They got it wrong apparently, unless the idea was to make the US an incredibly violent society despite having plenty of resources to not be so. 200+ year mistake is going to take some time to unwind though.
US cities see unexplained rise in violent crimes this year
- Thread starter wildchild
- Start date
They got it wrong apparently, unless the idea was to make the US an incredibly violent society despite having plenty of resources to not be so. 200+ year mistake is going to take some time to unwind though.
It has nothing to do with elitist thinking. It is a matter of fact that the dumb have to be protected in order to not harm themselves. That a separate, unrelated, discussion should be had about safeguarding against government overreach I fully support. The problem with many in today's society is that they believe their personal freedom stands above everything else. That was NEVER the intent of any of the forefathers nor the intent of the constitution. Personal freedom should be a goal WITHIN THE CONTEXT of not harming anyone else. When parents believe they have the personal freedom to put their kid's pictures, names, and personal life onto the internet for everyone to see and abuse then we should kick off a discussion whether that is a misinterpretation of personal freedom. When kids and the innocent get killed in gun fire then a reasonable discussion should be allowed to limit the freedom to bear firearms given it has been proven that such firearms are not safe in to the possession of certain individuals. Hence forcing everyone, who wants to bear firearms to undergo a proper licensing system similar to a driver's license makes a lot of sense. We have to stop putting everything on the back burner in the name of the left fighting the right and vice versa. Nothing is being tackled because of the constant accusations between left and right.
That is not true, everyone who passes a licensing test has a right to obtain a driver's license, given they are fit to drive. Same with firearms, even now not everyone has a right to bear a firearm, there are certain groups that are excluded from such right. But we should be honest and start a discussion how more harm can be prevented by regulating who forfeits the right to bear arms and who should be allowed to bear such. Why do we always have to be polemic and resort to personal insults?
Well, let's be fair and respect the US constitution. But the constitution and its widely agreed interpretation makes it perfectly clear that the right to bear arms can never be of higher priority than respecting others' freedom as well. That means owning a gun is not more important than preventing harm to others. And here your fact kicks in: In almost all jurisdictions with strict gun controls the crime rate is lower, not higher. If we can prevent more killings with stricter gun controls then it makes a lot of sense to have a reasonable discussion about it.
Spot on.
So, you equally postulate to let anyone drive a car and hit the roads without a proper license and examination of whether they are fit to drive? Whats the difference?
Glorify and memorialize the thugs that terrorize the community and then the next day condemn the police for putting the thug down. Gee, what could possibly go wrong.
no, when the government decides who is normal and only normal people can defend themselves then political enemies become crazy. The forefathers knew disarmng the public was the first step to becoming another shithole like Canada or England.
the rest of the world has been waiting for 200 years for us to unwind. We are not just another country. We are better than the rest of the world and our firearm culture is not taught in most second rate Universities in foreign lands like Canada.
you mean the firearm culture to shoot yourself in the foot, kill your wife or kids inside the house by accident, school shootings, and all other sorts of mess-ups?