you just have no empathy for feel-goody liberals who just can't get past the morning cuppa without a new law too, to fix the world in their own minds at least.
Gun Control
- Thread starter larryselbows
- Start date
you just have no empathy for feel-goody liberals who just can't get past the morning cuppa without a new law too, to fix the world in their own minds at least.
Correct, I have no empathy for them.
Anyone arguing that there should be strict gun control needs to read Federalist #46. James Madison (You remember him, correct? Often referred to as The Father of the Constitution) wrote that an armed citizenry was needed to form a civilian militia in the event that an over zealous federal army overstepped its bounds. That's pretty hard to do with pea shooters and only 7 peas...
https://patriotpost.us/documents/345
https://patriotpost.us/documents/345
MoTappin
Well-Known Member
Absolutely!
the epitome of irony...
Someone must've been on a snipe hunt!
...it happens, no?
amen to that...
but what is additionally ironic about this is that it's another incident, similar to the mother of the Sandy Hook shooter, where a presumably intelligent person thinks it's a good idea to take a mentally unbalanced person to a shooting range...
all the mental health checks in the world won't save a person from their own misplaced judgement
Did the guy know he was unstable? Did he even come with the shooter?
For a little background... I read a few articles at CNN.
The sniper who was killed was the "deadliest sniper" in U.S. history with 160 confirmed kills. The previous record, 93 kills, was set by a marine during the Vietnam war. He wrote a book about it. He also punched Jesse Ventura after (during?) a wake for a fellow service member because he says Ventura was bad mouthing the U.S. and said that we deserved to lose a few. He started a charity for service members who were returning from combat and had PTSD. He was a husband and a father.
It seems the person who shot him had come to the range with him. It might have been someone he met through his charity but the article doesn't say that.
At the time I posted that I had only read that he was shot by a guy at the gun range. Well it turns out that the shooter was a friend of theirs that was going thru some things and having a rough time and the two victims were attmepting to help him as friends do. What lead to him actually shooting them I do not know. But the guy died showing yet again that he was a good man.
what I've heard is that he was definitely working with him as a mentor to try to help him deal with post-traumatic stress disorder. So yes, he knew the guy had problems. Obviously wasn't expecting the final outcome.
The solution is video games! Get your violent tendencies out on pixels!
Seriously, that is a messed up situation.
Your responded by my comment about reducing the number of bullets by claiming it can't be done. Be an adult, and stand behind your words or else renounce them.
Since I referred to a very specific class of criminals in my post, I obviously did not mean to imply every criminal.
Owning and carrying a gun doesn't significantly reduce your chances of being raped. Most home invasions occur when the homeowner is absent. So, adding them in the discussion about guns doesn't produce equality.
Specifically, the remarkably high number of gun deaths, compared to other developed nations.
I agree. The civilian militia, organized at a state and local level, lives on today in the National Guard. If you interpret the Second Amendment in this way, we are in complete accord. The right of the people to serve in the National Guard should not be infringed.
I recently read that the idiom "bear arms", pre-Civil War, meant actual military service. It would not have been said that a man our shooting buffalo had borne arms.
The problem with the National Guard is that it has fallen under presidential jurisdiction and can be deployed by the Commander in Chief. It no longer serves the purpose that it once did. It is simply another branch of the federal military.
Then the Second Amendme nt solution would be to restore the National Guard control tothe states, right?
The Supreme Court disagrees with you. They state that we have the right to have and bear arms, unconnected to military service.
Yep. Just a bunch of activist judges perverting the original meaning of the Constitution.