You meet the nicest people at the gun range...

Humanity has proven time and again to be a disaster, guns or no guns. At least guns made everyone more equal.

 

Get it through your head. The Sandy Hook shooter murdered his mother, so he could get the keys to the gun safe.
Now please, let's get back to telling us what "problem" the Sandy Hook shooting typifies?

 

They were not angry messages; they were messages borne out of frustration. Anyway, I don't own a gun.

 

Right now, it is illegal for people convicted of violent crimes and/or determined to be mentally infirm to buy firearms.
Unless you seek to expand, by law, the classes of people unable to legally buy firearms, you already have what you want.
If you do plan to expand those classes, you need specific parameters - that is, quantification by the state.
So, what, specifically, do you suggest?

 

Ok so no police may have guns. They are violent and train for violence. Same for the military and anyone that studied martial arts. Anyone that challenges how the government operates should be disarmed as well.

How do you like the plan you came up with?

 

I've had people at the range who are irresponsible, even shooting across the roof of the clubhouse. That lot get filtered out pretty quickly and ate generally rare. The rest know that because they're carrying a firearm, they have to get along with other people. They cannot start fights. Typically they have a country background, and so are courteous by nature.

I'm sure the anti gun crowd can be similarly nice.

 

So, you advocate no restrictions?

 

No I point out your absolute absurd unthought out position. Why don't you clarify what violent or behaviors or thoughts are objectionable? Because I'm going to pick you apart, as don't infringe is my mantra. But go ahead and make logical restrictions , as we already have , that don't infringe but still make you safer. We do want you safer , but don't sell out my freedom and liberty to do it or I will object in ways you would like to ban. So let's discuss honest well thought out plans, not your spew of (*)(*)(*)(*) that can't hold up as law.

 

Yes, let's concentrate all the guns in the hands of an elite few who seek power. That's not a recipe for disaster.

 

I don't know the answer, but as long as these mass shootings persist, government will continue to try to find ways to prevent them.

Gun advocates say no additional legislation is necessary, but this same crowd won't lay to rest the Benghazi incident where 4 Americans were killed.

 

Well then what the hell are you doing posting in a debate forum?

 

Can't even back his own proposed legislation. What else do you need done for you? Thinking is too hard you need government to figure it out for you, with a handle like thinkitout? (*)(*)(*)(*) and go back to sucking mommy tit.

 

They say a caffeinated society is a polite society. Some of the nicest, most polite people I know I've come to know through my involvement in drinking coffee and eating donuts. I used to stand in line every Thursday morning at my local donut shop to get my allotment of dark roast and the folks in that line were pleasant and orderly. The moment the store opened its doors, there was no mad rush to the latte department like you'd see when Wal-Mart puts a TV on sale. Nobody gets a beatdown; no elderly are stepped on. Coffee people are nice people.

 

Neither being angry nor dangerous is a justification for them having their gun rights taken away. Commit a felony, period. If you're dangerous enough to be denied fun rights to put should either be in prison or have just got out of a multi decade sentence.

 

WalMart sells more guns than any other retailer. They also sell corn with pictures of a deer in a crosshairs on the bags the corn is in right next to them for the use of the oh-so-"sporting" hunter.

That may seem to be the case if you don't want any regulations on guns or even weaponry of any kind whatsoever, up to and including their use to kill people for disagreeing with you on politics and/or even just because you're having a particularly bad day; and don't say that's a ridiculous assumption, all gun advocates constantly talk as if they have their guns largely in case someone they REALLY don't like gets elected and want to give us no real defense against crazed gunmen in a mall besides carrying a gun of our own.

 

You are referring to the perpetual grumpy people of the religion of peace™?

- - - Updated - - -

I would imagine they are less nice when dealing their own, unarmed kind.

 

Like 85% of Australians are unarmed, a fair few are nice people.

 

(Continuing, as I meant to do but was called away and then the editing timer cut in)

Most gun advocates ARE nice people, that's very true, but a very, VERY, VERY small minority are really disturbed psychopaths, ticking time bombs just waiting to go off. The problem there is it's like most conservatives say about Muslims and the tiny minority that are terrorists, how many crazed gunmen can you tolerate? So what to do. Rational people would say you be very careful about who you let have guns, IMO, but lots of gun advocates don't seem to see it that way.

 

Because the crazies will get guns no matter how many laws you pass.

 

Criminals, with records do not purchase guns by legal means, and criminals that haven't been busted before can buy all the guns they want. The mentally ill have doctor/patient confidentiality. So far all the laws currently on the books, not being enforced by the way, couldn't and wouldn't have stopped the overwhelming majority of the shootings that go on in this country today, and harassing the law abiding gun owner certainly isn't going to make a difference.

Your peace of mind, doesn't over ride our rights for the need of more unnecessary harassment. What part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?

 

No, most gun owners are tired of being harassed, badgered, and (*)(*)(*)(*)ed with, when the laws already on the books are not applied or adhered too, by the people whining the most.

 

In other words.... you have no idea what could be done, but you know -something- can and should be.
Thank you.

 

I originally posted on this thread not to advocate repeal of the 2nd Amendment or to deny rights to gun owners, but to argue that the government has the obligation under the "PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE" clause not only to defend citizens' rights to bear arms, but also to investigate cases in which this right has been abused and take appropriate action, when feasible.

The OP suggested that ALL gun owners were laid-back, cheerful, and friendly, but many responders to this thread proved to be exactly the opposite. Paranoia concerning a suspected conspiracy has turned this debate into an angry protest. The OP was obviously mistaken, and I am abandoning this thread.

 

Except in terms of the financial issues related to the exercise of the congressional power to organize, arm and discipline the militia, this clause isn't even remotely related to the 2nd Amendment.

 

Thank you, Chief Justice.