Ongoing US Mass Shooting Thread 2

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Just a guy

This just says sooooo much about you. My wish is that after time you will go back and reread your words and regret ever having stated them.

People justify murdering abortion doctors as a means to an end, this isn't really all that different. I'm not saying either is right, but it's an idea that is actively implemented.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Acey

I don't see a how background check would have changed this outcome if the kid had no priors or documented history of mental illness. It just delays the inevitable.

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. That mental illness inevitably ends in mass shooting of children?

[Just a guy]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

No, he is correct. If you're going to use violence to enact change, you have to direct it at the correct targets. Killing random kids or random republicans won't do anything. Killing Republican Senators, Republican leaning judges, or Republican political donators at least has a chance at success. You have to direct the violence at the people with power, if change through violence is your plan.

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Dude, seriously, take a reading comprehension course. You’ll be much happier in life and understand what people are trying to say

Please tell me where he doesn't say that gun violence in the name of his cause is not acceptable?

[CroFlames]

Can't a guy like Bill or Warren throw enough money at the problem to influence these dumbass senators? I think once they pass this universal background check legislation, other common sense gun laws will be easier to pass.



I suppose the better question is WHY haven't Bill or Warren thrown their weight around when it comes to this problem. It's clear that money runs US politics/politicians.

[Just a guy]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

People justify murdering abortion doctors as a means to an end, this isn't really all that different. I'm not saying either is right, but it's an idea that is actively implemented.

I agree, neither are right! To try to justify violence in any form is wrong.

[Just a guy]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I'm not allowed to call your opinions terrible?

Okay, you think advocating for non-violence is a bad opinion.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Just a guy

I agree, neither are right! To try to justify violence in any form is wrong.

That's silly and simplistic. Are the Ukrainians not justified in using violence to defend their country and their lives? Should the allies in WWII laid down their arms?

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Just a guy

Okay, you think advocating for non-violence is a bad opinion.

I think 19 kids got killed last week and that is worth discussing rather than some post where hyperbole was used to make a point.

But I also think you will like JAG up this thread for the next couple of weeks - so best of luck to you.

[Just a guy]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

That's silly and simplistic. Are the Ukrainians not justified in using violence to defend their country and their lives? Should the allies in WWII laid down their arms?

You are adding layers that are not part of the discussion. To be clear, to use violence to achieve a political means is wrong.

The Ukrainians are acting in self defense, as were the allies in WWII. The aggressors were wrong in both cases.

[Just a guy]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I think 19 kids got killed last week and that is worth discussing rather than some post where hyperbole was used to make a point.

But I also think you will like JAG up this thread for the next couple of weeks - so best of luck to you.

So, again it is okay to advocate violence for your own purposes. Two wrongs do not make a right. And yes I will discuss this side if others continue to advocate violence. makes me a bad person I guess.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Just a guy

So, again it is okay to advocate violence for your own purposes. Two wrongs do not make a right. And yes I will discuss this side if others continue to advocate violence. makes me a bad person I guess.

No it's not ok to advocate violence. Move on.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Just a guy

So, again it is okay to advocate violence for your own purposes. Two wrongs do not make a right. And yes I will discuss this side if others continue to advocate violence. makes me a bad person I guess.

We're all applauding your courage.

[Just a guy]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Can't a guy like Bill or Warren throw enough money at the problem to influence these dumbass senators? I think once they pass this universal background check legislation, other common sense gun laws will be easier to pass.



I suppose the better question is WHY haven't Bill or Warren thrown their weight around when it comes to this problem. It's clear that money runs US politics/politicians.

I think you raise an interesting question. I believe that we as Canadians do not fully understand the American tie to the 2nd amendment. This seems a simple change to us, but seems so fundamental to them.

Money does run things it is true, but you still need to get re-elected and the populace in the US would not re-elect anyone that goes against what they see as their fundamental rights.

My thoughts

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Just a guy

I think you raise an interesting question. I believe that we as Canadians do not fully understand the American tie to the 2nd amendment. This seems a simple change to us, but seems so fundamental to them.

Money does run things it is true, but you still need to get re-elected and the populace in the US would not re-elect anyone that goes against what they see as their fundamental rights.

My thoughts

I am a Canadian who lived in the USA.



I understand Americans, especially 2Aers, but I also understand that with enough money, you can achieve anything politically in the US.



Consider this: The 2A is already being violated. No where in the constitution does it say there needs to be an age limit on firearm ownership. Why is the minimum age 18 in Texas therefore? There should be NO age limit if we are going to truly honor the 2A. Conversely, the wording says the militia needs to be "well regulated". OK, so the federal government CAN regulate who owns guns?



The point is, in the courts and with lawmakers, there is room for interpretation and money is what it will take. They are about to overturn the Roe v Wade precedent. It can happen.

[Just a guy]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I am a Canadian who lived in the USA.



I understand Americans, especially 2Aers, but I also understand that with enough money, you can achieve anything politically in the US.



Consider this: The 2A is already being violated. No where in the constitution does it say there needs to be an age limit on firearm ownership. Why is the minimum age 18 in Texas therefore? There should be NO age limit if we are going to truly honor the 2A. Conversely, the wording says the militia needs to be "well regulated". OK, so the federal government CAN regulate who owns guns?



The point is, in the courts and with lawmakers, there is room for interpretation and money is what it will take. They are about to overturn the Roe v Wade precedent. It can happen.

Agree that the 2A is already being violated. I believe the reason it has not as much an issue is due to reasonableness (the majority do not want 12 year olds openly packing) This is similar to driving a car, the right amount of development seems to be 16 years old.
The "Not to be infringed" is the sticky part. It gives the people the final say as to reasonable restrictions. If they do not agree then they challenge on those grounds.
As for Roe vs Wade it is not a direct comparable as there is not a Roe amendment in the constitution. It is a legal ruling and not a constitutional amendment. Agree that things can happen, but my belief is that 2A will always be contested in the US and that is why there is little political will to change it.
Again my opinion.

[Barnet Flame]

The crafters of the 2nd Amendment can’t possibly have anticipated how lethal arms would become. Any reasonable society would’ve amended the amendment by now.

[midniteowl]

Originally Posted by Barnet Flame

The crafters of the 2nd Amendment can’t possibly have anticipated how lethal arms would become. Any reasonable society would’ve amended the amendment by now.

This just is. Nobody is saying to totally abolish the 2nd Amendment, just add amendments to the 2nd Amendment. When their Constitution first drafted, they managed to have amendment to it, so why people are so against added amendments? When are people going to realize lives are more important to their rights to carry guns? And why do people need to own automatic assault rifles?

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by midniteowl

This just is. Nobody is saying to totally abolish the 2nd Amendment, just add amendments to the 2nd Amendment. When their Constitution first drafted, they managed to have amendment to it, so why people are so against added amendments? When are people going to realize lives are more important to their rights to carry guns? And why do people need to own automatic assault rifles?

I hate to be a pedant because I am on your side, but no one owns fully auto weapons in the USA. Only the military and special police units.



Semi-auto weapons are the problem in the USA (one trigger pull = one bullet). Lots of people would argue semi-auto is more deadly than full auto, as full auto typically just sprays everywhere and are hard to control for most people. Hence why only the military uses them for assaults on enemy positions.



It helps your argument to know the difference.



You may recall the bump stock debate that happened around the Vegas shooting wherein a mod can be made for semi-auto rifles that essentially turns them into a full-auto version. Of course, Republicans did not want to ban bump stocks either. Freedumbs.

[afc wimbledon]

The British Army had their full auto FN's 'deauto'd' to semi auto only as they thought full auto was actually a bad thing for troops

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I hate to be a pedant because I am on your side, but no one owns fully auto weapons in the USA. Only the military and special police units.

I'll be a pedant as well because that is inaccurate. Depending on the state there are licenses and permits to own fully automatic weapons as individuals or some as gunsmiths/dealers and you can also own a grandfathered receiver that is pre-1986.

That gets us to the first loophole: If you have an automatic weapon from before 1986, it was grandfathered through the law. So it’s still legal to buy, sell, and exchange these kinds of weapons, including in Nevada, as long as they’re a few decades old — although with some extra hurdles that don’t apply to other types of firearms, such as registering fully automatic guns with the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) and paying a special tax, with the risk of additional penalties if someone doesn’t comply.

There are more than 630,000 of these guns in circulation, according to federal data.