Do These Mass Shootings Really Only Happen in America?
- Thread starter Rifleman1952
- Start date
Rifleman1952
New member
Well, toothpicks are less lethal than knives. I guess that's a fairly obvious statement as well. So what's the point?
If the shooter, Lanza, had walked into the school with a lever action rifle and two revolvers, the carnage would have been just as bad. But semi-auto rifles and pistols will be the villains once again.
The Columbine shooting happened during the last Assault Weapon Ban. That previous AWB had no effect in stopping that horrible incident. I agree that such attacks by madmen can never be completely stopped, but I sincerely believe we can make it much more difficult for the attacker. Bullet resistant glass at the school entry way, may have made for a considerably different outcome in Connecticut. I have been to inner city high schools, where there are metal detectors and police officers on duty. Those measures were taken to prevent gang violence, but they would probably help in preventing the madman as well.
Pond James Pond
New member
The OP's point was seemingly to illustrate that this is not a US only problem, nor a a gun-friendly nation problem.
This is true, but I would ask a further question that I've not seen answered. (if it has, please let me know where I can read it).
So it happens elsewhere: I don't think anyone actually expected this to be US only problem.
But what of the incidence; the frequency and the ratio based on population? (China was given as the location of one incident, but they also have 4 times the US' population). I mean with and without the use of firearms.
Knowing if it happened more in the States and knowing if it happened also more with firearms would be interesting to know.
That does appear to be higher in the States.
And it does appear to occur more with the use of guns.
If so, what factors would contribute to that?
Mental health care, sure, but what would then influence such mental health issues to arise?
What would set the US apart from other countries that might lead people to such irrational acts?
This is true, but I would ask a further question that I've not seen answered. (if it has, please let me know where I can read it).
So it happens elsewhere: I don't think anyone actually expected this to be US only problem.
But what of the incidence; the frequency and the ratio based on population? (China was given as the location of one incident, but they also have 4 times the US' population). I mean with and without the use of firearms.
Knowing if it happened more in the States and knowing if it happened also more with firearms would be interesting to know.
That does appear to be higher in the States.
And it does appear to occur more with the use of guns.
If so, what factors would contribute to that?
Mental health care, sure, but what would then influence such mental health issues to arise?
What would set the US apart from other countries that might lead people to such irrational acts?
I refer to my earlier answer. As i have said before secure the schools and the shooter will just go some wear else. You can't secure every wear children go. People might have to except these incidents can't be prevented. Especially if as i have seen on this forum that every suggestion that doesn't involve more firearms is dismissed out of hand.
manta49
There have been some suggestions here on this thread on how to try and stop or severely cut down these tragedies, that you've voiced your opinion on how they will not work.
As I read back through this thread, I really don't see any of your own suggestions to try and stop them.
So, I ask you...if you had the power to do as you wish, what would be your complete plan for stopping these tragedies here in the U.S. ?
What would you do?
There are smarter people than me trying to come up with a answer to that question. After such tragedies everyone rightly says something has to be done to stop similar events in the future.
Maybe nothing can be done if a individual decides to go on a killing spree their is very little can be done to stop them. Even if you taught gun control would work it wouldn't in America there are to many firearms in circulation and easy to get illegally.
I don't think there is a answer and there events will continue to happen. If they had not access to firearms they would use something else.
Pond James Pond
New member
I don't want to steal Manta49's thunder, but I will make some suggestions of my own.
Make safe gun/ammo storage mandatory. Yes it is an added expense, but guns are hardly a cheap pursuit. If someone can afford numerous guns then the cost of a safe would be relatively small. If someone only owns one or a few, then cheaper smaller options are surely available, or would become so: new requirements = new market for safe manufacturers, for all budgets.
If you carry, fine but anything that is not being "carried" would need to be secured. I know I'd rather own what I want but have it locked away, than be told that I could not own it...
Register firearms centrally, as people do for their automobiles. People will cry out that they don't want this or that agency knowing their details, but I fail to see how that information could not readily be calculated from browser history, credit card payments on ammo sites etc... If they really wanted to. Some would also decry this as a breach of rights but as long as their gun ownership is not "infringed" as I believe the 2A term is, I see no reason how recording who has what would affect one's actual ownership.
Laws should make clear, if they don't already do so, that any criminal act perpetrated with one's own firearms would make it a case of "joint venture" for the owner. A buddy has an ND at the range and puts a hole in his neighbour's thigh, or worse, with his friend's gun? Owner ends up in the dock with him for Grievous Bodily Harm... That might make some owners a little more careful about whom they allow near their guns.
I've been reading the posts on the numerous threads and, not having a vested interest in US constitional details, I've been able to read in perhaps a more detached way. One thing seems clear: neither side seems willing to budge on what they want and both sides, regardless what some have claimed on here, have a heavily emotional investment in their arguements, not just the "antis".
All that being said, the fact is that this is an impasse where there will need to be some change. I don't see armed guards in schools as the answer, I really don't.
As people have said: the root cause is not the guns, but they do seem to be one of the easiest to operate, easiest to access and most talked about tools for causing the havoc we've seen in recent days, weeks and months.
Some say an AWB would do nothing, that Columbine occurred during the last one. That does not mean that some impulsive destructive acts were not dissuaded because of the then active AWB making access to some weapons harder. Who can say?
Finally, there is no "one size fits all" answer to the problem.
I believe that the strong cultural link to the gun is partly at play in this, but also mental illness management as discussed elsewhere. Then perhaps the school culture: a lot of these people have appeared to been ostracised in school: does the idea of "pay-back" come into it?
A myriad of potential factors....
So some will no doubt pull my arguements apart giving this reason and that as to why they would not work, but there will always be an exception and a flaw to any policy made, but note that none of my suggestions involve dictating what people can/can't own and surely that is what is of the greatest concern to gun owners.
44 AMP had the nucleus of the discussion in the middle of his page 1 post. For those who missed it:
Somewhere, . . . lost within the confines of the cranium, . . . there is an answer as to "Why?"
Why did Billy stab Marcia 37 times with an ice pick?
Why did old man Mose take a claw hammer to his wife and beat her head into a bloody pulp?
I can go on, . . . many, many examples are available.
The answer is twofold: 1) the problem is within the brains of people who do these sorts of things, . . . and 2) their bodies carry out the directions given by the resident brains.
What do we do in the meantime? Well, so far we have done nothing. The 27 people who died at the hands of a crazed lunatic in Ct a week ago were deemed by our society to not have as many rights as the crazed lunatic.
His rights to keep his wretched lunacy secret were more important than the rights of the other 27 to live, and to enjoy life.
His rights to mingle within society, unfettered, allowed him to send 27 to a grave from which they will only emerge at the end of time.
His priveleges as a nut case, . . . were deemed by our "learned medical establishment", . . . far superior to the simple joy of living he took from so many.
I will not be popular, . . . will not be loved by my stand, . . . but I firmly believe that everyone should be made accountable for their actions, attitudes, and if discernible, . . . their intentions.
The medical community, . . . especially the shrinks, . . . have openly conspired to place these walking time bombs among us, . . . for accolades, to be published in a "journal", to be selected as "shrink of the year", . . . and have totally rejected the main purpose of their training, . . . to get the required help to those who need it: whether it be incarceration, medication, monitoring, or whatever.
It's not the guns, the bombs, the machetes, the knives: the malfunction is between the ears of the perpetrator, . . . that is what needs to be adressed.
May God bless,
Dwight
Somewhere, . . . lost within the confines of the cranium, . . . there is an answer as to "Why?"
Why did Billy stab Marcia 37 times with an ice pick?
Why did old man Mose take a claw hammer to his wife and beat her head into a bloody pulp?
I can go on, . . . many, many examples are available.
The answer is twofold: 1) the problem is within the brains of people who do these sorts of things, . . . and 2) their bodies carry out the directions given by the resident brains.
What do we do in the meantime? Well, so far we have done nothing. The 27 people who died at the hands of a crazed lunatic in Ct a week ago were deemed by our society to not have as many rights as the crazed lunatic.
His rights to keep his wretched lunacy secret were more important than the rights of the other 27 to live, and to enjoy life.
His rights to mingle within society, unfettered, allowed him to send 27 to a grave from which they will only emerge at the end of time.
His priveleges as a nut case, . . . were deemed by our "learned medical establishment", . . . far superior to the simple joy of living he took from so many.
I will not be popular, . . . will not be loved by my stand, . . . but I firmly believe that everyone should be made accountable for their actions, attitudes, and if discernible, . . . their intentions.
The medical community, . . . especially the shrinks, . . . have openly conspired to place these walking time bombs among us, . . . for accolades, to be published in a "journal", to be selected as "shrink of the year", . . . and have totally rejected the main purpose of their training, . . . to get the required help to those who need it: whether it be incarceration, medication, monitoring, or whatever.
It's not the guns, the bombs, the machetes, the knives: the malfunction is between the ears of the perpetrator, . . . that is what needs to be adressed.
May God bless,
Dwight
Alabama Shooter
New member
I am surprised on one has mentioned Afghanistan yet. I guess it must truly be forgotten. The number of school shootings and other violence there (mostly upon young girls) makes CT look down right friendly. They have a complete culture there of oppression to women.
His priveleges as a nut case, . . . were deemed by our "learned medical establishment", . . . far superior to the simple joy of living he took from so many.
The medical community, . . . especially the shrinks, . . . have openly conspired to place these walking time bombs among us, . . . for accolades, to be published in a "journal", to be selected as "shrink of the year", . . . and have totally rejected the main purpose of their training, . . . to get the required help to those who need it: whether it be incarceration, medication, monitoring, or whatever.
Wow. Unless meant as darkly humorous hyperbole, the above reflects an astoundingly unfortunate lack of understanding about what we in the mental health profession actually do.
The medical community, . . . especially the shrinks, . . . have openly conspired to place these walking time bombs among us, . . . for accolades, to be published in a "journal", to be selected as "shrink of the year", . . . and have totally rejected the main purpose of their training, . . . to get the required help to those who need it: whether it be incarceration, medication, monitoring, or whatever.
Wow. Unless meant as darkly humorous hyperbole, the above reflects an astoundingly unfortunate lack of understanding about what we in the mental health profession actually do.
As i posted before you get a firearm there are certain conditions. Most on the forum are against any conditions.
Do you currently suffer from any serious medical condition including any alcohol or drug related condition, which is controlled by prescription medicines?
No Yes If yes give details below
A14 Do you currently have, or have you ever had, Epilepsy?
No Yes If yes give approximate dates of last two episodes
A15 Do you have a physical disability including sight related conditions (excludes normal spectacle use)
No Yes If yes give details below
A16 Have you attended a medical professional in the last 5 years for treatment of depression or any other kind of mental or nervous disorder?
No Yes If yes give details below
A17 Please give details of your current General Practitioner
A18 I give my consent for the police to approach my GP, consultant or other medical authority to obtain factual details of my medical history if necessary.
Condition:
Condition:
Dates: From
Dates:
To:
Date 1
Date 2
GP’s Name & Address inc Postcode
Usual Signature
Date
Gun Cabinets
Any cabinet used to store firearms, component parts of firearms, or ammunition should conform to BS 7558 (1992). Gun cabinets must be attached to a sound surface and the force required to pull the fixing bolt should not be less than 2kN. Locks should secure the gun cabinet to BS 3621 or seven lever safe locks. The cabinets should preferably be in a concealed place. It should not be in a garage or outhouse. Principally, only cabinets that meet the specification BS 7558 (1992) are suitable but others may be acceptable if examined by a Firearms Enquiry Officer.
Do you currently suffer from any serious medical condition including any alcohol or drug related condition, which is controlled by prescription medicines?
No Yes If yes give details below
A14 Do you currently have, or have you ever had, Epilepsy?
No Yes If yes give approximate dates of last two episodes
A15 Do you have a physical disability including sight related conditions (excludes normal spectacle use)
No Yes If yes give details below
A16 Have you attended a medical professional in the last 5 years for treatment of depression or any other kind of mental or nervous disorder?
No Yes If yes give details below
A17 Please give details of your current General Practitioner
A18 I give my consent for the police to approach my GP, consultant or other medical authority to obtain factual details of my medical history if necessary.
Condition:
Condition:
Dates: From
Dates:
To:
Date 1
Date 2
GP’s Name & Address inc Postcode
Usual Signature
Date
Gun Cabinets
Any cabinet used to store firearms, component parts of firearms, or ammunition should conform to BS 7558 (1992). Gun cabinets must be attached to a sound surface and the force required to pull the fixing bolt should not be less than 2kN. Locks should secure the gun cabinet to BS 3621 or seven lever safe locks. The cabinets should preferably be in a concealed place. It should not be in a garage or outhouse. Principally, only cabinets that meet the specification BS 7558 (1992) are suitable but others may be acceptable if examined by a Firearms Enquiry Officer.
Last edited:
A good suggestion but I have to ask how you would enforce this mandatory law?
Look! Before I go any further trying to explain my points of view on this whole subject, I would politely suggest to those that do not live in the U.S., that do not understand our Constitution, what it stands for nor how much blood has been shed for its existence, do some research and find out about our freedoms, the reasons for our Constitution and especially the reason the 2nd Amendment was put there in the first place.
I would also ask that you do some research on some of the anti-gun groups here in the U.S.
Too, I would ask that you study the gun crime rate in the U.S. starting pre-AWB, the gun crime rate while the AWB was in effect and the rate after the AWB expired.
A far as not having armed guards in schools, that that is not the answer...that shows me just how out of touch with how things are in our schools many people are. You need to take the time to go to some of the inner city schools and talk to some of the staff. Not only about their fears of these mass shootings that happen from time to time but about the everyday gang violence that's been happening for years.
Let me relay a couple stories for ya that happened in Cols. Ohio in the South end. Heyl elementary school to be exact.
I went there to talk to the principal that happened to be a lady about 50yrs. old. As I approached the steps to the front doors, there was a man standing there that asked me my business. I told him, he got on his portable radio and radio'd in to the principal. I could hear her tell him to let me in. At that time, he radio'd to another person. That person came out, got me and escorted me to principals office.
Upon entering her office, she introduced herself and asked me to be seated. We started our conversation and it did not take me long to figure out I was headed for an embarrassing conversation due to the fact that I could not understand her because she was mumbling so.
The look on my face must have been apparent cause she apologized and explained the reason for her talking as she was.
A couple months prior, there was an incident in which a well known, violent southend gang showed up on the playground during recess. The principal ended up calling LE to have them removed. They left but sent her a detailed letter(complete with gangs letterhead) saying that she would pay for calling the law on them.
They may good on their threat a couple weeks later, catching her, another female and one male teacher out on the playground. The gang beat them up and she had spent from that time on with her jaws wired. She had had reconstructive surgery on her eye sockets and her nose. Results of being stomped and kicked.
Same elementary school.
Same gang and another south-end rival gang fighting over territory that happen to include the school grounds. Gangs were going to meet on the schools grounds to do battle but the exact date was not known and didn't happen when LE thought it was going to go down.
The week after LE stopped hanging out at the school the battle happened. Leaving a 2nd grade girl that got caught in the middle of things dead. She was hit in the head with a pipe.
What made things worse for the family is they lived right across the street from the school and got the privilege of getting up every morning and looking across the street where there little girl was killed.
These are just two incidents(from one school) in which I personally talked to a person which happened to not only be a victim, but an elementary school principal that was thankful for the guards at the school that were employed after these incidents.
Many of these kind of tragedies don't make 'headline' news. Many that live in the suburbs or country have no idea just how bad it is living in the inner city. You want to know how bad it is, don't just drive through there, buy ya a place and have to live there awhile. I promise you, after a year or two, you'll experience first hand just how little your, or your kids life means to some others....sorry, got a little off topic.
There are many inner city schools that already have some form of armed security for reasons other than mass shootings that have proven to be successful in slowing down to stopping violent activity.
Most elected politicians from Mayor's on up to the President have armed security of some form to protect themselves(and families) from some nut-job paid for by our tax dollars...that's socially acceptable
Well known celebrities and dignitaries have armed body guards or some form of armed security even at their homes to protect themselves from wacko's...that's ok too.
But to put armed security in schools that are strictly forbidden gun zones to protect our children from some predator of the defenseless...oh no, we can't have that.
Something very wrong with that mindset.
Pond James Pond
New member
My guess from the way that reads is that the need to get it checked makes it "unworkable".
If you think it is a good suggestion, why don't you offer an option for how it should be checked satisfactorily?
As Manta49 said, I don't have all the answers.
Personally, I would do what they do here: book an appointment with the local plod; they come over, confirm that there is an approved safe in situ and you're done. Sorted.
Or, you get a certificate from a certified fitter whose sign off is recorded as being proof of fact for the authorities.
Or you simply show proof of purchase.
Or a situation exists where, if ever the police have a reason to inspect your premises for whatever reason & they also find that guns are unsecured, you automatically get a stiff penalty, such as loosing the right to own, so perhaps you take your chances by not buying a safe.
Regarding the 2A: as non-resident of the US, I have no vested interest in the 2A.
I recognise that it was an inspired addition to the Constitution. I recognise that it has a great importance to many, if not all, Americans, but I also recognise that Americans need to adapt to changing times. I recognise that blood was spilt for it, but that blood may also being spilt because of it, now. That possibility should at least be considered. The age we live in would be absolutely alien to those who worded that Amendment.
Personally, I am trying, out of solidarity, to offer plausible alternatives to the unpalatable, ostensibly ineffective offerings from the likes of Feistein.
The tide has turned, from what I see. There are millions of guns in US homes but often owned by mainly multiple gun owners. The majority is what democracy should give priority to, and it seems a growing number to want more gun control. That is not to say more don't want guns, but they seem happy to have some limitations in place.
Ergo, there will be a tightening of gun laws. (If it doesn't change after CN, you can bet it will after the next incident and current trends show we won't not need to wait long for it to happen.)
I think people need to recognise that change is likely, and offering workable, effective solutions that may be "distasteful" but still not that destructive to the day to day ownership of guns, is the sensible way to mitigate restrictions.
Your collective call, but sitting on your dealt hand, not wanting to fold and hoping it is better than the opposition's carries inherent risks, especially when the other side has seemingly far less to lose from the outcome.
My personal view is that, whilst guns are not the cause of these incidents, I don't believe that their use in the majority of these incidents is purely coincidental. There is a correlation. They are implicated.
Access is likely to be the link.
Regarding the gang troubles described, my first suggestion would be to use some of the more successful gang control initiatives put in place, rather than arming school employees. As people keep saying: address the problem, not the symptom.
Celebrities pay for their own armed escorts, not the tax payers.
The US, being a bastion of the free market, is about buying what you want. If PTAs in a given school decide they want armed guards, I am sure that there are security firms that parents can approach assuming they want armed protection, rather than having it come from the federal coffers.
Re anti-gun and pro-gun groups. It seems to me that there are all sorts from the intransigent to the reasonable and pragmatic on both sides of the arguement. I feel the solution to this is to ignore the former from both sides, and get the latter from both talking...
These are my views and my suggestions and, as I've alluded above, I'm not the one that should be being convinced of one thing or another. Take it, in part or all, or leave it.
However, I do hope that whatever the future holds is good for your nation, but above all I hope that it, and some of its more troubled citizens, find peace.
Alabama Shooter
New member
I would disagree strongly here with that notion. If the US becomes a police state the world changes dramatically and likely not for the better.
If only this were true. Every day gives us another example of why not.
Some merit, on the surface, but the devil is in the details
While it seems reasonable at first, making laws about safe/secure storage is yet one more huge slippery slope. And it requires "punishment" for the innocent, not the guilty, like all other gun control laws, both proposed or currently in effect.
It seems reasonable, after all, if they are locked up, bad people can't get them, right? But they can. A safe stops the casual snatch and grab break in, but anyone really determined will get in. Maybe after you are dead....
And it creates a whole new class of criminals, those who did nothing but fail to lock up their own private property, in accordance with govt regulations, inside their own homes!
Already overtasked resources will be needed to inspect our homes for compliance (on a bureaucraticly determined schedule) for compliance. Right there, a govt agent is given the legal authority to search your property (and count on ALL your property being searched if they want) without a warrant, or any other of our normal Constitutional protections. And, we will be paying for that process, through licenses and fees.
Yes, for those of us who are avid sportsmen and collectors, with a large investment, a safe(s) is a fine idea. What about the owner who has one, or two guns? What about the owner who has a gun (or heaven forbid, two guns!
out of the safe cleaning them when the inspectors knock on the door (assuming they do bother to knock?) Instant criminal!
The problem with the idea is not the base idea (if you accept punishing the innocent for the actions of others, which, personally, I do not), but the potential for abuse, and the proven bureaucratic principles of expansion and mission creep.
You want me to lock up my property, inside my house, at the risk of penalty, fines, and even the loss of my fundamental rights, because somebody on the other side of the country (or anywhere) killed someone, stole their arms, and then killed a bunch of children? Not either fair, nor sane, in my opinion.
False is the idea to take fire from man because it burns...
(not an exact quote,..look it up)
Take away the computers, because someone, somewhere is doing kiddie ****, or stalking pre-teen girls...
Take away your car because someone, somewhere drove through a crowd killing people...
Take away coffee, because it just makes us too tense...
Take away bread, because studies show that virtually 100% of criminals ate bread or a bread product within 30 days of commiting their crime.....
Here's a thought, to protect our children, rather than adding armed guards to our schools, why not just move the police there? Not the jails, but the rest of the day to day operations. We have "substations" all over the country, why not physically move them to the schools? Other than the housing/facility expense for the intial moves, the personel are already paid for, and we get the benefit of having schools "protected" at relatively little cost to the schools themselves.
I think that would be preferrable to creating yet another government intrusion into our homes and lives.
While it seems reasonable at first, making laws about safe/secure storage is yet one more huge slippery slope. And it requires "punishment" for the innocent, not the guilty, like all other gun control laws, both proposed or currently in effect.
It seems reasonable, after all, if they are locked up, bad people can't get them, right? But they can. A safe stops the casual snatch and grab break in, but anyone really determined will get in. Maybe after you are dead....
And it creates a whole new class of criminals, those who did nothing but fail to lock up their own private property, in accordance with govt regulations, inside their own homes!
Already overtasked resources will be needed to inspect our homes for compliance (on a bureaucraticly determined schedule) for compliance. Right there, a govt agent is given the legal authority to search your property (and count on ALL your property being searched if they want) without a warrant, or any other of our normal Constitutional protections. And, we will be paying for that process, through licenses and fees.
Yes, for those of us who are avid sportsmen and collectors, with a large investment, a safe(s) is a fine idea. What about the owner who has one, or two guns? What about the owner who has a gun (or heaven forbid, two guns!
out of the safe cleaning them when the inspectors knock on the door (assuming they do bother to knock?) Instant criminal!The problem with the idea is not the base idea (if you accept punishing the innocent for the actions of others, which, personally, I do not), but the potential for abuse, and the proven bureaucratic principles of expansion and mission creep.
You want me to lock up my property, inside my house, at the risk of penalty, fines, and even the loss of my fundamental rights, because somebody on the other side of the country (or anywhere) killed someone, stole their arms, and then killed a bunch of children? Not either fair, nor sane, in my opinion.
False is the idea to take fire from man because it burns...
(not an exact quote,..look it up)
Take away the computers, because someone, somewhere is doing kiddie ****, or stalking pre-teen girls...
Take away your car because someone, somewhere drove through a crowd killing people...
Take away coffee, because it just makes us too tense...
Take away bread, because studies show that virtually 100% of criminals ate bread or a bread product within 30 days of commiting their crime.....
Here's a thought, to protect our children, rather than adding armed guards to our schools, why not just move the police there? Not the jails, but the rest of the day to day operations. We have "substations" all over the country, why not physically move them to the schools? Other than the housing/facility expense for the intial moves, the personel are already paid for, and we get the benefit of having schools "protected" at relatively little cost to the schools themselves.
I think that would be preferrable to creating yet another government intrusion into our homes and lives.
The firearms safe is inspected when applying. After that i have never have a inspection or heard of someone else having one . If the firearms enquiry officer wanted to inspect it would usually be arranged he wouldn't just turn up.
There are fees. Grant of a firearm certificate 50.00
Variation of a firearm certificate on application of holder (except as mentioned in 3 below) 26.00
Police advice. Keep your firearm locked up
Lock your gun in a cabinet, preferably hidden within a larger storage area. This will prevent curious children, house guests or even burglars from accessing your firearms
Keep your ammunition safe
Keep all cartridges and other ammunition in a secured cupboard or out of reach of children. Firearms ammunition should be locked in a separate
container to the firearm.
PS This is just a example of the way gun laws work in the UK. I am not suggesting they would work in America or similar should be applied in America.
Last edited:
Pond James Pond
New member
I don't want you to do anything.
Reject every offer and compromise, by all means, but it won't serve you well in the longterm.
The police station idea: a good one, but we all know it will likely never happen, for the same reason they won't pay for officers in schools: cost.
'So you need to be pragmatic...
Good luck to you.
Really.
I mean that, but I think everyone needs to be realistic. And also a little quote from my earlier post:
scrubcedar
New member
Pond, I can appreciate your point of view. My Father was the one who emigrated here from England, and he finds a lot of this puzzling.
I was raised, although not by my parents, to believe that gun ownership was one of my rights not anything that had to be bargained for, or was ever in doubt.
The reason, I was told, was that I had "certain unalienable rights" given by my creator. "Life,Liberty,and the persuit of Happiness". I was also told "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Most of us will recognise those quotes as coming from our Declaration of Independence.
The document that was issued as a rallying point, and perhaps our most Poetic statement of freedoms.
The purpose of the second amendment was to prevent our government from ever being able to repress and intimidate us in the same manner they were oppressed.
We believe, as they did, that these are sacred rights, bought and maintained with the blood of heroes and patriots.
There are criminals, murderers, dangerously mentally ill people in every nation and country. People who were ancestors of mine(Moms side) were willing to give the "last full measure of devotion" (the Gettysberg Address) to protect my right to defend myself, against them as well, with the most effective means, Firearms.
I would almost be spitting on their graves to trade away those rights
I was raised, although not by my parents, to believe that gun ownership was one of my rights not anything that had to be bargained for, or was ever in doubt.
The reason, I was told, was that I had "certain unalienable rights" given by my creator. "Life,Liberty,and the persuit of Happiness". I was also told "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Most of us will recognise those quotes as coming from our Declaration of Independence.
The document that was issued as a rallying point, and perhaps our most Poetic statement of freedoms.
The purpose of the second amendment was to prevent our government from ever being able to repress and intimidate us in the same manner they were oppressed.
We believe, as they did, that these are sacred rights, bought and maintained with the blood of heroes and patriots.
There are criminals, murderers, dangerously mentally ill people in every nation and country. People who were ancestors of mine(Moms side) were willing to give the "last full measure of devotion" (the Gettysberg Address) to protect my right to defend myself, against them as well, with the most effective means, Firearms.
I would almost be spitting on their graves to trade away those rights