One mass shooting each day in the U.S.

[Carnal_Flower]

Obviously you've never read your cherished Constitution. Newsflash: getting all your information from Inforwars is a bad idea.

"But when you actually go back and look at the debate that went into drafting of the amendment, you can squint and look really hard, but there’s simply no evidence of it being about individual gun ownership for self-protection or for hunting. Emphatically, the focus was on the militias. To the framers, that phrase “a well-regulated militia” was really critical. In the debates, in James Madison’s notes of the Constitutional Convention, on the floor of the House of Representatives as they wrote the Second Amendment, all the focus was about the militias. Now at the same time, those militias are not the National Guard. Every adult man, and eventually every adult white man, was required to be in the militias and was required to own a gun, and to bring it from home. So it was an individual right to fulfill the duty to serve in the militias."

But there were also gun restrictions at the same time. There were many. There were limits, for example, on where you could store gunpowder. You couldn’t have a loaded gun in your house in Boston. There were lots of limits on who could own guns for all different kinds of reasons. There was an expectation that you should be able to own a gun. But they didn’t think they were writing that expectation into the Constitution with the Second Amendment

You're kidding....right? Your post had to be a joke.

 

[Hypoxia]

IIRC every Swiss male is conscripted for brief military training and is then assigned to the national militia and is required to keep firearms in his home, and to meet regularly with the militia. The Swiss have very low firearm death rates because training and discipline. The requirements: Be armed. Be trained. Be socialized. Be coordinated.

The Swiss militia are not merely a bunch of crackers with shotguns and AR15s. They're a fucking DISCIPLINED militia. USA is anarchy in comparison. Are we having fun yet?

 

[someoneyouknow]

IIRC every Swiss male is conscripted for brief military training and is then assigned to the national militia and is required to keep firearms in his home, and to meet regularly with the militia. The Swiss have very low firearm death rates because training and discipline. The requirements: Be armed. Be trained. Be socialized. Be coordinated.

The Swiss militia are not merely a bunch of crackers with shotguns and AR15s. They're a fucking DISCIPLINED militia. USA is anarchy in comparison. Are we having fun yet?

The canard of Switzerland and guns really needs to be put down:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21379912

Since that incident, gun laws concerning army weapons have tightened. Although it is still possible for a former soldier to buy his firearm after he finishes military service, he must provide a justification for keeping the weapon and apply for a permit.

When I meet Mathias, a PhD student and serving officer, at his apartment in a snowy suburb of Zurich, I realise the rules have got stricter than I imagined. Mathias keeps his army pistol in the guest room of his home, in a desk drawer hidden under the printer paper. It is a condition of the interview that I don't give his surname or hint at his address.

"I do as the army advises and I keep the barrel separately from my pistol," he explains seriously. "I keep the barrel in the basement so if anyone breaks into my apartment and finds the gun, it's useless to them."

He shakes out the gun holster. "And we don't get bullets any more," he adds. "The Army doesn't give ammunition now - it's all kept in a central arsenal." This measure was introduced by Switzerland's Federal Council in 2007.​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusting-israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/?utm_term=.a4ac3746ef68

Switzerland has also been moving away from having widespread guns. The laws are done canton by canton, which is like a province. Everyone in Switzerland serves in the army, and the cantons used to let you have the guns at home. They’ve been moving to keeping the guns in depots. That means they’re not in the household, which makes sense because the literature shows us that if the gun is in the household, the risk goes up for everyone in the household.​

 

[dan_c00000]

You're kidding....right? Your post had to be a joke.

You're getting ruined. You're using the bullshit reading of the Second Amendment which was radically changed by the NRA's personal Supreme Court Justice and dead asshole Antonin Scalia in DC v. Heller. Him and right wing nuts, like the new NRA's Justice, overturned literally hundreds of years of precedent for a few paid trips.

There once was a Constitutional Amendment banning the sale of alcohol. That got repealed. The Second Amendment could be repealed in the same manner. What a glorious day that would be.

 

[jaF0]

I'm not sure I would support a full repeal. I would definitely support a re-write, clarification and scaling back to eliminate a wide range of firearms. Limit to sport and hunting type weapons with a full ban on military types.

 

[Hypoxia]

The canard of Switzerland and guns really needs to be put down:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21379912

So my recollection was outdated. That happens a lot now as the Alzheimers progresses. Why, I can barely remember which target to aim at now. Smile.

Which doesn't excuse USA's anarchy and lack of discipline. Nor our tolerance of intolerable slaughters, of which we'll see more and more. Grab the popcorn.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Not a contradiction at all.

Every individual IN THE MILITIA.

How many Americans with guns today are in the militia? Therefore, they have no rights to gun ownership under the 2nd Amendment

You contradicted yourself Carnal Flower...badly.

"There's simply no evidence of it being about individual gun ownership."
"So it was an individual right to fulfill the duty to serve in the militia"...which you admit is every able-bodied person...not the National Guard.

Ultimately, the 2nd Amendment means precisely what the 9 individuals on the Supreme Court say it means. After Centuries in place, individuals still own firearms. That lends itself to the interpretation that the 2nd Amendment is for individuals.

Everything else is whining...

 

[LincolnDuncan]

Why would anyone choose to live in a combat zone?

 

[Hypoxia]

Ummmm. Yeah. None of that even makes sense.

Read slower. My point is, the 2nd does not grant unlimited access to 'arms'. Lawmakers and courts define which weapons are deemed protected for personal use. Many non-firearms are banned, like morningstars and spring-loaded knives. Military weapons are generally not protected. WMDs sure ain't.

But again, legal status of weapons is becoming meaningless. There are too many to realistically attempt confiscation. They're too easily obtained. The 'equalizer' has reached the lowest common denominator. Expect more mayhem.

 

[jaF0]

What do you think a Militia is??? Seriously?

WELL REGULATED. Gunners keep missing that part. It doesn't mean every flipping redneck everywhere plinking road signs for giggles.

 

[BotanyBoy]

WELL REGULATED. Gunners keep missing that part. It doesn't mean every flipping redneck everywhere plinking road signs for giggles.

Was not even suggested as a requirement for gun ownership, but a necessary to the security of a free state.

Gun snatchers keep ignoring that part as well as the comma that separates it from famous part gun snatchers can't STAND because it's so fucking direct and straight forward the ONLY way they will EVER get what they want is through a constitutional convention.

Good fuckin' luck with that, be faster just to pack up and GTFO.


And you didn't answer the question because it shit's on that whole "doesn't mean every flipping redneck everywhere" bit....because that's exactly what a militia is.

militia
[mi-lish-uh]
Spell Syllables
Examples Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1.
a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2.
a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3.
all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4.
a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/militia

militia
NOUN

1A military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

1.1 A military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.

1.2 (in the US) all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/militia

 

[sr71plt]

A militia is something we haven't had in the United States for a couple of hundred years. There's the organized National Guard, of course. And they, rightfully, are armed when they are serving. That's as far as the 2nd Amendment goes. The expansion of what the 2nd Amendment has been accomplished by gross hypocrites who falsely claimed to be strict constitutionalists.

And, not incidentally, there were no automatic assault rifles when the 2nd Amendment was conceived and written, so, of course, a true strict constitutionalist would not cover them with the 2nd Amendment.

 

[BotanyBoy]

A militia is something we haven't had in the United States for a couple of hundred years. There's the organized National Guard, of course. And they, rightfully, are armed when they are serving. That's as far as the 2nd Amendment goes. The expansion of what the 2nd Amendment has been accomplished by gross hypocrites who falsely claimed to be strict constitutionalists.

No, it goes further and never required militia service as a requirement.

You're just being dishonest.

And, not incidentally, there were no automatic assault rifles when the 2nd Amendment was conceived and written, so, of course, a true strict constitutionalist would not cover them with the 2nd Amendment.

It doesn't say anything about weapons when the 2nd was conceived, it says arms, that includes modern arms and in no way excludes everything but 18th century muzzle loaders.

Unless you're being a dishonest bullshitter that is.....

 

[dan_c00000]

Bot's showing up because his RSS guns jerkoff feed must have gone off. I'm sure he's about to get destroyed too. This is all going swimmingly for the gun nuts.

Anyway, I notice not one of you Second Amendment heroes will come out and just say it: it's important to have the right to own a weapon capable of killing twenty-some-odd children without reloading.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

I'm all for gun control (actually total gun confiscation) however I strongly believe the #1 thing to stop mass shooters is STOP NAMING THEM.

Never show their faces, never ever reveal them. It should be a federal crime. They have to know no one will EVER know who they are, just "the perpetrator". How many do it for the fame?

So I am on Trump's side on ONE thing, the media shares a heavy dose of blame for this

 

[JackLuis]

Realistically, there are no gun laws, existing or proposed, that would have prevented this, unless the 'bump stocks' had been declared illegal when they started being advertised. Of course the perp could have modified his guns to full auto anyway.

Bump Stocks and trigger cranks are a way to sell more ammo to those who have no interest in precision shooting. Ammo Companies love the 'spray and pray shooters' who consume 4-5 times as much ammo as those who precisely place their shots.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

So is gay marriage and abortion!

Finally. You made a coherent point. Your first point is correct. Surprise. The Supreme Court has clearly, and unmistakably, granted access to rifles (AR or otherwise), and handguns. Whether you like or not...it's legal. And confiscation would result in civil war, and the left would lose....badly.

Expect more mayhem...you may be right, but I'd rather deal with too much freedom...than not enough.

 

[Hypoxia]

The Supreme Court has clearly, and unmistakably, granted access to rifles (AR or otherwise), and handguns. Whether you like or not...it's legal. And confiscation would result in civil war, and the left would lose....badly.

A future SCOTUS could readily redefine what's allowed. And I'd expect confiscation from a right-wing dictatorship. It's what they do.

Expect more mayhem...you may be right, but I'd rather deal with too much freedom...than not enough.

Then you accept and empower mass murder. You see no reason to deter slaughter of innocents. That's what we're left with: The right to kill or be killed.

Is this the world you want for your family?​

 

[sr71plt]

Is this the world you want for your family?​

I've found the response from gun nuts on this board to that concept is a "Wow," like they'd never had the capability to consider that that might happen to their loved ones (even though the loved ones of anyone don't else seem to be so inoculated from death by NRA- and gun nut-supported automatic weapon). When pressed, they will say they aren't going to think about that. (Not that they were doing any thinking before that.)

 

[Adder4321]

Since all of these attacks happen in America, clearly the solution is to ban America itself.

In all seriousness though, it would be impossible to ban guns in America at this point regardless. Purely because there are already so many guns in the country. It would be impossible to find them all and you would just end up with huge numbers of illegal weapons hidden across the country, most of which would eventually find their way to criminals anyway.

 

[JackLuis]

NRA’s financial firepower: How much it really spent in 2016 elections

They reported $55 Million, with $30 Million for Trump, but they may have spent more than $70 million.

Even the reported figures show that the group doubled down, literally, on its previous spending in a presidential election cycle. The $55 million is more than twice the $22 million the NRA spent overall in 2012 and more than four times what it spent in 2008 and 2004, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.

The bulk of the 2016 spending came in the presidential race, where the group spent more than $30 million to support President Donald Trump's candidacy. That's nearly three times what the group spent in 2012 supporting GOP nominee Mitt Romney.

They were really afraid of Hillary!

 

[Hypoxia]

NRA’s financial firepower: How much it really spent in 2016 elections

They reported $55 Million, with $30 Million for Trump, but they may have spent more than $70 million.

They were really afraid of Hillary!

Yesterday read an MSM article (sorry, no time now to look it up) pointing out that NRA is small potatoes in the lawmaker-buying game. They needn't bribe, merely work-up their voting base.

 

[phrodeau]

The US is 241 years old. Where have you been?

 

[Hypoxia]

The U.S. is 200 years old. If SCOTUS was going to ban guns, it would've done it by now. Ain't going to happen.

SCOTUS has reversed itself more than once and can do so again. I can imagine several events that might prompt a future SCOTUS to change course on the 2nd. The 2nd says "bear arms". Lawmakers and courts decide just WHICH arms may be borne.

And you're an idiot.

You appear to have slopped pablum on your mom's keyboard. Did your Pokemon bib come untied? You'll do better when you grow up.

...not incidentally, there were no automatic assault rifles when the 2nd Amendment was conceived and written, so, of course, a true strict constitutionalist would not cover them with the 2nd Amendment.

"A well-regulated militia being needed yada yada, the right of trained citizens to defend their country with the arms existing in 1790 shall not be infringed. Whip out the flintlocks, boys!"

"But the 2nd empowers The People to resist The State!" say some.

Well, not quite, and not on an equal basis. I doubt the 2nd intended private armies and individuals to be armed with military-grade artillery. Are residents entitled to personal warships? With missile launchers? How about bazookas?

 

[sr71plt]

Up until Trump was voted in by crazy dummies using an outdated Electoral College system based on inequality voting, I would have snorted at the idea that the people would ever need to resist against the state. Trump (and JayCuckesque idiots) are changing all of that.