The Topic of Gun Control and How it Relates to Recent Mass Shootings

Well, except for the often-trotted argument that the Second Amendment is significant for its' power to overthrow potential tyrants and the American government in case it goes crazy. That's actually not as crazy as many think because, well---it's based on historical fact.

still waiting on those tyrants.

 

The Constitution gives the right to bear arms a qualifier... If you have any reading comprehension skills you could see that for yourself. The qualifier for a citizen to the right to bear arms is in order to maintain a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.
not for recreational shooting
not for proving your manhood
not for your own personal defense

 

That's really dumb. The right has a context which is given in the law. That's kind of relevant.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution
In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:[25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]
-deterring tyrannical government;
-repelling invasion;
-suppressing insurrection;
-facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
-participating in law enforcement;
-enabling the people to organize a militia system.

The WHY is the most important thing. Freedom of speech was put in there for a particular reason. It wasn't put there so anyone can say whatever the hell they want. It's just a by-product. People will abuse both rights. You can't simply just not look at context. We're not Al-Qaeda or Taliban. To ignore the WHY is a very dangerous proposition.

 

I am aware what it says. I am saying you don't know what a 'right' is. There are no 'qualifiers' for rights. Rights are something you are born with.

SO a person is born with the right to bear arms for militia purposes, but not for personal protection? Your sentence makes no sense.

The Cosntitution, for some reason, explains why the founders believed a person had the right to bear arms. This does not make it a 'qualifier'.

 

No right is absolute.

1st amendment rights don't allow you to shout "fire" in a theatre or use your speech to incite violence.

2nd amendment rights in the status quo don't allow you to own a bazooka or a nuclear weapon.


Stop making dumb, unwarranted arguments.

 

Yes it does. A person is just held accountable for the results when they do yell 'fire' or 'incite violence'.

His question made no sense. Your argument above is wrong. Both of you don't understand the definition of a 'right' or else you would understand there are no 'qualifiers' (barring punishment form the law).

 

A right is only valid if it doesn't infringe upon other rights.

If the freedom of speech right was absolute, you wouldn't be held accountable even for the harmful results of your actions.

 

correct

incorrect

Not sure why you think those are correlated?

 

It certainly satisfies the "well-regulated militia" part of things.

Of course, we could just update the Constitution instead, since technology and culture have made certain parts of it vastly outdated.

 

When we finally have very human-like robots, let's make sure talanover is nowhere near the logic programming, deal? #scary

 

Gun culture is ingrained within American society. We love our guns. I have no freakin idea why. Case in point. ONE guy with a small bomb in his shoe enters a plane and kills NO ONE and instant policy is created. Now every damn person in the U.S. goes through Airport security with their shoes off. 20 kids here or there die in mass shootings, nothing is done. Why? Because it touches on the subject of America's favorite object... a damn gun.

 

My personal opinion is that America's obsession with private gun ownership is hard to understand for me. I think it is obvious that the huge amount of guns out there in private hands increases the risk of shootings. But I don't think that will change. The majority of Americans want it that way, and I know several people personally whom I respect who see it that way, too.

 

Good point about shoes.

I hate to say it but I'm resigned to it. Even now, after this event. We reap what we sow. We want to let the gun industry do whatever they want, while standing up to big tobacco? Uh, okay, whatever. Makes no sense, but that's America.

Was there really a problem with gun ownership during the assault weapons ban from 1994-2004? I sure don't remember any special problems, but I do not personally see the need to own something like the Bushmaster .223 (which Lansa used to open his own portal into the elementary school.)

 

Except if you are going to look at the Constitution strictly the 2nd Amendment spells out the reason for it and also it says "keep and bear" it doesn't say "use."

 

There is no comparison. Whatsoever.

 

You're advocating that the 2nd amendment states its ok to own a gun but not to shoot it? You think its wise to have millions of legal and responsible gun owners owning something they don't know how to use?

 

Yes there is. A tangible policy is created for protecting the American public instantly unless guns are involved.

 

Yes. I am saying spelling out the reason in the legislation is stupid and not useful.

Do you think Obamacare spells out why Obamacare needs to exist in the legislation?