No, nonsense. Constitutions do not address every matter, rather just the most basic and invariant matters. I simply suggest that gun ownership may not be one of those. Legislation (Parliament/legislature) is the supreme legal authority on most matters in our communities.
Again, tell that to the French resistance, the Viet Cong, the Afghans. But even if it is true, it isn’t a reason to give up the right, nor does it neutralize the existence of the prefatory or operative clauses.
Who would have gone on “resisting” forever until American intervention…
Not quite apples-to-apples here, Jon. But at any rate, the Viet Cong didn’t defeat the U.S… The Americans withdrew as the war lost popular support. Verily, Nixon ran on the idea of leaving Vietnam.
Extremely similar situation to the Viet Cong. It’s not a military defeat. Wherever they stand and fight, they die. Without exception.
As we’ve encountered before, it’s only irrelevant to the unlearned.
I agree. The entire point of my comment is that they should be put on equal footing.Luke6_37:
So, let’s start by putting them on an equal footing. Killing innocent children with a firearm is against the law. Someone who does so either spends the rest of their life in prison or receives the death penalty (assuming they survive the event).
With Abortion , on the other hand, killing innocent children is legal, and in some quarters, highly regarded and defended.
In other words, there is no right to kill innocent child with a firearm, but there is a “right” to kill a child when committing abortion.
So let’s make sure both of them are illegal. There’s no reason to outlaw or ban doctor’s tools, just like there is no need to ban firearms.
Now we can go about the business of protecting our children, born and soon to be born, without destroying the rights of the innocent
The practical problem is that the guns are out there now and how do you get rid of them? Further, there are too many Americans who want to own guns and you have the NRA supporting them. Given the current climate in the USA, I don’t see where effective gun control is going to fly. You might have a few minor restrictions here and there, but is that going to change anything? The only practical solution at this time is the Israeli one of increased security and of course, that is not going to be 100% effective. And regardless of what the studies show, I think that capital punishment is a deterrent to crime. Many studies have been wrong. All the studies said that hillary was going to be elected,.
Buybacks and wear-and-tear.
. So there’s definitely a human factor there as well.Nothing is, hardly. So I suggest abandoning that as the reasonable standard.
It is not a standard. It was only a suggestion to save the lives of innocent schoolchildren who are being gunned down in the classroom…
How long is that going to take. In the meantime, questions are going to be raised as to how fair that is to those homeowners and others wanting to defend themselves against a blood thirsty criminal.
It’s a mega-rare event that virtually no one is prepared for when it happens. You should be more concerned about being hit by lightening.
Well, they won with the help of poor American leadership, but they did win.
It is the unlearned that think rights are given. No one is giving the honest American his/her rights.
It is a false dichotomy. It isn’t a trade off.
Sure. But not necessarily through combat prowess as a proxy for China. Which, again, makes this a different issue from civil armament.
The Ruskies withdrew too. The Soviet was collapsing. Bigger fish to fry.
Yes. Substantial symbolic value!
What I identified isn’t a dichotomy, Jon… It’s a side effect…
Good luck obtaining that nuclear material then!
That is true, but irrelevant to the question of whether AR-15s are worth the societal cost. Cancer is much more of a serious problem than male pattern baldness. Yet they still developed Rogaine.
Inaccurate characterization of restricting AR-15s. Law-abiding citizens are not being declared “guilty.” There are a lot of things that society does not permit you to do. That doesn’t mean you are being punished. The use of words like “guilty” and “punishment” I realize is just poetic license, but such poetry leads to distorted logic.
Sure you did. You are providing a false choice. The implied choice is to stop shootings you have to make AR-15s illegal. That’s a false choice.
I would be. I think that the lives of young school children are worth at least a few extra dollars. Right now in California they are talking about spending 100 billion dollars on a bullet train. I don’t see why a bullet train should be worth more than the lives of innocent school children?
Isn’t the explicit assertion that a much Less free access to guns in the US would likely see guns less often misused, but that this good has side effects unacceptable to some people?
By your own admission then your plan is not going to help prevent schoolchildren from being killed in the classroom? I want a practical plan that is going to help prevent these murders. What I see working is the Israeli solution.
Again, a false choice. AR-15s are not a cost to society the cost to society is the people who misuse them. Knives kill more people than AR-15s. So do certain drugs, and alcohol related deaths.
Yes they are, at least in the leftist media. There have been posters here tell that lie. But taking a firearm that is no where near the major cause of gun murders, when virtually none but a few AR-15 owners have committed crimes holds them accountable. “People are willing to see innocent kids die so they can take their AR-15 to the range and shoot.” That’s the framing of it. I know you’ve seen it.
This assumes facts not in evidence. The 10 year ban on the sale of (not) assault weapons for 10 showed absolutely no change.