News:

If you need instructions on how to get through the hotels, check out the enclosed instruction book.

Main Menu

More than 1 school shooting per week in the land of the free

Farted by Thor, January 22, 2013, 02:40:54 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Thor

4th week of 2013, and already 6 school shootings in America

this is gonna be a good year
Quote from: MafiaMettaurWhat the hell is with that shit you posted? You know what, I'm joining the Locks, just to stop stuff like you!
Quote from: polyhedronclockYou're a fucking clock, what else do you have?
To be fair, you don't have anything. Clocks are just machines that tick.

AnkhClock




FamineClock

Could someone whom is American explain to one whom is not, why do they revere the constitution as some holy text?
Is it the fledgling status of the country that makes them cling to a security of sorts to make it feel more robust as a nation or am I missing something?
My country has laws older than 800 years but we don't mind at all if they'd have to be updated or modernized. We do it quite often as to not stagnate.

My point is / TLDR :

The second amendment was with most certain probability not intended for a time when the nation was secure but most of all when guns could shoot multiple times in succession. At the very least not fully automatic rifles.

All data shows that the more guns there are the more deaths (from what I know of). Why are they blaming everything but the things that actually have a somewhat proven correlation like media and/or guncontrol?

Well, end of walltext.

PhantomCatClock



buttplug

Quote from: FamineClock;1937268Could someone whom is American explain to one whom is not, why do they revere the constitution as some holy text... My country has laws older than 800 years but we don't mind at all if they'd have to be updated or modernized. We do it quite often as to not stagnate.
We don't. It's constantly tested in the judicial system.

Quote from: FamineClock;1937268At the very least not fully automatic rifles.
Full auto weapons are not legal unless they were manufactured and specially registered before 1986.

The guns being scrutinized currently in the USA are semi-auto weapons.

miracle fruit

Quote from: FamineClock;1937268Could someone whom is American explain to one whom is not, why do they revere the constitution as some holy text?
Is it the fledgling status of the country that makes them cling to a security of sorts to make it feel more robust as a nation or am I missing something?
My country has laws older than 800 years but we don't mind at all if they'd have to be updated or modernized. We do it quite often as to not stagnate.

My point is / TLDR :

The second amendment was with most certain probability not intended for a time when the nation was secure but most of all when guns could shoot multiple times in succession. At the very least not fully automatic rifles.

All data shows that the more guns there are the more deaths (from what I know of). Why are they blaming everything but the things that actually have a somewhat proven correlation like media and/or guncontrol?

Well, end of walltext.

ill explain
as a canadian

first of all u need to stop misusing the word "whom"

lastly and more importantly your TLDR version is longer than your original thought and that makes me mad

Craisin

I'm neutral on the whole arms thing. In the military, we have some guys who cry and cry about their second amendment rights. What I think would be funny, would be if they added a new amendment, similar to when they got rid of prohibition. Not because I care about the guns, but all the moaning would be glorious.

Soup Clock

Many, if not most, of the people who commit violent crimes using guns have purchased the guns illegally.  Also, instead of naming a lack of gun control as the source, how about focusing on the gang violence and drug trafficking?

For the people who just used guns to shoot up elementary schools and all that, I'm sure if they were that motivated for their fucked up irrational cause they would have robbed some queer-rights private of his sidearm just so they could follow through.

Actually, on second thought this country is fucked up.  But at least soccer is a second tier sport here.
ass whore

FamineClock

Quote from: Buttplug;1937282We don't. It's constantly tested in the judicial system.

But would you guys ever revoke an amendment?

Quote from: MiracleFruitClock;1937288ill explain
as a canadian

first of all u need to stop misusing the word "whom"

lastly and more importantly your TLDR version is longer than your original thought and that makes me mad

Never! Also I know. The TLDR was suppouse to be only those two lines but I forgot to move the rest of the text above it. Oh well. <3

Slurpee

Quote from: Buttplug;1937282We don't. It's constantly tested in the judicial system.

The judicial system mostly tests for how things hold up against the constitution. The constitution is the supreme law of the land, the only thing under debate is how to interpret it and when it's appropriate to change it.

But as far as the ballyhoo over the second amendment, it has nothing to do with strict adherence to the constitution, really. People just like their guns and are glad they have something important to hide behind. If people gave half the shit about the constitution that they pretended to when we discuss the second amendment, we wouldn't have the worst prison system in the first world, because somebody would have brought up the eighth sometime before we started putting people in solitary confinement for 40 years.
Quote from: FamineClock;1937330But would you guys ever revoke an amendment?
Yes. The 18th was revoked by the 21st.
They're amendments. Amendments are by definition changes to an existing document.

OvenmittClock

Well at least the guns are helping against overpopulation.
AIDS

FamineClock

Quote from: Slurpee;1937333Yes. The 18th was revoked by the 21st.
They're amendments. Amendments are by definition changes to an existing document.

Oh sweet, do you ever thing they'd be able to edit the second amendment?

SpongeClock SquarePants

Dutch firearm enthousiast here.

We had a mall shooting last year.

The laws here were very strict (Licensing, background checks, etc. etc. no automatics) and are only getting stricter (read : eligible to purchase  a semi auto larger calibre only after 3 years of membership combined with psych tests)
The problem lies in enforcing said laws. (the fact that the psycho kid who shot up the mall had access to firearms was a big police fuckup)

U.S. should probably be worried about licensing etc. not so much about banning high capacity magazines.

F U Clock

I fall somewhere in the middle, largely because I compare gun ownership to violent video game playing. People tell me violent video games make me violent and make me and others more likely to commit a murder of some kind. I think this is bullshit. I'm sure there are plenty of gun owners who feel the same. The go hunting or they shoot their guns at a range and they don't see the harm in having a little fun with them.

Of course, there's a difference here. I think gun owners need to acknowledge that firearms ACTUALLY kill people, their intended use is to kill and that you don't have a God-given right to own things that can kill people en masse. They whine about not being able to own a fully automatic weapon. Well guess what, you can't own a nuclear bomb either. Because that would be fucking stupid. So where do we draw the line? Well I think we should draw the line a little sooner than we do right now, because people are dying and the system is currently not so good.

Marlin Clock

Quote from: SpongeClock SquarePants;1937344Dutch firearm enthousiast here.

We had a mall shooting last year.

The laws here were very strict (Licensing, background checks, etc. etc. no automatics) and are only getting stricter (read : eligible to purchase  a semi auto larger calibre only after 3 years of membership combined with psych tests)
The problem lies in enforcing said laws. (the fact that the psycho kid who shot up the mall had access to firearms was a big police fuckup)

U.S. should probably be worried about licensing etc. not so much about banning high capacity magazines.

Problem is I'm pretty sure Newtown guy's guns weren't his own, they were his mom's. How are you supposed to stop that kind of contingency?

AbsintheClock

Here's my thought on it. I own a black powder rifle, a black powder revolver, and a Remington .22 hunting rifle. The only reason I had to get a license was for the Remington .22. The other two guns I could own as long as I was 18 years old. All of these guns could still probably kill you, and if they didn't would do some permanent damage somewhere on your body. I've successfully hunted with all of these guns. And based on an educated guess, I think you could easily kill yourself with any of these guns if you wanted to or were careless enough.

I also agree with the point that we're not allowed to own nuclear weapons, and the way the constitution is worded makes it pretty clear. "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." What does "well regulated" mean? I believe it means arming people appropriately with the appropriate kind of weaponry. This also means that I believe a select few private citizens should have the right to own a semi-automatic weapon. For an example, you would not trust a class D license driver to drive an 18 wheel truck. That being said the people who are getting CDL licenses are often people who have very specific needs for that kind of license. Regulation on a CDL license is much more strict, and the penalties are much higher. I think gun ownership should be looked at in the same way. A good example of a need for that kind of gun would be security for a private defense company, armored trucks that are handling massive amounts of valuables, (Gold bullion, weapons, large bills, precious gemstones etc etc) or some other kind of private security. The cost of being able to own this kind of gun should be reflective of the responsibility required to own such a weapon. In other words your grandmother shouldn't be able to buy a semi-automatic rifle.


FamineClock

Quote from: AbsintheClock;1937351Here's my thought on it. I own a black powder rifle, a black powder revolver, and a Remington .22 hunting rifle. The only reason I had to get a license was for the Remington .22. The other two guns I could own as long as I was 18 years old. All of these guns could still probably kill you, and if they didn't would do some permanent damage somewhere on your body. I've successfully hunted with all of these guns. And based on an educated guess, I think you could easily kill yourself with any of these guns if you wanted to or were careless enough.

I also agree with the point that we're not allowed to own nuclear weapons, and the way the constitution is worded makes it pretty clear. "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." What does "well regulated" mean? I believe it means arming people appropriately with the appropriate kind of weaponry. This also means that I believe a select few private citizens should have the right to own a semi-automatic weapon. For an example, you would not trust a class D license driver to drive an 18 wheel truck. That being said the people who are getting CDL licenses are often people who have very specific needs for that kind of license. Regulation on a CDL license is much more strict, and the penalties are much higher. I think gun ownership should be looked at in the same way. A good example of a need for that kind of gun would be security for a private defense company, armored trucks that are handling massive amounts of valuables, (Gold bullion, weapons, large bills, precious gemstones etc etc) or some other kind of private security. The cost of being able to own this kind of gun should be reflective of the responsibility required to own such a weapon. In other words your grandmother shouldn't be able to buy a semi-automatic rifle.

I agree to a point, I still fail to see the use of letting civilians carry arms.

AbsintheClock

How about the fact that if you tried to take guns from Americans a civil war would break out. Is that good enough for you?