Don't tell us it's Guns

Then why is it there?

 

When someone is determined by the court to be a threat of violence, that is exactly the person who should NOT own firearms.

Do you disagree?

 

It was SHOCKINGLY easy for our founders to confuse the CRAP out of our Republican courts, wasn't it!!

The very idea of erasing the stated justification for firearms to be owned by individuals is really just hard to imagine as an act of a court that is supposed to be reading the constitution.

 

Sure. Some people bend over backwards to argue against any effort or suggestion to reduce the number of mentally insane owing guns. Some will say you have to change the Constitution to have ANY measure, even background checks. If you suggest an idea to reduce the problem, you'll be called a "gun banner" and other names, and your views will be twisted to look something entirely different from what they are. That attitude makes intelligent discussion impossible.

 

So those who believe the state should have a monopoly on force could not disarm the citizenry.
It's almost as if they looked forward to the late 1980s/early 1990s and saw the Democrats.

 

The only people confused by the 2nd Amendment are those trying to get around it.
People like, say, you.

 

For the love of god...sigh.

Your post below was in response to my post below. The issue being discussed had nothing to do with people who are a threat. The issue being discussed was total confiscation of all guns from every citizen. You jumped into the conversation and it seems you were having your own conversation unbeknownst to anyone else. Kudos.

 

How about reducing deaths by going after the actual killers. Doesn't that make more sense?

 

You guys don't want to prevent shootings from happening, all you want to do is kill people after they have already shot and injured/killed someone.

 

You guys don't want to prevent shootings because you need the dead bodies to fuel your agenda.

That's why you all favor allowing violent criminals to walk out streets instead of locking their asses up.

 

To be fair, you don’t want to prevent shootings either. I say this because you know confiscating all guns is not a reality. You can keep claiming it is but you know it’s not.
If it can happen then why hasn’t it? Why haven’t all guns been confiscated from everyone in the US?

 

If you believed that, I would have expected you to express opposition to spending time in congress to ensure that those with mental disorders may have guns.

 

You are fabricating excuses again.

I haven't opposed gun ownership.

 

The actual issue is reducing the rate of gun slaughter in America.

If you have ideas on that, you could head off the desire by some to take the most thorough solution.

 

So, propose that.

Identify what the budget would be and what the result might be.

BUT, you have to remember that our mass shootings have come from legal gun owners.

And, the magnitude of the effort to instill the belief that shooting people is the logical method of conflict resolution is not going to be halted by having a whole bunch of police officers.

In most cases, these people haven't committed a crime until the bullet is traveling toward the victim.

 

That's simple: return police departments back to the manpower levels that existed a few years ago. Stop no cash bail policies. Stop treating criminals with kid gloves.

Not all of them. Not even most of them.

 

Nope, sorry.

 

So you don't believe in innocent until proven guilty. Got it.

 

Well, if you think letting murderers walk, then stop complaining about the murder rate.

Speaking of innocent until proven guilty, why do you want to punish hundreds of millions of law abiding gun owners?

 

How do you explain the Left's massive failure to police crime? Is it intentional, or incompetence?

 

I have no idea how to actually reduce the rate of gun deaths. Seems no one else does either. And I’m talking things that can actually be implemented. Not the ban all guns fantasy (not saying you want this) as we all know that isn’t going to happen.

 

How is that happening since they haven't had a trial?

 

Yes, that isn't going to happen.

That doesn't mean there isn't plenty of opportunity to reduce gun deaths.

The catch is that ALL those methods that have anything at all to do with guns violate the NRA.

I think what may be necessary is for a major contingent of those who care about gun safety to join the NRA, since THAT is the government we are ruled by.

 

Are you saying it’s the norm in every state in the US for law enforcement to not pursue, arrest and bring to trial murders?

 

In blue cities it is.