Gun Control and The Second Amendment.

[Griswold]

After the horrible tradegy at the Newtown, Conn. shooting many in washington and around the states have been up in arms about the fight over gun control and the second amendment rights of the people of the United States of America.

Were do you stand on this issue? and why?

To me it seems that the NRA and other republican based groups seem to reject any kind of proposal to limit the second amendment rights of the people of the U.S.A.

Tell me, why in a civilized society that besides hunting is there a need for Assualt rifles? Rifles that could easily be illegally modified to fire over thousands of rounds of ammo in a short amount of time even if legally they could only be made to be semi-automatic?

Republicans now are even starting to call our legally elected President a "King" for wanting to find a possible means to an end.

And there are even Sheriffs in remote parts of the country now who are saying things like "If Obama uses excutive measures to control guns then i wont enforce them." Correct me if i am wrong but as a police officer you have to enforce the law even if you don't agree with it.

Here are a couple of articles i have found to get you guys thinking.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/...ment/?hpt=hp_t2

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/16/us/oregon-sh....html?hpt=hp_t2

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/...ment/?hpt=hp_t2

Thanks for your time,

J. Griswold

[Morton]

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.

This can be interpreted a couple of ways. The most popular one is that everyone gets guns, no matter what, however this ignores the "well regulated Militia" part. Honestly I see it as saying that you can bear arms if you are part of a militia. However the Dick Act of 1903 pretty much folded the militias into the National Guard. So with that said, the 2nd Amendment protects your right to bear arms if you're part of the National Guard.

Don't take this to mean I want to take away your guns, I don't. I believe everyone should be able to own a gun, for sport and self defense. If you do take away the law abiding citizens ability to carry a gun, then the only people who will have them are law enforcement and the military, and the criminals who will ignore the law anyway.

[Griswold]

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.

This can be interpreted a couple of ways. The most popular one is that everyone gets guns, no matter what, however this ignores the "well regulated Militia" part. Honestly I see it as saying that you can bear arms if you are part of a militia. However the Dick Act of 1903 pretty much folded the militias into the National Guard. So with that said, the 2nd Amendment protects your right to bear arms if you're part of the National Guard.

Don't take this to mean I want to take away your guns, I don't. I believe everyone should be able to own a gun, for sport and self defense. If you do take away the law abiding citizens ability to carry a gun, then the only people who will have them are law enforcement and the military, and the criminals who will ignore the law anyway.

We are talking military grade weapons in the hands of unskilled and sometimes even untrained civilians using the massive magazine and rate of fire to hurt those they do and don't know. I think you kinda missed what I was aiming for.

[Kirkendall 1st MRB]

I have a CCW, and I carry a Springfield XD. Am I a danger to others? Not in the least. Have I even once had to fire, draw, or even put my hand on my weapon in public? No. Much of the gun control legislation being introduced limits the legal magazine size to seven rounds. It also renders semi-automatic weapons illegal. Notice, if you will, that much of the legislation being introduced does not draw distinctions between a semi-automatic pistol or handgun and an semi-automatic assault rifle. Therefore my pistol will become illegal on two counts, being semi-automatic and having a thirteen round magazine. So, the Federal government will have disarmed me.

The Second Amendment is a protection for the American people against a government that would as soon force a multitude of things on its people. That is why people are calling President Obama a monarch. Of course he's legally elected, and many worse names have been thrown at him and at his enemies. Is the government a tyranny right now? No, not in the least. However, this is a protection put in place to ensure that if the time were to come that the government is forcing unjust things upon the people, they have a readily available way to defend themselves.

[Kirkendall 1st MRB]

@ Kirk, except the Second Amendment doesn't say that. It talks about Well Regulated Militias, and since they are vital to security, it gives us the right to bear arms. Except the well regulated militias where turned into the National Guard in 1903, mainly because the militias where not well regulated. No where does it state that it is to protect the people from the government.

I'm not sure where your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is coming from, that only well-regulated militias have the right to bear arms. In fact, that goes directly against the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008). It's fine to dissent with the Court's opinion, but that was the Court's decision.

[Marchese 1st MRB]

What you have to look at is why the Second Amendment was made. It wasn't just made for hunters or protection from criminals but was made because America's founders saw that people needed to protect themselves from their protectors. This doesn't just mean governments but other people of authority who can abuse their power. Also if laws are passed it only really affects legal gun owners but illegal owners (e.g. criminals) can still get them. Now I'm not trying to be insensitive to the tragedy in Newtown but what happen in my view was the perfect storm of a series of specific events that led to the tragedy which the gun was only part of. If the guy didn't have a gun he could easily used a car (which CNN likes to dismiss but if you think about it a car is a 2 ton projectile traveling at speeds breaking 60 MPH) or a bomb. To try and pass these kind of laws now in a time of great tension with the US recession will backfire greatly. That my two cents from your friendly Canuck Marchese.

[Magoo]

It all depends on how the language used in the 2nd Amendment is interpreted.

I personally believe that the 2nd Amendment was designed to allow the citizens the power to overthrow the government if things got out of hand. That means that there should be no gun restrictions placed on law abiding citizens at all. Law abiding citizens should have access to the same weapons as our military. This would ensure that we are able to at least put up a good fight if we ever needed to defend ourselves against them.

Now a lot people scoff at that. They think there is no reason why people should be allowed to own guns, at all, and that only the military and law enforcement should be allowed.

Just because our government hasn't done anything too outrageous to hurt the people yet, doesn't guarantee that they will not. What if the government said that they were going to add a chemical to our flu shots that will make 1 in 10 people lose the ability to conceive children (to combat overpopulation), and that flu shots were now mandatory? What would we do then? Some of you will say that our government would never do anything like that to the people. I ask you then to look at China. If we alter the Constitution and infringe on the rights of the people, our government will cease to be our government and become a different government all together.

I do support gun control in certain circumstances though. Mentally disabled or unstable individuals should not be allowed to own firearms. Anyone that has been convicted of a crime (to include some misdemeanors, felonies, and capital crimes) should also forfeit the right to own firearms. I would also support removing the gun rights of people that are not naturalized citizens. And I believe that the strictest of punishments should be imposed upon those that break gun laws.

[Marchese 1st MRB]

It all depends on how the language used in the 2nd Amendment is interpreted.

I personally believe that the 2nd Amendment was designed to allow the citizens the power to overthrow the government if things got out of hand. That means that there should be no gun restrictions placed on law abiding citizens at all. Law abiding citizens should have access to the same weapons as our military. This would ensure that we are able to at least put up a good fight if we ever needed to defend ourselves against them.

Now a lot people scoff at that. They think there is no reason why people should be allowed to own guns, at all, and that only the military and law enforcement should be allowed.

Just because our government hasn't done anything too outrageous to hurt the people yet, doesn't guarantee that they will not. What if the government said that they were going to add a chemical to our flu shots that will make 1 in 10 people lose the ability to conceive children (to combat overpopulation), and that flu shots were now mandatory? What would we do then? Some of you will say that our government would never do anything like that to the people. I ask you then to look at China. If we alter the Constitution and infringe on the rights of the people, our government will cease to be our government and become a different government all together.

I do support gun control in certain circumstances though. Mentally disabled or unstable individuals should not be allowed to own firearms. Anyone that has been convicted of a crime (to include some misdemeanors, felonies, and capital crimes) should also forfeit the right to own firearms. I would also support removing the gun rights of people that are not naturalized citizens. And I believe that the strictest of punishments should be imposed upon those that break gun laws.

Good Points Magoo I like it +1

[Morton]

@ Kirk, except the Second Amendment doesn't say that. It talks about Well Regulated Militias, and since they are vital to security, it gives us the right to bear arms. Except the well regulated militias where turned into the National Guard in 1903, mainly because the militias where not well regulated. No where does it state that it is to protect the people from the government.

I'm not sure where your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is coming from, that only well-regulated militias have the right to bear arms. In fact, that goes directly against the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008). It's fine to dissent with the Court's opinion, but that was the Court's decision.

Yeah I removed that post before you posted since I didn't want to argue about this yet again, but since the cat is out of the bag, might as well.

When the Constitution was written the same firearm you use to hunt was also the same firearm you would most likely use when you where called up to serve in your militia. Which made sense. In today's world we have weapons capable of putting out more firepower then an entire regiment could back in the late 1700's. Which isn't hard considering that a very experienced soldier could at best put out 4 shots per minute. There was no way the Framers could have foreseen that one day there would be weapons like this, and because of this they wrote about the weapons of the time. Now the Second Amendment mentions a "Well Regulated Militia" and while DC v. Heller did have a majority that said it doesn't actually mean a militia, there was disagreement, From Justice Stevens "The Amendment's text does justify a different limitation: the "right to keep and bear arms" protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase "bear arms" to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as "for the defense of themselves"" Which again makes sense since the very text mentions a militia. Which the Dick Act of 1903 made all militias into National Guard units.

As for personal use of firearms, I'm all for that. Use your gun for hunting, or just sport in general, and for home defense. Where I get mad is when people think that because the government has fully automatic weapons with massive magazines they should have it, and then they try to use the 2nd Amendment to justify it.

[Peaker]

Canada has relatively strict gun control (Slightly less rigid than the UK) and we're far better off. I think this is simply the symptom of a much greater disease. The US used to be the nation everyone pointed at when we were asked which was the greatest nation on earth. They were the leaders in democracy, human rights and opportunity during the 18th to the mid 20th century. The constitution was written in a much different time period than now, when oppressive monarchies and regimes were rampant in the western world. The thing is, it's now put on the same level as the bible, instead of realizing that times have changed and that many of it's provisions are obsolete.

The bottom line is, there is no need for a civilian to own an assault rifle. Self defense is kind of a rubbish motive to own a firearm I think, unless you're a mafia prosecutor, high ranking politician etc... Where do most criminals get their weapons? By stealing them from law abiding citizens. Japan, which has strict gun control, has little to no gun violence. The cops don't even carry firearms on everyday duty, same thing in the UK, where I only saw one armed cop guarding the Royal Guard's barracks.

Now I will always support the privilege to own a firearm for hunting or target practice, but I think there should be a process for acquiring one, since I really don't think most of mankind is responsible enough to have access to death at the pull of a trigger. Here you have to go through a safety and regulations course before you can buy firearms.

The rate of homicide by firearm (Per 100 000 population) is 0.54 in Canada, 0.12 in England...and 2.97 in the United States. That's about 5-6 times that of Canada, so yeah, gun control does make a difference. Besides, the "revolution against government" defence is pretty invalid, since even if you had assault rifles, it won't do much against APCs, tanks and planes. Look at Libya, where the access to guns was pretty pervasive amongst the citizen militias. Gaddafi's regime was kicking their butts until army units defected to the rebels, bringing their vehicles and weapons with them. And even then, until NATO helped them, it was looking pretty bleak.

[Legend]

US gun debate: Obama unveils gun control proposals

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21049942

[Zorbanos 1st MRB]

My problem with your argument Peaker is that Canada, Japan, and the UK are all significantly smaller nations than the US. (Canada has about 1/10 of the US population). I love Canada, i think Canada has a great system and i would move there if i ever decided to emigrate from the United States. That said, Canada's system our government and social policy would never work in the US. From healthcare to gun control. Because we are simply too large of a nation with too many variables. As has been said, if you take away guns from citizens, the only ones who will have them will be criminals.

It is my personal opinion, that these sorts of things happening in the US more than other countries ("civilized countries", this shit happens in "third world countries" all the time) is because the US has such a massive population, there is much more room for sick and deranged people to slip through the cracks and as was said, a perfect storm of specific events leads to a tragedy. You can't say these sorts of things do not happen in other large nations, because the same day of the Newtown shooting a man in China STABBED 20+ children in a school. No guns involved. Still killed 20 kids.

Don't get me wrong. Im not one of these people who thinks any regulation means you're infringing on my 2nd amendment rights. I live in Texas. Im a gun enthusiast. I know first hand how lax the regulations on guns are. I find it sickeningly easy to purchase a weapon and a massive amount of ammunition. Most of my guns were purchased and brought home the same day. I don't think thats really rational. I don't think drum magazines for assault rifles or twenty round mags for my glock 17 are necessary. Even as a southern gun enthusiast, i don't support the NRA, because they take it too far. Regulation is necessary, especially when it comes to background checks, the gun show loophole, and introduction of legislation holding gun owners accountable for the use of their guns (even by another person. Some places have laws where is a child get ahold of their parents gun and shoots themselves or another child, the parent is charged with criminally negligent manslaughter).

However, I completely disagree with an assault weapons ban. I don't find that to be control or regulation. Thats disarmament. As has been discussed, our founding fathers included the 2nd amendment as a check against foreign and domestic oppression. Do you think, if a revolution was necessary that the american people could sucessfully overthrow the government with pistols, shotguns, and hunting rifles? Have you seen the tech our military uses? To those who say, "why would we need to rebel against the government? the government protects us and our rights" Do not be naive. The US government has already taken away rights of its citizens. (see NDAA and PATRIOT ACT). The government is a shady beast that its citizens HAVE to keep in check. Its is the responsibility of citizens to question their government. I for one am against the government and society using this tragedy as an excuse to disarm part of the population. Maybe the government is not coeerceing US citizens by force now, (however that is arguable, see Berkley Occupy Demonstrations) by it is a slippery slope. History always repeats itself right? Historically, nations have disarmed their citizens just before the institutionalization of tyranny. Tyranny and opression doesnt come before you take away the peoples guns, that would be stupid. They could just rebel against you. No, Tyranny and oppression come after you disarm the peasants.

[Peaker]

My problem with your argument Peaker is that Canada, Japan, and the UK are all significantly smaller nations than the US.

The rates given are per 100 000 people, your argument is thus invalid, it's the result of the following equation: (Country wide gun homicides/100 000)= Rate of homicide (Per 100 000 capita). It takes into account the population gap. Hard numbers might relate the story better. In 2009, Canada had 179 shooting homicides. In 2009 (Or 2010, not sure how far their compilation goes), the US had 10 078 firearms related homicides.

If we take into account the difference in population, the US has about 10 times more people than Canada has, so let's multiply Canada's stats by 10. We get 1790 firearms related homicides, still roughly 5-6 times less than the US. Of course there might be other factors than gun control at play here, but the main difference related to firearms in the US and Canada IS gun control, so it's definitely a huge factor.

You can't say these sorts of things do not happen in other large nations, because the same day of the Newtown shooting a man in China STABBED 20+ children in a school. No guns involved. Still killed 20 kids.

Wrong, none of the kids died, they were wounded. It's significantly harder to cause fatalities with a knife than a firearm if you are untrained and if you have to engage many targets at once.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/asia/c...tack/index.html

Operative word here is wounds.

Do you think, if a revolution was necessary that the american people could sucessfully overthrow the government with pistols, shotguns, and hunting rifles? Have you seen the tech our military uses?

Read my section on this supposed "uprising". Even with assault rifles, it's the allegiance of the National Guards units that will decide how such a revolution would go, not how much military hardware is packed into citizen's homes. Unless you think they should be able to own fighter planes and APCs as well.

Bottom line is I don't think there's any excuse for the behavior of US gun nuts, but whatever, it's your country, we'll keep watching from the North and facepalm the next time Alex Jones speaks on TV or there's yet another school shooting.

PS: Our last school shooting that caused more than 10 deaths was the massacre at the Polytechnique...in 1989.

[Morton]

Your right about the revolution Peaker. If the common citizens where to raise up, even with our Assault Rifles and machine guns (to stretch it further) we would get owned pretty damn hard. The Government isn't going to be concerned by a group of civies, not when they have the military to back them up. It would be decided by which way the National Guard and Active forces go.

[Holland 1st MRB]

My comment here is not going to be of a political nature. You can debate the meaning of your constitution or whether or not the issue of gun control is right or wrong all day long.

Nor will I give my personal opinion on the matter.

Instead, my comment is going to be of human nature.

Imagine a situation where an armed person, maybe mentally stable, maybe not (irrelevant, as they are unlikely to be found one way or the other before something has happened already), who has been put under great emotional strain. Maybe they found another man/woman sleeping with their wife/husband. Perhaps a criminal broke their window in an attempt to break in to their house. Maybe that criminal was simply a kid playing a prank with some rocks. Regardless of the specific scenario, that emotional person has the option directly at-hand, to draw a weapon in response. All it would take is a split second of an emotional response, or loss of emotional control to create a terrible situation. It is not as far-fetched as you might think.

I ask you to question your own line of thought. You might think "But I am responsible, and I have never had to even touch that weapon I carry around. I certainly am no threat to anybody." That is easily said, and surely you are a role model for how we should all strive to behave, however not everyone is as responsible. Have you ever witnessed another person become absolutely hysterical over something that was really quite minor? I know I have. Maybe that child, who thought it would be fun to break a window in some persons house with a stone. What if that home-owner had a very short fuse, and happens to have a weapon at their waist? What is the likely-hood of that person, enraged at the child's apparent lack of fore-thought, deciding to extract punishment, either directly, or indirectly? Either could result in a terrible situation. Is everybody like this, most certainly not! Most people, like yourself, are quite reasonable. And so what happens when something a bit more serious happens to those normally reasonable, yet armed, people?

How many times in your past can you look back, in retrospect, at the absolutely retarded things you may have done when you were upset? It doesn't have to be a murder, it could be as simple as physically assaulting someone. Maybe you said something you shouldn't have whether it made sense in the situation or not. Broke someone else's possessions or property that might not even have had anything directly to do with the situation. Regardless, it is very likely that you realize now that it was an irrational response given the situation. Humans are irrational. Every one of us is irrational, or have been irrational in one way or another. When we have weapons readily available, it only takes a single irrational moment to create catastrophe.

Now does this mean that everyone is a risk? Probably not. However, that does not mean that the potential of becoming a risk does not exist. That, is where the problem lies. You may not be a risk now, nor ever, but the potential for that moment of irrational thought, split second responses, or otherwise is still there. It is exactly that which creates the terrible situations that make up a great deal of gun-related homicides.

[Mamora BAR]

If there were a revolution and it was started over this topic i would assume that the military would side with the revolution itself.

I doubt the military branches would support a ban on assault weapons since alot of US soldiers own a variety of guns. I'm not saying every single one but a good portion of them do. Who would they side with? The government whose trying to take their weapons away? Added to the fact that not to activate a stereotype or anything but where do most of the soldiers for the Military come from? The south.

[Logsdon]

This is supposedly a free country and we should be free to own (a) firearm/s. If someone is a really big gun enthusiast and likes to collect lots of vintage and old-timer revolvers, so be it. It doesn't make sense to take guns away from law-abiding citizens when CRIMINALS DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW. It's like saying, "Okay old lady, I'm going to take your weapon while that man over there hides his and waits for you to be defenseless. If you want to protect yourself, TOO BAD LOL call the police! It'll only take them, like, 20 goddamn minutes to get here! "

I do, however, believe in more strict screening for earning a license to have a gun and for buying guns. If a guy comes into your gun shop with Swastikas up and down his arm, screen him. If he's a psycho, guess who's not getting a gun?

Everyone's got their own opinion. I tend to think of extremist gun control-freaks as yuppies and that they don't know what's best for 'em. Normal people who say that gun control is good are alright, but I can't stand when people post stupid crap on the internet like "GUNZ R BAD," or "GUNZ KIL PPL GET RID OF DEM," it's so annoying. To those people, I suggest going to a gun range, renting an M4, and letting loose for about 20 minutes.

The rest who oppose guns in general are, from what I've seen, people who've been negatively affected by people who abuse the 2nd Amendment. It's hard to build a case for guns when someone is able to rent an assault rifle, waltz into an elementary school, and commit horrific crimes. My extremist side wants to scream "ARM ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, YAYUH AMERICUH" but what kind of sense would it make to have children grow up around armed guards? That could potentially cause some psychological problems. Instead of that, have a police officer, dressed in civies, and armed with a tazer and some cuffs. Implement some new policies that would allow them to 'taze the Hell out of some weirdo who walks onto campus with an assault rifle.

It's really not that hard. If politicians would use their goddamn heads instead of getting caught in the emotion of things like a bunch of crippled, old women, they could actually do some good for the People. Y'know, like they're supposed to?

[Marchese 1st MRB]

You know there is an old quote "People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both" Americans for over 10 years has been slowly losing their freedoms (the TSA for example) in the name of security. Out of that has come the Patriot Act, the NDAA and Homeland Security which are entities that can circumvent your rights in the name of National Security. Security is a fallacy in of itself, if someone wants to commit an act bad enough they will find a way no matter how many laws you implemented. How many rights are you willing to give up before you say enough. Also this assault weapon argument is stupid as these guns are semi-automatic and they just look like military weapons but do not have automatic fire. They fire .223 calibre but so do many other guns and many of these other guns have low recoil as well, so this is just cherry picking. I'm not against better background checks or having mandatory training in the proper use of firearms but banning these weapons is something I am totally against. Also Peaker I am Canadian as well and I support Americans for having the right to any gun and yes I will admit Canadian gun laws have worked for us but the U.S.A. is not Canada/UK/Japan they are different and what worked for us may not work for them as they are unique as is any country. Just look at Mexico they have strict laws and their gun crime is out of control.

[Zorbanos 1st MRB]

Also this assault weapon argument is stupid as these guns are semi-automatic and they just look like military weapons but do not have automatic fire. They fire .223 calibre but so do many other guns and many of these other guns have low recoil as well, so this is just cherry picking. I'm not against better background checks or having mandatory training in the proper use of firearms but banning these weapons is something I am totally against. Also Peaker I am Canadian as well and I support Americans for having the right to any gun and yes I will admit Canadian gun laws have worked for us but the U.S.A. is not Canada/UK/Japan they are different and what worked for us may not work for them as they are unique as is any country. Just look at Mexico they have strict laws and their gun crime is out of control.

+1

You could do as much or more damage with 2 .38 revolvers, 1 9mm Glock and 1 .45 ACP with plenty of ammo. Those are also much likely to be what is used in the statistics that reflect so many gun homicides.

I agree with what holland is saying about emotional response, but i think, and i may be wrong, that the numbers show most murders are pre meditated.

All i know is, a few coworkers of mine were recently robbed at gunpoint. someone broke into their house, so their roommate multiple times, and held the others at gunpoint while they looted the joint. When the called the police, they arrived an hour late and for some reason (i cannot remember the specific one) they were not allowed to file a complaint. so nothing is being done about a burgarly/shooting. This is in a nice suburb of Dallas TX. All im saying is, if it was me, i would have shot those motherfuckers dead and went back to bed.

[Teachey]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. People will always find a way even without a gun. Don't really see the point in limiting the second amendment personally, but it was expected considering the tragedies that have recently occurred. Everybody wants to point the finger, but lets be honest a gun cannot kill a person without some certain person operating it. You will not find a gun that will just simple get up, walk up to a person and automatically fire. At this rate I will move to Canada, not necessarily because of the gun control, but the United States government is really pushing it to not do the will of the people. (from what I have seen at least) Just my few cents here and personal opinion, could be wrong on some of these but this is just what I have seen.

[Griswold]

You know i never ever expected to start a topic and get so many responses. To me, this is the best way to get over political upbringing or other means that keeps you politically blinded. I like reading over other peoples expleantions and stances on the subject.

Oh god I knew this topic was going to eventually make it to the forums ..

You would have never guessed that it would be me to start it right?

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_c3#/video...onts-thief.ksat

I do agree that guns are a very useful protection tool when you cant get help fast enough ^. But also i would like it if we could keep the killing of innocent people to a minimum if possible and agree to find any way possible but i cant find a good way to solve this without angering either side in this case.

[Holland 1st MRB]

You could do as much or more damage with 2 .38 revolvers, 1 9mm Glock and 1 .45 ACP with plenty of ammo.

Please see;

Rifles that could easily be illegally modified to fire over thousands of rounds of ammo in a short amount of time even if legally they could only be made to be semi-automatic?

that the numbers show most murders are pre meditated.

Indeed, I believe they do. How long does it take to pre meditate? A week? A day? A few hours? A few minutes? Maybe the amount of time to drive to your friends house?

Pre meditation does not imply careful planning, a period of time, or even rational thought. In this case, it implies the intention of your actions specifically to kill someone.

All im saying is, if it was me, i would have shot those motherfuckers dead and went back to bed.

You exemplify the seemingly collective idea of self-policing which, in some cases, may work fine. In most cases, including that which you may have reacted given the chance, does not. If this is the case, why are you, through taxes or otherwise, paying for a court system that remains completely unappreciated? Why not give both conflicting parties a dueling pistol and have them walk a few paces? The emotional response impaired your judgement, resulting in unnecessary death.

Now you look at the school shooting and wonder, where in the world do children get the idea of shooting each other? It is generally accepted that children, particularly young ones, imitate the behavior they see around them in their daily lives.

Daddy, why do you threaten to shoot and kill that man that man who made you mad?

Then a child gets teased in school.

[Xiong]

Coming from a city that revolves around gun violence ( Oakland, California )

I feel that firearms are needed for law abiding citizens. Our house has been broken in / attempted 3 + times. In those times, we've gotten an alarm system, security camera, German Shepard.

One time my sister was home alone, group of 6 AA Males broke down front door and rushed in. Luckily police was only blocks away. Imagine if they weren't...

Therefore, I believe in law abiding citizens in owning firearms for home defense. The moment I turn 18, I'm purchasing a rifle and giving it to my family, teaching them how to use it, while I'm away at college....

[Yamagata 1st MRB]

I think Penn and Teller explain it quite well

[Griswold]

If there were a revolution and it was started over this topic i would assume that the military would side with the revolution itself.

Just remember, cause this is what most people dont know. The Military is considered the defenders of the Constitution, not the american people. They are here to keep your rights free of infringement of other outside peoples or countries. As soon as you think that the military has become a fist for us to swing around on the world stage is when we a have lost our sense of being american. We as a people came here to build our own utopia for others to come here to our land.

Our forefathers never watned to impose rule over anyone that did not want it. If they wanted the same freedoms as we have, you could come here to get those freedoms. That is why america is a melting pot.

The reasons in my opinion that we entered WWI and WWII was because an outside nation infringed on the american peoples most valuable right. The pursuit of life, love and the pursuit of happiness.