dfnj
Well-Known Member
That was special.
So is what happened in Florida.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
That was special.
I recommend giving that post some thought.So is what happened in Florida.
And mortars. I always wanted to go deer hunting with a mortar.
I disagree. A constitution is a foundation for a country. The framers of the Constitution for the US knew what they were doing and placed in essential safeguards that cannot be messed around with.
I recommend giving that post some thought.
There's still time to edit it.
And I can delete my response.
Except for those who've criticized and even harassed survivors for speaking out against gun culture ("How dare they question the sacred gun! So what if they've just witnessed the murder of their class mates?"), some even go as far to accuse them of being "crisis actors", claiming that the whole thing is a "false flag" hoax and a conspiracy to disarm the citizenry.
Then you misunderstand us.Listening to all the atheists promote the second amendment like it was a Bible is hypocritical.
I think that ship has already sailed.But I will edit my post because I'm not a #(*(#)@@*)#$ like some people.
Most of them supported Bush and Trump, so we can toss that notion into the garbage.We assume that the second amendment is the holy grail of anti government corruption?
Lol, ty I guess.At least you have some balls to say what you think.
We all know lobbyists coerce politicians to pass laws creating cartels and monopolies in exchange for campaign financing. This is why gun legislation always mentions gun models. It's PURE BS!!!
If you want to regulate guns, you need to do it based on intelligent thought. Guns should be regulated by the following:
1. Bullet caliber size
2. Possible rounds that can be fired per minute
3. Magazine size
4. Muzzle velocity
5. Range
I'm sure there are others. But once you have regulations, it has nothing to do with manufacturers or gun type or model.
If you think fully automatic weapons should be legal you are one sick individual. For hunting or personal protection there's no reason to have automatic weapons. There's no reason to turn a deer into hamburger when hunting. All you need is 1 or 2 rounds to scare off a home intruder. There's no reason to cannon handguns. There's no reason to have machine guns. There's no reason to have rifles capable of shooting 30 rounds per minute by pulling the trigger really fast. This is insanity.
These numbers are sick:
Mass Shooting Tracker
If Democrats and Liberals are to blame for killing babies by abortion then who do we blame for mass shootings like the one in Florida?
Except for those who've criticized and even harassed survivors for speaking out against gun culture ("How dare they question the sacred gun! So what if they've just witnessed the murder of their class mates?"), some even go as far to accuse them of being "crisis actors", claiming that the whole thing is a "false flag" hoax and a conspiracy to disarm the citizenry.
Then you misunderstand us.
The 2nd Amendment, like the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc, are not scripture.
But they're the legal foundation for the country.
Any solutions we come up with had better be constitutional.
Your only other option is to try to repeal it by amendment (or constitutional convention).
I'm not willing to wait until that unlikely option.
Surprisingly, there are some over the top views & imprecations hurled at us pro-gunners.Some make of the second amendment to be irrevocably perfect that I'm drawing attention similar to a disposition of a theist to his Bible. They stop addressing the real world occurrences and data, only to defend their position with interpretations of an old parchment.
So you are saying you do not care about the constitution? We should just discard it and do whatever is popular at the time...I know what it is.
Some make of the second amendment to be irrevocably perfect that I'm drawing attention similar to a disposition of a theist to his Bible. They stop addressing the real world occurrences and data, only to defend their position with interpretations of an old parchment.
I would be delighted if more would share their thoughts regarding the question in the OP.
Ok so are we gonna talk about possible solutions or ?
I don't care about who said what.
I'm a 2nd amendment supporter. So let's talk solutions.
How would you feel about the following?
Here is an example of a regulation that could provide an effective compromise. If individuals want to own semi-automatic assault weapons, either as collectors or for practice shooting, then enforce a provision that such weapons can only be kept at legally registered shooting ranges or other registered depositories, and cannot be removed from the designated premises.
Similarly, if individuals want to use unusual high-powered weapons for hunting, and if such weapons are deemed to be acceptable for hunting purposes, then require that the hunters collect their weapons from a registered hunting depot and redeposit them after hunting, with the guns and ammunition properly accounted for. Or if gun enthusiasts want to visit gun shows, then fine, but purchases of regulated weapons would have to be delivered to designated sites, such as shooting ranges or hunting depots.
Gun ownership at home would be protected, according to the protections recognized in Heller. Gun ownership more broadly would also be protected, for hunting and sports shooting, but subject to protective regulation. We would end the day when a madman could lawfully own and keep powerful assault weapons wherever they like, and then carry them at will to a chosen location to murder those gathered, but still recognize the right of Americans to own, collect and shoot their weapons for lawful purposes.
Sachs: A modest proposal on guns (Opinion) - CNN
For those who support the 2nd Amendment, do you consider the ban on full autos and rocket launchers a violation of the 2nd amendment, or do you consider it a reasonable restriction (I assume most do)?
If so, then what criteria do you believe should be used to separate what is and isn't acceptable for civilians to own?