<p>Regardless of what some may want, guns exist and will continue to exist in this country. The question is whether we should have laws where the only people in possession of guns are criminals and law enforcement and that self-protection, hunting, and target shooting should be outlawed.</p>
<p>In a somewhat related story - it’s sure a good thing a person was carrying a concealed weapon at the church in Colorado. She likely saved many lives. She was a security guard so I guess she doesn’t count as the average citizen (she’s certainly not average - she’s a hero).</p>
<p>U-U-Dad, nobody is proposing banning target shooting or hunting - typical misdirection, there. And many people who harm themselves and others with guns aren’t “criminals” until they pull the trigger - like the Colorado shooter, apparently. I know it’s comfortable to think that the world is divided into clearly distinct and identifiable groups of “criminals” and “good guys” like on TV but in real life the distinction is frequently not so clear, until it’s too late to do anything about it. </p>
<p>Since I’ve already responded to the puerile argument about utilitarian items being responsible for people’s deaths I won’t repeat that reasoning for fertilizer. But maybe you guys could try to come up with something a little less predictable, and maybe a little more compelling?</p>
<p>The liberal tyrants have started with the 2nd amendment what they plan to do to all of our rights. I think the constitution is quite explicit our right as citizens to own guns. Its not for the purpose hunting and sport shooting, although it covers that basis too (I am a huge hunter/gun owner–in case you couldn’t tell), it is for our protection, as citizens, against the government (and evil tyrants like Hillary Clinton). Where do they stop? Is freedom of speech next? When will the day come when we won’t be able to have arguments such as this one simply because freedom of speech is considered outdated or dangerous by tyrants. Whether or not you own guns, or believe people are responsible enough to do so, you should be scared by the fact that people are trying to take your rights away. BTW Mike Huckabee for president 08!</p>
<p>Case in point…OP (and pretty much the rest of you): don’t even start this anti-gun crap…Law abiding citizens who are armed stop crime everyday, whether or not 2.5 million of them have is erroneous (I agree the study was done ignorantly). However, guns are for protection against the government, that is why our founding fathers put it in the constitution. Yes, they obviously thought it could help against criminals, be used for sporting, etc., but their main cause was to keep dictators from ruling us with an iron fist.</p>
<p>I wasn’t misdirecting - banning guns makes it difficult to use them to hunt or target shoot unless extreme controls are put into place. The other usage I indicated was self-defense. Some people don’t believe that self-defense is a viable reason to own a gun but others do. </p>
<p>Maybe ‘you guys’ could try to propose something concrete and workable. State clearly what you propose to be done if you have a plan in mind.</p>
<p>Just because the Founders put it in the constitution doesn’t make it right. There’s a reason we’ve had 17 amendments to the US Constitution since the Bill of Rights was ratified.</p>
<p>I agree that we should not have our rights infringed upon, but there’s nothing sacred about what the Founders had to say.</p>
<p>If the 2nd amendment exists so that the citizenry can defend itself against a corrupt government, then it necessarily allows ownership of the weaponry necessary for that task - e.g. shoulder launchable missiles to take down the black helicopters. Right?</p>
<p>Yes, esmitty01, when the government comes to get me, I will pull out my arsenal and blow myself and family up. That is what the Framer’s intended.</p>
<p>Or, I could be sane, offer them coffee, and call my lawyer. That is how the civilized society behaves.</p>
<p>It is no longer the wild, wild west, or the Roman Empire.</p>
<p>I don’t “hate” your opinion. I just don’t agree with it. There’s a marked difference.</p>
<p>I tend to not believe in the immutability of laws, and I think that it’s perfectly acceptable to admit when a constitution is no longer functioning properly. Unfortunately, we’ve enshrined our laws and instilled a cult of worship around them that in some ways hurts policymaking.</p>
<p>it just seems to me there is a certain sanctity in the bill of rights. If it has worked well thus far, why change it? also remember the constitution did not, and would not have gotten, get ratified if not for the bill of rights. It is these rights that protect us from tyranny. The second amendment gives us tools to make sure we can protect ourselves if the government decides “the constitution is no longer functioning properly”</p>
<p>(edit: New Life Shooter)
I guess he just couldn’t come to grips with the fact that he failed to kill more people.</p>
<p>That lady definitely did the right thing. She stopped him. Which bullet killed him is largely irrelevant. He was on the ground and not killing innocents. It might make her feel better though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True, but the Bill of Rights is held above pretty much all other laws in the US. Many (including myself) believe that the BoR is a sound document and should not be reduced. Civil liberties are something to be guarded VERY closely.</p>
<p>If it is decided that the 2 Amendment is not appropriate for today’s society, it can be removed. There is very little support for that.</p>
<p>I agree Raimus, I wanted to post a factual clarification before a person who doesn’t read past the headlines said, “She didn’t shoot him! He killed himself!”</p>
<p>Had she not been that position, armed, it would’ve been catastrophic.</p>
<p>I’m not disagreeing that the BoR is a generally sound set of laws. It is not, however, scripture handed down from the gods themselves. It’s a set of manmade laws.</p>
<p>esmitty01,</p>
<p>The UK and Japan have monarchs. You telling me that they’re less free? Let’s stay away from hyperbole, please.</p>