Justice Stevens thinks he knows how to 'fix' the Second Amendment

Is Charlton Heston on the Supreme Court or was that yoga barrier (it's my mind you see, it comes and goes)

Whoa, bears got have arms, do they need two permits?
 

Last edited:
Oh and dig, I agree with you also, absent law, there is a human inherent right to bear arms, govt. approval or not.
 

SeaBreeze said:
To curtail the gun violence, and other violence in the United States, they need to address the issues of gangs and medication madness that's occurring in America. I was just listening to a show where they were concerned about the over-medication of foster children, because those who foster often take on more than one child, and they use drugs to calm them whether they have a mental illness or not. Future violence from these youngsters is likely to be a big part of their adult life.

The criminals and gangs are taking over in some states more than others, those are the shootings that beef up the gun crime statistics. Those in charge need not to turn a blind eye to these serious problems in this country, and get off the kick of taking from the law-abiding responsible American citizens.
Click to expand...

There IS no way to curtail the gun violence and other violence in the United States.

All it's going to do is get worse and worse and worse and worse.

Eventually, everyone really WILL need to be armed with a loaded handgun just to go shopping or out to eat... two things that people probably won't be doing much of anymore because it will be too dangerous to leave home.

Get used to the idea of hearing about a mass shooting every week and eventually, maybe two or three.

We old folks are probably lucky that we won't be around to see it during what's left of our lives.

But the gun violence problem in this country will never be solved.

It is a problem without a solution.
 
Last edited:
Warrigal said:
That would be an improvement. Just one gun per man would reduce the number of guns overall and if they stay in the home, securely stored, then the whole community would be a whole lot safer, with the possible exception of the family. Wives had better stay obedient and faithful.
Click to expand...
Sorry, that would never work. If I'm in the den downstairs & trouble starts in the upstairs living room, one gun would never do. I don't get to choose which window or door an intruder will break into. 😁 😁
 
The non lethal response would be to have bars on the windows and strong locks on the security doors. Or you could try my approach - no armaments and minimal security. It seems to work because no-one has ever tried to break in and slaughter us all in 55 years.
 
fuzzybuddy said:
I'm tired of the "guns don't kill people" line. If guns don't kill people, name a modern army that doesn't have fire arms. It's like cars don't crash, people crash. Yeah, but without cars people aren't doing 80 mph. A gun is a weapon. And people use that weapon to kill. It is an efficient killing system, and it's inane to insist it is a banal item.
Click to expand...
Now that's exactly the logic leaders totalitarian countries use to take guns away from the populace. Since guns aren't the only things used as weapons, exactly how many other things would you take away from people. You really should get used to the realtiy that people are what kills people.
 
JonDouglas said:
Now that's exactly the logic leaders totalitarian countries use to take guns away from the populace. Since guns aren't the only things used as weapons, exactly how many other things would you take away from people. You really should get used to the realtiy that people are what kills people.
Click to expand...
If there is no difference between the lethality of a screw driver, and an gun, why aren't armies fitted out only with screwdrivers? Which would you say was the better killing force, guys, with screw drivers, which can be weapons, or guys , with guns, which can be weapons? The fact that a human has to operate it, does not mean the bullet is less lethal. My point being, guns are an efficient, easy killing system, and their main purpose, and use, isn't a fun day target shooting. I think it's disingenuous to intimate a gun is like any other machine, like a backhoe.
 
Last edited:
Warrigal said:
The non lethal response would be to have bars on the windows and strong locks on the security doors. Or you could try my approach - no armaments and minimal security. It seems to work because no-one has ever tried to break in and slaughter us all in 55 years.
Click to expand...
I'm almost as fortunate. In my 68 years, I've only had two break-in attempts in my home.
I've never had an accident where a seat belt was needed to save me in 53 years of driving, but I still wear mine. To each his own.
 
fuzzybuddy said:
I'm tired of the "guns don't kill people" line. If guns don't kill people, name a modern army that doesn't have fire arms. It's like cars don't crash, people crash. Yeah, but without cars people aren't doing 80 mph. A gun is a weapon. And people use that weapon to kill. It is an efficient killing system, and it's inane to insist it is a banal item.
Click to expand...
Yes, cars crash.......when people are reckless, stupid or drunk. Anything has the potential for abuse - by people.
Even fertilizer & diesel fuel can be abused, with deadly results. Tim McVeigh used them to kill 183 people in less than one second; something no gun could do.
 
Remember when you were a child: The Old Timey People ruled your life

In school, you read and learned about old timey things and people.
What's the deal with these old timey documents that rule our lives?

Now that we are old timey people, we cling to proven ways of behavior (Most do, some don't)

Were not children anymore, but we still wander, seeking...
 
Look how well prohibition worked, and that was just a drink (alcohol). Seems that some laws are meant to be ignored, such as prohibition. Also, since I'm here and to get back on topic, this may or may not be true but it makes sense. The story goes that a Japanese General was asked why they targeted Hawaii in WWII rather than mainland USA. His response was, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." Losing this deterrent to those that would do us harm would be very sad indeed. Just my thoughts on the topic. Don...
 
Murrmurr said:
Which is why the 2nd amendment was written into the Constitution - to protect our inalienable right to bear arms.
Click to expand...

There are supreme court decisions paraphrasing the DoI's purpose, such as we have the right to partake in life's pleasures/necessities, marrying, occupations, right to raise a family etc., and to enjoy the "Orderly pursuit of happiness". That of course was post 1776.
 
ohioboy said:
There are supreme court decisions paraphrasing the DoI's purpose, such as we have the right to partake in life's pleasures/necessities, marrying, occupations, right to raise a family etc., and to enjoy the "Orderly pursuit of happiness". That of course was post 1776.
Click to expand...
Well sure, because it's a "fluid" document. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top