The second amendment is failing the USA : Another school shooting!

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Kerfuffle said:

 

 

Notwithstanding the intent as far as who should get a weapon, the weapon in question was a muzzle loading flintlock musket.  It's tough to take down a school with one of those, unless you start beating people with the thick end once you let go your first shot.

[Kerfuffle]

14 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Notwithstanding the intent as far as who should get a weapon, the weapon in question was a muzzle loading flintlock musket.  It's tough to take down a school with one of those, unless you start beating people with the thick end once you let go your first shot.

The 2nd Amendment needs to be amended to reflect the times... the U.S. Constitution called "a living document." it really is designed to live and grow as the nation grows.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Kerfuffle said:

The 2nd Amendment needs to be amended to reflect the times... the U.S. Constitution called "a living document." it really is designed to live and grow as the nation grows.

Yes, no disagreement from me.

[bush_cheney2004]

The U.S. Constitution need not be changed because of advances in firearms technology, unless one wishes to be equally stupid about late 18th century limitations on national defense, communications, freedom of the press, reproductive rights, commerce, etc.

 

Edited February 18, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[Kerfuffle]

8 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

The U.S. Constitution need not be changed because of advances in firearms technology, unless one wishes to be equally stupid about late 18th century limitations on national defense, communications, freedom of the press, reproductive rights, commerce, etc.

 

The 2nd Amendment is being broken now 

If the right to bear arms cannot be infringed, mentally ill felons can own nuclear weapons. Children can own machine guns. Terrorists can bring hand grenades on airplanes.

So it should be amended to reflect current laws.

[bush_cheney2004]

5 minutes ago, Kerfuffle said:

The 2nd Amendment is being broken now 

If the right to bear arms cannot be infringed, mentally ill felons can own nuclear weapons. Children can own machine guns. Terrorists can bring hand grenades on airplanes.

So it should be amended to reflect current laws.

 

Nope....already adjudicated by the courts, which are part of the U.S. government/constitution.

Supreme Court has already ruled that Americans have gun rights, subject to constitutional legislation.

The baby killers claim "abortion rights" not enumerated in the Constitution, but deny the "gun rights" that are.

Edited February 18, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[Kerfuffle]

2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Nope....already adjudicated by the courts, which are part of the U.S. government/constitution.

Supreme Court has already ruled that Americans have gun rights, subject to constitutional legislation.

So the much coveted Constitution is really a useless piece of paper that 6 Supreme court justice  along with the fact there are no official qualifications for becoming a Supreme Court justice can over rule the constitution.....hmmmm dangerous.

[bush_cheney2004]

3 minutes ago, Kerfuffle said:

So the much coveted Constitution is really a useless piece of paper that 6 Supreme court justice  along with the fact there are no official qualifications for becoming a Supreme Court justice can over rule the constitution.....hmmmm dangerous.

 

???? There are only nine SC justices...5 votes are needed for a majority ruling.

Constitution is highest law in the land, and it has been amended many times, but not to deny Americans their right to own and bear arms.

Has worked out pretty well for America so far....that's why you pay more attention to the U.S.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Yes it has....see McDonald v City of Chicago:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago

I tend to agree with what Breyer wrote, as it seems most logical.

"In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense. There has been, and is, no consensus that the right is, or was, 'fundamental.'

This was decided by a vote of 5 Republicans against 4 Democrats. Change the makeup of the court and you get a different opinion.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

The victims in the École Polytechnique massacre (1989) may disagree with you, which happened long before current trends in U.S. mass school shootings.

What part of "isn't going to stop all incidents" did you fail to comprehend?

2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Canada eventually abandoned the resulting "Gun Registry" for the expensive farce that it was.

Yes, and I supported abandoning it since it was an expensive farce. But I do support sensible gun control.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Kerfuffle said:

The 2nd Amendment needs to be amended to reflect the times...

I don't think so. It merely needs to be sensibly interpreted. It's intent was in regard to a citizens militia. It states that very clearly, imho.

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.

These people aren't in a militia. The 'well regulated militia' is clearly the National Guard.

[bush_cheney2004]

14 minutes ago, Argus said:

This was decided by a vote of 5 Republicans against 4 Democrats. Change the makeup of the court and you get a different opinion.

 

"Elections have consequences" - President Barack Hussein Obama (2009)

[bush_cheney2004]

33 minutes ago, Argus said:

What part of "isn't going to stop all incidents" did you fail to comprehend?

Yes, and I supported abandoning it since it was an expensive farce. But I do support sensible gun control.

 

Point being that Canada abandoned its emotional gun control response to a "mass shooting" (except for Quebec still fighting to keep the data).

 

 

[?Impact]

4 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Point being that Canada abandoned its emotional gun control response to a "mass shooting" (except for Quebec still fighting to keep the data).

Point being that lying politicians like Vic Towes convinced people that $3-4 million/year magically became $2 billion. He was richly rewarded by Harper with his judicial appointment. Money flows to those who obey the commands of the elite.

[bush_cheney2004]

6 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Point being that lying politicians like Vic Towes convinced people that $3-4 million/year magically became $2 billion. He was richly rewarded by Harper with his judicial appointment. Money flows to those who obey the commands of the elite.

 

More whining after the fact doesn't change the political reality....Canada's "Gun Registry" was an expensive fiasco that was finally put out of its misery, and who is calling for its return after Muslims got mowed down in a Quebec mosque ?

 

Edited February 18, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[Argus]

4 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Point being that Canada abandoned its emotional gun control response to a "mass shooting" (except for Quebec still fighting to keep the data).

Long guns have never been a problem in Canada, in part because of gun control laws which restrict types of weapons and magazine size. So it was a waste of money and inefficient to boot.
We still have gun control, though. 90% of Americans wish they had a democracy so they could have it too.

[bush_cheney2004]

4 minutes ago, Argus said:

Long guns have never been a problem in Canada, in part because of gun control laws which restrict types of weapons and magazine size. So it was a waste of money and inefficient to boot.
We still have gun control, though. 90% of Americans wish they had a democracy so they could have it too.

 

And yet, Canada still has mass shootings:

Quote

“Canada’s classification system is a mess,” Somerset said. “If someone wants to do the shooting at the mosque, they can obtain a non-restricted firearm in Canada that is functionally the same as an AK-47, illegally modify it, and they have exactly the rifle we don’t want them to have.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-mosque-shooting-guncontrol/despite-tough-canadian-rules-illegal-guns-within-reach-idUSKBN15F038

 

[Argus]

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

And yet, Canada still has mass shootings:

Did I say otherwise? But they tend to be smaller in number of victims. Nevertheless, it helps in many if not most cases. And 90% of Americans want gun control. Why can't they get it? I mean, your country is a democracy, isn't it?

[cannuck]

On 2/15/2018 at 11:29 AM, Boges said:

But what if a known criminal wants to legally buy a gun? Should he be allowed to? 

If a criminal wants to buy a gun, you REALLY think he gives a rat's ass if he can obtain it legally or not???

[bush_cheney2004]

22 minutes ago, Argus said:

Did I say otherwise? But they tend to be smaller in number of victims. Nevertheless, it helps in many if not most cases. And 90% of Americans want gun control. Why can't they get it? I mean, your country is a democracy, isn't it?

 

Lots of things in Canada are smaller.   Americans already have "gun control"...for decades.

[Argus]

3 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Lots of things in Canada are smaller.   Americans already have "gun control"...for decades.

They want background checks. They don't want guys with tiny penises able to walk into Wal-mart with AR-15s strapped on their backs. Why can't they get such things?

[bush_cheney2004]

15 minutes ago, Argus said:

They want background checks. They don't want guys with tiny penises able to walk into Wal-mart with AR-15s strapped on their backs. Why can't they get such things?

 

Because such laws are unconstitutional.   ACLU also fights such laws.

Walmart sells lots of guns, ammo, and gun accessories...that's where Americans (and Canadians) get such things.

 

Edited February 19, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[Argus]

29 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Because such laws are unconstitutional.   ACLU also fights such laws.

They're evidently not unconstitutional because some states have them. I invite you to strap on your Ak-47 and walk into a Wal-Mart in New York city.

And the 'unconstitutional' nature of gun control laws will change when there is one more Democrat than Republican on the supreme court. The Democrats tend to be less whorish for money than Republicans.

You need a third party down there, say a conservative party which conservative Christian people can vote for.

Edited February 19, 2018 by Argus

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Argus said:

They're evidently not unconstitutional because some states have them. I invite you to strap on your Ak-47 and walk into a Wal-Mart in New York city.

 

I don't own an AK....the Constitution provides for states' rights and differences.

[H10]

13 hours ago, Kerfuffle said:

The 2nd Amendment needs to be amended to reflect the times... the U.S. Constitution called "a living document." it really is designed to live and grow as the nation grows.

I agree, the original intent was for arms which could be used to launch a military assault against modern armies, we need to expand the understanding to include other small arms like rocket launchers, anti- aircraft weapons, tanks, military bomber planes and so on.  If the right to free speech includes the most complex printing presses and manufacturing machines then the right to bear arms should include the most complex weapons.