Missouri Senate OVERRIDES Governor’s Veto of Pro-Gun Bill

[rckeystone]

Good for the law abiding people of Mo. Where's our spineless wonders?

No kidding. It's about time we started demanding that our state legislature get off its ass and pass pro gun bills instead of whining about how much influence Philly and Pittsburgh have.

Missouri has a limited recall process. I bet any kind of recall option helps to keep some of these politicians on their toes and paying attention. I wish PA had one.

http://www.recalltherogues.org/states.html



.

[wakefield724]

No kidding. It's about time we started demanding that our state legislature get off its ass and pass pro gun bills instead of whining about how much influence Philly and Pittsburgh have.

Amen to that!!!! Rep sent!

[eyecanshoot]

Armed protesting is a very tough line to draw. Cultures which are opposed to violence can usually hold an armed protest peacefully, which we see here periodocally with our events and OC trips, and which was done at the Bundy ranch last spring. However the only reason these remained nonviolent was because the organizers and participants were extremely opposed to violence except as a last possible resort.

In Ferguson most protesters were unarmed, yet very violent. Arming them would have made it worse, not because guns make people more violent, but because violent people, when given guns, use them for violence, while peaceful people use them for peace.

Some people seem to think that arming everyone would make everyone more peaceful. It would, b ut only after the violent ones were done away with. It wouldn't have miraculously made the Ferguson riots more peaceful.

Culture matters. Violent cultures are violent. Peaceful cultures are peaceful. Guns just ensure the peaceful people have a chance. That is all they do.

Or maybe these unarmed violent protestors (who btw were protesting the shooting of an unarmed man) would have thought no one will protest the police shooting me because I am armed.

[hog45]

Or maybe these unarmed violent protestors (who btw were protesting the shooting of an unarmed man) would have thought no one will protest the police shooting me because I am armed.

"Unarmed" does not mean innocent, and "armed" does not mean guilty.

[Carnes]

Armed protesting is a very tough line to draw. Cultures which are opposed to violence can usually hold an armed protest peacefully, which we see here periodocally with our events and OC trips, and which was done at the Bundy ranch last spring. However the only reason these remained nonviolent was because the organizers and participants were extremely opposed to violence except as a last possible resort.

In Ferguson most protesters were unarmed, yet very violent. Arming them would have made it worse, not because guns make people more violent, but because violent people, when given guns, use them for violence, while peaceful people use them for peace.

Some people seem to think that arming everyone would make everyone more peaceful. It would, b ut only after the violent ones were done away with. It wouldn't have miraculously made the Ferguson riots more peaceful.

Culture matters. Violent cultures are violent. Peaceful cultures are peaceful. Guns just ensure the peaceful people have a chance. That is all they do.

The Bill of Rights was intended to protect individual liberty as the cornerstone of a free society. There is a reason speech and arms were the first two things on the list. Free people can be scary, but it is necessary. Anyone that tells you otherwise is selling totaliarianism.

I understand that we have to draw the line somewhere, and I agree with the brilliant individuals that agreed that the line should be drawn at, "shall not be infringed."

The situation in Ferguson would have been much more tense if the protesters exercised all their rights, but that is the burden of liberty. Freedom is not free any more than an Obama phone is free. Demanding that government provide for your security is no more reckless than demanding that government provide your healthcare.

[hog45]

The Bill of Rights was intended to protect individual liberty as the cornerstone of a free society. There is a reason speech and arms were the first two things on the list. Free people can be scary, but it is necessary. Anyone that tells you otherwise is selling totaliarianism.

I understand that we have to draw the line somewhere, and I agree with the brilliant individuals that agreed that the line should be drawn at, "shall not be infringed."

The situation in Ferguson would have been much more tense if the protesters exercised all their rights, but that is the burden of liberty. Freedom is not free any more than an Obama phone is free. Demanding that government provide for your security is no more reckless than demanding that government provide your healthcare.

I don't think I'm being understood. I believe every free person has the right to own and carry, even the thugs in the Ferguson riots. But I also believe that guns in the hands of the violent will not instantly create peace and polite discourse.

A culture that celebrates violence (such as the culture of Ferguson) will use violence, and, if armed, their violence will be more deadly. I think they still have the right to be armed, but I don't think exercising that right will make them suddenly turn into friendly people. Culture matters.

Likewise, bring the Bundy militias into Ferguson, and they will stabilize it, simply because they are a culture of peace and principles, rather than violence and looting.

Everyone has the natural right to be armed, ESPECIALLY in light of the thugs at Ferguson. The more violence that surrounds you, the more important it is for you to be armed.