School Shooting in Connecticut - Multiple Fatalities

[Farnhamia]

I have. But I'm not American, so I'm allowed to.

To b e honest, even Americans are allowed to. Just because something is the law doesn't mean it cannot be changed. Just because its in the Constitution doesn't mean it cannot be changed.

Any sort of appeal to the Second Amendment during this discussion is a cop-out and an appeal to authority.

You can try suggesting an across-the-board ban but be prepared for vilification that will curl your hair.

[Forsher]

Do both. Mental health deals with mental health. Restricting guns deals with different issues.

Yes it does. Neither gun control nor mental health is strictly germane to the thread subject. Both are imo relevant, so of course they will come together.

They're quite intimately linked by Prevention. It's quite right and decent to ask, when a tragedy occurs, "how can we prevent things like this happening in the future?"

If I have my Agatha Christie right, motive and means are both relevant to that.

I'm not sure how this is relevant to my post? Perhaps you meant to reply to the post saying guns and stuff aren't the topic of the thread?

[The Black Forrest]

Because that's the purpose of the Second Amendment.

It was. I wonder how many people these days think of themselves as channeling the characters in "Red Dawn"? The original, I mean, not the crap remake.

Now? Hell they started channeling when the movie first came out. I remember all these wankers walking around in camo pants and or military berets.

[Choronzon]

To b e honest, even Americans are allowed to. Just because something is the law doesn't mean it cannot be changed. Just because its in the Constitution doesn't mean it cannot be changed.

Any sort of appeal to the Second Amendment during this discussion is a cop-out and an appeal to authority.

You can try suggesting an across-the-board ban but be prepared for vilification that will curl your hair.

I wasn't even suggesting banning guns. I out and out said I supported gun ownership and concealed carry- which is why LG's appeal to the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court is totally asinine.

I just don't think concealed carry is the solution, nor do I think the status quo is working.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

The discussion can continue. But let's not pretend both sides of that discussion are equally valid. it's like the difference between Evolution and Young Earth Creationism. The argument for both can be made, but they are not equally valid positions.

The only "invalid" argument in light of the second amendment would be an argument for banning all guns. I don't think anyone has made that argument.

Neither ruling says anything about assault weapons, nor does it say anything about high capacity magazines.

I'm curious what point you think you've proven beyond "THE SUPREME COURT SAYS WE CAN HAVE GUNS!" Well, um, no shit. Thanks Captain Obvious. We're talking about how far that goes. Thats where the debate is. A debate you are not contributing to, beyond claiming to know the will and intent of the founders.

That's not what I said, and that's not what the Supreme Cort said. What i said is that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to encourage the public to train in firearms for the needs of the Militia. It isn't about hunting. It isn't about personal self-defense. It's about defending the public interest from violent usurpation. If you ban the styles of small arms the military uses, you are violating the intent of the Second Amendment.

HOWEVER, I am not entirely convinced that a high-capacity semiautomatic pistol is appropriate for self-defense. Perhaps we should limit the kinds of firearms that can be carried for personal defense. But to ban ownership of those styles of small arms is against the intent of the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court defined the intent of the Second Amendment and defended that definition against the actions of the city of Chicago.

We can argue whether people are using the right firearms for the right purposes, but you can only expect so much without a new Constitutional Amendment.

[Occupied Deutschland]

It was. I wonder how many people these days think of themselves as channeling the characters in "Red Dawn"? The original, I mean, not the crap remake.

Now? Hell they started channeling when the movie first came out. I remember all these wankers walking around in camo pants and or military berets.

-Wears camo pants
-Has never seen either "Red Dawn"

Too poor to afford jeans Represent!

[Farnhamia]

Now? Hell they started channeling when the movie first came out. I remember all these wankers walking around in camo pants and or military berets.

-Wears camo pants
-Has never seen either "Red Dawn"

Too poor to afford jeans Represent!

If you can afford camo pants you can afford jeans.

[Gauntleted Fist]

The only "invalid" argument in light of the second amendment would be an argument for banning all guns. I don't think anyone has made that argument.

Neither ruling says anything about assault weapons, nor does it say anything about high capacity magazines.

I'm curious what point you think you've proven beyond "THE SUPREME COURT SAYS WE CAN HAVE GUNS!" Well, um, no shit. Thanks Captain Obvious. We're talking about how far that goes. Thats where the debate is. A debate you are not contributing to, beyond claiming to know the will and intent of the founders.

That's not what I said, and that's not what the Supreme Cort said. What i said is that the purpose of the Second AMendment is to encourage the public to train in firearms for the needs of the Militia. It isn't about hunting. It isn't about personal self-defense. It's about defending the public interest from violent usurpation. If you ban the styles of small arms the military uses, you are violating the intent of the First Amendment.

HOWEVER, I am not entirely convinced that a high-capacity semiautomatic pistol is appropriate for self-defense. Perhaps we should limit the kinds fo firearms that can be carried for personal defense. But to ban ownership of those styles of small arms is against the intent of the Second Amendment. The SUpreme Court defined the intent of the Second AMendment and defended that definition against the actions of the city of Chicago.

We can argue whether people are using the right firearms for the right purposes, but you can only expect so much without a new Constitutional Amendment.

♪ One of these is not like the other ♪

[The Black Forrest]

Thank goodness for that. I came here for a debate, and you were unable to deliver anything more than condescending remarks. Same time tomorrow?

Only if you learn to read data before then.

Didn't you say you were done?

[Gun Manufacturers]

[BUT we DO limit what types of weapons can be carried in public.

Which would do dick to prevent massacres, because if you're going to shoot a bunch of people you're not going to care if you broke the law to get your weapon from point A to point B.

The problem is the ease with which these weapons are acquired, not that people can carry them places. Your "solution" is absurd, and would solve nothing.

But banning those weapons outright are against the intent of the Second Amendment.

Alright Scalia, please demonstrate that the "intent" of the Second Amendment is to allow personal ownership of any kind of firearm.

There's no way this asshole could have legally acquired the pistols he used in this tragedy. In addition to being under the legal minimum age to purchase them, he didn't have either a CT Pistol Permit or an Eligibility Certificate (which would only allow you to purchase one and bring it straight home), which is one of the 2 things needed in order to purchase a pistol or revolver.

[Farnhamia]

Only if you learn to read data before then.

Didn't you say you were done?

No one is ever done here.

[Occupied Deutschland]

-Wears camo pants
-Has never seen either "Red Dawn"

Too poor to afford jeans Represent!

If you can afford camo pants you can afford jeans.

I have never found jeans for $8 a pair.

[Gun Manufacturers]

I would just like to weigh in and say that you hit the nail on the head. I have an FN FAL that I keep on-hand, ready to go. I take it out and shoot it frequently, to make sure both the rifle and I are up to par. I would never take it hunting, and it's not something I'd defend my home with. (Over penetration of walls and close neighbors.) It is a gun that was built with one purpose: fighting wars. That said, I have no need for it, and hope I never need it, but if I DO, it's there.

So you have a military grade weapon that you admit is not for self defense, nor is it for hunting. Its for killing people efficiently and easily. That is its sole purpose.

And we should let you own weapons like this because.......?

Target shooting is what I use my AR15 for. It sounds like that's what he uses hit FAL for.

[The Black Forrest]

Now? Hell they started channeling when the movie first came out. I remember all these wankers walking around in camo pants and or military berets.

-Wears camo pants
-Has never seen either "Red Dawn"

Too poor to afford jeans Represent!

Talking then lad. They were wearing them because the image they thought they would achieve.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

That's not what I said, and that's not what the Supreme Cort said. What i said is that the purpose of the Second AMendment is to encourage the public to train in firearms for the needs of the Militia. It isn't about hunting. It isn't about personal self-defense. It's about defending the public interest from violent usurpation. If you ban the styles of small arms the military uses, you are violating the intent of the First Amendment.

HOWEVER, I am not entirely convinced that a high-capacity semiautomatic pistol is appropriate for self-defense. Perhaps we should limit the kinds fo firearms that can be carried for personal defense. But to ban ownership of those styles of small arms is against the intent of the Second Amendment. The SUpreme Court defined the intent of the Second AMendment and defended that definition against the actions of the city of Chicago.

We can argue whether people are using the right firearms for the right purposes, but you can only expect so much without a new Constitutional Amendment.

♪ One of these is not like the other ♪

*pushes you into the mud* Thanks.

[Occupied Deutschland]

-Wears camo pants
-Has never seen either "Red Dawn"

Too poor to afford jeans Represent!

Talking then lad. They were wearing them because the image they thought they would achieve.

What ponces.

[Gauntleted Fist]

*pushes you into the mud* Thanks.

Anytime.

[Farnhamia]

If you can afford camo pants you can afford jeans.

I have never found jeans for $8 a pair.

It depends on whether you care how many people have worn them before.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Concurrent discussions, sure, but people here have wanted to take the focus off the ridiculous number of firearms in this country and their easy availability and move it to the mental health discussion instead of talking about both. One gun per person in the US? Seriously?

The number of guns doesn't seem to matter. A lot of Americans treat guns as heirloom; a majority of these firearms would never see the light of day. There's also differences with gun types. Worrying about the number of guns is like worrying about the national debt without understanding what it is. People worry about it just because it's a large number.

My major concern is the availability of ammunition. No one would treat bullets as heirloom (well maybe some, but you wouldn't fire it). I don't know how effective it is to control ammunition, but as LG pointed out, banning firearms outright would just be silly. I for one don't see why gun owners needs anything but surplus or junk munitions.

Or they could just make their own, like many do now (some do it because it's cheaper than store bought ammo, and some do it to make sure their ammo meets their specific needs/specifications).

BTW, surplus military ammo sucks for hunting, since surplus military ammo is FMJ, which doesn't expand as much as hollow point or soft point ammo.

[Norjagen]

So you have a military grade weapon that you admit is not for self defense, nor is it for hunting. Its for killing people efficiently and easily. That is its sole purpose.

And we should let you own weapons like this because.......?

Target shooting is what I use my AR15 for. It sounds like that's what he uses hit FAL for.

More or less. It's also my go-to gun, should a major crisis befall the area I live in, be it a severe natural disaster, violent looters, rioting... Any case in which I would require a reliable form of defense, outside of what a handgun can provide. That said, I hope I never need to use if for that. In the time being, it's a target rifle, and it's one that's fun to shoot, with lots of history. (Mine was made in Rhodesia, and most likely fought in the Rhodesian war, for instance.)

[Occupied Deutschland]

I have never found jeans for $8 a pair.

It depends on whether you care how many people have worn them before.

Fair enough. I probably could find cheaper ones in secondhand shops, but I'll just stick with cheap new pants that look a bit tacky until I have to look nice for something. *shrug*

Anyhow, I guess camo pants are kinda far off the point of this thread aren't they?

[Farnhamia]

It depends on whether you care how many people have worn them before.

Fair enough. I probably could find cheaper ones in secondhand shops, but I'll just stick with cheap new pants that look a bit tacky until I have to look nice for something. *shrug*

Anyhow, I guess camo pants are kinda far off the point of this thread aren't they?

I guess, but it's a happier subject than 20 dead six- and seven-year-olds.

[The Black Forrest]

Talking then lad. They were wearing them because the image they thought they would achieve.

What ponces.

indeed.

I just remembered in one ambush scene hearing somebody muttering "whoa this was just like Viet Nam!" I looked back and he had to have been 13 or 14.

[The Black Forrest]

Fair enough. I probably could find cheaper ones in secondhand shops, but I'll just stick with cheap new pants that look a bit tacky until I have to look nice for something. *shrug*

Anyhow, I guess camo pants are kinda far off the point of this thread aren't they?

I guess, but it's a happier subject than 20 dead six- and seven-year-olds.

Wasn't it a kindergarten class?

[The Joseon Dynasty]

To b e honest, even Americans are allowed to. Just because something is the law doesn't mean it cannot be changed. Just because its in the Constitution doesn't mean it cannot be changed.

Any sort of appeal to the Second Amendment during this discussion is a cop-out and an appeal to authority.

You can try suggesting an across-the-board ban but be prepared for vilification that will curl your hair.

To qualify my statement, though, I don't think that would be a practical or even possible (given public opinion and the sheer supply of them) undertaking for the United States.