Question for gun lovers

[Green Line]

Wow ^ very creepy.  You don't need three weapons to protect yourself!  This is why only the police should have guns.

[Green Line]

Most of the rabid gun lovers in this country are far removed from the horrors of gun violence.  They live in their remote, isolated towns where they never have to worry about their kids walking to school and being shot on the way in a drive-by.  If it was their community being ravaged by guns, they would think quite differently.

[Green Line]

Most of the rabid gun lovers in this country are far removed from the horrors of gun violence.  They live in their remote, isolated towns where they never have to worry about their kids walking to school and being shot on the way in a drive-by.  If it was their community being ravaged by guns, they would think quite differently.

BUT THEIR COMMUNITIES AREN'T.  People in VT and WY are peacefully exercising their RIGHT to firearms.  They can't control what psychos do with that right.

None of this is to argue against background checks, closing loopholes, keeping those on the no-fly list from buying or even an assault weapons ban, all of which I support (with the last one being tentative).  But your argument is just dumb.

Why should the people of inner city Chicago or Detroit care if gun owners in bum**** Idaho are peacefully coexisting with each other?  What is that doing for their kids, who are dying on the streets?  They're not peacefully coexisting in their communities, but they have to follow the same gun laws as everyone else.  And it's not the mentally ill who are committing most of the gun crime in America.   So if you're arguing that people in Idaho shouldn't have to "suffer" because people in Chicago are shooting each other, I don't know what to say.

And I'm not trying to direct any anger at you, just saying what I think.

[Green Line]

Most of the rabid gun lovers in this country are far removed from the horrors of gun violence.  They live in their remote, isolated towns where they never have to worry about their kids walking to school and being shot on the way in a drive-by.  If it was their community being ravaged by guns, they would think quite differently.

BUT THEIR COMMUNITIES AREN'T.  People in VT and WY are peacefully exercising their RIGHT to firearms.  They can't control what psychos do with that right.

None of this is to argue against background checks, closing loopholes, keeping those on the no-fly list from buying or even an assault weapons ban, all of which I support (with the last one being tentative).  But your argument is just dumb.

Why should the people of inner city Chicago or Detroit care if gun owners in bum**** Idaho are peacefully coexisting with each other?  What is that doing for their kids, who are dying on the streets?  They're not peacefully coexisting in their communities, but they have to follow the same gun laws as everyone else.  And it's not the mentally ill who are committing most of the gun crime in America.   So if you're arguing that people in Idaho shouldn't have to "suffer" because people in Chicago are shooting each other, I don't know what to say.

And I'm not trying to direct any anger at you, just saying what I think.

Why should the people BFE Idaho care about the non-peaceful people in Chicago?  They should "suffer" bear attacks because of poorly, unfairly enforced drug laws in Chicago?  

As if taking away the hunting rifle from the family in Idaho is going to stop gun violence in Chicago anyway.....

A lot of the people dying in Chicago are peaceful, not just gangbangers.  The crossfire is killing (or injuring) a lot of people too.  And since we have nationwide gun laws (due to the second amendment mandating it), it's not possible to restrict guns in one state and allow them in others.  It's a 30 minute drive from the South Side of Chicago to Indiana anyway.

If you're that worried about hunting rifles, sure, we can make exceptions.  Many other countries around the world allow hunting while still not having a 2nd amendment.

[Green Line]

If you're that worried about hunting rifles, sure, we can make exceptions.  Many other countries around the world allow hunting while still not having a 2nd amendment.

"In over 200 years, we haven't amended the Bill of Rights. Now is no time to start." - Ted Kennedy

For once, I agree with Ted. That is a very slippery slope.

I mean, that's a factually true statement, OK.  But times undoubtedly change.  When the amendment was written, there wasn't a gun in the world that could have killed as many people as Omar Mateen did in so quickly.  That's also a fact.  We've changed the constitution many times.  It's not always a bad thing.