Trump ended the rule blocking mentally ill people from getting guns.

Well, I hate to break it to you but...

 

I expect that the firearm permissiveness in the US that has resulted in the extraordinary proliferation of firearms and firearm fatalities, aided and abetted by the scandal-ridden "Fancy Pants" LaP, is finally going to be addressed by politicians representing the People over the next few years.

Democracy works, albeit often belatedly.

 

Correct. There is no constitution right to not be murdered.

Such an argument was made by the founding father when they held that liberty was of greater importance than life itself.

The point that the united states constitution, and the bill of rights, which exist to protect the people from the government, should be discarded due to the actions of those who are not concerned with what the law may say?

 

Such is the opinion on the part of yourself. But such is not fact. There are indeed locations in the united states that resemble the nations of Guatemala and Honduras, and are truly indistinguishable from one another.

 

And yet such is not only not the case, but will never be the case. Therefore there is no point in going on and on about how if only such were the case. Drop it and move onto something that more closely resembles what is reality.

 

The united states is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. Learn the difference between the two.

 

At the end of WWII. Most all of the nations of Europe,and certainly the Empire of Japan were better armed than any nations had ever been before or since. Yet today most of them are nearly devoid of guns entirely. Very well armed populations can and have been disarmed before and they will be disarmed again; " The difficult we do immediately, the impossible takes a little longer"

 

Says every authoritarian government.

 

Well, the left's version of democracy is authoritarian and anti-rights by nature.

 

There are locations in America that closely resemble the surface of Mars. They are not the whole nation.

The Founding Fathers never made such a silly argument. Rather they would argue that liberty was so important that life was empty without it, but not that life should be sacrificed on its altar. as it were. Life is why we HAVE liberty. Dead men have lost all their rights and gunnies,by enabling mass murderers, are helping people who want to take away all the precious rights we have.

"The objective in war is not to die for your country but to make the other poor bastard die for his country"

And the US Army, that is a motto of theirs

 

Yet the military defends our rights while the left wants to take them away.

 

It is a Constitutional Republic Democratically Based. That too is an important distinction, as many conservatives seem to think our elections have no real effect.

 

Germany and Japan disarmed their populations and only allowed the govt to own them. Which allowed them to commit massive horrors. It took a nuclear bomb and a world war to stop them

 

The left wants to preserve our rights. Conservatives want to rob us of our freedom in that freedom's name.

 

I said AFTER the war. The armies that fought over Europe were certainly not disarmed in 1945, nor were the populations

 

You mean like taking away our property and limiting free speech? that kind of preservation?

 

1. I'm not familiar with the law or Trump's block, but do have concerns about any efforts toward releasing more guns to those with mental or emotional problems associated with violent behaviors.
2. The NRA was once a great organization focused on gun safety issues. Today, they are focused on spreading guns into every home & every individual's hands, regardless of their mental or emotional ability to deal with it safely or morally. The NRA has become a super effective lobbyist organization that represents a narrow, extremist & self-serving point of view, but one not supported by the vast majority of Americans.
3. Then we must establish new legal limits to the capacity of magazines. If magazines were limited to 5 rounds, that would automatically slow up any mass shooter enough to save at least 1 or 2 lives, just from time delays.
4. Yes, but if modern technology makes the general population unsafe, then our governments have a responsibility to pass laws helping defer that new threat & protect the citizens.
5. That's a step in the right direction.
6. I know there are gun enthusiasts who develop an uncanny ability to use the bold action very fast, but generally speaking, it would slow down a shooter enough to save possibly 1 or 2 lives during the shooting spree. And every life counts.
7. I agree. I don't want to pass useless laws either. We need to take a serious look at what's possible here, discuss it across the aisle, & pass laws that will truly make an impact on the issue. Anything that doesn't help solve the mass shootings issue, should be discarded. But everything that does make a positive difference should be passed, enforced & preserved in law.

 

Yes

 

Where exactly does the right to abortion come from?

 

http://politicalforum.com/index.php...m-getting-guns.559822/page-44#post-1070935533

 

What farming contexts require the use of firearms?

I thought we were talking about rights, not just Constitutionally enumerated ones. I would much rather have guaranteed healthcare than the right to own a gun

Yes, very definitely

The 2nd amendment is not what most gunnies or even the SCOTUS seems to think it is. It needs to be repealed in any case.

 

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-farmers-need-guns

What other rights are there? Just anything that people say is a right makes it a right?

And how would instruction result in lives saved?

In YOUR opinion. Why did you state that as a FACT and not an opinion?

 

post deleted

 

My uncle was in the market for a Tibetan Mastiff at one time, but thought it would disturb his cows. He won prizes for his milk at the State Fair 3 years in a row and most people credited this to how nice he was to his cows

Many, many more. It can be argued that you have right to do most anything that doesn't hurt others in a free country. One of the main arguments for NOT having a Bill of Rights was that the tyrancially minded would say those were the only rights we have and it seems they were correct to be cautious; were they prescient about modern conservatives and their hatred of freedom? (Peruse Am 9 for their solution)

In more ways than we have room for, Are you just trolling or what? The NRA has said they favor something like this, though MUCH less than I would require.

Opinion goes without saying with that kind of thing. This is a discussion board, you are free to disagree at any time.

 

Okay... so now you know that there are farming contexts which require the use of firearms?

Are you saying that having guaranteed free healthcare is part of freedom?

Are you saying that a significant amount of deaths are from accidents resulting from improper use of firearms? You're not actually suggesting that mandatory instruction would prevent mass shootings are you?

What makes you so sure as to disagree with the Supreme Court?