Time to revisit the 2nd Amendment?

[Steve9347]

sem·i·au·to·mat·ic

[ sèmmee àwtə máttik ]

 

1. reloading automatically: automatically ejecting a spent shell from a weapon's chamber and replacing it with another round each time the weapon is fired

2. partially automated: operated partly automatically and partly manually

3. semiautomatic weapon: a weapon that is semiautomatic. One trigger pull, one shot

 

NOT a machine gun. NOT an automatic weapon. MOST handguns and rifles sold are semi-automatic. Identifying guns with that phrase is meant only to instill fear or cause confusion with people that don't know the difference.

Why do you keep repeating this? I f***ing know what semi-automatic means. You want to hunt? Re-load your f***ing weapon. If you can't hit your game on the first shot, learn how to f***ing shoot.

[Jenksismyhero]

because a lot more people agree that you should have the right to vote in this country than believe you should have the right to own an assault rifle. democracy remember?

 

Link? Because I really doubt that's true nor relevant to the point. Are we now basing decisions on majority rules? I guess gay marriage and abortion really should be illegal now...

[StrangeSox]

read up on hate speech laws in the UK lately. Hell, they are even branding opposition parties as hate groups and trying to remove kids from families that register as belonging to that group. They are in a decent away from freedom.

 

UK has some pretty crappy speech laws, especially their libel/slander stuff. But that's completely irrelevant to gun rights. Argue gun rights on their own merits and stop making all of these terrible comparisons and analogies.

[Reddy]

Well done.

i actually think there is a similarity when people say we should follow the constitution TO THE LETTER even though it's a near 250 year old document that deserves to be updated. Just like nobody actually thinks we should follow the old testament to the letter. it's actually the same concept, and much more closely correlated than voting to gun rights.

[StrangeSox]

who gives a s*** about voting rights? it's an irrelevant distraction from actually discussing gun control policy.

[Reddy]

Link? Because I really doubt that's true nor relevant to the point. Are we now basing decisions on majority rules? I guess gay marriage and abortion really should be illegal now...

actually over 50% now support gay marriage.

[Steve9347]

You are aware that the current shooter did not acquire his guns legally, aren't you? So no matter what rules you had in place, he would have still got them. There ARE background checks, which stopped him from actually purchasing one himself.

"He would have still got them". Ugh, first the typing, second - his mother had guns in her home obtained legally that she and her children shot with - had she been unable to acquire legal guns, this doesn't happen. Your failure to recognize that as fact borders on ridiculous.

[Steve9347]

The only defense needed is it is my right per the constitution to own a gun. You don't like guns and want to restrict that or outright take it away. If I want to legally by a Glock 19, I can do so. I should not have to prove to you, or anyone else, WHY I NEED it. I want it. I went thru background checks, waiting periods, have no criminal record, I got my gun. More paperwork than it took to vote.

No one argues this, genius, hence why the thread you are in is about "revisiting" the 2nd Amendment.

[Steve9347]

The mother herself screwed up here. he was removed from school because she didn't like the way the school was treating him. there are records of him having 'difficulty', and not in the learning sense. There is a person on record saying that he used to babysit the kid when he was 8 or 9 and was told by the mom to never turn his back on him. She knew even then he was a potential time bomb, but did nothing. There were signs, but the mother covered them up.

Agreed. And then his access to her legally obtained guns turned a ticking time bomb into 20 dead kids and 6 dead teachers.

 

Guns don't kill people. Easy access to them escalates a situation from bad to 20 dead children and 6 dead teachers.

[pettie4sox]

I am trying my damnest to follow this thread but I'm not seeing anyone saying to outright ban guns. More restrictions, yes. I don't understand the back and forth debate occuring.

 

Poll anyone?

[southsider2k5]

"He would have still got them". Ugh, first the typing, second - his mother had guns in her home obtained legally that she and her children shot with - had she been unable to acquire legal guns, this doesn't happen. Your failure to recognize that as fact borders on ridiculous.

 

Again, that is pretty much a fantasy in 21st century America. It also ignores that fallacy that if something is illegal, it doesn't happen anymore. The United States has a pretty impressive history of completely ignoring the laws it doesn't like.

[Steve9347]

The only defense needed is it is my right per the constitution to own a gun. You don't like guns and want to restrict that or outright take it away. If I want to legally by a Glock 19, I can do so. I should not have to prove to you, or anyone else, WHY I NEED it. I want it. I went thru background checks, waiting periods, have no criminal record, I got my gun. More paperwork than it took to vote.

 

You want all these restriction on a right. Take away this one, and the next one becomes easier. Talking bad about the government? Well, we need to put a stop to that! You see it in dictatorships all the time, and even now in the UN where Russia, China and others want to seize control over what is on the internet as they are tired of their people seeing truth out there.

Women vote now. Black people vote now. As far as I'm aware, you can't own slaves.

 

Why are we clinging to an Amendment adopted in 1791.

 

221 years ago technology and the world were both quite different. I can't believe there are people out there with brains who don't understand how idiotic it is to defend buying a f***ing Bushmaster at Wal-Mart.

[Jenksismyhero]

I am trying my damnest to follow this thread but I'm not seeing anyone saying to outright ban guns. More restrictions, yes. I don't understand the back and forth debate occuring.

 

Poll anyone?

 

More restrictions doesn't stop this from happening. I don't understand why people believe that. She did everything by the book (allegedly) and even with more difficult restrictions she still could have obtained guns. Shotguns, handsguns, rifles, whatever. A deranged, mentally unstable kid stole his mother's weapons and went on a pre-mediated murder spree. No new law you want to impose except an outright ban would have stopped him.

[StrangeSox]

Again, that is pretty much a fantasy in 21st century America. It also ignores that fallacy that if something is illegal, it doesn't happen anymore. The United States has a pretty impressive history of completely ignoring the laws it doesn't like.

 

Because of decades of loose gun policy, we can't magically take hundreds of millions of guns out of circulation. But if you want to curb the number of guns in circulation, you need to start somewhere. I'll again point to the restrictions on automatic weapons and suppressors of evidence that gun control actually can work. The supply of new guns was limited, meaning that there's less of them in circulation now than when the law was enacted, they're very expensive to get, and they are rarely used in crimes.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Because of decades of loose gun policy, we can't magically take hundreds of millions of guns out of circulation. But if you want to curb the number of guns in circulation, you need to start somewhere. I'll again point to the restrictions on automatic weapons and suppressors of evidence that gun control actually can work. The supply of new guns was limited, meaning that there's less of them in circulation now than when the law was enacted, they're very expensive to get, and they are rarely used in crimes.

 

That's still not stopping this tragedy. He might have had to take more time killing those kids, but a single shot rifle or shotgun will still get the job done, especially when no one else in that school had anything to fight back with (not saying they should have, just saying he didn't have any resistance so timing wasn't an issue here).

[StrangeSox]

More restrictions doesn't stop this from happening. I don't understand why people believe that. She did everything by the book (allegedly) and even with more difficult restrictions she still could have obtained guns. Shotguns, handsguns, rifles, whatever. A deranged, mentally unstable kid stole his mother's weapons and went on a pre-mediated murder spree. No new law you want to impose except an outright ban would have stopped him.

 

I don't know how you can say that more restrictions could not possibly have stopped this from happening. If the restrictions and regulations are onerous, perhaps she never goes through the hassle of getting guns. If there's requirements that they remain unloaded in a combination-controlled safe, perhaps he can't even get at them. If the guns were restricted based on rate-of-fire and capacity, maybe less people are dead.

[Soxbadger]

If we want to yell about founding fathers and the constitution all day, we should at least start with the fact that both allowed for change.

 

If the arguments are just going to be "2nd amendment gives me that right" its pretty pointless to spend 20+ pages discussing it. The question is whether or not the 2nd amendment should be changed.

 

[StrangeSox]

That's still not stopping this tragedy. He might have had to take more time killing those kids, but a single shot rifle or shotgun will still get the job done, especially when no one else in that school had anything to fight back with (not saying they should have, just saying he didn't have any resistance so timing wasn't an issue here).

 

The Tuscon shooter was subdued by unarmed civilians while attempting to reload.

[Steve9347]

People from 1791 could not begin to comprehend the world as it is today. The fact that we blindly follow the 2nd Amendment "because 'Merika", while people continue to get killed at astonishing rates, is incomprehensible.

 

 

And that tally doesn't even include Bushmasters sold at your local Wal-Mart.

Edited December 17, 2012 by Steve9347

[StrangeSox]

She wouldn't be a law abiding gun owner in Canada. She failed completely to store her many weapons and ammunition separately, and failed to store both weapons and ammo securely, with at least 2 locks between an unauthorized person and the dangerous s***.

 

So saying that tighter gun controls can't possibly have prevented this tragedy or numerous others is, frankly, apologetic bulls***.

[Steve9347]

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.

 

Yup, seems applicable. My boss owning a semi-automatic assault rifle is certainly caused by his membership in a well-regulated militia. What the f***. No one even uses the word militia anymore, yet the 2nd Amendment is so powerful?

[Steve9347]

So saying that tighter gun controls can't possibly have prevented this tragedy or numerous others is, frankly, apologetic bulls***.

Which is, frankly, all defenders of the 2nd Amendment have to go on.

[Jenksismyhero]

I don't know how you can say that more restrictions could not possibly have stopped this from happening. If the restrictions and regulations are onerous, perhaps she never goes through the hassle of getting guns. If there's requirements that they remain unloaded in a combination-controlled safe, perhaps he can't even get at them. If the guns were restricted based on rate-of-fire and capacity, maybe less people are dead.

 

So he breaks into it or knows the combination. This is a family that uses guns. He was 20 years old, not 6. And you've just curbed people's ability to protect themselves in their home in the case of an emergency over a random act of violence.

 

And capacity and rate of fire would have meant dick in this situation since he's an armed guy with multiple guns going up against children.

[Jenksismyhero]

Which is, frankly, all defenders of the 2nd Amendment have to go on.

 

Oh bulls***.

[southsider2k5]

She wouldn't be a law abiding gun owner in Canada. She failed completely to store her many weapons and ammunition separately, and failed to store both weapons and ammo securely, with at least 2 locks between an unauthorized person and the dangerous s***.

 

So saying that tighter gun controls can't possibly have prevented this tragedy or numerous others is, frankly, apologetic bulls***.

 

Unless someone went into her house and found them that way, that wouldn't have really stopped anything. Stacking up strawmen on this issue really doesn't do anything either honestly. It just makes it easier for the 2nd amendment advocates to win the day.