America - Gun Control

[Geo]

I never mentioned Musket's…I just said I'm not sure they had high powered automatic weapons that you can pick up at the local 7/11 without much fuss in mind when they wrote it..

Some dude bought 33 of them and ammo in a year..no one battered an eye..

 

[Munk]

I got 7 different responses overnight about the Musket/2nd Amendment issue, and i don't really want to start 7 different conversation on the same issue. So i am not trying to be rude by not replying to everyone individually, just that running 7 discussions on the same topic is not going to very productive.

Whether people agree with the 2nd Amendment is a side point, but the question of whether the 2nd Amendment applies only to Muskets is an issue of simple fact. Its been written about extensively from both viewpoints, but opinions cannot circumvent the realities contained within the text:

"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.".

This was written by James Maddison who was a military figure and lawmaker. If he wanted the text to apply to muskets, he would have written the word "muskets. He didn't. He used the word "Arms", and the universally accepted definition of arms leaves little room for any additional interpretation.

If you disagree it is probably because of personal opinion, not because of anything factual within the text that gives rise to the idea that the Amendment means something other than what it clearly says.

Even the US Supreme Court has recently ruled that : "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding".

Very good Abe, you read the same Wikipedia article I did and conveniently left out the following:

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the scope of the Second Amendment's protections to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."

Again, the extension of the right to bear arms as a means of self defence from other average Americans is a modern interpretation as the well regulated militia has made way for the Reserve National Guard and US military.

Are you seriously quoting wikipedia?
I might start quoting my aunty Nora :crazy

 

[Munk]

I never mentioned Musket's…I just said I'm not sure they had high powered automatic weapons that you can pick up at the local 7/11 without much fuss in mind when they wrote it..

Some dude bought 33 of them and ammo in a year..no one battered an eye..

You did so mention muskets lol. I believe you were attempting wit?

 

[Geo]

I never mentioned Musket's…I just said I'm not sure they had high powered automatic weapons that you can pick up at the local 7/11 without much fuss in mind when they wrote it..

Some dude bought 33 of them and ammo in a year..no one battered an eye..

You did so mention muskets lol. I believe you were attempting wit?

Nah this was the OP that started Abe on the interpretation dialogue…Muskets came later..

Somehow I don't think those who wrote that constitution had high powered automatic weapons in mind…

 

[Abraham]

Somehow I don't think those who wrote that constitution had high powered automatic weapons in mind…

\

Or everyone gets a Musket..only fair..

This is what i was responding to … and then CB started getting worked up over something else on a different tangent.

 

[Abraham]

I'll go back and look at Geo's posts to clarify.

I know that I never said that it specified any weapon. And yes, you're correct that the Supreme Court has confirmed a number of times in the last 30 years that it applies to modern weapons. Again I haven't disputed that, I said that it hasn't always been the case and it is only a modern interpretation of the Amendment.

Lastly I don't require any breathing techniques old mate. If you think this is getting me worked up then you don't know me all that well.

So if you agree that the 2A doesn't rule out modern weapons then i dont know what the issue is. That is my sole point.

And no, obviously i dont know you. But Hillary Clinton swears by single nostril breathing techniques. So if its good enough for crooked Hillary …

 

[earl]

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.

Are you serious because if you are then you need to go and get yourself checked out. All it takes to commit a crime like that is access to guns and to be crazy. That is all it is. Normal people don't do that.

Yes crazy was the reason. In America crazy people can get guns. It's happened in Australia too. All you can do to try to limit the damage is limit the access to guns.

If all guns were banned it definitely wouldn't have happened. You can argue that as much as you like but you can't change the fact that the reality is that a society that has access to so many guns will have atrocities like this occur.

I know plenty of people that have guns as well.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

I'll go back and look at Geo's posts to clarify.

I know that I never said that it specified any weapon. And yes, you're correct that the Supreme Court has confirmed a number of times in the last 30 years that it applies to modern weapons. Again I haven't disputed that, I said that it hasn't always been the case and it is only a modern interpretation of the Amendment.

Lastly I don't require any breathing techniques old mate. If you think this is getting me worked up then you don't know me all that well.

So if you agree that the 2A doesn't rule out modern weapons then i dont know what the issue is. That is my sole point.

And no, obviously i dont know you. But Hillary Clinton swears by single nostril breathing techniques. So if its good enough for crooked Hillary …

My issue is that the Amendment is redundant.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

I got 7 different responses overnight about the Musket/2nd Amendment issue, and i don't really want to start 7 different conversation on the same issue. So i am not trying to be rude by not replying to everyone individually, just that running 7 discussions on the same topic is not going to very productive.

Whether people agree with the 2nd Amendment is a side point, but the question of whether the 2nd Amendment applies only to Muskets is an issue of simple fact. Its been written about extensively from both viewpoints, but opinions cannot circumvent the realities contained within the text:

"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.".

This was written by James Maddison who was a military figure and lawmaker. If he wanted the text to apply to muskets, he would have written the word "muskets. He didn't. He used the word "Arms", and the universally accepted definition of arms leaves little room for any additional interpretation.

If you disagree it is probably because of personal opinion, not because of anything factual within the text that gives rise to the idea that the Amendment means something other than what it clearly says.

Even the US Supreme Court has recently ruled that : "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding".

Very good Abe, you read the same Wikipedia article I did and conveniently left out the following:

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the scope of the Second Amendment's protections to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."

Again, the extension of the right to bear arms as a means of self defence from other average Americans is a modern interpretation as the well regulated militia has made way for the Reserve National Guard and US military.

Are you seriously quoting wikipedia?
I might start quoting my aunty Nora :crazy

See the numbers in parentheses? They're the source material links in the article bibliography. At least I included that so people can see it's not unfounded nonsense by some anti-gun critic.

Is your Aunty Nora clued up on the Second Amendment? She might have an opinion on it instead of taking shots from the peanut gallery.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Somehow I don't think those who wrote that constitution had high powered automatic weapons in mind…

\

Or everyone gets a Musket..only fair..

This is what i was responding to … and then CB started getting worked up over something else on a different tangent.

What, debating the Amendment in an historical context and my opinion that the modern intepretation doesn't match that of the spirit of the time in which it was conceived?

 

[Munk]

All it takes to commit a crime like that is access to guns and to be crazy. That is all it is. Normal people don't do that.
Yes crazy was the reason. In America crazy people can get guns. It's happened in Australia too. All you can do to try and limit the damage is limit the access to guns. If all guns were banned it definitely wouldn't have happened.

You just keep proving me right Earl.
Wrong and wrong again.
I posted a few examples a few pages back that highlighted the fact that many crimes like this occur without a gun in sight. You also do not need to be crazy at all. People with agendas, be they religious, political or social committ horrendus crimes whilst not officialy being "crazy".
Show me evidence that "crazy" people are allowed to purchase firearms in America. It is just another example of your ignorance on this issue…btw also explain how "crazy" was the reason for this rampage. I have not seen a shred of evidence to back this up, in fact i have seen the opposite. Banning guns will limit nothing. Have you any idea how easy it is to purchase a blackmarket firearm? Under your ridiculous utopia, only bad guys like this shooter in Vegas would have guns...brilliant work! You use a lot of emotional words and statements like 'definitely' in your rants but they carry zero weight as in the end of the day it is only your opinion and we have no proof that you arent mentaly handicapped or worse.
Use facts and you may be taken seriously.

 

[Munk]

I'll go back and look at Geo's posts to clarify.

I know that I never said that it specified any weapon. And yes, you're correct that the Supreme Court has confirmed a number of times in the last 30 years that it applies to modern weapons. Again I haven't disputed that, I said that it hasn't always been the case and it is only a modern interpretation of the Amendment.

Lastly I don't require any breathing techniques old mate. If you think this is getting me worked up then you don't know me all that well.

So if you agree that the 2A doesn't rule out modern weapons then i dont know what the issue is. That is my sole point.

And no, obviously i dont know you. But Hillary Clinton swears by single nostril breathing techniques. So if its good enough for crooked Hillary …

My issue is that the Amendment is redundant.

Lol so you take to a football forum to throw a tantrum about it? I suppose thats the best you can hope for as the second amendment is far too robust to be altered by people who get their knickers in a twist when ever it suits their paranoia.
Carry on.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

I'll go back and look at Geo's posts to clarify.

I know that I never said that it specified any weapon. And yes, you're correct that the Supreme Court has confirmed a number of times in the last 30 years that it applies to modern weapons. Again I haven't disputed that, I said that it hasn't always been the case and it is only a modern interpretation of the Amendment.

Lastly I don't require any breathing techniques old mate. If you think this is getting me worked up then you don't know me all that well.

So if you agree that the 2A doesn't rule out modern weapons then i dont know what the issue is. That is my sole point.

And no, obviously i dont know you. But Hillary Clinton swears by single nostril breathing techniques. So if its good enough for crooked Hillary …

My issue is that the Amendment is redundant.

Lol so you take to a football forum to throw a tantrum about it? I suppose thats the best you can hope for as the second amendment is far too robust to be altered by people who get their knickers in a twist when ever it suits their paranoia.
Carry on.

I don't see how discussing it in a non footy forum is frowned upon nor throwing a tantrum, I mean you're happy to have your opinion and when those don't agree you get the cats arse, get belligerent and start playing the man and not the ball… Well, when in Rome I guess.

Speaking of tantrums, perhaps I should announce I'm throwing the place in only to come back in a fortnight? What do you reckon, "Munk?"

 

[Munk]

Ive seen the bogan, how about a bit of cultured to go with it?
You can not lamblast another country's culture and laws simply because you dont agree with them without encountering opposition. Over 300 million guns in America, the way you guys report it, there should be constant warfare on the streets ala Syria or the like. The simple fact there is guns available is not the main cause of these instances IMO. There has not been this much division in America since the war. Half the population hates the other half. Hatred and biggotry has a lot to do with it but we'll never know until the authorities can apprehend the perpetrators alive.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Ive seen the bogan, how about a bit of cultured to go with it?
You can not lamblast another country's culture and laws simply because you dont agree with them without encountering opposition. Over 300 million guns in America, the way you guys report it, there should be constant warfare on the streets ala Syria or the like. The simple fact there is guns available is not the main cause of these instances IMO. There has not been this much division in America since the war. Half the population hates the other half. Hatred and biggotry has a lot to do with it but we'll never know until the authorities can apprehend the perpetrators alive.

Mental health is a huge issue in the US, but it is way too easy for someone to stockpile an arsenal, snap and take out scores of people. A lot of it appears to be premeditated so maximum damage is inflicted.

I've visited the US a number of times, my sister has an American boyfriend and stays there part time. The country on the whole is a great place with wonderful people. But it boggles the mind how a loner can wipe out a kindergarten class, everyone cries and then nothing is done about it.

And I expect to encounter opposition. Gun control is not a popular topic there and likely won't be until everyone has a statistic in their family tree.

 

[cochise]

Ive seen the bogan, how about a bit of cultured to go with it?
You can not lamblast another country's culture and laws simply because you dont agree with them without encountering opposition. Over 300 million guns in America, the way you guys report it, there should be constant warfare on the streets ala Syria or the like. The simple fact there is guns available is not the main cause of these instances IMO. There has not been this much division in America since the war. Half the population hates the other half. Hatred and biggotry has a lot to do with it but we'll never know until the authorities can apprehend the perpetrators alive.

ok, you raised Syria so let discuss that. In 2015 the us had 13286 deaths attributed to gun violence (That's 36 a day in case you are counting). In 2015 Syria had 55000 deaths in the war, but lets be fair about that, the majority of those were soldiers fighting in a war, so lets look at the innocent civilians and we find that 22000 civilian deaths occurred. Yes the populations are much different but it is a war zone and the us had almost 2/3rds the deaths of a warzone.

There were 13286 gun homicides in 2015 out of 15,696 homicides, really think of those numbers , that's almost 3/4 of all homicides involved a gun. We need to ask why guns are used in so many of the homicides in the us.

 

[Munk]

Ive seen the bogan, how about a bit of cultured to go with it?
You can not lamblast another country's culture and laws simply because you dont agree with them without encountering opposition. Over 300 million guns in America, the way you guys report it, there should be constant warfare on the streets ala Syria or the like. The simple fact there is guns available is not the main cause of these instances IMO. There has not been this much division in America since the war. Half the population hates the other half. Hatred and biggotry has a lot to do with it but we'll never know until the authorities can apprehend the perpetrators alive.

ok, you raised Syria so let discuss that. In 2015 the us had 13286 deaths attributed to gun violence (That's 36 a day in case you are counting). In 2015 Syria had 55000 deaths in the war, but lets be fair about that, the majority of those were soldiers fighting in a war, so lets look at the innocent civilians and we find that 22000 civilian deaths occurred. Yes the populations are much different but it is a war zone and the us had almost 2/3rds the deaths of a warzone.

There were 13286 gun homicides in 2015 out of 15,696 homicides, really think of those numbers , that's almost 3/4 of all homicides involved a gun. We need to ask why guns are used in so many of the homicides in the us.

I appreciate your effort to find an article to aid your assertions but I have to smile at your use of 2015 which was an outlier year for homicide in America. You are correct, the homicide (gun related) rate spiked that year. You should also know that the FBI attributed this jump to gangland wars in major cities over the heroin trade. Would a gun ban have affected those figures much do you think? Before you answer, give a thought about the blackmarket which primarily sources weapons from Manilla.

 

[Geo]

Somehow I don't think those who wrote that constitution had high powered automatic weapons in mind…

\

Or everyone gets a Musket..only fair..

This is what i was responding to … and then CB started getting worked up over something else on a different tangent.

Abe..that was a tongue in cheek response to CB's comment..

FWIW…I have no problem with the American Constitution or their citizens right to bare arms..the issue I have is the ease with which they seem to be able to stockpile these high powered weapons...

I mean I ask myself for what purpose would someone need to have over 30 weapons...

 

[Tim Sheens]

Ive seen the bogan, how about a bit of cultured to go with it?
You can not lamblast another country's culture and laws simply because you dont agree with them without encountering opposition. Over 300 million guns in America, the way you guys report it, there should be constant warfare on the streets ala Syria or the like. The simple fact there is guns available is not the main cause of these instances IMO. There has not been this much division in America since the war. Half the population hates the other half. Hatred and biggotry has a lot to do with it but we'll never know until the authorities can apprehend the perpetrators alive.

Mental health is a huge issue in the US, but it is way too easy for someone to stockpile an arsenal, snap and take out scores of people. A lot of it appears to be premeditated so maximum damage is inflicted.

I've visited the US a number of times, my sister has an American boyfriend and stays there part time. The country on the whole is a great place with wonderful people. But it boggles the mind how a loner can wipe out a kindergarten class, everyone cries and then nothing is done about it.

And I expect to encounter opposition. Gun control is not a popular topic there and likely won't be until everyone has a statistic in their family tree.

Not only mental health, but health in general. A country that is attempting to get rid of a long overdue attempt to bring some of its poor into the health system, with many leaders in the pockets of insurers and the NRA deserves to be lambasted.

 

[Munk]

I mean I ask myself for what purpose would someone need to have over 30 weapons…

Why do some women own 100 pairs of shoes?
Why do some men own dozens of suits?
Why do some people own 1000's of CD's?
Why do some fans own every Wests Tigers jersey?