VOA: Scholars Debate Second Amendment to US Constitution

[Park City Skins]

http://www.voanews.com/content/scholars_debate_second_amendment_to_us_constitutio n/1443917.html



For many Americans, the most meaningful part of the U.S. Constitution is the Bill of Rights. These 10 amendments were written to protect individual Americans from tyrannical rule. Like the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and worship, the Second Amendment -- proclaiming the right to bear arms -- has often been at the center of debate. But in the wake of last week's mass shooting at a Colorado movie theater that claimed 12 lives, there have been relatively few calls for increased gun control in the United States. Many scholars point to the importance of firearms in American history as the reason.

When America's Founding Fathers added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution in 1791, they wanted to protect individuals from potentially dangerous central and state governments.

Most scholars say the Constitution might not have been ratified had Americans not been assured that 10 special amendments would be added to check the power of the government and to guarantee individual liberties.


*Click Link For More*


Okay. Much better. Now have at it.

[Predicto]

I thought there was no room for any debate at all. It's simple "black and white."


:movefast:

[Popeman38]

The media really is too predictable. Any mass shooting results in umpteen articles on the 2nd and whether it has any place in modern society.

[Corcaigh]

The media really is too predictable. Any mass shooting results in umpteen articles on the 2nd and whether it has any place in modern society.

So when is a good time to talk about it? :)

[Predicto]

So when is a good time to talk about it? :)

In 1786 (or before) of course. :)

[Stadium-Armory]

The media really is too predictable. Any mass shooting results in umpteen articles on the 2nd and whether it has any place in modern society.

We're all predictable. Right on queue....

http://www.examiner.com/article/gun-sales-spike-41-percent-after-colorado-shooting


Gun sales spike 41 percent after Colorado shooting

The Denver Post is reporting today that gun sales in Colorado have spiked 41 percent since the shooting at the Century 16 theater in Aurora last Friday. And the Colorado Bureau of Investigation reports that its approval of background checks for new firearms purchasers jumped 43 percent within the last four days.

In spite of claims by high profile news media personalities such as Piers Morgan and politicians such as U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., that the nation's "lax gun laws" cause such massacres, American citizens do not seem to be buying it.

Instead, Americans appear to believe that owning and carrying a gun is the best protection a citizen can be afforded in this era in which criminals find a way to get grenades, explosives, and other weaponry in spite of strict gun control laws like those in Aurora, Colo.

Same thing happened in Arizona.

[twa]

we should be discussing allowing guns in more places

but if you want to keep setting the table for these nuts ......

[Popeman38]

So when is a good time to talk about it? :)When the emotions aren't so raw?

[Bang]

Scholars don't have guns.
They lose.

~Bang

[Mad Mike]

The only ones making a lot of noise about increased gun control are the gun dealers. Nothing drives sales today like the threat of not being able to buy a gun tomorrow. I'll bet the price of ARs is going to skyrocket.

[AsburySkinsFan]

we should be discussing allowing guns in more places...

"There are over 550 million firearms in worldwide circulation. That's one firearm for every twelve people on the planet. The only question is: How do we arm the other 11?"

You're he only one who won't understand why this is so sad.

[Thiebear]

I thought it was created to protect the first one?

[Prosperity]

"There are over 550 million firearms in worldwide circulation. That's one firearm for every twelve people on the planet. The only question is: How do we arm the other 11?"

You're he only one who won't understand why this is so sad.

there are more than 1 gun for every American, so we're pretty much set

If there were 10 guns for every American would this tragedy have been prevented?

[Jumbo]

If there were 10 guns for every American would this tragedy have been prevented?

We probably would have a theater full of well-armed Blackwater wannabe idiots who are convinced they "know what they're doing" opening fire at the shooter, and then almost immediately each other, not knowing who was a killer and who was just an armed citizen living out their wet-dream fantasy of defending themselves and the rest of the flock against a guy like this whackjob by justifiably blowing someone away, with a resulting 47 dead and 189 wounded. But the instigator would be dead! Boo-yah!

[AsburySkinsFan]

We probably would have a theater full of well-armed Blackwater wannabe idiots who are convinced they "know what they're doing" opening fire at the shooter, and then almost immediately each other, not knowing who was a killer and who was just an armed citizen living out their wet-dream fantasy of defending themselves and the rest of the flock against a guy like this whackjob by justifiably blowing someone away, with a resulting 47 dead and 189 wounded. But the instigator would be dead! Boo-yah!

That's about right, we've gotten pretty darn good at rationalizing collateral damage.

[armstrong001]

That's about right, we've gotten pretty darn good at rationalizing collateral damage.

Or, perhaps, there still wouldn't be anyone with guns in the theater besides the shooter, since there was a company policy of no guns allowed in the theater by anyone other than police officers. Of course, that didn't stop the shooter, but may have stopped one or two others from carrying concealed. But besides those pesky rules, even if there were 10 guns for every person in the U.S., that does not mean that any additional people would be carrying concealed compared to current gun ownership rates. People who want to carry a gun for protection are going to go through the necessary steps to carry, while those who don't (I'm assuming you would be among them), wouldn't carry concealed even if you were forced to own guns. Of course, it would be nice if everyone acted like concealed carry permit holders, since they tend to be much more law abiding than the average citizen.

[Jumbo]

Or, perhaps, there still wouldn't be anyone with guns in the theater besides the shooter, since there was a company policy of no guns allowed in the theater by anyone other than police officers. Of course, that didn't stop the shooter, but may have stopped one or two others from carrying concealed. But besides those pesky rules, even if there were 10 guns for every person in the U.S., that does not mean that any additional people would be carrying concealed compared to current gun ownership rates. People who want to carry a gun for protection are going to go through the necessary steps to carry, while those who don't (I'm assuming you would be among them), wouldn't carry concealed even if you were forced to own guns. Of course, it would be nice if everyone acted like concealed carry permit holders, since they tend to be much more law abiding than the average citizen.

Look I really like guns and always have (growing up in Alaska it's hard not to). I had my first rifle when I was 7 and my first handgun when I was 16. And I'm no pusher of gun laws. Nor does the idea of attempts of tighter regulations, or more competently enforced current laws, send me into the type of semi-controlled frothing to full spazz "oh noz!111!" reactions that I see from many "gun guys" on here and elsewhere.

I have been around military and civilian LEO's much of my life. I know how they see it as a group. Not fans of gun proliferation in the population. What a shocker.

And, the idea that CCPH's are all that special is a self-serving joke. Many of them are the kind of wannabe mall-cop igwads that people joke about, and a fair slice have stunted personality (insecurity looms large) problems and there's also no shortage of psychological issues in that demographic.

Personally, I know and have known a fair number of them (gun clubs, competition shooting, classes, and lived in a region most of my life that's very shooting-friendly--AK, OR, WA, and ID). And I have a CCWP too. Anecdotal, but right now, the two guys I know personally who I'd put as far and away the guys I'm most likely to read about shooting up folk (not in self-defense) are both CCPH's and up to their necks in "gun appreciation."

Christ. People.

[artmonkforHOF]

How dare you talk about making changes to "THE GREATEST DOCUMENT EVER WRITTEN." America's forefathers where the smartest men to ever live, never made one mistake ever in thier lives, and had the ability to see how society would evolve over 1,000 years into the future, and you want to change the Amendments they made to the Constitution? What are you, a bloddy communist? You Pinko commie- oh wait a sec, just found something:


Dictionary.com

a·mend·ment
   [uh-mend-muhnt] Show IPA

noun
1.
the act of amending or the state of being amended.

2.
an alteration of or addition to a motion, bill, constitution, etc.

3.
a change made by correction, addition, or deletion: The editors made few amendments to the manuscript.


So why is everyone so uptight about making changes to a list of changes written over 200 years ago? Stop treating your Constitution like a peice of holy literatue, it's a freakin' bill, which is to say it's a law, so start treating it like one. You can change it as you see fit.

For the record, I am not trying to inslut America's forefathers, some where truely great men, and saying that laws they made 200 years ago no longer apply is not meant as an insult to them or their intellect, since not even the smartest men or women in the world have been able to accurately predict how the world will look in 200, 100 or even 50 years.

[grhqofb5]

How dare you talk about making changes to "THE GREATEST DOCUMENT EVER WRITTEN." America's forefathers where the smartest men to ever live, never made one mistake ever in thier lives, and had the ability to see how society would evolve over 1,000 years into the future, and you want to change the Amendments they made to the Constitution? What are you, a bloddy communist? You Pinko commie- oh wait a sec, just found something:



So why is everyone so uptight about making changes to a list of changes written over 200 years ago? Stop treating your Constitution like a peice of holy literatue, it's a freakin' bill, which is to say it's a law, so start treating it like one. You can change it as you see fit.

For the record, I am not trying to inslut America's forefathers, some where truely great men, and saying that laws they made 200 years ago no longer apply is not meant as an insult to them or their intellect, since not even the smartest men or women in the world have been able to accurately predict how the world will look in 200, 100 or even 50 years.

Its aboot time someone said it.

[armstrong001]

How dare you talk about making changes to "THE GREATEST DOCUMENT EVER WRITTEN." America's forefathers where the smartest men to ever live, never made one mistake ever in thier lives, and had the ability to see how society would evolve over 1,000 years into the future, and you want to change the Amendments they made to the Constitution? What are you, a bloddy communist? You Pinko commie- oh wait a sec, just found something:


Dictionary.com

a·mend·ment
   [uh-mend-muhnt] Show IPA

noun
1.
the act of amending or the state of being amended.

2.
an alteration of or addition to a motion, bill, constitution, etc.

3.
a change made by correction, addition, or deletion: The editors made few amendments to the manuscript.


So why is everyone so uptight about making changes to a list of changes written over 200 years ago? Stop treating your Constitution like a peice of holy literatue, it's a freakin' bill, which is to say it's a law, so start treating it like one. You can change it as you see fit.

For the record, I am not trying to inslut America's forefathers, some where truely great men, and saying that laws they made 200 years ago no longer apply is not meant as an insult to them or their intellect, since not even the smartest men or women in the world have been able to accurately predict how the world will look in 200, 100 or even 50 years.

So then change it. By ammendment. You know, the process in which this particular set of rights is modified.

[grhqofb5]

So then change it. By ammendment. You know, the process in which this particular set of rights is modified.

So therein lies the debate..... not only what does it mean, but should it be changed. Ok.

[JimboDaMan]

How dare you talk about making changes to "THE GREATEST DOCUMENT EVER WRITTEN." America's forefathers where the smartest men to ever live, never made one mistake ever in thier lives, and had the ability to see how society would evolve over 1,000 years into the future, and you want to change the Amendments they made to the Constitution? What are you, a bloddy communist? You Pinko commie- oh wait a sec, just found something:


Dictionary.com

a·mend·ment
   [uh-mend-muhnt] Show IPA

noun
1.
the act of amending or the state of being amended.

2.
an alteration of or addition to a motion, bill, constitution, etc.

3.
a change made by correction, addition, or deletion: The editors made few amendments to the manuscript.


So why is everyone so uptight about making changes to a list of changes written over 200 years ago? Stop treating your Constitution like a peice of holy literatue, it's a freakin' bill, which is to say it's a law, so start treating it like one. You can change it as you see fit.

For the record, I am not trying to inslut America's forefathers, some where truely great men, and saying that laws they made 200 years ago no longer apply is not meant as an insult to them or their intellect, since not even the smartest men or women in the world have been able to accurately predict how the world will look in 200, 100 or even 50 years.

Its not an insult. Jefferson himself, for one, voiced some indications that regular review and amendment would be a healthy thing. I sometimes think if the founders were alive to see us trying to run the country by crawling inside their heads, dissecting their "real" thought, parsing every word for its true meaning, their response would be: How could these morons try to decipher what we "really meant" hundreds of years ago instead of building and guiding the nation themselves.

[armstrong001]

Look I really like guns and always have (growing up in Alaska it's hard not to). I had my first rifle when I was 7 and my first handgun when I was 16. And I'm no pusher of gun laws. Nor does the idea of attempts of tighter regulations, or more competently enforced current laws, send me into the type of semi-controlled frothing to full spazz "oh noz!111!" reactions that I see from many "gun guys" on here and elsewhere.

I have been around military and civilian LEO's much of my life. I know how they see it as a group. Not fans of gun proliferation in the population. What a shocker.

And, the idea that CCPH's are all that special is a self-serving joke. Many of them are the kind of wannabe mall-cop igwads that people joke about, and a fair slice have stunted personality (insecurity looms large) problems and there's also no shortage of psychological issues in that demographic.

Personally, I know and have known a fair number of them (gun clubs, competition shooting, classes, and lived in a region most of my life that's very shooting-friendly--AK, OR, WA, and ID). And I have a CCWP too. Anecdotal, but right now, the two guys I know personally who I'd put as far and away the guys I'm most likely to read about shooting up folk (not in self-defense) are both CCPH's and up to their necks in "gun appreciation."

Christ. People.

I'm not a fan of gun proliferation either, at least to people who don't want guns. If someone doesn't want guns, I don't want that person to have to have them. I think that at this time, people who want guns have guns, and people who don't want guns don't have them. Regardless of how "special" you think some CCW or CCWP or CCPH holders are or how stupid wanna-be they are and how stunted their maturity is, the fact remains that they don't tend to harm anyone else. So worst case, they don't actually stop the mass shooting, but they almost certainly don't contribute to the body count either.

I imagine that most of these so-called "wanna-be" mall cops get tired of carrying several pounds of metal on their hip day after day and don't even bother carrying most of the time, if ever. Again, they aren't harming anyone. To say that if more guns were available, a bunch of idiots would have shot each other and more innocent bystanders is an absurd joke, and is not backed up by any statistics I know of regarding the collective responsibility of concealed carry permit holders. Perhaps it's just a matter of luck that an alternate Aurora shooting such as you described hasn't happened. Or just maybe you give too little credit to these supposed wanna-bes regarding their danger to others.

---------- Post added July-27th-2012 at 11:54 AM ----------


So therein lies the debate..... not only what does it mean, but should it be changed. Ok.

Of course, far more Ammendments have been added vs. repealed, and the only one that was repealed was also one that prohibited the possession of a certain type of property due to the percieved dangers of that possession. Perhaps the founders knew what they were doing after all.

[elkabong82]

The 2nd Amendment is for keeping the King of England out of your face.

I happen to think that no matter how civilized a nation, the potential for corruption is always there and usually exists to some degree. Man is fallible and the citizenry is the safeguard to a government gone corrupt, thus a citizenry should stay reasonably armed.

That doesn't mean guns should be a wide open market. In fact I also believe that even with proper training guns are dangerous and should have more safety regulations.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Or, perhaps, there still wouldn't be anyone with guns in the theater besides the shooter, since there was a company policy of no guns allowed in the theater by anyone other than police officers. Of course, that didn't stop the shooter, but may have stopped one or two others from carrying concealed. But besides those pesky rules, even if there were 10 guns for every person in the U.S., that does not mean that any additional people would be carrying concealed compared to current gun ownership rates. People who want to carry a gun for protection are going to go through the necessary steps to carry, while those who don't (I'm assuming you would be among them), wouldn't carry concealed even if you were forced to own guns. Of course, it would be nice if everyone acted like concealed carry permit holders, since they tend to be much more law abiding than the average citizen.

CONCEALED guns don't prevent crime....guns in plain sight may, but not in Colorado.

BTW, you assume to much.

---------- Post added July-28th-2012 at 07:24 AM ----------


The 2nd Amendment is for keeping the King of England out of your face.

In a time when General/President George fricking Washington himself rejected the idea of maintaining a standing army......come to think of it, the founding fathers were right about that too! Want to legitimize the 2nd Amendment then get rid of our standing army.

[Jumbo]

To ammo: your reply contains some (to me) off-target and fuzzy thinking (to me) but I don't want to dissect it or argue about stuff (keep in mind I'm very far away from some sort of "anti-gun guy").

And don't mind me, amigo. You're a good egg in my book, poster-wise, so we'll just get along while having different thoughts on this matter (though we both obviously like guns :)).

More generally---things I have little fear of: that we don't have enough guns, and access to buying guns, among the civilian population, or that those are going to be "taken away" to some serious affecting degree (for "normal" people), if to any degree at all.

I do think some people who are really wound up on that stuff often have some "issues" :D.

The reality of the matter is a far cry from any valid reason for generating some major level of concern.

We have way more than we "need", in any sane perception of "life in the U.S. today", when it comes to variety of, capabilities of, and access to, firearms in the country.

We are absolutely nothing like being at the edge of "losing it all" and being disarmed as a population, even if a few more restrictions were made law and were able to be competently enforced. And I don't find much traction in the old "slippery slope" bromide in this matter.

And whenever I read the standard drone about how awesomely responsible gun-owners are (having been around them all my life)the fuzzy logic just cracks me up. Almost every male idjit, drunk, *******, etc. I ever knew also usually has or had a gun at some point in their life. :ols:

Does this mean they used it wrongfully or carelessly? No. I'm just saying any idea that humans with guns represents a cut above, in judgment and behavior, any other demographic is absurd at face value. They're just "humans with guns."

I am simply reminded that most of "we the people" seem pretty goofed in the head half the time anyway :pfft:.

So acting like having us all armed to the teeth (including the option of semi-auto military-style rifles with huge magazine capacity)[U] isn't worth giving reasonable people a moment of pause[/], seems silly.

Just the number of gun deaths from family disturbances, suicides, jealous rage, and accidents, that are [U]facilitated by easy access to guns is significant every year. And "comparing" those occurrences with auto accidents or smoking and drinking is just another reflection of how incompetently some people's minds can work at times.

I'm not going to get much more deep into all that here, but a quick (and what should be an "easy to see" example) is that "in the heat of a moment", grabbing a knife or lamp and going to town may still happen in some cases, but it's not nearly as psychologically enabling as a firearm being handy.

Of course, when it comes to the accidents and suicides, the lamp and knife are even less convenient. :D (dark humor)

But I know this won't carry any weight with the people it's really directed to, so i'll just stop.

There is a lot of good info out there on injuries and fatalities in the U.S. and relevant factors involved. One credible internet place to begin doing a little research is here:

http://www.cdc.gov/

But it would just be a start. And I always suggest folks try to stay away from sites with either obvious pro or anti agendas (on anything) when gathering hard data, if you want even half a chance at getitng some as-honest-as-possible education or enlightenment---assuming one isn't already omniscient in a matter, which I know means many of us tailgate posters don't need to bother :pfft:.

On "agenda sites" the numbers (on any matter) will get spun every which way and unless you know the ins and outs of such stuff yourself, professionally, or you'll likely be just submitting yourself as a tool of your own existing reflexive thinking as well as that of others.

[Ken]

CONCEALED guns don't prevent crime....guns in plain sight may, but not in Colorado.

BTW, you assume to much.[COLOR="Gold"]

I disagree with your assertion that Concealed weapons don't prevent crime....just in the last few weeks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eowwq1DV3J0

A 71 year old prevents a potential Aurora Colorado situation. Notice that all of these mass shootings happen where guns are banned. This is what happens in places where they are not.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I disagree with your assertion that Concealed weapons don't prevent crime....just in the last few weeks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eowwq1DV3J0

A 71 year old prevents a potential Aurora Colorado situation. Notice that all of these mass shootings happen where guns are banned. This is what happens in places where they are not.

I'm sure you're aware of the idea of acedotal evidence.

[Ken]

I'm sure you're aware of the idea of acedotal evidence.

Anecdotal with visual proof.

Here's another from about a month ago...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN3UrJshagI


Point is, these are two elderly people defending themselves against thugs with guns in the last month. No mention of these stories on the national news. See an agenda?

[zoony]

How dare you talk about making changes to "THE GREATEST DOCUMENT EVER WRITTEN." America's forefathers where the smartest men to ever live, never made one mistake ever in thier lives, and had the ability to see how society would evolve over 1,000 years into the future, and you want to change the Amendments they made to the Constitution? What are you, a bloddy communist? You Pinko commie- oh wait a sec, just found something:


Dictionary.com

a·mend·ment
   [uh-mend-muhnt] Show IPA

noun
1.
the act of amending or the state of being amended.

2.
an alteration of or addition to a motion, bill, constitution, etc.

3.
a change made by correction, addition, or deletion: The editors made few amendments to the manuscript.


So why is everyone so uptight about making changes to a list of changes written over 200 years ago? Stop treating your Constitution like a peice of holy literatue, it's a freakin' bill, which is to say it's a law, so start treating it like one. You can change it as you see fit.

For the record, I am not trying to inslut America's forefathers, some where truely great men, and saying that laws they made 200 years ago no longer apply is not meant as an insult to them or their intellect, since not even the smartest men or women in the world have been able to accurately predict how the world will look in 200, 100 or even 50 years.


Certainly better men than the spineless Canadians who were content to live under tyranny. And to this day take pride in being under the crown, which is to say, England's *****.

[Jumbo]

Certainly better men than the spineless Canadians who were content to live under tyranny. And to this day take pride in being under the crown, which is to say, England's *****.

How ambassadorial. :pfft:

You're reminding me of one of my two most offending (to key personnel) jr. high school moments--both to be blamed on my boundless sense of humor. :D

This one being a paper I wrote for a class on international relations (yes, in the old days we actually had a class like that in the 7th grade).

I titled it: "Canada: The Retarded Giant On Our Doorstep."

Remember, I was growing up in Alaska at the time. :cool:

[AsburySkinsFan]

Anecdotal with visual proof.

Here's another from about a month ago...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN3UrJshagI

Oh I was unaware that video proof made anecdotal evidence more authoritative.

[bcl05]

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "data".

[Ken]

Oh I was unaware that video proof made anecdotal evidence more authoritative.

Well, I'm just a little confused how the Aurora anecdotal evidence is somehow ok to take gun rights but any others are met with "ever hear of anecdotal evidence?"?

At least those trying to take guns based off of one incident may now see the opposing argument.

[Kosher Ham]

Prohibition on arms...will never work. Restrict all you want... that will not stop people that want them from getting them.

This topic is odd to me, and I think it is a fear that drives it from both sides.

[Bang]

Well, I'm just a little confused how the Aurora anecdotal evidence is somehow ok to take gun rights but any others are met with "ever hear of anecdotal evidence?"?

At least those trying to take guns based off of one incident may now see the opposing argument.

I know you're bat**** loony, but ONE incident?

Are you THAT out of touch with reality?


That wasn't even the only mass shooting THAT WEEK.

****ing CRAZY.

~Bang

---------- Post added August-4th-2012 at 03:09 PM ----------




Point is, these are two elderly people defending themselves against thugs with guns in the last month. No mention of these stories on the national news. See an agenda?

I saw the Florida video on NBC Nightly news. And i also saw it on our local news out of DC.. so it definitely made the rounds.


I realize that's a tiny little podunk operation, NBC Nightly News and all... and I would hope you'd at least be honest about your argument.
Course, you probably weren't aware NBC ran the story... and like any good propagandist, your lack of knowledge did not stop your proclamation. Or even slow it down. Or even give you pause to consider that you might not actually know which news organizations ran with what stories.
You sound like a Foxhead.

~Bang

[AsburySkinsFan]

Well, I'm just a little confused how the Aurora anecdotal evidence is somehow ok to take gun rights but any others are met with "ever hear of anecdotal evidence?"?

At least those trying to take guns based off of one incident may now see the opposing argument.
See now I'm more confused because now you're citing someone else's anecdotal evidence in order to excuse your own. I believe in gun control as do most sane Americans (remember restricting gun ownership to non-felons is gun control, and citizens shouldn't be allowed to own rocket tanks) I do not believe that the 2nd amendment should be over-turned, but at the same time registration and restriction based on criminal records and IMO certain gun types are as necessary as placing certain restrictions on abortion.

[Ken]

I know you're bat**** loony, but ONE incident?

Are you THAT out of touch with reality?


That wasn't even the only mass shooting THAT WEEK.

****ing CRAZY.

~Bang

---------- Post added August-4th-2012 at 03:09 PM ----------



I saw the Florida video on NBC Nightly news. And i also saw it on our local news out of DC.. so it definitely made the rounds.


I realize that's a tiny little podunk operation, NBC Nightly News and all... and I would hope you'd at least be honest about your argument.
Course, you probably weren't aware NBC ran the story... and like any good propagandist, your lack of knowledge did not stop your proclamation. Or even slow it down. Or even give you pause to consider that you might not actually know which news organizations ran with what stories.
You sound like a Foxhead.

~Bang


Forgive me. I don't watch the 'news' as closely as you do. I just couldn't help but notice they were not talking about this incident on every channel like the aurora Colorado incident. Was there another Mass shooting that week? I must have missed it because anytime I clicked by a national news station, they were talking about Aurora.

I'm crazy because i don't get in a tizzy by isolated incidents being reported nationally.


I'm not a 'FoxHead' either. I'm a 'don't watch the news unless it is shoved down my throat head'.

I'm also not a Propagandist either. You are lapping up the propaganda like a dog drinking anti-freeze my friend. Please look in the mirror.

[Bang]

Forgive me. I don't watch the 'news' as closely as you do.

no? then shut the **** up.

You made a blanket statement that is completely inaccurate, period.

It did play on the national stage, you are unaware of it, and running your mouth like you knew something.
aren't you the one always screaming for people to open their eyes and see the truth?
So, in the pursuit of truth, it's pretty obvious that you should shut the **** up.



I just couldn't help but notice they were not talking about this incident on every channel like the aurora Colorado incident. Was there another Mass shooting that week?
Yes, on Monday, five full days earlier, 17 people in a bar in Alabama by a guy who stood outside the window with an AR15 and sprayed everybody to try and hit one person. Video of him walking up ith thev gun,, video of him running away,, all over the news.

The reason you never heard of it is because you don't know what the **** you're talking about.




I must have missed it because anytime I clicked by a national news station, they were talking about Aurora.

You missed it, period.


I'm crazy

This is the FIRST reasonable thing you have EVER posted in the Tailgate



I'm not a 'FoxHead' either. I'm a 'don't watch the news unless it is shoved down my throat head'.

I'm also not a Propagandist either. You are lapping up the propaganda like a dog drinking anti-freeze my friend. Please look in the mirror.

Let's see... you dont know the things going on in recent current events that directly affect the discussion, you put forth an obvious lie about what is and isn't covered in the news, and you do it to move your agenda. and you cover and bluster over it by blaming the mainstream media... which you'd never watch..

THAT sounds like...
see if you can guess..

It starts with an "F"

.... and ends with an "oxNews".

You"re a loon. You just did all the things you claim to watchguard againt, all the things you say "they" do, all to make sure your agenda fits your fantasy, like a propagandist does.
You're every bit exactly like all you despise.

~Bang

[AsburySkinsFan]

Where'z mah popcorns?

[GibbsFactor]

I'm for the assault rifle ban. There's just no need for a weapon outside of hunting and home security. I am one who feels the second amendment was geared more towards giving the people a voice against tyranny than anything else and I can understand the argument for assault rifles because of it. But a militia in Michigan with AK47s isn't putting up much of a fight against the government. Our hope in a marshall law tyranny situation is that the soldiers don't wipe us all out from some crazy commanders order.

At the end of the day, this particular incident hurts the argument of those that are pro more regulations with guns. This guy would have passed any regulation and gotten his firearms to commit this crime, just as there are a number of whackos with CCHPs walking the streets today. Guns exist. We can't dis-invent them. Banning them doesn't work. See DC.

[Ken]

no? then shut the **** up.

You made a blanket statement that is completely inaccurate, period.

It did play on the national stage, you are unaware of it, and running your mouth like you knew something.
aren't you the one always screaming for people to open their eyes and see the truth?
So, in the pursuit of truth, it's pretty obvious that you should shut the **** up.


Bang, easy....I hate to see you get banned over something as trivial as the point you think you are making.

To compare the Aurora coverage (every national show for the vast majority of the show for days) to the 65 year old lady defending herself against 5 robbers (1 national show that was a news snippet) is not even a comparison. I concede it did 'play' nationally, maybe the point I should have made was it wasn't even in the same area code with the intensity. I also didn't notice anyone saying on the news that the 2nd story was a good reason to have the 2nd amendment but the first story was a good reason to get rid of it. Simple point, no reason to get excited.



Yes, on Monday, five full days earlier, 17 people in a bar in Alabama by a guy who stood outside the window with an AR15 and sprayed everybody to try and hit one person. Video of him walking up ith thev gun,, video of him running away,, all over the news.

The reason you never heard of it is because you don't know what the **** you're talking about.
I was genuinely asking about the other shooting because, as I stated previously, I don't waste my time entranced with local news stories that take up the National news. There is no point in it other than to take up time talking about things that don't matter in the grand scheme of things and to influence thinking. You fall for both, clearly.




You missed it, period.
Yup, thanks for enlightening me.



This is the FIRST reasonable thing you have EVER posted in the Tailgate
Uh huh.





Let's see... you dont know the things going on in recent current events that directly affect the discussion, you put forth an obvious lie about what is and isn't covered in the news, and you do it to move your agenda. and you cover and bluster over it by blaming the mainstream media... which you'd never watch..

THAT sounds like...
see if you can guess..

It starts with an "F"

.... and ends with an "oxNews".


I think i explained my stance as to why this occurred earlier in this discussion.





You"re a loon. You just did all the things you claim to watchguard againt, all the things you say "they" do, all to make sure your agenda fits your fantasy, like a propagandist does.
You're every bit exactly like all you despise.

~Bang

You are seriously over reacting. Slightly wrong, as I conceded earlier, but the point is still valid. The media does not run with the good gun stories with nearly the intensity of the bad stories.

I'm a loon for this understanding of simple fact though.

[Bang]

Slightly wrong is what you'd call a complete fabrication, and bull**** condescension to cover it?


What a clown.

:stfu:

~Bang

[SpacePenguin]

Slightly wrong is what you'd call a complete fabrication, and bull**** condescension to cover it?


What a clown.

:stfu:

~Bang

Ken has a very valid point, in that there is an easily observable push from the media to get gun laws passed by hyping up tragic stories of gun violence.

He missed a much less publicized story about how guns can save lives, and this somehow completely invalidates his argument? Ok, sure....that's fine if you want to think that way.

But then you proceed to insult him for his views, rather than refute them with anything aside from a news story that was barely on the national radar. The fact he was unaware of the story validates his point a bit, if anything.

You're better than this Bang.

---------- Post added August-5th-2012 at 07:46 PM ----------



I titled it: "Canada: The Retarded Giant On Our Doorstep."




You just made me shoot Dr. Pepper out of my nose. I'm not sure it was worth the laugh, though. Well done.

[Bang]

Ken has a very valid point, in that there is an easily observable push from the media to get gun laws passed by hyping up tragic stories of gun violence.

He missed a much less publicized story about how guns can save lives, and this somehow completely invalidates his argument? Ok, sure....that's fine if you want to think that way.

But then you proceed to insult him for his views, rather than refute them with anything aside from a news story that was barely on the national radar. The fact he was unaware of the story validates his point a bit, if anything.

You're better than this Bang..


Sorry, but THIS



Point is, these are two elderly people defending themselves against thugs with guns in the last month. No mention of these stories on the national news. See an agenda?

Is a total lie. When called on the lie, he follows by condescendingly admitting he doesn't pay attention, and proves it by not knowing about 17 people being shot 5 days before. (which he covers by acting like an ass by saying he didn't know because the media was wall to wall Aurora,, five days prior to that shooting.

He lied, straight up. And then he blamed me for being braiwashed by the media that brought me all three stories, including the one Konspiracy Ken swears they didn't. to us the Krazy Kook's own words.. see an agenda?
Same ol' song and dance.

And this

Well, I'm just a little confused how the Aurora anecdotal evidence is somehow ok to take gun rights but any others are met with "ever hear of anecdotal evidence?"?

[COLOR="orange"] At least those trying to take guns based off of one incident may now see the opposing argument.
and this is so outrageously beyond all reality it deserves to be called out for what it is.

One incident.. wasn't even the first incident of the damn week.

I stand by it.

~Bang

[SpacePenguin]

Site flippin out on me, sorry.

[Hubbs]

I believe in gun control as do most sane Americans (remember restricting gun ownership to non-felons is gun control, and citizens shouldn't be allowed to own rocket tanks)

Hold on, rocket tanks? I demand the right to bear rocket tanks. :silly:

[SpacePenguin]

Site making me angry

[GibbsFactor]

Hold on, rocket tanks? I demand the right to bear rocket tanks. :silly:

How are arms defined?

[SpacePenguin]

Phantom duplicate posts.

[SpacePenguin]

Service Unavailable

The service is temporarily unavailable. Please try again later.

I get this when saving every edit lol...almost done.

[SpacePenguin]

ES hates me.

[SpacePenguin]

Man this is crazy....keep getting duplicate posts message, but my post still refuses to show up lol

Now I have 8 of them....ugh. My current posture now resembles that of my avatar.

In a frenzy, I edited my actual reply to Bang. I guess it wasn't meant to be.

[Bang]

Service Unavailable

The service is temporarily unavailable. Please try again later.

I get this when saving every edit lol...almost done.

:ols:
I thought for sure I'd earned a week off.

~Bang

[Bang]

moving this over from Sikh thread..

My guess is he had these guns prior to the majority of these things occurring.
i would hope so. It really appears we need to police the applications more thoroughly.
But this leads to the question, is there any activity that can lead to revocation of the license, and confiscation of the gun?
If i'm a much more dangerous felon, let's say. I serve 9 years for something, but i owned the gun in my house prior to my arrest... do I not run any risk of losing my right? I certainly would lose other rights.
I inevitably think of driver's license, erxcept it is drilled into my head that driving is a privelege and not a right and is much different.
What would it take for law enforcement to be notified of a potentially dangerous person's gun ownership without becoming an invasion of privacy for otherwise law abiding citizens?

~Bang

[AsburySkinsFan]

BTW, I want to take this moment to lodge a formal complaint regarding a misleading thread title, I have yet to see scholars here debate the 2nd Amendment. :evil:

Hold on, rocket tanks? I demand the right to bear rocket tanks. :silly:

LoL! That's what I get for typing on my iPad and then trying to edit my statement without checking to be sure I changed the whole thing. :pfft: