another school shooting in U.S. of A. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

The freedoms we enjoy as part of our Bill of Rights . . . . . It says "The people".
Interpret that yourself.

---

Yes- the people - but not all people - given what has been happening with the abuse and irresponsible application of that freedom. (when we talk of freedom to keep and bear arms)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

The freedoms we enjoy as part of our Bill of Rights does not contain anything about "some people" or "certain people" or "need special permission" or "only members of a certain group". It says "The people".
Interpret that yourself.

---

OK I will.


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Is it a "a more perfect Union" when this sort of thing happens on a more regular basis than anywhere else in the world? How does giving people access to instruments of death "insure domestic Tranquility" or "promote the general Welfare" of it's citizenry? Is 20 dead children really a shining example of "the Blessings of Liberty"?

If you fought for independence on the "self-evident" reason that people have "certain unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" why then do so many people have the instruments to destroy all three?

The United States craps all over the preamble to its constitution and has failed in the very reason for declaring its independence.

You might talk about defending the citizenry from the "tyranny of government" but it seems to me that the biggest enemy of the United States is "We the People".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

You might talk about defending the citizenry from the "tyranny of government" but it seems to me that the biggest enemy of the United States is "We the People".

---

Rollo is on a Roll

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by race aficionado

Rollo is on a Roll

---

Thankfully, he doesn't get to vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by starter

thankfully, he doesn't get to vote.

---

amen to that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

This is true. However and this is just a few of the conditions from Swiss gun legislation:
- all automatic weapons banned.
- all semi-automatic weapons banned.
- all people must get a Weapons Purchasing Permit (and pass a criminal background and psychological test).
- to carry a gun on the street requires a Weapons Carrying Permit (they are normally only given to security and the police).
- all private weapons must be stored in a locked box.
- until 2007, government issued ammunition was kept in sealed boxes which was a criminal offence to open. Now ammunition is not kept at civilian premises.
SR 514.541 Verordnung ber Waffen, Waffenzubehr und Munition
SR 514.54 Bundesgesetz vom 20. Juni 1997 ber Waffen, Waffenzubehr und Munition (Waffengesetz, WG) (there is a PDF on this page which is quite extensive)

If America tried to enact similar legislation, all automatic and semi-automatic weapons would have to be seized immediately, as would virtually all ammunition, locked boxes would be required in people's houses that had guns and most people would be disallowed from carrying a gun outside.

It would however be closer to the actual wording of the second amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Switzerland probably has the most highly regulated rules for gun ownership in the Western World. This point is almost always ignored by pro-gun people in the United States.

---

And yet you totally miss the relevant part of the second amendment, that part AFTER the comma: The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigelred5

And yet you totally miss the relevant part of the second amendment, that part AFTER the comma: The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

---

If Rollo had his way, he would rewrite the constitution on a minute by minute basis to suit the mood of the day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

This is true. However and this is just a few of the conditions from Swiss gun legislation:
- all automatic weapons banned.
- all semi-automatic weapons banned.
- all people must get a Weapons Purchasing Permit (and pass a criminal background and psychological test).
- to carry a gun on the street requires a Weapons Carrying Permit (they are normally only given to security and the police).
- all private weapons must be stored in a locked box.
- until 2007, government issued ammunition was kept in sealed boxes which was a criminal offence to open. Now ammunition is not kept at civilian premises.
SR 514.541 Verordnung ber Waffen, Waffenzubehr und Munition
SR 514.54 Bundesgesetz vom 20. Juni 1997 ber Waffen, Waffenzubehr und Munition (Waffengesetz, WG) (there is a PDF on this page which is quite extensive)

If America tried to enact similar legislation, all automatic and semi-automatic weapons would have to be seized immediately, as would virtually all ammunition, locked boxes would be required in people's houses that had guns and most people would be disallowed from carrying a gun outside.

It would however be closer to the actual wording of the second amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Switzerland probably has the most highly regulated rules for gun ownership in the Western World. This point is almost always ignored by pro-gun people in the United States.

---

And, what's more, the whole Swiss attitude towards gun ownership is totally different to that in the USA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

If Rollo had his way, he would rewrite the constitution on a minute by minute basis to suit the mood of the day.

---

Nonsense. There is nothing wrong with the occasional amendment. Your founding fathers did not have a monopoly on being uniquely wise, you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

Thankfully, he doesn't get to vote.

---

Why 'thankfully'? I would have thought he seems to be the sort of sensible citizen any country should welcome, and enfranchise accordingly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roamy

And Gloomy a true american is one who follows the constitution.

---

A statement that might be straight out of Animal Farm: 'All Americans are equal, but some are more equal than others'. There is no such thing as a 'true American', a 'true Briton' and so on. Those who say such things have far too narrow a view as to what constitutes nationality, citizenship and national identity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigelred5

The difference is many cities in this country is many criminals aren't content with "merely" robbing you.

---

And why is that, do you think? Might it have something to do with the underlying attitudes to firearms possession and ease of purchase?

If everyone is dead set on holding up the wording and intention of the Bill of rights (which incidentally seems to borrow heavily from the pre-existing English bill of rights) then you should be limited to keeping and bearing arms that are equivalent to what was available at the time. Your forefathers could not have predicted the weaponry available a couple of hundred years later, nor, in the infancy of the union, predicted that what they wrote then would be expected to be followed to the letter long into the future without room for the world to have evolved in so many ways. Your rights should be limited to muskets and civil war era rifles, not what has been invented since as they were not the "arms" intended by your precious and outdated bills. Incidentally how many amendments to the constitution have there been now? 27 or so? So there is clearly a mechanism for improving on the original model in the face of modernity?

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D-Type

Hypothetically, assuming the will were there and it was feasible, people fortified schools or provided armed guards at schools, what would happen? The next fanatic attacks a shopping mall instead. Then they fortify or guard shopping malls as well, what would happen? The next fanatic attacks a condominium. They fortify condominiums (more than they are at present). The next fanatic looks for the next soft target and attacks a spots complex. etc etc

---

And still no-one would care, so ingrained is the attitude that extra security is a price worth paying. I think it's a deeply pernicious process, personally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

And why is that, do you think? Might it have something to do with the underlying attitudes to firearms possession and ease of purchase?

---

So we should also ban kitchen knives, hunting knives, turkey trimmers, samurai swords?... It's not only guns that criminals use to commit crimes. I had a butcher knife held to my throat in my own home while I our home robbed at 15 years of age. I am alive because my father woke up, heard something downstairs and chased the criminals from the home with my 12 gauge that I had not yet put away in my gun cabinet after a day of duck hunting. The criminals were never cought but they definitely have #8 scars in their a$$. That will NEVER happen to me or my family again.

Our government is broken. Why would we have ANY faith in their ability to legislate an effective solution to violent crim?e. I'd start with challenging Hollywood to quit sensationalizing violence. The same with the video gaming industry. We are also a country that was attacked and still at war. DO I agree with the current continued military involvement in Afghanistan? NO. DO I entirely support some of our meddling, No, however we americans do support our soldiers that we pay to protect our shores and gun ownership is strongly tied to our tied to patriotism. When the soldiers are away, it is our duty to protect ourselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigelred5

So we should also ban kitchen knives, hunting knives, turkey trimmers, samurai swords... It's not only guns that criminals use to commit crimes.

---

I find this a weak argument, to be honest. They may be dangerous, but none of them have the destructive power of a firearm. There is simply no comparison. Most also have a perfectly reasonable secondary usage, with the exception of samurai swords, and it's not as if these are exactly freely available.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigelred5

Our government is broken. Why would we have ANY faith in their ability to legislate an effective solution to violent crime. I'd start with challenging Hollywood to quit sensationalizing violence. The same with the video gaming industry.

---

This would all be fiddling around the edges. The attitudes that need to be changed run rather deeper than tackling violent films and video games (not that I believe they need to be tackled, given that one person's view of undue violence is totally different to another's).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I find this a weak argument, to be honest. They may be dangerous, but none of them have the destructive power of a firearm. There is simply no comparison. Most also have a perfectly reasonable secondary usage, with the exception of samurai swords, and it's not as if these are exactly freely available.



This would all be fiddling around the edges. The attitudes that need to be changed run rather deeper than tackling violent films and video games (not that I believe they need to be tackled, given that one person's view of undue violence is totally different to another's).

---

I can walk to the variety store at the end of my street and buy a samurai sword in about ten minutes. There is no regulation of any sort for something like that. Would you prefer a sabre? I can buy one of them as well from the arab fellow down the street. Destructive power? I worked for ten years in a shock trauma Hospital. I know destructive power of a knife very well. Knife wounds outnumbered gunshot wounds 20X over.

Every one of the mass killings was almost scripted straight out of a movie. As is much of the violence in our society.

You REALLY just don't understand the mentality of our society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigelred5

I can walk to the variety store at the end of my street and buy a samurai sword in about ten minutes. There is no regulation of any sort for something like that. Would you prefer a sabre? I can buy one of them as well from the arab fellow down the street. Destructive power? I worked for ten years in a shock trauma Hospital. I know destructive power of a knife very well. Knife wounds outnumbered gunshot wounds 20X over.

Every one of the mass killings was almost scripted straight out of a movie. As is much of the violence in our society.

You REALLY just don't understand the mentality of our society.

---

I'm getting quite a reasonable idea from some of the contributions to this discussion, believe me, though this won't stop me finding it unpleasantly alien and, in the supposedly modern, civilised world, inexplicable.

It beggars belief, as far as I'm concerned, to suggest that films and video games are primarily at fault. You're just searching around for excuses, scapegoats and ways of avoiding the real issues. Films and video games are not the problem; on occasion there may be warped interpretations of them, but this in itself is not reason to legislate. There's enough prurience and over-caution about what's 'suitable' for people to watch and not watch as it is. And it is also legitimate to ask whether or not these forms of entertainment have their roots in a society that's violent enough in any case. These things don't exist in a vacuum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigelred5

Our government is broken. Why would we have ANY faith in their ability to legislate an effective solution to violent crime. I'd start with challenging Hollywood to quit sensationalizing violence. The same with the video gaming industry. We are also a country that was attacked and still at war. DO I agree with the current continued military involvement in Afghanistan? NO. DO I entirely support some of our meddling, No, however we americans do support our soldiers that we pay to protect our shores and gun ownership is strongly tied to our tied to patriotism. When the soldiers are away, it is our duty to protect ourselves.

---

Oh it's "the government's fault" that this happened is it? Can you provide any evidence for this at all?

No, the American people are broken and badly so.

Let's just look at the aspect of war shall we? Even if you use the most expansive estimates, a total of 90,800 people have been killed to date as a result of the two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In that period the number of people killed in the United States due to guns has been about 140,000. Who are you supposedly protecting yourselves from? Other Americans?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

If Rollo had his way, he would rewrite the constitution on a minute by minute basis to suit the mood of the day.

---

The Constitution itself has been amended another 17 times on top of the original 10. It already happens.

Of course legislation should be amended to suit current conditions. Are we to assume that you still think that slavery is acceptable too? It took 76 years and a war for the American people to work that one out and another five years before you gave black people the rights to be citizens after they'd been slaves.

Anonymous steps in: Anonymous Hacks Westboro Baptist Church Over Threat To Picket Sandy Hook Vigil

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Oh it's "the government's fault" that this happened is it? Can you provide any evidence for this at all?

No, the American people are broken and badly so.

Let's just look at the aspect of war shall we? Even if you use the most expansive estimates, a total of 90,800 people have been killed to date as a result of the two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In that period the number of people killed in the United States due to guns has been about 140,000. Who are you supposedly protecting yourselves from? Other Americans?

---

Where did I once say it was the government's fault OR that government regulation was the solution?. I argue exactly the opposite. The government should stay the F out of a lot more than they do. They can't legislate morality, and they have certainly failed in their attempts to do so. At present, our defacto two party system is incapable of enacting any meaningful, effective or enforceable legislation. Face it, they just aren't. Our goventment IS broken and that comes straight from a broken society, something I think we both agree on. People are friggin morons. Ever seen Idiocracy. It's a horrible movie, but it highlights a frightening reality. We are creating lazy friggin morons. I now have to compose government regulations and correspondence at a friggin 4th grade level. 4th Grade.

MORE gun legislation is not the answer when they can't even enforce the legislation on the books now. They could start with UNIFORM regulations, but then uniform regulations aren't always the best answer and SCOTUS has recently ruled many local gun regulations violate the 2nd amendment.

I teach my kids morality. I don't rely on the goventment, nor should I. I also teach my kids to defend themselves the most effective way possible. Both kids have learned Krav Maga. Both kids are more than merely proficient with firearms, and both kids are aware of their surroundings. I don't live in a "bad" area. Quite the opposite actually. Far more like the town in Connecticut than not, yet things happen as we have seen. I am protecting myself period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

The Constitution itself has been amended another 17 times on top of the original 10. It already happens.

Of course legislation should be amended to suit current conditions. Are we to assume that you still think that slavery is acceptable too? It took 76 years and a war for the American people to work that one out and another five years before you gave black people the rights to be citizens after they'd been slaves.

---

And one of them happened to be a total reversal of an ill advised attempt at a blanket prohibition based on morality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I'm getting quite a reasonable idea from some of the contributions to this discussion, believe me, though this won't stop me finding it unpleasantly alien and, in the supposedly modern, civilised world, inexplicable.

It beggars belief, as far as I'm concerned, to suggest that films and video games are primarily at fault. You're just searching around for excuses, scapegoats and ways of avoiding the real issues. Films and video games are not the problem; on occasion there may be warped interpretations of them, but this in itself is not reason to legislate. There's enough prurience and over-caution about what's 'suitable' for people to watch and not watch as it is. And it is also legitimate to ask whether or not these forms of entertainment have their roots in a society that's violent enough in any case. These things don't exist in a vacuum.

---

Again, I do not advocate altering the First Amendment that protects freedom of speech any more than I advocate altering the intent of the second amendment. We have made changes to the constitution and we have undone changes.
I do advocate self control and self regulation by Hollywood and society in general. We agree, society has its ills. So we need movies, videos, books and video games to glamorize them? In this country we have a saying regarding the media, "if it bleeds, it leads". That is friggin horrible, I don't care who you are. We generally don't watch broadcast news in my house because of that. If I need weather, I watch the weather. If I want sports, I consult the sports outlets. You want to know where our soldiers are going to attack next, watch the friggin news. They'll tell you. Just because you HAVE the a protected right in this country dosesn't mean you HAVE to exercise it just to push the envelope, but I would NEVER argue with outright restriction of rights our country was founded upon and the founders felt were so important as to put them into the document that frames our country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

And why is that, do you think? Might it have something to do with the underlying attitudes to firearms possession and ease of purchase?

---

Most criminals don't walk into gun stores and buy guns. They legally can't actually. I have owned firearms since I was 10 years old. I've actually never lived in a home that didn't have firearms, and I've never had problem purchasing them, even being a life long resident with some of the strictest firearms restrictions in the US., yet I've never robbed, beaten strangled or raped a soul. I still cannot legally carry a firearm on my person, concealed or otherwise except for hunting. It remains virtually impossible to obtain a legal CC permit in my state. I am subject to a background check and a mandatory waiting period to purchase a vast number of firearms. I am subject to a state check on the purchase of ALL firearms. I also respect restricting felons and those with proven diagnosed mental defect. I accept those restrictions despite believing they are infact, infringements on guaranteed and protected rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

...and ease of purchase?

---

Watching the evening news last night I was shocked to learn that the rifle used in the school killings was available for purchase from Walmart on-line :s

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigelred5

.... I still cannot legally carry a firearm on my person, concealed or otherwise except for hunting. It remains virtually impossible to obtain a legal CC permit in my state. I am subject to a background check and a mandatory waiting period to purchase a vast number of firearms. I am subject to a state check on the purchase of ALL firearms. I also respect restricting felons and those with proven diagnosed mental defect. I accept those restrictions despite believing they are infact, infringements on guaranteed and protected rights.

---

That sounds very reasonable nigelred5. If other states mandated similar legislation it would certainly be a step in the right direction.

However, do you honestly believe that restriction of firearms to both convicted felons and the clinically mentally imbalanced is a violation of their rights? :s

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schmenke

That sounds very reasonable nigelred5. If other states mandated similar legislation it would certainly be a step in the right direction.

However, do you honestly believe that restriction of firearms to both convicted felons and the clinically mentally imbalanced is a violation of their rights? :s

---

Do I believe I should automatically forfeit my rights because I am diagnosed with depression? I'm not, nor have I ever to be perfectly clear, but even a single situational DX would disqualify me from owning a firearm. If I check Y, I'm done. That isn't totally right IMHO. If I check N and I'm being untruthful, that's jailtime.
Convicted Felons by law forfeit several rights under federal law, one of which is gun ownership. SO, if someone were convicted of tax evasion, punishable by more than 12 months in prison, that person has just invalidated their ability to ever own a firearm. where is that any indication of a tendency towards violence? Violent offenders, No problem. It's hard to know where to draw that line, which is the problem with legislation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigelred5

Do I believe I should automatically forfeit my rights because I am diagnosed with depression? I'm not, nor have I ever to be perfectly clear, but even a single situational DX would disqualify me from owning a firearm. If I check Y, I'm done. That isn't totally right IMHO. If I check N and I'm being untruthful, that's jailtime.
Convicted Felons by law forfeit several rights under federal law, one of which is gun ownership. SO, if someone were convicted of tax evasion, punishable by more than 12 months in prison, that person has just invalidated their ability to ever own a firearm. where is that any indication of a tendency towards violence? Violent offenders, No problem. It's hard to know where to draw that line, which is the problem with legislation.

---

Which is why many countries take the line of members of the public not being permitted to own guns - at all. Much easier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigelred5

...
Convicted Felons by law forfeit several rights under federal law, one of which is gun ownership. SO, if someone were convicted of tax evasion, punishable by more than 12 months in prison, that person has just invalidated their ability to ever own a firearm. where is that any indication of a tendency towards violence? ...

---

It demonstrates a tendency to blatantly violate laws.

I would go so far as to suggest that the single background check be validated on a regular basis; a mandatory update every couple of years (or is this already the case?).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigelred5

Do I believe I should automatically forfeit my rights because I am diagnosed with depression? .

---

Do you know in what way that depression may manifest itself should you suffer from it?

I've seen first hand the effects of depression - my father unfortunately suffers from it. I've accompanied him to his GP where he had to beg to be admitted to hospital for treatment, as he knew how much worse it would get if left untreated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schmenke

Watching the evening news last night I was shocked to learn that the rifle used in the school killings was available for purchase from Walmart on-line :s

---

A Bushmaster is nothing more than a semi automatic single fire( one squeeze, one shot, no capability of burs or fully automatic fire) rifle that uses the basic architecture of a military rifle. I can also buy a .50BMG cal rifle that delivers an exponentially more devestating round from 3x the distance. A bit heavy but takes a moose down quite nicely. It also holds the record for a long distance kill shot by a military sniper, yet it does not carry the same restrictions as an AR15.

It can be purchased online SOME PLACES, but it is still a federally regulated firearm and all federal and state laws regarding long arms and semi automatic weapons apply. You can't just click "Buy" and walmart will ship an AR15 to your door in 3 days. There are hundreds of online stores where an Ar15 can be purchased, and all of the same federal and state laws apply as if you walked into a store. You still have to complete Federal background information and complete an online purchase still has to be shipped to a licensed FFL in my state, including a bushmaster brand AR15. Walmart was selling what is called a post-ban firearm. semi automatic, no bayonet lug, no flash supressor, non threaded muzzle.. etc.
Kind of like a civilian HUMMER vs a military HMMWV. They look alike, but are very different in some very key differences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schmenke

It demonstrates a tendency to blatantly violate laws.

I would go so far as to suggest that the single background check be validated on a regular basis; a mandatory update every couple of years (or is this already the case?).

---

I honestly have no problem complying with registrations, even though it is an infringement legally. I am a law abiding gun owner. I can't speak for the other 49 jurisdictions, but in my state, if I am convicted of a felony or hospitlaized for MI, the convicted felon has to surrender all firearms IIRC. It also only applies to the registered owner. It doesn't matter if I have ten familiy members that are markedly affected by MI or are felons. Yeah, I already know the counter argument... weapons shouldn't be in that home PERIOD. That is part of RESPONSIBLE ownership. There are databases that are checked and cross checked in my state, but i am a highly restricted state. IIRC, an EP is crosschecked with the registry of firearms owners as well. Not all states have these laws though. My limited understanding of Connecticut though is it is a moderately strict state in which to own firearms. It is HIGHLY unlikely The mother bought her bushmaster online absent any government knowledge. She was also a legal licensed owner of both handguns. IIRC, Connecticut also has clear laws regarding gun locks, locks required when minors live in the home, and strict laws on transportation of weapons. In the case of the CT shooter, he and his older brother were well known to accompany his mother to the gun range. Not at all suprised to hear that. The kid knew how to run an ar15, that is clear. He also obviously had access to the weapons. My keys go to work with me. I can't control what my kids would do when I sleep, but they can't shoot me wiht my own gun, that I know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigelred5

It doesn't matter if I have ten familiy members that are markedly affected by MI or are felons.

---

Is there a point to to gun legislation then if this not insignificant aspect is ignored?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigelred5

A Bushmaster is nothing more than a semi automatic single fire( one squeeze, one shot, no capability of burs or fully automatic fire) rifle that uses the basic architecture of a military rifle. I can also buy a .50BMG cal rifle that delivers an exponentially more devestating round from 3x the distance. A bit heavy but takes a moose down quite nicely. It also holds the record for a long distance kill shot by a military sniper, yet it does not carry the same restrictions as an AR15.

It can be purchased online SOME PLACES, but it is still a federally regulated firearm and all federal and state laws regarding long arms and semi automatic weapons apply. You can't just click "Buy" and walmart will ship an AR15 to your door in 3 days. There are hundreds of online stores where an Ar15 can be purchased, and all of the same federal and state laws apply as if you walked into a store. You still have to complete Federal background information and complete an online purchase still has to be shipped to a licensed FFL in my state, including a bushmaster brand AR15. Walmart was selling what is called a post-ban firearm. semi automatic, no bayonet lug, no flash supressor, non threaded muzzle.. etc.
Kind of like a civilian HUMMER vs a military HMMWV. They look alike, but are very different in some very key differences.

---

My point is that I was shocked to learn that firearms are available for purchase from stores in the U.S. that around here are normally associated with household items like toilet paper, dog food, etc. :s

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigelred5

I honestly have no problem complying with registrations, even though it is an infringement legally. ....

---

How are registrations an infringement?

You still have the right “to bear arms” and indeed own several firearms despite the strict regulations in your state.

Regulations are imposed to ensure that the right is abided by responsible citizens. If a citizen cannot demonstrate responsibility, then he/she poses a potential risk and thereby forfeits his/her right :mark:

I'm a bit conflicted about restrictions for former felons as in many states it's also used to permanently deny the right to vote. Once someone has completed their sentence and probation (or successful treatment of mental concerns for that matter) they should have all the rights and responsibilities of citizenship again.

Permanent stigmas really aren't the American way, with the possible sad exception of race.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schmenke

My point is that I was shocked to learn that firearms are available for purchase from stores in the U.S. that around here are normally associated with household items like toilet paper, dog food, etc. :s

---

The gun industry hauls in $30 billion annually. There are places in America where you can walk into a store, purchase an item, and walk out with a gun as an incentive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigelred5

People are friggin morons.

---

precisely !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

It beggars belief, as far as I'm concerned, to suggest that guns are primarily at fault. You're just searching around for excuses, scapegoats and ways of avoiding the real issues. GUNS are not the problem; on occasion there may be warped uses of them, but this in itself is not reason to legislate. There's enough prurience and over-caution about what's 'suitable' for people to buy as it is. And it is also legitimate to ask whether or not these forms of entertainment have their roots in a society that's violent enough in any case. These things don't exist in a vacuum.

---

Works just the same with my changes.