MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: 10 dead 20 wounded in school shooting  (Read 20940 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #100 on: October 10, 2015, 05:24 »
+3
This post isn't pro- or anti-gun, but just asks a question. I have asked it on several forums around the 'net in threads similar to this and have yet to get a response, so I'll try it here.

The question is, What Changed? Why now?

Virtually all guns available today were available 20-30 years ago. Assault, auto and semi-auto weapons have been widely available for a long time. The 2nd amendment has been around for 239 years. If anything, in many places, guns and/or ammo are harder to get now than they were a few years ago.

So, what changed? Why now?

It's not logical to say that the mass shootings of today are because of the availability of guns, because guns have always been available. When I was in high school, in the days of the Uzi, AK-47, and Mac-10, the thought of someone bringing a gun to school was unthinkable, much less that the gun would be used to kill people. Back then, anybody could buy any gun anywhere, but mass killings were unheard of. So, what changed?

I'm not saying that making guns and/or ammo harder to get won't help the problem. I don't have the answer for that.

I'm just asking, what changed?

Anybody?

There was an article recently in the Times that said mass shooter use previous shootings as a template for their actions.

But I think two things have changed. The first big one is tha leadership and purpose of the NRA. From my understanding, it used to be an organization promoting responsible gun ownership. La Pierre turned it into something completely different, an organization married to gun manufacturers whose only goal is to sell as many guns as possible, and if millions of people die because of that, oh well, collateral damage.

The second is the browning of America. White men are becoming a smaller and smaller minority, and everyone else is clamoring for equality, so the white guys see their iron grip on power maybe someday loosening a bit. When a black man was elected President it really freaked them out. So the NRA and gun lobby plays on that fear. That's why you hear more and more about the Second Amendment..many of these people quite literally believe they'll have to overthrow the government soon, and even talk about starting a civil war if anyone dares pass stricter gun regulation.

Not one bit of that ignorance explains why there are more mass shootings than previously, despite the fact that guns have always been available. You made no effort to honestly answer the question.

Blaming gun deaths on "Angry White Male" syndrome is beyond ridiculous when most gun crimes are committed by blacks and Hispanics, and most victims are black.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2015, 05:26 by robhainer »


Shelma1

« Reply #101 on: October 10, 2015, 06:42 »
0
2/3 of gun deaths in the U.S. are suicides, and 80% of those suicides are committed by white males. That means that white men killing themselves accounts for more than half of all gun deaths every year in this country. Nothing else even comes close. Not black gangs killing each other, or mass shootings, or even men killing their wives and girlfriends.

ShadySue

« Reply #102 on: October 10, 2015, 06:43 »
+3
It seems pretty extreme to go through the trouble of removing everyone gun for an insignificant problem.

Would you feel that way if your child had been killed in school?
Or your wife had been killed by a hunter in her own garden - and he got off with it?
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/09/10/magazine/a-killing-in-maine.html?pagewanted=all (This particular incident, and the hunter's acquittal, met with complete disbelief in the UK. Even now when I tell people about it, they generally think it's an urban or internet myth, so impossible does it seem.)
« Last Edit: October 10, 2015, 12:06 by ShadySue »

ShadySue

« Reply #103 on: October 10, 2015, 06:45 »
+3
... But outright banning is wrong.
"In your opinion."

« Reply #104 on: October 10, 2015, 08:25 »
+3
Actually, it's not acceptable to the majority of Americans. Most Americans do NOT own a gun. Gun owners are in the minority. The reason there are 88 guns per 100 people is that the gun-owning minority owns multiple guns per person, one for each of their many trigger fingers, I guess. The vast majority of Americans would like to see more stringent background checks. And some of us would like to see most guns destroyed.

Yes, but a majority wants to keep gun ownership legal whether they personally own one or not. You should have a right to defend your home and family with deadly force. Not all of us live in an urban environment where the police are minutes away.

This is Ok, but then people must stop using the second ammendment to justify it.
The right to defend your family is understandable, but it is not enshrined in the Constitution. The constitution talks about the Security of a Free State, not about security of individuals.

Moreover, it implies that people bearing arms are those Militia members, not just independent individuals. Being an NRA member doesn't mean member of a militia.

And that militia and the gun ownership must be "well regulated".
It is almost like the founding fathers have anticipated that today's situation, with "free for all", virtually unregulated gun ownership, is bad.
In modern days, forced and twisted interpretations in courts have modified the initial meaning, as it happened in other cases (eg. corporations are people, 10th ammendment nullification, etc).



Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: October 10, 2015, 08:43 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #105 on: October 10, 2015, 09:03 »
+1
2/3 of gun deaths in the U.S. are suicides, and 80% of those suicides are committed by white males. That means that white men killing themselves accounts for more than half of all gun deaths every year in this country. Nothing else even comes close. Not black gangs killing each other, or mass shootings, or even men killing their wives and girlfriends.

No one seriously considers suicide to be a gun crime. Those would occur with or without guns. Typical left-wing deflection and unwillingness to discuss the issue honestly.

Most assaults and murders with guns are not committed by whites.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2015, 09:15 by robhainer »

« Reply #106 on: October 10, 2015, 09:11 »
0
Actually, it's not acceptable to the majority of Americans. Most Americans do NOT own a gun. Gun owners are in the minority. The reason there are 88 guns per 100 people is that the gun-owning minority owns multiple guns per person, one for each of their many trigger fingers, I guess. The vast majority of Americans would like to see more stringent background checks. And some of us would like to see most guns destroyed.

Yes, but a majority wants to keep gun ownership legal whether they personally own one or not. You should have a right to defend your home and family with deadly force. Not all of us live in an urban environment where the police are minutes away.

This is Ok, but then people must stop using the second ammendment to justify it.
The right to defend your family is understandable, but it is not enshrined in the Constitution. The constitution talks about the Security of a Free State, not about security of individuals.

Moreover, it implies that people bearing arms are those Militia members, not just independent individuals. Being an NRA member doesn't mean member of a militia.

And that militia and the gun ownership must be "well regulated".
It is almost like the founding fathers have anticipated that today's situation, with "free for all", virtually unregulated gun ownership, is bad.
In modern days, forced and twisted interpretations in courts have modified the initial meaning, as it happened in other cases (eg. corporations are people, 10th ammendment nullification, etc).



Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

We have courts to interpret what it says because we don't agree on what it means.

The way I read it is that you can't have a well regulated militia when you need one unless people already have the right to own guns and that the ability to form a militia is just one reason for firearm ownership, not the only one. Also, the bill of rights (the first 10 amendments) itself refers to individual rights, not the rights of the whole. As a nation, we guarantee these rights even if the majority finds the rights distasteful. That's what makes it great.

The fact is that the founding fathers wanted to make sure U.S. citizens already had firearms in the event they needed to organize a militia in a time of crisis to protect their homes and communities. That need still exists even with a standing Army and police force. Nobody can predict the future. The military and police are not always available. 
« Last Edit: October 10, 2015, 09:14 by robhainer »

« Reply #107 on: October 10, 2015, 09:19 »
+5
Maybe the people in the US should form the Militia first, before they hand out guns. Like they do in Switzerland and also here in Denmark.

The words "well regulated" in the constitution are there exactly to prevent all the loonetics from running around in a frenzy and shoot children in schools.

« Reply #108 on: October 10, 2015, 09:29 »
+4
Actually, it's not acceptable to the majority of Americans. Most Americans do NOT own a gun. Gun owners are in the minority. The reason there are 88 guns per 100 people is that the gun-owning minority owns multiple guns per person, one for each of their many trigger fingers, I guess. The vast majority of Americans would like to see more stringent background checks. And some of us would like to see most guns destroyed.

Yes, but a majority wants to keep gun ownership legal whether they personally own one or not. You should have a right to defend your home and family with deadly force. Not all of us live in an urban environment where the police are minutes away.

This is Ok, but then people must stop using the second ammendment to justify it.
The right to defend your family is understandable, but it is not enshrined in the Constitution. The constitution talks about the Security of a Free State, not about security of individuals.

Moreover, it implies that people bearing arms are those Militia members, not just independent individuals. Being an NRA member doesn't mean member of a militia.

And that militia and the gun ownership must be "well regulated".
It is almost like the founding fathers have anticipated that today's situation, with "free for all", virtually unregulated gun ownership, is bad.
In modern days, forced and twisted interpretations in courts have modified the initial meaning, as it happened in other cases (eg. corporations are people, 10th ammendment nullification, etc).



Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

We have courts to interpret what it says because we don't agree on what it means.

The way I read it is that you can't have a well regulated militia when you need one unless people already have the right to own guns and that the ability to form a militia is just one reason for firearm ownership, not the only one. Also, the bill of rights (the first 10 amendments) itself refers to individual rights, not the rights of the whole. As a nation, we guarantee these rights even if the majority finds the rights distasteful. That's what makes it great.

The fact is that the founding fathers wanted to make sure U.S. citizens already had firearms in the event they needed to organize a militia in a time of crisis to protect their homes and communities. That need still exists even with a standing Army and police force. Nobody can predict the future. The military and police are not always available.
Protecting your home from a burglar is not the same as protecting a "free state". This is a forced interpretation. It rather means protecting the free state institutions (ie from dictatorship and such)
So, instead of saying that you have guns because you don't live in a big city and the police is not always around, you must say that you have guns to save the "free state" from some future evil dictator. Or else, don't use the 2nd ammendment to justify your hobby or your need for home protection.

Additionally, "well regulated" is stronger than just "regulated" and far stronger than today's "free for all" virtually unregulated gun ownership.
There are places where you can buy guns in a supermarket, but not alcohol.
What a hypocrisy!

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2015, 09:58 by Zero Talent »

Shelma1

« Reply #109 on: October 10, 2015, 10:04 »
0
2/3 of gun deaths in the U.S. are suicides, and 80% of those suicides are committed by white males. That means that white men killing themselves accounts for more than half of all gun deaths every year in this country. Nothing else even comes close. Not black gangs killing each other, or mass shootings, or even men killing their wives and girlfriends.


No one seriously considers suicide to be a gun crime. Those would occur with or without guns. Typical left-wing deflection and unwillingness to discuss the issue honestly.

Most assaults and murders with guns are not committed by whites.


I think this writer states the issue very well in this opinion piece. "The price of redefining gun violence as an issue pertaining only to "those people" -- of casting and recasting the gun statistics to make them less grisly if only "those people" are toted under some different heading in some different ledger -- the price of that redefinition is to lose our ability to think about the problem at all." http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/15/opinion/frum-guns-race/

There are more than 30,000 gun deaths in the U.S. every year, many many more than in any other comparable country. As I stated before, pro-gun people in the U.S. like to break down those gun deaths into the smallest possible pieces, then look at one piece at a time...out of context.

If you want to look at suicides, also look at the statistics showing that guns are by far the most effective means to commit suicide, and that most people who attempt suicide and fail are NOT likely to attempt it again. In other words, if you take guns out of the equation, more people who attempted suicide would be more likely to fail, and unlikely to attempt it again. So they would survive.

You have to look at the forest and stop breaking it down into individual trees. The proliferation of guns in this country makes it easier for white men to kill themselves, black men to kill each other, men to kill women, criminals to commit crimes, children to shoot their siblings, students to shoot other students, and toddlers to shoot their mothers in the grocery store. The whole forest of gun deaths happen because we have too many guns and they're too easy to get.

« Reply #110 on: October 10, 2015, 10:18 »
+1
2/3 of gun deaths in the U.S. are suicides, and 80% of those suicides are committed by white males. That means that white men killing themselves accounts for more than half of all gun deaths every year in this country. Nothing else even comes close. Not black gangs killing each other, or mass shootings, or even men killing their wives and girlfriends.


No one seriously considers suicide to be a gun crime. Those would occur with or without guns. Typical left-wing deflection and unwillingness to discuss the issue honestly.

Most assaults and murders with guns are not committed by whites.


I think this writer states the issue very well in this opinion piece. "The price of redefining gun violence as an issue pertaining only to "those people" -- of casting and recasting the gun statistics to make them less grisly if only "those people" are toted under some different heading in some different ledger -- the price of that redefinition is to lose our ability to think about the problem at all." http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/15/opinion/frum-guns-race/

There are more than 30,000 gun deaths in the U.S. every year, many many more than in any other comparable country. As I stated before, pro-gun people in the U.S. like to break down those gun deaths into the smallest possible pieces, then look at one piece at a time...out of context.

If you want to look at suicides, also look at the statistics showing that guns are by far the most effective means to commit suicide, and that most people who attempt suicide and fail are NOT likely to attempt it again. In other words, if you take guns out of the equation, more people who attempted suicide would be more likely to fail, and unlikely to attempt it again. So they would survive.

You have to look at the forest and stop breaking it down into individual trees. The proliferation of guns in this country makes it easier for white men to kill themselves, black men to kill each other, men to kill women, criminals to commit crimes, children to shoot their siblings, students to shoot other students, and toddlers to shoot their mothers in the grocery store. The whole forest of gun deaths happen because we have too many guns and they're too easy to get.


The anti-gun loonies like to include suicides because their numbers don't add up to fit their narrative otherwise. Without suicides, the leading cause of death among Americans is traffic accidents. Fact is, you have a much larger chance of dying today in a traffic accident than you do of getting killed in a spree shooting or other crime.

If you're worried about suicides, then you need to ban prescription pills, rope, belts and all the other methods used. Suicides are a mental health issue, not a gun issue.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2015, 10:26 by robhainer »

« Reply #111 on: October 10, 2015, 10:22 »
0
Actually, it's not acceptable to the majority of Americans. Most Americans do NOT own a gun. Gun owners are in the minority. The reason there are 88 guns per 100 people is that the gun-owning minority owns multiple guns per person, one for each of their many trigger fingers, I guess. The vast majority of Americans would like to see more stringent background checks. And some of us would like to see most guns destroyed.

Yes, but a majority wants to keep gun ownership legal whether they personally own one or not. You should have a right to defend your home and family with deadly force. Not all of us live in an urban environment where the police are minutes away.

This is Ok, but then people must stop using the second ammendment to justify it.
The right to defend your family is understandable, but it is not enshrined in the Constitution. The constitution talks about the Security of a Free State, not about security of individuals.

Moreover, it implies that people bearing arms are those Militia members, not just independent individuals. Being an NRA member doesn't mean member of a militia.

And that militia and the gun ownership must be "well regulated".
It is almost like the founding fathers have anticipated that today's situation, with "free for all", virtually unregulated gun ownership, is bad.
In modern days, forced and twisted interpretations in courts have modified the initial meaning, as it happened in other cases (eg. corporations are people, 10th ammendment nullification, etc).



Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

We have courts to interpret what it says because we don't agree on what it means.

The way I read it is that you can't have a well regulated militia when you need one unless people already have the right to own guns and that the ability to form a militia is just one reason for firearm ownership, not the only one. Also, the bill of rights (the first 10 amendments) itself refers to individual rights, not the rights of the whole. As a nation, we guarantee these rights even if the majority finds the rights distasteful. That's what makes it great.

The fact is that the founding fathers wanted to make sure U.S. citizens already had firearms in the event they needed to organize a militia in a time of crisis to protect their homes and communities. That need still exists even with a standing Army and police force. Nobody can predict the future. The military and police are not always available.
Protecting your home from a burglar is not the same as protecting a "free state". This is a forced interpretation. It rather means protecting the free state institutions (ie from dictatorship and such)
So, instead of saying that you have guns because you don't live in a big city and the police is not always around, you must say that you have guns to save the "free state" from some future evil dictator. Or else, don't use the 2nd ammendment to justify your hobby or your need for home protection.

Additionally, "well regulated" is stronger than just "regulated" and far stronger than today's "free for all" virtually unregulated gun ownership.
There are places where you can buy guns in a supermarket, but not alcohol.
What a hypocrisy!

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
.

You can't have a well-regulated militia unless the citizens already have guns.

Even so, that's only one reason we are guaranteed the right to gun ownership as stated in the 2nd Amendment. You're interpreting it incorrectly. The Supreme Court, the highest law of the land, doesn't read it that way, and we have to respect that because that's the democratic system we have put in place. And it has worked since the rest of the world was ruled by kings and queens.

And I never used the 2nd Amendment as my only justification for self-defense. Protecting your life, your family's life and your property is a natural right enshrined by federal and state laws.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2015, 10:24 by robhainer »

Shelma1

« Reply #112 on: October 10, 2015, 10:35 »
+1
The anti-gun loonies like to include suicides because their numbers don't add up to fit their narrative otherwise. Without suicides, the leading cause of death among Americans is traffic accidents.

"Likewise, not counting hurricanes, America would not have so many natural disasters. Not counting divorces, America would have more intact families. Not counting wars, America would have a smaller public debt. But what's the point of this exercise? The people who make up America count as Americans, and their problems count as America's problems. Their problems do not occur in isolation, but are manifestations of failures to which all Americans contributed together."

« Reply #113 on: October 10, 2015, 10:36 »
+2
Actually, it's not acceptable to the majority of Americans. Most Americans do NOT own a gun. Gun owners are in the minority. The reason there are 88 guns per 100 people is that the gun-owning minority owns multiple guns per person, one for each of their many trigger fingers, I guess. The vast majority of Americans would like to see more stringent background checks. And some of us would like to see most guns destroyed.

Yes, but a majority wants to keep gun ownership legal whether they personally own one or not. You should have a right to defend your home and family with deadly force. Not all of us live in an urban environment where the police are minutes away.

This is Ok, but then people must stop using the second ammendment to justify it.
The right to defend your family is understandable, but it is not enshrined in the Constitution. The constitution talks about the Security of a Free State, not about security of individuals.

Moreover, it implies that people bearing arms are those Militia members, not just independent individuals. Being an NRA member doesn't mean member of a militia.

And that militia and the gun ownership must be "well regulated".
It is almost like the founding fathers have anticipated that today's situation, with "free for all", virtually unregulated gun ownership, is bad.
In modern days, forced and twisted interpretations in courts have modified the initial meaning, as it happened in other cases (eg. corporations are people, 10th ammendment nullification, etc).



Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

We have courts to interpret what it says because we don't agree on what it means.

The way I read it is that you can't have a well regulated militia when you need one unless people already have the right to own guns and that the ability to form a militia is just one reason for firearm ownership, not the only one. Also, the bill of rights (the first 10 amendments) itself refers to individual rights, not the rights of the whole. As a nation, we guarantee these rights even if the majority finds the rights distasteful. That's what makes it great.

The fact is that the founding fathers wanted to make sure U.S. citizens already had firearms in the event they needed to organize a militia in a time of crisis to protect their homes and communities. That need still exists even with a standing Army and police force. Nobody can predict the future. The military and police are not always available.
Protecting your home from a burglar is not the same as protecting a "free state". This is a forced interpretation. It rather means protecting the free state institutions (ie from dictatorship and such)
So, instead of saying that you have guns because you don't live in a big city and the police is not always around, you must say that you have guns to save the "free state" from some future evil dictator. Or else, don't use the 2nd ammendment to justify your hobby or your need for home protection.

Additionally, "well regulated" is stronger than just "regulated" and far stronger than today's "free for all" virtually unregulated gun ownership.
There are places where you can buy guns in a supermarket, but not alcohol.
What a hypocrisy!

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
.

You can't have a well-regulated militia unless the citizens already have guns.

Even so, that's only one reason we are guaranteed the right to gun ownership as stated in the 2nd Amendment. You're interpreting it incorrectly. The Supreme Court, the highest law of the land, doesn't read it that way, and we have to respect that because that's the democratic system we have put in place. And it has worked since the rest of the world was ruled by kings and queens.

This is not an argument.
Of course I respect and comply with the law, but it doesn't mean I must agree with everything the government or the supreme court decides.
Especially when such arguments defy simple logic only to protect special interests.
This is exactly what worked well in US since the Kings and Queens.
What you do is replacing the Kings and Queens unchallangeble highest law of the land with the Supreme Court unchallangeble highest law of the land.



Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

« Reply #114 on: October 10, 2015, 10:39 »
0


Actually, it's not acceptable to the majority of Americans. Most Americans do NOT own a gun. Gun owners are in the minority. The reason there are 88 guns per 100 people is that the gun-owning minority owns multiple guns per person, one for each of their many trigger fingers, I guess. The vast majority of Americans would like to see more stringent background checks. And some of us would like to see most guns destroyed.

Yes, but a majority wants to keep gun ownership legal whether they personally own one or not. You should have a right to defend your home and family with deadly force. Not all of us live in an urban environment where the police are minutes away.

This is Ok, but then people must stop using the second ammendment to justify it.
The right to defend your family is understandable, but it is not enshrined in the Constitution. The constitution talks about the Security of a Free State, not about security of individuals.

Moreover, it implies that people bearing arms are those Militia members, not just independent individuals. Being an NRA member doesn't mean member of a militia.

And that militia and the gun ownership must be "well regulated".
It is almost like the founding fathers have anticipated that today's situation, with "free for all", virtually unregulated gun ownership, is bad.
In modern days, forced and twisted interpretations in courts have modified the initial meaning, as it happened in other cases (eg. corporations are people, 10th ammendment nullification, etc).



Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

We have courts to interpret what it says because we don't agree on what it means.

The way I read it is that you can't have a well regulated militia when you need one unless people already have the right to own guns and that the ability to form a militia is just one reason for firearm ownership, not the only one. Also, the bill of rights (the first 10 amendments) itself refers to individual rights, not the rights of the whole. As a nation, we guarantee these rights even if the majority finds the rights distasteful. That's what makes it great.

The fact is that the founding fathers wanted to make sure U.S. citizens already had firearms in the event they needed to organize a militia in a time of crisis to protect their homes and communities. That need still exists even with a standing Army and police force. Nobody can predict the future. The military and police are not always available.
Protecting your home from a burglar is not the same as protecting a "free state". This is a forced interpretation. It rather means protecting the free state institutions (ie from dictatorship and such)
So, instead of saying that you have guns because you don't live in a big city and the police is not always around, you must say that you have guns to save the "free state" from some future evil dictator. Or else, don't use the 2nd ammendment to justify your hobby or your need for home protection.

Additionally, "well regulated" is stronger than just "regulated" and far stronger than today's "free for all" virtually unregulated gun ownership.
There are places where you can buy guns in a supermarket, but not alcohol.
What a hypocrisy!

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
.

You can't have a well-regulated militia unless the citizens already have guns.

Even so, that's only one reason we are guaranteed the right to gun ownership as stated in the 2nd Amendment. You're interpreting it incorrectly. The Supreme Court, the highest law of the land, doesn't read it that way, and we have to respect that because that's the democratic system we have put in place. And it has worked since the rest of the world was ruled by kings and queens.

This is not an argument.
Of course I respect and comply with the law, but it doesn't mean I must agree with everything the government or the supreme court decides.
Especially when such arguments defy simple logic only to protect special interests.
This is exactly what worked well in US since the Kings and Queens.
What you do is replacing the Kings and Queens unchallangeble will with the Supreme Court will.



Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

It can be challenged. Support a new amendment to change it, which would overrule the Supreme Court. That's the process we have. You don't have to respect the decision; you do have to respect the process.

« Reply #115 on: October 10, 2015, 10:41 »
0
The anti-gun loonies like to include suicides because their numbers don't add up to fit their narrative otherwise. Without suicides, the leading cause of death among Americans is traffic accidents.

"Likewise, not counting hurricanes, America would not have so many natural disasters. Not counting divorces, America would have more intact families. Not counting wars, America would have a smaller public debt. But what's the point of this exercise? The people who make up America count as Americans, and their problems count as America's problems. Their problems do not occur in isolation, but are manifestations of failures to which all Americans contributed together."

Like you said, it's an opinion piece. I think it's a failure of logic. Suicides are not a gun issue just like divorce isn't a wedding ring issue.

« Reply #116 on: October 10, 2015, 10:46 »
+2




Actually, it's not acceptable to the majority of Americans. Most Americans do NOT own a gun. Gun owners are in the minority. The reason there are 88 guns per 100 people is that the gun-owning minority owns multiple guns per person, one for each of their many trigger fingers, I guess. The vast majority of Americans would like to see more stringent background checks. And some of us would like to see most guns destroyed.

Yes, but a majority wants to keep gun ownership legal whether they personally own one or not. You should have a right to defend your home and family with deadly force. Not all of us live in an urban environment where the police are minutes away.

This is Ok, but then people must stop using the second ammendment to justify it.
The right to defend your family is understandable, but it is not enshrined in the Constitution. The constitution talks about the Security of a Free State, not about security of individuals.

Moreover, it implies that people bearing arms are those Militia members, not just independent individuals. Being an NRA member doesn't mean member of a militia.

And that militia and the gun ownership must be "well regulated".
It is almost like the founding fathers have anticipated that today's situation, with "free for all", virtually unregulated gun ownership, is bad.
In modern days, forced and twisted interpretations in courts have modified the initial meaning, as it happened in other cases (eg. corporations are people, 10th ammendment nullification, etc).



Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

We have courts to interpret what it says because we don't agree on what it means.

The way I read it is that you can't have a well regulated militia when you need one unless people already have the right to own guns and that the ability to form a militia is just one reason for firearm ownership, not the only one. Also, the bill of rights (the first 10 amendments) itself refers to individual rights, not the rights of the whole. As a nation, we guarantee these rights even if the majority finds the rights distasteful. That's what makes it great.

The fact is that the founding fathers wanted to make sure U.S. citizens already had firearms in the event they needed to organize a militia in a time of crisis to protect their homes and communities. That need still exists even with a standing Army and police force. Nobody can predict the future. The military and police are not always available.
Protecting your home from a burglar is not the same as protecting a "free state". This is a forced interpretation. It rather means protecting the free state institutions (ie from dictatorship and such)
So, instead of saying that you have guns because you don't live in a big city and the police is not always around, you must say that you have guns to save the "free state" from some future evil dictator. Or else, don't use the 2nd ammendment to justify your hobby or your need for home protection.

Additionally, "well regulated" is stronger than just "regulated" and far stronger than today's "free for all" virtually unregulated gun ownership.
There are places where you can buy guns in a supermarket, but not alcohol.
What a hypocrisy!

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
.

You can't have a well-regulated militia unless the citizens already have guns.

Even so, that's only one reason we are guaranteed the right to gun ownership as stated in the 2nd Amendment. You're interpreting it incorrectly. The Supreme Court, the highest law of the land, doesn't read it that way, and we have to respect that because that's the democratic system we have put in place. And it has worked since the rest of the world was ruled by kings and queens.

This is not an argument.
Of course I respect and comply with the law, but it doesn't mean I must agree with everything the government or the supreme court decides.
Especially when such arguments defy simple logic only to protect special interests.
This is exactly what worked well in US since the Kings and Queens.
What you do is replacing the Kings and Queens unchallangeble will with the Supreme Court will.



Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

It can be challenged. Support a new amendment to change it, which would overrule the Supreme Court. That's the process we have. You don't have to respect the decision; you do have to respect the process.

Exactly!
We only have to convice people like you to join and support proper gun ownership laws, something logic, that makes sense, instead of playing that absurd constitutional game.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


« Reply #117 on: October 10, 2015, 10:58 »
0
I support more extensive background checks and closing the private transfer loophole (including gun shows). All sales should be recorded to prevent gun trafficking. I also support limiting weapons purchases to one a month, again to prevent trafficking. Really, how many guns do you need for self-defense? Maybe a rifle and a pistol at most?

But how much will it help? The background check system completely failed in the Charleston shootings because the government was its usual incompetent self.

And keeping the mentally ill from getting guns is difficult. I support the idea of keeping crazy people from getting guns, but I don't like the idea of a mental illness being reported to the government. It should be something that is private. Also, who is going to judge if someone is mentally ill enough to lose a civil right? A government doctor? A court? Can you get your right back when you're judged mentally healthy? There are too many questions and concerns. 

Shelma1

« Reply #118 on: October 10, 2015, 11:00 »
+2
The anti-gun loonies like to include suicides because their numbers don't add up to fit their narrative otherwise. Without suicides, the leading cause of death among Americans is traffic accidents.

"Likewise, not counting hurricanes, America would not have so many natural disasters. Not counting divorces, America would have more intact families. Not counting wars, America would have a smaller public debt. But what's the point of this exercise? The people who make up America count as Americans, and their problems count as America's problems. Their problems do not occur in isolation, but are manifestations of failures to which all Americans contributed together."

Like you said, it's an opinion piece. I think it's a failure of logic. Suicides are not a gun issue just like divorce isn't a wedding ring issue.

I see a lot of failures of logic in all your arguments for guns. You refuse to look at worldwide statistics about how the amount of guns correlates to the amount of gun deaths. You refuse to see anything as a gun issue; it's a black gang issue, or a mental health issue, or a liberal loony issue, or anything but the obvious elephant in the room, which is the proliferation of guns.

You simply ignore statistics that show suicides could be reduced if there were fewer guns; mass shootings could be reduced, murders, accidental shootings, school shootings, etc. etc. etc. Instead you make a "logical" statement about divorce not being a wedding ring issue.

All the people from countries other than ours who can't understand why we have so many guns can now see the thinking process many Americans are simply amazed by. So thanks for sharing that.

« Reply #119 on: October 10, 2015, 11:17 »
+1
The anti-gun loonies like to include suicides because their numbers don't add up to fit their narrative otherwise. Without suicides, the leading cause of death among Americans is traffic accidents.

"Likewise, not counting hurricanes, America would not have so many natural disasters. Not counting divorces, America would have more intact families. Not counting wars, America would have a smaller public debt. But what's the point of this exercise? The people who make up America count as Americans, and their problems count as America's problems. Their problems do not occur in isolation, but are manifestations of failures to which all Americans contributed together."

Like you said, it's an opinion piece. I think it's a failure of logic. Suicides are not a gun issue just like divorce isn't a wedding ring issue.

I see a lot of failures of logic in all your arguments for guns. You refuse to look at worldwide statistics about how the amount of guns correlates to the amount of gun deaths. You refuse to see anything as a gun issue; it's a black gang issue, or a mental health issue, or a liberal loony issue, or anything but the obvious elephant in the room, which is the proliferation of guns.

You simply ignore statistics that show suicides could be reduced if there were fewer guns; mass shootings could be reduced, murders, accidental shootings, school shootings, etc. etc. etc. Instead you make a "logical" statement about divorce not being a wedding ring issue.

All the people from countries other than ours who can't understand why we have so many guns can now see the thinking process many Americans are simply amazed by. So thanks for sharing that.

I look at the worldwide statistics. I just don't care about them. My right to self-defense is more important than preventing suicide by gun or anything else you bring up. I don't want to live in a country that gives a burglar more rights than a homeowner. They can be amazed, confused, disappointed or whatever they want. I just don't care what you or they think. I'm exhausted by people who live in New York and San Francisco telling me how I should live, when they live in some weird bubble that is totally divorced from reality.

A free society doesn't remove basic civil rights from all people because a few choose to abuse those rights.

If we follow your suicide theory to its logical conclusion, then we should ban everything that makes it easier for people to kill themselves. We should ban snack foods, tobacco, alcohol, sugary drinks and cars just for starters. At what point would it be enough? How many people do we have to save from themselves?
« Last Edit: October 10, 2015, 11:24 by robhainer »

« Reply #120 on: October 10, 2015, 11:41 »
0
I support more extensive background checks and closing the private transfer loophole (including gun shows). All sales should be recorded to prevent gun trafficking. I also support limiting weapons purchases to one a month, again to prevent trafficking. Really, how many guns do you need for self-defense? Maybe a rifle and a pistol at most?

But how much will it help? The background check system completely failed in the Charleston shootings because the government was its usual incompetent self.

And keeping the mentally ill from getting guns is difficult. I support the idea of keeping crazy people from getting guns, but I don't like the idea of a mental illness being reported to the government. It should be something that is private. Also, who is going to judge if someone is mentally ill enough to lose a civil right? A government doctor? A court? Can you get your right back when you're judged mentally healthy? There are too many questions and concerns.
I agree with you that laws against mentally ill people are a slippery slope and a dead end, anyway. This only an NRA game meant to maintain the status quo. I mentioned before, that dictators used the "mentally ill weapon" to silence their critics.
The other proposals you support are logical and closer to the "well regulated" constitutional requirement and closer to what other civilized countries have in place.
So start by voting for those politicians who are not afraid to fight for those changes.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


ShadySue

« Reply #121 on: October 10, 2015, 11:41 »
+1
I look at the worldwide statistics. I just don't care about them. My right to self-defense is more important than preventing suicide by gun or anything else you bring up.
I guess murderers where you live must be far more polite than ours, waiting for you to go and fetch your gun for a 'fair fight'.
Or do you literally have your gun in your hand or on your hip at all times, and never go to sleep?
Who defends school kids? Do your teachers work with their guns in their hands ready to shoot?
Your argument is illogical. Unless the above are all true.
Why do you think your "right to self-defence" is more important than protecting kids in school?

ShadySue

« Reply #122 on: October 10, 2015, 11:45 »
+1
More stringent checks are only one step in the right direction.
Thomas Hamilton who carried out the Dunblane school massacre had no previous legal indications (at a time when people could own handguns here under strict conditions) that he should not be granted a gun licence, and he was in his forties.
Besides, it would lead to a black market, and people feeling even more aggrieved and disenfranchised when some could have guns and they couldn't - a dangerous situation.

Shelma1

« Reply #123 on: October 10, 2015, 11:58 »
+1
The anti-gun loonies like to include suicides because their numbers don't add up to fit their narrative otherwise. Without suicides, the leading cause of death among Americans is traffic accidents.

"Likewise, not counting hurricanes, America would not have so many natural disasters. Not counting divorces, America would have more intact families. Not counting wars, America would have a smaller public debt. But what's the point of this exercise? The people who make up America count as Americans, and their problems count as America's problems. Their problems do not occur in isolation, but are manifestations of failures to which all Americans contributed together."

Like you said, it's an opinion piece. I think it's a failure of logic. Suicides are not a gun issue just like divorce isn't a wedding ring issue.

I see a lot of failures of logic in all your arguments for guns. You refuse to look at worldwide statistics about how the amount of guns correlates to the amount of gun deaths. You refuse to see anything as a gun issue; it's a black gang issue, or a mental health issue, or a liberal loony issue, or anything but the obvious elephant in the room, which is the proliferation of guns.

You simply ignore statistics that show suicides could be reduced if there were fewer guns; mass shootings could be reduced, murders, accidental shootings, school shootings, etc. etc. etc. Instead you make a "logical" statement about divorce not being a wedding ring issue.

All the people from countries other than ours who can't understand why we have so many guns can now see the thinking process many Americans are simply amazed by. So thanks for sharing that.

I look at the worldwide statistics. I just don't care about them. My right to self-defense is more important than preventing suicide by gun or anything else you bring up. I don't want to live in a country that gives a burglar more rights than a homeowner. They can be amazed, confused, disappointed or whatever they want. I just don't care what you or they think. I'm exhausted by people who live in New York and San Francisco telling me how I should live, when they live in some weird bubble that is totally divorced from reality.

A free society doesn't remove basic civil rights from all people because a few choose to abuse those rights.

If we follow your suicide theory to its logical conclusion, then we should ban everything that makes it easier for people to kill themselves. We should ban snack foods, tobacco, alcohol, sugary drinks and cars just for starters. At what point would it be enough? How many people do we have to save from themselves?

Well, you've reached the point of complete ridiculousness. But thanks for admitting you don't care about evidence; that pretty much sums it up.

You may be tired of the majority of Americans "telling you what to do", but you know what we're tired of? The minority of you putting the rest of us at higher risk of death because of your irrational love of guns. So excuse us for being pretty disgusted with you.

« Reply #124 on: October 10, 2015, 12:02 »
+2
The anti-gun loonies like to include suicides because their numbers don't add up to fit their narrative otherwise. Without suicides, the leading cause of death among Americans is traffic accidents.

"Likewise, not counting hurricanes, America would not have so many natural disasters. Not counting divorces, America would have more intact families. Not counting wars, America would have a smaller public debt. But what's the point of this exercise? The people who make up America count as Americans, and their problems count as America's problems. Their problems do not occur in isolation, but are manifestations of failures to which all Americans contributed together."

Like you said, it's an opinion piece. I think it's a failure of logic. Suicides are not a gun issue just like divorce isn't a wedding ring issue.

I see a lot of failures of logic in all your arguments for guns. You refuse to look at worldwide statistics about how the amount of guns correlates to the amount of gun deaths. You refuse to see anything as a gun issue; it's a black gang issue, or a mental health issue, or a liberal loony issue, or anything but the obvious elephant in the room, which is the proliferation of guns.

You simply ignore statistics that show suicides could be reduced if there were fewer guns; mass shootings could be reduced, murders, accidental shootings, school shootings, etc. etc. etc. Instead you make a "logical" statement about divorce not being a wedding ring issue.

All the people from countries other than ours who can't understand why we have so many guns can now see the thinking process many Americans are simply amazed by. So thanks for sharing that.

I look at the worldwide statistics. I just don't care about them. My right to self-defense is more important than preventing suicide by gun or anything else you bring up. I don't want to live in a country that gives a burglar more rights than a homeowner. They can be amazed, confused, disappointed or whatever they want. I just don't care what you or they think. I'm exhausted by people who live in New York and San Francisco telling me how I should live, when they live in some weird bubble that is totally divorced from reality.

A free society doesn't remove basic civil rights from all people because a few choose to abuse those rights.

If we follow your suicide theory to its logical conclusion, then we should ban everything that makes it easier for people to kill themselves. We should ban snack foods, tobacco, alcohol, sugary drinks and cars just for starters. At what point would it be enough? How many people do we have to save from themselves?

Well, you've reached the point of complete ridiculousness. But thanks for admitting you don't care about evidence; that pretty much sums it up.

You may be tired of the majority of Americans "telling you what to do", but you know what we're tired of? The minority of you putting the rest of us at higher risk of death because of your irrational love of guns. So excuse us for being pretty disgusted with you.

Except you're not in the majority. You want an outright ban on all guns. That's a very minority view. Like I said, you're stuck in a bubble and incapable of seeing outside of it.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
Back 2 school

Started by Dreamstime News Microstock News

0 Replies
1345 Views
Last post July 26, 2007, 11:19
by Dreamstime News
Back 2 school

Started by Dreamstime News Microstock News

2 Replies
1693 Views
Last post July 31, 2007, 17:41
by Freezingpictures
10 Replies
3697 Views
Last post January 21, 2010, 22:35
by donding
26 Replies
6294 Views
Last post June 01, 2010, 19:39
by Suljo
0 Replies
947 Views
Last post August 19, 2015, 03:18
by imagesbykenny

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results