Tell me if I'm understanding this correctly.
Situation 1: Every so many years, an individual or individuals, uses firearms to prey on the innocent, and a mass shooting occurs. Even though we Constitutionally have the right to bear arms, the first route to make an attempt at controling further mass shootings is to focus on the guns. As a result over the years this right to bear arms has been molded and shaped and regulated by those at the top. In short 2nd Adm still in place, but altered because some feel it needs more regulations to help those who are not responsible with firearms, even though those who are irresponsible are but less than one percent of the gun owners.
Situation 2: Every so many years, an individual or individuals, uses a means of mass destruction to kill or attempt to kill as many Americans as possible, based soley on the fact that the targets are Americans. There are so many types of mass destruction available to a terrorist, that little can be done to prevent a terrorist from gaining access to them. Why is it that the right to bear arms can be monitored and somewhat controlled, but those who are Muslin cannot be watched or pass through a monitoring system? Because of their freedom of religion and those at the top say that it cannot be infringed upon. I understand that the vast majority of Muslims are not radical, but those who are reak havoc, much like most firearms were not designed for the battlefield, but those firearms that are, are watched, montitored closely, or not for the commoner to use.
Congress says, if that gun can kill a lot of people, we have to take it away or at least control it.
Congress says, if that Muslim can kill a lot of people, I hope we can catch him while he's lighting the fuse, because we can't do anything about before hand, we don't want to infringe on his religous rights, just because of what he is or what he's capable of.
Tell me your thoughts on this, is possible to monitor them? Would non radical Muslims be opposed to being monitored, soley based on who they are, or could be?
Will it ever come to the point to where the US says, "Look, we know that 99% of you are living the American dream like the rest of us, but this 1% is not acceptable, so we're going to have to do something about it".
Don't turn this into a relgion/bashing religion thread, just trying to compare the two above and make some sense of it.
Situation 1: Every so many years, an individual or individuals, uses firearms to prey on the innocent, and a mass shooting occurs. Even though we Constitutionally have the right to bear arms, the first route to make an attempt at controling further mass shootings is to focus on the guns. As a result over the years this right to bear arms has been molded and shaped and regulated by those at the top. In short 2nd Adm still in place, but altered because some feel it needs more regulations to help those who are not responsible with firearms, even though those who are irresponsible are but less than one percent of the gun owners.
Situation 2: Every so many years, an individual or individuals, uses a means of mass destruction to kill or attempt to kill as many Americans as possible, based soley on the fact that the targets are Americans. There are so many types of mass destruction available to a terrorist, that little can be done to prevent a terrorist from gaining access to them. Why is it that the right to bear arms can be monitored and somewhat controlled, but those who are Muslin cannot be watched or pass through a monitoring system? Because of their freedom of religion and those at the top say that it cannot be infringed upon. I understand that the vast majority of Muslims are not radical, but those who are reak havoc, much like most firearms were not designed for the battlefield, but those firearms that are, are watched, montitored closely, or not for the commoner to use.
Congress says, if that gun can kill a lot of people, we have to take it away or at least control it.
Congress says, if that Muslim can kill a lot of people, I hope we can catch him while he's lighting the fuse, because we can't do anything about before hand, we don't want to infringe on his religous rights, just because of what he is or what he's capable of.
Tell me your thoughts on this, is possible to monitor them? Would non radical Muslims be opposed to being monitored, soley based on who they are, or could be?
Will it ever come to the point to where the US says, "Look, we know that 99% of you are living the American dream like the rest of us, but this 1% is not acceptable, so we're going to have to do something about it".
Don't turn this into a relgion/bashing religion thread, just trying to compare the two above and make some sense of it.