Here’s What The World Thinks About The American Response To The Oregon Massacre

originally posted by: Kryties

I have read opinions from other learned people that the 2nd can be read many different ways...

Cite them. I have a feeling they will not be as 'learned' as you suspect.

I honestly think that the Second Amendment has to be looked at again, thoroughly, and altered/amended to reflect such changes to society, just as Amendments and such have been altered before when the need arose.

It is quite clear the intent of the Second Amendment when one looks at the writings of the Founding Fathers when discussing this essential Right. They were as clear as an azure sky of deepest summer.

Two years ago, President Barack Obama ordered the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to produce research on gun violence. Congress has now prohibited such research.

reply to: Indigo5

Get that? The NRA/GOP has made it illegal to even gather information about gun deaths..let alone discuss it.

Or could it be that the Pharmaceutical Industry/Congress doesn't want the information examined? Perhaps it might expose a link between antidepressants and mass shooters, or a link between steroid abuse and LEO involved shootings?

There really is no point in having this discussion at all, because the American people do not care about gun laws, we all know this. These discussions happen time and time again after every mass shooting and they do not care that these things happen aslong as its not happening directly to them.

The funny thing is, they defend their right to keep and bear arms codified in the Second Amendment, that is the main response to this each and every time, yet this is a country that allows their government to illegally spy on them every day and when someone speaks out and confirms it they do nothing about it, this is a country that allows their government to commit false flag operations time and time again on its own people and do nothing about it, this is a country that allows the racial discrimination of its people by the police and does nothing about it. Yet they always defend their rights to bear arms incase some serious sh*t goes down . You couldn't make this up, you really couldn't, the amount of things going on in that third world country, and that's what it is, and they do absolutely nothing with their guns yet they keep using this tired old excuse regarding gun laws.

Nothing will change because they are too stupid to want anything to change. The woman in the video was correct, on this issue they are a 3rd world country, no respectable and sane country would allow its people to obtain guns as easily as they can in America. Its absolutely ridiculous. These shootings will keep happening, maybe even increase because anyone can get hold of a gun. They don't realise restricting guns will reduce shootings like it has in EVERY single country that has stricter laws in place. The ridiculous excuse of "well the bad guys can still get guns if they want, so we need them" is utterly ludicrous. Bad people will always find a way of getting a gun like they can in any other country but the rest of the people in these other countries don't feel the need to own a gun INCASE this happens. How they cannot see that anyone able to obtain a gun is going to mean more shootings says everything you need to know about how stupid they are.

Nobody should care anymore because Americans clearly don't care at all. Let them wipe each other out.

US Citizens have bigger worries than false flag gunman, manchurian candidates, nutjobs for which they require the right
to defend themselves and the principles and laws of the land.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Kryties

Knock on wood, right?

No wood needs to be knocked, the fact remains that antidepressants are not exclusive to America and no other countries have the same mass shooting problem that America has. I don't believe we can blame these incidents entirely on the medications. Certainly there may be some correlation, but it is not the entirety of the problem nor would changing that be the solution.

There are instances where cops have seemingly lost their marbles and went berserk and murdered people. These are guys that are under the watchful eyes of supervisors that are trained to notice if their heavily armed subordinates are having mental problems... still, cops are more apt to kill themselves than the normal population.

Just a point: If "cops are more apt to kill themselves than the normal population" then there would be no cops left, given how many police shootings happen in America daily/monthly/yearly. Anyway, that is somewhat off-topic but I felt the need to point that out.

originally posted by: Technetium82
There really is no point in having this discussion at all, because the American people do not care about gun laws, we all know this. These discussions happen time and time again after every mass shooting and they do not care that these things happen aslong as its not happening directly to them.

The funny thing is, they defend their right to keep and bear arms codified in the Second Amendment, that is the main response to this each and every time, yet this is a country that allows their government to illegally spy on them every day and when someone speaks out and confirms it they do nothing about it, this is a country that allows their government to commit false flag operations time and time again on its own people and do nothing about it, this is a country that allows the racial discrimination of its people by the police and does nothing about it. Yet they always defend their rights to bear arms incase some serious sh*t goes down

. You couldn't make this up, you really couldn't, the amount of things going on in that third world country, and that's what it is, and they do absolutely nothing with their guns yet they keep using this tired old excuse regarding gun laws.

Nothing will change because they are too stupid to want anything to change. The woman in the video was correct, on this issue they are a 3rd world country, no respectable and sane country would allow its people to obtain guns as easily as they can in America. Its absolutely ridiculous. These shootings will keep happening, maybe even increase because anyone can get hold of a gun. They don't realise restricting guns will reduce shootings like it has in EVERY single country that has stricter laws in place. The ridiculous excuse of "well the bad guys can still get guns if they want, so we need them" is utterly ludicrous. Bad people will always find a way of getting a gun like they can in any other country but the rest of the people in these other countries don't feel the need to own a gun INCASE this happens. How they cannot see that anyone able to obtain a gun is going to mean more shootings says everything you need to know about how stupid they are.

Nobody should care anymore because Americans clearly don't care at all. Let them wipe each other out.

Nice first rant post.

Yep....we are wiping each other out all over the place here. Just had 28 people go down in my office. Good thing the shooter cooled off and is having a glass of Lipton Iced Tea now so I could get back to my desk and type this response!

Looking forward to getting back to my neighborhood and youtube'ing all the gun violence happening around my house.

We are all just shaking over here wondering where the next "culling" will occur....

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Shamrock6

I've never committed a mass shooting.

What does taking my guns or restricting my right to purchase them or throwing up extra roadblocks to ownership on me do to address mass shootings?

It helps prevent others from doing so, as is evidenced in other countries that have successful gun RESTRICTIONS.

But I am glad you felt the need to remind us that you have never performed a mass shooting, I feel so much safer now.

It's funny how you tell others that they have nothing to contribute and no argument left because they've resorted to personal attacks and snarky comments, and then turn around and do the same yourself. The irony is thick.

So to POSSIBLY prevent somebody else, a ludicrously small percentage of the population, from doing something I need to be subjected to the same thing they are?

Why? Murder is illegal. Using a gun to do it is illegal. Selling a gun to a felon is illegal. Selling a gun to a person who has been judged mentally deficient is illegal. Each mass shooting is already illegal six ways to Sunday. So why are we discussing infringing on the rights of the overwhelming majority of the population because this guy's mommy didn't decide to get her son the mental health help she's so willing to discuss now? According to her he was a troubled child. A troubled teen. And yet she did nothing. But instead of discussing THAT, we're going to discuss how you feel about MY right to own firearms. This, despite the fact that I've never gone on a shooting spree or a rampage killing.

Ps - glad you feel better. I'm glad you're able to find comfort in the fact that tens of millions up on tens of millions of responsible gun owners will never shoot anything other than paper or food.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Kryties

I have read opinions from other learned people that the 2nd can be read many different ways...

Cite them. I have a feeling they will not be as 'learned' as you suspect.

Just one example I found with a quick search:

From: www.law.cornell.edu...

In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an “individual rights” thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a “states’ rights” thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units.1 Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state2 or private3 restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force.

In United States v. Miller,4 the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed–off-shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that “[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.”5 The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of “civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.” It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that “comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,” who, “when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”6 Therefore, “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well– regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”7

Since this decision, Congress has placed greater limitations on the receipt, possession, and transportation of firearms,8 and proposals for national registration or prohibition of firearms altogether have been made.9 At what point regulation or prohibition of what classes of firearms would conflict with the Amendment, if at all, the Miller case does little more than cast a faint degree of illumination toward an answer.

It is quite clear the intent of the Second Amendment when one looks at the writings of the Founding Fathers when discussing this essential Right. They were as clear as an azure sky of deepest summer.

It is NOT clear, that is an interpretation, and not one that everyone agrees with.

The problem isn't a single issue, and because it's kind of complex it is hard to nail down. We have a few issues in America to work on:

1. Americans feel dis-empowered, dehumanized, disenfranchised, marginalized, isolated and betrayed by our culture and society.

2. Americans are spoon-fed a culture full of fear. When you feel the world is so scary you need to arm yourself to go the grocery store, there's a problem.

3. Americans have a long history with firearms. Firearms gave us our independence, helped us conquer the Western frontiers and defeat Nazi Germany.

4. Some Americans are simply not mature or responsible enough to own firearms. You can't legislate maturity.

What you see above is the recipe for gun violence. Throw all of that together into a blender and you'll get a fair approximation of what is going on and wrong with America today.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

I missed your post where you provided a link to show that our homicide rates have gotten worse, maybe you can point me to it?

Because on gunpolicy.org it shows a clear decline after the 96 port Arthur massacre and there still lower than they where.

2012: 1.24
2011: 1.05
2010: 1.20
2009: 1.28
2008: 1.19
2007: 1.04
2006: 1.25
2005: 0.98
2004: 0.82
2003: 1.41
2002: 1.49
2001: 1.55
2000: 1.78
1999: 1.8
1998: 1.68
1997: 1.73
1996: 1.97

gunpolicy.org/Australia

Besides a lot of its just conditioning (or perception) I think. My dads friends who came from the states (they actually manage a hotel for him now) used to be hardcore for the right to own guns when they first got here, but after living in Australia for few years and witnessing how much safer it is, they're now actually totally against guns... Its an ironic change of mentality.

I remember when they first got here, there daughter was telling me how she would take the long way around an area she heard was dangerous when driving... I thought it was hilarious and tried explaining to her that rough area or not, this is Australia, you can drive anywhere you want without an issue... But she was convinced that a rough area means you can't even drive though it... The pure paranoia she possessed was both fascinating & just plain weird to me as an Australian.

a reply to: Kryties

Sure is hell seems that the court feels it is clear:

Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

If the military has the particular style of arms then so should the citizenry.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

It's funny how you tell others that they have nothing to contribute and no argument left because they've resorted to personal attacks and snarky comments, and then turn around and do the same yourself. The irony is thick.

I am really not sure how you got that from the post you quoted, or any other post for that matter. I have been as civil as I could possibly be to other posters and yet have recieved vitriol, attacks and personal insults in response. You are throwing mud and hoping some of it stick, which it won't - and I ask that you stop doing that as it detracts from the actual topic at hand.

So to POSSIBLY prevent somebody else, a ludicrously small percentage of the population, from doing something I need to be subjected to the same thing they are?

Really? Is it THAT much of an ask to have to have a few small hoops to jump through in order to help prevent innocent lives being lost? Is it THAT much to ask that you forgo owning giant assault rifles and just stick to normal hunting rifles if, of course, your reason for owning them is to hunt, target shoot etc etc and not go on a killing spree?

Ps - glad you feel better. I'm glad you're able to find comfort in the fact that tens of millions up on tens of millions of responsible gun owners will never shoot anything other than paper or food.

Good, and they would be able to continue doing so with the restrictions in place - don't forget that!

Thread closed

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I missed your post where you provided a link to show that our homicide rates have gotten worse, maybe you can point me to it?

Because on gunpolicy.org it shows a clear decline after the 96 port Arthur massacre and there still lower than they where.

2012: 1.24
2011: 1.05
2010: 1.20
2009: 1.28
2008: 1.19
2007: 1.04
2006: 1.25
2005: 0.98
2004: 0.82
2003: 1.41
2002: 1.49
2001: 1.55
2000: 1.78
1999: 1.8
1998: 1.68
1997: 1.73
1996: 1.97

gunpolicy.org/Australia

Besides a lot of its just conditioning (or perception) I think. My dads friends who came from the states (they actually manage a hotel for him now) used to be hardcore for the right to own guns when they first got here, but after living in Australia for few years and witnessing how much safer it is, they're now actually totally against guns... Its an ironic change of mentality.

I remember when they first got here, there daughter was telling me how she would take the long way around an area she heard was dangerous when driving... I thought it was hilarious and tried explaining to her that rough area or not, this is Australia, you can drive anywhere you want without an issue... But she was convinced that a rough area means you can't even drive though it... The pure paranoia she possessed was both fascinating & just plain weird to me as an Australian.

Page 3 or 4. Mine actually comes from the Australian government. That should trump anything you just posted.