quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul
Greta was born in Idaho.

I guess Idaho must be gun free, since I never seen a real gun in my life.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: littleclip
the tragedy in fla is very sad and there are many who need support in its aftermath my prayers are for the familys of those affected
the 2nd amendment has 2 parts 1 right to keep arms for home defense
and 2 right to bear arms as a prt of a well organized militia
for those that want to carry a gun they can join one of the many recognized groups to do so

quote:

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.

Please show where the two parts are. If you'd care to cite SCOTUS decisions that support your assertions, that'd be great.

quote:

as far as having a assault rifle as your carry gun i dont see any reason for it

What is an "assault rifle?"

quote:

there is no excuse in using any religion as a reason to cause great harm instead of looking for a reason to point blame and hate lets try to find a way to prevent hate and accept others and their diffrences

THIS, I completely agree with.

This guy didn't kill people because he had a gun. He shot people at a gay nightclub because he could not tolerate homosexuality. He killed people because he decided that his right to choose was more important than theirs.

He was probably suffering from some mental health issue in addition to being quite radical in his religious faith. I have not yet read how he got his guns, but that is important.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

FR
One fact is that all the psycho mass killers in American history that go on a rampage with guns, has not cause as much lives as one Muslim psycho mass killer did. A Muslim has officially broke the American record of most kills in a psycho mass killing rampage. Fact.

Is it really a gun problem or a Religious problem? I think the religious problem is the biggest problem. US President refused to acknowledge it's a religious problem.

Last of all, here is the other problem. Since the new terrorist style is lone wolf attack. This man may have inspired many other lone Muslim wolves, that getting a gun with such capacity is the more effective way to do their suicide mission, rather than suicide bombing.

So unfortunately, this means, more may choose this method to launch their attacks. I know Americans wanna stick to the constitution. But unfortunately, now you got Muslims who are seriously gonna use the constitutions against you, and get these high powered guns and go into crowds and spray bullets.

One of the laws that need to go through immediately is those on terrorist watch list, NEEDS to be banned from buying guns.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: AgentBlack

@ greta.
Reason why is cause our country was built using equal firepower against lthe greatest military in the world at that time.
Americans vs the tories redcoat british.

Wrong. Washington was a shit general who was also a war criminal who burnt Indian villages.

The American revolution was fundamentally enabled by the French. Particularly the French Navy - because the American colonies didn't actually have one.

quote:


The American Revolution.
Our Constitution. Garuntees its is our right to posess the same firepower as a common soldier.

No. It doesn't. The second amendment speaks of a militia and the word 'militia' in the context of the founding fathers means an armed citizenry under civilian authority. It does not - and never has - enabled the personal accrual of guns for "defense". That's a promotion of the NRA who finally succeeded in

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
If he was firing full auto his firearm was illegal, any semi auto fires fast, but he wouldn't be aiming. And yes there is no reason to ban them from the citizenry. Do you realize that this is 100 year old technology?

The Constitution is over 225 years old. The second amendment was written with muskets in mind. You have to be completely incompetent to think that the founding fathers intended the citizens to arm themselves with AR-15's.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

All you said in the post was it was a sobering read. Not sure why you thought my response had anything to do with that one sentence or that I was claiming you said anything else. A clue might have been my saying "the point of the article" and not dc's point. I did that to clarify the subject of my post. Next time I suppose I should be clearer? As to what the article was saying, you have your opinion and I have mine. We don't agree on it. Color me surprised. Oh and next time perhaps you could wait until I actually lie about one of your posts before getting defensive about it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
He didn't use particularly high powered weapons.
The primary advantage of both the .223 and the 9mm is that while they are smaller and less powerful this allows you to carry more extra ammunition and the firearms themselves tend to be lighter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
No more incompitant than you have to be to belive that freedom of the Press extends beyond the hand presses of the day.
That Freedom of speach extends to TV, radio, or online.

The First Amendment prevents Congress from infringing on freedom of speech or freedom of the press. In this particular instance, these are political rights which have nothing to do with the advance of technology.

quote:


To accept that arguement you have to think that noting developed after 1790 is protected by the the constitution.

Wrong. The second amendment was written when it took expertise, practice and time to kill with a musket. It was written with a specific principle in mind. This is one of those examples where you're supposed to interpret the spirit of the law, not the letter.

quote:

Did you know that before the revolution there were 20 round rifles that were so deadly that some countries had any soldier caught with one executed on the spot?

The crossbow was once called "the weapon to end all wars" because an unskilled individual could kill indiscriminately. The Church called it "a weapon hateful to God and unfit for Christians." There's clear precedent here that suggests that society should not grant the power to kill indiscriminately.

quote:


Did you know that under the 2nd you were allowed cannon. Of course you don't know these things because they would fracture you world view.

A cannon is a piece of artillery and is pretty much useless as a form of personal defense. This factoid is irrelevant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul
It was a random response to another poster. You said he was born in Afghanistan, I pointed out he was born in NY, them someone else came on and said Hitler was born in Austria. I found that entirely irrelevant to this case, so I just wanted to put something out there as random and irrelevant. I thought of you because another poster used to always claim you were from Idaho, not Singapore (why I never understood).

It wasn't directed at you, though I will point out that you are still incorrect in your initial statement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix

There's a whoooole bunch of you people claiming "higher ground" in your arguments.

Every gawdamn one of you is wrong.

Sumpin's gotta change.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

Is the right to own a drone (a proper military drone, with a big bomb in it, not one of the little remote control helicopter things they use for smuggling drugs into prisons) covered under the right to bear arms? How about tanks or other pieces of self propelled artillery? Fighter aircraft? Aircraft carriers? Nuclear submarines?
Might sound a frivolous question, but I'm genuinely curious as to whether there's any kind of legally defined point at which the second amendment stops. Seemingly it can't be rocket launchers or heavy machine guns, because a lot of the gun bunnies like to insist that bans on owning those are an unconstitutional liberty that's part of the creeping cancer of authoritarian that's destroying the country.

TDC's point about the spirit not the letter has me wondering about this. The wording of the amendment specifies almost nothing, after all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix

There's a whoooole bunch of you people claiming "higher ground" in your arguments.

Every gawdamn one of you is wrong.

Sumpin's gotta change.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Now they are reporting as many as 50 dead... I am just waiting for one of our gun friends to pop in and say... see if someone had a gun this would not have happened... they may be right.

But this happened in a gun happy stand your ground state... Lets see how this terrorist got his guns and ammo.

Butch

Regardless of how happy a gun state it is, it's illigal to take a concealed gun into a place that serves alcohol. A bar is basically a gun free zone. But, your one size fits all statement sounded good.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Yeah. No.

Thats probably why you got RIFfed and never made grade with your time in service, couldn't even clean a gun.


Rimfires can be fuckin bent and still work fine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
So your point is that since there are lots of crazy people in the world who'd do this sort of thing, all of the innocent law abiding people should have the government take away their rights and control things?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
So your point is that since there are lots of crazy people in the world who'd do this sort of thing, all of the innocent law abiding people should have the government take away their rights and control things?

I think one has to now consider. In terms of ISIS goals and lone wolves jihadhist goals. This is a super successful attack on America. Like super successful. One dude managed to wound 100 over people. Just one dude! And without blowing up himself. And out of 100, 50% were fatal. This is a highly successful operation on the bad guy's point of view.

And now they see their advantage and America's weaknesses. A President who refuses to acknowledge they are just following thier religious orders is one thing.

But the easy access to weapons that can potentially kill 100 people per person if aim is true. Put 10 lone wolves, they could kill 1000 people.

It usually sucks when the bad guys mis-use things. But I think that is the serious problem now and lone wolves are super duper hard to track. This is the new type of terrorism US will be grappling with now.

How to fix it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
He didn't use particularly high powered weapons.
The primary advantage of both the .223 and the 9mm is that while they are smaller and less powerful this allows you to carry more extra ammunition and the firearms themselves tend to be lighter.

Maybe because of your familiarity with different kinds of guns, it's not high powered. But to me, all guns are scary, since I have never seen or touch one except in movies, any gun that can hit 100 people, sounds pretty high powered to me when fallen into the wrong hands.

I think all people need is simple guns that needs reloading after 6 bullets, and slow reloading!