One more reason why not to vote for a career politician in 2016.

Wrong! There is NOTHING in the constitution that states that there will be NO religion in the government. The Royalty of the UK controlled/controls the state religion in their country and the founding fathers did not want that to happen here. They were still believers. They just didn't want the same thing to happen here as in the UK with one special religion. Belief and Faith are not the same as organized religion. Religion is a discipline that incorporates belief and faith, but you can have a belief and faith without religion. There is nothing in the constitution that says you cannot have Christian faith in the government. And being a Christian is NOT a religion, it's a belief and faith. The founding fathers did not want the government to have control of religion. There is nothing saying faith cannot control how the government is run. Freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. If the founders wanted to ban religion then they certainly wouldn't have plastered the ten commandments and Biblical verses all over every government building, memorial and shrine in the country.

You are free NOT to have a faith or belief in God, but you in your minority(not focusing on any individual here) cannot make demands that the majority abandon our beliefs. The majority dictates the NORM, not the minority. No one wishes to hurt anyone in our country, and showing our faith certainly does NOT hurt anyone. Putting restrictions on public display of our faith is violating the first Amendment. Displaying our faith on public property is not violating any Amendment, including the first Amendment. Just because the minority of non-believers is louder than the majority does not make them right. We are a country where the majority of the population base their belief on Judaeo-Christian doctrine and principles.

But, this is not a thread on the first Amendment. It is suppose to be related to the second Amendment. The second Amendment was meant to protect us from tyranny and government violations of our constitutional rights, one of which is the first Amendment. Liberals would like to take away the first amendment, but they are afraid of repercussions involving the 2nd Amendment. So, they are concentrating on destroying the 2nd Amendment.

Another reason not to vote for that idiot.

How is trying to create laws so that fewer mentally ill people have access to FEWER guns threaten the 2nd Amendment? There are already a huge number of guns in the hands of many in the US. No one seems to want to confiscate them. Common sense solutions to the problem of gun violence should not go down to absolutest positions taken by hard liners in either the Republican or the Democratic parties.

Many of those on the left SAY that they don't want to ban or confiscate firearms only because they know that it will never happen. However, if it were feasible, liberals would support a ban or confiscation in droves.

I am certain that is only in your imagination, but I will bite. Where did you come up with that information. LOL

Since I did not quote a source, most people would assume that it is my opinion, don't you think? Or am I not allowed to have one?

Because it would be VERY convenient to have special laws pertaining to limiting gun ownership by mental stability. Very Convenient. Who dictates who might be mentally ill? Say 50-70% of gun related deaths are by suicide. Do you think that someone that might be depressed such as a doctor, lawyer or police officer is going to show warning signs? Guess what, they are in the top death by suicide category. If they had shown signs, then they would have been treated. Wouldn't it be nice and convenient IF we had someone like the IRS that deemed conservatives unfit to handle fire arms?

There's no test to determine the mental stability of one that wishes to own a firearm. You are talking of thousands of dollars just for a decent back ground check. Check on the cost of a security clearance background investigation, and they are NOT without flaw.

You are still avoiding the best of partial solutions. The solution I gave in an earlier post would reduce the amount of deaths. There is nothing that will eliminate all firearm deaths.

Less gun free zones
More concealed carry by certified safe owners
Stricter penalties for gun related crime
Death penalty for use of guns in crime

We already have background checks
We already have safety training available in almost every state.
We already have mandatory background checks at gun shows for all dealer sales
Reducing the amount of guns does not reduce crime or suicide
Automatic weapons are illegal unless Fed permit obtained
Automatic weapons are not being used for mass murders
Type of gun does not reduce crime
Etc, etc, etc.

One example would be a comment by Obama:

"I don't believe people should be able to own guns," Obama told John Lott one day at the University of Chicago Law School.

In 1996, Obama supported a ban on handguns
In 1998, he supported a ban on the sale of all semi-automatic guns
In 2004, he advocated banning gun sales within five miles of a school or park, which would have shut down nearly all gun stores

I consider Obama a liberal. Some consider him to be a socialist also, but that is not the question, right?

Politicians and normal people refuse to accept that you cannot legislate morals.

:thumbup:

There is some very interesting reads in this thread. Further thoughts on my part are these.

You still need to look at the facts:
1) In most of the case there was some one or multiple someone's that knew the shooter had a mental problem. Yet they did nothing or actually enabled the shooter to obtain a weapon. This fact does not point to new laws but to more education and involvement by the people that know the potential shooter. Some one needs to intervene or inform law enforcement. In one case it did show that current background check system needs to be fixed as they missed the red flag. The system needs to be fixed so that the data is consistent and universally available. Background checks are already the law of the land its just that the current system is not very well implemented. I personally do not have a problem with closing the Gun Show Loop Hole. All sales should have a background check and I own guns.

2) Its time to do away with the gun free zones. They do not prevent shootings. That's not to say I want every one to carry a gun without proper training. I believe everyone has the right to protect themselves in their home, in their car, and while in public. They have a constitutional right to use a gun for that protection, and they have a right to use what ever is the current standard of weapon used in the general population. This is not my opinion but the opinion of the Supreme Court. The local governments have the right to set the standards of safety for being able to carry that weapon in public. Again not my opinion but the opinion of the court. Hence the training required to get a concealed Weapons Permit. Now obviously you cannot have grade school students or high school students carrying weapons. But you can arm teachers if they care to take the challenge on and you can provide security guards.

3) It's more then a mental health issue. It's a decay of moral fiber issue. Do you really believe that the violence displayed on TV, Video Games, In Music, lack of parental supervision, the war on religious beliefs, sexual perversion, and the desecration of life before birth does not have a negative effect on society? When you no longer believe you are accountable to a higher power, or you see corruption in society go unanswered will have a positive effect on society? Really?

The answer to this is not in legislation, the answer is with in ourselves, our attitudes toward each other. In the next election take a good hard look at all these candidates and pick the one you believe will have the morality to help this nation not the political connection. Because we need leaders today not political operatives. We need to quit yelling at each other your making my ears hurt.

I'd take it one step farther. Just like Switzerland guns would become a requirement on their handling and use taught in the schools, Oh what was that thud, I thing I just heard a liberal faint and hit the floor. People fear what they do not understand.

I wish this forum had a LIKE button or Thumbs Up & Down!

I believe the Swiss Army carries only knives.

Switzerland
 

In Switzerland, ammunition cannot be kept at home. It must stay at the shooting range or barracks. Every Swiss male between 18-30 years old has to do three months' military training, and take many more regular refresher courses. The majority of guns are army-issued.
Concealed pistol permits are nearly impossible to come by.
Last year a vote was held on whether the country should end the practice of keeping army-issue firearms at home and tighten over private gun ownership restrictions. While the plans were rejected by 57% of voters, the movement appears to be growing.

I would like to know how many "self-defenses" with a gun (round about 300 million hand guns in private hands) are in the US every year. Does someone know where to look up? Thanks

Are you asking how many times a year has someone defended themselves with a hand gun regardless of the outcome?
Nobody collects that information. It's voluntary and possibly incriminating.
But you know that already.

I come from a place where gun ownership is fairly high and gun violence is fairly low. There, it isn't an argument between liberals and conservatives; most everyone affirms the right to own guns, either for sport, for protection, or both. The difference, as I see it, is that many of my liberal friends just see gun ownership is a basic right where my conservative friends see gun ownership as a protective issue. I'm not sure how many of them own guns purely for personal protection since most of my liberal friends live in urban areas where crime is high most of my conservative friends live in suburban or rural areas where crime is low. Go figure.

I guess I didn't add anything to this discussion but I thought it was important to note that gun ownership isn't just a political issue.

There are thousands of "self-defense" cases, but the exact number is always disputed. Some cases are nothing more than brandishing the weapon, and some are cases of actual shootings. How many cases have we seen on TV where a small child saves the day when a burglar breaks into the home? They get the spot light. Or, the small old fragile woman or old gent that stops a car jacking or robbery? These are what make the news, not the everyday self defense. Most involved individuals do not want the publicity for fear of retaliation.

I wonder how many lives are saved when even just one criminal is put down in self defense. Wouldn't that be an interesting study, if it was possible to predict accurately? Think of the money that is saved the taxpayer every time a scumbag is put down permanently.

I saw some interesting facts on the news this AM

1) all but 2 of the mass shootings in the last 10 years were in gun free zones
2) The Charleston shooter originally wanted to go to the local university, but switched to the church when he realized there were armed guards at the school (this is from info on his home computer)
3) The Aurora shooter originally wanted to go to the Denver airport, but again realized they had armed guards (also from his computer)
4) There were 7 movie theaters within a 20 minute drive of his home, and only one had a sign out front stating it is a gun free zone----guess which one?
5) Non-partisan experts all agree that there is no gun control law that will be effective against criminals and maniacs
6) So, if our president is always the smartest person in the room, WHY DOESN'T HE GET IT???????

Vermont doesn't have any gun laws what-so-ever except for federal laws. There is very little crime and even less crime involving guns. The rest of the country should wake the hell up.

Vermont has demographics that would suggest a lower crime rate than the US on average. It would probably not be valid to suggest a causal relationship between the lack of Vermont specific gun laws and the crime rate (I assume that is what you are suggesting?). I suppose there could be a relationship between the low crime rate and subsequent lack of need for state specific gun laws.

Gun laws are fine and concealed carry is fine but here in Florida there seems to be a disconnect after someone - who is legally carrying - does some shooting.

As far as I know, the retired police captain who killed a young father in a movie theater in Wesley Chapel - a short distance from The Villages - has not yet had a trial and is free on bond.

Also, as far as I know, the man whose motorcycle was tapped by a car and he fired several shots into the occupied car - is still free on bond and not yet been tried.

Both of these incidents happened many, many months ago.

So I wanted to do a little research on the second amendment, when it was written and what life was like back than including the firearms. I found out the most sophisticated gun was a repeating air rifle. It could hold 40 balls, was rifled and could put a 1 inch hole in a 1 inch piece of pine a hundred yards away. Shortly after the second amendment was written Lewis an Clark had 1 of these rifles on their expedition. It is believed that the Indians did not wipe them out because they weren't sure how many of these rifles the party was carrying.

I guess manners will improve if you learn that acting up could cost you your life. There are always extremes in any type of situation. An airlines pilot crashed a plane full of passengers into a mountain. Therefore, we should think about banning air travel.

Yeah.......that's what I'm suggesting.

In light of the facts in post #300, especially regarding gun free zones, as well as a response to GQ's uncalled for vile attack on Ben Carson, might I suggest the following sign at colleges:

"This is a gun saturation zone. All students, teachers, and administrators are required to have a CWP and carry at all times. Gun toting maniacs are welcome, at their own risk. Please get your affairs in order first"

What differences in demographics are you talking about? Just curious.

Some see a young father; some see a 6'+ inconsiderate hothead bully trying to intimidate a senior citizen. "Tapping" a moving motorcycle with a 4000# vehicle could be considered attempted murder. Just sayin'.

I really enjoyed that YouTube. Thanks for posting it.

And in parenthesis at the bottom:

(due to the high price of ammunition we no longer fire warning shots)

LOL. Look it up yourself. It will become immediately obvious.

If you enjoyed that you may also enjoy Ken Burn's documentary on Lewis and Clark. I watched it twice and it's easy to find on youtube. How they made it over and back is just a little short of a miracle. Burn's pointed out that even when the astronauts went to the moon they were in communication with others.

So much for gun laws
 

Do you really think we need more gun laws??? :1rotfl:

hat image needs repeating and repeating and then again.

gun-crime-jpg

can't get the image to repeat :swear:

The claim that the USA is third highest in murders in the world, etc, is FALSE.

Type it into Snopes.com for the full story and information.

It also explains the falsehood of the claim that without Chicago, DC, and Detroit murder rates that the USA would be fourth from the bottom of the list.

send the link please