Recent Shooting and Discussion
- Thread starter Brute
- Start date
Brute
Hooked
Sharkey
Word Ninja
J. Scalia's words in that case are powerful and, interestingly, completely refute the idea espoused by some in this thread that the Second Amendment is untouchable.
"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment's right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 128 S.Ct. 1830, 170 L.Ed.2d 650 (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose."
D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 595, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2799, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008)(italics in original text).
That is some pretty strong language coming from one of the most conservative justices to have sat on the Supreme Court bench.
"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment's right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 128 S.Ct. 1830, 170 L.Ed.2d 650 (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose."
D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 595, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2799, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008)(italics in original text).
That is some pretty strong language coming from one of the most conservative justices to have sat on the Supreme Court bench.
Brute
Hooked
No Amendment is untouchable...that's why they are called amendments...
There is a significant difference in an AR “styled” weapon and a m16. And owning a M16 is almost impossible for most people.
Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE mobile app
Seahawkfan
Hooked
Facebook! Is that you??:yawn37:
Seahawkfan
Hooked
Actually there is only one difference. One can fire full auto. Not sure I have read of ANY recent Full Auto shootings in the US..
Yep the fire control group is different, which is a pretty significant difference. One was intended for military use and one was not.
Anyways, why is it only when someone uses an AR “style” weapon to commit murder that people suddenly give a shit and want to fix it? People are murdered every damn day and we just see it as normal unless they use an AR15 to do it. Hell, less than a month ago their was an article about a 34 yr old Oklahoma man that raped a 4 year old kid in the McDonald’s bathroom! Why don’t people wanna fix that shit?! Maybe if he had held a m4 to her head while he put his dick in her people would give a shit. With all the evil shit that goes on in this world, somehow it always ends up being about guns. Stupid
Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE mobile app
rmilobrown
Member
Wasn't Mandalay Bay an AR type weapon with a full auto device? We need to Ban sick fucking people!
HAPPYTRAILS
HAPPYTRAILS
jesse3638
Hooked
No not a truly full auto weapon. It was equipped with a bump stock which can function similar to full auto but not the same. Also since then those have been banned. One of the things I found most interesting is
my coworkers who are gun enthusiasts and own ar15's had no idea what a bump stock was or how it functioned until after that tragedy as I feel the majority of the US.
Sent from my 2PYB2 using WAYALIFE mobile app
WJCO
Meme King
Just like heroin and cocaine. Good thing we can rest assured that no one will get their hands on one ever again :crazyeyes:
jesse3638
Hooked
jesse3638
Hooked
I think I may have found a way to flush out the crazy gun gun owners. Just ban all guns and require all gun owners to come forward and turn them in. The ones that do this are crazy. This will leave us with those who were former law abiding gun owners and criminals. No more crazies...:crazyeyes:
Sent from my 2PYB2 using WAYALIFE mobile app
Sent from my 2PYB2 using WAYALIFE mobile app
I like seeing this thread active. I’m all for more strict gun laws, more background checking to ensure guns are put into the “right” hands. What if your house gets robbed. Back to where we started. Your gun stolen in the wrong hands.
How about we modify the handle and triggers for fingerprint ID. No fire unless matched? Also tamper proof grips and trigger assembles to avoid fire capability?
Changing human behavior? Not so much, engineer it out. Just my thoughts.
Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE mobile app
How about we modify the handle and triggers for fingerprint ID. No fire unless matched? Also tamper proof grips and trigger assembles to avoid fire capability?
Changing human behavior? Not so much, engineer it out. Just my thoughts.
Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE mobile app
WJCO
Meme King
I have a device at home that's fingerprint matched to me. Doesn't work half the time. No way I'd want that type of system in place to save my life from a deadly threat. But I see where you're coming from.
TrailHunter
Hooked
Lol.. now you are thinking! [emoji1417]
1. Ok
2. It’s called a Safe
3. Fuck that
4. Never Happen
Sharkey
Word Ninja
After almost 800 posts in this thread, I pretty sure that nobody has advocated the outright ban of firearms, or even AR style weapons. I happen to own an AR style .556, several different kinds of handguns, and a few shotguns.
The 2nd Amendment is no more absolute than any other amendment. Whether people want to admit it or not, that is a fact. I can only speak for myself but I believe the "take from my cold dead hands" attitude that some people have with respect to firearms will ultimately cause the death of lawful firearm ownership. If you are unwilling to find reasonable middle ground and take baby steps towards making firearm usage less prevalent in mass killings, you may find that your rights disappear faster than they would have on any "slippery slope".
The analogies to making drugs illegal and people still using them are actually pretty funny to me...I can't remember the last time I saw a news report about a kid storming a school and taking out 15 other kids by stuffing meth down their throats. If I accept your argument, then why not make all drug use LEGAL? After all, laws do nothing. (On that point, why do we even have laws making murder and rape illegal? After all, bad people will always do bad things and good people will never do bad things, right?)
Our society is built on the balance between liberties and laws restricting those liberties. As a civilized society, the balance point will always shift in response to what is actually happening in society. Unless and until people learn to start valuing life and giving a shit about each other again, I think it makes sense to examine whether more can be done to lessen the frequency of mass killings involving the use of firearms of any kind. If that "more" involves more effective legislation relating to the purchase, possession, and duty of care of custody of firearms, I say so be it.
The 2nd Amendment is no more absolute than any other amendment. Whether people want to admit it or not, that is a fact. I can only speak for myself but I believe the "take from my cold dead hands" attitude that some people have with respect to firearms will ultimately cause the death of lawful firearm ownership. If you are unwilling to find reasonable middle ground and take baby steps towards making firearm usage less prevalent in mass killings, you may find that your rights disappear faster than they would have on any "slippery slope".
The analogies to making drugs illegal and people still using them are actually pretty funny to me...I can't remember the last time I saw a news report about a kid storming a school and taking out 15 other kids by stuffing meth down their throats. If I accept your argument, then why not make all drug use LEGAL? After all, laws do nothing. (On that point, why do we even have laws making murder and rape illegal? After all, bad people will always do bad things and good people will never do bad things, right?)
Our society is built on the balance between liberties and laws restricting those liberties. As a civilized society, the balance point will always shift in response to what is actually happening in society. Unless and until people learn to start valuing life and giving a shit about each other again, I think it makes sense to examine whether more can be done to lessen the frequency of mass killings involving the use of firearms of any kind. If that "more" involves more effective legislation relating to the purchase, possession, and duty of care of custody of firearms, I say so be it.
Last edited:
TrailHunter
Hooked
I stand with the Shark. [emoji1417]
Brute
Hooked
Thank God for a cogent and lucid reply...even if you are an attorney...
A.J.
Active Member
Drugs kill people every day and while I don’t have statistics for you it’s more than guns. Car wrecks kill more people than guns. Blah blah blah you’ve heard all this before. I understand what you’re trying to say. I just don’t share you’re belief in the results. Still trying to blame the tool used which somehow lessens the blame of the individual/s for the act. They will find a different tool. They have already. Planes, cars, bombs, poison, the list goes on. Of course this has all been discussed at length but still here we go back to the “ assault rifle “ being the problem when it is a complex people/culture/political ideology problem. Again I wish somehow we had the answer but I don’t think we will for a long time.
Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE mobile app