Lax gun laws prove deadly in the U.S.

[Colpy]

Well if you are in Toronto the police. No one gets to walk around with a gun and not attract attention. That's why smaller hand guns are the choice rather than the old duck gun. A sawed off shotgun will fit under a coat much better than a long gun. So from leaving the house to getting to the spot you've chosen for this shooting spree of yours, you have to get past a lot of police and even the hint of a gun draws a huge cop presence.

What....and the cops didn't go to the grocery store?????

Handguns are convenient to carry, that is their only advantage. A mass shooter is only carrying them to the murder spot.........so he can easily overcome any concealment problem.........just drive there in a car, or put the weapon in a guitar case....or a gym bag........whatever.

there have certainly been too many shootings with long guns.

 

[Unforgiven]

What....and the cops didn't go to the grocery store?????

I have no idea. But walking through the parking lot to the grocery store with a rifle would get you noticed.

Handguns are convenient to carry, that is their only advantage.

You sure don't like the idea that hand guns are easily concealable do you? Not only that but you can easily carry three extra clips along with the gun under a shirt and no one is going to notice until you pull it out. You can walk right up to someone then pull it out and shoot then just like this kid did. What did he have 31 rounds in that clip? What a good idea that was to repeal the regulations on that. That was Bush who did that wasn't it?

A mass shooter is only carrying them to the murder spot.........so he can easily overcome any concealment problem.........just drive there in a car, or put the weapon in a guitar case....or a gym bag........whatever.

there have certainly been too many shootings with long guns.

You mean psychopath don't you? I disagree, if this guy only had hunting rifles he never would have been able to kill and injure that many people.

The US needs to change the 2nd amendment to put a stop to all this carnage and the foolish cries of a minority and their lobby group be damned.

 

[Colpy]

You sure don't like the idea that hand guns are easily concealable do you? Not only that but you can easily carry three extra clips along with the gun under a shirt and no one is going to notice until you pull it out. You can walk right up to someone then pull it out and shoot then just like this kid did. What did he have 31 rounds in that clip? What a good idea that was to repeal the regulations on that. That was Bush who did that wasn't it?



You mean psychopath don't you? I disagree, if this guy only had hunting rifles he never would have been able to kill and injure that many people.

The US needs to change the 2nd amendment to put a stop to all this carnage and the foolish cries of a minority and their lobby group be damned.

Bush did not repeal the regulations, they were brought in with a sunset clause.....and were not renewed.

Good luck repealing the second amendment.

And you might want to pull in your horns on that "minority" thing........

In U.S., Record-Low Support for Stricter Gun Laws

The trend in the USA is for less gun regulation, and has been for several decades.

BTW, in the last 30 years, the US murder rate has dropped 40%.....as gun ownership went up, and laws allowing legal concealed carry went nation wide.

 

[DaSleeper]

After this shooting and others and other in the past...it seems that handgun sales have gone up...especially the Glock.....Hmmm

If I was a conspiracy theorist I would say that the gun manufacturers arranged it all just to boost sales..;-)

Let the stone throwing begin...:lol:

 

[Unforgiven]

Bush did not repeal the regulations, they were brought in with a sunset clause.....and were not renewed.

If they were renewed do you think it would have made a difference in his ability to get a hold of that clip he had?

Good luck repealing the second amendment.

I wonder how many times the fore fathers heard that?

And you might want to pull in your horns on that "minority" thing........

In U.S., Record-Low Support for Stricter Gun Laws

The trend in the USA is for less gun regulation, and has been for several decades.

BTW, in the last 30 years, the US murder rate has dropped 40%.....as gun ownership went up, and laws allowing legal concealed carry went nation wide.

How does your link show what percentage of the population are gun owners? Gun owners are a minority in the US.

 

[Colpy]

If they were renewed do you think it would have made a difference in his ability to get a hold of that clip he had?



I wonder how many times the fore fathers heard that?



How does your link show what percentage of the population are gun owners? Gun owners are a minority in the US.

Well, first of all.....no. Even during the law, "pre-ban" magazines were grandfathered, and allowed. He might have had to pay more for one. Not that it makes any difference......ever use a semi-auto pistol? The gap between last round out of the old mag, and first round of of a fresh mag is about 3 or 4 seconds for me, and I'm not particularly quick.

Or he could have used a shotgun with buckshot. Then the good congresswoman would be dead for sure.

You really should quit trying to blame inanimate objects.

This is what Thomas Jefferson had to say on the subject....

all power is inherent in the people; that they may
exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think
themselves competent, .......... that it is their right
and duty to be at all times armed;

Thomas Jefferson: Letter To Major John Cartwright - Monticello, June 5, 1824

My emphasis.....if the Americans attending the meeting had been doing this particular duty, a lot more people would be unshot today.

Actually, the Philidelpia Conference was promised a Bill of Rights during the ratification process of September, 1787, and it would not have been ratified without that promise............the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) was introduced in 1789 by James Madison..........you can look up his views on gun control.

As for the Gallup poll......well, no offense, but I sometimes wonder if you are being purposely obtuse....

You said:

The US needs to change the 2nd amendment to put a stop to all this carnage and the foolish cries of a minority and their lobby group be damned.​

The poll shows clearly that those that want gun laws toughened are only 44% of the population, and the trend is that number is falling.

The poll shows 43% want no change, and the poll shows 12 percent want less gun restrictions in the USA.

So the ratio for:against tougher gun laws is 44:55.

That is not a minority, it is a clear majority that do NOT want the rules strengthened, and the trend shows the number of those endorsing tougher laws is shrinking.

Whether they own guns or not is irrelevant, and was not mentioned in your post.

 

[DaSleeper]

If someone else in the crowd had been carrying, there might not be a need for a long expensive trial....;-)

 

[ironsides]

Regulating the tool will not correct how it is used. Did anybody hear or read about anyone returning fire?

 

[Akubra]

It is difficult to see how the words of the US's 2nd Amendment guarantees the 'right' for everyone to carry a gun wherever they like.

 

[Bar Sinister]

I note the same tired old arguments defending the out-of-control gun ownership in the US. They are repeated every time that an incident like this occurs and yet these incidents keep on occurring proving again and again that the semi-religious gun culture of the US primarily benefits only two segments of society - those that manufacture arms and ammunition and those that sell the same.

 

[Colpy]

It is difficult to see how the words of the US's 2nd Amendment guarantees the 'right' for everyone to carry a gun wherever they like.

Uh huh....

And exactly what part of the declarative phrase ".....the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." do you not understand?

 

[Unforgiven]

If someone else in the crowd had been carrying, there might not be a need for a long expensive trial....;-)

Who said they weren't?

 

[ironsides]

It is difficult to see how the words of the US's 2nd Amendment guarantees the 'right' for everyone to carry a gun wherever they like.

It doesn't, for example you cannot carry a weapon into a federal, state buildings, you cannot carry a weapon while out drinking with the guys. If you are carrying a weapon, it cannot be seen by other people unless you are at a shooting range. You cannot go around town wearing a gun strapped to your hip like the cowboys of old in most states, then usually when in country.. That is why it is called a concealed carry permit. Just because you can carry a gun there are circumstances you cannot unless you have a need with your job.

 

[Akubra]

Uh huh....

And exactly what part of the declarative phrase ".....the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." do you not understand?

That is a phrase and is not able to stand alone without considering the rest of the sentence.

What the 2nd Amendment really means is:-

"We need an army and anyone will be able to join".

Of course it only means something different now because the American version of English has been warped to give the desired modern meaning.

To "bear arms" does not mean to carry a gun around, to bear arms means to be part of a military force, for example to "bear arms for his country".

It was the practice in British Empire days to prevent locals of colonies and occupied countries joining the British Army or if they did they were in units far from their homes this was to ensure that the army's capacity to exert force on the locals was not compromised. Hence the right to bear arms meant a right to join the milita.

There is also the matter of the 'well regulated milita', according to modern American usage 'regulated' at the time of writing the 2 Amendment meant 'well supplied', which is rather curious as that is not the meaning of regulated as used at the time of the Romans which incidently is the same meaning as it has now.

The modern interpretation, and the selection of the single phrase, is a deliberate distortion of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

So Colpy which bit of that do you not understand?

 

[Colpy]

That is a phrase and is not able to stand alone without considering the rest of the sentence.

What the 2nd Amendment really means is:-

"We need an army and anyone will be able to join".

Of course it only means something different now because the American version of English has been warped to give the desired modern meaning.

To "bear arms" does not mean to carry a gun around, to bear arms means to be part of a military force, for example to "bear arms for his country".

It was the practice in British Empire days to prevent locals of colonies and occupied countries joining the British Army or if they did they were in units far from their homes this was to ensure that the army's capacity to exert force on the locals was not compromised. Hence the right to bear arms meant a right to join the milita.

There is also the matter of the 'well regulated milita', according to modern American usage 'regulated' at the time of writing the 2 Amendment meant 'well supplied', which is rather curious as that is not the meaning of regulated as used at the time of the Romans which incidently is the same meaning as it has now.

The modern interpretation, and the selection of the single phrase, is a deliberate distortion of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

So Colpy which bit of that do you not understand?

It never ceases to amaze me how the anti-gunners can twist and turn plain English to their own ends....

The military, the army is a tool of state power. The Bill of Rights is a document that outlines the rights of the People in the face of state power. It is obvious then, that the Second Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, is NOT intended to further state power, but to limit it, as every other amendment does. And it limits state power by recognizing the pre-existing "right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms"

You obviously have no grip on history whatsoever. Please avoid pulling things out of your arse to justify your historical fantasies.

Bear arms means EXACTLY "carry a gun around" lol....you are at least amusing! When you bear arms in service to your country, you carry weapons in service of your country.....when you bear arms as a private citizen, you simply carry weapons for whatever purpose...military service has NOTHING to do with it.

"Regulated", btw, means "trained" in the language of the day. And militia, by the definition of the US Code, is EVERY male between the ages of 17 and 45. So even that argument fails.......

And read a little about the men that set up the Bill of Rights........you will find it is based on the 1689 Bill of Rights which recognizes the ancient right of free men to "keep arms for their defense"......and that, as the Supreme Court of the United States has FINALLY recognized, is an individual right.

That exists with or without the documentation of man-made constitutions.

What I do know, after a lifetime of interest in history in general, and firearms rights in particular, is that you don't have the slightest clue about the subject you are debating. Not the slightest.

Oh, and in case you are still on about the " deliberate distortion of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.", here is what the people responsible for writing and presenting it had to say:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
-- Thomas Jefferson

The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- The Federalist, No. 46
- James Madison

"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens." -- The Federalist, No. 29
- Alexander Hamilton

"[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."

- Thomas Paine

I hope you're getting the point......

 

[Akubra]

It never ceases to amaze me how the anti-gunners can twist and turn plain English to their own ends....

My BS meter just went into the danger zone.

The military, the army is a tool of state power. The Bill of Rights is a document that outlines the rights of the People in the face of state power. It is obvious then, that the Second Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, is NOT intended to further state power, but to limit it, as every other amendment does. And it limits state power by recognizing the pre-existing "right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms"

Brilliant, the 2 Amendment is about the need for a defensive army which represents the people and the right for everyone to join. In other words it gives the people the right to NOT be over ruled by an army that does not represent them.

You obviously have no grip on history whatsoever. Please avoid pulling things out of your arse to justify your historical fantasies.

Ignored...

Bear arms means EXACTLY "carry a gun around" lol....you are at least amusing! When you bear arms in service to your country, you carry weapons in service of your country.....when you bear arms as a private citizen, you simply carry weapons for whatever purpose...military service has NOTHING to do with it.

More BS, the sentence being discussed is all about the need for a military.

"Regulated", btw, means "trained" in the language of the day.

Only in the minds of 2nd Amendment distortionists. The ancient meaning was to control according to rules or restrictions. This was the ancient meaning and it is the modern meaning. To claim that in the 2nd Amendment, and only in the 2nd Amendment, it has another meaning is surely ludicrous.

And militia, by the definition of the US Code, is EVERY male between the ages of 17 and 45. So even that argument fails.......

And read a little about the men that set up the Bill of Rights........you will find it is based on the 1689 Bill of Rights which recognizes the ancient right of free men to "keep arms for their defense"......and that, as the Supreme Court of the United States has FINALLY recognized, is an individual right.

Yes, "FINALLY", it has taken a couple of centuries for this particular load of BS to take hold.

What I do know, after a lifetime of interest in history in general, and firearms rights in particular, is that you don't have the slightest clue about the subject you are debating. Not the slightest.

Apparently you have spent your life trying to convince yourself that a certain phrase is more than the sentence it comes from .

Gun rights advocates have created a religion for themselves and like most religions the adherants are required to accept illogical concepts as items of faith and just like many other religions they have their sacred founding document which is interpreted not by the layman but by the high priests who hand down the official interpretations.

No one can argue logic with a gun fondler who has swallowed the gun rights communion wine any more than one could argue evolution, rights of women, reincarnation or even sanctity of cows with adherants of various other modern day religions.

 

[petros]

Here is something to ponder. Do you think people should be screened for mental stability when purchasing a weapon? Would you want your mental health assessment kept on file by the Feds? Where do you draw the lines of qualification? Would you be approved for a possession permit the day after a divorce or after a fight with a neighbour where a complaint was filed with the cops? Just how deep would they have to dig to label you as safe?

 

[Colpy]

My BS meter just went into the danger zone.




Brilliant, the 2 Amendment is about the need for a defensive army which represents the people and the right for everyone to join. In other words it gives the people the right to NOT be over ruled by an army that does not represent them.



Ignored...


More BS, the sentence being discussed is all about the need for a military.


Only in the minds of 2nd Amendment distortionists. The ancient meaning was to control according to rules or restrictions. This was the ancient meaning and it is the modern meaning. To claim that in the 2nd Amendment, and only in the 2nd Amendment, it has another meaning is surely ludicrous.

And militia, by the definition of the US Code, is EVERY male between the ages of 17 and 45. So even that argument fails.......


Yes, "FINALLY", it has taken a couple of centuries for this particular load of BS to take hold.



Apparently you have spent your life trying to convince yourself that a certain phrase is more than the sentence it comes from .

Gun rights advocates have created a religion for themselves and like most religions the adherants are required to accept illogical concepts as items of faith and just like many other religions they have their sacred founding document which is interpreted not by the layman but by the high priests who hand down the official interpretations.

No one can argue logic with a gun fondler who has swallowed the gun rights communion wine any more than one could argue evolution, rights of women, reincarnation or even sanctity of cows with adherants of various other modern day religions.

Once again proving you have no idea what you are talking about.

I actually have some education on the subject, and understand the requirements for something to be accepted as historically valid, having worked for a time as a history researcher at the local university.

You don't have a clue.

I notice you have refused to address the quotes I left you......why is that?
They prove my point? The men that influenced the writing of the Bill of Rights, the men that wrote it, should, I think, understand its intended meaning more than you....or I.

What they say is clear.

Every good citizen in the United States enjoys the right to own weapons roughly equivalent to those carried as personal arms by the nation's soldiers, and has the right to bear arms in defense of his person, and his liberty.

And no amount of idiotic rationalizations, omissions, or outright lies on the part of the enemies of that liberty will change that fact.

 

[petros]

Every good citizen in the United States enjoys the right to own weapons roughly equivalent to those carried as personal arms by the nation's soldiers, and has the right to bear arms in defense of his person, and his liberty.

The right to possess a weapon may be a right but laws on how and when you use them are all left up to individual states. If using a document such as Constitution and the second amendment then the laws that give rights to the states that supersede anything federal should be upheld at the same time

 

[Unforgiven]

My BS meter just went into the danger zone.




Brilliant, the 2 Amendment is about the need for a defensive army which represents the people and the right for everyone to join. In other words it gives the people the right to NOT be over ruled by an army that does not represent them.



Ignored...


More BS, the sentence being discussed is all about the need for a military.


Only in the minds of 2nd Amendment distortionists. The ancient meaning was to control according to rules or restrictions. This was the ancient meaning and it is the modern meaning. To claim that in the 2nd Amendment, and only in the 2nd Amendment, it has another meaning is surely ludicrous.

And militia, by the definition of the US Code, is EVERY male between the ages of 17 and 45. So even that argument fails.......


Yes, "FINALLY", it has taken a couple of centuries for this particular load of BS to take hold.



Apparently you have spent your life trying to convince yourself that a certain phrase is more than the sentence it comes from .

Gun rights advocates have created a religion for themselves and like most religions the adherants are required to accept illogical concepts as items of faith and just like many other religions they have their sacred founding document which is interpreted not by the layman but by the high priests who hand down the official interpretations.

No one can argue logic with a gun fondler who has swallowed the gun rights communion wine any more than one could argue evolution, rights of women, reincarnation or even sanctity of cows with adherants of various other modern day religions.

Simpson eh? I like the cut of his jib.