America - Gun Control

[Cultured_Bogan]

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

Actually they did.

Its a fallacy that only muskets and single shot rifles were in circulation at the time the constitution was written.

Rapid fire assault weapons (belton flintlock and gatling gun, for example) were around long before the 2nd Amendment was written. In fact the Constitution's main writer President Madison ordered a personal warship armed with Cannons. So much for muskets !

The idea of the second amendment was for private citizens to have the same capabilities as the federal government to they could effectively revolt.

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.)

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

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

 

[Geo]

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

Actually they did.

Its a fallacy that only muskets and single shot rifles were in circulation at the time the constitution was written.

Rapid fire assault weapons (belton flintlock and gatling gun, for example) were around long before the 2nd Amendment was written. In fact the Constitution's main writer President Madison ordered a personal warship armed with Cannons. So much for muskets !

The idea of the second amendment was for private citizens to have the same capabilities as the federal government to they could effectively revolt.

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.)

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…

 

[Abraham]

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.

 

[Abraham]

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.

 

[magpiecol]

I wonder what the gun control laws are in Somalia.

 

[tsjonathan]

Common man, you took one piece of what i said and blew it out of the water with your corn flakes comment bro.Who is going to say "The internet only has truthful information and nothing else"? Common bro. Like you said there is inherently a lot of truth online and information is so much easier to be passed from people to people which makes discovering truth a lot easier than it ever was

First off, I'm not your 'bro' - I'm probably old enough to be your grandfather. I get that being disrespectful is an attempt to obfuscate the debate but I prefer civility.
My previous post was because you didn't want me to clip anything - I simply posted your full comment and now you seem unhappy I pointed out your contradictions in full context.
At least we agree that the internet is not just truthful information - which then defeats your premise that it's 'easier than it ever was' to find the truth. On the contrary, it actually makes it more difficult. We have people on this thread convinced there's a conspiracy and multiple shooters and there's zero evidence of either other than tin-hats speculating.

And finally, don't believe you can educate me on Fairfax and the media - you'll just have to trust me that I know far, far more about both than you'll ever know.

talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish

 

[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

 

[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.

 

[tsjonathan]

Common man, you took one piece of what i said and blew it out of the water with your corn flakes comment bro.Who is going to say "The internet only has truthful information and nothing else"? Common bro. Like you said there is inherently a lot of truth online and information is so much easier to be passed from people to people which makes discovering truth a lot easier than it ever was

First off, I'm not your 'bro' - I'm probably old enough to be your grandfather. I get that being disrespectful is an attempt to obfuscate the debate but I prefer civility.
My previous post was because you didn't want me to clip anything - I simply posted your full comment and now you seem unhappy I pointed out your contradictions in full context.
At least we agree that the internet is not just truthful information - which then defeats your premise that it's 'easier than it ever was' to find the truth. On the contrary, it actually makes it more difficult. We have people on this thread convinced there's a conspiracy and multiple shooters and there's zero evidence of either other than tin-hats speculating.

And finally, don't believe you can educate me on Fairfax and the media - you'll just have to trust me that I know far, far more about both than you'll ever know.

but it is easier to find truthful information than it ever was. You can go and create a website on joomla or word press and claim pigs fly and see how many people find your website. This is what the internet is in 2017\. Information is sorted very very rigorously. You can go online and find out how to cook a japanese curry or make sweet and sour pork at the click of a button how is that harder to find truthful information?

 

[cochise]

Common man, you took one piece of what i said and blew it out of the water with your corn flakes comment bro.Who is going to say "The internet only has truthful information and nothing else"? Common bro. Like you said there is inherently a lot of truth online and information is so much easier to be passed from people to people which makes discovering truth a lot easier than it ever was

First off, I'm not your 'bro' - I'm probably old enough to be your grandfather. I get that being disrespectful is an attempt to obfuscate the debate but I prefer civility.
My previous post was because you didn't want me to clip anything - I simply posted your full comment and now you seem unhappy I pointed out your contradictions in full context.
At least we agree that the internet is not just truthful information - which then defeats your premise that it's 'easier than it ever was' to find the truth. On the contrary, it actually makes it more difficult. We have people on this thread convinced there's a conspiracy and multiple shooters and there's zero evidence of either other than tin-hats speculating.

And finally, don't believe you can educate me on Fairfax and the media - you'll just have to trust me that I know far, far more about both than you'll ever know.

but it is easier to find truthful information than it ever was. You can go and create a website on joomla or word press and claim pigs fly and see how many people find your website. This is what the internet is in 2017\. Information is sorted very very rigorously. You can go online and find out how to cook a japanese curry or make sweet and sour pork at the click of a button how is that harder to find truthful information?

You do keep up to date with current news or do you find all your news through facebook? There are currently investigations into the impact that misinformation on the internet played in the 2016 Presidential Election. Studies have shown that 66% of Americans use social media for their news, now this has 2 disadvantages the first being that a lot of the news making its way through social media is not factual, the second being that because of the algorithms social media companies use people are only receiving information that supports the position they already believe and are not getting the counter argument.

 

[Tim Sheens]

Now there is a debate over weapons of the time of the second amendment. Find it hard to believe that gun lovers don't know that modern loading rifles did not come into being until around the mid nineteenth century. As throughout history, the greatest/most rapid arms development is normally in the time leading to and during conflict, with the American civil war being a major catalyst for research and development of the era.

 

[kevinmcguiness]

Common man, you took one piece of what i said and blew it out of the water with your corn flakes comment bro.Who is going to say "The internet only has truthful information and nothing else"? Common bro. Like you said there is inherently a lot of truth online and information is so much easier to be passed from people to people which makes discovering truth a lot easier than it ever was

First off, I'm not your 'bro' - I'm probably old enough to be your grandfather. I get that being disrespectful is an attempt to obfuscate the debate but I prefer civility.
My previous post was because you didn't want me to clip anything - I simply posted your full comment and now you seem unhappy I pointed out your contradictions in full context.
At least we agree that the internet is not just truthful information - which then defeats your premise that it's 'easier than it ever was' to find the truth. On the contrary, it actually makes it more difficult. We have people on this thread convinced there's a conspiracy and multiple shooters and there's zero evidence of either other than tin-hats speculating.

And finally, don't believe you can educate me on Fairfax and the media - you'll just have to trust me that I know far, far more about both than you'll ever know.

but it is easier to find truthful information than it ever was. You can go and create a website on joomla or word press and claim pigs fly and see how many people find your website. This is what the internet is in 2017\. Information is sorted very very rigorously. You can go online and find out how to cook a japanese curry or make sweet and sour pork at the click of a button how is that harder to find truthful information?

You do keep up to date with current news or do you find all your news through facebook? There are currently investigations into the impact that misinformation on the internet played in the 2016 Presidential Election. Studies have shown that 66% of Americans use social media for their news, now this has 2 disadvantages the first being that a lot of the news making its way through social media is not factual, the second being that because of the algorithms social media companies use people are only receiving information that supports the position they already believe and are not getting the counter argument.

If it's not factual then wouldn't they lose credibility? "_the second being that because of the algorithms social media companies use people are only receiving information that supports the position they already believe_" isnt that the problem with journalism since the dawn of time? Newspapers in the 1920s were pushing agendas of different Governments but im sure like most people i get my news from multiple sources online and i don't have any issues with it.

 

[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.

Societies change and at some point I believe the second amendment will be repealed or the more likely senario that the judgment by the supreme court in the heller case that the right to bear arms extends to the individual for self defense will be changed.

 

[cochise]

First off, I'm not your 'bro' - I'm probably old enough to be your grandfather. I get that being disrespectful is an attempt to obfuscate the debate but I prefer civility.
My previous post was because you didn't want me to clip anything - I simply posted your full comment and now you seem unhappy I pointed out your contradictions in full context.
At least we agree that the internet is not just truthful information - which then defeats your premise that it's 'easier than it ever was' to find the truth. On the contrary, it actually makes it more difficult. We have people on this thread convinced there's a conspiracy and multiple shooters and there's zero evidence of either other than tin-hats speculating.

And finally, don't believe you can educate me on Fairfax and the media - you'll just have to trust me that I know far, far more about both than you'll ever know.

but it is easier to find truthful information than it ever was. You can go and create a website on joomla or word press and claim pigs fly and see how many people find your website. This is what the internet is in 2017\. Information is sorted very very rigorously. You can go online and find out how to cook a japanese curry or make sweet and sour pork at the click of a button how is that harder to find truthful information?

You do keep up to date with current news or do you find all your news through facebook? There are currently investigations into the impact that misinformation on the internet played in the 2016 Presidential Election. Studies have shown that 66% of Americans use social media for their news, now this has 2 disadvantages the first being that a lot of the news making its way through social media is not factual, the second being that because of the algorithms social media companies use people are only receiving information that supports the position they already believe and are not getting the counter argument.

If it's not factual then wouldn't they lose credibility? "_the second being that because of the algorithms social media companies use people are only receiving information that supports the position they already believe_" isnt that the problem with journalism since the dawn of time? Newspapers in the 1920s were pushing agendas of different Governments but im sure like most people i get my news from multiple sources online and i don't have any issues with it.

They only lose credibility if the reader actually know that the information is not factual, this is actually a real debate that is currently happening. There have always been safe guards to ensure that newspapers are publishing truthful information, this is not actually the case now with many sites passing themselves off as legitimate news sources and getting spread through social media, how does the reader find out that the news story they were just linked to through facebook was a complete and utter lie?

Some articles about this

http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/the-surge-of-pro-Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon-fake-news-is-coming-from-macedonia/8003094

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/07/us/politics/russia-facebook-twitter-election.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/05/donald-Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon-russia-investigation-fake-news-hillary-clinton

 

[kevinmcguiness]

but it is easier to find truthful information than it ever was. You can go and create a website on joomla or word press and claim pigs fly and see how many people find your website. This is what the internet is in 2017\. Information is sorted very very rigorously. You can go online and find out how to cook a japanese curry or make sweet and sour pork at the click of a button how is that harder to find truthful information?

You do keep up to date with current news or do you find all your news through facebook? There are currently investigations into the impact that misinformation on the internet played in the 2016 Presidential Election. Studies have shown that 66% of Americans use social media for their news, now this has 2 disadvantages the first being that a lot of the news making its way through social media is not factual, the second being that because of the algorithms social media companies use people are only receiving information that supports the position they already believe and are not getting the counter argument.

If it's not factual then wouldn't they lose credibility? "_the second being that because of the algorithms social media companies use people are only receiving information that supports the position they already believe_" isnt that the problem with journalism since the dawn of time? Newspapers in the 1920s were pushing agendas of different Governments but im sure like most people i get my news from multiple sources online and i don't have any issues with it.

They only lose credibility if the reader actually know that the information is not factual, this is actually a real debate that is currently happening. There have always been safe guards to ensure that newspapers are publishing truthful information, this is not actually the case now with many sites passing themselves off as legitimate news sources and getting spread through social media, how does the reader find out that the news story they were just linked to through facebook was a complete and utter lie?

Some articles about this

http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/the-surge-of-pro-Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon-fake-news-is-coming-from-macedonia/8003094

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/07/us/politics/russia-facebook-twitter-election.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/05/donald-Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon-russia-investigation-fake-news-hillary-clinton

That's a good question but i don't just get my information from one source though. LIke most people have different resources online right? we're not controlled by one news channel or one newspaper now

 

[cochise]

You do keep up to date with current news or do you find all your news through facebook? There are currently investigations into the impact that misinformation on the internet played in the 2016 Presidential Election. Studies have shown that 66% of Americans use social media for their news, now this has 2 disadvantages the first being that a lot of the news making its way through social media is not factual, the second being that because of the algorithms social media companies use people are only receiving information that supports the position they already believe and are not getting the counter argument.

If it's not factual then wouldn't they lose credibility? "_the second being that because of the algorithms social media companies use people are only receiving information that supports the position they already believe_" isnt that the problem with journalism since the dawn of time? Newspapers in the 1920s were pushing agendas of different Governments but im sure like most people i get my news from multiple sources online and i don't have any issues with it.

They only lose credibility if the reader actually know that the information is not factual, this is actually a real debate that is currently happening. There have always been safe guards to ensure that newspapers are publishing truthful information, this is not actually the case now with many sites passing themselves off as legitimate news sources and getting spread through social media, how does the reader find out that the news story they were just linked to through facebook was a complete and utter lie?

Some articles about this

http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/the-surge-of-pro-Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon-fake-news-is-coming-from-macedonia/8003094

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/07/us/politics/russia-facebook-twitter-election.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/05/donald-Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon-russia-investigation-fake-news-hillary-clinton

That's a good question but i don't just get my information from one source though. LIke most people have different resources online right? we're not controlled by one news channel or one newspaper now

That's the issue though, a growing number of people are not getting their news from multiple sources, they are relying on what pops in their facebook feed that only confirms their already misinformed beliefs.

 

[kevinmcguiness]

If it's not factual then wouldn't they lose credibility? "_the second being that because of the algorithms social media companies use people are only receiving information that supports the position they already believe_" isnt that the problem with journalism since the dawn of time? Newspapers in the 1920s were pushing agendas of different Governments but im sure like most people i get my news from multiple sources online and i don't have any issues with it.

They only lose credibility if the reader actually know that the information is not factual, this is actually a real debate that is currently happening. There have always been safe guards to ensure that newspapers are publishing truthful information, this is not actually the case now with many sites passing themselves off as legitimate news sources and getting spread through social media, how does the reader find out that the news story they were just linked to through facebook was a complete and utter lie?

Some articles about this

http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/the-surge-of-pro-Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon-fake-news-is-coming-from-macedonia/8003094

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/07/us/politics/russia-facebook-twitter-election.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/05/donald-Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon-russia-investigation-fake-news-hillary-clinton

That's a good question but i don't just get my information from one source though. LIke most people have different resources online right? we're not controlled by one news channel or one newspaper now

That's the issue though, a growing number of people are not getting their news from multiple sources, they are relying on what pops in their facebook feed that only confirms their already misinformed beliefs.

yes, so i agree it's a positive that we have multiple sources

 

[Abraham]

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.

 

[Abraham]

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.