Comments on: A new manifesto: "Lack of Common Sense"
Add a Comment
- As usual, those that are the least informed are the most opinionated on this subject.
- Reply to this comment
- Assault rifles have only one purpose; shooting people. They should be restricted to military or SWAT team use only; issued by the military or whoever is in charge of the SWAT team. If common sense ruled all other assault rifles would be confiscated and destroyed or turned over to the military or SWAT.
Keep your hunting/non-automatic rifles and shotguns. No one wants to take them away from you. I can't say it any plainer than that.
CCW laws are foolish, as in the right-to-carry. As far as I'm concerned, like corporations, the NRA has become a veritable fountain of bad ideas in the drive to unlimited power. Since you object to government oversight, it seems to me mandatory right-to-carry insurance before purchase of a gun or bullets could be an answer.
The fact is, unless you're a trained policeman, I don't want you near me or my family while you're carrying a gun. I have no reason to trust you and if you think I would be grateful if you pulled out the gun and started shooting, you're wrong. I don't know if the nation has too many Walter Mittys or whether you think you too can be John Wayne but I'm going to point out that even John Wayne was not John Wayne. John Wayne was a Hollywood invention, a PR dream. - Reply to this comment
- The discussion around the 2nd Amendment should focus on what freedoms we give up to prevent mass killings.
Certainly, no private citizen is allowed to own or develop thermonuclear devices, regardless of their being arms ofa sort. The risk is too high, 2nd Amendment not withstanding.
So the question is how much fire power is allowed/should be allowed jsut to any citizen versus a "well regulated militia" versus the State and or Fed govt proper? Anough to kill 100 at a siting? 1000?
Clearly, to me that is too much freedom...for any nutcase citizen to terrorize any city. Perhaps a pistol or two is all the fire power that ought to be afforded without rigorous checks and balances. We certainly give up freedoms for airline travel at present.
The @nd Amendment needs clarified and limits (i.e. enfringement). No way that the founders envisioned the change in power of weaponry over time. - Reply to this comment
- The writers who posted about the futility of drug bans, alcohol, etc. make a great point. Gun control is equally silly, and serves only to keep law abiding citizens from protecting themselves. Has Colorado law not banned firearms in that theatre, then possibly someone who was properly trained could have returned fire and minimized the mayhem.
I still think we should build on Obamacare. Get everyone to go through mental health screening periodically - fully paid for by the government so no one can argue. But if someone does, they get penalized (make that "taxed").
If they pass the mental health exam, then a la Obamacare, they must purchase, train to use, demonstrate proficiency in, and carry a firearm wherever they go. And get re-tested, retrained, etc. on a periodic basis (Wow - talk about a jobs creator).
SO the nuts are culled out, and the sane, rational people can protect themselves. Well, either that, or we hire about 10 million new police officers and have them standing everywhere so that the police response time goes from minutes (one and a half in the case of the Colorado shooting) to just a couple of seconds. - Reply to this comment
- Next time you're in a crowd, think about this...
Would you feel safer if you were armed to protect yourself?
Then ask this...
Would you feel safe if the strangers around you were armed? - Reply to this comment
- Unfortunately, a poor education system, dual income households, etc. have left generations unable to detect real life from the movies.
Untrained and undisciplined citizens carrying more firearms is not the solution to this problem. Average Joe is not going to take out a guy with body armor and assault weapons, in a dark theater with hundreds of screaming people in a panic. - Reply to this comment
- No form of gun control will keep someone from getting a gun if they want it bad enough. It hasn't worked for drugs. What makes you think it will work for anything else. Common sense would say "Do not disarm law abiding citizens.
- Reply to this comment
- I think that it's HYSTERICAL how so many conservatives who hate the *liberal* media never miss a day of watching the news.
- Reply to this comment
- THIS is the second amendment!
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
IT IS TALKING ABOUT A MILITIA! NOT every citizen willy-nilly today!
It was meant to refer to any further tries by the Brits to take back their colonies! It is completely out of date and has NOTHING to do with every Tom, Dick & Harry walking around packing!
Want a gun - join the Army! - Reply to this comment
- I agree, Bob. Unfortunately, the NRA ("No Rational Answer) is the almighty dictator in this country. At least we should have a ban on assault weapons. This wacko could have shot a lot more people, except that his semi-automatic jammed up and he had to use a handgun.
- Reply to this comment
