KGOldWolf

My points all along do not attemp to take guns away from responsible citizens. Close the loopholes, the inconsistencies, the access to high capacity magazines and their associated weapons, and raise the age to acquire guns. Those are reasonable steps in the right direction. It won’t eliminate the problem but will reduce its potential.

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

Instead, why not try to eliminate the problem rather than merely reducing the potential?

KGOldWolf

You can’t legislate mental health. You can’t eliminate murder. You can take steps today that reduce potential for deranged people to acquire and kill innocents with highly effective weapons that have high capacity magazines.

jaycoffman Loc: San Diego

It's nice to see the young people getting involved. For me the best analogy is Viet Nam. Then the kids spearheaded the resistance to the war and got everyone's attention--good and bad--but it wasn't until the kids started coming home in a box that their parents suddenly took note and supported them and changed the national attitude toward the war. This is yet another instance of kids coming home in a box so it's just possible they will move more people.

As for taking away guns--let's skip the stupid argument that it's just a front for taking away everyone's guns--that has no basis in fact whatsoever and is just an emotional and bullying way of changing the issue. The Supremes have made it clear that there is a right to gun ownership but have always allowed reasonable restrictions--just as they had in colonial times, just as the military has toward private ownership, etc. Stupid arguments like this just foster stupid ideas on the other side--we should all be looking at what types of restrictions are reasonable and may actually prevent mass shootings. Some of the ideas out there seem reasonable to me and others stupid--let's stick to the issue.

letmedance Loc: Walnut, Ca.

My argument is not about the right to own guns, not about age, not about background checks, and not about assault weapons. If all of this becomes law it will only be a bandaid applied to a gaping wound.

Erdos2 Loc: Vancouver, WA

Anytime I see the phrase "No one..." in any argument or discussion, the rest of what they say is too biased to be considered...

See the following:

https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/politics/2018/03/21/oregon-initiative-would-ban-assault-rifles-require-owners-surrender-weapons/444530002/

(Note: The StatesmanJournal is the city newspaper in Salem Oregon, not a right wing publication)

Jerry

KGOldWolf

Using your metaphor, then these steps are like stitches to reduces the potential for wound to get bigger.

markngolf Loc: Bridgewater, NJ

And, let us not forget that most who fought in the American Revolution were between ages of 16 - 24. These "kids", whom I taught for 40 years, have every right to express their dissent. I hope the legislators listen. They certainly do have the political power to effect change in the next election. It's not a perfect scene - some are being led by political agendas, but most are expressing their concern for a very serious problem in America. I applaud them. It's wonderful seeing them using their political influence & power. It's a healthy sign.
Mark

Amielee Loc: Eastern Washington State

See the case of Jack Miller and Frank Layton. Justice McReynolds of the US SUPREME COURT delivered the opinion of the Court. He discusses the Second Amendment, militias, Colonial law of the various colonies and past laws including the laws of England, Blackstone’s Commentaries and Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. He said: “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”
His ruling would indicate that the only weapons covered by the Second Amendment were military style weapons such as the AR-16.

10MPlayer Loc: California

I was in Marine boot camp with some of those guys. A lot of them just ended up in the military brig. They were the same losers in the Marines they were in civilian life only living under tougher rules.

letmedance Loc: Walnut, Ca.

No it is like not stitching the wound but more like avoiding the stitches. These youth have a stage and willing audience, they have chosen the wrong play. Possibly this is only the opening act and the next acts will get to the social problems that breed the violence.

PhotoPhred Loc: Cheyney, Pa

I think they, and I would like to see reasonable gun control laws. Someone here mentioned about carrying our rifles on racks in our trucks. I grew up in the sixties and had a couple guns. They were sporting rifles for hunting or plinking, not assault rifles. I don't think you can compare the guns that were available back then to what you can buy today. Assault rifles are just for the battlefield, not for hunting and I don't buy the home defense argument. Someone else here mentioned a good 12 gage shotgun or a semiautomatic pistol is much better option. I was a member of the NRA long ago, but I think they should agree to a better system of background checks. It would only make for a safer and better world to keep guns out of the hands of convicts and people with a history of violent behavior or mental illness. What could be wrong with that.

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

We didn't evolve to work in tall buildings.

SonyBug

Yes.