ByronLord wrote:
When I lived in Europe we had US gun nuts telling us how they thought we should live in our country, I am merely returning the favor. And I use the term with accuracy, one of those Internet gun nuts was a man called Timothy McVeigh. He murdered almost 200 people.
If you are accusing someone of abusing their first amendment rights then surely you have some specifics?
The history of the second amendment is hardly a glorious one. It had absolutely nothing to do with freedom. Do you know what a STATE Militia was or why the state of Virginia insisted on maintaining them as a condition of ratifying the constitution.
The state militias were slave patrols that were necessary to put down slave rebellions. Without the police state there could be no slavery.
The purpose of the second amendment was to preserve slavery, not liberty.
it also applys to the individual gunowner. The supreme court decided that thanks to republicans and the NRA [the rest isn't to you Byron just me ranting]
but I agree with it, it is the individuals right to decide whether they wish to own something.
I have no desire for a hair dryer as a man therefore I do not own one. if I buy a gun one day that's my choice and my reasons will be my own. it's an object like any tv. if you want one buy one. and with 300million+ weapons how is banning new weapons gonna do anything?
Connecticut already had an assault weapons ban. lotta good that did.
because the fact is: laws don't stop people from breaking the law
I don't understand why "military style weapons" are getting such a bad wrap and I'm a liberal myself, the military wouldn't waste money on semi automatic 223. When they could buy NATO 5.62 automatics, which is exactly what they do. These aren't "assault" or military weapons. they're civilian weapons with weaker rounds and slower fire rates. Any bullet will kill you so unless theres some idea on removing 100% of firearms from civilians it won't solve anything. a guy gets shot in his car being robbed with a pistol and no one cares that it happens everyday, you have a few media covered "mass" shootings and now the scary black guns that are a little faster than the non black guns are bad. That's racism, and now they're trying to tax violent videogames which is unconstitutional already because it violates the first amendment. A speaker on CNN stated she was appaled by the content her grandkids were exposed to on "call to duty"
1- if you can't say the title of something correctly (like call of duty) you shouldn't be speaking about it
2 if minors are being exposed to m rated games that's your fault grandma, take it away and be a parent.
a father complained after about his 8 yearold son logging into violent games online. well! Your his dad stop him. The game shouldn't be blamed. At what point is it the parents role to be oh i don't know RESPONSIBLE? Maybe you should teach him to play chess or dust off monopoly. spend time with the kid. don't get mad at the games you pay for and allow him to play. that's your fault mr father of the year.
I'd rather have drunk driving become a felony.
Gets the real dangers off the streets. Once someone gets the killing bug in em no written law can stop them. Or else there'd be no murder in america and I'd have a lolipop tree in my backyard putting willywonka outta business and then obesity would dissapear. Making a gun illegal isn't gonna stop the guy who's decided he's going to do something illegal lmao. Anyone who thinks it will is as delusional as the people shooting kids. It's common sense so for once I have to side with the right, but its expected, they can be wrong most of the time sure but nit all the time.