geez--guess I need to get the internet hooked up at home!
Ok--where to begin? LOL
Wait a minute - wouldn't you agree that personal freedom ends where it limits the freedom of others?
yes--you take away guns, you limit the freedom of every gun bearing American--limiting their personal freedom. I know that's not what you meant--but it goes both ways and freedoms will be 'limited' regardless. Driving my car limits the freedom of others right to clean air, smoking a cigarette does the same . . . the argument can hold true for an abundance of things.
I think uncontrolled guns truely limit the freedom of all those who prefer living in a slightly (caution! - understatement) safer environment.
I never said anything about uncontrolled guns. I said I don't believe in banning guns, and I don't agree with extremely tough gun laws--but the way things are now--I think it's fine. Things are controlled to a point, but being OVER-controlling is 'limits the freedom of all those who prefer to live with a gun in their home.'
I would rather have that limitation than having to be scared about children being shot at school because of an over abundance of weapons .....
And I would rather not have to pay for the mistakes of others and their irrisponsibility by the government limiting MY freedoms.
Mikki you mention that guns are needed as a method for survival in some parts. Okay, that means that those who need guns would be more willing to do the extra effort to get the guns because they need them. Here in Canada, they've added stricter laws to acquire and maintain guns. You need to show a license just to buy ammo. The average user who would otherwise have a gun would then not what to go through this to have his gun that he or she may rarely if ever use.
Thus, a lot of the accidental injuries caused by firearms such as road rage or some school shootings would be reduced. Guns would be much tougher to get a hold of, maybe by that time the instant aggression of getting cut-off in traffic or losing a fight would prevent someone getting killed.
We're only 'masking' the problem, creating a temporary 'out' when we make 'tougher' laws and attempt to 'ban' guns. People who 'kill' because of road rage or lose a fight have BIGGER problems and taking a gun away won't solve those problems. We need to get to the root of the problem, not 'quick fix' it. LIFE is a risk--there will ALWAY be people out there with problems, but I don't think making things tougher on everyone is the answer.
I think theres lots of violence on t.v., rap(songs that recruit gang members), violent movies, etc.
Yes, You're right about that--there IS lots of violence on TV. Mostly fiction though, and that allots for something. I think that some of it affects children, but for the most part, they understand the difference between real and unreal. There's lots of talk about banning cartoons (looney tunes) because of supposed violence (walking off cliffs, blowing things up)--but for the most part people understand that these things don't really happen. But when you put a REAL execution on TV--what are you supposed to tell your kids? That it's not real? Sure, we can do that--but then your message is lost. It reminds me when I was little and I would see a dead animal on the side of the road--my mother would tell me that it was just sleeping. Why? Because kids don't understand death and shouldn't have to at such an early age.
You could always send your child to their room or give them something to do. Maybe that doesnt sound realistic
Sorry, no, it doesnt sound realistic. I agree with you when you mentioned the decline in family values--lack of parenting. When I worked for an after-school program and summer program for the YMCA 2 years ago--I saw it SO MUCH. The reason I say the above ISN'T realistic is because we need to attack the family values part before we can trust people to 'send their kids to another room'.
but what I'm trying to say is we really need to take a stand and make a change. One that sticks and doesnt fall after 4 years of a presidential admnistration.
I am not in disagreement with that. I'm not trying to send the US back in time to where everyone carries a gun and we shoot each other in the street. I'M FOR certain gun 'laws' such as background checks. I just feel that BANNING guns or OVER-restrictions is the wrong approch. It's a way to 'quick fix' our real problems.
Limiting the freedoms of the majority to maske the problems of a few is not a realistic approch. IMHO.
I must say it is refreshing to see a 23 year old female so vigorously defend a freedom. Many people today would surrender some freedom for a feeling of more security. We have seen this in England, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand in the last 5-10 years. The U.S. has a history of being rebellious though.
young AND female--I've always defied the norms though
