yup...

_________________
This is my signature...

I read it considerably differently than that.

I reckon he'll clarify if need be.

My contention still stands ... guns aren't the real issue ... people's (in this case mental) health is the primary issue.

_________________
Power is always in the hands of the masses of men. What oppresses the masses is their own ignorance, their own short-sighted selfishness.
- Henry George

I never said guns are bad because people I know got shot, Don.

I was speaking to the "fun" viewpoint and why I believe I personally have never seen them that way.

Guns were fired quite a bit in my neighborhood growing up. I see them as dangerous mostly because of how they were introduced to me and shaped the way I lived as a youth.

I don't think I told anyone how they should feel or that their feelings are wrong or bad...

_________________
This is my signature...

Crescent? Hammer? Darkside's a goddamn communist! No wonder his champion's jacket is red.

_________________
Sex isn't dirty, sex isn't a crime. It's a loving act between two or more consenting adults.

-Hank Kingsley

Then it is as you say, and I read it entirely wrong. My apologies for inadvertently doing so.

_________________
Power is always in the hands of the masses of men. What oppresses the masses is their own ignorance, their own short-sighted selfishness.
- Henry George

Look

I get the "people suck and would find away to kill people no matter what" argument.

I understand that people choose to kill other people, and not the guns themselves.

I would just like to take away the seemingly best murder option these people have.

I like my chances vs. Knife guy rather than Gun guy. I know nothing is guaranteed and "we don't know how it would turn out", but some things are just logical.

There is a reason bringing a knife to a gun fight is a thing. Guns are a more efficient way to murder someone.

_________________
This is my signature...

Fighting chance

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

Darko doing some good work. Not much that I can add as I agree with him quite a bit. I can only reiterate a couple of things.

There are a real shit load of laws on the books that are not enforced at all or as was mentioned plead down. There are a lot of reasons for this. Every time a tragedy occurs there is a cry for more laws.

Most people killing are not using legal guns. I have to admit that many times when 12 kids get shot in some rural or suburban school those are with legal guns the kid generally gets from dad or his own hunting rifles. That is a real issue. What is ignored though is every do gooder wants to change the country when 12 white kids get shot. What about the 400 or whatever killed in Chicago alone every year. I am going to assume (and I may take heat) most of those guns were not obtained legally.

Lastly, I heard a great point on talk radio this morning. When was the last time you seen or heard of one of these blast-aways taking out 20 in an inner city school? I can't think of one. The point they made was that they are all metal detector and other security at a high manner and it seems to work. So my question after hearing that was why not that same level at the more affluent suburban settings? Racism? Secure them up.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

Thanks for clarifying. I understand your concern for a possible erosion of rights granted by the constitution when we talk about things like regulation, etc. But there are already numerous rights and/or freedoms that have been regulated, restricted, circumscribed, etc., by law. You cannot purchase alcohol for example until a certain age, and you cannot operate any motor vehicle if you have a blood alcohol content above a certain number, or you cannot run for some offices until you hit a certain age, and so on. Many rights and or freedoms have been conditionally granted or qualified for a long time - do you think purchasing a gun should not be subject certain thorny conditions like, say, mental health?

I'm sympathetic to you saying this is quite ambiguous, but with so many recent shootings being linked to health issues, don't you think it's the right time to be asking this? Ultimately this is probably a question for constitutional law theorists to ponder over, and I think it's worth it. It wouldn't be the first time folks have tried to figure a way out of a social paradox that cuts across law, rights, and public safety. Also for me this is not about the right to own, it's about legal preconditions to purchase a gun. And I also think that even if we agreed that stricter regulations won't necessarily stop people from illegally obtaining guns, I don't think that's relevant to the question of more robust conditions on gun transactions.

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY

Well purchasing alcohol and driving a car are not constitutionally granted rights. Gun ownership, for better or worse, is. So I don't find them to be particularly comparable.
The ages required for running for office, particularly President, is 35 per Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution and Article I Section 3 requires a minimum age of 30 for Senate, and Article I Section 2 has age requirement of 25 for a Representative (among other residency and naturalization requirements).



Yes, now certainly is the right time to be asking these questions, no doubt. And I agree, it's something that as a constitutional layman, I would not be qualified to debate. And I would absolutely agree to restrictions on gun transactions.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014