@bobsal u1553115,
bobsal u1553115 wrote:Unresponsive answer.
I'm not sure how it is unresponsive. I questioned the significance of the point (as I do not see any significance myself).
bobsal u1553115 wrote:At any rate, if you are trying to stop murder, eliminating the biggest source of those murders would be wise.
The only source of murders is the murderers themselves.
bobsal u1553115 wrote:Read the Second Amendment and tell me where it gives the right to own arms past the right "to bear arms in a well regulated militia"?
The Second Amendment protects a preexisting right. It doesn't give anything. But the text clearly states that people have the right to
keep arms as well as the right to bear them.
Historically, people have been allowed to use their arms in sporting competitions in order to develop their skill in the use of those arms, and also allowed to use their arms to defend their homes from common criminals.
bobsal u1553115 wrote:I am an absolutist in that if it isn't explicitly denied by the BoR.
Note that tying the right to keep and bear arms to the militia means that everyone has the right to have grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons.
bobsal u1553115 wrote:However, the Constitution was written to produce order and fire-arm are a show two dangers to order: public health and public safety.
Guns are not an infectious disease so they are no danger to public health.
I don't see how responsible gun ownership is any danger to public safety. The only problem is irresponsible gun ownership.
bobsal u1553115 wrote:I am a patriot and I know when my "rights" interfere with the lives, let alone others' right to the pursuit of happiness, we need to cool the jets and work it out.
I do not see how the right to keep and bear arms interferes with anyone's lives at all.
The right to keep and bear arms doesn't protect irresponsible gun ownership.
bobsal u1553115 wrote:We stand down and get our gun policy in order. We act like Americans and we fix it.
I don't anticipate that happening anytime soon. Any time there is talk of gun control, the left takes over the issue and makes everything about outlawing pistol grips.
bobsal u1553115 wrote:Another unresponsive whiffle of a comment.
I agree that it's true that with widespread gun ownership, most murders will be carried out using guns.
But I just don't see why it matters that someone is murdered with a gun instead of with some other kind of weapon.
bobsal u1553115 wrote:Seriously, how do you figure????
All the gun owners that I know have gun safes. No one wants their guns to be stolen.
bobsal u1553115 wrote:And if true - no. It's just another safety lever, but it really does not begin to be the armory of a well regulated militia that our founding fathers lived with and meant.
I don't know how you can get much more secure than a gun safe.
bobsal u1553115 wrote:I believe one good move would be to make gun safety classes a part of health classes in schools. When I was a kid, I had guns lessons taught by the NRA.
I've no objection to safety classes.
bobsal u1553115 wrote:Before the NRA got politically up the GOP's extreme RW.
The NRA isn't extreme. They just protect our civil liberties.
bobsal u1553115 wrote:Don't think these lessons are to make marksmen, it's to teach an eight-year-old what to do or not to do when they happen on some irresponsible owner's weapon.
I've no objection to that.
bobsal u1553115 wrote:Another would be: hold parents legally responsible for their weapons getting into the hands of their children.
I've no objection to that.
bobsal u1553115 wrote:If you think most gun owners safe their weapons, why not make a requirement to purchase a gun safe if they own firearms.
I've no objection to that.
bobsal u1553115 wrote:How about registering rifling of every firearm? Then we could round up more of the nitwits and take their schmere of bad action of all you responsible gun owners.
That might be easy to defeat by altering the signature of a barrel.
Even if such tracking can be done reliably, it might incentivize criminals to start using sawed-off shotguns instead of handguns.
bobsal u1553115 wrote:Restraining orders to disarm anyone accused of domestic violence or those with peace orders or restraining orders against them should be disarmed.
People can only be deprived of their right to keep and bear arms through due process like a criminal trial.
Conviction for violent misdemeanors like simple assault could justify barring gun ownership. That would weed out hotheads with explosive tempers.
bobsal u1553115 wrote:No more concealed carry. Open carry doesn't bother me much.
The problem is, there are also people out there who say "no more open carry, but concealed is OK".
According to the Supreme Court we need to have one or the other.
bobsal u1553115 wrote:I like the way it lets me know who's insecure in their manhood.
People do not carry guns because they are insecure in their manhood. They carry guns because they want to be able to protect themselves if someone tries to kill them.
bobsal u1553115 wrote:The problem is, most of your fellow gun owners are all for everyone being armed (to the point of voting in Congress against a bill to keep the mentally ill from having firearms), until a whacko takes out a relative.
It wasn't a bill that was defeated. It was one of Barack Obama's executive orders.
The executive order was blatantly unconstitutional. The executive order did not target the criminally insane, but merely people who have disabilities like agoraphobia.
bobsal u1553115 wrote:And then their solution is to pack more weapons and more powerful weapons.
Being armed is often the proper way to protect against attack.
bobsal u1553115 wrote:What we have just ain't working. We need to stand down and develop a policy that recognizes everyone's rights. Like the Constitution clearly provides: "No one's rights cancels anyone else's rights."
The right to keep and bear arms does not harm anyone else's rights. It doesn't protect irresponsible gun ownership, so any harm caused by irresponsible ownership is no reflection on the Second Amendment.
