Mass shooting

[Guest Derek L]

If the government wanted to attack its own citizens, guns are not going to stop them. How will having firearms protect the civilians from drone attacks? Just ask the thousands of innocent civilians killed in other countries by U.S. drones.

Is it reasonable to state that the US Military is made up of US Citizens, with family and friends living amongst said citizens, that this hypothetical tyrannical government wishes to attack?

Look-up the oath all commissioned US Service members recite………..

[Guest Derek L]

Assuming something is dangerous but doing it anyway is not the same as having intent to do harm. Sorry, mass shootings are not the same as car accidents. Gun accidents could arguably the same as car accidents, but mass shootings are not. At least that's what I think.

Yes drunk drivings against the law. So should be bringing guns to school. Just the thought of suggesting the idea, on national television that everyone should do that... bring guns to school... is utterly astonishing. This kind of national debate stands as a shining example in "Why we don't understand America" threads. Imagine my little girls going to kindergarten if we were in America at this point in time. I'd rather keep them home!

Is a person less dead when killed by a drunk driver, then they are when killed by a lunatic with an AR-15?

[eyeball]

Is it reasonable to state that the US Military is made up of US Citizens, with family and friends living amongst said citizens, that this hypothetical tyrannical government wishes to attack?

Look-up the oath all commissioned US Service members recite………..

The US Service seems a little top heavy with evangelical sky-pilots these days and I bet their oaths to their fellow citizens take a back seat to their fealty to God.

Coercive evangelizing and official promotion of evangelical Protestantism is rife and systemic within the US military.

Source

[bush_cheney2004]

The US Service seems a little top heavy with evangelical sky-pilots these days and I bet their oaths to their fellow citizens take a back seat to their fealty to God.

Would that be the same "God" in Canada's Constitution Act ?

[eyeball]

That would be Her.

[Guest Manny]

Is a person less dead when killed by a drunk driver, then they are when killed by a lunatic with an AR-15?

Point is accidents are random and can't be prevented, even with training and good intentions. That doesn't mean we stop training people to drive cars. People need to drive cars responsibly, of course. And, there's places where cars aren't allowed. There should be places where cars aren't supposed to go. Quiet places. Cars are not allowed in the playground.

Now by your logic, if Billie drives his car into the playground, killing Jonnie and his friends, then the only defence is that every kid should start driving cars in the playground.

[Guest American Woman]

Point is accidents are random and can't be prevented, even with training and good intentions.

So a fatality caused by a drunk driver is merely an "accident?" And such accidents couldn't become less likely if alcohol were banned?

That doesn't mean we stop training people to drive cars.

It doesn't mean we ban alcohol, either, which was the point; but fyi, when a drunk driver kills someone, it wasn't for lack of training.

People need to drive cars responsibly, of course. And, there's places where cars aren't allowed. There should be places where cars aren't supposed to go. Quiet places. Cars are not allowed in the playground.

There are places where guns aren't allowed, too. They weren't allowed in the school where 20 children were killed. I keep repeating that Lanza broke the law. Several laws. Just as a drunk driver broke the law. As a side note, we don't have laws preventing anyone over the legal drinking age from drinking - we do, however, have laws that prevent some people from owning guns.

Now by your logic, if Billie drives his car into the playground, killing Jonnie and his friends, then the only defence is that every kid should start driving cars in the playground.

That doesn't even begin to make sense. How would driving cars in the playground prevent a drunk driver from killing anyone? Are you suggesting that we ram a drunk driver with a car in order to stop him if he heads towards children on a playground? And for the record, no one is suggesting that everyone, much less "every kid," carry a gun in schools.

[Guest Derek L]

Point is accidents are random and can't be prevented, even with training and good intentions. That doesn't mean we stop training people to drive cars. People need to drive cars responsibly, of course. And, there's places where cars aren't allowed. There should be places where cars aren't supposed to go. Quiet places. Cars are not allowed in the playground.

Now by your logic, if Billie drives his car into the playground, killing Jonnie and his friends, then the only defence is that every kid should start driving cars in the playground.

Drunk driving or speeding is negligence on the part of the driver…………….I wouldn’t find fault in a driver who’s car hit a patch of ice and killed another driver anymore than I find in a hunter that tripped, dropped his or her rifle and it discharged into their buddy……..Shit happens to the best of people……..But speeding and drunk driving, as demonstrated by the statistics from the States I provided, is just as deadly as homicidal maniacs with guns……….

So why not ban alcohol or sports cars? Or take a measured approach and require all cars have factory installed breathalysers or governors not allowing cars to drive over the posted speed limit? Sure, it would cost a fortune and inconvenience the vast majority of law abiding citizens, but if it just saves one life………

[Guest Derek L]

That doesn't even begin to make sense. How would driving cars in the playground prevent a drunk driver from killing anyone? Are you suggesting that we ram a drunk driver with a car in order to stop him if he heads towards children on a playground? And for the record, no one is suggesting that everyone, much less "every kid," carry a gun in schools.

Exactly, I think a great many people in both our countries shouldn’t have access to firearms, cars and booze……….But in all these cases, the vast majority of people that do enjoy shooting, a nice car or a drink, all in a responsible fashion, shouldn’t be punished for the sins of a small minority.

[cybercoma]

The 2nd Amendment only covers arms, as in small arms………

Not arms as in armaments?

ar·ma·ment

noun /ˈärməmənt/ 

armaments, plural

• Military weapons and equipment
  
  • - chemical weapons and other unconventional armaments
    

Because it also says you have to be part of a militia, but you've interpreted that little detail away.

If I move to the states, I want nukes. I need them as a political deterrent. I want the government to fear me. That's the only way they will be responsible.

• 
  

Edited January 15, 2013 by cybercoma

[bush_cheney2004]

The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled on an individual citizen's right to own and "bear" arms as derived from the 2nd Amendment. Canadian nationals as legal/illegal aliens may or may not have have such rights privileges depending on jurisdiction.

Edited January 15, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[GostHacked]

One of my fave youtube guys had after a year finally put out another video, and this is about the gun control debate... take a look 45 mins long if one cares to watch.

Crap linked the short clip from the bit... i'll find the link.

Edited January 15, 2013 by GostHacked

[guyser]

Point is accidents are random and can't be prevented, even with training and good intentions.

There are very few accidents , most should be called negligence as that is what they are..

[Guest Manny]

There are very few accidents , most should be called negligence as that is what they are..

I KNOW, but that's a deflection of the point I was trying to make! It's about INTENT TO HARM. He's comparing mass shootings with drunk driving.

[Guest Derek L]

Not arms as in armaments?

Because it also says you have to be part of a militia, but you've interpreted that little detail away.

If I move to the states, I want nukes. I need them as a political deterrent. I want the government to fear me. That's the only way they will be responsible.

• 
  

No it doesn't..........As BC says, the Supreme Court has already ruled on the mater..........

As to arms vs armaments..........yes, small arms, means small armaments

a

[Guest Derek L]

I KNOW, but that's a deflection of the point I was trying to make! It's about INTENT TO HARM. He's comparing mass shootings with drunk driving.

So if someone knowingly breaks the law and due to said action, kills someone, that’s better than someone else knowingly breaking the law and shooting someone?

What if the shooter is criminally insane, hence not deemed responsible for his/her actions? Is that better then a “sane” person the knows and understands full well the laws pertaining to driving impaired and/or speeding, chooses to break them anyways, and kills someone?

[BubberMiley]

As to arms vs armaments..........yes, small arms, means small armaments

a

The constitution doesn't make any distinction between large and small armaments. As an American citizen, I have the constitutional right to a nuclear bomb in my basement.

Don't tread on me.

[bush_cheney2004]

U.S. Federal Code prohibits the possession of many types of arms, including nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapons. As an American citizen, you should already know that.

[Guest Derek L]

The constitution doesn't make any distinction between large and small armaments. As an American citizen, I have the constitutional right to a nuclear bomb in my basement.

Don't tread on me.

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.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Bear

bear

¹

(bâr)

v. bore (bôr, br), borne (bôrn, brn) or born (bôrn), bear·ing, bears

v.tr.

1.

To hold up

; support.

2.

To carry from one place to another;

transport.

Now couple the definition of bear with Cybercoma’s definition of arms, and put into context of the 2nd amendment, it clearly states a person has the right to a weapon that they can carry and/or hold up………If the framers of the Constitution desired the individual to have larger armaments, they’d have added to said Amendment the right of the individual to have armaments that could be pulled by a team of draft horses

As to a right to own nuclear weapons, well no, you can’t, since they would fall under the destructive weapons act of the 1930s, the same act that also defined small arms in relation to firearms as not having a bore size greater that ½” diameter, or better put: .50 calibre

And as I said, the intention of the framers allowing the citizen to bear arms, was that if required to overcome a tyrannical power, said citizens could obtain larger arms, be they horse drawn artillery or ICBMs etc, through the usage of said small arms……………This is evident, as mentioned by BC, by the fact that today the larger armaments are protected by other persons with small arms.

[BubberMiley]

As to a right to own nuclear weapons, well no, you can’t, since they would fall under the destructive weapons act of the 1930s, the same act that also defined small arms in relation to firearms as not having a bore size greater that ½” diameter, or better put: .50 calibre

Right. So since we already agree that the constitution was too vague and that it was necessary to define those arms further, as technology improved, in order to apply restrictions for "destructive" weapons, we can agree that it is not unreasonable to revisit the application of those restrictions as technology has improved since the 1930s. Citizens can fight a tyrannical power by acquiring assault weapons through the usage of smaller arms.

[Canuckistani]

Right. So since we already agree that the constitution was too vague and that it was necessary to define those arms further, as technology improved, in order to apply restrictions for "destructive" weapons, we can agree that it is not unreasonable to revisit the application of those restrictions as technology has improved since the 1930s. Citizens can fight a tyrannical power by acquiring assault weapons through the usage of smaller arms.

You go girl.

[Guest Derek L]

Right. So since we already agree that the constitution was too vague and that it was necessary to define those arms further, as technology improved, in order to apply restrictions for "destructive" weapons, we can agree that it is not unreasonable to revisit the application of those restrictions as technology has improved since the 1930s. Citizens can fight a tyrannical power by acquiring assault weapons through the usage of smaller arms.

The constitution isn’t vague………..As I said, the framers would have included, if intended, the provision of the citizen to bear larger arms via a Clydesdale……….

And no, by definition assault weapons and small arms are one and the same………And firearms technology hasn’t advanced that greatly in the last 100 years, as evident by the continued usage by the most modern military on the planet, of designs dating back to the early 20th century (i.e. the Colt 1911 or the Browning Ma Deuce)……….Even the M-16/AR-15 family of firearms uses technology centred around their Automatic/Select fire/Semi-Automatic actions based on technology of the early 20th century………And when contrasted with say a Thompson submachine gun or a Browning Automatic Rifle, today’s M-16/AR-15 uses a considerably weaker cartridge……

But hey, thanks for coming out.

[BubberMiley]

The constitution isn’t vague………..As I said, the framers would have included, if intended, the provision of the citizen to bear larger arms via a Clydesdale……….

Again, there needed to be further clarification, after the constitution was written and as technology improved, about what weapons a person can "bear." One can physically "bear" a suitcase nuke but it's still restricted and that restriction is apparently constitutional. So we agree that such restrictions are necessary and appropriate, based on the destructive power of the weapon.

So how many children killed per second is too many for you? Where do you personally draw that line?

Edited January 15, 2013 by BubberMiley

[Guest Derek L]

So how many children killed per second is too many for you? Where do you personally draw that line?

Clearly one is too many…………And how many children killed by drunk drivers and speeders is too many for you? Where do you draw the line?

I accept that for the majority of people to partake in a drink, owning a car or a gun, that from time to time, a small minority of society will abuse such devices and injure and kill other members of said society………..

[bush_cheney2004]

Meh...more croc tears for "the children". These kind of gun grabbers are the same people who think nothing of aborting millions of "children", and that isn't even an enumerated constitutional right.