Report of Oregon college shooting...

[CPanther95]

I'm not sure I saw how... I mean, the threats from abroad aren't a threat to your borders (ISIS, Syria) and home grown the threat isn't really neutered by gun ownership, as demonstrated by a continuing spate of gun crime?

250 million privately owned guns is a heck of a deterrent to a tyrannical leader looking to become a dictator - or even to a military leader looking towards a coup.

Remove guns from anyone except our government and their agencies, and we have no means to preserve our democracy if it is threatened.

 

[Domo]

That's interesting considering drugs kill more people in our country than guns.

Oh and here, big time. But then again we have few guns.

Just to make a side note, I'm an avid shooter and own my own match LSR. I find the security measures most satisfying and reassuring and would recommend them to anyone

I think as such I'm gonna bow out of this thread. It's no mystery that I feel strongly about controlling guns and I'm not about to have my mind changed by a bunch of posters on the internet and all I can do is cause more friction which the mods will not thank me for. I just prey that there are no more mass killings like this in the future. RIP the deceased.

 

[pat fan]

So, I'm no constitution expert, but I recently heard that for about 200 years, the Second Amendment was actually interpreted to be about well-organized militias protecting the citizenry from tyranny and not about individuals.

The militias WERE individual citizens. Population then is not what it is now. Mostly small communities, farming communities, and it was up them to be armed and trained (to the best of their abilities) so they could defend themselves and their country. It wasn't a militia like all they did was serve in a unit and not live/work at home. Think modern volunteer fireman or EMT's. You have a job, a family, a home. You pay no attention to anything until there's an acident or fire, then you have to grab your bag/gear and go. Same thing for the militia's, or Minutemen. Had to be ready in a minute

 

[IndyRnRfan]

Oh and here, big time. But then again we have few guns.

Just to make a side note, I'm an avid shooter and own my own match LSR. I find the security measures most satisfying and reassuring and would recommend them to anyone

I think as such I'm gonna bow out of this thread. It's no mystery that I feel strongly about controlling guns and I'm not about to have my mind changed by a bunch of posters on the internet and all I can do is cause more friction which the mods will not thank me for. I just prey that there are no more mass killings like this in the future. RIP the deceased.

Don't get me wrong, I own guns and feel it is necessary but I also feel the correct measures should be taken to prevent those that shouldn't have them be taken rather than passing useless hm laws that only hurt the law abiding citizen.

Everyone thought the assault weapons ban was great when enacted and when it was allowed to expire the gun advocates thought all hell was going to break loose. Gun violence actually decreased after a law that was suppose to reduce gun violence expired.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

So, I'm no constitution expert, but I recently heard that for about 200 years, the Second Amendment was actually interpreted to be about well-organized militias protecting the citizenry from tyranny and not about individuals. In fact, some believe that the Second Amendment was the Founding Fathers' version of gun control, otherwise, why have it. It was only in 2008 that Judge Antonin Scalia made a ruling of it being an "individual" thing. Hmmmmm.... wonder why?

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-second-amendment-is-a-gun-control-amendment

Anyway, the above source is not where I got that information as I don't generally read the New Yorker, but it does explain something that I heard a few days ago about this and had no clue about. I didn't realize that for a LOOONNNNGGG time, the viewpoint about gun ownership was not ruled toward individuals. Methinks, this is another "money" issue much like Citizens United. Sad...sad....sad.

Nope. It was always a right of "the people", just as printed. We don't need a judge to rule that; any 3rd grade English teacher who can diagram a sentence can tell you that. It's only been in the past few decades that the anti-gun contingent questioned the individual right. And it's only been very recently that it came to court.

But think about it, is there anything in any of the other 10 original amendments that would lead you to believe the intent is to grant power TO the federal government? Everything in the Bill of Rights is about limiting federal authority. Why would this one amendment be the exception?

 

[TLSnell1981]

It is curious we have learned so little about the mother.


http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-co...ooters-troubled-childhood-southern-california

There's all kinds of info out there. It's just not being reported.

I can't say anything about them without receiving points, but just know I am talking about it IRL and other places.

I don't know what to say. It's a bit confusing and discomforting. I try hard to adhere the guidelines, but it's difficult to DIScuss certain topics, such as these murders. It almost seems disrespectful to the victims. IMO

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Here's my problem with a particular type of weapon holding: concealed firearms. Obviously if it's concealed, you can't target practice with it, at least not as well as you could with a match rifle. You can't really hunt with it. All you can do is hurt people with it and fund the undertaker. And it's no deterrent because no-one knows you have it. As for protection, if a miscreant pulls a gun on you and pulls the trigger, you won't have time to react by pulling out your own weapon, unlock the safety catch and return fire. So why have a concealed firearm? Just doesn't make sense to me.

And yet, the more common concealed carry has become, the more homicides have dropped. Things don't always work out the way one would logically assume.

 

[CdnCarrie]

250 million privately owned guns is a heck of a deterrent to a tyrannical leader looking to become a dictator - or even to a military leader looking towards a coup.

Remove guns from anyone except our government and their agencies, and we have no means to preserve our democracy if it is threatened.

I think this is one big difference between the USA and many other countries - the mass paranoia and fear of their government. I don't really understand why you would stay living somewhere that you are scared of the government.
And how would guns beat tanks and bombs any how?

 

[pat fan]

I think this is one big difference between the USA and many other countries - the mass paranoia and fear of their government. I don't really understand why you would stay living somewhere that you are scared of the government.
And how would guns beat tanks and bombs any how?

We are here because we overthrew a tyrannical government. Our country is not that old. We haven't forgotten

 

[CdnCarrie]

We are here because we overthrew a tyrannical government. Our country is not that old. We haven't forgotten

That's a pathetic way to live especially since that "tyrannical government" is now of your best allies and biggest trading partners. Heck that same "tyrannical government" is pictured on the coins I paid for my morning coffee with this morning and on the foyer of my kids' school. Oooo I'm so scared of them I need to pack heat regardless of the fact that school kids are getting murdered.
What a ridiculous sentiment.

 

[Dentam]

And how would guns beat tanks and bombs any how?

Excellent question. I don't think the majority fear the government, but there are definitely some crazies who are stockpiling weapons and training for combat situations who are either convinced that the end of the world is near or that the government will be coming for them.

 

[pat fan]

That's a pathetic way to live especially since that "tyrannical government" is now of your best allies and biggest trading partners. Heck that same "tyrannical government" is pictured on the coins I paid for my morning coffee with this morning and on the foyer of my kids' school. Oooo I'm so scared of them I need to pack heat regardless of the fact that school kids are getting murdered.
What a ridiculous sentiment.

It was kind of tongue in cheek, hence the smiley. Relax.

 

[CdnCarrie]

It was kind of tongue in cheek, hence the smiley. Relax.

Sorry didn't get that. BUT I do think the fear of government in the USA is a huge factor in this gun violence. You (as in the citizens) seem to spread it and promote it. It's odd, weird, bizarre and confusing.

 

[CPanther95]

I think this is one big difference between the USA and many other countries - the mass paranoia and fear of their government. I don't really understand why you would stay living somewhere that you are scared of the government.
And how would guns beat tanks and bombs any how?

An armed populace isn't there because they fear the government or our democratic republic - it's there to preserve it. If you find you are living in a country where you fear your own government, it's too late.

Tanks and bombs alone can't take and hold our country. Didn't you see 'Red Dawn'?

 

[Unas]

Nope. It was always a right of "the people", just as printed. We don't need a judge to rule that; any 3rd grade English teacher who can diagram a sentence can tell you that. It's only been in the past few decades that the anti-gun contingent questioned the individual right. And it's only been very recently that it came to court.

But think about it, is there anything in any of the other 10 original amendments that would lead you to believe the intent is to grant power TO the federal government? Everything in the Bill of Rights is about limiting federal authority. Why would this one amendment be the exception?

Nope, not accurate. 1939 in US v Miller court held that sawed of shotguns were illegal reasoning that sort of weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated Militia.” Not until DC v Heller in 2008 did the court hold that the Second Amendment protects a civilian’s right to keep a handgun in his home for purposes of self-defense.

 

[pat fan]

Sorry didn't get that. BUT I do think the fear of government in the USA is a huge factor in this gun violence. You (as in the citizens) seem to spread it and promote it. It's odd, weird, bizarre and confusing.

I respectfully disagree. Most gun crimes (not mass shootings) are drug/crime related.

Mass shootings have what in common? Mind altering drugs. We have a drug problem. A family breakdown problem. A non-valuing of human life problem. Not a gun problem.

Family breakdown. If the mom had a bit of sense, he wouldn't have been around guns. I suppose if she wanted them she could keep them in a safe as long as didn't know the combination. But she didn't. There's the problem. Too many people not being responsible.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Nope, not accurate. 1939 in US v Miller court held that sawed of shotguns were illegal reasoning that sort of weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated Militia.” Not until DC v Heller in 2008 did the court hold that the Second Amendment protects a civilian’s right to keep a handgun in his home for purposes of self-defense.

But, the question of individual right wasn't ruled upon in that prior case. And there's scores of evidence that the founders intended the 2nd Amendment to be an individual right - just like the 1st. Do we really think the term "the people" means one thing in the 1st and some other thing in the 2nd?

 

[Dentam]

http://www.people.com/article/school-shooting-plot-stopped-in-california

And yet another school shooting already being planned. This one was stopped by fellow students being proactive and alerting authorities about the suspicious behavior of these four students who were plotting the shooting.

This problem is not going away. It's become the go-to plan of way too many mentally unstable young adults.

 

[pat fan]

This problem is not going away. It's become the go-to plan of way too many mentally unstable young adults.

They have no future, no hope, not all but a lot have no good family foundation...what have they got to lose? Nothing. To gain? Fame.

 

[Dentam]

They have no future, no hope, not all but a lot have no good family foundation...what have they got to lose? Nothing. To gain? Fame.

Exactly. Which is why the media needs to keep all of them anonymous. No fame to gain - maybe it'll take some of the appeal out of it.