wstakl wrote:

I wish countries (including mine) would start issuing travel warnings to their citizens regarding travel to the US. The fact people willingly travel there to holiday is beyond me.

As a U.S. citizen, I agree. Sans Hawaii, it's not all great here as people glamour it to be. The photos of the NYC skyline might be nice and all, but the people are stressed, they have their own problems to deal with and these shootings will happen more often than terrorist attacks.

Hell, aside from the unrest in African nations, people there are more civilized.

NIKV69 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Just a quick summation:

We can't talk about gun control after Columbine.
We can't talk about gun control after Sandy Hook.
We can't talk about gun control after Aurora.
We can't talk about gun control after Orlando.
We can't talk about gun control after San Burnardino.
We can't talk about gun control after Charleston.
We can't talk about gun control after Virginia Tech.
We can't talk about gun control before elections.
We can't talk about gun control after elections.
We can't talk about gun control during elections.

When can we talk about it?

You can talk about it all you want. Fact is taking guns away from law abiding citizens won't help (Chicago) We are country with an Amendment that lets us have guns. This will never change. Banning automatic weapons won't stop mass shootings because then you will want to ban semi autos etc. The USA will always have firearms. Can we stop with the dog whistles?

The best we can do is lecture the next generation of people on what is right and wrong, good and bad.

NIKV69 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Just a quick summation:

We can't talk about gun control after Columbine.
We can't talk about gun control after Sandy Hook.
We can't talk about gun control after Aurora.
We can't talk about gun control after Orlando.
We can't talk about gun control after San Burnardino.
We can't talk about gun control after Charleston.
We can't talk about gun control after Virginia Tech.
We can't talk about gun control before elections.
We can't talk about gun control after elections.
We can't talk about gun control during elections.

When can we talk about it?

You can talk about it all you want. Fact is taking guns away from law abiding citizens won't help (Chicago) We are country with an Amendment that lets us have guns. This will never change. Banning automatic weapons won't stop mass shootings because then you will want to ban semi autos etc. The USA will always have firearms. Can we stop with the dog whistles?

So why licence and insure pilots and car drivers and truck drivers? Why do background checks on child care workers? I mean, people are just going to crash cars and trucks and jets and molest children, anyway, so why put laws and rules in place? That is what the right says and it is frustrating.

seb146 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Just a quick summation:

We can't talk about gun control after Columbine.
We can't talk about gun control after Sandy Hook.
We can't talk about gun control after Aurora.
We can't talk about gun control after Orlando.
We can't talk about gun control after San Burnardino.
We can't talk about gun control after Charleston.
We can't talk about gun control after Virginia Tech.
We can't talk about gun control before elections.
We can't talk about gun control after elections.
We can't talk about gun control during elections.

When can we talk about it?

You can talk about it all you want. Fact is taking guns away from law abiding citizens won't help (Chicago) We are country with an Amendment that lets us have guns. This will never change. Banning automatic weapons won't stop mass shootings because then you will want to ban semi autos etc. The USA will always have firearms. Can we stop with the dog whistles?

So why licence and insure pilots and car drivers and truck drivers? Why do background checks on child care workers? I mean, people are just going to crash cars and trucks and jets and molest children, anyway, so why put laws and rules in place? That is what the right says and it is frustrating.

Because none of what you just rattled off is a constitutionally granted right...

DiamondFlyer wrote:

seb146 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

You can talk about it all you want. Fact is taking guns away from law abiding citizens won't help (Chicago) We are country with an Amendment that lets us have guns. This will never change. Banning automatic weapons won't stop mass shootings because then you will want to ban semi autos etc. The USA will always have firearms. Can we stop with the dog whistles?

So why licence and insure pilots and car drivers and truck drivers? Why do background checks on child care workers? I mean, people are just going to crash cars and trucks and jets and molest children, anyway, so why put laws and rules in place? That is what the right says and it is frustrating.

Because none of what you just rattled off is a constitutionally granted right...

But the constitution can be amended, right?

DiamondFlyer wrote:

seb146 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

You can talk about it all you want. Fact is taking guns away from law abiding citizens won't help (Chicago) We are country with an Amendment that lets us have guns. This will never change. Banning automatic weapons won't stop mass shootings because then you will want to ban semi autos etc. The USA will always have firearms. Can we stop with the dog whistles?

So why licence and insure pilots and car drivers and truck drivers? Why do background checks on child care workers? I mean, people are just going to crash cars and trucks and jets and molest children, anyway, so why put laws and rules in place? That is what the right says and it is frustrating.

Because none of what you just rattled off is a constitutionally granted right...

And therein lies the issue; they love the Bill of Rights, all of them - except that pesky 2nd one. Those who oppose the 2nd Amendment don't WANT it to be a constitutionally protected right and think it should be rescinded or altered.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

Because none of what you just rattled off is a constitutionally granted right...

All rights have limits, just as the 2nd amendment does, as is demonstrated by the laws that do already apply to gun ownership. And the courts ability to have an impact on it is not yet finished, the final word has not been issued, as there is an entire section of the amendment that has not interpreted to apply and it could still be. I very much agree with the right to keep and bear arms. I just don't fully agree that it is a right to just go get a gun because you feel like it, without any training or guidance or at least someone, a friend, a family member, a formal non-governmental group (say the NRA), or maybe a militia from taking a look at your ability (your sanity? whatever?) and saying "this is OK with me/us". Again, no state interference is needed, it could even just other gun owners. However I doubt any want that due to liability concerns.

I have stated it many times that my family is my model for responsible gun ownership, for gun control. It is an earned right in the family. Sure anyone can go get one but don't try joining on a hunting trip having "just gone and bought a gun". It is not fool proof, and sometimes a foolish thing can happen (which with guns can become deadly) but you will be a responsible gun owner, have a functional and serviced firearm, know how to properly handle it, and know how to shoot and hit what you are aiming for if you are coming to the house with a weapon or to go hunt.

I also won't disagree that an amendment wouldn't be the best way to go. That is possible even if it is not so at the current time.

And by the way, don't think what I am saying is something that I want to be "enforced" on you. I am making a discussion point. Not trying to say "I want only thins and I want all your guns!" (before anyone tries to go there). This is a conversation.
Tugg

DiamondFlyer wrote:

seb146 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

You can talk about it all you want. Fact is taking guns away from law abiding citizens won't help (Chicago) We are country with an Amendment that lets us have guns. This will never change. Banning automatic weapons won't stop mass shootings because then you will want to ban semi autos etc. The USA will always have firearms. Can we stop with the dog whistles?

So why licence and insure pilots and car drivers and truck drivers? Why do background checks on child care workers? I mean, people are just going to crash cars and trucks and jets and molest children, anyway, so why put laws and rules in place? That is what the right says and it is frustrating.

Because none of what you just rattled off is a constitutionally granted right...

Why is it that you people need to have guns anyways? Are you that afraid of the world that you can't leave the house without a lethal weapon?

EA CO AS wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

seb146 wrote:

So why licence and insure pilots and car drivers and truck drivers? Why do background checks on child care workers? I mean, people are just going to crash cars and trucks and jets and molest children, anyway, so why put laws and rules in place? That is what the right says and it is frustrating.

Because none of what you just rattled off is a constitutionally granted right...

And therein lies the issue; they love the Bill of Rights, all of them - except that pesky 2nd one. Those who oppose the 2nd Amendment don't WANT it to be a constitutionally protected right and think it should be rescinded or altered.

Then why do you insist on only accepting an altered version? Here is the real 2nd 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."

Where are your well regulated militias? I say bring them on, if you own a gun, be practiced with it and ready to assist with the security of the USA. I very much would be willing to bet that gun deaths would drop if this were the case.

This is just my point of view of course, and just on-the-fly trying to get people to look at the entire amendment, not just part of it. What I am offering is to just look at the entire amendment (perhaps as an "originalist"?). I am not dictating it must be that way or that you must agree with me. As an aside, I thought many conservatives did not like "activist judges", isn't it a bit "Activist" to not apply the full amendment? To be selective? It was an interpretation of the amendment by the USSC that decided that only a certain part applied.

Tugg

EA CO AS wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

seb146 wrote:

So why licence and insure pilots and car drivers and truck drivers? Why do background checks on child care workers? I mean, people are just going to crash cars and trucks and jets and molest children, anyway, so why put laws and rules in place? That is what the right says and it is frustrating.

Because none of what you just rattled off is a constitutionally granted right...

And therein lies the issue; they love the Bill of Rights, all of them - except that pesky 2nd one. Those who oppose the 2nd Amendment don't WANT it to be a constitutionally protected right and think it should be rescinded or altered.

There is nothing wrong with the Second Amendment. When it applied to muskets. But, now, it does not apply because the Second Amendment was written at a time when armies were needed at a moment's notice to resist England. What is to stop the Republican controlled government (you all are in charge, now. All three branches) from taking everyone's guns and rights? Is your one little gun going to stop bombs and drones and tanks and troops?

Besides, if you think it is acceptable for innocent people to be gunned down for no good reason just so you can think you are part of play time, you are part of the problem.

seb146 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

Because none of what you just rattled off is a constitutionally granted right...

And therein lies the issue; they love the Bill of Rights, all of them - except that pesky 2nd one. Those who oppose the 2nd Amendment don't WANT it to be a constitutionally protected right and think it should be rescinded or altered.

There is nothing wrong with the Second Amendment. When it applied to muskets.

Try again; if you believe that, then you must also believe that the First Amendment doesn't apply to TV, radio, the internet, or any other medium of communication that didn't exist when the Bill of Rights was drafted.

Kiwirob wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

Expect the NRA to put out an ad, using this event to support their cause for looser/no restrictions on weapons.

(aka. "If they only had a gun...")

Even with looser regulation how on earth would people mostly armed with handguns return accurate fire on a shooter in a building 32 floors up and 1700ft away. A handgun wouldn't even hit the building let alone take out the offender. It would have caused more panic and additional fatalities.

In every one of these mass shooting not one good guy with a gun EVER stopped a bad guy with a gun.

Super80Fan wrote:

Lovely: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/20 ... icans.html

Hope CBS fires this wretched woman.

The first part of her statement I do not agree with. But the second part is mostly true!

EA CO AS wrote:

I'd think you'd have realized from my post that my snarky reply was to the idiocy of Scribml with his "Oh where for art thou, good guy with a gun?" bullshit. Clearly, even if those people in the crowd were armed it would have been impossible (and frankly, irresponsible) to immediately pinpoint the shooter's location, then try and fire back at this shooter once he'd been located, since you have a much better chance of hitting innocent hotel guests in their rooms than getting him.

So when people say 'the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun' you agree that it's not true and in certain circumstances could be even worse. I'm glad you see that, now we can start looking at other ways to reduce gun crimes besides adding more guns to the equation.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

Because none of what you just rattled off is a constitutionally granted right...

The constitution says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, and as we know, that cannot ever be changed in anyway (just ignore the 'well-regulated militia' part, that's not relevant). So as you are an ardent supporter of it, surely any attempt to stop citizens getting any form of weapon is going against the constitution, and thus in your eyes is completely wrong?

DiamondFlyer wrote:

seb146 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

You can talk about it all you want. Fact is taking guns away from law abiding citizens won't help (Chicago) We are country with an Amendment that lets us have guns. This will never change. Banning automatic weapons won't stop mass shootings because then you will want to ban semi autos etc. The USA will always have firearms. Can we stop with the dog whistles?

So why licence and insure pilots and car drivers and truck drivers? Why do background checks on child care workers? I mean, people are just going to crash cars and trucks and jets and molest children, anyway, so why put laws and rules in place? That is what the right says and it is frustrating.

Because none of what you just rattled off is a constitutionally granted right...

So you're fine with the mentally ill being allowed to own guns? If not, why not? They're not felons, they haven't done anything to give up their rights. Why shouldn't they be able to go buy firearms?

And if you're not okay with the mentally ill owning guns, that would seem to indicate that the Second Amendment can, in fact, be restricted in the name of public safety, does it not?

Again I ask: why is a gun (a right...for some reason) a thing that must be available without condition, but to cast a vote you must move heaven and earth to prove you are eligible?

MrHMSH wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

I'd think you'd have realized from my post that my snarky reply was to the idiocy of Scribml with his "Oh where for art thou, good guy with a gun?" bullshit. Clearly, even if those people in the crowd were armed it would have been impossible (and frankly, irresponsible) to immediately pinpoint the shooter's location, then try and fire back at this shooter once he'd been located, since you have a much better chance of hitting innocent hotel guests in their rooms than getting him.

So when people say 'the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun' you agree that it's not true and in certain circumstances could be even worse.

Don't put words in my mouth. In this instance, it's not true and yes, could have been made worse. However, I'd also argue that this situation is the exception rather than the rule. In general, I would still say a good guy with a gun is generally the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun.

EA CO AS wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

I'd think you'd have realized from my post that my snarky reply was to the idiocy of Scribml with his "Oh where for art thou, good guy with a gun?" bullshit. Clearly, even if those people in the crowd were armed it would have been impossible (and frankly, irresponsible) to immediately pinpoint the shooter's location, then try and fire back at this shooter once he'd been located, since you have a much better chance of hitting innocent hotel guests in their rooms than getting him.

So when people say 'the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun' you agree that it's not true and in certain circumstances could be even worse.

Don't put words in my mouth. In this instance, it's not true and yes, could have been made worse. However, I'd also argue that this situation is the exception rather than the rule. In general, I would still say a good guy with a gun is generally the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun.

Then how come it hasn't happen yet? Not one good guy with a gun ever stopped a bad guy with a gun.

dragon-wings wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

So when people say 'the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun' you agree that it's not true and in certain circumstances could be even worse.

Don't put words in my mouth. In this instance, it's not true and yes, could have been made worse. However, I'd also argue that this situation is the exception rather than the rule. In general, I would still say a good guy with a gun is generally the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun.

Then how come it hasn't happen yet? Not one good guy with a gun ever stopped a bad guy with a gun.

That actually as happened. I'm not going to provide a sour because there are a good amount of stories over the past couple years of exactly that. And this will be my only post on this thread.

EA CO AS wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

I'd think you'd have realized from my post that my snarky reply was to the idiocy of Scribml with his "Oh where for art thou, good guy with a gun?" bullshit. Clearly, even if those people in the crowd were armed it would have been impossible (and frankly, irresponsible) to immediately pinpoint the shooter's location, then try and fire back at this shooter once he'd been located, since you have a much better chance of hitting innocent hotel guests in their rooms than getting him.

So when people say 'the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun' you agree that it's not true and in certain circumstances could be even worse.

Don't put words in my mouth. In this instance, it's not true and yes, could have been made worse. However, I'd also argue that this situation is the exception rather than the rule. In general, I would still say a good guy with a gun is generally the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun.

This is the 337th mass shooting this year in the USA. If 'good guys' with guns are the best solution, then you should be able to pull up a source that gives 300+ occasions where a 'good guy' stopped a mass shooting in 2017? I mean can you even begin to show that this is the case, beyond a few occasions of it happening.

Bear in mind again though, the UK's solution is to regulate guns so only those who need them have them, and we've had 0 (zero) mass shootings since 1996. Similar deal for Australia after Port Arthur. The USA is the outlier here.

TWA772LR wrote:

dragon-wings wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

Don't put words in my mouth. In this instance, it's not true and yes, could have been made worse. However, I'd also argue that this situation is the exception rather than the rule. In general, I would still say a good guy with a gun is generally the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun.

Then how come it hasn't happen yet? Not one good guy with a gun ever stopped a bad guy with a gun.

That actually as happened. I'm not going to provide a sour because there are a good amount of stories over the past couple years of exactly that. And this will be my only post on this thread.

I will try and find one, but I have never heard of that happening.

TWA772LR wrote:

Then how come it hasn't happen yet? Not one good guy with a gun ever stopped a bad guy with a gun.

That actually as happened. I'm not going to provide a sour because there are a good amount of stories over the past couple years of exactly that. And this will be my only post on this thread.[/quote]

'A good amount of stories'. More than the number of mass shootings? If it's the most effective way of stopping mass shootings then to be honest I need more than a few, I need several hundred per year. As I said above, this is the 337th mass shooting in the US this year according to one source, so if more guns is the solution then I hope you've got something that shows more than 300 mass shootings were stopped by these 'good guys'.

dragon-wings wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

dragon-wings wrote:

Then how come it hasn't happen yet? Not one good guy with a gun ever stopped a bad guy with a gun.

That actually as happened. I'm not going to provide a sour because there are a good amount of stories over the past couple years of exactly that. And this will be my only post on this thread.

I will try and find one, but I have never heard of that happening.

Here are eleven, for starters. When you're done reading, I expect you'll retract your "not one good guy ever stopped a bad guy" BS, correct?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/multimed ... d-guy-gun/

MrHMSH wrote:

Bear in mind again though, the UK's solution is to regulate guns so only those who need them have them, and we've had 0 (zero) mass shootings since 1996. Similar deal for Australia after Port Arthur. The USA is the outlier here.

I guess we Americans will just have to learn to live with being less enlightened than you in the UK....

EA CO AS wrote:

I guess we Americans will just have to learn to live with being less enlightened than you in the UK....

I don't care about being enlightened, you claim that 'good guys' with guns are the best solution to stopping mass shootings when it's pretty obvious that it isn't. And 'good guys' with guns have virtually no hope of stopping the wave of homicides overall, and these make up the vast majority of deaths suffered.

EA CO AS wrote:

Here are eleven, for starters. When you're done reading, I expect you'll retract your "not one good guy ever stopped a bad guy" BS, correct?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/multimed ... d-guy-gun/

Not all of those stopped mass shootings, some of them stopped robberies and shootings that would be too small to register.

And there's also the teeny tiny problem that although that article lists 10 times someone stopped a shooting, it goes back to 2006, which means a generous estimate of well over 3,000 mass shootings in the USA since then(very generous, probably closer to 4,000), and yet there fewer than 10 occasions given in your source where a mass shooting was stopped by a 'good guy', which gives a pathetic success ratio of 1 in 400. I could be super generous and allow there to be 1000 occasions where a mass shooting has been stopped, but that's still a 75% failure rate. In the UK and Australia, the success rate is 100% for mass shootings, and although not perfect, far, far better for overall statistics.

So hopefully you'll retract your 'good guys are good at stopping bad guys' BS, correct?

EA CO AS wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

Bear in mind again though, the UK's solution is to regulate guns so only those who need them have them, and we've had 0 (zero) mass shootings since 1996. Similar deal for Australia after Port Arthur. The USA is the outlier here.

I guess we Americans will just have to learn to live with being less enlightened than you in the UK....

One learns to be enlightened. Being unenlightened requires no effort.

The UK and most other nations are indeed enlightened with respect to gun ownership.

The second amendment applied to militias, and nothing more. At the time our Constitution was adopted (or shortly thereafter) militia members (defined as all white males 18-45 years of age) were required to provide their own muskets. That changed with time as arsenals and armories were establish.

Today our militias are in the form of National Guards (State controlled unless Federalized) and Federal military forces.

There is no need for an armed citizenry other than our present day military forces and local police forces.

Just my opinion, of course.

Disclaimer: I own a Daisy Air Rifle, great for shooting rodents in my yard (effective perhaps 1 in 20 shots).

MrHMSH wrote:

In the UK and Australia, the success rate is 100% for mass shootings, and although not perfect, far, far better for overall statistics.

100% sounds perfect to me. What am I missing?

BobPatterson wrote:

The second amendment applied to militias, and nothing more.

A majority of the nine wise souls in Washington D.C. have consistently disagreed with you.

BobPatterson wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

In the UK and Australia, the success rate is 100% for mass shootings, and although not perfect, far, far better for overall statistics.

100% sounds perfect to me. What am I missing?

100% for mass shootings since the rules were changed in each, less than 100% for overall deaths from guns, i.e. people get murdered by guns in both countries, but in far smaller numbers, the UK's rate is over 40 times lower, Australia 10 times lower.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

casinterest wrote:

sw733 wrote:

Nah, you're making a mistake - you're assuming that everyone injured was injured by gunfire. I would bet money, Las Vegas style, that a majority were hurt in the ensuing stampede.

Time will tell,
but Remember, a Semi-Automatic is the rate at which you can pull the trigger finger.

A Semi -Automatic can reasonably be fired at well over 60 rounds per second assuming you have a large enough magazine.
Mods he could have bought legally could have bumped the rate well over that amount.

60 rounds per second? From a semi-auto? That's 3600 rounds per minute, which is on par with a mini-gun. You have absolutely no idea what the heck you're talking about...

I made a type and meant minute. But thanks for understanding Mr high class. You must be a diamond flyer everyone hates to have around.

EA CO AS wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

The second amendment applied to militias, and nothing more.

A majority of the nine wise souls in Washington D.C. have consistently disagreed with you.

So why does the Amendment make reference to 'a well-regulated militia'? It was quite literally the 2nd thing they thought to include, and I don't see anything resembling well-regulated, a militia, or a well-regulated militia.

While the ammosexuals are whining about "they are trying to take our guns away!" let's remind everyone that Australia, Canada, Sweden, Germany, and Switzerland all have restrictions on gun ownership, but people can still own guns. Guns in those countries have not been taken away, as is the popular talking point among NRA and right wingers.

MrHMSH wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

The second amendment applied to militias, and nothing more.

A majority of the nine wise souls in Washington D.C. have consistently disagreed with you.

So why does the Amendment make reference to 'a well-regulated militia'? It was quite literally the 2nd thing they thought to include, and I don't see anything resembling well-regulated, a militia, or a well-regulated militia.

Look it up.

seb146 wrote:

While the ammosexuals are whining about "they are trying to take our guns away!" let's remind everyone that Australia, Canada, Sweden, Germany, and Switzerland all have restrictions on gun ownership, but people can still own guns. Guns in those countries have not been taken away, as is the popular talking point among NRA and right wingers.

I've read most of the posts in this thread, and I don't think I've seen a single one that offers a real solution. In my humble opinion, if you dislike the rights provided by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, then why aren't any of you advocating following the process outlined in the US Constitution to remove these rights? Its a very straight forward and well documented process. Heck, we even followed this process in the 20th century to ban alcoholic beverages through the 18th Amendment in 1920. We then saw the error of our ways and passed the 23rd Amendment in 1933 that reversed the 18th amendment.

Think of it - WE PASSED AN AMENDMENT TO BAN BEER!

Surely, if all of you folks put your efforts into following the legal process for repealing the 2nd Amendment the American people will follow your lead and vote to change the US Constitution.

Why aren't the Democrat politicians working for a Constitutional Amendment?

MrHMSH wrote:

Not all of those stopped mass shootings

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... bbott-band

But Keeter went further, describing the deadliest shooting in modern US history as a revelation. He said that members of the band’s crew have concealed handgun licenses, and legal firearms on the bus.

“They were useless,” he said. “We couldn’t touch them for fear police might think that we were part of the massacre and shoot us. A small group (or one man) laid waste to a city with dedicated, fearless police officers desperately trying to help, because of access to an insane amount of firepower. Enough is enough.”

Caleb Keeter makes a good point. The "good guy" could have been killed by the police by being mistaken for the perpetrator.

socalgeo wrote:

Why aren't the Democrat politicians working for a Constitutional Amendment?

Oh, C'mon. You know the answer.

Why didn't you pose the question as "Why aren't Republican and Democrat politicians working for a Constitutional Amendment?"

Normally an amendment must be proposed by two-thirds majorities of both Houses of Congress and then sent to the States for ratification. (It could also happen by the States calling for a constitutional convention).

Finding 2/3 of the members in both Houses brave enough to withstand the punishment of the gun nuts is very unlikely.

Political thuggery prevents it from happening.

BobPatterson wrote:

Political thuggery prevents it from happening.

You have it backwards. Political thuggery is the only way an Amendment would be passed at this time. They are our representatives, not our rulers. And thank God for that.

seb146 wrote:

While the ammosexuals are whining about "they are trying to take our guns away!" let's remind everyone that Australia, Canada, Sweden, Germany, and Switzerland all have restrictions on gun ownership, but people can still own guns. Guns in those countries have not been taken away, as is the popular talking point among NRA and right wingers.

The difference being that those countries don't have the gun fetish culture of the United States, a better education system, more critical and analytical media, a stronger sense of community rights over individual rights, universal (mental) healthcare, less military spending, stronger social safety nets and no NRA. Until the United States matches those critical social standards that the rest of the world follows their gun death and mass murder rate will will continue to remain much higher. And that would be even with the most basic of gun laws like universal background checks, waiting periods and assault weapons bans.

MSPNWA wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Political thuggery prevents it from happening.

You have it backwards. Political thuggery is the only way an Amendment would be passed at this time. They are our representatives, not our rulers. And thank God for that.

Amendments are passed or agreed to by the States, not by our representatives in Congress. But the spineless representative must agree to submit a proposed Amendment to the States for their approval or rejection.

The Thugs, as everyone knows, are the NRA plus an unsavory element of society.

BobPatterson wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Political thuggery prevents it from happening.

You have it backwards. Political thuggery is the only way an Amendment would be passed at this time. They are our representatives, not our rulers. And thank God for that.

Amendments are passed or agreed to by the States, not by our representatives in Congress. But the spineless representative must agree to submit a proposed Amendment to the States for their approval or rejection.

The Thugs, as everyone knows, are the NRA plus an unsavory element of society.

I see.

While I'm not an NRA member, I do own firearms and have been trained to use them. I also hold a CCW permit.

I've never committed a crime in my life, but because I dare own a firearm, I - and others like me - are an "unsavory element" in our society?

And you wonder why Trump won....

BobPatterson wrote:

Amendments are passed or agreed to by the States, not by our representatives in Congress. But the spineless representative must agree to submit a proposed Amendment to the States for their approval or rejection.

The Thugs, as everyone knows, are the NRA plus an unsavory element of society.

What part of representatives do you not understand?

So you're calling a large element - a likely majority - of this country thugs? Where's your tolerance and desire for diversity?

MSPNWA wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Political thuggery prevents it from happening.

You have it backwards. Political thuggery is the only way an Amendment would be passed at this time. They are our representatives, not our rulers. And thank God for that.

Then how do you explain that a clear majority of Americans are for some degree of gun control, yet their elected representatives decide to not hear them? Some representation...

Funny how the debate always devolves into a fierce constitutional debate.
As Bob mentioned earlier, there are several ways of interpreting the second amendment. In fact, it was interpreted differently not so long ago, when it was thought by the SC that it applied mostly to militia, before a mostly conservative SC decided that the 'militia' part of it had noting to do with it...

At the end of the day, the constitution is great and all, but it is a 200+ year old document, written in a time when American society was vastly different.
Discussing the constitution and what it means is akin to debating the meaning of the Bible. Efforts should be focused on passing policies that are relevant to the current society and its issues, based on facts, not on a text that applied to a society so old and different we can't even relate to it anymore.

Of course that isn't happening, and there is one reason for this, and the general 'at-all-cost' push for the protection of gun rights we have seen in the last decade. It's called the NRA.
Basically, a lobby funded by gun manufacturers has managed to pour so much money into Washington pockets that politicians are now happy to stay completely blind to the massive gun proliferation problem in the US and hide themselves behind a biased interpretation of the constitution (that itself has been pushed through relentless efforts by the NRA) instead of siding with the majority of their constituents.
It has gotten so bad that they'd rather defend a terrorist's right to obtain any gun he wants than risking ending up on the wrong side of the NRA.
It has gotten so bad that the regular mass shootings with automatic weapons that kill dozens of innocents, even children, are now treated and mourned as unavoidable catastrophes, like tornadoes or hurricanes rather than addressing the elephant in the room.

If anybody thinks this is just a constitutional issue, they're either trying to fool us or are fooling themselves.

EA CO AS wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

I'd think you'd have realized from my post that my snarky reply was to the idiocy of Scribml with his "Oh where for art thou, good guy with a gun?" bullshit. Clearly, even if those people in the crowd were armed it would have been impossible (and frankly, irresponsible) to immediately pinpoint the shooter's location, then try and fire back at this shooter once he'd been located, since you have a much better chance of hitting innocent hotel guests in their rooms than getting him.

So when people say 'the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun' you agree that it's not true and in certain circumstances could be even worse.

Don't put words in my mouth. In this instance, it's not true and yes, could have been made worse. However, I'd also argue that this situation is the exception rather than the rule. In general, I would still say a good guy with a gun is generally the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun.

But in no mass shooting ever has a good guy with a gun stopped it or even attempted to stop it, bang goes that argument.

MrHMSH wrote:

Not all of those stopped mass shootings, some of them stopped robberies and shootings that would be too small to register.

And there's also the teeny tiny problem that although that article lists 10 times someone stopped a shooting, it goes back to 2006, which means a generous estimate of well over 3,000 mass shootings in the USA since then(very generous, probably closer to 4,000), and yet there fewer than 10 occasions given in your source where a mass shooting was stopped by a 'good guy', which gives a pathetic success ratio of 1 in 400. I could be super generous and allow there to be 1000 occasions where a mass shooting has been stopped, but that's still a 75% failure rate. In the UK and Australia, the success rate is 100% for mass shootings, and although not perfect, far, far better for overall statistics.

So hopefully you'll retract your 'good guys are good at stopping bad guys' BS, correct?

You're making fatal statistical errors, and your data is highly questionable. How many of those "thousands" of mass shootings had people with guns able to fight back before it became a mass shooting? You're counting untold numbers of shootings without civilian gun defense as a case where a gun didn't stop it. That's an error. You're also stopping at those <10 with the reckless assumption that one article covered all cases. That's not how you count percentages, to put it mildly. Do you notice when mass shootings tend to stop? When someone shows up that can fight back. Countless numbers of potential attacks don't go reported because - maybe you guessed it - they never became a statistic in the first place. And also, how are you coming up with 3,000 mass shootings? The FBI's count is a fraction of that.

It's not hard to find stories of attacks stopped by as gun. They happen too frequently with all the evil people out there. The NRA's The Armed Citizen page is a good place to start. It's clear that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Go ask Steve Scalise and the other congressmen present that day. The fact that police carry guns tells us that. The stories tell us too. And basic logic as well.

EA CO AS wrote:

dragon-wings wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

That actually as happened. I'm not going to provide a sour because there are a good amount of stories over the past couple years of exactly that. And this will be my only post on this thread.

I will try and find one, but I have never heard of that happening.

Here are eleven, for starters. When you're done reading, I expect you'll retract your "not one good guy ever stopped a bad guy" BS, correct?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/multimed ... d-guy-gun/

None were mass shootings, they were almost all citizens defending themselves from home invasions, a legit use for a weapon, and none of them were using semi auto weapons.

BobPatterson wrote:

socalgeo wrote:

Why aren't the Democrat politicians working for a Constitutional Amendment?

Oh, C'mon. You know the answer.

Why didn't you pose the question as "Why aren't Republican and Democrat politicians working for a Constitutional Amendment?"

Normally an amendment must be proposed by two-thirds majorities of both Houses of Congress and then sent to the States for ratification. (It could also happen by the States calling for a constitutional convention).

Finding 2/3 of the members in both Houses brave enough to withstand the punishment of the gun nuts is very unlikely.

Political thuggery prevents it from happening.

Interesting. I think the answer is that no politician will try is because in most but the most liberal districts the majority of voters won't support it. It's a representative democracy, not thuggery.

Why is it a right for this terrorist to mow down 500+ people but if you can't afford cancer treatment or a basic check-up, you are a leech on society?

Kiwirob wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

dragon-wings wrote:

I will try and find one, but I have never heard of that happening.

Here are eleven, for starters. When you're done reading, I expect you'll retract your "not one good guy ever stopped a bad guy" BS, correct?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/multimed ... d-guy-gun/

None were mass shootings, they were almost all citizens defending themselves from home invasions, a legit use for a weapon, and none of them were using semi auto weapons.

You DO realize that a shooting spree that's stopped before it begins would therefore never BE a "mass shooting," right?

seb146 wrote:

Why is it a right for this terrorist to mow down 500+ people but if you can't afford cancer treatment or a basic check-up, you are a leech on society?

Oh for the love of....

I think you know perfectly well that this maniac did not have the right to mow down anyone, much the same as my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.

He had the right to own firearms; he did not have the right to take innocent life. Don't confuse the two.

seb146 wrote:

Why is it a right for this terrorist to mow down 500+ people but if you can't afford cancer treatment or a basic check-up, you are a leech on society?

You can't be serious. Who has said that there is anything "right" about this tradgedy?

socalgeo wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

socalgeo wrote:

Why aren't the Democrat politicians working for a Constitutional Amendment?

Oh, C'mon. You know the answer.

Why didn't you pose the question as "Why aren't Republican and Democrat politicians working for a Constitutional Amendment?"

Normally an amendment must be proposed by two-thirds majorities of both Houses of Congress and then sent to the States for ratification. (It could also happen by the States calling for a constitutional convention).

Finding 2/3 of the members in both Houses brave enough to withstand the punishment of the gun nuts is very unlikely.

Political thuggery prevents it from happening.

Interesting. I think the answer is that no politician will try is because in most but the most liberal districts the majority of voters won't support it. It's a representative democracy, not thuggery.

I got to wondering how many people in Congress accept money from the NRA. Now I wonder why anyone in his/her right mind would take as little as $1,000-$3,000 from the gun lobby.

The amount taken from the NRA (2016 data) are given here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... hics_pop_b

I hope I counted correctly:

........................... Republicans......Democrats
House.........................235..................10
Senate......................... 45................... 2
..................................------.................-----
...................................280..................12