So, the good guys had guns, more than enough guns and it still didn't make a difference. Ban the god damn guns you ignoramuses.
Aside from the fact that what you're asking for is impossible and banning will do nothing to stop bad people from having guns and doing bad things with them.
Maybe the good guys should have done what they are trained and swore an oath to to do and go in and get the bad guy. 6 guys with six big guns and shields should be able to neutralize one 18 year old with no training and a gun and prevent many of the needless deaths.
They literally....cant. Legally, they cannot do that.
Constitution and such get in the way.
It's an amendment. Amend it. Pretty simple. You can have any gun you want as long as it's a a single shot muzzle load. I mean they just changed it less than two decades ago to allow the assault style rifles. There was previously a ban on them. Take a guess when mass shootings started to Sky rocket.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Galakanokis For This Useful Post:
Aside from the fact that what you're asking for is impossible and banning will do nothing to stop bad people from having guns and doing bad things with them.
Maybe the good guys should have done what they are trained and swore an oath to to do and go in and get the bad guy. 6 guys with six big guns and shields should be able to neutralize one 18 year old with no training and a gun and prevent many of the needless deaths.
Did you read why they didn't do anything? They were afraid of the assault style rifle. Solution seems simple enough. It may not be an immediate change but a cultural shift needs to start somewhere.
Aside from the fact that what you're asking for is impossible and banning will do nothing to stop bad people from having guns and doing bad things with them.
Maybe the good guys should have done what they are trained and swore an oath to to do and go in and get the bad guy. 6 guys with six big guns and shields should be able to neutralize one 18 year old with no training and a gun and prevent many of the needless deaths.
Firstly its not impossible, if the good citizens of the US decided to get rid of guns (and I agree that is neither likely or anywhere close right now) but if there was a vast change in the view of ordinary Americans, then getting rid of vast amounts of guns would be a quick process, first the gun makers close down so parts become difficult, ammo also disappears quickly, most gun owners are not that arsed at this point, they may not agree with a law but they wont spend a fortune on black market parts or ammo or risk jail for a gun that at this point is utterly useless, no gun clubs or ranges to play on so most will hand their guns in, the hardcore will take longer but over time their guns will fall into the polices hands through regular arrests, domestics, evictions etc, thats pretty much what happened in the UK Australia, they all had alot of guns but very few people actually want to go to jail.
Secondly the only source for guns for most criminals in the whole of the west is the US, if you cut off that source criminals lose access, black market guns balloon in price very quickly, and also just so were clear you and I have nothing to worry about from criminals with guns now, criminals shoot other criminals, the people that will shoot you and me will be our disgruntled neighbour or pissed off teenager.
If, and its a hugely unlikely if, the US decides to follow the rest of the world it really wont be that hard, its the part where they change their minds about guns and decide to do it that's the hard part, not the getting the guns off the street part.
As to the cops, well everyone of them knew first guy in was going to die, and so while they all likely wanted to go in it was easy for the inertia of fear to stop them, Joe Pooloka city cops are neither well paid or well trained, Rambo they aint
Last edited by afc wimbledon; 06-21-2022 at 09:16 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
Did you read why they didn't do anything? They were afraid of the assault style rifle. Solution seems simple enough. It may not be an immediate change but a cultural shift needs to start somewhere.
I don't disagree. I was more thinking along the lines that there are 20 million AR15's already in circulation in the U.S. (and 300 million total guns). I also don't think there is any will from either political side to reduce these numbers.
As for the fear. That's a pretty bad look when they had shields, body armour and training vs an untrained 18 year old.
The USA has an obsession with guns, but mainly from a smaller group that happens to be the loudest group.
The Constitution states the 'right to bear arms'; even if you take the 'originalist's' viewpoint (ie that this doesn't include the distinction of a 'well regulated militia'), there are still common sense restrictions. Like how automatic weapons - so far - are prohibited weapons.
The right to bear arms does not mean every gun... and it is NOT infringed upon by something like reducing the capacity of an extended magazine. While the gun lobby would never allow this, I think it would be a simple way to hamper a gunman in a gun fight.
There is no reason for anyone to have a 30 bullet magazine (except law enforcement and the military)... especially if the counter argument proves the point - that it only takes someone 5 seconds to load a new magazine...
If they actually paid attention to the 'well regulated militia' part, it would pretty easily separate the people who join up and document themselves, and the unlawful gun holders that would be breaking the law.
It's interesting how they can ignore parts of the Constitution when inconvenient. They don't even really have to change anything, just admit that a well regulated militia requires background checks, limits on types of firearms allowed in the militia, and regular check-ins with the regulating body.
I also see a lot of the 'guarding ourselves against the government' talk. The government spends 800 billion a year on the military. What exactly are you supposed to do with a gun? And if you are going to defend yourself against the government, why are kids dying, when politicians would be the natural target. When is the last time a state congress got massacred to protect the regular American against tyranny? I call bull####.
__________________
"By Grabthar's hammer ... what a savings."
"arms" could mean anything, so the whole thing is bull#### from my point of view.
A medieval lance, M16s, Arab scimitars, thermonuclear ICBMs, bow & arrow, anti-tank weapons, an IED, anit-aircraft weapons etc etc etc. These are all "arms".
So if the US is already regulating the use of certain "arms", they can regulate the rest of the "arms" as well. There is precedent.
"arms" could mean anything, so the whole thing is bull#### from my point of view.
A medieval lance, M16s, Arab scimitars, thermonuclear ICBMs, bow & arrow, anti-tank weapons, an IED, anit-aircraft weapons etc etc etc. These are all "arms".
So if the US is already regulating the use of certain "arms", they can regulate the rest of the "arms" as well. There is precedent.
They choose not to.
A man walked around Oklahoma last night in full body armor with a locked and load AR-15 rifle. He was stopped and detained for having brass knuckles. It may not actually be the guns but the dumb culture around them.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Galakanokis For This Useful Post:
"arms" could mean anything, so the whole thing is bull#### from my point of view.
A medieval lance, M16s, Arab scimitars, thermonuclear ICBMs, bow & arrow, anti-tank weapons, an IED, anit-aircraft weapons etc etc etc. These are all "arms".
So if the US is already regulating the use of certain "arms", they can regulate the rest of the "arms" as well. There is precedent.
They choose not to.
I always found it was odd that their constitution somehow protected their right to own things like automatic weapons that didn’t even exist when the constitution was signed. Mind you this is the same document that stated all men were considered equal in a country with widespread legal slavery.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to iggy_oi For This Useful Post:
I'm sure that Thomas Jefferson said that the Constitution should be revisited every 19 years to make sure that the document is reflective of the will of the people.
Quote:
- Thomas Jefferson believed that a country's constitution should be rewritten every 19 years. Instead, the U.S. Constitution, which Jefferson did not help to write (he was in Paris serving as U.S. minister to France when the Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia), has prevailed since 1789.
__________________
"By Grabthar's hammer ... what a savings."
I always found it was odd that their constitution somehow protected their right to own things like automatic weapons that didn’t even exist when the constitution was signed. Mind you this is the same document that stated all men were considered equal in a country with widespread legal slavery.
Puckle gun.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamer
Even though he says he only wanted steak and potatoes, he was aware of all the rapes.
Like Iggy said weapons that didnt exist, there were only 2 puckle guns ever made, they didnt work due to mechanical unreliability and as such were only fired once or twice in their history, the framers of the constitution would have almost certainly never have heard of them
The Following User Says Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
This is false according to the Special Texas Committee findings. This was the school resource officer who was not on site when this started, he spotted a figure at the back of the school, drove right by the actual suspect to a teacher that was behind the school.
The whole thing was a calamity of errors, its worth watching the findings.
56min mark for above.
The Following User Says Thank You to Raekwon For This Useful Post:
“Just as the 1A protects modern forms of communications, and the 4A applies to modern forms of search, the 2A extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”
SCOTUS, DC vs Heller
"2nd amd only applies to muskets" is a silly argument that's unsupported.
If change is to come, it'll have to be through another weapons ban ala Clinton's 1996 ban specifying classes. Said ban had a sunset clause. Otherwise, probably will have to open the constitution and ammend or repeal the 2nd. Which, good luck.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamer
Even though he says he only wanted steak and potatoes, he was aware of all the rapes.
Last edited by 2Stonedbirds; 06-23-2022 at 09:33 AM.
"arms" could mean anything, so the whole thing is bull#### from my point of view.
A medieval lance, M16s, Arab scimitars, thermonuclear ICBMs, bow & arrow, anti-tank weapons, an IED, anit-aircraft weapons etc etc etc. These are all "arms".
So if the US is already regulating the use of certain "arms", they can regulate the rest of the "arms" as well. There is precedent.
They choose not to.
It was also designed to be arms capable of overthrowing the state or an invading state. Nukes and planes are probably more in the spirit of the 2nd amendment then dudes with automatic rifles.
