Where do you draw the line between second amendment rights and public safety?

The part about shooting innocent people.

As an ER physician I draw the line right at the Second Amendment itself. Like most other pieces of cost cutting legislation it fails to accomplish what it intended and creates a whole new set of problems for the survivors to deal with.

The Second Amendment was originally designed by cost conscious Conservatives to avoid the cost of providing a standing army, which allowed them to cut taxes. Does that sound familiar? What usually happens when we fail to pay for needed services? We end up paying for them anyway!

Within a single generation the United States was supporting an army and a navy, because that is what sovereign peoples must do. We got stuck with the tax bill, but since the Amendment continued in force we despite its ineffectiveness it has been perverted into protection for the gun industry.

The morons who claim that having guns out there prevent shootings are laughably wrong. What do you suppose would have been the outcome if the entire theatre had been armed when that gunman opened fire? How many extra wounded would there have been once it became an open free for all?

I treated more gunshot wounds in a single weekend in a Dallas ER than I have in ten years working in Vancouver, Canada, where they have a supposed gang problem. All that the literalists have accomplished with the Second Amendment is making it possible for any nutcase to get an efficient means of murder whenever they want to.

For eleven years we have mourned the deaths of 9/11, and I lost a friend on one of those planes myself. (Can we take a moment to remember Ace Bailey, hockey player and scout for the Los Angeles Kings?) Yet we lose as many of our own each year to random gun violence as we did to Al Qaeda.

I have treated children shot when they found their parents' gun, and in drive by shootings two blocks from the crib they were sleeping in. I have seen spouses shot in moments of anger simply because the gun was handy and once had to pronounce on a teenager who was killed because someone fired a gun in the air to celebrate a wedding.

After thirty years of consideration I have decided that the Second Amendment is an assault on our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of a pension. It is a fundamental violation of the rest of the Constitution, and should be repealed as surely as the idiotic Volstead Act, which was the Nineteenth Amendment if my memory serves me correctly.

The Republicans are right. There is too much social engineering and government interference in our personal lives. Where they are wrong is where it comes from. It isn't the Liberals or the Democrats who want to tell us how to live, but the Conservative crazies who think they should be armed to the teeth so they can hunt down abortion providers.

That is why I moved to Canada. My children and grandchildren are safer here.

There is no contradiction between them. An armed populace is safer than one that is not. Oddly enough criminals will still arm themselves no matter what the law says.

But to answer your question as honestly as I can, I would say that the Constitution is our highest form of law. Thus any right expressly enumerated in it (ie firearms ownership) trumps any other supposed right. I am not aware of any enumerated amendment guaranteeing public safety.

The second amendment makes the public safer.

the 2d substitute is superb only how that is. Extrapolation through asserting, "nicely, such-and-such weapon wasn't invented whilst the substitute grow to be written" does not carry water for the easy reason that the Founding Fathers weren't attempting to assert whay form of firearm you ought to or ought to not very own; they have been asserting which you have the INALIENABLE spectacular to possess a firearm. They left the clarification of forms of weapons spectacular the place it is going to be - interior the Congress. The Firearms Act of 1934 is likewise superb only how that is. This regulation contraptions smart obstacles on what type of weapons the final citizen can very own, and that i think of no different legislations - such simply by fact the inane rules outlawing "extreme skill magazines" and "attack weapons" - are mandatory. Realistically, such "sense sturdy" legislations does actual not something to guard public protection, inspite of what Slick Willy Clinton, Billary Clinton, and Sarah Brady could say. All this type of legislations does is avert the regulation ABIDING CITIZEN from workout recurring his/her rights and retaining themselves. after all, do you quite think of that the criminal is gonna care that he can't use a fifteen around magazine in his stolen handgun whilst he robs you on the line? I recommend, please..... I trust the considered a nationwide hid carry regulation. I additionally think of that this way of regulation could desire to be observed through a call for to attend and succesfully complete a firearms education course previously the enable is issued. I also have a CWP (hid weapons enable) and am here to aid you understand that having one saved my existence in 1996 whilst 2 youthful punks tried to rob me at knifepoint overdue at night in a mall motor vehicle parking zone in Virginia. One seem at my pistol, and the theft attempt grow to be over, the knife grow to be mendacity on the floor, and the two gang-bangers have been working for their lives. i'm an corporation believer interior the 2d substitute, a member of the nationwide Rifle affiliation, and an American citizen who will vote against everyone who i think of will infringe upon my rights. fairly BILLARY CLINTON!