The right wing is just NUTS... the answer to guns.. is more guns?!

[Wickabee]

You're assuming "militia" means "everyone". Prove to me it does (it doesn't) and I'll be on your side.
As it stands I'm asking for clarification on the classification system and laws that force gun owners to be responsible or face the consequences. I'm not looking to ban all guns. Really I think very few are, and none of them post here.

It begs the sender question who do you think you're arguing with.

[tpeichel]

You're assuming "militia" means "everyone". Prove to me it does (it doesn't) and I'll be on your side.
As it stands I'm asking for clarification on the classification system and laws that force gun owners to be responsible or face the consequences. I'm not looking to ban all guns. Really I think very few are, and none of them post here.

It begs the sender question who do you think you're arguing with.

Who do you think the 2nd amendment refers to then?

[Wickabee]

Well regulated militias who are necessary to the security of the state, like it says. But I don't know why you're arguing this, because it says "the people". Let's look:

"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"

Says to me, "Because a militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms is not to be taken away." Or, you can't be told you're not allowed to have a gun simply because you're a regular citizen. It says nothing of weapons classification or the use thereof to limit arms availability. It says nothing of protecting your home, only a secure and free state. It says nothing of carrying concealed weapons and the constitutionality of bans on concealed weapons. Face it, the second amendment is a reach against 95% of arguments deemed to be "anti-gun" by people who don't want more (any?) regulations on guns.

I'm not against guns or the ownership thereof. I don't think there is any one move, or bunch of moves that will end gun violence completely. It will always exist. That's what they're made for. The point is there are some things that can be done to lessen gun crimes and no, it doesn't include taking them away completely. The way I see it, there needs to be:

1 - Better, clearer and, most importantly, neutral reclassification of firearms.
2 - Better regulations for purchasing a gun. This may or may not be true, depending on state, I guess.
3 - Harsher penalties for gun crimes. And I mean crimes where a gun is fired, not just presented or hinted at (which is basically the system now, say you have a gun and it's armed robbery whether it's true or not)
4 - Legislated responsibility, I'm normally against this but guns are a whole different issue for me. I think making owners responsible legally for how they store and protect their weapons would save lives, even if only a few. I'm not saying have the cops randomly search houses for improperly stored weapons. Just that if something happens with your gun, you're on the hook if you can't prove you were storing it properly and reasonably and safely. That's all. Like aj said, if you sleep with your gun under your pillow, the guy is going to be Swiss cheese before he gets your gun. If it's in the safe and he takes off with the safe, opens it at home and uses it, you're off the hook.

I'll go so far as to say either way, if you report it stolen before it gets used you're off the hook too.

[indexed]

Dude. Put down the crackpipe and calm down, jeez.

The thing is this is how you build support. By talking about it. By trying over and over. YOU don't seem to understand how grassroots politics work. If you want people to shut up simply because you think they're annoying, there's no need to go on a rant about the media and a President you don't like (though the majority did...twice). Just say, "I'm annoyed, think I'm more important so shh!"
That way we can ignore your non comment and move on to actually discussing solutions to problems without being brought back to "Obama Sucks" for the millionth time.

By the way, there's no prize for that. Sorry.

Right so in other words you have no intentions of discussing FACTS!!

Your solution is to go around the constitution and handle the problem in the media. This simply is not going to work. You are in Canada anyway, what do you have to say about the situation anyway?

[indexed]

well regulated militias who are necessary to the security of the state, like it says. But i don't know why you're arguing this, because it says "the people". Let's look:

"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"

says to me, "because a militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms is not to be taken away." or, you can't be told you're not allowed to have a gun simply because you're a regular citizen. It says nothing of weapons classification or the use thereof to limit arms availability. It says nothing of protecting your home, only a secure and free state. It says nothing of carrying concealed weapons and the constitutionality of bans on concealed weapons. Face it, the second amendment is a reach against 95% of arguments deemed to be "anti-gun" by people who don't want more (any?) regulations on guns.

I'm not against guns or the ownership thereof. I don't think there is any one move, or bunch of moves that will end gun violence completely. It will always exist. That's what they're made for. The point is there are some things that can be done to lessen gun crimes and no, it doesn't include taking them away completely. The way i see it, there needs to be:

1 - better, clearer and, most importantly, neutral reclassification of firearms.
2 - better regulations for purchasing a gun. This may or may not be true, depending on state, i guess.
3 - harsher penalties for gun crimes. And i mean crimes where a gun is fired, not just presented or hinted at (which is basically the system now, say you have a gun and it's armed robbery whether it's true or not)
4 - legislated responsibility, i'm normally against this but guns are a whole different issue for me. I think making owners responsible legally for how they store and protect their weapons would save lives, even if only a few. I'm not saying have the cops randomly search houses for improperly stored weapons. Just that if something happens with your gun, you're on the hook if you can't prove you were storing it properly and reasonably and safely. That's all. Like aj said, if you sleep with your gun under your pillow, the guy is going to be swiss cheese before he gets your gun. If it's in the safe and he takes off with the safe, opens it at home and uses it, you're off the hook.

I'll go so far as to say either way, if you report it stolen before it gets used you're off the hook too.

this isnt canada its america!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Wickabee]

this isnt canada its america!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

...

[shrewsbury]

I'll go so far as to say either way, if you report it stolen before it gets used you're off the hook too

wickabee, I am impressed, even though you are from Canada (had to get that in there!!!)

[notes2us]

I'll go so far as to say either way, if you report it stolen before it gets used you're off the hook too.

Are you saying that if it wasn't properly stored and stolen.....if you report it stolen before it's used in a crime......you are off the hook?

If that is what you are saying, how would you handle a situation of a non-properly stored firearm stolen from a home in the morning and used to commit a crime in the afternoon.....all this happening while the firearm owner is at work and was unaware the weapon was stolen until he/she got home.

[centrehice]

Right so in other words you have no intentions of discussing FACTS!!

Your solution is to go around the constitution and handle the problem in the media. This simply is not going to work. You are in Canada anyway, what do you have to say about the situation anyway?

That's a copout reply. Canada has some gun laws that have more teeth than the USA, that actually work without taking guns away from responsible owners, so in effect, others have tried and true methods of reducing death by handgun. Sometimes it takes looking beyond your own borders for a positive solution.

It's a situation of reducing needless death here, not simply abiding by a misunderstood, flawed amendment from over 300 years ago.

[shrewsbury]

the only thing flawed about it is some people's interpretation of it