Machine gun fire into Las Vegas crowd at Route 91 music Festival

  • Thread starter Thread starter Roseeurekacross
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“gun rights” are enumerated in the Constitution. The nebulous “common good” is not. The fact that you are uncomfortable around guns is hardly reason to repeal the second amendment, and is part of the reason it is in place.
 
I never suggested or implied banning guns or eradicating them or taking away the right to bear arms. Just smarter ways to stop people from aquiring enough of them, and ones with automatic capabilities.

Good citizens should be willing to settle for a limited number of guns, or higher standards of qualifications, or the necessity to be subject to frequent inspections. Something to help diminish these massacres.
 
I believe every Catholic should be in support of banning abortion.
 
Locking up every black person in solitary confinement would also save lives too. Your end does not make your means moral.
 
Me too. So what? It has nothing to do with the issues being discussed in this thread. Except, of course, that one would think all of us staunch pro-life would be very much in favor of doing everything possible to mitigate the carnage caused by guns in this country.
 
rcwitness said:
I never suggested or implied banning guns or eradicating them or taking away the right to bear arms. Just smarter ways to stop people from aquiring enough of them, and ones with automatic capabilities.
Click to expand...
Stopping people from acquiring ‘enough’ is banning. It is taking away a right.
Inisfallen said:
Me too. So what? It has nothing to do with the issues being discussed in this thread. Except, of course, that one would think all of us staunch pro-life would be very much in favor of doing everything possible to mitigate the carnage caused by guns in this country.
Click to expand...
I’m willing to do anything sensible and moral. No proposals I’ve heard fit either condition.
 
I do not see the connection at all. You think it’s punishment (equal to incarceration for fitting a demographic!) to make smarter restrictions on weapons?

I don’t understand how it would be an unjust suffering to have more restrictive gun laws.

Whoever is crying about not being able to have a plerhora of gun rights, most likely has not had a son, or daughter, or spouse gunned down.
 
Last edited:
What are these smarter restrictions you mention?

This lady had both of her parents killed by a gunman intent on killing lots of people. She doesn’t favor gun restrictions. (Is that congressman Mel Reynolds the guy who likes underage girls in Catholic schoolgirl uniforms in the early frames? These are the people who are going to protect us!)

 
Right. It’s not immoral at all. But it is a constitutional right to possess guns.

So under the current crisis our society is suffering from, I think we have a moral obligation to restrict some gun rights, without taking away the minimal right to possess a firearm.
 
Should people who are mentally challenged and susceptible to committing acts of violence be sequestered?
 
I have a right to defend myself and my property. An attack on the means for exercising a right is an attack on the right itself.
 
Last edited:
So, are we trying to save lives?

Or, just find a justification for confiscation of guns?
 
A limited number of guns one person can possess at any given time. A limited kind of gun one can possess.

Fewer agencies (or private individuals) able to sell guns at all.

Permits required to travel with guns (or guns and their ammunition).

Harder sentencing for violation of guns laws.

Weapons being confiscated by citizens who break laws, or who have a diagnosis of disordered behaviors and/or mental illness.

I’m just saying things off the top of my head. Many options could be considered. Maybe some of these would not be practical, I don’t know. I realize the repercussions have to be studied and weighed.

But serious efforts should be made.
 
Last edited:
Should they be able to accumulate mass amounts of guns while having no participation in hunting, or sports, or valid concerns for security needs?
 
Save lives. That would be the reason to confiscate a weapon in violation to gun laws which manage the right to bear arms (whatever restriction it may be in violation of).
 
Last edited:
MonteRCMS said:
Should people who are mentally challenged and susceptible to committing acts of violence be sequestered?
Click to expand...
This type of fallacy is used so often I am surprised it hasn’t made it into the lists of formal logic fallacies. Basically, it goes like this. Your opponent uses an argument with a reason (sequestering guns to make us safe). You invent a superficially similar reason (sequestering people to make us safe) and apply it to a different issue which leads to an obviously untenable conclusion, thereby supposedly discrediting your opponent’s use of a his reason. It is sort of a straw man argument, but its particular form deserves special recognition.
 
Last edited:
Do you need 3, 5, 10, 30 guns to do that?

Do you have a criminal record? Are you diagnosed with a mental illness?

Do you need a high powered rifle, if you live in an apartment in the city?

Come on. We need to face the fact that gun restriction can save lives much more effectively than more rights.

How many situations have gun owners saved lives compared to taking them away? And could those situations have been accomplished under more restricted laws?
 
starshiptrooper said:
I have a right to defend myself and my property. An attack on the means for exercising a right is an attack on the right itself.
Click to expand...
Morally, you have the right to try. You don’t have the moral right to access to any means you might imagine. That is the difference between the universal moral right to self-defense and the second amendment.
 
Last edited:
What is the actual limit on number of guns you think we should have?

What kinds of guns do you think we should be able to have?

How many people should be allowed to sell guns?

By the way all your proposals are unconstitutional. What is the point of discussing laws that’s can’t be passed?

Why not have harder sentencing for lesser crimes before someone becomes a hardened criminal and kills? So what about ten years minimum for every crime?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top