- 9,253
- 3,007
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2005
No I do agree laws should be changed...if they're flawed. You can look up my criticism of the ACA as proof. What exactly is flawed about the 2nd amendment that you think it should be altered?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
but you are the one to want to compromise on your constitutional RIGHTS. Yeah , you are a genius.Do you really believe that once a law is written it's infallible and should never be altered?
You can't possibly be that shortsighted.
Being in favor of 2nd amendment rights doesn't mean that you're not allowed to criticize their flaws or acknowledge that changes should be made. As a matter of fact, an amendment by definition is a change to a law or in this case a constitution.
Thank you for this hackneyed gem, but your words have no value to me.
Shut up.
Hahah so funny.. corn balls haha dudes still do t know what happened but the only way he coulda done it is throwing it n his coat haha what an asanine thought they he coulda planned this however he wanted...
Yall r too much. First we makin things up out the blue bow we laughing at all scenarios we dont think r plausuble.
For the 13th time it didnt hafta be over night jus an hr or even half hr before they got there... say there shift was at 11... dude goes n the a.m. plants some shells and the gun n there in one of them snowboard bags.
I think its less plausible someoen walked by thousands of ppl with the shotty n his jacket/jeans. We talkin bout zumies... i cant even fit my note 2 n some of those skinnies. Tuckin a shotty seems easy but again jus take a 3 ft stick. Say he had a short barrel n pistol grip) he had to load it n the parking lot... walk by all those ppl without seeming suspicious... then enter the mall walking by hundreds more and then walk by the victims themselves only to hop out bangin? Again to me this isnt plausuble... at all
No I do agree laws should be changed...if they're flawed. You can look up my criticism of the ACA as proof. What exactly is flawed about the 2nd amendment that you think it should be altered?
I don't know.
Personally I believe that there should be more thorough screening processes, but I don't have any solid answers where that is concerned.
What I do know is that there is a problem with gun violence in this country and it won't improve itself without some sort of change.
and they even know it. Lol ... People that Burch about tougher laws but doubt know what kind.In confused and what a tougher screening process provides though?
Most of these crimes are committed with weapons obtained illegally.
Which is EXACTLY what I've been saying, but somehow all the strong-stance 2nd amendment folks feel threatened that they won't have the right to bear arms. NO ONE IS SAYING THAT.
Once you start going the mental health route, it's game over. Anyone with a history of depression could be counted out. Like the rape victim that needed counseling after her attack, she couldnt get a gun. Or the mom who just had a kid and had postpartum depression, she can't get a gun. Or the guy who's girl left him and then he got fired and he has situational depression, he couldn't get a gun.
New laws restrict freedom. Stop trying to take it away.
Perhaps we could start putting chips in guns that would allow only the legal owner to use them.
Like I said, I don't have these answers. Something should be done though.
...Flaw in your plan..using this scenario say guns get chips in them...dude comes shoot up the the mall and first person he kills is the armed security...now no one can pick up this gun and potentially use it to stop the bad person trying to kill innocent people
Go back a couple pages and I said what the issue was with your screening process.
Feel free to refute them if you can.
This is all based on the assumption that a mental health check would be a black and white process with no grey area and goes against the proposed idea of a thorough screening process.
Go back a couple pages and I said what the issue was with your screening process.
Feel free to refute them if you can.
Your "law-abiding citizen" argument?
No it's based on how the military and government agencies rank people on being mentally fit for duty. The examples I gave are all real, and each one of those people would be ineligible to serve in the military or certain government agencies, unless they had some kind of waiver. Which is a whole process in of itself.
The fact that you can't even explain what you want kind of shows how ridiculous the whole premise is. Like I said before people have been getting shot for centuries, that is just one of the prices you pay for freedom. However, if you are scared there are other places you can go.
This is all based on the assumption that a mental health check would be a black and white process with no grey area and goes against the proposed idea of a thorough screening process.
No it's based on how the military and government agencies rank people on being mentally fit for duty. The examples I gave are all real, and each one of those people would be ineligible to serve in the military or certain government agencies, unless they had some kind of waiver. Which is a whole process in of itself.
The fact that you can't even explain what you want kind of shows how ridiculous the whole premise is. Like I said before people have been getting shot for centuries, that is just one of the prices you pay for freedom. However, if you are scared there are other places you can go.
Ahhhh the ole "if you don't like it you can leave" argument.
Now Ninja as left you good, you been really picking up the slack brah.
Because it is the same to work for Government agencies as well. I just gave two examples. So I don't think that it would be to much of a jump to think that similar parameters would be layed out for citizens to get guns.
Not a fan of chips. The implementation would be damn near impossible. There are far too many firearms out there to be able to get a chip in them all. Marrying firearms with a new technology would make them more expensive (I'm assuming) and if the purpose of these chips is to make sure they don't work unless the owner holds it leads me to believe that some kind of central DNA or fingerprint database would exist. Nope.