quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
So, with the understanding that it's a right in the US, other than amending the Constitution to take it out, how do you think the US can prevent nutcases from going postal and engage in human target practice?

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
So, with the understanding that it's a right in the US, other than amending the Constitution to take it out, how do you think the US can prevent nutcases from going postal and engage in human target practice?

Can't speak for HB, but making examples of a few gun vendors who aren't bothering with the background checks and pooling the information necessary to make the background checks would be a start. (If it's too much effort for the vendors to do research themselves, have the BATF or an FBI bureau circulate a blacklist instead.)

quote:

Reforms to the gun licensing laws wouldn't hurt, either: I can buy Jeff's argument that there's some wildlife you just don't want to be hunting with a shotgun or bolt action rifle, but an additional license (or a banded license - I know the gun nuts like to complain cars to guns, so it's worth mentioning that they make you get a different license to drive a bus or a HGV to the one you can drive a car with) to get hold of semi automatics where you have to demonstrate that you need one for something other than a bank job or spree killing would be a start. And if you're going to pool data from federal records for the background checks it might be worth checking the DVLA information as well: somebody who lives in New York and doesn't have a driving license possibly doesn't want to buy an AR-15 to go hunting ear in Alaska...

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker


I do disagree with it being a right, that is exactly my point.
If it wasn't a right, you wouldn't have as many nutcases going postal and engaging in human target practice.

Anyone who argues that gun ownership is a right is saying that protecting some obsolete vision of what your 'rights' are is worth having all of these mass shootings.

You can talk about the constitution all you like... I don't have to mindlessly agree with the constitution.
It isn't the 10 commandments.
It isn't a sacred document.
God didn't write it.

The second amendment was written by people who had no idea what the 21st century would be like.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker


I do disagree with it being a right, that is exactly my point.
If it wasn't a right, you wouldn't have as many nutcases going postal and engaging in human target practice.

Anyone who argues that gun ownership is a right is saying that protecting some obsolete vision of what your 'rights' are is worth having all of these mass shootings.

You can talk about the constitution all you like... I don't have to mindlessly agree with the constitution.
It isn't the 10 commandments.
It isn't a sacred document.
God didn't write it.

The second amendment was written by people who had no idea what the 21st century would be like.

Kinda supports my point that your entire solution, regardless of facts, is get rid of the guns.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
You calling a police department consistently not doing their jobs, or more accurately, ignoring their sworn duty, 'human error.'

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
You hold all gun owners responsible for the actions of a very small number of people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
And when it is explained to you in detail, what the fucking problem is with the back ground check system, you fucking ignore the facts and go into some other tirade about gun supporters not being willing to listen.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
And you are correct, you do not have to mindlessly agree with the constitution, but as it has been said, it is the law of the land, it is the basis of our government, and it is there to protect the rights of the citizens, so agree or not, you do have to follow it.

With that said, either accept what is and actually bring to the table viable solutions within the frame work of the constitution, or shut the fuck up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker


I do disagree with it being a right, that is exactly my point.
If it wasn't a right, you wouldn't have as many nutcases going postal and engaging in human target practice.

Anyone who argues that gun ownership is a right is saying that protecting some obsolete vision of what your 'rights' are is worth having all of these mass shootings.

You can talk about the constitution all you like... I don't have to mindlessly agree with the constitution.
It isn't the 10 commandments.
It isn't a sacred document.
God didn't write it.

The second amendment was written by people who had no idea what the 21st century would be like.

Kinda supports my point that your entire solution, regardless of facts, is get rid of the guns.

You calling a police department consistently not doing their jobs, or more accurately, ignoring their sworn duty, 'human error.'

You hold all gun owners responsible for the actions of a very small number of people.

And when it is explained to you in detail, what the fucking problem is with the back ground check system, you fucking ignore the facts and go into some other tirade about gun supporters not being willing to listen.

And you are correct, you do not have to mindlessly agree with the constitution, but as it has been said, it is the law of the land, it is the basis of our government, and it is there to protect the rights of the citizens, so agree or not, you do have to follow it.

With that said, either accept what is and actually bring to the table viable solutions within the frame work of the constitution, or shut the fuck up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

You can talk about the constitution all you like... I don't have to mindlessly agree with the constitution.
It isn't the 10 commandments.
It isn't a sacred document.
God didn't write it.

The second amendment was written by people who had no idea what the 21st century would be like.

quote:

...In pointing out the problems with Jill Lepore’s attempt to undermine the Second Amendment and justify more gun control, I focused on the fact that our right to keep and bear arms is a God-given right. As such, it preceded not only the Second Amendment but also the founding of the United States. In other words: We don’t have the right to keep and bear arms because the Bill of Rights says so; rather, the Bill of Rights says so because the right to keep and bear arms is intrinsic to our very being: it is a right with which we were endowed by our Creator.

In response to this point, someone emailed and asked for an explanation regarding the claim that this right is “God-given.” Far from being argumentative, the individual simply stated that he could not find any explicit reference to the right to keep and bear arms in the Bible and wondered where the justification was for claiming that God himself endowed us with such a right.

The email raised a great question. And the short answer is that part of the foundation for keeping and bearing arms rests in laws that lend order to nature. These are laws that God ordained and implemented just as certainly as he implemented and ordained the moral law (the 10 Commandments). This point is worth explaining because it’s fundamental to an understanding of how our inalienable rights flow to us from God rather than from government. As such, the foundation of those rights transcends government, which is why the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.”

There are two sets of law authored and maintained by God: Divine Law, consisting of the 10 Commandments and the outworking of those commandments in the New Testament, and Natural Law, consisting of the order intrinsic to nature and the universe around it. We know Divine Law from reading the Bible, and we know aspects of Natural Law because it is written upon our hearts and consciences. The Apostle Paul indicated this in Romans 2:14-15: “When Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness.”

And because Divine Law and Natural Law both flow from God, they are in agreement with one another. Thus, whereas Divine Law teaches “Thou shall not kill,” Natural Law provides us with the intuitive knowledge that killing in cold blood is wrong. And whereas Divine Law teaches “Thou shall not steal,” Natural Law provides us with the intuitive knowledge that stealing is wrong. This explains why people who have never read a Bible or heard a sermon on the Bible do their stealing in secret or in the cover of night — for they have an intuitive knowledge that it’s something that must be hidden.

Yet it goes much deeper. For the same laws of nature of that warn our consciences against killing in cold blood or stealing, also incline us toward owning our own things and protecting the things we own. And perhaps most importantly, they also teach that our greatest property is our own life, and that such a property must be defended. In fact, because God has given us life, we have a duty to defend it.

When enlightenment philosopher John Locke wrote his great exposition on Natural Law in “Two Treatises of Government,” he made these points clearly:

The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order.

And of those who violate the laws of nature and act criminally toward their fellow man:

In transgressing the law of nature, the offender declares himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity, which is that measure God has set to the actions of men, for their mutual security; and so he becomes dangerous to mankind.

Locke went on to explain that nature teaches us that once a man is proven dangerous to us, we are justified in using force, including lethal force, to remove the danger and protect our lives. He even contended that someone who commits a lesser violation of those laws — for instance, theft — may justly face lethal force even if he means me no physical harm, for he is attempting “to get me into his power,” and having done that, he may go further. (I have posted those verses here 2-3 times)

This is how Locke put it:

quote:

This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than by the use of force, so to get him in his power as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose that he who would take away my liberty would not, when he had me in his power, take away everything else.

The bottom line: The gift of life is inalienable, coming to us from God through nature. And the right to defend that life is also inalienable because it comes to us from God through nature as well.

quote:

AWR Hawkins is a conservative columnist who has written extensively on political issues for HumanEvents.com, Pajamas Media, Townhall.com, [oh no comrades!] and Andrew Breitbart’s BigPeace.com, BigHollywood.com, BigGovernment.com, and BigJournalism.com. He holds a Ph.D. in U.S. military history from Texas Tech University, and was a visiting fellow at the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal in the summer of 2010.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Says bama, who doesnt seem to pay attention to the dead.

But hey, its in the constitution, so carry on shooting people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Says bama, who doesnt seem to pay attention to the dead.

But hey, its in the constitution, so carry on shooting people.

Hey, contrary to what you and all you foreign dick for brains anti gunners think (and continue to post) the US does NOT lead the world in gun related crime and deaths, unless the world has suddenly been reduced to a few select countries.

Overall the US ranks 31st, and just about every country ahead of the US has outlawed private gun ownership, or have even stricter gun laws that all those countries that you people seem to think consists of 'the world.'

But since we are talking gun deaths in the US vs gun deaths in your rest of the world with restrictive gun laws and regulations, please tell me, how the fuck those gun laws did a fucking thing to prevent the gun using terrorists in Europe?

Those attacks did prove one thing, if you outlaw and restrict guns, the outlaws will get guns.

But, the whole fucking reason the 2nd amendment is even IN the constitution goes back to a little incident in the 1700's that happened just outside Boston, when a bunch of fucking British troops were ordered to confiscate the weapons of the colonial militia.

Of course, the entire bill of rights were directly related to practices by the British government that directly led to the Revolution where we basically told you to go fuck yourselves.

And we resent that message in 1812.

And of course, ever since, some you people still think that you have some right to tell us what to do, and how to do it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

That should be "hunting bear", not "hunting ear": I didn't do a very good job of proofing that post.
The reasons for needing a faster firing gun than you need to hunt deer is probably tricky to define and would involve somebody actually looking at the case for a license and making a judgement call (which is doubtless a terrible and probably unconstitutional imposition on all involved), true enough.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

What I don't get is why the pro-gun crowd keeps saying 'it would work if only all of these millions of people across the country always did their job perfectly every single time and never made mistakes' without recognizing that the issue is that a system where they are expected to do so is exactly the problem.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

I don't put a lot of stock into mental health professionals, because of my own experiences with them, the times that I have sought their services. I got more help watching Oprah ffs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

What I don't get is why the pro-gun crowd keeps saying 'it would work if only all of these millions of people across the country always did their job perfectly every single time and never made mistakes' without recognizing that the issue is that a system where they are expected to do so is exactly the problem.

One of the frequent issues is nut cases arming themselves due to bureaucrats not doing their job in a timely manner. We don't need perfection but a system of due diligence in getting the job done. The thesis of so many legal gun owners is that we don't need more legislation but more enforcement of legislation that already exists.

Why should more laws what are going to be enforced in a slip-shod manner at best be enacted? Fix the machinery in place before talking about buying more expensive machinery.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

Update, on the psycho shooter, add another victim, and the number is up to at least 5.

His wife, was found under the floorboards in his home.


Daily Mail-Shooters wife found under floorboards

People like this, are able to purchase weapons in the states.

From the article in the Daily Mail:

Officials say Kevin Hanson Neal, 43, began firing at 7.52am on Tuesday
Police raided his home Wednesday and found his wife's remains concealed under floorboards
They believe the killing of his wife is what started his rampage on Tuesday
He opened fire near his home on Bobcat Lane in Rancho Tehama then drove off
On his way through the town, he shot a woman and her child in their truck
The mother suffered life-threatening wounds and remains in hospital
A second child was hurt at Rancho Tehama Elementary School and airlifted
He was identified as Alejandro Hernandez, 6, and is expected to recover
Neal attempted to gain entry to the school, but it was on lockdown
Police shot the gunman was found dead near the school after a brief gunfight
Ten people, including the two children injured, remain in the hospital

wow, just wow

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech



Please note, people like this are NOT legally allowed to possess or carry deadly weapons in the United States.
The person obtained weapons illegally because some bureaucrats didn't report his legal issues so he could be flagged as having had his rights restricted under law.