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

There are no less than three posters here at PF on the left who call for a total ban on guns all guns. Remember that when they try to tell you the Democrats don't seek to ban all guns

 

So... is your constitution not allowing the carrying of ordinance? I thought being 'armed to the teeth'
meant being in possession of everything that could cause harm.

 

Where in the 2nd Amendment calls for "armed to the teeth"? "Armed to the teeth" is just a saying. Its either used derisively or emphatically. But it has no bearing on law.

 

How many mass shootings before? Don't know. How many since? None.
The Howard Liberal Party law has made it significantly harder to go blasting away at civilians
because it's harder now to acquire the weapons.
Don't think we have anything in our constitution about owning guns.

As an aside, today I read the Wall Street Journal and it asked why did this latest guy killed ten
people. I think it's a stupid question - they should ask "How was it possible for someone to mass
shoot people."
There's tons of 'why's' in this mad world but only one 'how' ---- he purchased a readily available
firearm, an 'AR15 style pistol.' What's that, an assault pistol? Do you use these to shoot ducks?
No, they are designed to shoot people. And if there's weapons out there designed to shoot
people then why not purchase them and shoot people?

 

Which is totally unrelated to the phrase: the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The ability for monarchies to call forth militias (and all actions designed to further that ability) is a fundamentally different concept than saying all people have the right to bear arms. Your examples involve edicts or orders issued by monarchies. Rights don't flow from those.

 

Are we arguing root and meaning again? The militia clause is a present participle which does not affect the subject or verb of a sentence. Subject being people, verb being shall in the second amendment. Which is exactly why gun-ownership is unconnected with militia/military service. The idea that the second amendment is somehow a collective government held right in a document called the bill of rights and the other 9 of the first 10 are individuals rights is preposterous. All 10 rights enumerated were very clearly designed to be individual rights.

As a clear example of this, read this grammatically similar sentence.

A well schooled electorate, being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

Now would that sentence in anyway lead you to believe that the government has to be the sole provider of books for reading? It certainly would not

 

I read the phrase well regulated militia as effective militia. This interpretation fits with the second clause: the right of the people. What it means is militias (for all people, everywhere) are necessary for security, and the people already having possession of the guns is necessary to have militias.

 

They are literally unable to imagine being suddenly placed in a situation in which a militia is necessary for the community's security.

Once you do the above, you realize that a resevoir of gun owners is critical to the community's ability to organize a militia in the first place.

If you get to the point that you need a militia, you need speed. That's the whole purpose of using a militia. And for speed, the people need to have their guns on them.

 

How about the right to have knives, flamethrowers, poison gas, clubs etc..
Sounds like a seriously demented society.
"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."

Want to drive around towing a M198 Howitzer then join a well regulated militia.

 

It is the same thing, because the US also wanted to have armed citizens aka militias who can be called up if needed. Same reason England allowed (gave right) to keep arms. IN both cases it was done to reduce the need of a large standing army. You should spend 15 minutes reading up about the origins of the 2nd amendment.

And I said "well functioning", which is the same thing.

Sure. However, it is obvious it is obsolete in todays world, where the US no longer relies on the idea of calling up militias. We spend massive amounts of money on a standing army and reserves + national guard, so there will never be a situation where regulate people will be asked to grab their Sig-Sauers and AR15s to defend the nation.

 

I would remind you 1st and foremost our Constitution founded a "Republic" simply because a pure Democracy has a tendency to over run the minority. That does spare a lot of corruption. Right now we see a full blown attempt by the House to Nationalize elections with HB1 that will begin to wean us away, very quickly I might add, from that Republican form of government. Should that pass, and I pray that it won't, we will see the large population centers begin to Socialize the entire Nation with their urban ideas that are not typical to the Nation as a whole.

 

Noted.

 

Of course not. The mentally ill who want to kill people will just choose another type of gun and the killings will continue. What we have is a mental health problem in this country. The family knew the guy had mental issues so I have to ask, what did they do to get him the help he needed?

 

And what we are talking about is the choice of gun in mass shootings which you clearly state is the AR-15. But that is really beside the point because even if the banned semi-automatice guns of any kind will be replaced with revolvers that hold six bullets and shotguns that can hold up to 8 cartridges. So play the "what if" game and ask yourself what if AR-15s were banned, what then would be the choice of gun the mentally ill would choose to commit mass shootings? A short barrel shotgun with a pistol grip would be easy to conceal and is a very dangerous weapon in close quarters. Even though it is not a semi-automatic ejecting and chambering another cartridge is quick. Plus just the loudness of the shotgun is enough to instill fear.

 

So you're saying every household member should be background checked if just one member wants to buy a gun?

 

No, I have no idea where you dredged up such a thought. I never said that or implied that.

Since murder is already illegal and punishable by the ultimate line (which I support), and the same rules apply to all the other things I listed, and then some, you apparently think all guns should be eliminated? No means of self defense, no means of hunting?

Guns ARE that way. They are very useful, and I guess you would have to be part of a group that finds a means of defense important in their lives to comprehend that. Because MORE laws will not remove the tools of the criminal, it will only remove the tools of self-defense from the law abiding.

 

So, exactly how would have background legislation prevented the Sandy Hook shootings? The shooter essentially used a stolen gun (stolen from his mother). As far as I know, the mother didn't have a violent "background."

 

I'm pretty sure the idea was to try to reduce the number of future shootings.

 

The "culture of shootings." If there is an uptick in shootings, it is caused by the progressive ideology. First look at a shooter with conservative roots. He's worried about having all our rights taken away. Tired of being silenced. Sick of being called racist every time he opens his mouth. Now look at the liberal shooter. He has had it beaten into his brain that he's being victimized no matter which way he turns. Progressives divide all of us into oppressor and victims. And that is deliberate, in order to sow chaos and anxiety throughout the population. It's a means to an end.

 

The poster used the Sandy Hook incident as the example.

 

I don't know. It sounds like the conservatives can't stop playing the victim card. They never stop whining about how the straight white man is under some kind of mysterious attack, and the media and the social media it out to get them, and people are rigging elections against them etc, etc. I never heard anything like it before.

The topic was background check legislation which was proposed after that incident.

 

Boulder shooting suspect will be held without bail, judge rules in first court appearance days after supermarket rampage

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...0.0MB8w1aDtMzqYyM8tOinf_nnjVYPkyeiadpRHqRGDCE

 

deleted, machine error

 

Read what you yourself said, it implies exactly that.

I don't care about whatever penalty is given to my murderer, as I'm dead.

They're only very useful if you're either so paralyzed with fear you can't move or such an avid hunter that you see your hobby as worth the deaths of several children annually. In either case, you're not acting like a sane individual would be expected to.

 

We are all victims of this ideology. Until everyone refuses to be divided in this manner, these incident will continue to happen and there is no solution on earth that will help. Get used to them.