School Shootings in America and the 2nd Amendment

Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Jimdamick said:
President Obama presented a sobering fact the other day when he commented that there have been 74 more school shootings since the massacre in Newtown, CT last year, in which 20 1st graders and 6 teachers were murdered. That comes out to be one shooting every 7.5 days. Congress refused to change ANY gun laws that would start to deal with this pervasive loss of life, just in the schools of our country, not to mention all the other mundane murders by hand guns throughout this great land of ours every single day. I personally think that the 2nd Amendment, which probably meant sense over 200 fucking years ago, has absolutely no place in the 21st century in this country. There are simply to many stressed out and mentally screwed up people in this country now. The argument that hand guns are needed to defend oneself is a double edged sword, meaning that if there were more restrictions on hand guns, maybe there wouldn't be such a huge problem where as any psychopath can get a firearm almost immediately, with little or no problem. I say it is time to shit can the 2nd Amendment, because all it seems to do in my opinion is to let some gun nuts play with their toys, allow criminals easy access to the weapons they need, and make everyone live in fear. Almost all the handguns used in violent crime in New York City were obtained LEGALLY, mostly all from the South, where there are few restrictions on purchases. OK people, let's hear how the 2nd Amendment is a good thing in a modern America, or is it the reason we have the highest murder rate in the world, by far. Tune in next week for an update on the total, which is sure to happen. Peace out
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm pretty sure the criminals will the first ones in line to turn in their guns.
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
AlecTheGardener said:
Dude. I have no idea of an effective plan to reduce firearm violence in the US.

However,
The only time someone 'needs' a weapon that fires more then 300 rounds a minute is to kill other humans.

I know, I have used these weapons when it was needed to protect my patients myself and my brothers.


However,
Background check should be through and required for all weapon purchases.

Does this mean that because I am a PTSD patient that I lose my firearms? I have never hurt a human (out of combat) with a weapon, knife, firearm, bat, only my hands. Will they take my weapons?

*edit* one day I will learn to type on my phone
Click to expand...
They should cut your hands off.
 
st0wandgrow

st0wandgrow

Well-Known Member
Da Mann said:
I took a oath in 1971 to uphold the Constitution. I did it again 1976. I will still honor that oath. I will honor it to death. I do not agree with anti gun people. They have rights as well. I am not going to argue the facts because Liberals will not listen. They seem to like being told what to do. They would rather be given everything. I still prefer to take care of myself and mine. And I am not a sissy boy like some here. I am almost 60 and still kick ass now and then. Last time about a month ago. Might be the Biker thing or the Marine Corp. Whatever it is it works for me. .Call me what you want. Don't come to me for help. I will not be there for you.
Click to expand...

I mean this with all due respect, but you didn't take an oath to uphold the constitution, you took an oath to uphold corporate Americas apparent right to pillage the planet and profit from war.

Do you think the Vietnamese were a threat to our constitution?? How about the Iraqis or Afghanis? What threat to our rights did they pose?
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Glaucoma said:
The original framers knew that guns would get better. They probably followed their advancements closely.

I also think they felt that sometimes you just have to vote with a bullet. After all, they were actively engaging in independence from a government they didn't feel obligated to obey. I think of it as part of the reset switch they never wanted to see taken away. It probably required very little discussion to have it added.

Of course they hunted and protected live stock with them, too. We still do today, to a much lesser degree.. but also added personal defense and recreation. Personally, I love me some shootin'. =)

On a defense note, we can't solve conflict by simply taking weapons away. There is no quick fix. If we really wanted to start solving these issues we'd pump money into education.
Click to expand...
We pump too much money into education now. We spend more than most, yet have a poorer outcome than most.
 
Da Mann

Da Mann

Well-Known Member
st0wandgrow said:
I mean this with all due respect, but you didn't take an oath to uphold the constitution, you took an oath to uphold corporate Americas apparent right to pillage the planet and profit from war.

Do you think the Vietnamese were a threat to our constitution?? How about the Iraqis or Afghanis? What threat to our rights did they pose?
Click to expand...
I agree. If you took the oath you would know what it said and meant. Viet Nam and pretty much all wars are fought over money, oil or some other material item. Have you ever been to a Country that was oppressed by Dictators? Iran or Viet Nam just to name 2? These people are dirt poor. Cant own anything to protect their selves. They work to survive and then the Army comes and takes what they want and kill whoever they want. Kind of the way the current admin is doing. Taking away your rights a bit at a time. Wait till you see what is next.
 
st0wandgrow

st0wandgrow

Well-Known Member
Da Mann said:
I agree. If you took the oath you would know what it said and meant. Viet Nam and pretty much all wars are fought over money, oil or some other material item. Have you ever been to a Country that was oppressed by Dictators? Iran or Viet Nam just to name 2? These people are dirt poor. Cant own anything to protect their selves. They work to survive and then the Army comes and takes what they want and kill whoever they want. Kind of the way the current admin is doing. Taking away your rights a bit at a time. Wait till you see what is next.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that your motivation to join the military was noble.

And no, I don't feel that the Obama administration is anything like a 3'rd world dictatorship. Did you feel the same about the George W administration?

Besides, who are we to play global police? We have absolutely no moral grounds to be doing so
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
By the time you hit your 60's, you ought to have grown out of the indoctrination.

If everyone has guns, then only the people with guns will have guns. Guns don't kill people, gun owners kill people.
 
Da Mann

Da Mann

Well-Known Member
st0wandgrow said:
I don't doubt that your motivation to join the military was noble.

And no, I don't feel that the Obama administration is anything like a 3'rd world dictatorship. Did you feel the same about the George W administration?

Besides, who are we to play global police? We have absolutely no moral grounds to be doing so
Click to expand...
No. When it come to politics they are all liars and thief's. I did not like George Junior. But I despise what we have now. We are being fleeced by these people. Then you have these people that are willing to throw away their rights for a little protection. People need to read history. We will fall like a deck of cards soon.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Da Mann said:
No. When it come to politics they are all liars and thief's. I did not like George Junior. But I despise what we have now. We are being fleeced by these people. Then you have these people that are willing to throw away their rights for a little protection. People need to read history. We will fall like a deck of cards soon.
Click to expand...
what is it with idiots and predictions?
 
A

az2000

Well-Known Member
Jimdamick said:
I have no problems with gun ownership, just the laws concerning ownership. I like Obama most of the time, am a Democrat, and I own a multitude of guns to hunt, and play with. I was actually an NRA member, until they it was taken over by freaks. So, don't label all liberals as anti-gun. I just want laws that will hinder murders
Click to expand...
I'm the same way. However, pro-gun activists are largely a response to the anti-gun side which often makes clear that no individual has a legitimate interest in owning a firearm. Then they'll try to sound reasonable by saying "sure, if you're a sportsman (mumble, mumble, spots clubs, mumble, keep your gun there)"

Rights are always tempered by balancing competing interests. For example, our right to free speech is subject to time/manner/place restrictions. You can stand on public property and shout your political views. But, you can't do that from your rooftop at 2AM (denying your neighbors their right to enjoy their property, pursue happiness by getting up in 4 hours to go to work).

When the other side unmistakably denies any legitimate interest to balance, you're likely to oppose any reasonable controls. They'll just be "one step toward banning individual ownership."

This leads to an absurd condition where activist groups actually capitalize on the most vitriolic language of their counterparts. The NRA has paid royalties to HCI (Brady's organization) to reprint excerpts which will keep the NRA in a "circle the wagons" mindset, donating in response to a "hidden conspiracy," etc.

A good example of how absurd our policy decisions are: After months of the 1968 CGA going nowhere, RFK was killed with a handgun. The result was the GCA regulating long guns. A few months later MLK was killed with a long gun -- leading to the GCA being amended to regulate handguns.

IMO, we would be better served by a parliamentary political system which recognizes that we've become a specialized citizenry. We no longer live in the simple world which afforded universal participation (something our congressional system depended upon). We now have phenomenal lack of participation -- and policy driven by a small but loud percentage of the population. (It's even worse than that because politicians don't really agree with the loud minority. They just pander to get elected -- then work together to advance corporate, multinational interests without alienating the loud minority too much.).

The topic of parliamentary versus congressional is very interesting. It gets into our origins in Civic Republicanism, how we've departed from that principle, whether it's possible to reinvigorate it. A parliamentary system is usually criticized for taking away "voting for the person." Instead you vote for the party, and the individuals are expected to carry out the party's goals. That sounds like a lack of control, opportunity for corruption. But, when a tiny fraction of the most passionate citizens drive policy, when political parties can use individual members as a diversion ("we would have blocked budget increases, but some of our members voted... Next time around, we need more members who share this goal."), how is that not corruption?

Twice I've seen the far Right agitated into overhaul mode -- only to be disappointed by the new freshmen politicians becoming co-opted. The hotheaded constituency loses its passion, withdraws from politics, and the political parties continue serving their true constituents (corporations, global interests). I'd be willing to trade this with parliamentary politics where the party is held responsible for its goal. One member can't be held as the "odd ball" holding everyone hostage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top