[billethkid]

Originally Posted by Carl in Tampa

It is interesting to see so many varying opinions regarding firearms ownership. To some extent this probably reflects that TV people come from so many varied areas of the country.

THE FACT IS that if I waved a magic wand at 8AM tomorrow and every firearm in the country disappeared except for those held by police and the military, by 8AM the next day there would be thousands of guns in the hands of criminals. They would get them by assaulting police and taking their guns; by burglarizing the homes of police and taking their guns; or by burglarizing military armories and taking their guns.

There would also become a major industry of smuggling guns into the country. Drug runners would become gun runners.

CRIMINALS WILL HAVE GUNS.

There is only a partial solution to the problem of mass shootings at schools. That solution is DO AWAY WITH "GUN FREE ZONES." It is incredibly stupid to let an unbalanced potential mass killer know in advance where he is least likely to encounter armed resistance.

THE BEST WAY TO STOP A BAD GUY WITH A GUN IS WITH A GOOD GUY WITH A GUN.

(Trust me. I have around 40 years in law enforcement, and have been in multiple gun fights.......always won.)

Thanx Carl. That should provide some food for thought for those who in fact are seeking the magic wand!!

[Loudoll]

Originally Posted by Sandtrap328

Look at the murder rate by handgun in countries where ownership of handguns is prohibited. They are much lower than here in the US.

However, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that private ownership of handguns is guaranteed by the Constitution, so it is law of the land.

Even we, who do not believe it is right, must respect that right.

Likewise, others who do not believe other Supreme Court decisions, have to respect those decisions also - same sex marriage, ACA, etc.

Which countries do not allow ownership of handguns?

[Loudoll]

I think removing all traces of God, prayer and the ten commandments from public buildings (including schools) prepared the way for the mass shooting trend and our down-hill slide. The tide has turned to where the religious are considered nut-cases, ignorant, superstitious and worse.

[billethkid]

Originally Posted by Loudoll

I think removing all traces of God, prayer and the ten commandments from public buildings (including schools) prepared the way for the mass shooting trend and our down-hill slide. The tide has turned to where the religious are considered nut-cases, ignorant, superstitious and worse.

And the saddest part of the whole continuous downsliding is:

those of us that still have and believe in the core values, religion and respect for others....ARE THE MAJORITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Jimturner]

Originally Posted by Loudoll

I think removing all traces of God, prayer and the ten commandments from public buildings (including schools) prepared the way for the mass shooting trend and our down-hill slide. The tide has turned to where the religious are considered nut-cases, ignorant, superstitious and worse.

That means the constitution is working. Public indicates a place meant for all Americas citizens and MUST not show favoritism to any single religion. You can't believe in the U.S. Constitution and also a one religion society. The Middle East operates that way. HELLO!

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Originally Posted by rosygail

Guns should be at least as regulated as autos.
Registered, licensed with every two year renewal , Liability insurance,
plus if you have any previous crimes (not just felonies) NO GUN for you!
The penalties for violation of the above should be draconian!
Jail time manditory!
Commit a crime with a gun and it's life in prison!
This will stop the average criminal cold.

Ever heard of car accidents where one of the cars was unregistered and uninsured?

Ever heard of crimes being committed and getaways being made in stolen cars?

I would guess that most crimes committed involving cars are done with stolen or unregistered, uninsured cars.

Is the solution to make it more difficult for good, responsible, law abiding people to get proper registration and insurance?

Maybe it's time we thought about banning or limiting cars. Less cars on the roads would mean fewer deaths. It's perfect logic.

There are over two and a half times as many alcohol related deaths in this country every year. Do we blame the alcohol for this?

Should we start a process where we would have to register to buy alcohol? Should every adult over the age of 21 be required to carry alcohol liability insurance? Should we create more laws that make it more difficult for good, responsible, law abiding people to get alcohol?

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Originally Posted by cologal

Here in the United States we have the right of Free Speech and also to own a gun. That being said even Free Speech has been regulated example, You can't stand up in a Movie Theater yelling Fire.

Allowing people with mental health issues to own a gun, to me, is the same as allow someone to yell Fire in a crowded room. Bad things are bound to happen.

I haven't heard the statement from the NRA yet but some of their usual statements cannot be used.

1. This school was NOT a "gun free zone". There was an armed guard on the grounds. And there were student packing on campus....legal in Oregon.

2. A good guy with a gun could have stopped a bad gun with a gun. Nope one student with a gun decided not to engage the bad guy for fear of being caught in a crossfire.

I do favor background checks which include the mental health history of the purchaser.

I don't think that most people disagree with background checks. Do we not have laws on the books that prevent people with mental health issues from legally buying guns? Are new laws required to prevent this?

I, and I think that many people who believe in the right to bear arms, have no problem with doing something about gun show sales. But I think that this could be handled by enforcing current laws without creating new ones.

If there was an armed person in that room, IMHO, for him not to return fire was irresponsible. Yes, there was a chance that someone could have been hit by cross fire, but by doing nothing, it was guaranteed that the shooter would kill more people. In situation like that nothing is guaranteed if action is taken, but the possibly exists of stopping the shooter and preventing more deaths and injuries. The outcome however, is guaranteed if no action is taken there is no possibility of stopping the shooter.

Good guys with guns did finally stop the shooter. The bad guy eventually took his own life, but only after a shoot out with police. Had the police not arrived (with guns) who knows how many more people would have died.

[Taltarzac725]

Hillary's 'Gun Show Loophole' Proposal Is A Joke

This is interesting.

[Walter123]

From the news today.....

St. Petersburg, Florida — Is it a sign of the wild, wild West, or your constitutional right?

Today, a Florida House committee approved a bill to allow open carry in the Sunshine State.

So it passed the first round.

Florida is one of only five states and the District of Columbia that don't allow any type of open carry. That could change.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by Walter123

From the news today.....

St. Petersburg, Florida — Is it a sign of the wild, wild West, or your constitutional right?

Today, a Florida House committee approved a bill to allow open carry in the Sunshine State.

So it passed the first round.

Florida is one of only five states and the District of Columbia that don't allow any type of open carry. That could change.

Map: Where Is

You would have figured Florida and South Carolina would have had this a long time ago.

[TNLAKEPANDA]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Hillary's 'Gun Show Loophole' Proposal Is A Joke

This is interesting.

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

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by Jimturner

That means the constitution is working. Public indicates a place meant for all Americas citizens and MUST not show favoritism to any single religion. You can't believe in the U.S. Constitution and also a one religion society. The Middle East operates that way. HELLO!

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.

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by TNLAKEPANDA

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

Another reason not to vote for that idiot.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by MDLNB

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.

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.

[AJ32162]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

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.