America - Gun Control

[Yossarian]

I don't think a Gatling Gun would have been so easy to sneak into the 32nd floor of the Mandalay somehow, or any of the other mass shooting events that have taken place. And I'm sure that was put into service during the Civil War.

Imagine old mate strolling into the Orlando gay club "just keep dancing fellas, I'll have this set up in before the end of this Kylie Minogue song."

How many private citizens or government figures have their own personal warships these days?

Just further shows how different the times were and probably called for such measures to be written in whereas now the same reasons are either redundant (to defend the US colonies from the English,) or nonsense (defence against a tyrannical government who now has significantly superior firepower and kill scores at distance and anonymously.)

Doesn't change the fact that the 'Musket' theory is historically incorrect.

The second amendment did not refer to, in either word or meaning, primitive weaponry.

Whether you agree with it, or its practicality, is a different argument entirely.

The weaponry was drastically less sophisticated. No one was running around with anything quite like semi-auto or fully automatic weapons.

And no it was not specifically written for particular weapons, but it was written for the times Abe. You have to observe it in an historical context. Do you honestly believe a Second Amendment would be necessary in the modern USA? If the Second is still legitimate and doesn't subscribe to particular weapons do you think Americans should have access to RPG's, Bazookas, artillery and nuclear weapons?

The USA is not the same nation it was 230 years ago, not by a long shot.

Your trying to take the second amendment out of context. It covers an individuals write to bear arms, not to own nuclear warheads and to drive down Hollywood boulevard in an armored tank.

Ask yourself why it was written, and if your honest with yourself you cant possibly come up with a legitimate argument that somehow it was limited to muskets, when people of that era were already using more sophisticated weaponry than muskets anyway.

Its like arguing that the First Amendment should be limited to people writing with ink pots and quills, because computers weren't invented back then. Of course its not the case, because the principal and spirit of the amendment are front and center, notwithstanding changes to technology.

Actually I think he's trying to place the second amendment _in_ context. You make some good points Abe but I don't think your first amendment comparison is reasonable. To me it's clear the 2nd amendment was written at a time when large standing armies were rare and citizen militias necessary to withstand foreign invasion or internal insurrection. I don't believe the intent was to provide citizens with an unfettered ability to obtain firearms for any purpose.

 

[cochise]

I don't think a Gatling Gun would have been so easy to sneak into the 32nd floor of the Mandalay somehow, or any of the other mass shooting events that have taken place. And I'm sure that was put into service during the Civil War.

Imagine old mate strolling into the Orlando gay club "just keep dancing fellas, I'll have this set up in before the end of this Kylie Minogue song."

How many private citizens or government figures have their own personal warships these days?

Just further shows how different the times were and probably called for such measures to be written in whereas now the same reasons are either redundant (to defend the US colonies from the English,) or nonsense (defence against a tyrannical government who now has significantly superior firepower and kill scores at distance and anonymously.)

Doesn't change the fact that the 'Musket' theory is historically incorrect.

The second amendment did not refer to, in either word or meaning, primitive weaponry.

Whether you agree with it, or its practicality, is a different argument entirely.

The weaponry was drastically less sophisticated. No one was running around with anything quite like semi-auto or fully automatic weapons.

And no it was not specifically written for particular weapons, but it was written for the times Abe. You have to observe it in an historical context. Do you honestly believe a Second Amendment would be necessary in the modern USA? If the Second is still legitimate and doesn't subscribe to particular weapons do you think Americans should have access to RPG's, Bazookas, artillery and nuclear weapons?

The USA is not the same nation it was 230 years ago, not by a long shot.

Your trying to take the second amendment out of context. It covers an individuals write to bear arms, not to own nuclear warheads and to drive down Hollywood boulevard in an armored tank.

Ask yourself why it was written, and if your honest with yourself you cant possibly come up with a legitimate argument that somehow it was limited to muskets, when people of that era were already using more sophisticated weaponry than muskets anyway.

Its like arguing that the First Amendment should be limited to people writing with ink pots and quills, because computers weren't invented back then. Of course its not the case, because the principal and spirit of the amendment are front and center, notwithstanding changes to technology.

The right to an individual to bear arms for self defense is only a recent interpretation and one that will probably be challenged again in the future.

 

[Yossarian]

A little research would have told you that the gatling gun was NOT in existence when the 2nd ammendment was introduced in 1791 the inventor wasnt even born till 1818.He must have been truly brilliant to design and build something 27 years before he was born.

\

Well google tells me the Gatlin Gun was patented in 1862 ..the Constitution signed off on in 1787 so unless they had a Delorean ..i doubt they thought citizens could pick one up at the local 7/11…

I'll cop that on the chin.

I meant the Puckle Gun, which was the precursor to the Gatling Gun.

Doesn't change my point, or its validity.

Abe…I'd never heard of a Puckle Gun so I googled it...I don't think they were very good..It says they only made 2..not really enough for every man woman and child in the revolution..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun

Rapid fire weapons have been around since the 1400s i believe. I provided two examples, but there are many many more.

So if weapons far more sophisticated than muskets were already in use in america prior to the 2A being written, what would make you conclude that an amendment designed to provide parity between people and government would limit said people's weapons to firearms that were already old technology?

In the decades after the 2nd amendment was wrtitten, not one of the founding fathers ever mentioned that it should be restricted in light of the bigger and badder guns that were constantly being developed.

So unless a previously undiscovered footnote turns up, the musket arguement doesnt hold water in any historical sense or logical sense.

But it doesn't provide parity. Unless you start letting people own anti aircraft batteries and anti tank weapons the US Army has long ago settled that.

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

As well as letting people possess nuke weapons to achieve parity. I can't see any of Abraham's legal quotes that prohibit such - only his contradictory interpretations.

 

[earl]

If you follow their line of thinking of matching government weapons then ordinary citizens should able to possess nuke weapons.

I want me nuke. That way no gubment is going to get me.

 

[Geo]

A little research would have told you that the gatling gun was NOT in existence when the 2nd ammendment was introduced in 1791 the inventor wasnt even born till 1818.He must have been truly brilliant to design and build something 27 years before he was born.

\

Well google tells me the Gatlin Gun was patented in 1862 ..the Constitution signed off on in 1787 so unless they had a Delorean ..i doubt they thought citizens could pick one up at the local 7/11…

I'll cop that on the chin.

I meant the Puckle Gun, which was the precursor to the Gatling Gun.

Doesn't change my point, or its validity.

Abe…I'd never heard of a Puckle Gun so I googled it...I don't think they were very good..It says they only made 2..not really enough for every man woman and child in the revolution..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun

Rapid fire weapons have been around since the 1400s i believe. I provided two examples, but there are many many more.

So if weapons far more sophisticated than muskets were already in use in america prior to the 2A being written, what would make you conclude that an amendment designed to provide parity between people and government would limit said people's weapons to firearms that were already old technology?

In the decades after the 2nd amendment was wrtitten, not one of the founding fathers ever mentioned that it should be restricted in light of the bigger and badder guns that were constantly being developed.

So unless a previously undiscovered footnote turns up, the musket arguement doesnt hold water in any historical sense or logical sense.

I don't see any rapid fire weapons listed here.. lots of Muskets https://www.landofthebrave.info/weapons-of-the-revolutionary-war.htm

I do note that Bayonets accounted for almost a 1/3 of deaths..

And Canons..maybe everyone could get a Canon..

 

[Munk]

We just had a crazy guy who had no signs of being crazy buy so many weapons and go and kill a whole bunch of people he didn't know. The problem clearly was the access to guns and specifically the type of guns he could get.

Earl you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. What you have stated here is the height of irrational thinking.
"A crazy guy who had no signs of being crazy" what does this mean and how is it relateable?
He didnt just buy a heap of weapons then decide the best use for them would be to shoot over 500 people. He didnt think that "I have all these guns so the logical next step is murder" that is not how it works. Do you own firearms? Know anyone who does? I highly doubt it and your blanket ignorant posts are the giveaway.

The problem was not his access to weaponry. Hundreds of millions of people have the same access and the massive majority dont shoot up festivals or schools. Access was not the reason. Crazy was not the reason. Drugs maybe? Possible but this was very well planned and executed so lets rule them out. Hatred and biggotry seems more plausible. This was a premeditated execution. It was a statement. It was terrorism of sorts and banning guns would not have prevented it.

 

[cochise]

We just had a crazy guy who had no signs of being crazy buy so many weapons and go and kill a whole bunch of people he didn't know. The problem clearly was the access to guns and specifically the type of guns he could get.

Earl you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. What you have stated here is the height of irrational thinking.
"A crazy guy who had no signs of being crazy" what does this mean and how is it relateable?
He didnt just buy a heap of weapons then decide the best use for them would be to shoot over 500 people. He didnt think that "I have all these guns so the logical next step is murder" that is not how it works. Do you own firearms? Know anyone who does? I highly doubt it and your blanket ignorant posts are the giveaway.

The problem was not his access to weaponry. Hundreds of millions of people have the same access and the massive majority dont shoot up festivals or schools. Access was not the reason. Crazy was not the reason. Drugs maybe? Possible but this was very well planned and executed so lets rule them out. Hatred and biggotry seems more plausible. This was a premeditated execution. It was a statement. It was terrorism of sorts and banning guns would not have prevented it.

Why is it that people in his situation choose guns as their instrument to carry out these attacks?

 

[Munk]

We just had a crazy guy who had no signs of being crazy buy so many weapons and go and kill a whole bunch of people he didn't know. The problem clearly was the access to guns and specifically the type of guns he could get.

Earl you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. What you have stated here is the height of irrational thinking.
"A crazy guy who had no signs of being crazy" what does this mean and how is it relateable?
He didnt just buy a heap of weapons then decide the best use for them would be to shoot over 500 people. He didnt think that "I have all these guns so the logical next step is murder" that is not how it works. Do you own firearms? Know anyone who does? I highly doubt it and your blanket ignorant posts are the giveaway.

The problem was not his access to weaponry. Hundreds of millions of people have the same access and the massive majority dont shoot up festivals or schools. Access was not the reason. Crazy was not the reason. Drugs maybe? Possible but this was very well planned and executed so lets rule them out. Hatred and biggotry seems more plausible. This was a premeditated execution. It was a statement. It was terrorism of sorts and banning guns would not have prevented it.

Why is it that people in his situation choose guns as their instrument to carry out these attacks?

I dont know, you will have to ask them.

 

[cochise]

We just had a crazy guy who had no signs of being crazy buy so many weapons and go and kill a whole bunch of people he didn't know. The problem clearly was the access to guns and specifically the type of guns he could get.

Earl you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. What you have stated here is the height of irrational thinking.
"A crazy guy who had no signs of being crazy" what does this mean and how is it relateable?
He didnt just buy a heap of weapons then decide the best use for them would be to shoot over 500 people. He didnt think that "I have all these guns so the logical next step is murder" that is not how it works. Do you own firearms? Know anyone who does? I highly doubt it and your blanket ignorant posts are the giveaway.

The problem was not his access to weaponry. Hundreds of millions of people have the same access and the massive majority dont shoot up festivals or schools. Access was not the reason. Crazy was not the reason. Drugs maybe? Possible but this was very well planned and executed so lets rule them out. Hatred and biggotry seems more plausible. This was a premeditated execution. It was a statement. It was terrorism of sorts and banning guns would not have prevented it.

Why is it that people in his situation choose guns as their instrument to carry out these attacks?

I dont know, you will have to ask them.

So you don't see any correlation between the easy access and ability to injure and kill a large number of people in a short space of time with the fact that guns are usually the weapon of choice in these situations?

 

[MG1962]

Having tighter gun registration would have helped police identify some one possibly slipping over the edge. 33 purchases of semi automatic weapons in a 12 month period is extraordinary by any standard.

Ok, say he had to register these guns with the feds, then what next?

They turn up to his house and ask why he needs so many guns. He tells them to either get lost, or makes up some story about guns being his new legal hobby.

Do the feds confiscate his legally obtained guns? No, they aren't allowed to.

Do they place 24/7 long term surveillance on him and every other person who owns alot of guns? Maybe, but that's not really practical for an already stretched intelligence service.

Suggestions like this are fine in principal, but I fail to see the practicality of them being able to stop a crazy man shooting at people. He didn't committ this massacre with 50 guns, he only used 2 (if we believe the ever-changing sequence of events the authorities are feeding the public). So buying alot of guns is a side-issue, not something that actually has anything to do with this tragedy or the ability to prevent it.

Yes to all of the above. If you can successfully do it for fertilizer, you can do it with stockpiled weapons. Here in Kansas alone I am aware of at least three potential terror attacks foiled over the last couple of years by the tracking of fertilizer sales.

 

[Munk]

Earl you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. What you have stated here is the height of irrational thinking.
"A crazy guy who had no signs of being crazy" what does this mean and how is it relateable?
He didnt just buy a heap of weapons then decide the best use for them would be to shoot over 500 people. He didnt think that "I have all these guns so the logical next step is murder" that is not how it works. Do you own firearms? Know anyone who does? I highly doubt it and your blanket ignorant posts are the giveaway.

The problem was not his access to weaponry. Hundreds of millions of people have the same access and the massive majority dont shoot up festivals or schools. Access was not the reason. Crazy was not the reason. Drugs maybe? Possible but this was very well planned and executed so lets rule them out. Hatred and biggotry seems more plausible. This was a premeditated execution. It was a statement. It was terrorism of sorts and banning guns would not have prevented it.

Why is it that people in his situation choose guns as their instrument to carry out these attacks?

I dont know, you will have to ask them.

So you don't see any correlation between the easy access and ability to injure and kill a large number of people in a short space of time with the fact that guns are usually the weapon of choice in these situations?

Nope. I see the easy access to purchase firearms as an opportunity to procure a weapon for literally any other reason other than murder. Only the very miniscule minority think differently.

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

I dislike the whole gun culture. Often shooters are into target shooting spraying lead or whatever for thrills, lead is poisonous in the environment and probably also when manufacturing. Any other sport is more energetic and interesting than just pulling a trigger.

 

[cochise]

Why is it that people in his situation choose guns as their instrument to carry out these attacks?

I dont know, you will have to ask them.

So you don't see any correlation between the easy access and ability to injure and kill a large number of people in a short space of time with the fact that guns are usually the weapon of choice in these situations?

Nope. I see the easy access to purchase firearms as an opportunity to procure a weapon for literally any other reason other than murder. Only the very miniscule minority think differently.

But that doesn't explain their choice in using a gun to commit their act when as you and others have stated on here that there are other ways they could kill a lot people quickly. They are not choosing to drive a car into people, they are not making a bomb, they are choosing to use guns in the vast majority of cases and the reasons for those choices need to be examined. There is one major difference between the us and other countries that do not have this history of mass killings.

 

[Tim Sheens]

A little research would have told you that the gatling gun was NOT in existence when the 2nd ammendment was introduced in 1791 the inventor wasnt even born till 1818.He must have been truly brilliant to design and build something 27 years before he was born.

\

Well google tells me the Gatlin Gun was patented in 1862 ..the Constitution signed off on in 1787 so unless they had a Delorean ..i doubt they thought citizens could pick one up at the local 7/11…

I'll cop that on the chin.

I meant the Puckle Gun, which was the precursor to the Gatling Gun.

Doesn't change my point, or its validity.

Abe…I'd never heard of a Puckle Gun so I googled it...I don't think they were very good..It says they only made 2..not really enough for every man woman and child in the revolution..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun

Rapid fire weapons have been around since the 1400s i believe. I provided two examples, but there are many many more.

So if weapons far more sophisticated than muskets were already in use in america prior to the 2A being written, what would make you conclude that an amendment designed to provide parity between people and government would limit said people's weapons to firearms that were already old technology?

In the decades after the 2nd amendment was wrtitten, not one of the founding fathers ever mentioned that it should be restricted in light of the bigger and badder guns that were constantly being developed.

So unless a previously undiscovered footnote turns up, the musket arguement doesnt hold water in any historical sense or logical sense.

Old technology my arse.

There is good reason that they were armed with musket load rifles at the time and not technology that may have been three centuries old, rapid or not. All leading forces have and continue to use the best/most effective armaments available at any given time, with the exception of course of biological, gas and nuclear options.

Most of those that were involved in creating the constitution and the later bill of rights had died in the subsequent three or four decades before the musket rifle was superseded as the ultimate personal weapon. Your prior example of the Gatling gun is a prime one of using the best available weapons, even if it was the best part of a century after the amendment.

 

[Tim Sheens]

Why is it that people in his situation choose guns as their instrument to carry out these attacks?

I dont know, you will have to ask them.

So you don't see any correlation between the easy access and ability to injure and kill a large number of people in a short space of time with the fact that guns are usually the weapon of choice in these situations?

Nope. I see the easy access to purchase firearms as an opportunity to procure a weapon for literally any other reason other than murder. Only the very miniscule minority think differently.

I laughed when I read the words "an opportunity to procure a weapon", then I thought of how many lives are lost each year to those weapons that were so easily purchased for reasons "other than murder". My mood is now much more somber as I recall scenes and photos of formerly smiling children, challenged youth and domestic violence victims lost as a result of a good number of those purchases.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

I don't think a Gatling Gun would have been so easy to sneak into the 32nd floor of the Mandalay somehow, or any of the other mass shooting events that have taken place. And I'm sure that was put into service during the Civil War.

Imagine old mate strolling into the Orlando gay club "just keep dancing fellas, I'll have this set up in before the end of this Kylie Minogue song."

How many private citizens or government figures have their own personal warships these days?

Just further shows how different the times were and probably called for such measures to be written in whereas now the same reasons are either redundant (to defend the US colonies from the English,) or nonsense (defence against a tyrannical government who now has significantly superior firepower and kill scores at distance and anonymously.)

Doesn't change the fact that the 'Musket' theory is historically incorrect.

The second amendment did not refer to, in either word or meaning, primitive weaponry.

Whether you agree with it, or its practicality, is a different argument entirely.

The weaponry was drastically less sophisticated. No one was running around with anything quite like semi-auto or fully automatic weapons.

And no it was not specifically written for particular weapons, but it was written for the times Abe. You have to observe it in an historical context. Do you honestly believe a Second Amendment would be necessary in the modern USA? If the Second is still legitimate and doesn't subscribe to particular weapons do you think Americans should have access to RPG's, Bazookas, artillery and nuclear weapons?

The USA is not the same nation it was 230 years ago, not by a long shot.

Your trying to take the second amendment out of context. It covers an individuals write to bear arms, not to own nuclear warheads and to drive down Hollywood boulevard in an armored tank.

Ask yourself why it was written, and if your honest with yourself you cant possibly come up with a legitimate argument that somehow it was limited to muskets, when people of that era were already using more sophisticated weaponry than muskets anyway.

Its like arguing that the First Amendment should be limited to people writing with ink pots and quills, because computers weren't invented back then. Of course its not the case, because the principal and spirit of the amendment are front and center, notwithstanding changes to technology.

Yoss has pretty much covered off on what I intended to reply with. My response to you was to put it in a context from a historical perspective, taking into account the events at the time. The primary intent was to be able to conjure up a large civilian militia in the absence of a national standing army, the giveaway is in the actual wording of the Amendment. Self defence from each other is merely a modern expansion of the Second Amendment.

Do you believe that if the Amendment (in it's original context,) did not exist today that it would need to be enacted given the military might of the USA?

 

[Nelson]

We just had a crazy guy who had no signs of being crazy buy so many weapons and go and kill a whole bunch of people he didn't know. The problem clearly was the access to guns and specifically the type of guns he could get.

Earl you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. What you have stated here is the height of irrational thinking.
"A crazy guy who had no signs of being crazy" what does this mean and how is it relateable?
He didnt just buy a heap of weapons then decide the best use for them would be to shoot over 500 people. He didnt think that "I have all these guns so the logical next step is murder" that is not how it works. Do you own firearms? Know anyone who does? I highly doubt it and your blanket ignorant posts are the giveaway.

The problem was not his access to weaponry. Hundreds of millions of people have the same access and the massive majority dont shoot up festivals or schools. Access was not the reason. Crazy was not the reason. Drugs maybe? Possible but this was very well planned and executed so lets rule them out. Hatred and biggotry seems more plausible. This was a premeditated execution. It was a statement. It was terrorism of sorts and banning guns would not have prevented it.

Here we go, back to ole faithful "guns don't kill people, people kill people"…

 

[Nelson]

I'll cop that on the chin.

I meant the Puckle Gun, which was the precursor to the Gatling Gun.

Doesn't change my point, or its validity.

Abe…I'd never heard of a Puckle Gun so I googled it...I don't think they were very good..It says they only made 2..not really enough for every man woman and child in the revolution..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun

Rapid fire weapons have been around since the 1400s i believe. I provided two examples, but there are many many more.

So if weapons far more sophisticated than muskets were already in use in america prior to the 2A being written, what would make you conclude that an amendment designed to provide parity between people and government would limit said people's weapons to firearms that were already old technology?

In the decades after the 2nd amendment was wrtitten, not one of the founding fathers ever mentioned that it should be restricted in light of the bigger and badder guns that were constantly being developed.

So unless a previously undiscovered footnote turns up, the musket arguement doesnt hold water in any historical sense or logical sense.

I don't see any rapid fire weapons listed here.. lots of Muskets https://www.landofthebrave.info/weapons-of-the-revolutionary-war.htm

I do note that Bayonets accounted for almost a 1/3 of deaths..

And Canons..maybe everyone could get a Canon..

I wonder if he'll come back at you again, he's like a punch drunk old boxer this one…

 

[cochise]

Doesn't change the fact that the 'Musket' theory is historically incorrect.

The second amendment did not refer to, in either word or meaning, primitive weaponry.

Whether you agree with it, or its practicality, is a different argument entirely.

The weaponry was drastically less sophisticated. No one was running around with anything quite like semi-auto or fully automatic weapons.

And no it was not specifically written for particular weapons, but it was written for the times Abe. You have to observe it in an historical context. Do you honestly believe a Second Amendment would be necessary in the modern USA? If the Second is still legitimate and doesn't subscribe to particular weapons do you think Americans should have access to RPG's, Bazookas, artillery and nuclear weapons?

The USA is not the same nation it was 230 years ago, not by a long shot.

Your trying to take the second amendment out of context. It covers an individuals write to bear arms, not to own nuclear warheads and to drive down Hollywood boulevard in an armored tank.

Ask yourself why it was written, and if your honest with yourself you cant possibly come up with a legitimate argument that somehow it was limited to muskets, when people of that era were already using more sophisticated weaponry than muskets anyway.

Its like arguing that the First Amendment should be limited to people writing with ink pots and quills, because computers weren't invented back then. Of course its not the case, because the principal and spirit of the amendment are front and center, notwithstanding changes to technology.

Yoss has pretty much covered off on what I intended to reply with. My response to you was to put it in a context from a historical perspective, taking into account the events at the time. The primary intent was to be able to conjure up a large civilian militia in the absence of a national standing army, the giveaway is in the actual wording of the Amendment. Self defence from each other is merely a modern expansion of the Second Amendment.

Do you believe that if the Amendment (in it's original context,) did not exist today that it would need to be enacted given the military might of the USA?

That is exactly the point, there was a modern interpretation put on the amendment in 2008, by the supreme court, that extended the "right to bear arms" to people not in a militia on the grounds of self defence. The vote was won 5-4 and resulted a handgun ban from 1975 being overturned. At some point in the future that interpretation will be challenged again and likely eventually overturned.