What a silly thing to suggest that a RIGHT is a relic.
What a silly thing to suggest that a 'right' remains universal and relevant to all historic eras. In order for a 'right' to maintain its ideological
power, it has to be constantly inspected against contemporary times, and if need be, must be updated, superceded (like laws), or dropped entirely. A
'right' must reflect the society it is aimed at in order to be the beacon around which people will allocate their consensus.
It is our right to alter or abolish our government should it become destructive of it's own ends.
No. it isn't a 'right', it is a 'duty'. If you live under an oppressive regime, you don't need a 'right' to throw of its chains. When the colonists
declared their independence from Great Britain, they had no 'right' to do so, they just went ahead and did it...rightly so in my book!
Those who speak of destroying our constitution and abolishing rights are scared and emotional.
No. You have it the wrong way round. Those that fear their guns being taken from them are being 'scared and emotional'. No one is talking about
destroying the constitution or abolishing any rights that are relevant to today's American society. They are talking about updating it. Where were you
when George Bush was shredding your rights from the constitution during his administration? Where were the patriots, the gun owners, the 'bravehearts'
that vowed to resist? Perhaps, you couldn't find the time to fit in to save the constitution because you were down at the rifle range shooting paper
targets, or maybe out hunting squirrels? You are talking absolute tosh!
You can ban guns, knives, baseball bats and lead pipes, but a person dead set on killing, will pick up a rock and start
hitting people over the head instead.
That may indeed be the case, but he won't slaughter 20 kids and six adults with it. You need to get a grip on perspective!
The problem is not guns. It's not.
Absolutely! Guns really are not the problem, more guns really are not the solution, either. The fact that it has such a wide and easy availability,
the gun is the choice of weapon for both attack and defence. It is logical therefore to limit access to them, and one of the ways of doing so is to
bring a greater strict control on what you can buy. By banning 'semi' and 'automatic' firearms, you criminalize their possession and ownership, which
gives the authorities legal avenues to hunt them down and confiscate them, leading them to being withdrawn from society.
Just like the war on drugs... That failed and a war on guns would fail just as badly.
The war on drugs is still ongoing, is it not? There is no war on guns. Just a sensible and common sense approach to reducing the amount available.
Perhaps, you'd prefer no one did anything, to act as inert as your promise to defend the constitution?
We need to focus our attention not on the piece of metal that we call a gun, but instead on those people who are clearly
having issues and in this society...
So, you want a witchhunt on mental illnesses? You want to blame mental illness as the culprit for all gun killings? How would your witchhunt have
stopped Adam Lanza? He couldn't own a gun legally, so he took his mother's after killing her. Are you going to arbitrate against gun owners whom have
offspring with mental issues? Are you going to trample on their rights, just so you can continue to own your gun? Gun owners argue from paranoia,
fear, and selfishness. Period!
edit on 19/12/12 by elysiumfire because: Spelling duh!