Quote:
Originally Posted by copestag
anyone with more than 2 active brain cells also knows that any type of gun regulation is not the answer..... it has been irrefutably proven time and again that this is not a gun problem
|
IME all problems that are addressed by making inanimate objects the scapegoat continue to be problems, and often get worse after laws that criminalize the inanimate objects are enacted. The "war on drugs" and the "war on terror" ("terror" isn't even an object, only an undefined concept) are two prominent examples of such failures in recent history.
Until our society chooses to look at the real problem, the one that exists in people's minds, no positive change will be seen. It's sad to say, but IMO we're a society of cowards who are more interested in sweeping the root of the problem under the carpet, and keep on ignoring the larger issues.
Quote:
|
unfortunately the ways to solve the problem will never occur......... and in this argument the guns always lose...... the ACLU trumps the 2nd amendment every time
|
Never say never.
To be fair, the NRA is far more involved, and has had far more success than the ACLU with this matter.
This time none of the parties that are large enough to get on TV are doing much more than repeating ridiculous talking points.
Being the aggrieved parent of a murdered child does not magically make that person an expert on firearms safety. In one particularly frustrating to watch TV interview, the parents of a slain child made a great point of describing how meticulous and cunning that the killer was. After they made this point in great detail, they immediately went on to claim that outlawing one certain accessory would have totally confounded the shooter to the point that he would have given up and not committed the crime. Really?
I blame the TV producers for putting those parents in that position in the first place. Even if the parents wanted to propose "solutions", the producers' job is to recognize why that's not fair to anyone.
I've read the Second Amendment, and don't see how it can be referring to anything other than a right to possess weapons of war, for the purpose of waging war against a corrupt government or outside invaders. It says nothing about hunting or home protection. Although the specter of war should scare people, the fact remains that the freedoms that we Americans enjoy came only after we resorted to warfare. Like it or not, being prepared to spill blood to protect our liberty may be necessary from time to time. And none of that has anything to do with people who go on shooting rampages.
Sooner or later, we'll need to face the fact that hunting and home defense by firearms aren't Constitutionally protected rights. If we as a society don't like that, we are free to amend the Constitution to reflect our 21st century desires. But unless and until that is done, we need to comply with the highest law in the land as it stands.