Mass shooting at El Paso Walmart/and also Dayton OH

[GoBills808]

11 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

Because a nation without the ability to protect itself will not stay a nation for long. Our founders agreed on that

 

History repeats itself and the second amendment is to not let tyranny back into the US, which is fully possible

 

IMO there's an incongruence between supporting both military expansion/law enforcement militarization and 2nd amendment rights per your point.

 

As far as tyranny in the US goes...how about throwing out Citizens United. Get off Facebook. Lose your cell phone. Audit FISA. Preventing tyranny is not going to be accomplished by well armed untrained civilians anymore.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

9 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

Who were they referring too?

 

That's all we need is a refer epidemic on our hands!  I hate getting 3rd & 4th opinions!!!!

 

No one in general   -  another reason why people do bad things 

 

 

 

 

 

[bbb]

3 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

...Any updates on the Las Vegas shooting -- including motive?

 

(curious, ain't it?)

 

What is the theory about this?  

[Buffalo716]

8 minutes ago, stony said:

I think this a pretty ambiguous way of interpreting the 2nd Amendment in the modern context.  

It's not. It's to protect us from tyranny.. always has been and will be. We aren't exempt from totalitarian regimes

 

America IS NOT immune from tyranny just like the rest of the world. Our amendments specifically the 2nd , are to keep us free from tyranny

 

Behind every blade of grass is a gun

 

take away the 2nd and America would be a totalitarian regime sooner than later, because there are evil people in power

 

Edited August 5, 2019 by Buffalo716

[bdutton]

12 minutes ago, stony said:

I think this a pretty ambiguous way of interpreting the 2nd Amendment in the modern context.  

 

Its not ambiguous at all when you interpret the 2nd amendment based on the original intent.

 

Applying modern context is irrelevant unless your intent is to change the original meaning.

[Buffalo716]

11 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

 

IMO there's an incongruence between supporting both military expansion/law enforcement militarization and 2nd amendment rights per your point.

 

As far as tyranny in the US goes...how about throwing out Citizens United. Get off Facebook. Lose your cell phone. Audit FISA. Preventing tyranny is not going to be accomplished by well armed untrained civilians anymore.

The second amendment may not be able to stop tyranny all by itself, but I DO KNOW that if we took away all of our rights to defend ourselves we would go back to tyranny

 

Our founders agreed that the only legitimate government is one that has the favor and backing of the people , and to keep us free,  citizens must be able to protect their own rights granted from God

 

And I can agree to the bolded

[Gugny]

16 minutes ago, bdutton said:

 

Its not ambiguous at all when you interpret the 2nd amendment based on the original intent.

 

Applying modern context is irrelevant unless your intent is to change the original meaning.

 

It should absolutely be changed.

 

Why?  Because some whackos actually believe that being a U.S. citizen should automatically allow a person to own a gun.  Not the kinds of guns that existed in the 1700s, mind you.

 

That's ridiculous.

[HopsGuy]

24 minutes ago, bdutton said:

 

Its not ambiguous at all when you interpret the 2nd amendment based on the original intent.

 

Applying modern context is irrelevant unless your intent is to change the original meaning.

 

The original intent of the 2nd Amendment was to fix (amend) a portion of Article I, Section 8.:

 

”To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States...”

 

Whoa, whoa, whoa... if you can arm me, can you disarm me? That’s why the Constitution was changed, *amended*, if you will.

 

BTW, the biggest gun I ever fired was an M-119 Howitzer (in training, no longer in service). You do *not* want me to possess this within my zero.

Edited August 5, 2019 by HopsGuy

[stony]

4 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

The second amendment may not be able to stop tyranny all by itself, but I DO KNOW that if we took away all of our rights to defend ourselves we would go back to tyranny

 

Our founders agreed that the only legitimate government is one that has the favor and backing of the people , and to keep us free,  citizens must be able to protect their own rights granted from God

 

And I can agree to the bolded

That's fine and all.  But I suppose it's the unnamed tyranny part that tends to give me pause when discussing this.  You claim you know tyranny would would be rampant if the populace could not defend themselves.  I want to know from what?     

[muppy]

I have a few comments to add to this discussion not brought up.

 

1. The common denominator in these  shootings are guns and predominately if not all shooters are men. I find that interesting especially if you are going to tout music and video games as causational to gun violence .hmmmm correct me if women aren't as exposed to those things as men but How to identify just which individuals might be prone on acting out  and how to alleviate/mitigate those triggers...a very difficult task in the society we live in but needs be researched at the very least and while these people are young enough to be reached and hopefully treated and their ideologies expressed without violence

 

2. Rational discussion regarding guns and what to do about the violence they wreak  is about as possible as rational discussion between Trump supporters and non supporters. Paranoia and mistrust  abide on both sides and consensus seems next to impossible. How to fix That and needs to occur no matter how seemingly impossible.

 

3. solutions are even less often discussed with calm and rationality because each side is so entrenched and fear they will "lose" wether it be their guns or their freedom to own them at all.  NRA lobby is super strong and congress wont act due to fear of losing their support  as well as their voting constituent members of the NRA. 

 

I think common sense is none too common in this gun control debate...one solution just may be to eliminate those 100 clip ammunitions which to my way of thinking are unnecessary for non military usage....rapid fire weapons which have been known to be used to kill large numbers of people and have limited non military use Ditto.

 

Background checks are a Must and can they be expanded in a way to vet out extremists...I don't know or have all the answers

 

All I can say is something needs to give...wether it be governmental rules and requirements but also the societal issues that contribute to this....I dont think infrastructure will ever completely irradicate ideological extremists but we need Try to somehow allevite domestic terrorist acts from happening.

 

 

 

 

 

[Buffalo716]

17 minutes ago, stony said:

That's fine and all.  But I suppose it's the unnamed tyranny part that tends to give me pause when discussing this.  You claim you know tyranny would would be rampant if the populace could not defend themselves.  I want to know from what?     

Because my degree in history taught me that history repeats itself and our founders agreed

 

Countries and empires rise and fall, dictatorships and totalitarian regimes rise and fall and America isn't exempt

 

A totalitarian regimes sole goal is to decimate the populations morale while controlling their every action... If you value the bill of rights, the second NEEDS to be on a pedestal

 

Because without the second, there is NOTHING protecting our rights from the 1st amendment to the 10th.. the second amendment guarantees us free speech and freedom of religion

 

The second amendment guarantees us the 3rd of no quartering of soldiers and the 4th of illegal searches and seizures

 

Without the 2nd , we would lose all of them

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

1 hour ago, bdutton said:

 

Re-posting this from the PPP thread on the same topic:

 

In the early 1970's there was a shift in treating mental illness with incarceration in mental institutions to prescribing powerful psychotropic drugs on an out patient process.

 

The media has become increasingly polarized along political extremes.  Very little if any honest news organizations exist because it isn't profitable to do any honest reporting of news.

 

 

Violence in media has increased substantially (video games, TV, Movies and even in radio).  You used to get an X rating if you had any nudity or language in movies. 

 

With the introduction of cable/satellite tv, the reach of the FCC to control content, and an increased tolerance by consumers for violence and language means violent content is much more prevalent leading to a desensitizing to the violence.

 

The Internet (an with it social media) has created a sense of anonymity to human interactions online.  We would almost never say some of the things we say on an internet forum like this to people face to face.  This in turn creates the false sense of superiority over people online.  Both sides of the political/social spectrum are guilty of this.

 

Also, the term of mass shooting is frequently misused (for political reasons) by the media.  More people are killed in Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit... etc... on any given weekend that there are with the rare (albeit increasing) occurrence of a mass shooting like the one of El Paso.

 

The only thing that has never changed is the function of a firearm.  You could buy an AR-15 and a thousand rounds of ammo for it over mail order and have it delivered to your home with no background checks and no waiting period before the 1968 Firearm act.  Yet the number of mass shootings with rifles (or in general) in those days was extremely rare.

 

The problem is/was never about the availability and function of any given type of firearm.

 

In summary, I think its the combination of increased psychotropic drugs to treat mental illness, decreased sensitivity to violent media content, media whiping up the radicals with sensationalized and biased reporting among others.

I agree with all of this. very well put and hit the nail on the head.

[stony]

4 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

Because my degree in history taught me that history repeats itself and our founders agreed

 

Countries and empires rise and fall, dictatorships and totalitarian regimes rise and fall and America isn't exempt

 

A totalitarian regimes sole goal is to decimate the populations morale while controlling their every action... If you value the bill of rights, the second NEEDS to be on a pedestal

 

Because without the second, there is NOTHING protecting our rights from the 1st amendment to the 10th.. the second amendment guarantees us free speech and freedom of religion

 

The second amendment guarantees us the 3rd of no quartering of soldiers and the 4th of illegal searches and seizures

 

Without the 2nd , we would lose all of them

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hey! I've got one of those, too!!! Is yours as useless as mine?

[Buffalo716]

48 minutes ago, stony said:

Hey! I've got one of those, too!!! Is yours as useless as mine?

To a point. That is why I am about to go for my Doctorate potentially soon  ... always been a dream of mine and would be cool to say I have a Doctorate

 

Do you have a bachelor's, masters or Doctorate

Edited August 5, 2019 by Buffalo716

[stony]

2 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

To a point. That is why I am about to go for my Doctorate, always been a dream of mine

 

Do you have a bachelor's, masters or Doctorate

I had/have a bachelors.  Absolutely loved every second of it.  I taught for 2 years directly after college and got laid off going into my third year. 

 

Took a year off (this was circa 2009, wasn't a lot of history positions open) and went back to school for a finance degree.  Talk about a 180.  

[Buffalo716]

13 minutes ago, stony said:

I had/have a bachelors.  Absolutely loved every second of it.  I taught for 2 years directly after college and got laid off going into my third year. 

 

Took a year off (this was circa 2009, wasn't a lot of history positions open) and went back to school for a finance degree.  Talk about a 180.  

Where were you teaching with a bachelor's? A middle school ? Not that there is anything wrong with that ,it sounds awesome! Besides getting laid off

 

I thought a master's was needed to teach at the minimum

 

EDIT: I'm in NY so you need a master's to teach

Edited August 5, 2019 by Buffalo716

[stony]

7 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

Where were you teaching with a bachelor's? A middle school? Not that there is anything wrong with that ,it sounds awesome! Besides getting laid off

 

I thought a master's was needed to teach at the minimum

I did a 4+1 program in here in NYS which is effectively an advanced cert on top of a concentration major.  If I had continued as a teacher, I would've had 5 years to complete my masters.  

 

Career-wise, I have no regrets with what I do now.  I enjoy it.  But I'd be lying if I said I didn't miss it from time to time.  

[muppy]

very interesting  https://fortune.com/2018/02/20/australia-gun-control-success/  Australia banned assault type guns and...….

 

Quote

So what happened after the assault-weapon ban? Well therein lies the other half of the story twist noted above: Nothing.

Nothing, that is, in a good way.

Australian independence didn’t end. Tyranny didn’t come. Australians still hunted and explored and big-wave surfed to their hearts’ content. Their economy didn’t crash; Invaders never arrived. Violence, in many forms, went down across the country, not up. Somehow, lawmakers on either side of the gun debate managed to get along and legislate.

As for mass killings, there were no more. Not one in the past 22 years.

 

 

[Buffalo716]

27 minutes ago, muppy said:

very interesting  https://fortune.com/2018/02/20/australia-gun-control-success/  Australia banned assault type guns and...….

 

 

A country with the Population of less than Texas isn't exactly a great sample size

 

 

[Bad Things]

7 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

A country with the Population of less than Texas isn't exactly a great sample size

 

 

Give me a break.