a reply to: violet
violet, I apologize for the dismissive tone of my last post. It is clear you're genuinely interested in an actual discussion, and I really appreciate
It has to start somewhere and maybe it’s a good idea to start with people who shouldn’t have a gun because they are showing signs they
wouldn’t be responsible with one.
Do you have any ideas? Or do you just say no I’m not listsning, I don’t care?
You're right and I have zero issues with ensuring dangerous people aren't allowed to have firearms. Those are the same people I'd most likely have to
use my own firearm against to defend myself, so I have no issues there.
And I am listening and do care, and I know I could do a much better job of conveying that. It is just so frustrating to hear people cherry picking our
Bill of Rights, and trying to dictate what we need/don't need. I can't imagine the backlash if we did that with the first amendment (probably the most
dangerous one of them all) or something like abortion
I also agree that children should feel safe in school. However, attempting to take my firearms from me will not provide that safety. Unless you
confiscate weapons from *all* people (including government, police and criminals) there will always be a means to source firearms for criminals.
Most importantly, we simply have no reason to trust the government/military to have all of the firearms. As it stands right now, we have a clear
advantage in that regard. I see no reason to give up such an advantage.
I don't claim to have the answers, and have been more than supportive of "reasonable/common sense" measures like ensuring background checks are
effective, background checks for private sales by giving private sellers NICS access, etc.
Targeting semi-automatic rifles, however, is senseless. First of all, it is handguns that are used in most homicides with firearms. Semi-automatic
rifles are rarely used. Yet they provide a much needed deadly force capacity, especially in dealing with unusual threats.
For instance, home invasions commonly occur with multiple armed assailants
these days. It is not beyond them to wear soft body armor (costs $45.00 on ebay for level IIIA vest) capable of defeating virtually all handgun
rounds and shotgun rounds. The ar-15 (and any semi-auto rifle) shines for this task.
What about dealing with multiple attackers? No one can hit the mark 100% of the time. 10 rounds in a non-removable magazine is a death sentence for
anybody that doesn't already have the standard-capacity weapons.
To be sure, any sort of confiscation will be outright refused. Any sort of ban is patently unconstitutional, since "shall not be infringed" can never
be interpreted to mean "infringe sometimes"
My ideas are very simple. To start focusing on the severe mental health issues facing these people, universally. These shooters were garden variety
whackos that abused a Constitutional right to cause mayhem and death. But our laws already punish the guilty parties. And they're trying to give
responsible teachers/staff who already have training/CHL to carry firearms in schools. They can carry everywhere else, and there is no reason not to
carry in a school.
In any case, any sort of ban or confiscation will be seen by the patriots of this country for exactly what it is: an unlawful power grab and
usurpation of the Constitution. That condition is not compatible with liberty.
edit on 2/27/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason
edit on 2/27/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)