US: 30 shot at school, China: 22 knifed at school

my comment was more with his blaming the government through public schools for this.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

One correction. There was that shooting at monash and I remember asking a friend from here who was Navy trained and was supposed to be in that class what he would have done considering his combat training. His comment was hide under a table until the guy left, leave it for the cops to deal with and that's from a trained solder

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

and the right wing has a history of activist judges because as written their is nothing in the 2nd amendment that comes close to saying that

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Have you ever read the First Second Amendment? "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" The SCOTUS interpreted that as an affirmation of an individual right. Crying "activist judges" every time there is a ruling you don't like gets old fast. That's the law of the land, and the odds of a different interpretation in the next century are quite low. A constitutional amendment overturning the Second Amendment is probably more likely.

 

why yes in fact i have read the first amendment and it says nothing about guns. first off I almost never cry activist judges that what right wingers do not lefties like myself. also punctation matters. where the commas are makes the part about the right of the people makes it a modifier not the primary idea. as in it is linked to militias.



first amendment

 

All that then happens is the people who want to commit murder go off and work for the State. Probably not to many of these incidences occurred under Saddam's rule (as an example), but the Gods help you should one of his sons like your daughter or hate your son. or one of the muderous thugs find you interesting.

No. More State is not the answer.

Now that the State has facilitated the destruction of family and undercut the social supports normally found in well functioning communities. Now that medicine has replaced parenting (who needs love when you can have an SSRI?) There has never been a more urgent time than now for when we need to reduce the role of public institutions and return to private communoity based society.

I'd suggest starting with parenting that does not involve hitting children, sending them to be supervised from age two (actually day supervision facilities will 'help' mothers now by taking children in as young as eight weeks - maybe even younger) forcing children into the gulags that has become government education and treating them with love. Do that, and you'll see a reduction in both State and private violent crime.

 

God forbid I should take issue with the SCOTUS, but I see nothing in "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" having anything to do with an individual. IOW, the people as a body have the right to keep and bear arms, as justified by their needing to maintain a well regulated state militia. Why even mention the militia if they didn't mean it for that exclusive purpose?

 

Why mention the right of the people to keep and bear arms if they didn't mean it for that purpose? What do you think these eighteenth century men meant by the word "militia"? The debate over the meaning of the Second Amendment (whether it was meant to be collective, or individual) has lasted for many years, but the SCOTUS ended it. It's a dead issue. It's no different from right wingers getting angry that burning the US flag has been ruled as being protected by the First Amendment. The solution to both is the same, another constitutional amendment.

 

The statement is clear. The people shall have the right to bear arms in order to maintain a regulated state militia. Seeing we do not maintain militias like that anymore, the question becomes: for what purpose do the people need to keep and bear arms? None that I can see. Unless you're some paranoid a-hole living out in the sticks who can't manage to get along with his neighbors.

 

The second amendment doesn't really make that much sense under the current form of government. Abraham Lincole destroyed the voluntary Union leaving us with what we have now. When the second amendment was written the Union was still voluntary and was seen as such.

 

Yes, that's the only possible reason to own a firearm, and not at all a strawman.

 

Well, as you already point out, it's all rather pointless to complain about it anyway. It's the law of the land now and doesn't stand much chance of being changed any time soon. If I'm not mistaken though the 2008 SCOTUS decision DID allow for restrictions on the ownwership of firearms. Could we at least concur that there should be a ban on military-style assault weapons?

 

Did you even see my earlier post? California still has such a ban and it has accomplished next to nothing. About the only benefit CA vs. CT would be that the assailant would have to swap magazines more often, as we are restricted to ten round magazines here.

Would this weapon be banned?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It fires the same ammo, and is semi automatic. But it isn't black and scary. But it is just as deadly. This has been the (unintended) result of every assault weapons ban that I'm aware of. True assault rifles are select fire, and are very already strictly regulated.

 

You know they won't be. The First Amendment covers some pretty repulsive stuff. I think Michael Moore had had the best response to them.

 

What about AR 15s? I don't study guns like you apparently do cause frankly the subject bores the hell outta me. But why not ban ALL semi-automatics? Is there some special purpose to having these besides taking out the maximum number of people in the least amount of time?

 

The overwhelming majority of hunting rifles and shotguns are semi automatic, so there would be a very large number of hunters very much opposed to that idea. The rifle I posted above fires the same round as an AR-15, and is also semi automatic; because AWBs have focused on the cosmetic features that make certain rifles look very similar to their military counterparts, the above rifle would still be legal (although in California, it would be restricted to a ten round magazine). As far as preventing another massacre, a high capacity pump action twelve gauge shotgun could conceivably do as much damage as was just done with the Bushmaster. Maybe even more.

If people want to try and ban semi auto weapons at the federal level, they are more than welcome to. But many, many hunters and other gun enthusiasts would be very opposed to such a ban, so I don't think it would be politically possible

 

I really don't think the homicidally insane like the guy that did this shooting would have made it in government: could not have made it through police academy without killing someone.

Murder rates have been going down, They have gun down rapidly since the 1970's and in fact they are a sixth of what they were in the good old libertarian days of the wild west (cica 1850's) when crime and lawlessness was at its peak in the USA. There was no social support back then, and families live on the hair on their teeth!

I witness that love alone does not raise a child properly, some people are just born bad. And we have had public education for centuries, all developed nations do, all of which have much MUCH lower crime rates then us, as well as much stronger centralized governments: public education and state-ism is not the source of this problem.

No the source of the problem is too many guns for sale to a gun obsesses population, not enough state financed psychological and medical assistance and underfunded public schools that can hire a security officer or police that don't have money to put a cop in every school. The problem is everything libertarianism can't solve.

 

No argument here. Though I do think it's sad that they didn't get all that much attention until they switched from the funerals of gay men who died of AIDS, to the funerals of returning war dead.