Head of the NRA on meet the press any thoughts ??
Wayne lapierre was on "meet the Press" today, interesting. 1st off while I do believe in the 2 amendment , I do wonder if the lunatic who killed 26 people would have done so if he didnt have that
semi automatic weapon ?? if he just had some pistols or even one, would he make the move ?
We will never know, that question was brought up a few times as to what about limiting certain guns and ammo clips, he did dodge it a bit but then basically said it wouldn't make a difference...I don't know, maybe it would, one thing is for sure these nuts are young and like to go in like Rambo.
My interpertation of the 2 Amendment is an "arm" for self defense, an automatic or semi auto, doesn't fit the bill in my book, it is for offense. to me it is not open to any weapon of your choice, meaning is it ok if I have a thermonuclear bomb in my basement and if it gets in the wrong hands and blows up say New York, do we all just say "2nd amendment" etc
He also stressed an armed guard at schools, one armed guard vs that rifle would be a sitting duck.
Times change and I think our views on guns and ammo have to also.
Comments
I own what most folks would call "lots" of guns... but I'm NOT a member of the NRA, because they DON'T speak for me!
The 2nd Amendment (IMO) was not about self defense, but about defending the country... from threats both foreign AND DOMESTIC! ... Domestic threats could include a government that rejects/ignores the constitution... and the ONLY way to defend against that is if the citizenry is already armed.
I'm not suggesting that we have reached that point, but DIS-arming citizens would have been a good idea for King George III to have implemented in the colonies prior to 1776.
The problem of criminals like Newtown, Columbine, and the Colorado theater, et al is not one of gun control... but personal responsibility or mental illness.. take your pick. If semi-automatic pistols had been illegal, they would have either obtained them illegally, or used different weapons... But I dare say they would have found some way to commit some similar crime regardless.
If we have a police officer... Hmm... I'm not convinced. The answer to guns is more guns?
Police officers in every school... So the answer to protect your liberty is more security and more government in your schools?
Nutjob.
The interviewer was pretty lefty though.
The key is to interpret the 2nd amendment. My take is it says that a home dweller has the right to bear arms (which in those days were what muskets that took ten minutes to reload) to defend their presence and home and family and/or to hunt.
To me it does not say one has the right to have any weapon of their choice, including attack weapons like the one that was used at sandy hook.
Like I said before, simply having an armed guard at a school is just one more person who is going to get shot at....and 1st and if the would be lunatic has the same weapon as in sandy hook...bye bye guard.
The key is having answers that work, that really diminish the problem.
a few states have quite the lax gun laws, thats nuts. I say make it hard to get a gun legally, restrict what one can buy, because I say thats what the constitution meant.
Be very tough on criminals who use guns illegally.
"bear arms" to protect ones self and dwelling, not to bear arms that can wipeout 30 people pronto, especially children.
Bingo. And most people in the US I would wager have this view. But due to the temptation of polarisation nobody is talking about this common-sense approach, and this is what in general, this polarisation, will doom the US over the next 100 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012
Bingo. And most people in the US I would wager have this view. But due to the temptation of polarisation nobody is talking about this common-sense approach, and this is what in general, this polarisation, will doom the US over the next 100 years.
Không hi?u b?n nói cái gì c?!