I can understand why you're concerned about kids losing their shit and hosing down a bunch of strangers with a firearm. I get it. Mass shooters are ridiculous cowards.
On the other hand, you DON'T know what our Founders meant any better than anyone else.
And I didn't fight, bleed and kill for this country so some timid person half my age could tell me that I can't have a gun because they have feels.
According to basic math, the number of guns used in mass shootings makes up way less than 1% of all the guns in the USA. That means you want to take away lawfully held, never-used-in-anger weapons from 99%, because of 1%? Hell no.
Unfortunately yet again nothing will happen , it never does. Gun loby is just far too powerful , gun ownership per person in USA has risen , it a ridiculous misconception of safety that adds far more risk. From the outside , its looks like a basket case , people being shot for no reason , gun ownership considered a " given " . Another site I used to chat on ( USA site of course ) the question was raised " How many guns in your household? " , the poster went on the say that the question was just that and not to be a post on " Gun control " , people went into massive detail about all their firearms , these are not farmers , or even target shooters. Its just really horrible. Its you to the young here now , to somehow Stand up and insist , but gun control is not even being discussed. Its one thing we handled very well in Australia , and have not had a mass shooting since , thankyou John Howard , great actions , brave.
For the pro guns side. You anti-gun people need to understand that if someone wants to kill someone, they're gonna find a way to do it, restricting their access to firearms is only going to piss them off more, not to mention making it a lot harder for their potential victims to defend themselvs. Not to mention that it's not a coincidence that Chicago has the strictest gun control laws in the U. S., but it also has the highest gun crimes in the U. S.
For the anti-gun side. People need to understand that some people shouldn't have access to firearms, people like the mentally unstable or people who have been convicted of violent crimes.
You asked: How many mass shootings does it take for someone to WAKE UP!
My answer: None
The only people who can fix this is the government. There needs to be strict regulation on guns. The government doesn't really care though. They are going to continue making the same speech day in and day out and nothing will change. That's usually how government works. They are going to preach how they are working to fix the problem, but we all know that nothing will get fixed.
You can keep upping security. You can keep putting metal detectors and cameras every where. However, that won't fix the issue. Can't keep putting a bandaid on the issue.
Govt regulation of semi-automatic, and automatic, will not improve the mass shootings we have here in the US. Look at the "war on drugs". Over 1 Trillion dollars spent on war on drugs since it started and you can still walk down almost any street and get heroin, meth, or pot. The only thing strict gun laws would do is to flood the black market with illegal weapons, and it will give those evil pricks a peace of mind knowing law abiding citizens will no longer carry a weapon. I carry a 9 mm with me everywhere I go. At least if one of these idiots open fire near me, I have a fighting chance to save my life, and maybe even a few others.
Look at some 19th-20th century world history and actually imagine the nearly-meaningless numbers written down in narratives are not just numbers on paper.
Be happy you're here now (getting upset at the Taco Bell Employee for shorting you a taco... or suffering through the heat in the parking lot between the AC in your car and the AC at your work...) and not at any other time or place throughout history... Get ready for an ugly one. Go work on problems you CAN do something about without begging to have your basic human rights taken.
Dude. After the Sandy Hook shooting happened and we did absolutely nothing, I almost completely lost hope in debating people about gun control. Of the 27 who were murdered, 20 of them were 6-7 year old children.
What happened in Dayton just proves how wrong the "good guy with a gun" thing is. The were cops all around, and they killed the perp almost instantly, but he still killed 9 people. The "well-regulated militia" i. e. the cops, were there and stopped him, but they were literally a few seconds too late.
Not to mention, the good guy with a gun can easily be mistaken for the shooter, and killed by the cops. Google "Fitzgerald Bradford Jr.".
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.
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.
You really think the founding fathers would be so stupid as to assume weaponry would never advance past muskets? And newsflash, you don't have to be in a militia in order to have the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms is for all citizens, and the militia part is just in case it comes to that: war against a tyrannical government. Essentially, because a militia is necessary to ensure the safety of the citizens, every citizen has the right to own and carry their weapon of choice.
Also, mind you, that there were already prototype automatic weapons at the time, though they were very inefficient and ineffective, but they were still around. All this talk of "waaaa, modern weapons no good!!! Founding fathers no mean this!!!" Is not only blatantly false, it's downright stupid.
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
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 There is no "pretense". The amendment does not say "the right of the well regulated militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." You're the one cherry picking. It reads, "A well regulated militia, being necessary the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Other than the militias existence being necessary, the amendment does not mention its relationship to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The text is clear is as day. "... the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Stop cherry picking.
People and militia are both subjects of the Amendment. One in the same. You are not making that connection. The right for people to bear arms and not be infringed is for the regulated militia, which it clearly states
@anametouse Being a subject of the amendment doesn't make it one and the same. If they were the same, the amendment would not distinguish between the two. Against, you're cherry picking to the max. You found one phrase and fixated on it without bothering to read the rest of the amendment. It's there in text, plain as day and the founding fathers wrote what they meant. The wording was written that way for a reason. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." No one is disputing the fact that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of the free state. You're the one disputing that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but that's enshrined in law and courts have upheld that law and that interpretation for nearly a century now. I don't know why you think your cherry picked interpretation trumps theirs.
Sawed off shotguns... enough said. My guy, capitalizing THE PEOPLE and ignoring well regulated militia is indeed cherry picking. If they were not one in the same, there would be two different Amendments addressing the two.
@anametouse You're wrong my dude, as is your cherry picked argument. I capitalize on "the people" because it is "the people"'s right being secured here. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is the exact wording of that portion of the amendment. That's not cherry picking. That is fact, and again, the courts have upheld that fact for nearly a century. This is why you're the cherry picker, because you ignore already settled law up to the highest levels of our judicial system. Even the supreme court has ruled that "the people" meaning us, does indeed have the right to keep and bear arms, hence why we can still do it. In fact, in honor of you, my man, I will buy a new AR15 today.
Oof, that citation is gonna be hard for you to read. Also don't forget the first half of the second amendment. And buy what you want, just not a sawed off shotgun, cause that's illegal
@anametouse My dude, you keep ignoring the fact that the law is settled to the highest authority in the judicial. Keep cherry picking as you please, but your personal, flawed, and incorrect interpretation of the amendment is not law. The law agrees with my interpretation, hence why we have the ability to keep and bear arms. If you don't want to exercise that right, that's your decision. I will continue to exercise to the utmost extent that the law allows. And sawed off shotguns are legal, you just need the tax stamp. I already own SBRs and suppressors because I know the law and I know how to navigate it. I carry concealed, and I stock magazines with a lot more capacity than a mere 30 rounds.
@anametouse Citation needed for what? Our right to keep and bear arms? The legally purchased guns sitting next to me are all the citation I need. For the tax stamp? It's called "The National Firearms Act of 1934", wherein it determines the definitions of NFA items such as suppressors, short barreled rifles and shotguns, and the legal requirements that must be met in order for one to possess them. But if you need more of an ass kicking then I present to you, "District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008)". A landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's Right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or if the right was intended for state militias.
"it was the first supreme court case to decide whether the second amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self defense or if the right was intended for state militias" holy shit you did it now read the citation I sent you pls
@anametouse I did, and the case I cited also specifically stated that an individuals right to keep and bear arms was NOT CONNECTED to service in a militia. Sounds like the one unable to accurately read citations is you.
@anametouse You can't even tell what your own argument is, because you keep changing it to nit pick technicalities, so what you think I am or what you think I'm not means nothing to me. The law is settled. There is no connection between militia service and the right to keep and bear arms.
I've literally can't help it if you are unable to see past your political bias. The citation is there and it is 100% connected. Have a nice day and yee haw
I was wondering when something like this would show up on the front page. I can bet if the shooter was brown, no matter his criminal or mental history, there would be 10 threads about banning Islam or killing Muslims. Yet White Nationalist Terrorists strike two days in a row reminiscent of 9/11 and all I see on Youtube and GAG and Imgur is crickets and tumbleweeds.
It is not about mental health, it is not about video games and it is not even about guns. As anti-gun as I am, I have to admit there are tons of sane people with guns. This is about White Extremism and needs to be dealt with the same way Islamic extremism was dealt with. Trump didn't even apologize even if all this was SOLELY on him and his "send them back" and "lock her up" chants. The only good news is Texas has FINALLY decided to call it terrorism.
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.
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.
@PressOn That is not exactly true, the American revolutionaries had help from the French. The French had alliances with the Spanish and the Dutch. The British army didn’t loose to the revolutionaries, they simply decided to sacrifice the regions the protect their more profitable colonies.
Your twisting history. The 1812 war wasn't a real war. It was a minor sideshoot of the Napoleonic wars. The vast majority of British effort was put into fighting in Europe against a enemy on our doorstep.
You really think that the US Military forces would turn on their own countrymen, especially since most of them agree with the right to gun ownership and who would also own guns? Fighting against terrorists is one thing but gunning down your neighbor who you have known all your life is something else.
@Twalli you're joking right? You've never been around some cops and military folk. Some of them are woefully unknowledgeable and untrained. The only ones who really know what they're doing are SWAT and spec ops teams. Otherwise just about anyone who goes under a couple training courses and runs a qualification drills is just as good as 90% of mil/police folks out there. I even beat the FBI qualification course without much effort.
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.
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.
The abuse of the irresponsible few ought not to trump the rights of the responsible many. The right to bear arms was but the second to be written down, after the right to free speech. It is also the only one bearing the words "shall not be infringed". Note that it is written down without any qualifiers, so don't add words that wasn't written down, i. e, the Second Amendment wasn't written down as ".. shall not be infringed unless thou possess a rifle that thou can shoot six hundred bullets in a minute." It just says 'arms.'
first and foremost, the weapon isn't the problem, the weapon doesn't kill, it could sit there with a thousand rounds and not kill a single thing. As Gunny Highway said in Full Metal Jacket "Its the hard heart that kills". The issue starts and would be finished by addressing mental health. Its the sick and depraved mind that generates the plot to kill. Time to bring back institutionalizing of the truly crazed and depraved. Had concealed carry been allowed in that part of el paso the shooter could have been stopped. How often do shooters just give up like he did? This whole string comes back to as list of issues yet to be raised and are deeper than superficial agenda such as hate, there is more at work here, seek the real truth, not all the victims in el paso were hispanic, that suspect was antifa, had antifa background, mass media and dems won't let that be known though
"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 "To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison
We didn't fight for our rights just to let people take them away from us.
You sound like you bathe with Summers Eve, dude. A gun is a gun no matter how many bullets it discharges. By that same logic 2 shots killed President Kennedy. These mass shootings will be used by racist & anti American white Liberals to restrict gun use until there's no guns left. Stop with this lie that you really care about people. You care about pushing an agenda. If you did care you'd point out that most mass shootings are black on black crimes perpetrated by bastard sons of single mothers. I think these men have every right to be upset about Hispanic immigrants invading their country. ~Mr Bails Extraordinaire
see most of these statements dont really talk aboug the real problem, see if the say it is trumps fault then you can go to every mass shooting ever and blame it om the president and you will notice that the presidents change but the cause does not. see it is not a result of the magazine size or the fact that these are military style weapons, these are fallacies that "your favorite news media" tells you so that way we don't actually target the real problem of mental health. it is the same thing on how people claim that the reson that we haven't had an increase in wages is because of the hispanic population that was constantly raped in theri home country were a drug war was going on.
I won't argue gun control one way or the other because it is one of those thing people have very strong perspectives on. However, if it was as simple as passing a law to stop people from killing each other that would be great but there are laws against killing people. I do believe protecting the 2nd amendment rights is "necessary to the security of a free state". The constitution is the foundation to this great country many Americans have sacrificed their lives to protect it the constitution has served us well for over 200 years the crazy people will exist with or without it but the freedoms it preserves may not. I think the reasonable solution is to make better people not better legislation.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
92Opinion
I can understand why you're concerned about kids losing their shit and hosing down a bunch of strangers with a firearm. I get it. Mass shooters are ridiculous cowards.
On the other hand, you DON'T know what our Founders meant any better than anyone else.
And I didn't fight, bleed and kill for this country so some timid person half my age could tell me that I can't have a gun because they have feels.
According to basic math, the number of guns used in mass shootings makes up way less than 1% of all the guns in the USA. That means you want to take away lawfully held, never-used-in-anger weapons from 99%, because of 1%? Hell no.
Don't come looking for mine.
Unfortunately yet again nothing will happen , it never does.
Gun loby is just far too powerful , gun ownership per person in USA has risen , it a ridiculous misconception of safety that adds far more risk.
From the outside , its looks like a basket case , people being shot for no reason , gun ownership considered a " given " . Another site I used to chat on ( USA site of course ) the question was raised " How many guns in your household? " , the poster went on the say that the question was just that and not to be a post on " Gun control " , people went into massive detail about all their firearms , these are not farmers , or even target shooters. Its just really horrible.
Its you to the young here now , to somehow Stand up and insist , but gun control is not even being discussed.
Its one thing we handled very well in Australia , and have not had a mass shooting since , thankyou John Howard , great actions , brave.
I actually understand both sides of this issue.
For the pro guns side. You anti-gun people need to understand that if someone wants to kill someone, they're gonna find a way to do it, restricting their access to firearms is only going to piss them off more, not to mention making it a lot harder for their potential victims to defend themselvs. Not to mention that it's not a coincidence that Chicago has the strictest gun control laws in the U. S., but it also has the highest gun crimes in the U. S.
For the anti-gun side. People need to understand that some people shouldn't have access to firearms, people like the mentally unstable or people who have been convicted of violent crimes.
You asked:
How many mass shootings does it take for someone to WAKE UP!
My answer:
None
The only people who can fix this is the government. There needs to be strict regulation on guns. The government doesn't really care though. They are going to continue making the same speech day in and day out and nothing will change. That's usually how government works. They are going to preach how they are working to fix the problem, but we all know that nothing will get fixed.
You can keep upping security. You can keep putting metal detectors and cameras every where. However, that won't fix the issue. Can't keep putting a bandaid on the issue.
Govt regulation of semi-automatic, and automatic, will not improve the mass shootings we have here in the US. Look at the "war on drugs". Over 1 Trillion dollars spent on war on drugs since it started and you can still walk down almost any street and get heroin, meth, or pot. The only thing strict gun laws would do is to flood the black market with illegal weapons, and it will give those evil pricks a peace of mind knowing law abiding citizens will no longer carry a weapon. I carry a 9 mm with me everywhere I go. At least if one of these idiots open fire near me, I have a fighting chance to save my life, and maybe even a few others.
*Slow clap*
How's the Kool-Aide?
Look at some 19th-20th century world history and actually imagine the nearly-meaningless numbers written down in narratives are not just numbers on paper.
Be happy you're here now (getting upset at the Taco Bell Employee for shorting you a taco... or suffering through the heat in the parking lot between the AC in your car and the AC at your work...) and not at any other time or place throughout history... Get ready for an ugly one. Go work on problems you CAN do something about without begging to have your basic human rights taken.
Dude. After the Sandy Hook shooting happened and we did absolutely nothing, I almost completely lost hope in debating people about gun control. Of the 27 who were murdered, 20 of them were 6-7 year old children.
What happened in Dayton just proves how wrong the "good guy with a gun" thing is. The were cops all around, and they killed the perp almost instantly, but he still killed 9 people. The "well-regulated militia" i. e. the cops, were there and stopped him, but they were literally a few seconds too late.
Not to mention, the good guy with a gun can easily be mistaken for the shooter, and killed by the cops. Google "Fitzgerald Bradford Jr.".
George Mason said "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials," when discussing the second amendment.
Removing guns from law abiding citizens leaves only guns in the hands of criminals. And I'm sorry, they won't stop.
It's a mistake to depend on cops. Cops always show up after the fact. Depend 100% on yourself for protection.
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.
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.
and im pretty sure itll suck when we start putting restrictions on silverware like other countries
"You got a permit for that butterknife?"
You really think the founding fathers would be so stupid as to assume weaponry would never advance past muskets? And newsflash, you don't have to be in a militia in order to have the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms is for all citizens, and the militia part is just in case it comes to that: war against a tyrannical government. Essentially, because a militia is necessary to ensure the safety of the citizens, every citizen has the right to own and carry their weapon of choice.
Also, mind you, that there were already prototype automatic weapons at the time, though they were very inefficient and ineffective, but they were still around. All this talk of "waaaa, modern weapons no good!!! Founding fathers no mean this!!!" Is not only blatantly false, it's downright stupid.
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
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".
Under the pretense of a well regulated militia. You can't cherry pick my guy
@anametouse There is no "pretense". The amendment does not say "the right of the well regulated militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." You're the one cherry picking. It reads, "A well regulated militia, being necessary the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Other than the militias existence being necessary, the amendment does not mention its relationship to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The text is clear is as day. "... the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Stop cherry picking.
People and militia are both subjects of the Amendment. One in the same. You are not making that connection. The right for people to bear arms and not be infringed is for the regulated militia, which it clearly states
@anametouse Being a subject of the amendment doesn't make it one and the same. If they were the same, the amendment would not distinguish between the two. Against, you're cherry picking to the max. You found one phrase and fixated on it without bothering to read the rest of the amendment. It's there in text, plain as day and the founding fathers wrote what they meant. The wording was written that way for a reason. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." No one is disputing the fact that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of the free state. You're the one disputing that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but that's enshrined in law and courts have upheld that law and that interpretation for nearly a century now. I don't know why you think your cherry picked interpretation trumps theirs.
Sawed off shotguns... enough said. My guy, capitalizing THE PEOPLE and ignoring well regulated militia is indeed cherry picking. If they were not one in the same, there would be two different Amendments addressing the two.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment
In casr you need a citation
@anametouse You're wrong my dude, as is your cherry picked argument. I capitalize on "the people" because it is "the people"'s right being secured here. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is the exact wording of that portion of the amendment. That's not cherry picking. That is fact, and again, the courts have upheld that fact for nearly a century. This is why you're the cherry picker, because you ignore already settled law up to the highest levels of our judicial system. Even the supreme court has ruled that "the people" meaning us, does indeed have the right to keep and bear arms, hence why we can still do it. In fact, in honor of you, my man, I will buy a new AR15 today.
Oof, that citation is gonna be hard for you to read. Also don't forget the first half of the second amendment. And buy what you want, just not a sawed off shotgun, cause that's illegal
@anametouse My dude, you keep ignoring the fact that the law is settled to the highest authority in the judicial. Keep cherry picking as you please, but your personal, flawed, and incorrect interpretation of the amendment is not law. The law agrees with my interpretation, hence why we have the ability to keep and bear arms. If you don't want to exercise that right, that's your decision. I will continue to exercise to the utmost extent that the law allows. And sawed off shotguns are legal, you just need the tax stamp. I already own SBRs and suppressors because I know the law and I know how to navigate it. I carry concealed, and I stock magazines with a lot more capacity than a mere 30 rounds.
Citation needed
@anametouse Citation needed for what? Our right to keep and bear arms? The legally purchased guns sitting next to me are all the citation I need. For the tax stamp? It's called "The National Firearms Act of 1934", wherein it determines the definitions of NFA items such as suppressors, short barreled rifles and shotguns, and the legal requirements that must be met in order for one to possess them. But if you need more of an ass kicking then I present to you, "District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008)". A landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's Right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or if the right was intended for state militias.
"it was the first supreme court case to decide whether the second amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self defense or if the right was intended for state militias" holy shit you did it now read the citation I sent you pls
@anametouse I did, and the case I cited also specifically stated that an individuals right to keep and bear arms was NOT CONNECTED to service in a militia. Sounds like the one unable to accurately read citations is you.
I can tell you are not a scholar. And it is, two different theories which it stated
@anametouse You can't even tell what your own argument is, because you keep changing it to nit pick technicalities, so what you think I am or what you think I'm not means nothing to me. The law is settled. There is no connection between militia service and the right to keep and bear arms.
I've literally can't help it if you are unable to see past your political bias. The citation is there and it is 100% connected. Have a nice day and yee haw
I was wondering when something like this would show up on the front page. I can bet if the shooter was brown, no matter his criminal or mental history, there would be 10 threads about banning Islam or killing Muslims. Yet White Nationalist Terrorists strike two days in a row reminiscent of 9/11 and all I see on Youtube and GAG and Imgur is crickets and tumbleweeds.
It is not about mental health, it is not about video games and it is not even about guns. As anti-gun as I am, I have to admit there are tons of sane people with guns. This is about White Extremism and needs to be dealt with the same way Islamic extremism was dealt with. Trump didn't even apologize even if all this was SOLELY on him and his "send them back" and "lock her up" chants. The only good news is Texas has FINALLY decided to call it terrorism.
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.
Yet, that is exactly why we are called the United States of America & not the United States of Britian
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.
No, the war of 1812 clearly showed the British were still willing to reclaim the American colonies.
@PressOn That is not exactly true, the American revolutionaries had help from the French. The French had alliances with the Spanish and the Dutch. The British army didn’t loose to the revolutionaries, they simply decided to sacrifice the regions the protect their more profitable colonies.
And the war of 1812 clearly showed that despite the first initial french help, the USA was capable of fighting off the British empire on their own.
Your twisting history. The 1812 war wasn't a real war. It was a minor sideshoot of the Napoleonic wars. The vast majority of British effort was put into fighting in Europe against a enemy on our doorstep.
They marched down from Canada and burned our capital hundreds of miles away. And that's NOT a real conflict to you?
You really think that the US Military forces would turn on their own countrymen, especially since most of them agree with the right to gun ownership and who would also own guns? Fighting against terrorists is one thing but gunning down your neighbor who you have known all your life is something else.
@Daniela1982 it makes sense for active and former members of the military and law enforcement to have guns.
Twalli is right, how else are they going to make sure we are good subjects who never disobey?
@front2back More like they are trained to use weapons responsibly.
@Twalli I never said it wasn't. Where did you get that jazz?
@Twalli you're joking right? You've never been around some cops and military folk. Some of them are woefully unknowledgeable and untrained. The only ones who really know what they're doing are SWAT and spec ops teams. Otherwise just about anyone who goes under a couple training courses and runs a qualification drills is just as good as 90% of mil/police folks out there. I even beat the FBI qualification course without much effort.
Yea civilians vs tanks and jets totes a fair fight lmao murica
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.
Dead-on!!!
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.
The abuse of the irresponsible few ought not to trump the rights of the responsible many. The right to bear arms was but the second to be written down, after the right to free speech. It is also the only one bearing the words "shall not be infringed". Note that it is written down without any qualifiers, so don't add words that wasn't written down, i. e, the Second Amendment wasn't written down as ".. shall not be infringed unless thou possess a rifle that thou can shoot six hundred bullets in a minute." It just says 'arms.'
first and foremost, the weapon isn't the problem, the weapon doesn't kill, it could sit there with a thousand rounds and not kill a single thing. As Gunny Highway said in Full Metal Jacket "Its the hard heart that kills". The issue starts and would be finished by addressing mental health. Its the sick and depraved mind that generates the plot to kill. Time to bring back institutionalizing of the truly crazed and depraved. Had concealed carry been allowed in that part of el paso the shooter could have been stopped. How often do shooters just give up like he did? This whole string comes back to as list of issues yet to be raised and are deeper than superficial agenda such as hate, there is more at work here, seek the real truth, not all the victims in el paso were hispanic, that suspect was antifa, had antifa background, mass media and dems won't let that be known though
"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
"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison
We didn't fight for our rights just to let people take them away from us.
You sound like you bathe with Summers Eve, dude. A gun is a gun no matter how many bullets it discharges. By that same logic 2 shots killed President Kennedy. These mass shootings will be used by racist & anti American white Liberals to restrict gun use until there's no guns left. Stop with this lie that you really care about people. You care about pushing an agenda. If you did care you'd point out that most mass shootings are black on black crimes perpetrated by bastard sons of single mothers. I think these men have every right to be upset about Hispanic immigrants invading their country.
~Mr Bails Extraordinaire
see most of these statements dont really talk aboug the real problem, see if the say it is trumps fault then you can go to every mass shooting ever and blame it om the president and you will notice that the presidents change but the cause does not. see it is not a result of the magazine size or the fact that these are military style weapons, these are fallacies that "your favorite news media" tells you so that way we don't actually target the real problem of mental health. it is the same thing on how people claim that the reson that we haven't had an increase in wages is because of the hispanic population that was constantly raped in theri home country were a drug war was going on.
I won't argue gun control one way or the other because it is one of those thing people have very strong perspectives on. However, if it was as simple as passing a law to stop people from killing each other that would be great but there are laws against killing people. I do believe protecting the 2nd amendment rights is "necessary to the security of a free state". The constitution is the foundation to this great country many Americans have sacrificed their lives to protect it the constitution has served us well for over 200 years the crazy people will exist with or without it but the freedoms it preserves may not. I think the reasonable solution is to make better people not better legislation.