Concealed Carrying Bystander Nearly Killed Innocent Man During Tucson Shooting

[OPTIONAL777]

Please show historical examples in modern times of empires that did not have a strong central government.

It is absurd that anyone can go an buy a weapon of mass destruction.

We have laws that protect the people from unqualified drivers of vehicles, but somehow the primitives think that demonstrating a certain level of skill and competence with weapons, along with mental competency is some kind of threat to their existence and freedom...

No, there is absolutely nothing wrong with stronger gun control laws.

Get it, gun control, not gun abolishment.

These freaks who look to the constitution (written based on the technology of the time) aren't wanting to buy weapons of that era, aren't wanting to live in the technological level of that time.

No, these are modern times, which call for modern thinkers...and obviously there is a need for controlling the ability of wacked out people to purchase weapons that can fire off so many rounds in such a brief period of time.

Think people...say the British army had automatic weapons...where would America be today?

No, modernization from one area, i.e. development of automatic and semiautomatic weapons, and restraining their usage to laws designed for blunder bus weapons is downright foolish...

We modernize weapons, the wrong answer is to think going back to the wild wild west mentality where everyone is wearing guns for safety.

We need to use information technology that we have, that the modern world runs on, and apply it to keeping the people safe.

I.E., gun control.

Quote from jem:

The soviet union was an example of a powerful govt.
China is an example of a powerful govt.

Anyone wanting more govt is suspect.
Either they are part of the govt power grab or they are a freeloader.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from wjk:

+ 1

One of the best statements I've ever seen in this forum.

You missed the one about working to amend the Constitution if you don't like it--even better.

 

[wjk]

Quote from Ricter:

You missed the one about working to amend the Constitution if you don't like it--even better.

I have no problem with amending the Constitution, but I don't believe that's what many lefties mean by "living' document. In fact, sometimes I think that's a transparent way of having it mean whatever someone wants it to mean to suit their political goals, those that even give a shit about it.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Please show historical examples in modern times of empires that did not have a strong central government.

It is absurd that anyone can go an buy a weapon of mass destruction.

We have laws that protect the people from unqualified drivers of vehicles, but somehow the primitives think that demonstrating a certain level of skill and competence with weapons, along with mental competency is some kind of threat to their existence and freedom...

No, there is absolutely nothing wrong with stronger gun control laws.

Get it, gun control, not gun abolishment.

These freaks who look to the constitution (written based on the technology of the time) aren't wanting to buy weapons of that era, aren't wanting to live in the technological level of that time.

No, these are modern times, which call for modern thinkers...and obviously there is a need for controlling the ability of wacked out people to purchase weapons that can fire off so many rounds in such a brief period of time.

Think people...say the British army had automatic weapons...where would America be today?

No, modernization from one area, i.e. development of automatic and semiautomatic weapons, and restraining their usage to laws designed for blunder bus weapons is downright foolish...

We modernize weapons, the wrong answer is to think going back to the wild wild west mentality where everyone is wearing guns for safety.

We need to use information technology that we have, that the modern world runs on, and apply it to keeping the people safe.

I.E., gun control.

That really gets to the crux of the debate right there. We don't let the general public have weapons of mass destruction because some crazy person could do too much damage. But some crazy person just did, 1) do too much damage... or 2) not too much damage?

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Here's the deal...and you won't like it.

No one knows what the constitution means. Nor does anyone really know what the Bible means.

People have their beliefs, interpretations, opinions about ancient texts...but no one knows.

Our system is one of majority opinion.

The self righteous go apeshit with their own opinions, want no part of discussion or new ideas, are dogmatic, etc.

That's what is seen on the extremes of any ideology, right or left.

By the way, a living Constitution means it is not dead...

The "Constitution of the Confederate States" are rightly dead...sadly not forgotten by the goobers down south...

Quote from wjk:

I have no problem with amending the Constitution, but I don't believe that's what many lefties mean by "living' Constitution.
In fact, sometimes I think that's a transparent way of having it mean whatever someone wants it to mean to suit their political goals, those that even give a shit about it.

 

[TD80]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:


It is absurd that anyone can go an buy a weapon of mass destruction.

Please tell that to the families of millions of victims of Joseph Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Various African, Central American, and Latin American regimes.

What I find absurd is that these populations allowed themselves to be disarmed, and then subsequently slaughtered and terrorized by powerful central governments.

Nobody is saying you should have a functioning howitzer parked out back. I'm sure even in the 1700s, having heavy cannon at your personal disposal was probably frowned upon.

I personally feel we would all be better off if each adult citizen was issued a military-spec assault rifle, similar to what Switzerland has in place.

 

[pspr]

That is about the biggest piece of crap I have ever seen posted on ET!

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Here's the deal...and you won't like it.

No one knows what the constitution means. Nor does anyone really know what the Bible means.

People have their beliefs, interpretations, opinions about ancient texts...but no one knows.

Our system is one of majority opinion.

The self righteous go apeshit with their own opinions, want no part of discussion or new ideas, are dogmatic, etc.

That's what is seen on the extremes of any ideology, right or left.

By the way, a living Constitution means it is not dead...

The "Constitution of the Confederate States" are rightly dead...sadly not forgotten by the goobers down south...

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Would there be any reason to think that gun technology with not advance to be capable of killing more and more people in faster periods of time?

Or weapons technology as a whole?

It is time for people to think in the modern world...not several hundred years ago.

Times change, those who don't change with the times become extinct.

Or they become Amish, or they move to Paulville, etc.

Quote from Ricter:

That really gets to the crux of the debate right there. We don't let the general public have weapons of mass destruction because some crazy person could do too much damage. But some crazy person just did, 1) do too much damage... or 2) not too much damage?

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Yes, you just expressed your opinion.

Any time you are willing to make a reasoned sensible civil argument, let me know...

Quote from pspr:

That is about the biggest piece of crap I have ever seen posted on ET!

 

[tomdavis]

To some people (e.g., Chicago and DC politicians, the Brady organization, etc.), gun control means a total ban on hand guns.

To other people (like me), gun control simply means laws that prohibit sales of guns to criminals and the mentally ill.

There is no agreed-upon meaning of gun control.

Also... if you dismiss people who look to the Constitution as "freaks," is there any basis for discussion?

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Please show historical examples in modern times of empires that did not have a strong central government.

It is absurd that anyone can go an buy a weapon of mass destruction.

We have laws that protect the people from unqualified drivers of vehicles, but somehow the primitives think that demonstrating a certain level of skill and competence with weapons, along with mental competency is some kind of threat to their existence and freedom...

No, there is absolutely nothing wrong with stronger gun control laws.

Get it, gun control, not gun abolishment.

These freaks who look to the constitution (written based on the technology of the time) aren't wanting to buy weapons of that era, aren't wanting to live in the technological level of that time.

No, these are modern times, which call for modern thinkers...and obviously there is a need for controlling the ability of wacked out people to purchase weapons that can fire off so many rounds in such a brief period of time.

Think people...say the British army had automatic weapons...where would America be today?

No, modernization from one area, i.e. development of automatic and semiautomatic weapons, and restraining their usage to laws designed for blunder bus weapons is downright foolish...

We modernize weapons, the wrong answer is to think going back to the wild wild west mentality where everyone is wearing guns for safety.

We need to use information technology that we have, that the modern world runs on, and apply it to keeping the people safe.

I.E., gun control.