Culture of Shootings , "Thoughts and Prayers" But No Solutions

Valid point. It is not a GUN/ Weapon issue as much as it is a PEOPLE problem. It is also cultural issue........ as to justify the number of guns floating around...one must live in a very violent society....Seems the whole issue needs evaluation from multiple perspectives.

Watching PBS at the moment. and the news briefings end with:"please stay safe". This is a common phrase now. THAT alone speaks volumes about society. The words alone reinforce that things are NOT safe.......and THAT has to contribute to the fear factor.....which in turn contributes to the need for security Psychology plays a huge part in all this.

When fear controls such a big part of our lives. (requiring so many guns).......how FREE are we??

 

I think we already were pretty clear about there being problems with police hiring.

Outside of that, I don't see how this applies.

The basic idea was to include existing history in background checks.

 

That is easy..... the psychopath. Not surprising. psychopaths are very skillful at conveying the impression they want to.........in order to get what they want.

But .....and ok... this is my view.... that some basic psych testing during an application phase is a good idea. It can be done by a psychologist ,kept private...... and the only result that would be relevant with the application is whether the applicant is suitable or not. ( ie mentally stable). No other details need to be known by any one else but the psychologist... It would be just part of a background check

BUT there is an unhealthy attitude to psychology so that is probably a non starter. Sadly.......as almost all of the shootings are done by mentally unstable people. People with anger issues should not have guns eitehr. until they go through anger management therapy.

 

How about a basic intelligence test too, while we're at it?
They have to display at least a seventh grade reading level.

Certain state governments have applied an interesting restriction. You can have the right to buy and use cannabis, or you can have the right to buy and own a gun, but not both. They force their citizens to choose between which one of those rights they will have.
It's probably very effective (in theory).

 

I'll try to tackle this. In America, the "individual liberty is supreme". There was a saying that God did not create all men equal, but Colonel Colt did. The NRA was founded during Reconstruction. Primarily it promoted the idea that ex slaves should be allowed to own weapons. Primarily as a defense against the KKK. Nations are full of accounts where regimes and Kingdoms disarmed the populace. Often the results have been horrific. Don't think I need to point them out. Personal protection is a cheap insurance policy against those that would assault our God given rights. Especially against those who don't believe there is a God. The utopians always think they have arrived, they have overcome human nature and the evil that often presents itself. They feel they can take power collectively. That is why we maintain the right to personal protection.

 

Yes.

You seem to think we should all be proud to die if we're shot by a patriotic 'murican. The idea is to not be killed, not to be Constitutional

Gun advocates just can't seem to understand that guns are DANGEROUS, and dangerous things shouldn't be put around dangerous people 2nd Amendment or no. Sometimes, if the dangerous thing is also very useful, (like a car) compromises have to be made but guns aren't that way.
[

 

There is no need, what so ever, to make another gun law. Why? Because GUNS are not the PROBLEM. PEOPLE are the problem.

• Education
• Economic
• Mental Health

THOSE are the only things that you need to reduce ALL violence. Not just so called "gun violence" (a misnomer).

 

LOL, delusions of winning? you think people should not be able to transport firearms to use them lawfully. that's a stupid suggestion

 

no more than a literacy test for voting or a mental health exam before fathering children or becoming pregnant. Maybe Gays should prove they have a negative HIV test before engaging in anal intercourse. We could cut down on all sorts of problems with just more government control over what you do. Police could pull over black males in high crime areas. Who cares if 95% of them are not doing anything illegal as long as it makes us safer.

 

How is it different? Does my profession give me rights others shouldn’t have? Does my profession guarantee I can’t use a firearm to commit a felony?

I think if we want a society that glorifies (gun and other ) violence in entertainment, disincentivizes stable childhood development that fosters impulse control, devalues human life, and places no value on personal responsibility, we are going to have to live with violence. I’m flummoxed as to why gun violence with a certain type of firearm is perceived to be so grievous when actual deaths involving other weapons, even hands and feet, eclipse those involving mass shootings with semi automatic rifles/carbines. I’m flummoxed as to why mass killings are so dreaded when inner city minorities are suffering deaths and injuries many times those of mass shooting demographics. Why does nobody care about what happens to them? Why do we only care about certain victims?

 

sadly for you no leading constitutional scholar-either in 1795 or 2015 agrees with that nonsense.

 

Yes, you definitely have some difficulties in that department.

Get a dictionary and turn to the letter "P". And while you're moving your finger along post #230 try to employ some reading comprehension skills to find out what it is I said.

 

NOBODY NEEDS 25,000 SOLDIERS TO PROTECT THEM: “Don’t let people who surround themselves with barbed wire and armed soldiers tell you that you can’t own any kind of firearm you choose in order to protect yourself, your home, and your family.”

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/440046/

 

If I tell you "turn right" it doesn't mean you should hold the steering in that position and continue going round and round in circles. You do not have the "right" to murder someone but does that mean you don't have the "right" to live in your own house or the "right" to pee in a pot? You have a very odd way of comprehending life's situations.

 

Lots of Nazis were awarded the bronze star and the purple heart. You didn't know that?

The Nazis were given lots of guns. How do you think they managed to conquer so much? By shouting "Hände hoch!" without firing a shot? You talk about volunteers? I was a volunteer myself, serving 3 years of active service, one of which was in a war.

Here's the problem and the crux of your confusion. Swearing to defend a Democratic entity is only admirable if the principle itself is Democratic and it is only Democratic if it follows the rules laid out by Democratic principles. You don't know what I am talking about, right? Do you know what an amendment is? Do you know how it works? Do you know that an amendment is Democratic and is an integral part of the Constitution? So, swearing to defend the Constitution against Democratic amendment isn't Democratic at all. In fact, resisting amending the Constitution by force is what the Nazis would have done, not me.

You said that your nephew claimed that he was willing to kill those who would amend the Constitution. Nuff' said.

 

video some might be interested in:
[Gun Control in the Third Reich] | C-SPAN.org (c-span.org)

It's about how the Weimar Republic passed all sorts of laws which then set the stage for the Nazis to come to power. By the time the Nazis decided to disarm the Jews, the population didn't think there was anything abnormal about that, seeing it as perfectly reasonable, just another in a long line of gun control laws.

All the fascist authoritarian laws were passed under a free democracy. When the Nazis came to power all those laws were conveniently already in place.

Stephen Halbrook gives a talk in this 1½ hour video.

 

In a Democracy (or any other form of government in the world), corruption can and does exist but if the core values of any nation are truly Democratic then the answer to your question is "By the vote". But your question is deeper than that and it is a valid question. What if the system of election is itself corrupted by (for example) the Military-Industrial complex? That's the challenge we all face.

You are suggesting an armed revolution. Who knows, it might be necessary.

 

All guns ought to be unavailable.

Law is not a new concept. Enforcement of the law is (and has been) wishy-washy and dependant upon corrupt governments with one hand in their pocket.[/QUOTE]

Not true.

 

... and that "free democracy" was immediately made illegal, resembling the U.S. today.
I'll watch that video now. Thank you.

EDIT: I'll have to find it somewhere else because this link stops evert f*ing 7 seconds.

 

If a nation is 'armed' I would suppose this would include light arms, air craft, missiles
and the like. A 'well armed' militia is going to need all of these if it intends fighting for
its freedoms. Therefore if handguns and assault rifles can be freely accessed, then
why can't citizen militias demand access to nuclear weapons?

 

Yeah but... militias also wish to bear arms against government should it be required.
And govt's have access to the REAL ARMS - the F35's, surface to air missiles, nukes
and the like. Your constitution doesn't specify what arms, it just says arms.

 

Transport them where? And it will be a criminal act to use them before you reach your destination?

 

You made a horrible analogy for what you wanted. You seemed to have forgotten that the Nazi party rose to power through a Democratic process. Additionally they passed laws which banned certain groups from owning guns. What would you do if say...the KKK gained enough power through the democratic process to amend the Constitution to get rid of the 13th Amendment, 14th Amendment, 1st Amendment, Hell...ALL of the Amendments? Would you not fight or even kill to try and preserve those Amendments knowing who the KKK is and that they plan to mass genocide people of color at worst, at best simply round them all up and stuff em into cargo ships headed for say Africa?

A democratic process is only as good as those in charge of it. A Constitution is only as good as those that protect the very reason that Constitution was made for in the first place. Many see the 1st and 2nd Amendments as being paramount to making sure that we keep to the reason that we have the Constitution in the first place. If either of those were to be attempted to be removed by ANY party there WOULD be a civil war. There is no if's, and's, or but's, about that. It would be guaranteed. 100%

 

Can you carry a nuke? How about an F-35? Missiles? And before you try and use "rocket launcher" or "grenade" as your next excuse those are not "arms", they are ordinance.

Learn the definition of things and you might be able to construct an argument. Might.