shootings in 2014. If you use the FBI standard of a single shooting even with 4 or more deaths there were at least 123. That is ignoring the mass shootings where 3 or less were actually killed but had a much higher total victim count.Mass shooting deaths aren't that high to begin with and get outsized attention for the same reason deaths via plane crash get outsized attention versus death by the exponentially more common car crash. Gun control to address mass shootings is most definitely a case of "don't let a crisis go to waste."
No you use bear spray.
Is there some reason you chose 2014 to illustrate your point? It was the second fewest number of deaths of the past 10 years, the lowest having been 2010.
http://time.com/4965022/deadliest-mass-shooting-us-history/
Your overall point remains a fair one. Mass shootings, much like terrorism, get disproportionate attention. Yet we should be looking at a larger data set than one year which you seem to have purposefully chosen to make your point.
Wait, you mean the law you passed to prevent those who commit domestic violence from owning guns hasn't worked like you said it would? Color me shocked. Obviously what we need is another law. Maybe call it the "Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, and This Time We Really Mean It' Law.