jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (31 posts)

Gun Control

  1. Sychophantastic profile image82
    Sychophantasticposted 5 months ago

    So, here's my rant. Since there appears to be no line on gun control, I advocate for complete freedom of gun ownership. After all, I should be able to exercise my constitutional right to protect myself wherever and whenever I want.

    This needs to start now! And I want it to start in two places:

    1. Airplanes and Airports. It is a violation of my second amendment right to not allow me to protect myself against criminals on airplanes. If everyone was able to carry a gun and there was a terrorist attack aboard an airplane, armed people would be able to stop it. Furthermore, allowing weapons aboard airplanes would make the TSA completely unnecessary and would eliminate all those long lines we have to wait in to board flights. Once again, it is my constitutional right to arm myself wherever and whenever I want, including aboard an airplane.

    2. Second, I should be able to arm myself and enter any government building I want, especially Congress and the White House. If those buildings are owned by the taxpayers and are beholden to the Constitution, then allowing its citizens to exercise their second amendment rights is critical. Congress especially. If they truly believe in gun ownership by everyone, then they should be the first to make their chamber a place where gun ownership and gun possession is welcome.

    1. PrettyPanther profile image85
      PrettyPantherposted 5 months ago in reply to this

      I suggested something similar in another thread. Crickets.

      http://hubpages.com/politics/forum/1367 … ost2820918

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 5 months ago in reply to this

      You obviously haven't bothered to educate yourself on the hundreds (thousands?) of laws concerning control of guns.  You might want to do that before starting ridiculous rants.

      1. Sychophantastic profile image82
        Sychophantasticposted 5 months ago in reply to this

        Yes, and they're working wonderfully well. I guess I just don't see why my right to carry a gun should be restricted anywhere, particularly government owned buildings.

        1. Live to Learn profile image81
          Live to Learnposted 5 months ago in reply to this

          You not understanding something simple isn't really reason to allow you to bypass reasonable laws. Actually, your inability to understand is ample reason to not allow you to.

          1. Sychophantastic profile image82
            Sychophantasticposted 5 months ago in reply to this

            If somebody on the terrorist watch list is allowed to buy a gun, i should be able to carry one to protect myself in any space.

            1. Sychophantastic profile image82
              Sychophantasticposted 5 months ago in reply to this

              And please define "reasonable gun control" law.

            2. Live to Learn profile image81
              Live to Learnposted 5 months ago in reply to this

              Really? What do you propose to do? Carry it with you at all times? Point it at everyone you think might be a terrorist?

            3. mrpopo profile image89
              mrpopoposted 5 months ago in reply to this

              ? I don't think the right to do X in any space is contingent on whether a person on the terrorist watch list is allowed to do X at all.

          2. PrettyPanther profile image85
            PrettyPantherposted 5 months ago in reply to this

            Whoa, there. Almost eighty percent of US citizens support keeping AR-15s and similar type weapons out of the hands of those on the no-fly list, for example. This common sense regulation was not even brought up for a vote by our legislators.

            If they fear allowing guns in the congressional chamber, why are they avoiding legislation that could keep them out of the hands of terrorists? That is a legitimate question.

            1. Live to Learn profile image81
              Live to Learnposted 5 months ago in reply to this

              Our right to gun ownership does not give us the right to carry our weapons everywhere we choose to. Nor do I think laws prohibiting the carry of fire arms into crowded airport terminals or government buildings is  unreasonable. I was addressing his comments. Not yours.

              1. Sychophantastic profile image82
                Sychophantasticposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                Why not? Why shouldn't I be able to defend myself wherever I am?

                1. promisem profile image94
                  promisemposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                  Do you need an assault rifle to defend yourself?

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                    What does "need" have to do with "rights"?  One is perceived differently by everyone, the other guaranteed constitutionally.

                2. Live to Learn profile image81
                  Live to Learnposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                  Primarily because you're a little scary.

    3. Castlepaloma profile image23
      Castlepalomaposted 5 months ago in reply to this

      Sychophant

      Yes!!! give guns to everyone on the plane. A brown person be sitting next to you. Remember guns don't kill people, just maybe an odd bullets may accidently shoot off loose and explode the plane. It was the bullets fault, nobody is to blame.

      NRA gives fairytales to children on having guns given to them. So they can shoot their pervert child molester.

      Have every child given a gun so they can store in their desk at school. Or at their church because pastors are worst of them all.

      Most importantly of all, everyone should have a gun, the dollar could collaspe tomorrow. Then many bullies will steal all of your stuff , you must protect your stuff with your very own life.

    4. promisem profile image94
      promisemposted 5 months ago in reply to this

      All rights are limited when they start to conflict with other rights, such as the right to life.

      Gun ownership is a private property right. Once a gun goes onto public property, the limits increase because of the potential to conflict with other rights.

  2. ahorseback profile image52
    ahorsebackposted 5 months ago

    A lot of liberals would  like us all to believe that the constitution is flexible , it aint' !   Pure and simple , if  by some stretch of liberal imagination  , they decide to alter constitutional law in it's  actual , original wording with the implied  next generation of  political "leadership " . Watch what happens.    This country , in all of it's experience in wars and there is much to chose from for example ,  The third world war begins and it will be like no revolution , no civil war or no police action   that you have or will ever see in your lifetime !

    1. Sychophantastic profile image82
      Sychophantasticposted 5 months ago in reply to this

      Sad you don't know what you're talking about. The 2nd amendment does not even refer to personal gun ownership. It refers to gun ownership as part of a militia. And the guns it refers to were muskets. So, if you're reading it literally and don't want to be flexible...

      1. ahorseback profile image52
        ahorsebackposted 5 months ago in reply to this

        Go back and read it again ----then read each states constitution !  The states  constitutions pre-date and trump the feds constitution as always !   Better go back to school Bud!

        1. Sychophantastic profile image82
          Sychophantasticposted 5 months ago in reply to this

          Um, no.

        2. Sychophantastic profile image82
          Sychophantasticposted 5 months ago in reply to this

          Let me get this straight, you're saying that the state constitutions were written before the Constitution and that states rights trump the federal constitution? I got that right? Dude, I'm not the one who needs to go to school. Let me guess, you were educated in Texas?

          1. ahorseback profile image52
            ahorsebackposted 5 months ago in reply to this

            Read the tenth Amendment  of the constitution ,  .........."federal powers only reflect the states powers "......   Why do you think that each state has differing gun laws  ?   Why do you think  each state allows differing levels of liberties in ANY of the constitutional bill of rights ?   In the  state where I live , the state and the federal   constitution  state .........."the right of the people shall not be infringed "......

            Furthermore  the simplicity of the English language allows that the twenty seven words [27 ] of the second amendment are the simplest form of English available ,    And that every time the second amendment has come before the Supreme Courts , the  power and simplicity of the language  of the Second amendment  remains unscathed !      Get used to it !

      2. Castlepaloma profile image23
        Castlepalomaposted 5 months ago in reply to this

        When they made the right to bare arms. These muskets and balls would take too long to load and not accurate to fire.

        We must find more efficient ways of killing each other. Most of all our ourselves since a gun kill has 3 times greater chance of killing self than killing all other people combined. Suicide kills more than people in war, murder and terrorist combined.

        I think all of you people are doing a great patriot service to new world order. Go one step further, get nuclear bomb kits and a bebe gun for your kids on Christmas.

        I don't really support this message, yet each to their own. Me being a lover, I'll be in Peru growing food,not fighting over it. May the biggest baddest and saddest bully win.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 5 months ago in reply to this

          Until the world social structure collapses and the bullies come for your garden (and kids and wife).  Will you still want the biggest, baddest bully to win then?

          1. Castlepaloma profile image23
            Castlepalomaposted 5 months ago in reply to this

            I'm very good at hand to hand or hand to paw combat. Yet no match to many marksman snipers. Badass win.

            Trying best to haul my family to Peru. It will not be my fault if they want to commit suicide.

  3. ahorseback profile image52
    ahorsebackposted 5 months ago

    Bottom line , The effectiveness of any weapon  available for the defense of  the people , should be just as good as the government that can oppress those same people  !  That should have been stated in the second amendment  though  it IS implied by the legal  meaning of the second amendment !

    Anti- constitutionalists should get used to that !

    1. PrettyPanther profile image85
      PrettyPantherposted 5 months ago in reply to this

      Really?  "The people" should have tanks, bombs, and killer drones?  And that's just the beginning of what the government has at their disposal.

      1. ahorseback profile image52
        ahorsebackposted 5 months ago in reply to this

        Ah , you bit !    my point is  , all of you liberals anti-s  assume that the  second amendment was written over two hundred years ago  - so that we should only be allowed muskets  ?      Something for you to think about , why shouldn't I have a drone  , an automatic machine gun ,   a couple of grenades ?

        If that is the equivalent weapon of the oppressors , invaders  or weapon of choice of a home invasion ?

        Why shouldn't I have the equal to what my government has , and who says I cannot ?

        1. PrettyPanther profile image85
          PrettyPantherposted 5 months ago in reply to this

          Well, hell, why shouldn't you? If you can, then so can people on the no fly list. Hell yeah!

          roll

  4. Castlepaloma profile image23
    Castlepalomaposted 5 months ago

    Hell HEY!!!

    SO LETS HAVE A. CIVIL WAR BOOM BOOM !!! SORRY Yabout that. BAMMM. EBH EH BOOM
    OH SORRY

 
working