Join the Conversation

7 Comments

  1. Tim Abell: “So do cars” – which is why we require people to be licensed to drive cars, but more importantly, why we do not let certain people operate cars.

  2. My position has always been that the problem is with people. Specific people (ie lunatics, mentally unstable and emotionally unstable) and that their access to guns (or other objects) needs to be restricted or eliminated.

    The problem is that gun nuts and 2nd amendment nuts either ignore that issue, or insist that ALL GUNS FOR ALL PEOPLE is the only ‘true’ solution.

    Thus making these people usually the Number One kind that I would like to see not have any guns. Irony.

  3. I’m in favor of the second amendment. People should have the right to own guns. Yet, like all rights, this should be a right that can also be forfeit or rescinded from a specific person, or group, for their actions or conditions.

    Would you agree, Tim Abell?

  4. Again, we need to get away from this concept of the second amendment being awful, or being the source of all death. It’s not.

    The second amendment also asserts that those guns should be in the hands of a “well regulated militia” – which could very well be made to mean that this mandates that gun ownership should require, at the very least, mandatory training and education — if not actually a sort of mandatory militia service.

    I feel a lot of this would be academic if the U.S. mandated 2 years of military service from all their citizens upon reaching 18 years of age, but I digress…

  5. The fact remains, the vast majority of gun owners don’t actually harm anyone – the key is isolating the type and kind that would, and eliminating their access to guns. Yes, I’m talking about profiling. Profiling works.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *