well, if the government can actually destroy guns instead of giving them to cartels, it would solve itself in 5-10 years, if they put a limit on production...

Please tell me if shooter A starts shooting before shooters B to Z see the shooting, and shooters B to Z pull out their guns, which one will shoot whom? Will B simply shoot A and thats the end? Or, when C sees B shooting, will C assume B is the shooter and shoot them? When the cops come and see ABC and D shooting which ones will they shoot?

Something to think about Ronald Reagan was shot amongst a slew of armed security, police were taken out an event filled with armed officers. More arms at the threat is not as logical as preventing the likelihood of the threat in the FIRST PLACE.

They could destroy drugs instead of making drug deals too... and they could put criminals behind bars instead of making deals with 'small' players to get 'bigger' players, but the justice system will always have discretionary practices based on their priorities.

to address that totally unproven conclusion that has not been shown to have any correlation to school shootings.

Seems your right, different states are doing different bans, from what I was just reading...most of the federal clip bans just deal with rifles...

you might wanna watch the clip of Reagan getting shot, security never Drew their guns, they tackled him before he could get a 3rd shot off...

why do I bother with you...

maybe you love me ...

I guess anything is possible...

Pointless discussion. Guns Are Always Going To Be Available. Government efforts to control possession of guns will be pathetic[like Prohibition of alcohol] & unenforceable. A grand waste of funds so why not ask, "what social, emotional, & psychological stress factors are not being addressed in a society where young people go out & open fire on their contemporaries?".

I believe there was an effort to completely prohibit ALL alcohol, an attempt to do that with guns would be pathetic, BUT an attempt to better regulate what types of guns are manufactured and sold, not so pathetic.

And that along with addressing the economy which has more parents in workplaces than homes, might be a start.

i like to express some of my personal opinions thru paraphrasing
of well known song lyrics (poetry of sorts, to me) i could type
out 10 or 12 paragraphs but it wouldn't begin to say all i feel
on the subject of gun control and the recent events in Florida..

now that i have explained it, i don't see how it can be
construed as off-topic or disparagement/offensive to
anyone...it was previously deleted for what reason, i have no
idea ??? People can read it or not, if someone gains some
insight from it, as i have, that's fine...if not, just pass

what harm can that possibly do ? i'd like it to stay up this time..
***********************************************************


Tin soldiers and shooters coming
We're finally on our own
This summer i hear the drumming
Seventeen dead in Flo~ri~da

Gotta get down to it
Shooters are cutting us down
Should have been done long ago
What if you knew her
And found her dead on the ground
How can you run when you know ?



credit --- 4 dead in Ohio...CSNY (paraphase)
oh btw, and if you like to sing...Flo--Rye--Da works good

Guns are always gone to be available to most people. Criminals too illegally.

Pointless to say what you will change, you are not Congress or POTUS.

Continue a March, maybe at least walk off your frustrations!!!

would not it also be equally pointless for you to say what

will not change, as you are also not Congress or POTUS

Your post

2nd amendment = right to bear arms means armor. Subtract people’s lives or the 2nd amendment?

2nd Amendment -- for those who flunked spelling class..

Your RIGHT TO BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON

OK OK, wear the damn tank-tops if that's what you want

What I mean is it should be about defense, not exhorting power over someone. The problem with guns or bombs is they can blow up and hurt someone.

One time I was walking down the street and 5 thugs were walking by and one of them asked me for my money. I told them I had none (was not true). The others circled around me. I locked eyes on the weakest of them (who evidently was behind the rest and after the others had circled around he had just stopped walking), and I gave him the look that I respect you even if I have to kill you to get to my meeting on time, and even if I end up dead which is more likely. He barked to the others “don’t stop just because I stopped, keep on walking,” and they left.

I don’t even want a gun in that kind of situation. Just being on my feet and engaging face to face solved the problem, and walking a wide circle around potential bad guys after that prevents the problem in the first place.

Taking away peoples guns will not solve the root of the problem, and it is unfair to gun owners who use them for good purposes.

However, it will significantly reduce the frequency of atrocities, and I think it is worth taking them away for that reason.

There may be an alternative solution that works better, but the research and development of a feasible plan would have to be done by someone or funded by tax money