How many mass shootings does it take for someone to WAKE UP!


I will not post news articles from your "favorite news channel" or anything else since they downplay it, as well as calling it "fake" like that called Sandy Hook "FAKE" At least 9 dead, 26 injured in mass shooting in downtown Dayton, Ohio

At least 9 dead, 26 injured in mass shooting in downtown Dayton, Ohio originally appeared on

In a second mass shooting in less than 14 hours, at least nine people are dead and more than two dozen were wounded early on Sunday after someone opened fire in downtown Dayton, Ohio, according to police.

The suspected shooter was shot and killed by responding officers "in less than a minute" after opening fire, Mayor Nan Whaley said at a Sunday morning press conference. Police said they were only aware of one shooter.

(MORE: Mass shooting leaves at least 20 dead, dozens injured in El Paso, police say)

Authorities responded quickly to the shooting, first reported at 1 a.m., and said police are regularly present in the crowded district popular with tourists and locals.

Whaley said the shooter wore armor and was carrying a .223-caliber rifle and additional high-capacity magazines. - El Paso shooting: 20 dead in ‘evil act of violence’ at Texas Walmart as police probe ‘hate crime’

Authorities in Texas are quizzing a 21-year-old white man – suspected of posting a racist “manifesto” online – believed to be responsible for a gun attack on a shopping centre that killed 20 people and which police said was the “nexus of a hate crime”.

Video phone footage taken inside a mall in El Paso showed people running in fear for their lives after the shooter entered a Walmart store with a semiautomatic weapon and opened fire. In addition to the 20 fatalities, at least two-dozen people were injured in the latest incident of gun violence to scar the nation.

It appears the suspected shooter – named by multiple media accounts as Patrick Crusius – drove up to ten hours from Alen, a town near Dallas, to target the store in El Paso, a city on the border with Mexico that has long been a home to immigrants. An online posting apparently written several days ago, said the attack was a response to the “Hispanic invasion of Texas”.

2nd Amendment keyboard Cartels...HISTORY LESSON

How many mass shootings does it take for someone to WAKE UP!
How many mass shootings does it take for someone to WAKE UP!

2nd Amendment..Cira 1791...THAT WAS 228 YEARS AGO!! also..

How many mass shootings does it take for someone to WAKE UP!

and sorry folks.. THIS isn't A REGULATED MILITIA

How many mass shootings does it take for someone to WAKE UP!
Add Opinion
29Girl Opinion
92Guy Opinion

Most Helpful Girls

  • brebre234
    People need to wake up and see that this is mostly trump fault. he's incited nothing but racism and violence which divided the country even more. I'm scared to leave my own house because it's so dangerous now which is sad. You can't go to the mall anymore because its unsafe it's better to online shop for clothes. You can't even go to church anymore it's best to stay at home and pray. Same with school it's so unsafe it's better to take online courses. Trump supporters are truly brained washed. They need to open of their eyes and see that Trump is the cause of racism and violence because he insinuate it.
    LikeDisagree 53 People
    Is this still revelant?
    • brebre234

      @hakon96 Yes I dont think it's all his fault but he made the problem even worse than its already is. And for the gun restrictions I dont have a problem with guns because they aren't the ones killing people. It's the person that uses them.

    • brebre234

      @HumansExist Yes but I said that because yes I believe in gun restrictions laws but there are people who believe that guns should be banned completely which something I disagree with.

    • Eh, if it had to be banned completely then that does away with having an army and any other military group that has guns.
      Unemployment would increase, so there's that too.
      Although, I do think that only the automatic/semi/automatic guns should only be used by the military in war situations/training... other than that they shouldn't be used... at the very least, not come into the possession of joe public, since how many people generally speaking know how to use a gun properly?
      Let alone have the sense to use it in a self-defence situation?

    • Show All
  • supercutebutt
    Sadly, I feel we are doomed as a nation. The only solution I see is to lock yourself in your house. There are so many guns out there (what is it now, 2 for every person in the US?) that it's just too late to do much to stop this shit. Trumptards want the world to end and they have all the guns. All we can really do is call out their evil so good people can hide from them.
    LikeDisagree 40 People
    Is this still revelant?
    • 1 downrate. sheeple

    • Jackp0t777

      @supercutebutt I hope you do not truly believe that. That Trump supporters want all the guns. It is in our constitution and I am not a Trump supporter and it is not like if they ban guns it will be a world without guns. Look at Canada and the shootings. In England cops have clubs and criminals have guns that they smuggled in. Guns are always going to be here and bad people are always going to get them so banning them is not the solution they are a necessary evil so the cops and others can stop the people who want to do things like these mass shootings.

    • Jackp0t777

      @legalboxers the sheeple are the ones who do not learn from history. Hitler took away guns and look what happened. Without guns we would not even be a country the people could not have risen up.

    • Show All

Most Helpful Guy

  • GoodGuyBreakingBad
    Thanks for sharing your MyTake with us, sadly people who support
    Trump are behind these mass shootings and these are White terrorist
    whose behind these mass shootings this is horrible.
    LikeDisagree 17 People
    Is this still revelant?

Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

  • OlderAndWiser
    "[Tench] Coxe was a Pennsylvania businessman, economist, and member of the Confederation Congress who later served as our first assistant secretary of the treasury. During late 1787 and throughout 1788 he wrote a series of essays urging the Constitution’s ratification. Coxe wrote under several pseudonyms, but all four essays in the new volumes were signed “A Pennsylvanian.”

    * * *

    "Discussion of the right to keep and bear arms was not plentiful during the ratification debates. That is one reason opponents of the individual right to keep and bear arms could maintain for so long that the Second Amendment guarantees only a state power against the federal government. Specifically, opponents argued that the term “militia” refers only to the relatively small body of soldiers actively under arms and supervised by each state.

    "Advocates of the “individual right” theory countered that during the Founding Era the term “militia” referred to the citizenry generally, or at least to all able-bodied men between certain ages. This position was supported by James Madison’s Federalist No. 46, in which he referred to an American “militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands.” (The number “half a million” approximated the number of able bodied men out of the population of the time.) Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist No. 29 provided some support for the “individual right” interpretation as well.

    "But still, these writings did not state unequivocately that all able-bodied males were in the militia; to conclude that, one had to make inferences.

    "However, the writings of Tench Coxe were more direct. In his third “Pennsylvanian” essay he wrote as follows: (Capitalization and italics are his.)

    "The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for THE POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE YEOMANRY OF AMERICA FROM SIXTEEN TO SIXTY. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American. What clause in the state or federal constitution hath given away that important right. . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
    LikeDisagree 3 People
  • nightdrot
    While being sympathetic to your general argument, you are making an ephemeral case by essentially grounding the validity of a right on the technology of the times. Take that argument to its logical conclusion and you will cause much mischief.

    For example, the First Amendment right to free speech was written at a time when newspapers and pamphlets were the principle means of communication. Radio, let alone television and, most importantly, social media, were unimaginable.

    The written word - which lends itself to prudent deliberation and thoughtful analysis - has been replaced by the immediacy and emotion of images. Take then the notion that if you articulate an idea that you give that idea the right to prevail, and you make the prudential case for abolishing free speech.

    We accept, with any right, the potentiality that it may conduce to evil as much as it may conduce to good. The method by which it is exercised is less consequential then the social context and intellectual suppositions in which it is exercised.

    The real issue with the Second Amendment is that rights are viewed by Americans in absolutist terms. As Burke pointed out, such "natural rights" do exist, but "their abstract perfection is their practical defect." Such rights are applied with too little regard to the cultural context in which they exist.

    There is much to suggest that the culture is incapable of prudently and sensibly managing the rights it abstractly attributes to itself. Alexander Hamilton made the point that if you have a Bill of Rights you extend to the government the authority to regulate those rights.

    Indeed, the regulation of those rights is actually routine. Free speech is limited by slander, perjury, defamation and copyright laws, among others. Freedom of religion is allowed consistent with public order - if a religion calls for human sacrifice, it is prohibited. There are other examples and the list is long.

    However, in the matter of the right to bear arms, in part, guns are woven into the culture in various ways. An emphasis on self-defense - particularly in urban areas where crime tends to be high - rural areas where hunting is an important sport, gun collectors and gun clubs, and, as you noted, an ethic rooted in America's libertarian traditions of resistance to tyranny. (Though the notion that the government is a threat to liberty at this interregnum in the nation's life is patently absurd. So supine is the government that it cannot even balance its budget lest it ask the public to pay for what they buy.)

    The segment of the population that tends toward absolutism on the Second Amendment is actually quite small, but is extremely intense. Whereas those who take a more nuanced view of gun rights tend to be less intense and more ambivalent. It is not generally their top priority and so the country tends, on the whole, to give both culturally and legally a wide scope to gun rights.

    However, it is not at all clear that the culture, as it devolves into a populist tone and an abstract libertarianism with an emphasis on individualism at the expense of community standards, that the society can handle responsibly the rights it has accrued to itself. Including gun rights.

    Burke said "men have no right to that which is not reasonable," and rights must be defined through the prism of the context in which they are exercised. What the nation has in the Second Amendment is a right that presupposes an ethic of community standards that are at this moment in the nation's life, at best, fraying. In short, that presupposition needs to be re-examined and, pace Hamilton, the right needs to be regulated in the light of such a re-examination.

    In short, what matters is not the method, but the ethical and social context in which rights are defined and exercised. Americans are, in this time in history, inclined to view freedom as an end in itself and not a means to an end and thus rights are defined in absolutist terms. Here is where the problem begins.
  • CoffeeWC
    Guns are way too accessible.
    LikeDisagree 13 People
    • Drezi420

      No. When California changed the gun laws and recalled like 2,000 some odd guns the violent crime rate dropped a big 0%. Soak that up

    • @Drezi420 2000 guns is nothing. There is probably over that amount in my small Canadian town of only around 3000 people, as evidence of this my uncle owns over a dozen guns. This is a small amount when you think that america has 120 civilian guns per 100 people, compared to Canada 35 guns per 100 people. 2000 guns isn't even a drop in the bucket to the state of california.

      Also, what recall are you talking about? I tried to find it so I could directly address this recall and why it didn't succeed, but I couldnt find info on it.

    • Show All
  • Daniela1982
    Nothing is going to stop killings until the mental health crisis in the US is dealt with. All these killers are mentally ill in some way of form. Insurance companies won't pay for more than a short time of mental health care so in a sense they are partly responsible. The one Psychological Health counseling center near me are up to their eyebrows in business, so much they had to expand. The parking lot is always jammed with cars and I hear getting an appointment there is not exactly Johnny on the spot when someone really needs help. And frankly, some of the counselors there just are there for a paycheck and their heart and minds are not really into helping people. One law they should have is no one can buy a gun legally unless they live in the same state as the gun store. If you live in a state where such guns are outlawed than you shouldn't be able to go to a different state and purchase one. No one under 21 should be able to buy a gun, although I would rather see 25. People must keep their guns in a locked gun safe and only the head of household, not any kids, should have access to them. The US Government should halt sales of assault type weapons and offer a generous buy back of these type of guns to get them off the street. Unfortunately, criminals will still manage to get them and are not concerned about gun laws. Deal with the mental health issues and the shootings will stop.
    LikeDisagree 10 People
    • brebre234

      I agree but you have people who will refuse mental health issues. And we can't help people who doesn't want to be helped. I think by dealing with people who want to be help with lower the percentage of mass shootings but will not end completely because of the people who refuse help.

    • Twalli

      @brebre234 I love people trying to explain how an assault rifle is necessary for their protection.

    • brebre234

      @Twalli What happen to good old fashion fighting for protection and using your hands as a weapon lol

    • Show All
  • AllieKaye
    Most of these areas are gun free zones. If ANYONE had a gun where these shootings took place there wouldn’t have been so many deaths and people injured. You do realize meth isn’t sold in stores? Its not legal in the United States, but people still get it. Criminals will still get it and you won’t have a weapon to stop them.
    LikeDisagree 12 People
    • Waffles731

      Meth its so easy a methhead can help make it

    • so by that logic should we not have murder laws since criminals will still murder. Also the idea that every single location in America could have a good guy with a gun is not possible

    • Waffles731

      @baseballnerd24 How about the places that are 30 minutes or more from a single cop, do you seriously expect them not have an AR-15 or AK pattern rifle for self defense

    • Show All
  • btbc92
    When bullying stop. When people start taking taking domestic abuse seriously. When people turn to God who gave us guidelines on how to live and treat people. Many scream mental illness and guns. But what others sadly forget many of these people were not born mentally ill. Many of these people were not gun crazy or fanatics of the heck of it. I grew up in a place where gangs, robbing, killing, raping etc goes on. They don't need guns. Real gangs like you see in The Warriors movies and my parents knows these people used anything from broken beer bottles etc to cause havoc. It will never get better. It's not the guns or the so called mentally ill. It's evil people who gets to live off of the backs of others, who mock and bully you to death until somebody commits suicide. The ones who wants to ploy your death because your a good two shoes and those of importance pays attention to you out of jealousy. The racist, the religious-phobics, etc gets other who are different to go p self defense more and start to go mad with insanity and start. We don't listen to these people after they commit these crimes. We just condemn the four crime. Read and hear all the testimonies of every individual young and old who has ever committed such crimes with school shootings. And you'll come to find out that many of them, are victims of exploitations, bullying, assault, and being ostracized. Many of them are sensitive souls who never asked to be tormented and hurt. I know. I want to school with such people. Many of them come from dysfunctional homes and single parent families. So guns are not the problem. Most guns are smuggled or stolen.
    LikeDisagree 7 People
  • Cherokeehp
    They’re already awake. They see what’s happening, but guns are profitable. Taking away guns means losing profits, so rather than actually enacting some gun control, they try to portray these mass shootings as unfortunate rare occurrences by mentally ill people. But, these occurrences aren’t rare and these mass shooters aren’t mentally ill or anything like that. These are just fucked up entitled white boys who have access to killing machines.
    LikeDisagree 15 People
    • I beg to differ. Anyone who kills a bunch of people instead of dealing with hardships like the rest of us do is not sane. Some want to commit suicide but haven't the guts so they kill others so they can commit suicide by cop. Others are plain copycats to these suicidal imbeciles. When they see someone else do it they think now is the time to do the same so at least their name will be known.

    • Jackp0t777

      Anyone who does this kind of thing is mentally ill come on now. It is not an everyday thing people do.

    • Cherokeehp

      @Jackp0t777 apparently it is I’mma everything because it’s happening back to back.

    • Show All
  • EpicDweeb
    With all due respect... you misunderstand the purpose of the second amendment and what the founding fathers had in mind.

    First: People always argue that they only had muskets in mind, but a machine gun had already been invented by that point and it was already clear where the future of firearms was going. They knew full well what they were saying and what it would mean.

    Second: The bill of rights was put in place to defend the rights the founding fathers believed absolutely necessary IN LIGHT OF THE CONFLICT WITH ENGLAND. The battle for Lexington and Concord was a battle over a munitions stash. The British intended to seize the people's firearms so there would be no uprising. From the declaration of independence we know what the founding fathers had in mind.

    "To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

    The second amendment was put in place in order to preserve the ability of the American people to fight against the power of its government in the event of its corruption and usurpation of power. We need the second amendment AND guns in order to possess any means of defending ourselves if and when our nation becomes so corrupt that we can no longer stand for it.

    Not only that but guns themselves wouldn't be a problem if everyone weren't acting like pansies with such delicate sensibilities and were willing to carry them with them in order to defend against shooters should it ever come to that. If you don't like guns you don't have to use one... but if you carry a gun, people are less likely to attack you. This has been shown time and time again from statistics created through non-bias studies that those who commit violent crime often pick their targets based on where and who will have the fewest defenses.
    Like 3 People
  • Mencyclopedia
    Lies lies and porky pies, the El Paso shooter was a confirmed antifa leftist who supported Elizabeth Warren. He was also from a fatherless household, like all mass shooters seem to be. You TDS sufferers can't help but lie and blame Trump for every shooting, but none of you seemed to blame Obama for Sandy Hook.
    LikeDisagree 6 People
  • DuskDanger
    Restricting guns won't stop shootings. Do you think because meth, cocaine, or any other illegal item is outlawed that people dont find ways around the law? There is a hige illegal gun market that can't be stopped. The 2nd amendment is to keep the goverment from overpowering the general populance and enforcing dictatorship level of rules.
    Like 5 People
    • DuskDanger

      and im pretty sure itll suck when we start putting restrictions on silverware like other countries

      "You got a permit for that butterknife?"

  • TayTay21
    If you don't think regular citizens with guns is a militia, then you don't understand the definition of the word.

    militia - noun
    mi·​li·​tia \ mə-ˈli-shə

    1a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency The militia was called to quell the riot.
    b : a body of citizens organized for military service
    2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
    Like 4 People
    • anametouse

      With all due respect, neither do you. A man with a gun acting independently is not an organized militia. Neither would a group operating independently either, the key word here is regulated

    • The second amendment doesn't secure the right of gun ownership for "a well regulate militia". The text clearly reads, "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The people's right is what's being enshrined in law here. Not a "well regulated militia".

    • anametouse

      Under the pretense of a well regulated militia. You can't cherry pick my guy

    • Show All
  • purplepoppy
    The military has long known that without proper training most people either freeze or aim to miss in a gunfight. This is why conscripted armies given only short prebattle training are quickly and easily eliminated. The idea that civilians could somehow stand up to a professional army is laughable.
    LikeDisagree 7 People
    • PressOn

      Yet, that is exactly why we are called the United States of America & not the United States of Britian

    • front2back

      Why do people always use this example? Most successful overthrows of governments in history weren't from fighting them military but the politicians themselves in their parlimenents.

    • The British public saw the french as the real enemy at the time. There wasn't much appetite for a war that was effectively a civil war killing our own. America would have broken free without war given time.

    • Show All
  • front2back
    Guns aren't the problem, you can go ahead and do some mass magazine or gun restriction and the shootings won't disappear, if anything, it will be like 70's again with bombing attacks becoming common place again. The issue isn't guns.
    The issue is the rising extremist, nihilistic ideologies brewing under our feet inside the country. Nearly all mass shooters are motivated by dark, evil corners of human thinking and ideology. They feed off of this.
    Like 6 People
    • PressOn


    • Sure, but guns are the most tractable LIMITING FACTOR to the superior damage they enable. Gun control is one of many possible preventative measures and the single most effective among them based on global observation.

  • 7p3ue7
    It doesn't seem to me that any President/party in power puts gun control at the top of their priorities. I'm in the UK and most of the gun crime over here is actually by children and youths who think they are "gangsters" when in fact they are just a load of stupid kids and immature adults who think they are "big" and "tough" being involved in gangs and the drug culture. When we actually start handing out tough sentences for posessing a knife or gun instead of a slap on the wrist and a telling off which isnusually all they get then maybe the idiots will take some notice.
    Gun crime and mass shootings in America seems to be a trend that seems on the rise and should be worrying everyone from the top down regardless of the reasons the perportrator has, it is completely unacceptable in "civilised" countries that this is able to happen. But it does and America once again needs to seriously look at their gun laws or lack of them and do something about the supply of military grade weapons sold over the counter like burgers and ice cream. In the UK weapons have to be licensed and it's probably not uncommon, for example, for a farmer to be found having an unlicensed weapon for killing vermin to be dealt with more harshly than a "gangster" who wants to harm other people just because they from a different gang in a different post (zip) code.
  • Stoner710
    We can’t without going against the constitution, we have the right to defend ourselves in our home and against a tyrannical government know as today a socialist government.

    The Militia is the people of the United States you’re part of the militia I’m part of the militia and all my neighbors and everyone living from LA to New York is part of the militia

    What will stop these attack is not having the divisive speech from the left. We’re seeing a rise in white supremacy because all the democrats do is say whites are horrible and check your privilege, people say trumps divisive he’s not the one that sang get in the face of Democrats lawmakers the Democrats are saying get in the face of Republican lawmakers, and the people listening to them. Don’t for get the democrats are the ones who kept black enslaved enacted the Jim Crow laws and we’re trying to prevent people from going to school to the people Who didn’t want desegregation were Democrats, and don’t forget who signed a law that but more black people in prison then any other president back in 1994 it was George H Bush it was Bill Clinton
    Like 1 Person
  • Sinnfeiner
    Sorry to offer a differing but first, the second amendment was written before there were assault riffles. The musket was in fact a military issued weapon so it is reasonable to assume that the founding fathers did in fact mean military weapons for civilians, as there were numerous privately owned cannons. As for well regulated militia: a militia is defined as:

    a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency
    a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.
    all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

    It’s the way the second amendment is worded that stumps people. It doesn’t say guns are only for the militia but “a well regulated militia, being necessary” meaning they understood that the free people might need to be called upon and therefore anyone able to should have the right to own a firearm. No that picture is not a well regulated militia, but if called upon they could be. Most of our soldiers in world war 1 actually brought their own weapons because it was expected of them.
    Like 1 Person
  • VaIiant
    Well, if you believe Amendments should be violated due to their age, despite being the foundation of our country, then the right to free speech, the right to privacy, etc... Those should all be gone as well? Or only the ones YOU disagree with?
    Gun SAFETY is what we need. Not stripping citizens of their guns who've rightfully earned them.
    We've had more people die from drunk driving then mass shootings, should we ban all alcohol? Or continue enforcing it like we have been, and continue watching the drunk driving fatalities decrease.
    We need firmer background checks, to raise the age to 21, firearm training, and mental health tests for getting a firearm. Trying to strip all citizens of millions of dollars worth of guns won't do shit, and will only upset the public.
    LikeDisagree 10 People
    • Grobmate

      Drink Driving, Aids, Drugs... none of that matterss. Statistics don't matter to the victims or their families. Please explain to me in what deluded universe you need semiautomatic weapons including "ASSAULT RIFLES" for personal protection?

      If that were the case wouldn't they be "PROTECTION RIFLES"?

    • VaIiant

      @Grobmate if your argument is about the names of the rifle you’re insane😂
      Statistics weren’t even mentioned, you leftist. And yeah, there’s families of the victims. And THOSE families can decide whether or not they want to keep a gun in their home, for that reason. They don’t get to impose their feelings on the rest of the nation.
      There’s thousands of people who owe their lives to a properly trained, armed citizen.

    • @Grobmate You're an idiot. Semi-automatic rifles (like the AR-15) aren't assault rifles. Assault rifles have to be select-fire, meaning they can switch back and fourth between semi auto mode and full auto mode. And since they are capable of firing automatically, they have been banned under federal law in 1986, along with every other rifle, submachine gun, and pistol that is capable of firing automatically. And we need semi-automatic guns because automatic ones are illegal, and bolt action guns fire too slow. And we need guns in general so we can defend ourselves and our rights against a tyrannical government who tries to take away our rights, including our second amendment rights.
      "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." - Thomas Jefferson
      "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson
      “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
      Who are you going to trust? The politicians (our Founding Fathers) who defeated a tyrannical government (Britain) and founded our country and gave us our basic rights, or the people who are trying to do everything in their power to take away our rights?

    • Show All
    You have no clue what you are talking about. You are literally at mouth breather level of stupidity.

    1. The Second Amendment was first and foremost, meant to make sure that the public would always have the means to wage war against their government, should they need to.

    2. Well Regulated is a military term. In the military, if I tell you to "Police the area," I am not telling you to perform law enforcement, or patrol... I am telling you to clean up the area. Pick up trash... put stuff where it belongs, etc.. Well regulated in military speak, means well functioning with regards to being able to serve its purpose. The militia is not government regulated. Logic alone tells you this without even reading the writings of the likes of Madison, who wrote extensively on this.

    The founders wrote extensively about the right to bear arms being first and foremost, to fight back against a tyrannical government. This being the intent, it would be mind numbingly stupid to put the government in charge of the guns that are meant to depose the government, should that be necessary.

    3. Madison made it clear that he did not want for America, what England had. You see, England gave the right to keep and bear arms to the citizens, but there were so many gun control measures, that only wealthy land owners could have guns. Madison was very clear about this.

    The 2nd Amendment has 3 parts. First part = justification for the Amendment. Second part = whose right is being protected. Third part = how that right is to be protected.

    First part... the justification..."A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is stating that to keep a state free, no matter who the enemy is, a militia must be able to form in order to protect it. The founders wrote extensively about this. They made it very clear that the enemy of liberty is as likely to be your own government, as the government of another country. The whole point of the Constitution is to keep a tight leash on the Federal Government.

    Second part... who owns the right..." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," makes it not only clear who owns the right, but also that no right is being granted. The Amendment does not say, "the people are granted the right." NO, it says "The Right Of The People," which means that the people OWN the right. It is already theirs. Nobody granted them the right... it is a natural born right. It is yours... you own it.

    The third part... what is it? What does it do? You learn this by reading the writings of the founders, if you weren't smart enough to figure it out on your own. It's literally just a prohibition. A prohibition on the government. What does it prohibit? Gun control. Simple as that... full stop.

    Now... mouth breathers will bring up things like, "but the laws, and the SCOTUS..." Well, they used to say that black people weren't full citizens... only part human. Do you stand by that also? When you bring things like that up, you only highlight that the founders knew what they were talking about... they knew that what they set in motion, would be constantly attacked.

    Mouth breathers will claim that they only meant muskets. Wrong. There were many inventions being worked on at the time of the writing, and the founders were aware of them. There was even a pistol that had 50 shots already loaded... though it was expensive. The founders weren't stupid. They understood history, and knew that we went from stones, and clubs made from bones, to cannons with exploding shells. They understood that the musket would not always be the pinnacle of weapons technology. It wasn't even the pinnacle at the time. It was just the most common.

    Need more proof? Communities did in fact, create their own cannons, under the second amendment. The reality is this... the founders made it very clear that the intent was that the people... individuals... have the means to wage war. They would not object to rifles such as the AR-15, or M-16s.
    • RLHJR

      So some will say that the amount of damage done, is just too great. Nobody is denying that it is not a tragedy when somebody uses a gun to kill innocent people. However, the mouth breathers get so emotional over this that they lose all common sense. For instance, in Nice, France, a single man killed 84 people, including 10 children, with... wait for it... a delivery truck. That's almost 3 times as many people killed in Dayton and El Paso, combined. 3 dead and 264 injured by bombs made with pressure cookers. Could have been worse, with slight modifications, and better placement of the bombs. And, don't look now, but London has a higher murder rate than New York City, and this is prompting them to ban knives there.

    • RLHJR

      But you don't need high capacity magazines! Really? Who they hell are you to say what I need. Ever tried to reload a gun, at night, when you are terrified, and or injured? There is a famous interview with FBI agents who had revolvers, in a shootout. They were hit, and so they were injured and terrified, and they talked about how hard it was just to get the gun reloaded, while taking cover behind the car. And these guys had trained to do this.

      You don't need an AR to protect your home. Once again, who made you God? You don't want one, fine. Tell me what I need, and I will tell you to go Eff yourself. You decide what you need, and I will decide what I need. ARs have been used by people to defend themselves. And for the uneducated... AR does not stand for Assault Rifle. There is NO SUCH THING as an assault rifle. It is a made up term to try to equate an AR, with military grade guns. The ARMY will not use an AR. It does not meet their requirements. It is not military grade. The only thing it has in common with military grade Assault Weapons, is that it is made to look like them... as a sales gimmick. You can literally strip the cosmetic pieces off, and put on readily available parts that make it into a normal hunting rifle.

    • RLHJR

      Like it or not, guns are an equalizer. A small person, such as a young woman, can defend herself, using a gun, if a very large man were to threaten her. It has happened many times. For instance, the famous case in the southwest, where a young mother, alone at home because her husband died recently... she killed one of two intruders as he broke into her house. The second man admitted they were aware of the husband's death, and meant to do very bad things to her. Without that gun, she would have been raped and killed. She's lucky she had a pump action shotgun, and not a musket.

      Now... while gun deaths are tragic when it is innocent people that are killed... this is a drop in a bucket, compared to the hundreds of millions of people, who were killed by their own governments, and had no means to fight back.

      What... some rifles aren't enough to fight against tanks, and fighter jets, and bombs and missiles? Tell that to the Vietnamese. VC with a ball of rice and an AK = 1... Army with tanks and jets = 0.

      It would also be a mistake to assume that the coming civil war, will be some rednecks vs the government. Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but more of the military... far more... are very conservative.

  • Drezi420
    Look in China a few years back a man killed 40 adults and 16 children with a van and a knife. Also the criminals DONT get their guns legally. changing the laws does nothing but take guns out of the hands of responsible lawfull citizens. Your stupid if he think Changing the gun laws will make any difference. California recalled (or whateva word fits) around 2,000+ guns and the violent crime rate dropped a whole 0%. How about you wake up
    Like 4 People
  • 1truekhaleesi
    I think you and I both know that after Sandy Hook happened, no one was going to do jack shit about it. “Well-regulated militia” makes me laugh. If the government wanted to annihalate us, they would. Stalin starved his own people. I am in favor of the second amendment. I just think that it should be regulated. Like many other things. Driving a car for example.
    LikeDisagree 2 People
    • UnamedUser

      You think guns aren’t regulated?

    • @UnamedUser no they aren't. Too many people who shouldn't have guns, like with domestic violence charges have been guns. It's way to easy to get a gun. Even with cars, if someone has a past history of driving poorly they get their license taken away. After so many DUIs your license will be suspended.

  • Show More (98)