shooting Clackamas Mall, Portland, Oregon

[ABikerSailor]

Perhaps you can pray to the all-loving sky pixie to have the 2nd Amendment wiped off the Bill of Rights.

Or we can just interpret "Well-Regulated Militia" to mean exactly that.

You can have a gun, after you pass a rigorous background check and receive rigorous training.

Just like people in the Army and the National Guard do.

Well, at least you offered a solution based on Constitutional interpretation instead of a picture from a recent shooting to stir the emotion like I would have expected. I have to give you credit there.

Hey................the gun owners have stated repeatedly that "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

So..................here's the solution. Just like you have to have training, and pass a test in order to drive a car, you should have to get training, pass a basic firearms safety course, get mentally screened, and upon completion of that, you are issued a card (good for 4 years just like a drivers liscence), and with that card, you can buy all the guns you want.

If, for some reason, when it comes time to renew your card, if you are unable to pass the basic refresher course (like you do with drivers liscences), you don't get to keep your guns because you are no longer eligible.

Hey.................I know that I had to go through about a full week of weapons training before I was allowed to serve on the Security Force and carry a weapon while I was in the military.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Yes, we wouldn't want you to be affected by emotions...

It's much better if you don't think of the victims of gun violence as people or remember they have names or people who are going to miss them.

Don't even go there. The shooting in CT was disgusting. I'll bet it was exciting to you though, wasn't it? I'll bet you were logged in and posting the minute you heard about it. High times.

Wasn't disgusting enough to get a single one of our local gun fetishists to say, "Wait a minute. Maybe we shouldn't let crazy people have guns!"

Not. A. One.

My opinion about gun ownership hasn't changed a bit after the events of yesterday. I was for not letting crazy people have them before one shot up a bunch of kids.

So, what you're saying is that nobody has changed their position? And the relevance of that to what I was saying is...?

If you're asking me to allow my emotions to guide my perspective of the Constitution, I'll pass. Mass shootings are tragedies. Given. As indications that something is amiss that needs to be addressed, they are poignant. Exactly how much more weight in a serious debate about gun control am I supposed to give them than that? We have a 2nd Amendment that allows ownership of arms. The wording also suggests that some regulation is allowed. The wording of the 2nd Amendment in it's entirety is unfortunate. We have to deal with it. As difficult as it is to remove emotion from the debate after events like this, it is important, if we value the Constitution, to do our best.

 

[JoeB131]

So, what you're saying is that nobody has changed their position? And the relevance of that to what I was saying is...?

If you're asking me to allow my emotions to guide my perspective of the Constitution, I'll pass. Mass shootings are tragedies. Given. As indications that something is amiss that needs to be addressed, they are poignant. Exactly how much more weight in a serious debate about gun control am I supposed to give them than that? We have a 2nd Amendment that allows ownership of arms. The wording also suggests that some regulation is allowed. The wording of the 2nd Amendment in it's entirety is unfortunate. We have to deal with it. As difficult as it is to remove emotion from the debate after events like this, it is important, if we value the Constitution, to do our best.

The constitution isn't written on a stone tablet, nor has your bizarre intrepretation of the 2nd Amendment always been the case.

When asshole gangsters were shooting up the country in the 1920's, we regulated the shit out of guns and who could own them.

If the only way to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people is to take EVERYONE'S guns, I have no problem with that.

You don't need them. In fact, most of your reasons for wanting them are kind of retarded.

 

[ABikerSailor]

So, what you're saying is that nobody has changed their position? And the relevance of that to what I was saying is...?

If you're asking me to allow my emotions to guide my perspective of the Constitution, I'll pass. Mass shootings are tragedies. Given. As indications that something is amiss that needs to be addressed, they are poignant. Exactly how much more weight in a serious debate about gun control am I supposed to give them than that? We have a 2nd Amendment that allows ownership of arms. The wording also suggests that some regulation is allowed. The wording of the 2nd Amendment in it's entirety is unfortunate. We have to deal with it. As difficult as it is to remove emotion from the debate after events like this, it is important, if we value the Constitution, to do our best.

The constitution isn't written on a stone tablet, nor has your bizarre intrepretation of the 2nd Amendment always been the case.

When asshole gangsters were shooting up the country in the 1920's, we regulated the shit out of guns and who could own them.

If the only way to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people is to take EVERYONE'S guns, I have no problem with that.

You don't need them. In fact, most of your reasons for wanting them are kind of retarded.

Actually, the gangsters shooting up everything in sight is the main reason you can't by a full auto weapon anymore.

 

[Katzndogz]

Liberals have no problem living their lives ruled by crazy people. If crazy people don't like what others say speech has to be limited. If crazy people use weapons to hurt people who aren't crazy take the means of defense away from victims. If crazy people don't want you to have your property, give it to them. If we cannot control crazy people the least we can do is all live like we're crazy too.

That's the liberal way. Ruled by threat. Slave to intimidation. When the crazy person wants a night of enjoyment by carving the alphbet into a five year olds back the lib would give him the knife.

 

[martybegan]

So, what you're saying is that nobody has changed their position? And the relevance of that to what I was saying is...?

If you're asking me to allow my emotions to guide my perspective of the Constitution, I'll pass. Mass shootings are tragedies. Given. As indications that something is amiss that needs to be addressed, they are poignant. Exactly how much more weight in a serious debate about gun control am I supposed to give them than that? We have a 2nd Amendment that allows ownership of arms. The wording also suggests that some regulation is allowed. The wording of the 2nd Amendment in it's entirety is unfortunate. We have to deal with it. As difficult as it is to remove emotion from the debate after events like this, it is important, if we value the Constitution, to do our best.

The constitution isn't written on a stone tablet, nor has your bizarre intrepretation of the 2nd Amendment always been the case.

When asshole gangsters were shooting up the country in the 1920's, we regulated the shit out of guns and who could own them.

If the only way to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people is to take EVERYONE'S guns, I have no problem with that.

You don't need them. In fact, most of your reasons for wanting them are kind of retarded.

 

[The Infidel]

So, what you're saying is that nobody has changed their position? And the relevance of that to what I was saying is...?

If you're asking me to allow my emotions to guide my perspective of the Constitution, I'll pass. Mass shootings are tragedies. Given. As indications that something is amiss that needs to be addressed, they are poignant. Exactly how much more weight in a serious debate about gun control am I supposed to give them than that? We have a 2nd Amendment that allows ownership of arms. The wording also suggests that some regulation is allowed. The wording of the 2nd Amendment in it's entirety is unfortunate. We have to deal with it. As difficult as it is to remove emotion from the debate after events like this, it is important, if we value the Constitution, to do our best.

The constitution isn't written on a stone tablet, nor has your bizarre intrepretation of the 2nd Amendment always been the case.

When asshole gangsters were shooting up the country in the 1920's, we regulated the shit out of guns and who could own them.
If the only way to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people is to take EVERYONE'S guns, I have no problem with that.

You don't need them. In fact, most of your reasons for wanting them are kind of retarded.

Did it stop the violence?

 

[ABikerSailor]

So, what you're saying is that nobody has changed their position? And the relevance of that to what I was saying is...?

If you're asking me to allow my emotions to guide my perspective of the Constitution, I'll pass. Mass shootings are tragedies. Given. As indications that something is amiss that needs to be addressed, they are poignant. Exactly how much more weight in a serious debate about gun control am I supposed to give them than that? We have a 2nd Amendment that allows ownership of arms. The wording also suggests that some regulation is allowed. The wording of the 2nd Amendment in it's entirety is unfortunate. We have to deal with it. As difficult as it is to remove emotion from the debate after events like this, it is important, if we value the Constitution, to do our best.

The constitution isn't written on a stone tablet, nor has your bizarre intrepretation of the 2nd Amendment always been the case.

When asshole gangsters were shooting up the country in the 1920's, we regulated the shit out of guns and who could own them.
If the only way to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people is to take EVERYONE'S guns, I have no problem with that.

You don't need them. In fact, most of your reasons for wanting them are kind of retarded.

Did it stop the violence?

Actually, after they banned machine guns from the general populace, violence DID go down.

 

[martybegan]

The constitution isn't written on a stone tablet, nor has your bizarre intrepretation of the 2nd Amendment always been the case.

When asshole gangsters were shooting up the country in the 1920's, we regulated the shit out of guns and who could own them.
If the only way to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people is to take EVERYONE'S guns, I have no problem with that.

You don't need them. In fact, most of your reasons for wanting them are kind of retarded.

Did it stop the violence?

Actually, after they banned machine guns from the general populace, violence DID go down.

Acutally it was the lifting of prohibition that did most of that legwork.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

So, what you're saying is that nobody has changed their position? And the relevance of that to what I was saying is...?

If you're asking me to allow my emotions to guide my perspective of the Constitution, I'll pass. Mass shootings are tragedies. Given. As indications that something is amiss that needs to be addressed, they are poignant. Exactly how much more weight in a serious debate about gun control am I supposed to give them than that? We have a 2nd Amendment that allows ownership of arms. The wording also suggests that some regulation is allowed. The wording of the 2nd Amendment in it's entirety is unfortunate. We have to deal with it. As difficult as it is to remove emotion from the debate after events like this, it is important, if we value the Constitution, to do our best.

The constitution isn't written on a stone tablet, nor has your bizarre intrepretation of the 2nd Amendment always been the case.

When asshole gangsters were shooting up the country in the 1920's, we regulated the shit out of guns and who could own them.

If the only way to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people is to take EVERYONE'S guns, I have no problem with that.

You don't need them. In fact, most of your reasons for wanting them are kind of retarded.

I don't NEED to exercise my freedom of speech either, yet here I am. People don't NEED to practice their freedoms under the religion clauses either, but they do. What does need have to do with it?

My "bizarre" interpretation is bizarre how exactly? Because I recognize that the 2nd Amendment allows for the ownership of arms and that regulation is also allowed? That's about all I have said on the matter. Please explain the bizarre nature of my interpretation.

 

[JoeB131]

So, what you're saying is that nobody has changed their position? And the relevance of that to what I was saying is...?

If you're asking me to allow my emotions to guide my perspective of the Constitution, I'll pass. Mass shootings are tragedies. Given. As indications that something is amiss that needs to be addressed, they are poignant. Exactly how much more weight in a serious debate about gun control am I supposed to give them than that? We have a 2nd Amendment that allows ownership of arms. The wording also suggests that some regulation is allowed. The wording of the 2nd Amendment in it's entirety is unfortunate. We have to deal with it. As difficult as it is to remove emotion from the debate after events like this, it is important, if we value the Constitution, to do our best.

The constitution isn't written on a stone tablet, nor has your bizarre intrepretation of the 2nd Amendment always been the case.

When asshole gangsters were shooting up the country in the 1920's, we regulated the shit out of guns and who could own them.
If the only way to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people is to take EVERYONE'S guns, I have no problem with that.

You don't need them. In fact, most of your reasons for wanting them are kind of retarded.

Did it stop the violence?

As a matter of fact, it did. Dilinger, Floyd, Nelson, Kelly, Bonnie and Clyde all wound up dead.. Capone and his lot went to prison. the next generation of gangsters had to be a lot smarter to avoid the same kind of heat.

 

[eots]

obviously, we need to distribute weapons with large capacity mags to every baby at birth.

Along with a carton of no-filter camels.

Then, every birthday, we could give the kid a box of ammo and a mcdonalds gift card.

sounds like my childhood...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So, what you're saying is that nobody has changed their position? And the relevance of that to what I was saying is...?

If you're asking me to allow my emotions to guide my perspective of the Constitution, I'll pass. Mass shootings are tragedies. Given. As indications that something is amiss that needs to be addressed, they are poignant. Exactly how much more weight in a serious debate about gun control am I supposed to give them than that? We have a 2nd Amendment that allows ownership of arms. The wording also suggests that some regulation is allowed. The wording of the 2nd Amendment in it's entirety is unfortunate. We have to deal with it. As difficult as it is to remove emotion from the debate after events like this, it is important, if we value the Constitution, to do our best.

The constitution isn't written on a stone tablet, nor has your bizarre intrepretation of the 2nd Amendment always been the case.

When asshole gangsters were shooting up the country in the 1920's, we regulated the shit out of guns and who could own them.

If the only way to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people is to take EVERYONE'S guns, I have no problem with that.

You don't need them. In fact, most of your reasons for wanting them are kind of retarded.

Shall not be infringed is set in stone. Jack ass the second amendment only has one purpose I give you two hints what the purpose isn't for
Hunting and home defense against a burglar

 

[JoeB131]

Shall not be infringed is set in stone. Jack ass the second amendment only has one purpose I give you two hints what the purpose isn't for
Hunting and home defense against a burglar

NOpe, it's on paper and subject to interpretation. If the government CAN prohibit you from owning a Howitzer, they can prohibit you from owning assault rifles, high capacity magazines or teflon coated bullets.

Now, not going to get into hunting, but most of the weapons you are talking about aren't used in hunting. While you might have a sadistic need to murder animals (and frankly, you ought to see someone about that), you don't need an assault rifle to do that.

For home defense- again... gun in the house is 43 times more likely to kill a member of your family than a bad guy.

Now, the reason you idiots give is that so you can overthrow the government. Ummmm. Right. Frankly, I don't want you to have that ability. You guys talk that shit a lot when you lose elections, but frankly, that's why we have elections.