Ongoing US Mass Shooting Thread

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

But why are you so against at least trying what other countries are already doing with genuinly successful results?

Because as I've stated to you numerous times:

The US doesn't have the money to commit to the worlds largest buyback program.

Criminals don't care about your buyback program and will not give up their firearms.

The US has a constitutionally protected right to own firearms, the countries you bring up as successes (debatable btw) do not.

You are on board with revoking rights of Americans. Prepare to feel public resistance and non-compliance.

So why are you against objectively viewing these obstacles and trying to find a resolve through other avenues other than just a useless blanket ban?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Because as I've stated to you numerous times:

The US doesn't have the money to commit to the worlds largest buyback program.

Criminals don't care about your buyback program and will not give up their firearms.

The US has a constitutionally protected right to own firearms, the countries you bring up as successes (debatable btw) do not.

You are on board with revoking rights of Americans. Prepare to feel public resistance and non-compliance.

So why are you against objectively viewing these obstacles and trying to find a resolve through other avenues other than just a useless blanket ban?

Which is an amendment. Which can be changed. The 2nd amendment isn't some god given law that can never be modified for as long as the US exists.

Just because they haven't done these things, doesn't mean they can't.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by nik-

Which is an amendment. Which can be changed.

Just because they haven't done these things, doesn't mean they can't.

I've stated more times in this thread than I care to go back and count, that if you want to change the laws and ban firearms in the manner that some people are advocating for...

Go and amend the constitution!

[Coach]

nevermind

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by MattyC

nevermind

Sadly, that appears to be the only response on this topic.


I completely believe that the US will continue to shoot itself to death. There will be no change.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Because as I've stated to you numerous times:

The US doesn't have the money to commit to the worlds largest buyback program.

Criminals don't care about your buyback program and will not give up their firearms.

The US has a constitutionally protected right to own firearms, the countries you bring up as successes (debatable btw) do not.

You are on board with revoking rights of Americans. Prepare to feel public resistance and non-compliance.

So why are you against objectively viewing these obstacles and trying to find a resolve through other avenues other than just a useless blanket ban?

Point #1 - Yes, they have constitutionally protected rights. Guess what? You used to have the right to own slaves. That was amended. Laws become outdated, and something that was relevant before can become silly in today's world. The right to own guns needs to be amended since America has demonstrated time and again they can't handle them.

Point #2 - I do not feel sorry for the white Americans in suburbia who will have their rights violated with a new law. There is no compelling argument to have guns so easily accessible. Like I've said before, guns are very easy to get a hold of in America because of the laws that currently exist. I would bet anything that the Aurora shooter or Sandy Hood shooter would not have been able to acquire the weapons they had if the USA has gun laws identical to Canada's.

Point #3 - Anything short of sweeping changes of gun laws nation-wide will be ineffective. With less guns in the nation, and the erasing the very easy way of acquiring guns, criminals will feel the effects. The prices of dangerous weapons will increase to price levels that will necessarily reduce gun violence levels.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

I've stated more times in this thread than I care to go back and count, that if you want to change the laws and ban firearms in the manner that some people are advocating for...

Go and amend the constitution!

I think that's what a lot of people are advocating for.

There's just too much money behind the gun crazed nut lobby for it to ever happen.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by nik-

I think that's what a lot of people are advocating for.

There's just too much money behind the gun crazed nut lobby for it to ever happen.

Well, better get a bigger anti gun lobby group then?

[nik-]

Yeah, more lobbying is the solution.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Point #1 - Yes, they have constitutionally protected rights. Guess what? You used to have the right to own slaves. That was amended. Laws become outdated, and something that was relevant before can become silly in today's world. The right to own guns needs to be amended since America has demonstrated time and again they can't handle them.

The right to free speech is also outdated. We now live in a world with instantaneous communication, terrorists that bomb places when we say things they don't like, and on and on. When the constitution was written surely the founders were only talking about using Old English, and certainly no freedom of speech online.

Sarcasm aside, once again, go amend the Constitution.

Point #2 - I do not feel sorry for the white Americans in suburbia who will have their rights violated with a new law. There is no compelling argument to have guns so easily accessible. Like I've said before, guns are very easy to get a hold of in America because of the laws that currently exist. I would bet anything that the Aurora shooter or Sandy Hood shooter would not have been able to acquire the weapons they had if the USA has gun laws identical to Canada's.

What about African Americans? Latinos? Asians? What a load of crap.

California has stricter gun control measures than Canada yet they have much higher gun crime rates. I can just as easily say that 'I'd be willing to bet if the US did away with gun free zones and allowed those with legal CCW to carry those shootings would never have happened'.

Point #3 - Anything short of sweeping changes of gun laws nation-wide will be ineffective. With less guns in the nation, and the erasing the very easy way of acquiring guns, criminals will feel the effects. The prices of dangerous weapons will increase to price levels that will necessarily reduce gun violence levels.

So go amend the Constitution. We have beaten this topic to death.

[2Stonedbirds]

...and you still refuse to address the point about the billions and billions it will take to implement a buyback program, and the issue of non compliance in a country where 350+ million firearms exist.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

The right to free speech is also outdated. We now live in a world with instantaneous communication, terrorists that bomb places when we say things they don't like, and on and on. When the constitution was written surely the founders were only talking about using Old English, and certainly no freedom of speech online.

Sarcasm aside, once again, go amend the Constitution.



What about African Americans? Latinos? Asians? What a load of crap.

California has stricter gun control measures than Canada yet they have much higher gun crime rates. I can just as easily say that 'I'd be willing to bet if the US did away with gun free zones and allowed those with legal CCW to carry those shootings would never have happened'.



So go amend the Constitution. We have beaten this topic to death.

What an absolute bull#### post.

Freedom of speech is not outdated whatsoever. Say whatever the hell you want. That doesn't mean certain things don't have consequences.

The vast majority of guns are owned by white people.

As I said before, sweeping NATION-WIDE laws need to be enacted to be effective. I can drive to AZ or NV and buy an AR-15 for $800 (http://phoenix.backpage.com/SportsEq...ar-15/34060135) from a private citizen. I can buy a 9mm glock for $550 (http://phoenix.backpage.com/SportsEq...azine/34681229) and easily bring them back to CA and do damage.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

What an absolute bull#### post.

Freedom of speech is not outdated whatsoever. Say whatever the hell you want. That doesn't mean certain things don't have consequences.

But, its been said numberous times in this thread that the constitution is outdated, and when the founding fathers drafted it they were only talking about muskets, right? (even though the document says arms as the founding fathers knew technology doesn't stand still) So surely they must have only been referring to freedom of speech so long as it's done in Old English and with a medium that was available at the time? By mouth, the odd news print, and oh I dont know... carrier pigeons? Those terrorists would have never taken out the Charlie Hebdo offices if they would just ban that sort of stuff. Right?

The vast majority of guns are owned by white people.

Well if more guns equals more crime, as if it's some sort of linear rate, how come African Americans commit the most gun crime?

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...e-data-table-1

Wouldn't be... oh I don't know, social issues driving those rates?

As I said before, sweeping NATION-WIDE laws need to be enacted to be effective. I can drive to AZ or NV and buy an AR-15 for $800 (http://phoenix.backpage.com/SportsEq...ar-15/34060135) from a private citizen. I can buy a 9mm glock for $550 (http://phoenix.backpage.com/SportsEq...azine/34681229) and easily bring them back to CA and do damage.

But doing that would already violate existing laws. So if people do that, then again quit sidestepping my question and tell me why people would hand over their arms when apparently they are so willing to break the laws as it is now?

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

But, its been said numberous times in this thread that the constitution is outdated, and when the founding fathers drafted it they were only talking about muskets, right? (even though the document says arms as the founding fathers knew technology doesn't stand still) So surely they must have only been referring to freedom of speech so long as it's done in Old English and with a medium that was available at the time? By mouth, the odd news print, and oh I dont know... carrier pigeons? Those terrorists would have never taken out the Charlie Hebdo offices if they would just ban that sort of stuff. Right?



Well if more guns equals more crime, as if it's some sort of linear rate, how come African Americans commit the most gun crime?

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...e-data-table-1

Wouldn't be... oh I don't know, social issues driving those rates?



But doing that would already violate existing laws. So if people do that, then again quit sidestepping my question and tell me why people would hand over their arms when apparently they are so willing to break the laws as it is now?

I just can't even. At the risk of sounding like an a-hole, you have been brainwashed by the NRA and other gun lobby sheep. You refuse to use your own mind.

I refuse to be swayed by either rightwing or leftwing media/ideology. I like guns, and I think owning them is very useful. I like exotic guns too. In a perfect world, I love to blow off steam by setting off 10,000 rounds on a 50 cal machine gun on the weekends in my backyard. My favorite gun is the Stg. 44. I'd love to own one of those. I am partial to Lugers as well, they just look so damn awesome. What can I say? German technology tickles my fancy. I've held a real soviet made AK-47, fully auto version in the old country during wartime. I'm not much of a shot gun guy though.

Having said all that, I believe I have a unique view of things. I grew up around hunting guns in Canada. Living in the US as a Canadian pro-gun man, I can unequivocally say that things need to drastically change, as per all my arguments. Folks here worship their guns. A cultural shift needs to happen on a fundamental level, much like the tobacco attitude has changed. The money exists to enact change. Political will power doesn't.

There is no getting through to you, so I'll just let you be from now on. I'm not conceding defeat - just accepting that you are part of a minority that refuses to admit what needs to happen.

[Looch City]

There is nothing wrong with the US.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

But, its been said numberous times in this thread that the constitution is outdated, and when the founding fathers drafted it they were only talking about muskets, right? (even though the document says arms as the founding fathers knew technology doesn't stand still) So surely they must have only been referring to freedom of speech so long as it's done in Old English and with a medium that was available at the time? By mouth, the odd news print, and oh I dont know... carrier pigeons? Those terrorists would have never taken out the Charlie Hebdo offices if they would just ban that sort of stuff. Right?

Really? The founding fathers were able to foresee the advent of automatic weapons capable of doing damage that whole battalions couldn't do in their time? Missiles? Tanks? Jets? Nukes? All foreseen and accounted for by the Constitution's authors?

the Constitution IS outdated and has been amended many times to keep up with changing social ideals including slavery, civil rights, women's suffrage, etc.. Why not guns? What is so bullet-proof about the 2nd Amendment versus any other part? Forgetting the fact that it is being GROSSLY misinterpreted.

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Because as I've stated to you numerous times:

The US doesn't have the money to commit to the worlds largest buyback program.

Criminals don't care about your buyback program and will not give up their firearms.

The US has a constitutionally protected right to own firearms, the countries you bring up as successes (debatable btw) do not.

You are on board with revoking rights of Americans. Prepare to feel public resistance and non-compliance.

So why are you against objectively viewing these obstacles and trying to find a resolve through other avenues other than just a useless blanket ban?

......... In a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. Gun nuts always skip over that part.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

......... In a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. Gun nuts always skip over that part.

Go tell that to the Supreme Court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distri...mbia_v._Heller

Hoplophobes always skip over the part where states have defined the militia as able bodied individuals between certain ages.

They also have glossed over the federalist papers where it's laid out very plainly that the right for individuals to own arms. That the militia is made up of separate parts; police, national guard, and the able bodied individual.

[CaptainCrunch]

I very much doubt that there will ever be a change to the 2nd amendment because of the monetary costs to the lobby groups who are supported by the manufacturers.

Right now these lobby groups are intertwinned hand in hand in the political process, they have hand picked candidates who will protect the so called right to bear arms.

On top of that, I doubt that an amendment wouldn't be challenged and stayed by the supreme court.

As well, you would have to completely change the laws that involve guns and gun ownership, you would have to change the laws concerning the use of guns in terms of self defense.

As well, if you introduced a version of gun prohibition, you would create a vast underground black market for firearms .

I'm as anti gun as the next person, I think the vast majority of gun owners that I've met have been clueless when it comes to things like why do you need a assualt rifle, and gun safety.

But its a lot harder then just changing or striking the second ammendment.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Really? The founding fathers were able to foresee the advent of automatic weapons capable of doing damage that whole battalions couldn't do in their time? Missiles? Tanks? Jets? Nukes? All foreseen and accounted for by the Constitution's authors?

Where did I say that? The founding fathers, being that most of them were inventors themselves, knew it wouldn't be ball and powder and smoothbores forever. Did they use a crystal ball to foresee what we have today? Of course not, which is why the term "arms" is very important.

I'm trying to find the quote, but James Madison when pressed to define the term arms stated as it being anything one man can carry and operate. So the ridiculous arguments of "I want a nuke, I want a MIG" can be tossed aside for the garbage that they are. Especially since gang bangers are not killing each other at a rate of 75% of all firearm deaths with fighter jets or nuclear weapons.

the Constitution IS outdated and has been amended many times to keep up with changing social ideals including slavery, civil rights, women's suffrage, etc.. Why not guns? What is so bullet-proof about the 2nd Amendment versus any other part? Forgetting the fact that it is being GROSSLY misinterpreted.

How should it be interpreted? Once society moved against those ideals, amendments were made and the constitution changed. So again, that's whats going to have too happen. It's at the heart of any movement to control or limit arms so that's where the US is going to have to start if they want a blanket ban such as those proposed.