Why are we seeing so many shootings unanswered by these ‘armed’ people? You seem to cast doubt of police, when you say, ‘finally get there, if ever.’ The same doubt applies to these ‘armed’ people when we see mass shootings going unanswered.
The founding fathers found that any kind of weapon be available to the public? No, I don’t believe that, and we see regulations that prevent the public from owning all weaponry.
So, all the people that gave their lives for this country did so in vain, because at any minute the government will take over? To me, that ‘smacks of conspiracy theories.’ Your defense is not being taken away, but defined. That’s a right of the government.
No. If the constitution defines the roll of the government, and the Bill of Rights enumerates specific rights reserved to the people which the government is not allowed to infringe upon
Free Speech, Assembly, Freedom of Religion
Then no, under the US system of government the government does not have the right to infringe on my or your or other citizens ability to keep and bear arms.
That’s a key chack and balance to prevent the slaughter which has occurred in places like Germany, China, Cambodia, Russia,
Conspiracy? No. It’s a simple acknowledgement of human nature and human history over the centuries. That is why the founding fathers included the new government being bound to respect the right the colonsists had under British rule to keep and bear arms. You do know the revolutionary war’s initial conflicts were in response to the British attempting to seize stores of the colonists weaponry, right?
I’m not pointing to my government as being a danger at the moment (well, other than through sheer incompetence and ignorance and the normal bloat of a bureacracy over time creating massive often contradictory regulations). And I think the Declaration of Independence put it very well:
“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”
I don’t see anything that I’m not willing to put up with in the short term and work to over-turn peacefully in the long run. I think we still have time to get our financial house in order if we can manage to elect the right folks. But again, human nature being what it is, and me not believing it’s changed dramatically in the last 50 in the US compared to the thousands of years previously across the globe— I think our funding fathers got it right. I’m not willing to eliminate the capability of future generations to maintain their freedom based on knee jerk reaction to a few shootings.
You and I differ in perception of the threat. The well over 100 million killed by governments compared to how many killed in a few shootings? And again, you see the solution as restrictions on a few weapon types. Restrictions which have been shown not to work. Restrictions which were in place at most of the shootings you cite as justification for these restrictions. Huh? They were in place but didn’t work so lets do more of them.
How about-- all those places were gun-free zones. Places where the general public was refused the means to defend themselves. Places which spree shooters deliberately seek out in carrying out their acts.
Perhaps a more logical approach is to actually address that? Perhaps eliminating gun free zones and allowing folks the means to defend themselves would actually succeed? At least its trying something different than actions which have proven to be failures.
