Man Who Shot 4 Firefighters Leaves Suicide Note

More Comments >

DromEd Male, 40-49, Eastern US 905 Posts	Saturday, December 29, 2012 7:45:24 AM

HumanAction Male, 18-29, Midwest US 1139 Posts	Friday, December 28, 2012 2:07:05 PM @jinxjinx34 I should also clarify that I'm not one of these NRA morons. I do not think we should arm all teachers, because that is just as bad as trying to disarm all teachers. As for posting guards in all schools, with what money? However, since we won`t ever ban all guns, I don`t think that we will ever abolish mass shootings; the best we can hope to do is limit their devastation. Therefore, I think it should be the right of all citizens to be capable of defending themselves. If a citizen, teacher, professor, etc. is properly trained and licensed (according to their state legislation... dead horse yet?), I think they should be allowed to carry a firearm without limitation.

HumanAction Male, 18-29, Midwest US 1139 Posts	Friday, December 28, 2012 2:01:10 PM @jinxjinx34 I agree with you that something most likely needs to be changed; I think I'm one of the extremely few pro-gun advocates willing to admit that there is a problem right now. My problem is, I don`t know what the solution is. Most of the propositions I`ve heard don`t make any sense. An assault weapons ban? I could kill or injure far more people while sitting in a tower with a Model 700 (bolt-action) than going into a theatre with an AR-15. Then again, I think there`s merit to the argument for registering, licensing, educating, and testing. Afterall, with automobiles, we must title and register the vehicle; also, we need to demonstrate proficiency and physiological ability to get licensed. I don`t personally consider these restrictions to violate the Second Amendment. I would only recommend that this be done by the states or by a state conglomerate.

jinxjinx34 Male, 30-39, Eastern US 134 Posts	Friday, December 28, 2012 1:43:58 PM @HumanAction, Point taken. I agree with you in the shortcomings in the system, I intended to convey that in my post. Sorry for not being more clear. And again, this is so multifaceted as an issue it is really difficult to table. I, maybe not so simply, posit, that we need to treat firearms with the respect they deserve. This is not being done collectively by the community. The community needs to be held responsible. Someone needs to be accountable for holding them responsible. Any responsible gun owners should be DEMANDING that other gun owners be educated and be held INDIVIDUALLY responsible for their actions so that this ceases to be an issue. We have identified that there is in fact an issue. Do we solve this with more guns or better gun owners? I think the choice is clear.

HumanAction Male, 18-29, Midwest US 1139 Posts	Friday, December 28, 2012 1:11:38 PM @jinxjinx34 You are mistaken though in your interpretation of the Bill of Rights. The bill is a list of LEGAL rights, not Natural/Inalienable rights. I don't think there is a difference between the two. In either case, for something to be a "right", it needs to be stated by and enforced by a body with such power. In this context, I think legal and inalienable are interchangable. Regarding the three branches, they are all part of the federal government. Therefore, they all act on behalf of the federal government. While the intention of the House and Senate is to represent the states, they represent the states in the federal government. The problem with this method is that it is democratic and not republican. The result is a "winner takes all" scheme in which the masses instill their desires on all others. Within a republic, this is less so.

More Comments >