Another Mass Shooting In The Us...

Why is everyone using the 2nd Amendmant of the Constitution as if it were the Bible? Some older laws need to be updated with the times because they're no longer relevant, or we'd still be stoning people to death.
Actually, you just said what defines what is wrong with the US, in my opinion. The Constitution is a bible for US politics. It is a social contract between all of the people, not just among the "elite" who think they know best for everyone. It's been adjusted 27 times since its inception 228 years ago (an average of once every 9 years).

The last truly major revision to the Bible was some 2000 years ago, right? (not counting the Protestant revisions, which to me were relatively minor revisions, considering none actually hearken back to the Old Testament itself) and yet some 300-400 years ago people were indeed still stoning others to death even with that revision. Good thing we don't use the actual Bible as our law book.

The last Amendment to the Constitution (the 27th - not a very interesting one, dealing with congressional salaries) was ratified in 1992 (of course, it was proposed in 1789!). Though the 26th was ratified in 1971 (proposed the same year) and ensures that age cannot be used a criterion for restrict the vote for anyone over 18 years of age. I was 9 years old when that one was ratified. 25th, which defines the succession to the Presidency in case of death or removal of the sitting president, ratified in 1965. I was 3.

I've been alive for three changes to the Constitution.

I wonder how you feel about abortion? I'm not asking you for an answer (though I wouldn't mind knowing if you'd like to answer), I'm just wondering. I pose the question because it seems to me that most of the people who are for gun control are Democrats/liberals while most of the people that oppose abortion, I believe, are Republican/conservatives. Liberals have Constitutional protection for terminating the development of human fetuses (some people call it murder EDIT: there were 699,202 abortions performed in 2012 [202 abortions per 1000 live births], a bit more than any gun death rate, much less murder rate) but conservatives are barbaric for wanting to arms themselves, Both sides say the other side is quite barbaric, both themes have to do with deaths - although abortion is actually killing something that will become a thinking, breathing person while gun control supposedly stops some people from killing others. (I'm actually pro-abortion as a woman's right to exercise control over her own body, BTW, though early term).

If you want to get rid of guns, modify the Constitution so you can change the laws. If you can't get enough support to change the Constitution, you have no right to take away the rights of others even if you vehemently disagree. If you think the Constitution is an old bag of laws (and actually, it is not made up of a single law) that allows people to stone each other to death and don't like that you can't change it - well, I don't know what to say except I'm glad I'm protected, for the moment and only to an extent these days, it seems, from people who think the Constitution is irrelevant.

Personally, I'd love the US to break up into smaller countries, each populated by people with similar beliefs, so we don't have these conflicts. I'd have no problem at all with people who want to deny others the right to own guns in one country, and I'd be tickled pink to live in a country where people were encouraged to wear guns. And there would be room for all beliefs in-between in other, smaller countries as well.
 
Apparently you still don't understand the difference between a random website on the internet and several peer-reviewed scientific studies from a research group focussing on firearm research.

Apparently you think the same thing over and over again. When I refer to multiple media I am referring to major news networks, printed newspapers from around they US, and records gleaned from police reports. Hardly random websites. So, big whoop, Harvard has done firearms research. Did you know that the world doesn't revolve around just one website? Sure the website references different fields that research was done, so what?

You keep banging on these supposed "random" websites; would you consider the FBI who compiles firearms usage (and other weapons) data to be random? I don't; it's just one of many sites.

I'm not a member nor supporter of the NRA - but a retired public servant with 41+ years of experience in law enforcement including maritime law enforcement.
 
Personally, I'd love the US to break up into smaller countries, each populated by people with similar beliefs, so we don't have these conflicts.
A solution along those lines is the only realistic way to a definitive permanent peaceful answer.
OR
Keep the US intact and modify the Constitution. Delegate conflicting decisions from the Constitution to individual states, Constitution should contain only core laws that all states agree to.

Democracy in its current form failed to address that humans have sharply conflicting beliefs/values/morals that are almost cast in stone.

This is NOT A REACH OUT CONVERSATION.
It is a line in the sand of ..... battle of survival of sharply clashing beliefs/values/morals.

The question now is where to go from here ?
 
Can we deep-sex this thread? It's absolutely irrelevant to life in Buenos Aires and everything that can be said on the topic already has been, three or four times.
 
One of the reasons and it is well documented in the papers written by the authors of the Constitution wanted the people to have the ability to stop a tyrannical government from abusing the populace. In almost all countries where the government ruled the country with absolute tyranny and wholesale slaughter of its citizens one of the first things the government did was to outlaw private gun ownership. Think about Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Idi Amin, et al.

Micah X Johnson clearly thought he was doing just that- using his second amendment right, as a legal gunowner, to fight against tyranny.

The problem with this interpretation of the Second Amendment is two fold-
One- its not actually mentioned in the text of the Second Amendment- its just inferred from what some people wrote at the time-
but, more importantly,
Two- it does not tell us WHO gets to decide what is "tyranny".
The fact is, I know a few white guys in the USA, friends, who believe this, but they think they, individually, get to decide what is "tyranny".
And, by that logic, any citizen, including Johnson, gets to decide too.
And he did.

Also, there is no way to "fight tyranny" without shooting cops.
Thats who enforces "tyranny", and always has, in every historical case mentioned.

So- we have a bunch of white guys in the USA who claim they have the right to shoot cops, if they decide its "tyranny", but that black guys dont get to?

Personally, I think the reason the Second Amendment doesnt clearly state you have a right to own a gun so you can shoot cops is because you dont.
I dont think those Bundy fellas have that right, and I dont think Johnson had that right.
I think if you use your gun to fight "tyranny", you automatically become a criminal.
And subject to arrest and prosecution.
(not death by robot, which, as far as I can tell, is not sanctioned by any amendment)
 
Can we deep-sex this thread? It's absolutely irrelevant to life in Buenos Aires and everything that can be said on the topic already has been, three or four times.

Yes, except that it seems to be highly relevant to the people here. It has 225 replies over 23 pages. Not trying to be offensive to you. Really.

I would rather have an intelligent conversation and debate in an international forum like this than sitting around my family's table in rural Alabama - where there is pretty much only one opinion. I sit on the side of gun rights but am very interested in ideas from the other side, as well. We need to find ways to think and work together on this issue. I am a gun owner I feel deeply that any shooting is a tragedy, whether mass or single.

PS - I liked the Freudian slip. :)
 
Just seen a short clip of a 13 year old boy in Virginia trying to buy a few products wearing a hidden camera. He was point blank refused service, and even laughed at, when he tried to buy beer, cigarettes, porn, and a lottery ticket. Then he went into a gun store. "Sure son, how many do you want?".

To non-US citizens that is just insane, but perfectly reasonable to a lot of people here. I can see why people want a gun for hunting or controlling vermin in the countryside, but to imagine that arming young children is going to stop the power of a modern military state like the USA is laughable.
 
There has been enormous debate about the 2nd Amendment, what the framers of the Constitution were thinking, and if that is still relevant today. Time after time judges and legal scholars have said that the original intent still stands and is still applicable in our society today.

However, I will point out that we've moved from a conversation about mass shootings and how to stop them to general gun control / elimination.

So, let's talk about people I know - close to me - with personal experience of violent crimes. My (now) ex-wife's father was shot and killed point blank in his grocery store by two robbers when she was 15. She never blamed the gun. She blamed the two a$$holes. She was happy that we had firearms in the house and I knew how to use them. She was also happy that I knew that a firearm is NEVER the first line of defense.

A very, very good friend of mine in Philadelphia was a young woman who lived alone. She confided in me at one point that someone was stalking her. She asked me if she should get a gun. I hesitated, suggesting that getting a gun - and then actually using it - was a huge responsibility. I suggested she get a dog however the apartment building where she lived didn't allow them. We were in conversation about me training her to shoot. Meanwhile, she went to the police who were supposed to be keeping an eye on the house. They didn't. One night the guy who was stalking her cut through the screen window, repeatedly raped her, then wrapped her in a rug on the floor, put her in the trunk of his car and drove to New Jersey where he dumped her - still alive - into the Cooper River. Her body was found 2 days later. Do you know how often I wish I had taken her to the gun range the day she told me of the issue?

In 1993 I lived in Bala Cynwyd, PA, and affluent neighborhood along what is called "The Main Line" in Philadelphia. I heard strange noises downstairs after midnight and went to investigate. There were two men trying to break into my back kitchen door. Standing inside I cocked my 12-gauge and said I would shoot them if the door opened. They left. Two weeks later two guys broke into a house four blocks away and terrorized a family of 5 for hours at gun point. The police were not able to link the two events but I have my suspicions.

I have other verified events but the point is do you think people who have these experiences are going to be very willing to discuss a ban on firearms?

For each of these incidents I could post dozens of references to young children picking up guns in their own households and either killing themselves or other members of their families. And hundreds of incidents of adults killing other family members with guns lying around the house. None of them being part of the required 'well organised militia' of course.
 
a list of this week's 47 "misfires" here.
this happens every week, of course.
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/7/11/1510306/-Fight-tyranny-and-shoot-ISIS-I-thought-you-said-fight-deer-and-shoot-thighs-es-GunFAIL-CLXXXVIII
 
Back
Top