Don't tell us it's Guns

Nope, sorry.

 

Let me know when it happens BEFORE someone gets shot.

 

So you want to throw away the presumption of innocence to alleviate your fear of inanimate objects.

We don't shoot people until after the present a threat to life and limb. By the same principle, we don't steal firearms away from law abiding people.

 

Uh, that would make the good guy a bad guy. Duh.

 

And for that to happen you would have to uninvent the gun.... Good luck getting that toothpaste back into the tube.

If people can even sneak a firearm into prison is there any word that you think that you couldn't get one?

 

Do you think that would work? And if you find guns - what will you charge them with?

 

No fear. You guys don't want to prevent shootings from happening, all you want to do is kill people after they have already shot and injured/killed someone.

 

If done right I think it could have positive results. As for felons, I’m not sure what they’d be charged with.

 

you want to ban legally owned firearms and pretend it will stop criminals. You want criminals to go unchallenged when they attack honest people

 

Unannounced visits are already a part of the parole program.

 

The leaders of taliban today were the 10 year old kids when we invaded. They were practicing and living war longer than any commander or soldier we had. We adopted it, but we could never control the rural regions.

 

Although the Constitution does not explicitly ban anything, except for the instance of the prohibition against alcohol which was later removed with another admendment, federal and state law does, generally. The right to self-defense is not absolute even under stand your ground laws. Care to guess the reason why?

 

not relevant from a constitutional discussion. as to your question, someone can start a violent confrontation, and should not be able to claim self defense and SYG. It can also be wildly disproportionate.

 

Nope.

 

The tsunami of proof you provide with your answers is astounding

 

Yes it is. Part of the 10th Amendment aspect. Then we have Article 1, Section 8, where we have a necessary and proper clause in place. So yeah.

 

edit: what does that have to do with SYG

 

SYG is exclusively state law, per the 10th Amendment. And this is all about what the Constitution says and does, and doesn't say.

 

Wealth redistribution is not a legitimate function of government.

Fixing wages is not a legitimate function of government.

Neither is fixing prices though we have not gotten there yet. But we will, that's the path we seem to be traveling.

 

True.

...do you think it would be any different for rural Americans fighting a tyrannical govt (as in the scenario that I was responding to)?

 

a better reason to own a firearm.

 

OK and???? I was waiting for your amazing argument why the right of self defense is not absolute

 

many on the left hate the obstacles the constitution puts in the way of their welfare socialism

 

That will prevent shootings. Shooters don't target people or places that are likely to return fire. The more people and places likely to return fire, the more hesitant shooters will be to engage them. Statistically, on a mass scale, hesitation translates to reduced frequency.

 

Where did I claim this problem bothers me? My solution is to steer clear of the USA. Not a big problem for me. More a problem for people in the USA with a higher risk than me of getting shot by some yahoo gun owner or somebody who stole their gun.