Boardroom Meeting Suggestion

*Guy at back of table* "I actually thought he had a good idea."
"YOU'RE GOING OUT THE WINDOW TOO."

Boss - "Anybody else agree?"

"Uhhhh, nooooo..."

This is essentially what they did to that retired Marine running for the Democrat nomination. lol

Then again, allowing the "good" people to get guns comes at the cost of letting the "bad" people get them too. Also, the Second Amendment did not anticipate people using weapons that did not exist at the time, bringing into question it's validity.

Which is why I use the words like trained and law abiding. A good or law abiding citizens is not going to commit a crime or kill someone, and a bad person or criminal is not going to obey the laws any way. What you and other anti-gun people are asking is a preemptive strike against gun violence altogether. It is already illegal for a convicted felon to purchase or own a firearm in the U.S. And more background checks is not going to find out if a person is going to commit a crime in the future. This is not Minority Report, we cannot arrest someone before they commit a crime. And every police officer I have ever talked to encourages citizens to buy firearms to defend themselves. As one of the police chiefs I talked to said, "Police show up after a crime is committed, not before." And as for your argument about having weapons that did not exist, come on you are going to have to do better than that. We invent and improve technology all the time, from vehicles to phones etc. But no, you are right the founding fathers and the second amendment do not allow for weapon innovation...

You bring up valid points. I am actually not for more background checks, however I do think that there should be more security measures taken. Of course I know we innovate and invent, my point is that the Second Amendment was not created with this in mind, and I was pointing out a flaw in the document that should be dealt with.

I am not trying to sound argumentative, but my texts always seem to come off that way. But here check this video out - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CquUBWHU2_s The guy is a little short and abrasive, but shows that there were guns back in the day that would qualify as assault weapons today...

I will admit when I am wrong, I am not a weapons expert, however I still think that the right to bear arms is to be debated. I agree people should be allowed to protect themselves, but we need something to prevent something like San Bernardino from happening. I don't want to arrest people for crimes they did not commit. I just believe that the right to protect oneself can be maintained if the people exercising that right are open to a system that makes sure the firearms are not falling into the wrong hands. A lot of my disdain for guns comes from moral opposition to deadly force, but I respect people's rights and understand the problems with gun control.

Glad to actually interact with someone with an opposing view on this issue that is not just calling me crazy gun loving psychopath. However I still will state the case that more law-abiding citizens with guns (properly trained to use of course) would deter more bad guys, criminals, and possible terrorists than taking away guns from citizens completely ever could. You might be interested to look up how many incidents like San Bernardino have been attempted, but thwarted by citizens with conceal and carries. The only problem is that do not make national headlines because main stream media does not care when a good person with a gun stops a bad one unless there is a lot of casualties involved.

:-) Same here. It is nice to have an intelligent conversation with opposing viewpoints without it devolving. The type of gun control I support is a system that would allow for citizens to protect themselves and others, but that can only do so much. Something has to be done, and I am open to any solution that does not infringe on people's rights. I do not want to take guns away, I want it to be harder for criminals to obtain guns, which is the issue.