Do you support the second amendment?


#1775

I’ll put the SAME question to YOU Cath13 (only I will use a much larger gun abuse problem than your example).

So what would YOU do to prevent these incidents?


#1776

offer something that will work. we have over 14,000 gun laws on the books now. what 1 more will be the magic one?


#1777

I own firearms. I used to hunt quite a bit. As for where firearms rate in the list of things important to me, they barely register. I simply don’t care. If it was shown beyond a reasonable doubt that disarming everyone would be safer, I would be first in line to hand them over. To me it is infinitesimally low on the scale of things that are important to me.


#1778

no, that is the gun culture,

gun rights are written into the constitution so it has been around for a long time.


#1779

those 3 million voters could be considered 1 state. he lost crazyfornia by that amount. he won the college by 10 states. the system works well.

even though both candidates were against it at one time or another.


#1780

we could start with greater law enforcement. if this guy wasn’t legally able to buy a gun how did he get away with owning one especially when he posted it all over his facebook page. do parole officers look at this? what good are laws that are not enforced?

we need to address mental health. it comes up every time but the gun is an easier target. were his postings a cry for help? no one who read his page knew he wasn’t allowed to own the gun he posted?

why don’t we fund mental health issues?

a start would be to have every person convicted of a violent crime be rigorously screened for mental health issues and follow up on them if there is any indication of a problem.


#1781

Excellent point. And because law enforcement typically occurs “after the fact” AND will never have the resources required to accomplish 100% compliance with the law (did you speed a little on the way to work last week? I did…), this means that it’s a poor method of preventing gun violence in this nation. We need to look somewhere else.

Not a bad idea in general! But as it pertains to gun crime, mental health is already quite negatively stigmatized in this country. If you add “lose your guns” to the list of downsides a mentally sick man would experience if he sought treatment for his disease, he’d be even less likely to put himself on the “radar”, particularly if he felt as impassioned about gun ownership as you do.


Point is this; we need to make guns broadly less available. I think permits, buy-backs and gun registries are great ideas. But I’m happy to discuss anything so long as it achieves the goal of making weapons less available.


#1782

It is just your assumption (that I don’t agree with) that the establishment of a gun free zone is responsible for any specific shooting.


#1783

That was only an agreement between you and me not to call each other certain names. You aren’t really suggesting that we expand that agreement to make each of us responsible for policing our respective “camps” are you? If so, that is too tall an order. I do have a life.

There is no reason that a proposal to solve one problem should be criticized just because it doesn’t solve some other problem.


#1784

LeafbyNiggle:

.

That was only an agreement between you and me not to call each other certain names. You aren’t really suggesting that we expand that agreement to make each of us responsible for policing our respective “camps” are you? If so, that is too tall an order. I do have a life.

.
Good points LeafbyNiggle.

Please consider my post concerning you NOT correcting Cath13’s displayed bigotry, retracted.

Apologies from me.


#1785

responsible is your wording

i said “killers take advantage of it”

the zone as the gun is not responsible for the killers action. the zone is just an easy target.


#1786

EricF:

.

As for where firearms . . . . I simply don’t care. If it was shown beyond a reasonable doubt that disarming everyone would be safer, I would be first in line to hand them over. To me it is infinitesimally low on the scale of things that are important to me.

.
Thanks for your opinion here EricF. It was very revealing.

But the problem with it is . . . . it is centered on YOU. And YOUR opinions.

.

As for where firearms . . . . I simply don’t care. If it was shown beyond a reasonable doubt (beyond a reasonable doubt to WHO) that disarming everyone would be safer, I would be first in line to hand them over. To me it is infinitesimally low on the scale of things that are important to me.

.

And someone else may say . . . .

If it was shown beyond a reasonable doubt (to ME in MY OPINION) that dismantling freedom of religion everyone would be safer, I would be first in line to dismantle those rights. To me it is infinitesimally low on the scale of things that are important to me.

.

And someone else may say . . . .

If it was shown beyond a reasonable doubt (to ME in MY OPINION) that ridding us of freedom of speech and freedom of the press everyone would be safer, I would be first in line to rid us of those rights. To me it is infinitesimally low on the scale of things that are important to me.

.

And someone else may say . . . .

If it was shown beyond a reasonable doubt (to ME in MY OPINION) that we NEED to quarter soldiers in our homes because everyone would be safer, I would be first in line to force that upon people. To me it is infinitesimally low on the scale of things that are important to me.

.

And someone else may say . . . .

If it was shown beyond a reasonable doubt (to ME in MY OPINION) that with illegal search and seizure everyone would be safer, I would be first in line to allow Government stealing of people’s personal belongings (seize them without due cause) and break into my home in the middle of the night to go on legal “fishing expeditions” with no government accountability. To me it is infinitesimally low on the scale of things that are important to me.

.

And someone else may say . . . .

If it was shown beyond a reasonable doubt (to ME in MY OPINION) that with we should do away with Abolition of Slavery and Involuntary Servitude and bring these disasters BACK, I would be first in line to repeal the Thirteenth Amendment. To me it is infinitesimally low on the scale of things that are important to me.

And someone else may say . . . .

And someone else may say . . . .

And someone else may say . . . .

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h926.html

People have actually said ALL these things EricF (or reasonable approximations of such).

And to readers of this thread, now you KNOW WHY people who defend and love our Constitution continue to do so.

Now you know.


#1787

LeafbyNiggle:

.

There is no reason that a proposal to solve one problem should be criticized just because it doesn’t solve some other problem.

.
Yes there is. Yes there is in this case.

Why?

Because it ignores the Constitution.

Because it lacks a sense of proportion concerning gun violence problems (of which Governments, not law-abiding citizens) are by far the most egregious violators of their privilege (Remember. For Governments this is a privilege, not a “right”).

Because it’s a “solution” that is predicated upon “collective guilt”.

Because it ignores defensive firearm usage by law-abiding citizens (such as that that which took place in this massacre. Defensive firearm usage during a massacre, which MAY have been significantly worse than without defensive firearm usage).

Texas church shooter Devin Patrick Kelley served in Air Force, was court-martialed for assaulting wife, child . . .
. . . The student also said Kelley often posted on his Facebook page about his assault rifle and (his) atheism . .
. . . Tackitt told Fox News on Monday authorities believe the gunshot wound that ultimately killed Kelley was “self-inflicted,” however, there was also an exchange of gunfire before and during the case. . . .
. . . “All I know is he stopped another resident right over here and said, ‘Lets go we got an active shooter, we need to get him stopped,’ and they were chasing him,” he said. “They were shooting rounds at him and then he went off the road, we don’t know if he was actually hit again or what, but wrecked out. He was from my understanding self-inflicted gun shot wound.”


#1788

Congress shall make NO LAW infringing upon the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms.

.
Vonsalza in post 1762 . . . .

Point is this; we need to make guns broadly less available. I think permits, buy-backs and gun registries are great ideas. But I’m happy to discuss anything so long as it achieves the goal of making weapons less available.

.
To the people reading this thread. Please remember this admission by Vonsalza.

And THIS is WHY the NRA uses the descriptive term “gun-grabber” when describing this type of thinking.


#1789

Right now? As if the constitutional process for electing a president was changed by Trump? Please. Trump won 40 popular votes. Clinton won 21. The 30 Trump won provided him with the electoral votes needed. The United States had never had a plebiscite.


#1790

This is irrelevant to the discussion, but I can’t help myself;

I don’t want a direct-vote. I’m from a lower-populated state and my vote has more power, proportionally, than a vote from CA or NY because of the bicameral congress and electoral college.

If we went to pure pop, just set up voting stations within 100 miles of the ocean or great lakes. That’s well over most Americans right in those geographic ranges…


#1791

Way to go! Trash me all you want, but that’s how the original question was phrased. “You”.


#1792

And to the same folks;

I want to make them less available. I do not want to go into your homes and get them.

My opposition here predicates their argument on these two things being one in the same. They obviously are not. As such, the argument of my opposition is factually invalid.

“Gun-grabber” is, therefore, an incorrect term used only to dehumanize the rational opposition when no valid counter-argument can be formed at the time.


#1793

This doesn’t mean that the right is unlimited, frankly. Else, you could own a functioning tank, F-35 or even a nuclear weapon.

You cannot own these things. As such, your right to bear arms is reasonably limited already.


#1794

EricF:

.

Way to go! Trash me all you want, but that’s how the original question was phrased. “You”.

.
But I didn’t bring the bad principles of your comment to light because you do NOT support the Second Amendment.

I brought the bad principles of your comment to light because your reasoning why YOU potentially oppose the Second Amendment ALL CENTER AROUND . . . . YOU.

And there are OTHER PEOPLE who have reasons that center around THEM that are just as important or more important, as to WHY they support the Second amendment.

If a woman who’s “ex” is violently ignoring his restraining order, she is out of luck in EricFebruary world.

And I am saying merely centering your decisions based upon your feelings may be compatible with how you were taught to think in values clarification group “discussions” in institutionalized settings (such as some school institutions) this is a horrible way to draw real-life conclusions.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.