Brown university shooting Two people were killed and nine others were wounded

[CdnFox]

Ella Cook ID'd as first victim in Brown University shooting | New York Post

Two people were killed and nine others were wounded in a shooting at an engineering and physics building on Brown's campus in Providence, Rhode Island

Looks like the shooter may have been targeting republicans. Ella was president of the republican club. Too early to say and no suspect in custody at this time (the guy they had earlier isn't the shooter turns out)  so we'll have to wait and see ,

[Barquentine]

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Too early to say

Then why say it?

[ExFlyer]

Seems like just another day in the USA.

 

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting

[John Stone]

 

The Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to keep and to bear arms. 

Hugely political. 

Common sense would tell you to buy a firearm, be educated in its use and practice. 

Who the hell is foolish enough to want to be a martyr for gun control knowing that it is not going to happen. 

[ExFlyer]

15 minutes ago, John Stone said:

 

The Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to keep and to bear arms. 

Hugely political. 

Common sense would tell you to buy a firearm, be educated in its use and practice. 

Who the hell is foolish enough to want to be a martyr for gun control knowing that it is not going to happen. 

"right of individuals to keep and to bear arms" does not encourage or give the right to  perform mass shooting....or even individual shootings.

Seems many many millions of Americans are willing to martyr themselves for the right.

[John Stone]

48 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

"right of individuals to keep and to bear arms" does not encourage or give the right to  perform mass shooting....or even individual shootings.

Seems many many millions of Americans are willing to martyr themselves for the right.

haha

Of course it doesn't give them the right to perform mass shootings - those folks are besieged with hate, rage, demons, etc and have simply used the correct tool to carry out their murderous acts. 

My point is that if the Constitution isn't going to be amended anytime soon and indeed, anything even remotely resembling control is on the faaaar horizon, then the smart thing to do is protect yourself - less u or yours become a martyr for those bent on exploiting the argument one way or the other. 

These so-called 'mass shootings' are becoming normalized - they occur, the same arguments are recycled for gun control and things stay the same. The truth is, the people don't want change.

Do you stop flying because there's a airline disaster? Same-same. 

[ExFlyer]

4 minutes ago, John Stone said:

haha

Of course it doesn't give them the right to perform mass shootings - those folks are besieged with hate, rage, demons, etc and have simply used the correct tool to carry out their murderous acts. 

My point is that if the Constitution isn't going to be amended anytime soon and indeed, anything even remotely resembling control is on the faaaar horizon, then the smart thing to do is protect yourself - less u or yours become a martyr for those bent on exploiting the argument one way or the other. 

These so-called 'mass shootings' are becoming normalized - they occur, the same arguments are recycled for gun control and things stay the same. The truth is, the people don't want change.

Do you stop flying because there's a airline disaster? Same-same. 

I guess the debate over what "the right to bear arms" means goes on and on and on, there will never be a resolution.

[John Stone]

9 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

I guess the debate over what "the right to bear arms" means goes on and on and on, there will never be a resolution.

 

9 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

I guess the debate over what "the right to bear arms" means goes on and on and on, there will never be a resolution.

 

9 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

I guess the debate over what "the right to bear arms" means goes on and on and on, there will never be a resolution.

ask yourself what great event occurred in history to provoke the 2nd Amendment?

That is what will create change ........ a threat to the hierarchy .......... a threat to the golden rule (those with the gold, rule)

[ExFlyer]

1 minute ago, John Stone said:

 

 

ask yourself what great event occurred in history to provoke the 2nd Amendment?

That is what will create change ........ a threat to the hierarchy .......... a threat to the golden rule (those with the gold, rule)

I do not know what "provoked" the second amendment.

The reasons for it is "The Second Amendment was enacted to ensure a well-armed citizenry for common defense, primarily through state militias, to counterbalance potential federal tyranny and protect individual liberty, stemming from colonial experiences with British oppression and suspicion of standing armies. It aimed to preserve the ability for citizens to resist an oppressive government, support the militia, and maintain personal security, reflecting both English common law rights and American Revolutionary War lessons"

'If it was used as intended...there would not be such problems.

[John Stone]

2 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

I do not know what "provoked" the second amendment.

The reasons for it is "The Second Amendment was enacted to ensure a well-armed citizenry for common defense, primarily through state militias, to counterbalance potential federal tyranny and protect individual liberty, stemming from colonial experiences with British oppression and suspicion of standing armies. It aimed to preserve the ability for citizens to resist an oppressive government, support the militia, and maintain personal security, reflecting both English common law rights and American Revolutionary War lessons"

'If it was used as intended...there would not be such problems.

 

2 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

I do not know what "provoked" the second amendment.

The reasons for it is "The Second Amendment was enacted to ensure a well-armed citizenry for common defense, primarily through state militias, to counterbalance potential federal tyranny and protect individual liberty, stemming from colonial experiences with British oppression and suspicion of standing armies. It aimed to preserve the ability for citizens to resist an oppressive government, support the militia, and maintain personal security, reflecting both English common law rights and American Revolutionary War lessons"

'If it was used as intended...there would not be such problems.

Yes, you got it correct, re; armed militia 

What provoked the 2nd Amendment was the American War of Independence - by extension the Constitution. 

[ExFlyer]

9 minutes ago, John Stone said:

 

Yes, you got it correct, re; armed militia 

What provoked the 2nd Amendment was the American War of Independence - by extension the Constitution. 

I think you mean invoke.

It was ratified in 1791....long after the War of Independence. 

Anyway, I think it is misused and misinterpreted. 

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, Barquentine said:

Then why say it?

 Because that's where the evidence is pointing.

I'm sorry I guess I should have written it as too soon to say for sure. I assumed most of the intelligent people on this board would get what my meaning was. I forgot you might be reading it too  

3 hours ago, John Stone said:

 

The Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to keep and to bear arms. 

Hugely political. 

Common sense would tell you to buy a firearm, be educated in its use and practice. 

Who the hell is foolish enough to want to be a martyr for gun control knowing that it is not going to happen. 

I doubt very much that this person cared about gun control one way or another. In fact if they were targeting republicans it works in their favor, they get to kill a republican and they also get to make the case for gun control

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Seems like just another day in the USA.

 

True. There's been a lot of left-wing people shooting right-wing people these days

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

Anyway, I think it is misused and misinterpreted. 

It's not misused or misinterpreted. But it brings us back to the same old problem the romans wrestled with, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  - Who will guard the guardians. 

The gov't has military and police forces to enforce order and guard against threats. But those forces can and often have been used by gov'ts to control the people. So to protect the people from  those guards they created the right of the people to be armed, and THEY would be the guardians who guarded the guards,.  But.... then who guards THOSE guardians?

every time you create a force that is intended to be protective it can also be used to be offensive, and you must then have another force to protect against that offense and you're back to the same problem

But at the end of the day worrying about the tool used is not terribly productive. The bad guys will always find tools.

[John Stone]

20 hours ago, John Stone said:

 

Yes, you got it correct, re; armed militia 

What provoked the 2nd Amendment was the American War of Independence - by extension the Constitution. 

The Second Amendment was provoked by the need to protect the rights of citizens against potential tyranny by a centralized federal government. The Anti-federalists, who were concerned about the power of a standing military, argued that a well-regulated militia was necessary for the security of a free state. This sentiment was reflected in the 2^nd Amendment’s language, which was drafted to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms was not infringed. The amendment’s purpose was to provide a constitutional check on congressional power and to ensure that citizens could defend themselves and their states against federal oppression

The Constitution was June 21, 1788

The 2^nd amendment was written 1789

The 2^nd was an amendment to the Constitution, ratified Dec 17, 1991