| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was very sad when I first heard about the shooting in Connecticut. Some time's passed, I've slept on it, and my feelings haven't changed.
Anyone who thinks that teachers should carry firearms to fight off spree killers should google Victoria Soto; that woman saved her students without any weapon at all, and died in the process; I doubt the outcome would have been very different if she'd been armed.
As Re everything that's been said on this thread? If you hear about 20 children and 6 adults being killed, and think the situation calls for a defense of the second amendment, you should learn to think outside yourself for about fifteen minutes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The founding fathers didn't envision an AR-15 when they made that amendment.
They envisioned a weapon that would give a person parity with an infantryman of the time. I think that's a good standard.
As Re everything that's been said on this thread? If you hear about 20 children and 6 adults being killed, and think the situation calls for a defense of the second amendment, you should learn to think outside yourself for about fifteen minutes.
Of course, on the other side of the coin, if people didn't attempt to exploit tragedies like this to push their own agenda of more gun control, that would be nice as well.
|
It should be onerous to own a weapon/"tool" designed for killing.
So, I shouldn't be allowed to eaily purchase a knife like the U.S.M.C. Ka-Bar or the M-7 bayonet? You don't really have to answer that because even though I'm no mind reader, I have a pretty idea guess as to what your response would be (but please, feel free to surprise me)...
Like with so many other things, it's a question of priorities and planning. If you really, really want to own a weapon, you should be willing to "work hard" for it.
Why? No amendment specifically under the Bill of Rights requires anyone to "work hard for it", because all 10 of these specific amendments collectively guarantee individual liberty and freedom...
Thank God the founding fathers made it so hard to amend the Constitution...
It would be nice if the media didn't push every tragedy to the forefront of our society either.
YES!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As Re everything that's been said on this thread? If you hear about 20 children and 6 adults being killed, and think the situation calls for a defense of the second amendment, you should learn to think outside yourself for about fifteen minutes.Of course, on the other side of the coin, if people didn't attempt to exploit tragedies like this to push their own agenda of more gun control, that would be nice as well.
This is such a broad question that it can't help but sound snarky, but I really am asking: which people and where?
When some psycho jackass decides to shoot up a school, and kills more than 20 people, asking if such psycho jackasses should have access to high rate of fire firearms and high capacity magazines strikes me as a reasonable reaction. Ranting about the second amendment, and how they can't take your guns away, strikes me as paranoid. YMMV.
As Re everything that's been said on this thread? If you hear about 20 children and 6 adults being killed, and think the situation calls for a defense of the second amendment, you should learn to think outside yourself for about fifteen minutes.Of course, on the other side of the coin, if people didn't attempt to exploit tragedies like this to push their own agenda of more gun control, that would be nice as well.This is such a broad question that it can't help but sound snarky, but I really am asking: which people and where?
When some psycho jackass decides to shoot up a school, and kills more than 20 people, asking if such psycho jackasses should have access to high rate of fire firearms and high capacity magazines strikes me as a reasonable reaction. Ranting about the second amendment, and how they can't take your guns away, strikes me as paranoid. YMMV.
Well you can start with this guy, and start looking for more if you wish.
|
|
When some psycho jackass decides to shoot up a school, and kills more than 20 people, asking if such psycho jackasses should have access to high rate of fire firearms and high capacity magazines strikes me as a reasonable reaction.
This particular psycho got his guns from mommy, and if mommy had kept them stored safely and securely then maybe this could have been prevented. Also, if mommy had been more aware of her son's "issues" she might have stored her guns better and kept them from falling into his hands (and by doing this properly, they would have not fallen into his hands even after she died).
So the issue in this case should be more of proper gun safety as opposed to more stringent gun laws.
YMMV...
Of course, on the other side of the coin, if people didn't attempt to exploit tragedies like this to push their own agenda of more gun control, that would be nice as well.If somebody believes in gun control, then sees an utter tragedy unfold like this which they believe could have been prevented by gun control you'd prefer they don't mention that? People pushing this 'agenda' of gun control here are doing so because they believe that with better gun control there wouldn't be 28 people dead right now including 20 children. You're welcome to disagree with that belief if you want, but to instead try and rant about people with an 'agenda' they think will save lives? It's not exploiting an agenda. It's seeing event A happen that you believe would have been less likely to happen if law B was changed. Are you really suggesting that's some kind of reprehensible behaviour?
And your own valuable contributions here have included jumping into this thread saying people shouldn't be voicing their concerns over guns and that people should be complaining about video games instead since there is vague evidence they have been a secondary factor in some other deaths.
Captain Hindsight to the rescue.
How about instead of trying to push political issues during a highly emotional time, we actually try to help the grieving families? Wait until emotions are calmed, to present your arguments.
Anyone else old enough to remember when teen violence was blamed on Dungeons and Dragons? =S
Mazes and Monsters with Tom Hanks!
Which makes perfect sense because the Second Amendment is about forming a militia, not personal ownership of firearms.
Well, whatever your interpretation of the Second Amendment is, the current jurisprudence on the matter says that you are wrong as of 2008 and 2010.
It might not be the interpretation that you like, but it is the way that the Second Amendment works. Now I'm usually a pretty liberal guy and I don't really like the idea of widespread gun ownership, but what I like less is people misrepresenting the Second Amendment, or any part of the constitution for that matter. I get that you are not a fan of the Second Amendment. I bet lots of people are still not to keen on the 13th, 14th or 15th Amendments. You don't get to ignore parts of the Bill of Rights just because you don't like or agree with the kind of people who avail themselves of those specific rights.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When some psycho jackass decides to shoot up a school, and kills more than 20 people, asking if such psycho jackasses should have access to high rate of fire firearms and high capacity magazines strikes me as a reasonable reaction.This particular psycho got his guns from mommy, and if mommy had kept them stored safely and securely then maybe this could have been prevented. Also, if mommy had been more aware of her son's "issues" she might have stored her guns better and kept them from falling into his hands (and by doing this properly, they would have not fallen into his hands even after she died).
So the issue in this case should be more of proper gun safety as opposed to more stringent gun laws.
YMMV...
Well, personally I think proper gun safety and more stringent gun laws are not in a position of opposition. They're actually a really wide ellipse of a Venn's diagram. That is to say, if you're a responsible gun owner (I consider myself such) more stringent gun laws are no cause for concern.
Cavemen used fire hardened wooden spears and were able to deal with bears and such. Are you dumber than cavemen?
Ugg!
Me smart. Me shoot bear with RPG!
... and something should be done to try and address the problem.
The real way to address the problem is to push for better and more wide spread mental health. Not to take away people's rights (ha ha, you are crazy so no gun for you), but instead to help people that are in pain. Of course that is hard and expensive. Instead it is easier to attack the symptoms.
It should be onerous to own a weapon/"tool" designed for killing.So, I shouldn't be allowed to eaily purchase a knife like the U.S.M.C. Ka-Bar or the M-7 bayonet? You don't really have to answer that because even though I'm no mind reader, I have a pretty idea guess as to what your response would be (but please, feel free to surprise me)...
A knife has many other uses than just killing.
Like with so many other things, it's a question of priorities and planning. If you really, really want to own a weapon, you should be willing to "work hard" for it.Why? No amendment specifically under the Bill of Rights requires anyone to "work hard for it", because all 10 of these specific amendments collectively guarantee individual liberty and freedom...
Thank God the founding fathers made it so hard to amend the Constitution...
It doesn't specifically say that you don't have to wait for a weapon either, so your point is moot. Nor does it specify that you're allowed semi-automatic weapons. Nor does it specify what arms you are allowed to bear - so you could ban all firearms except low caliber revolvers and still be within the confines of "bearing arms."
Funnily enough, in your listing of liberty and freedom, you forgot life. So one is protected from being deprived of one's life without due process of law. Something that certainly doesn't apply if you're gunned down by someone who shouldn't be in possession of firearms.Also, implementing stricter gun laws isn't amending the Constitution.
Cavemen used fire hardened wooden spears and were able to deal with bears and such. Are you dumber than cavemen?Ugg!
Me smart. Me shoot bear with RPG!
Be fair, Meat. Any caveman who can invent a functional RPG deserves a hearty "Me smart!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course, on the other side of the coin, if people didn't attempt to exploit tragedies like this to push their own agenda of more gun control, that would be nice as well.If somebody believes in gun control, then sees an utter tragedy unfold like this which they believe could have been prevented by gun control you'd prefer they don't mention that? People pushing this 'agenda' of gun control here are doing so because they believe that with better gun control there wouldn't be 28 people dead right now including 20 children. You're welcome to disagree with that belief if you want, but to instead try and rant about people with an 'agenda' they think will save lives? It's not exploiting an agenda. It's seeing event A happen that you believe would have been less likely to happen if law B was changed. Are you really suggesting that's some kind of reprehensible behaviour?
And your own valuable contributions here have included jumping into this thread saying people shouldn't be voicing their concerns over guns and that people should be complaining about video games instead since there is vague evidence they have been a secondary factor in some other deaths.
Captain Hindsight to the rescue.
How about instead of trying to push political issues during a highly emotional time, we actually try to help the grieving families? Wait until emotions are calmed, to present your arguments.
Ooh I can answer this one! Because, due to absurdly lax gun laws, these massacres happen so frequently that this moment you describe will never happen.
Of course, on the other side of the coin, if people didn't attempt to exploit tragedies like this to push their own agenda of more gun control, that would be nice as well.If somebody believes in gun control, then sees an utter tragedy unfold like this which they believe could have been prevented by gun control you'd prefer they don't mention that? People pushing this 'agenda' of gun control here are doing so because they believe that with better gun control there wouldn't be 28 people dead right now including 20 children. You're welcome to disagree with that belief if you want, but to instead try and rant about people with an 'agenda' they think will save lives? It's not exploiting an agenda. It's seeing event A happen that you believe would have been less likely to happen if law B was changed. Are you really suggesting that's some kind of reprehensible behaviour?
And your own valuable contributions here have included jumping into this thread saying people shouldn't be voicing their concerns over guns and that people should be complaining about video games instead since there is vague evidence they have been a secondary factor in some other deaths.
Captain Hindsight to the rescue.
How about instead of trying to push political issues during a highly emotional time, we actually try to help the grieving families? Wait until emotions are calmed, to present your arguments.
That's what people are told after EACH AND EVERY SINGLE TRAGEDY! And what has happened? Nothing!
I'd suggest you actually read the entire thread, this has been brought up numerous times. But I guess it's much better to just ignore this and push your own agenda... something you're hypocritically blaming others for doing.
Well, personally I think proper gun safety and more stringent gun laws are not in a position of opposition. They're actually a really wide ellipse of a Venn's diagram. That is to say, if you're a responsible gun owner (I consider myself such) more stringent gun laws are no cause for concern.
Holy Crap, a non-polemical opinion in a political thread. Keep this up and the world really will end next week.
+A Whole Bunch to this though, seriously.
I suppose the 2nd amendment is more valuable to you then those 26 lives, calling regrettable or unforeseeable is a lie, we knew over a decade ago what happens when unstable people can access weapons, and regret is something a person with a conscious feels. Anyone that puts frivolous items over the lives of children can only be described as monstrous.
And this is exactly the kind of mouthing off that makes it so difficult to have the discussions that can actually do some good.
Well, personally I think proper gun safety and more stringent gun laws are not in a position of opposition. They're actually a really wide ellipse of a Venn's diagram. That is to say, if you're a responsible gun owner (I consider myself such) more stringent gun laws are no cause for concern.Holy Crap, a non-polemical opinion in a political thread. Keep this up and the world really will end next week.
+A Whole Bunch to this though, seriously.
Dude, earlier on in this thread I saw a Jane Yolen poem that mentioned cell phones; definitely the end times.
But if that decision was made about a case in the District of Columbia, It doesn't invalidate any state laws, right? (It's not rules lawyer-ey, it's just lawyer-ey, but it's a real question.)
We should change that.
|
|
But if that decision was made about a case in the District of Columbia, It doesn't invalidate any state laws, right? (It's not rules lawyer-ey, it's just lawyer-ey, but it's a real question.)
That issue was dealt with in McDonald vs. Chicago (2010) in which it was ruled that the 2nd Amendment and an individual’s right to keep and bear arms applied to the states as well...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, because there's that pesky little post script at the end of the 2nd Amendment "shall not be infringed"...you could ban all firearms except low caliber revolvers and still be within the confines of "bearing arms."
Do you think hand grenades should be available on the civilian market? they aren't, and that doesn't infringe my right to keep and bear arms whatsoever. You can't even buy dynamite at hardware stores anymore, I'm just fine with that.
I agree that the second amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, but it doesn't mention purchasing, buying or manufacturing. I'd also love to see a constitutional definition of what "arms" means. I own semi-automatic rifles, but have never lived through a circumstance where a single shot (bolt action, okay, not breech or muzzle loaders) firearm wouldn't have accomplished my purposes.
Im not taken seriously because im not parroting liberal talking points.And to disagree is to say they have no problem with people being killed or being forced to live just like them. So pro suffering or anti freedomStatement like that are a big part of why you aren't taken seriously.
You're not taken seriously because you are either woefully misinformed or actually lying about nearly everything you post here. I mean, damn.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The founding fathers didn't envision an AR-15 when they made that amendment.They envisioned a weapon that would give a person parity with an infantryman of the time. I think that's a good standard.
The only argument you can make along those lines is that they intended the population of the Union to be able to band together and take up arms against a corrupt government. And that is no longer a possibility here. If the United States military decides to take over, your conventional weaponry is not going to save you. That ship sailed a long time ago (not that it was ever really a concern to begin with, except in conspiracy nuts' heads). The 2nd Amendment serves zero purpose in protecting you from your own government. We need to apply it to the realities of today. Gun rights advocates do not understand what that means.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, because there's that pesky little post script at the end of the 2nd Amendment "shall not be infringed"...you could ban all firearms except low caliber revolvers and still be within the confines of "bearing arms."
Your right to bear arms is already infringed. You can't own automatic weapons, you can't own unconventional weapons, etc. The Constitution is not set in stone, it never has been, and hopefully never will be. It is not a sacred document. It's writing on paper, and it's as malleable as that suggests.
not very tightly regulated at all. I can walk up to anyone selling a car hand them cash and leave with the car and do what i want with it.
No, you can't. When transferring ownership of a motor vehicle, the vehicle's title must be legally transferred along with it. That requires registering the transfer of title with the state Department of Motor Vehicles, and requires said department's approval.
You're either purposefully lying or you don't know what you're talking about but are arrogant enough to think that you do. Both are very good reasons for you to stop.
But if that decision was made about a case in the District of Columbia, It doesn't invalidate any state laws, right? (It's not rules lawyer-ey, it's just lawyer-ey, but it's a real question.)That issue was dealt with in McDonald vs. Chicago (2010) in which it was ruled that the 2nd Amendment and an individual’s right to keep and bear arms applied to the states as well...
Yeah, but they didn't overturn the Slaughter-House laws; you can buy a gun in every state, but there's federal standard as to whether shooting someone right in the head is a crime.
Um, that is, ninja'd by Scott.
Also, Scott, I know we've screamed at each other, on various threads about various things, but here's a piece of advice: When Andrew R goes full {redacted}, do not engage. You'll be much happier, and your posts will survive the flagged-purge.
Also, Scott, I know we've screamed at each other, on various threads about various things, but here's a piece of advice: When Andrew R goes full {redacted}, do not engage. You'll be much happier, and your posts will survive the flagged-purge.
It's okay, I promise. If people saying ridiculous things made me unhappy, I'd have retired from the internet (to say nothing of following politics in general) years ago.
|
The founding fathers didn't envision an AR-15 when they made that amendment.They envisioned a weapon that would give a person parity with an infantryman of the time. I think that's a good standard.We know exactly what they envisioned because they spelled it out in the Second Militia Act of 1792. The standard longarm and accessories of an infantryman.
Which makes perfect sense because the Second Amendment is about forming a militia, not personal ownership of firearms.
What they were thinking was maintaining the peoples ability to keep their government in check when the government decides it doesn't have to listen to the people anymore. If we didn't have guns how could we possibly topple a corrupt government?
They were smart enough to realize that every government willl need to fall eventually, so they wrote a government to last as long as possible and tried to garuntee the ability of the populace to fight for freedom when the time finally came.
How else would you suggest maintaining freedom? If we can't have weapons and only the government has weapons, then the government can do whatever it wants and any attempt to fight back and hold such a government accountable for it's atrocities would fail.
In the past it wasn't as bad because even a soldier was limited by the weapons of the time, so mere numbers could win, but that no longer is true. Now guns are so capable that any unarmed uprising would be futile. Our forefathers knew that the disparity of power would only grow and to keep the government in check required the populace to have the power to revolt successfully.
If we have no ability to revolt, then we lack the ability to enforce our control of the government.
The government has to worry about what we think, because if it gets to far out of line then we can do something about it, we shouldn't need to, but the fact that we can protects us more then any rule, law, or regulation ever will.
Think for a moment, if you could do anything without any reprisal what-so-ever, what would you do?
Your answer would probably lead first to ensuring your, and your family's survival, but then you could think of the things you might do, a lot of which very much might be hated and despised by others, whatever your reasons for doing so. I don't care if you have my best interests at heart, what you want for me, and what I want for me are likely worlds apart.
Look at Hitler, his own people tried to kill him because they hated everything he did, what would the world be like if only he and his army had weapons?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When some psycho jackass decides to shoot up a school, and kills more than 20 people, asking if such psycho jackasses should have access to high rate of fire firearms and high capacity magazines strikes me as a reasonable reaction.This particular psycho got his guns from mommy, and if mommy had kept them stored safely and securely then maybe this could have been prevented. Also, if mommy had been more aware of her son's "issues" she might have stored her guns better and kept them from falling into his hands (and by doing this properly, they would have not fallen into his hands even after she died).
So the issue in this case should be more of proper gun safety as opposed to more stringent gun laws.
YMMV...
Aside from the difficulty of maintaining proper gun safety with determined people in the house (I know one young man who broke into his father's gun cabinet to get a gun to attempt to commit suicide), perhaps education mandated by well-written regulations could have encouraged Lanza's mother to follow gun safety best practices. Or perhaps a regular inspection or licensing regime could have encouraged it as well.
|
|
Do you think hand grenades should be available on the civilian market? they aren't, and that doesn't infringe my right to keep and bear arms whatsoever.
They are actually...
True, they are classified as NFA items, but you can buy them provided you pay for the Federal Tax Stamp PER item (three grenades = three separate tax stamps)...
You can't even buy dynamite at hardware stores anymore, I'm just fine with that.
I'll give you that one, but you can make the purchase online (again, with the Federal Tax Stamps, which are $200 each)...
I agree that the second amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, but it doesn't mention purchasing, buying or manufacturing.
No, but it does not have to. Certain things are a given (even back then), such having to purchase your flintlock or musket (and someone had to manufacture that flintlock or musket in the first place right??)
Well it is a good thing for Bashar al-Assad that there is no way for a civilian force to threaten a governmental power.