Comments by "Charles Eye" (@TheCharleseye) on "Bloomberg Television" channel.

  1. 26
  2. 15
  3. 9
  4. 9
  5. 5
  6. 3
  7. 2
  8. 2
  9. 2
  10. 2
  11. 2
  12. 2
  13. 2
  14. 2
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23.  @timogul  A) My point is that relying on the idea that others will protect you is naive. That the ability for people to take up arms in defense of themselves and their home is fundamental to the very right to live. B) I'm fully aware of the second amendment of the Constitution. The "well regulated" portion refers to the militia - not the gun ownership - and in the common definition of the time, meant properly functioning, not heavily restricted. C) That Constitution you referred to was written by those who never wanted the government to have a standing army. The fact that the US military is the largest in the world goes against the founding principles of the Country. The people were only ever to be called to service during a time of war. Perhaps that's why the government has made sure to stick its nose in every conflict they could find; to keep people from thinking about that fact too hard. I mean, if the US is surrounded by enemies, it becomes unreasonable to tell the government to disband their military until the next war. D) US civilian gun ownership is not the detriment. US socioeconomic strife is the number one cause of gun violence (drug/gang/poverty related crime). Depression is the next in line (suicide). Significantly reducing just those two factors would leave the US with roughly 600,000,000 civilian guns and a violent crime rate similar to Canada, the UK, Australia, etc. Unfortunately, those in control of the most populous cities (those with the highest poverty, depression, drug abuse, and gang presence) seem to be bent on keeping things exactly the way they are. I guess it's easier to write more gun laws, than it is to better the lives of those who are suffering to the point of feeling the need to turn to violence...
    1
  24. 1