Latest School Shooting

[Domo]

The Founding Fathers knew full well that there would be improvements in virtually every aspect of life in the future.
Remember, several of them were noted scientists of their day and were constantly striving to improve the human condition through the application of sound scientific practices and advancements in technology..
They worded our Constitution as succinctly as possible so as to allow for future changes in society that they knew would occur as they have since the dawn of civilization.
The argument that we "more sophisticated" today is nonsense.
The only difference between us and them is that we have nicer toys and indoor plumbing is more accessible.
And the term "Militia", at least in my State, means exactly what the State Constitution says.
ALL PERSONS over the age of 17, with the limiting exemptions listed.
One could presume from that wording that the intent of the Framers was to include the entire populace.

By more sophisticated I mean, for example, a P90 versus a semi automatic metal sighted rifle, weapons to their times.

 

[Hikergirl]

No, I am quite happy with my bear spray.
And give that in my over 30 years of camping and hiking in BC I have never encountered a bear it’s not something I am overly concerned about, and just like we know know what to do in a fire or earthquake, we know what to do if we encounter a bear.

But seriously this is your argument for needing a gun? I might encounter a bear?

I have encountered a bear on my property up north, the only thing that scared him away after a bluff charge was the sound of gunfire. He also kept coming back for an entire week, so yes while I have bear spray and now an air horn when I am out there, I do not go in to our woods without dh, and he doesn't go out there without being armed. I certainly never considered being armed out there but after that if I ever have to go out there alone you better believe I'll be carrying.
(I'm not trying to say you need a gun, just sharing my experience with a bear encounter).

 

[Gumbo4x4]

I wish the whole issue wasn't so darn complicated. To further muddy the water, we need to look at context. At the time this amendment was drafted, firearms weren't as sophisticated as they are now. If those who drafted the legislation knew of modern day weapons, would they have changed the language or the delivery? We don't know. It's little things like that that make things all the muddier. And it's very difficult to modernise or repeal a law like this.

Again, that really doesn’t matter, either. The writers of the 1st Amendment couldn’t have envisioned you & I conversing from opposite sides of the ocean with our phones.

And again really, arguments about the 2nd Amendment’s original intent are just a distraction (used by both sides).

The right to keep and bear arms IS an individual right, period. But, it’s also true that said right is not without limitations. So, the whole topic is pretty much moot.

 

[UncleMike101]

By more sophisticated I mean, for example, a P90 versus a semi automatic metal sighted rifle, weapons to their times.

They were well aware that there would be advancements in firearm technology since they had seen the development of the crude match fired hand cannons, that took two stout men to operate, of the thirteen hundreds to the light weight flintlock rifles pistols that could be carried in multiples by one man of their own era.
BTW
The Brown Bess, and copies thereof, wielded by the British and other World wide forces of that era were the "assault weapons" of the day.
They were fast to recharge for muzzle loaders and were one of the primary reasons that armies developed, and utilized to great success, the concept of "Rank Fire".
While one line of men was firing the other lines were reloading and were ready to fire when their lines turn came up.
In effect they pioneered the "wall of lead" concept that is still used today to dissuade the enemy from further attacks.

 

[Domo]

The right to keep and bear arms IS an individual right, period. But, it’s also true that said right is not without limitations. So, the whole topic is pretty much moot.

I would still argue that the language is so hazy that it ISN'T a right as such, more a state of mind.

But that's just me.

As you say, the topic is pretty much moot.

 

[LongLiveRafiki]

I would still argue that the language is so hazy that it ISN'T a right as such, more a state of mind.

But that's just me.

As you say, the topic is pretty much moot.

I'm not sure how the language could be construed as a state of mind rather than a right. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

[LSUmiss]

Calling BS on the fact that someone who can kill multiple innocents for no reason is not mentally ill.

Then you clearly don’t understand the definition of true mental illness. But, let’s say we give them that label for the sake of argument, psycho/sociopaths cannot be treated so better mental health care would not fix this problem.

 

[longboard55]

I think they were basically saying you can not keep a Kings Army, the military represents the people, not just the president. What about promote general welfare, why do we ignore that passage. He have dramatically more people getting killed from guns than any other modern country, how do you justify that

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

But that does matter.
Cars and guns are not comparable.
One society as a whole would struggle to live without a high number of people using them, the other at worst there would be no effect at her we would be safer.

I don’t understand the logic of gun owners who sit here claiming the are responsible owners who want to fight things like mandatory training and passing a competency test, if you are so responsible what are you worried about?

I'm sorry I suppose you misunderstood I said

I'm not engaging in a discussion on what something is designed or not designed for in that respects

I did not say anything pertaining to whatever you said above which admittedly I didn't read past "But that does matter". You are however free to continue in a discussion on that but I simply won't be engaging it that..as I stated earlier.

 

[mummabear]

Maybe we should require all cars have sirens and flashing lights to alert pedestrians of the approaching danger

In fact there is discussion about requiring electric cars to make noise, as it has been shown that their silent nature cause more pedestrian accidents.

I have never personally had an encounter with a school shooter, but I think we should be prepared for it. If I'm in those same woods and see the bear attack, don't worry. I will shoot the bear after he has swatted away your hair spray.

Studies have shown that bear spray is effective in close range encounters 98% of the time-guns would not be 100% either.

And furthermore, even in areas where guns are recommended for safety against polar bears-explain to me how requirements of training and liscencing, background checks, mandatory waiting periods and band on silencers and high capacity magazines would effect the users?

The right to keep and bear arms IS an individual right, period. But, it’s also true that said right is not without limitations. So, the whole topic is pretty much moot.

And that’s the thing, it doesn’t say you can have any sort of weapon.

With respect for the constitution I don’t think a country should go against the wishes of the majority of their people because of a bit of paper written a couple of hundred years ago

 

[Gumbo4x4]

In fact there is discussion about requiring electric cars to make noise, as it has been shown that their silent nature cause more pedestrian accidents.



Studies have shown that bear spray is effective in close range encounters 98% of the time-guns would not be 100% either.

And furthermore, even in areas where guns are recommended for safety against polar bears-explain to me how requirements of training and liscencing, background checks, mandatory waiting periods and band on silencers and high capacity magazines would effect the users?



And that’s the thing, it doesn’t say you can have any sort of weapon.

With respect for the constitution I don’t think a country should go against the wishes of the majority of their people because of a bit of paper written a couple of hundred years ago

With all due respect, the majority of the people would be in favor of MANY things that are unworkable, discriminatory, or just plain bad ideas. So that, in & of itself, is not in any way justification for altering laws.

But no, there is not anything stating one can have “any kind” of weapon. So, that’s the question - where to draw the line, and “why”.

 

[Domo]

But no, there is not anything stating one can have “any kind” of weapon. So, that’s the question - where to draw the line, and “why”.

I can get behind this

 

[Hikergirl]

And furthermore, even in areas where guns are recommended for safety against polar bears-explain to me how requirements of training and liscencing, background checks, mandatory waiting periods and band on silencers and high capacity magazines would effect the users?

Personally, I'd rather the ability to as many rounds as it takes to keep a bear from mauling me, and being in a state of fear my accuracy may be off and I may need more than 10 rounds.

How do those other things help stop school shootings, or are they just feel good regulations?

 

[longboard55]

If we follow Canadas laws they have exceptions, If you are in an area with grizzly bears you could apply to have more than 10. Not sure why you need them in you live in Brooklyn.

Is there a single gun regulation the NRA supporters can come up with to make things safer. Maybe just one idea

 

[Gumbo4x4]

If we follow Canadas laws they have exceptions, If you are in an area with grizzly bears you could apply to have more than 10. Not sure why you need them in you leave in Brooklyn.

Is there a single gun regulation the NRA supporters can come up with to make things safer. Maybe just one idea

I’ve posted this idea many times & I believe most 2nd Amendment supporters would not fight it.

Every American gets a background check at the time their drivers license is renewed. Stamped on the license would be “legal to own firearms” or “prohibited from owning firearms”. Your license would need to be presented for any private party sale. Failure to do so (by either party) would be a violation of law.

This would bring everyone into the fold without actually creating a registration list of owners.

 

[Hikergirl]

If we follow Canadas laws they have exceptions, If you are in an area with grizzly bears you could apply to have more than 10. Not sure why you need them in you leave in Brooklyn.

Is there a single gun regulation the NRA supporters can come up with to make things safer. Maybe just one idea

You do realize that not all gun owners are NRA supporters right, they don't get any of our money. One can be a 2nd Amendment supporter without being tied to the NRA.
In my State high capacity mags are not legal, a change that took effect after Sandy Hook (but I know, NOTHING has changed since then).
I don't have a problem with that, but personally the high cap mag ban is just a feel good measure, a person can easily come prepared with multiple mags filled and pop one out and in in a matter of a second.

 

[Hikergirl]

I’ve posted this idea many times & I believe most 2nd Amendment supporters would not fight it.

Every American gets a background check at the time their drivers license is renewed. Stamped on the license would be “legal to own firearms” or “prohibited from owning firearms”. Your license would need to be presented for any private party sale. Failure to do so (by either party) would be a violation of law.

This would bring everyone into the fold without actually creating a registration list of owners.

I would support that, but our licenses are renewed every 10 years, a lot can happen in that amount of time. That would have to change.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Is there a single gun regulation the NRA supporters can come up with to make things safer.

Is this really the thoughtprocess out there? That people who don't have all cons against guns are just NRA supporters? If so that's really really telling as to why people think the way they do. I can however shed some light. It's not even remotely true BTW.

 

[longboard55]

You do realize that not all gun owners are NRA supporters right, they don't get any of our money.
In my State high capacity mags are not legal, a change that took effect after Sandy Hook (but I know, NOTHING has changed since then).
I don't have a problem with that, but personally the high cap mag ban is just a feel good measure, a person can easily come prepared with multiple mags filled and pop one out and in in a matter of a second.

does that law somehow make life more difficult for you. Is there a reason you would ever need a high capacity mag

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I would support that, but our licenses are renewed every 10 years, a lot can happen in that amount of time. That would have to change.

Yeah ours is 6 years.

I brought that up in a thread a while back that renewing DLs aren't the same for each state so unfortunately while that may appear to be a good idea it would be pretty difficult to force all states to go to one system of renewal dates. The REAL ID certaintly has allowed information to be shared amongst the states but even that isn't compliant in all states.