Obama: Mass shootings are 'something we should politicize'

a reply to: intrepid

Simplest solution would be to get rid of all the unconstitutional restrictions on our 2nd amendment right for law abiding citizens. A business owner, or corporation, should not have the right to trump a constitutional right. A city government, New York, Chicago, and the entire state of California comes to mind, should not be able to trump the 2nd Amendment.

Why do these killers continually target locations where firearms are restricted? It's a simple answer. It's because they know they can inflict the most amount of damage with limited resistance. Why is there limited resistance? Because a law abiding citizen follows the laws in regard to a restriction on their right.

If anti-2nd people had their way, we'd end up with Timothy McVeigh 2.0.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: intrepid

You are wrong sir, they didnt write that about england they wrote that about the govt they were setting up.

No. They were talking about the Chinese. How prescient of them.

a reply to: intrepid

Adolf Hilter, Mao Tze Tung, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot,and Idi Amin all relieved their citizens of their guns ask those who survived how that worked out.

a reply to: EternalSolace

Really don't care. That IS the attitude of the 2nd supporters. I just want an acknowledgement of those dead that people don't even know, or care about. If not.... that's cold man.

Perhaps Obama is just pissed about having to make another statement about this kind of nonsense. This is the 995th mass shooting in America since he was reelected. It's the 45th fatal gun incident in a place of learning in 2015 alone.

If you like your guns, fine - but accept that this is the price of it. From the outside looking in, it makes America look stupid as sh#t. No other developed nation would accept those terms.

Peace.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: intrepid

You are wrong sir, they didnt write that about england they wrote that about the govt they were setting up.

No. They were talking about the Chinese. How prescient of them.

Nice response sir when wrong try and fail at making jokes at others expense.

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: EternalSolace

Really don't care. That IS the attitude of the 2nd supporters. I just want an acknowledgement of those dead that people don't even know, or care about. If not.... that's cold man.

Was it so cold when i volunteered to serve and protect those I do not know? Now later since others break the law you advocate to take my rights? SNIP

a reply to: intrepid

Just as I don't really care of the opinion a non national has of our constitution. You want an acknowledgement of those who've died in incidents? Sure, we acknowledge them and the tragedy that it was.

What we don't acknowledge is that it's anyone's fault except for the one who committed the act itself.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: intrepid

You are wrong sir, they didnt write that about england they wrote that about the govt they were setting up.

No. They were talking about the Chinese. How prescient of them.

Nice response sir when wrong try and fail at making jokes at others expense.

You make it easy. Pol Pot? My point was spot on. No emotion. WTF has what you posted to do with 18th century history?

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: intrepid

You are wrong sir, they didnt write that about england they wrote that about the govt they were setting up.

No. They were talking about the Chinese. How prescient of them.

Nice response sir when wrong try and fail at making jokes at others expense.

You make it easy. Pol Pot? My point was spot on. No emotion. WTF has what you posted to do with 18th century history?

those who dont know or understand history are doomed to repeat it?

a reply to: shooterbrody

The evolution of weaponry was pretty slow back then. Swords had been around for thousands of years, and for a long time firearms were muzzle loading black powder affairs:

The Europeans and Arabs (first Mamluks) obtained firearms in the 14th century.[10] Turks, Iranians (first Aq Qoyunlu and Safavids), and Indians (first Mughals) all had firearms no later than the 15th century, in each case directly or indirectly from the Europeans.[10] The Japanese did not acquire firearms until the 16th century, and then from the Portuguese rather than the Chinese.[10]

Wikipedia

So from about 1300-1800 (roughly 400 years) most firearms were pretty basic. You had to be pretty close to the person you wanted to shoot, and reloading took time. If you used a sword, you had to be even closer to your opponent.

So if guns didn't really change much in 400 years, is it any stretch of the imagination that the founding fathers could foresee fully and semi automatic rifles, capable of being reloaded quickly with accurate ranges of over 100 feet?

The constitution is a living document because provisions and avenues are available to amend, ratify, and interpret it. The fact that the constitution is so broad is testament to our founding fathers anticipating an unknowable future, in which history would take turns they themselves could not anticipate, leaving the interpretations up to subsequent generations.

a reply to: intrepid

The logic is this..... Muskets are the firearms they had at the time. If the Constitution was drafted today, it would absolutely include AR-15s.

The point of the amendment is not hunting nor collecting it is precisely meant to ensure the citizens remain the true power of governance in their own country and assure the God given right to protect a persons self, family and property.

Who are the only people who stop bad guys with guns? I'll help, good guys with guns. If that's a next door neighbor or a cop make little difference.

The 2nd amendment is in place along with it's wording to ensure without any ambiguity that there will always be a lot of good guys with guns who are ready for who ever the bad guys turn out to be.

Imagine if there had been one good guy in Aurora or a teacher at Sandy Hook who could of reacted at the time instead of police reacting after everyone was already dead.

They have no mandate to protect you, only to try to find out who killed you after the fact.

originally posted by: Helious
a reply to: intrepid

The logic is this..... Muskets are the firearms they had at the time. If the Constitution was drafted today, it would absolutely include AR-15s.

It would? How? They couldn't even conceive of those weapons.

a reply to: Helious

So by that logic why should we have a military that has weapons that we don't have?

How can the "people" possibly stop a tyrant with tanks, drones, nuclear weapons, advanced armor, satellites, warships, aircraft carriers?

If the "spirit" of the 2nd was to allow the people to be as armed as the government, then it has already miserably failed long, long ago.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

Sounds to me like the founding fathers had some grasp on what we are discussing. The constitution can be changed. I dont think it will ever be changed.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: intrepid

You are wrong sir, they didnt write that about england they wrote that about the govt they were setting up.

No. They were talking about the Chinese. How prescient of them.

Nice response sir when wrong try and fail at making jokes at others expense.

You make it easy. Pol Pot? My point was spot on. No emotion. WTF has what you posted to do with 18th century history?

those who dont know or understand history are doomed to repeat it?

I know. You'd think some would learn from the past. See Afghanistan and Viet Nam. Did people learn from the past there?

originally posted by: Helious
a reply to: intrepid
Imagine if there had been one good guy in Aurora or a teacher at Sandy Hook who could of reacted at the time instead of police reacting after everyone was already dead.

Imagine if we dealt with the underlying causes behind what causes people like the guy in SH or Aurora to WANT to do what they did? Imagine if we dug down deep and did some serious soul searching as a nation instead of arming everyone? Imagine if we looked at the culture and society we've allowed to propagate, and made positive changes to the core being of this nation?

How about we do the actual hard "dirty work" instead of just fixing a band aid over things, assuaging our fears by strapping a gun on our hip?

How about we build a better society in which fewer people feel the need to murder mass amounts of people? How about we cut the head of the problem off? Why not go right to the source of the problem instead of dancing around the issue?

a reply to: MystikMushroom

It was never intended to have a standing army!

a reply to: MystikMushroom

My last post for the evening:

The very fact that the founding fathers could not foresee what breakthroughs would come is evident in the very wording of the 2nd Amendment. It's the only amendment written in a way that was supposed to be as broad and all encompassing as it gets. That they wrote "shall not be infringed" is evidence in itself that they expected technological breakthroughs. They did not want to see government be on a pedestal so high as to be un-checkable by ordinary citizenry. Rather, they anticipated such technology.

They wanted this particular amendment to be beyond reproach.