So what IS the best way to reduce or prevent mass shootings?

[RWNJ]

You do know confiscation means millions Dead on both sides, no one will give up their firearms...

Of course not. All we've been told is how law-abiding gun owners are. So, what you're saying, is if a law is passed, banning a certain type of gun, the law will be violated. Right?

What I'm saying is that we will not allow the government to disarm us. We would not be required to follow such a law, since it is unconstitutional.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"Nothing" -- and yet there's that inconvenient conditional phrase, batting leadoff ....

Precisely.

It's been pointed out to these people multiple times in this thread (and elsewhere in this forum) that the mention of a militia is just an explanation for why the people's right cannot be infringed. Not a condition on it.

So what IS the best way to reduce or prevent mass shootings? | Page 57 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

But they continue to try to ignore it, and pretend that their point hasn't already been refuted again and again.

Then they complain that others don't answer questions.

We who know the facts do answer questions. You just don't pay attention.

And you run away with your tails clamped between your hind legs every time you hear an answer you can't refute, hoping to pretend later it was never said.

Problem is, nobody believes your lies and fakery any more.

Again, where is the explaination of "well regulated"?

As the Constitution says that the right of the people -- not the militia, or the people in the militia - is protected, your question is irrelevant.
You continue to choose to be wrong.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Best way to stop mass shootings is to stop selling bullets. No constitution protection for bullets.

Oh look... unmitigated dumbassery.

 

[candycorn]

Best way to stop mass shootings is to stop selling bullets. No constitution protection for bullets.

Not really they are part of the firearm, a firearm is useless without them.
Just like car without wheels...
Dumba$$

Only guaranteed arms, not bullets. Who's the dumba$$ now? Oh yeah, you!

Your drinking too much koolaid

You have no response. Got it.

You do know confiscation means millions Dead on both sides, no one will give up their firearms...

Of course not. All we've been told is how law-abiding gun owners are. So, what you're saying, is if a law is passed, banning a certain type of gun, the law will be violated. Right?

No one will fall for unconstitutional laws, confiscation of all firearms will not be tolerated.
The killing of millions would only be the start...

So Cleetus, Jethro, and Trixie are now law scholars and decide what laws are to be obeyed and ignored? Says all that need be said about gun nuts.

PS. No amount of hillbilly meth amphetamine will make any of those 3 stooges a better shot. The national guard will have zero problem rolling up the "well organized militia". Oh wait, it's not a militia, it's not organized. And enjoys no constitutional protection.

 

[candycorn]

Best way to stop mass shootings is to stop selling bullets. No constitution protection for bullets.

Oh look... unmitigated dumbassery.

Found another mirror?

 

[Rustic]

Not really they are part of the firearm, a firearm is useless without them.
Just like car without wheels...
Dumba$$

Only guaranteed arms, not bullets. Who's the dumba$$ now? Oh yeah, you!

Your drinking too much koolaid

You have no response. Got it.

You do know confiscation means millions Dead on both sides, no one will give up their firearms...

Of course not. All we've been told is how law-abiding gun owners are. So, what you're saying, is if a law is passed, banning a certain type of gun, the law will be violated. Right?

No one will fall for unconstitutional laws, confiscation of all firearms will not be tolerated.
The killing of millions would only be the start...

So Cleetus, Jethro, and Trixie are now law scholars and decide what laws are to be obeyed and ignored? Says all that need be said about gun nuts.

PS. No amount of hillbilly meth amphetamine will make any of those 3 stooges a better shot. The national guard will have zero problem rolling up the "well organized militia". Oh wait, it's not a militia, it's not organized. And enjoys no constitutional protection.

Firearm ownership is not illegal... Cornholio

 

[candycorn]

Only guaranteed arms, not bullets. Who's the dumba$$ now? Oh yeah, you!

Your drinking too much koolaid

You have no response. Got it.

You do know confiscation means millions Dead on both sides, no one will give up their firearms...

Of course not. All we've been told is how law-abiding gun owners are. So, what you're saying, is if a law is passed, banning a certain type of gun, the law will be violated. Right?

No one will fall for unconstitutional laws, confiscation of all firearms will not be tolerated.
The killing of millions would only be the start...

So Cleetus, Jethro, and Trixie are now law scholars and decide what laws are to be obeyed and ignored? Says all that need be said about gun nuts.

PS. No amount of hillbilly meth amphetamine will make any of those 3 stooges a better shot. The national guard will have zero problem rolling up the "well organized militia". Oh wait, it's not a militia, it's not organized. And enjoys no constitutional protection.

Firearm ownership is not illegal... Cornholio

Never said it was cum chugger

 

[Rustic]

Your drinking too much koolaid

You have no response. Got it.

You do know confiscation means millions Dead on both sides, no one will give up their firearms...

Of course not. All we've been told is how law-abiding gun owners are. So, what you're saying, is if a law is passed, banning a certain type of gun, the law will be violated. Right?

No one will fall for unconstitutional laws, confiscation of all firearms will not be tolerated.
The killing of millions would only be the start...

So Cleetus, Jethro, and Trixie are now law scholars and decide what laws are to be obeyed and ignored? Says all that need be said about gun nuts.

PS. No amount of hillbilly meth amphetamine will make any of those 3 stooges a better shot. The national guard will have zero problem rolling up the "well organized militia". Oh wait, it's not a militia, it's not organized. And enjoys no constitutional protection.

Firearm ownership is not illegal... Cornholio

Never said it was cum chugger

2. Ratify An Admendment
Regardless of how the amendment is proposed, it must be ratified by the States.

• Three-fourths of the State legislatures must approve of the amendment proposed by Congress, or
• Three-fourths of the states must approve the amendment via ratifying conventions. This method has only been used once, to repeal Prohibition (21st Amendment).

Is there a timeline for ratification? The US Supreme Court has held that ratification must happen within "some reasonable time after the proposal." Since the 18th Amendment, Congress has set a term of seven years for ratification.

Only 33 amendments have received a two-thirds vote from both Houses of Congress. Of those, only 27 have been ratified by the States. Perhaps the most visible failure is the Equal Rights Amendment.

 

[Pogo]

Under existing socio/psychological circumstances your scenarios are readily predictable -- mainly because armed citizens are the exception rather than the rule and those who are armed are pre-consciously confident that their antagonist and potentially helpful bystanders are not. While I'm not saying occasional road-rage shootings will not occur in an armed society I am confident they will be few and far between. Because potential shooters will have cause to think twice before acting.

What I'm saying is the imposition of myriad gun laws has had a profound effect on the collective psychology of Americans. It has caused a significant percentage of the population to fear and despise guns. It has divorced them from the reality that guns are an essential component of the American spirit.

I can't agree with either of the points in the second paragraph. I see no basis to support the idea that gun laws create fear and loathing of guns by anybody. Rather, the abuse of them in mass shootings does that. Nor can I agree that "guns are an essential component of the American spirit". That's been true historically but not necessarily. That is, it's not something that needs to continue, or ever needed to be there before, in order to perpetuate the concept of "America".

If it were possible to assuredly eliminate the existence of guns in the hands of ordinary citizens without imposing the most aggressively totalitarian, brutally unConstitutional methods, the arguments of gun-control advocates might make sense. But the fact is gun-control laws within a Constitutionally free society disarm only the law-abiding and the sane.

So you have only two choices. Do you wish to live in an armed but free society or in an unarmed totalitarian society? As we have become painfully aware, the in-between option isn't working.

Again I disagree that these are the only two choices. The preferable choice, not listed above, would be a free society that is unarmed voluntarily. And that has nothing to do with passing laws.

 

[MikeK]

So you have only two choices. Do you wish to live in an armed but free society or in an unarmed totalitarian society? As we have become painfully aware, the in-between option isn't working.

Funny, people in Europe and Australia have a 3rd choice; a free, prosperous, gun free society. We don't get that choice here in America for some reason.

The reason is this is America, not Australia. The essential nature of our society, with emphasis on the circumstances that gave rise to this Nation. In spite of what some of us repudiate, Americans are and always have been a belligerently violent people.

Examine our history if you doubt that.

Australia was founded as a penal colony if you want to talk about violence. Europe has had more taste of wars and warfare than any American enclave.

Somehow, they got over it. Somehow we didn't. Obviously, the 2nd Amendment from 230+ years ago is the reason.

A penal colony is all about rigidly imposed authority -- not freedom. So Australia evolved as the diametric opposite of America in terms of social attitudes and policies.

While it's true that Europe has had its share of wars all European societies evolved as relatively compliant kingdoms, not revolutionary democracies. America was born with a gun in its hand and a determination to maintain that condition.

 

[Pogo]

So you have only two choices. Do you wish to live in an armed but free society or in an unarmed totalitarian society? As we have become painfully aware, the in-between option isn't working.

Funny, people in Europe and Australia have a 3rd choice; a free, prosperous, gun free society. We don't get that choice here in America for some reason.

The reason is this is America, not Australia. The essential nature of our society, with emphasis on the circumstances that gave rise to this Nation. In spite of what some of us repudiate, Americans are and always have been a belligerently violent people.

Examine our history if you doubt that.

Australia was founded as a penal colony if you want to talk about violence. Europe has had more taste of wars and warfare than any American enclave.

Somehow, they got over it. Somehow we didn't. Obviously, the 2nd Amendment from 230+ years ago is the reason.

A penal colony is all about rigidly imposed authority -- not freedom. So Australia evolved as the diametric opposite of America in terms of social attitudes and policies.

While it's true that Europe has had its share of wars all European societies evolved as relatively compliant kingdoms, not revolutionary democracies. America was born with a gun in its hand and a determination to maintain that condition.

True.
And more's the pity.

 

[Rustic]

Under existing socio/psychological circumstances your scenarios are readily predictable -- mainly because armed citizens are the exception rather than the rule and those who are armed are pre-consciously confident that their antagonist and potentially helpful bystanders are not. While I'm not saying occasional road-rage shootings will not occur in an armed society I am confident they will be few and far between. Because potential shooters will have cause to think twice before acting.

What I'm saying is the imposition of myriad gun laws has had a profound effect on the collective psychology of Americans. It has caused a significant percentage of the population to fear and despise guns. It has divorced them from the reality that guns are an essential component of the American spirit.

I can't agree with either of the points in the second paragraph. I see no basis to support the idea that gun laws create fear and loathing of guns by anybody. Rather, the abuse of them in mass shootings does that. Nor can I agree that "guns are an essential component of the American spirit". That's been true historically but not necessarily. That is, it's not something that needs to continue, or ever needed to be there before, in order to perpetuate the concept of "America".

If it were possible to assuredly eliminate the existence of guns in the hands of ordinary citizens without imposing the most aggressively totalitarian, brutally unConstitutional methods, the arguments of gun-control advocates might make sense. But the fact is gun-control laws within a Constitutionally free society disarm only the law-abiding and the sane.

So you have only two choices. Do you wish to live in an armed but free society or in an unarmed totalitarian society? As we have become painfully aware, the in-between option isn't working.

Again I disagree that these are the only two choices. The preferable choice, not listed above, would be a free society that is unarmed voluntarily. And that has nothing to do with passing laws.

There is no reason to fear guns...
They can do nothing on their own

 

[Rustic]

So you have only two choices. Do you wish to live in an armed but free society or in an unarmed totalitarian society? As we have become painfully aware, the in-between option isn't working.

Funny, people in Europe and Australia have a 3rd choice; a free, prosperous, gun free society. We don't get that choice here in America for some reason.

The reason is this is America, not Australia. The essential nature of our society, with emphasis on the circumstances that gave rise to this Nation. In spite of what some of us repudiate, Americans are and always have been a belligerently violent people.

Examine our history if you doubt that.

Australia was founded as a penal colony if you want to talk about violence. Europe has had more taste of wars and warfare than any American enclave.

Somehow, they got over it. Somehow we didn't. Obviously, the 2nd Amendment from 230+ years ago is the reason.

A penal colony is all about rigidly imposed authority -- not freedom. So Australia evolved as the diametric opposite of America in terms of social attitudes and policies.

While it's true that Europe has had its share of wars all European societies evolved as relatively compliant kingdoms, not revolutionary democracies. America was born with a gun in its hand and a determination to maintain that condition.

Due to the incestuousness of Europe...

 

[Pogo]

Under existing socio/psychological circumstances your scenarios are readily predictable -- mainly because armed citizens are the exception rather than the rule and those who are armed are pre-consciously confident that their antagonist and potentially helpful bystanders are not. While I'm not saying occasional road-rage shootings will not occur in an armed society I am confident they will be few and far between. Because potential shooters will have cause to think twice before acting.

What I'm saying is the imposition of myriad gun laws has had a profound effect on the collective psychology of Americans. It has caused a significant percentage of the population to fear and despise guns. It has divorced them from the reality that guns are an essential component of the American spirit.

I can't agree with either of the points in the second paragraph. I see no basis to support the idea that gun laws create fear and loathing of guns by anybody. Rather, the abuse of them in mass shootings does that. Nor can I agree that "guns are an essential component of the American spirit". That's been true historically but not necessarily. That is, it's not something that needs to continue, or ever needed to be there before, in order to perpetuate the concept of "America".

If it were possible to assuredly eliminate the existence of guns in the hands of ordinary citizens without imposing the most aggressively totalitarian, brutally unConstitutional methods, the arguments of gun-control advocates might make sense. But the fact is gun-control laws within a Constitutionally free society disarm only the law-abiding and the sane.

So you have only two choices. Do you wish to live in an armed but free society or in an unarmed totalitarian society? As we have become painfully aware, the in-between option isn't working.

Again I disagree that these are the only two choices. The preferable choice, not listed above, would be a free society that is unarmed voluntarily. And that has nothing to do with passing laws.

There is no reason to fear guns...
They can do nothing on their own

Quite true.
If they remained on their own, there'd be no problem. And neither this thread, nor the issue it addresses, would exist.

 

[Rustic]

Under existing socio/psychological circumstances your scenarios are readily predictable -- mainly because armed citizens are the exception rather than the rule and those who are armed are pre-consciously confident that their antagonist and potentially helpful bystanders are not. While I'm not saying occasional road-rage shootings will not occur in an armed society I am confident they will be few and far between. Because potential shooters will have cause to think twice before acting.

What I'm saying is the imposition of myriad gun laws has had a profound effect on the collective psychology of Americans. It has caused a significant percentage of the population to fear and despise guns. It has divorced them from the reality that guns are an essential component of the American spirit.

I can't agree with either of the points in the second paragraph. I see no basis to support the idea that gun laws create fear and loathing of guns by anybody. Rather, the abuse of them in mass shootings does that. Nor can I agree that "guns are an essential component of the American spirit". That's been true historically but not necessarily. That is, it's not something that needs to continue, or ever needed to be there before, in order to perpetuate the concept of "America".

If it were possible to assuredly eliminate the existence of guns in the hands of ordinary citizens without imposing the most aggressively totalitarian, brutally unConstitutional methods, the arguments of gun-control advocates might make sense. But the fact is gun-control laws within a Constitutionally free society disarm only the law-abiding and the sane.

So you have only two choices. Do you wish to live in an armed but free society or in an unarmed totalitarian society? As we have become painfully aware, the in-between option isn't working.

Again I disagree that these are the only two choices. The preferable choice, not listed above, would be a free society that is unarmed voluntarily. And that has nothing to do with passing laws.

There is no reason to fear guns...
They can do nothing on their own

Quite true.
If they remained on their own, there'd be no problem. And neither this thread, nor the issue it addresses, would exist.

It takes a person to kill, and a village in Chicago's case, black on black crime.

 

[candycorn]

So you have only two choices. Do you wish to live in an armed but free society or in an unarmed totalitarian society? As we have become painfully aware, the in-between option isn't working.

Funny, people in Europe and Australia have a 3rd choice; a free, prosperous, gun free society. We don't get that choice here in America for some reason.

The reason is this is America, not Australia. The essential nature of our society, with emphasis on the circumstances that gave rise to this Nation. In spite of what some of us repudiate, Americans are and always have been a belligerently violent people.

Examine our history if you doubt that.

Australia was founded as a penal colony if you want to talk about violence. Europe has had more taste of wars and warfare than any American enclave.

Somehow, they got over it. Somehow we didn't. Obviously, the 2nd Amendment from 230+ years ago is the reason.

A penal colony is all about rigidly imposed authority -- not freedom. So Australia evolved as the diametric opposite of America in terms of social attitudes and policies.

Ok now you are changing what you said. You said the people were violent here. A generalization of massive scale. The whole of Aus. was made of violent criminals. What a prison does is not applicable.

While it's true that Europe has had its share of wars all European societies evolved as relatively compliant kingdoms, not revolutionary democracies. America was born with a gun in its hand and a determination to maintain that condition.

Democracy or not has little to do with people being exposed to violence. If anything, they who were exposed should be hyper violent.

The lone note of applicability is the determination of some to keep the status quo which for most Americans is unacceptable

 

[Rustic]

So you have only two choices. Do you wish to live in an armed but free society or in an unarmed totalitarian society? As we have become painfully aware, the in-between option isn't working.

Funny, people in Europe and Australia have a 3rd choice; a free, prosperous, gun free society. We don't get that choice here in America for some reason.

The reason is this is America, not Australia. The essential nature of our society, with emphasis on the circumstances that gave rise to this Nation. In spite of what some of us repudiate, Americans are and always have been a belligerently violent people.

Examine our history if you doubt that.

Australia was founded as a penal colony if you want to talk about violence. Europe has had more taste of wars and warfare than any American enclave.

Somehow, they got over it. Somehow we didn't. Obviously, the 2nd Amendment from 230+ years ago is the reason.

A penal colony is all about rigidly imposed authority -- not freedom. So Australia evolved as the diametric opposite of America in terms of social attitudes and policies.

Ok now you are changing what you said. You said the people were violent here. A generalization of massive scale. The whole of Aus. was made of violent criminals. What a prison does is not applicable.

While it's true that Europe has had its share of wars all European societies evolved as relatively compliant kingdoms, not revolutionary democracies. America was born with a gun in its hand and a determination to maintain that condition.

Democracy or not has little to do with people being exposed to violence. If anything, they who were exposed should be hyper violent.

The lone note of applicability is the determination of some to keep the status quo which for most Americans is unacceptable

Cornholio, why don't you run for public office?? An anti gun platform

 

[Pogo]

Under existing socio/psychological circumstances your scenarios are readily predictable -- mainly because armed citizens are the exception rather than the rule and those who are armed are pre-consciously confident that their antagonist and potentially helpful bystanders are not. While I'm not saying occasional road-rage shootings will not occur in an armed society I am confident they will be few and far between. Because potential shooters will have cause to think twice before acting.

What I'm saying is the imposition of myriad gun laws has had a profound effect on the collective psychology of Americans. It has caused a significant percentage of the population to fear and despise guns. It has divorced them from the reality that guns are an essential component of the American spirit.

I can't agree with either of the points in the second paragraph. I see no basis to support the idea that gun laws create fear and loathing of guns by anybody. Rather, the abuse of them in mass shootings does that. Nor can I agree that "guns are an essential component of the American spirit". That's been true historically but not necessarily. That is, it's not something that needs to continue, or ever needed to be there before, in order to perpetuate the concept of "America".

If it were possible to assuredly eliminate the existence of guns in the hands of ordinary citizens without imposing the most aggressively totalitarian, brutally unConstitutional methods, the arguments of gun-control advocates might make sense. But the fact is gun-control laws within a Constitutionally free society disarm only the law-abiding and the sane.

So you have only two choices. Do you wish to live in an armed but free society or in an unarmed totalitarian society? As we have become painfully aware, the in-between option isn't working.

Again I disagree that these are the only two choices. The preferable choice, not listed above, would be a free society that is unarmed voluntarily. And that has nothing to do with passing laws.

There is no reason to fear guns...
They can do nothing on their own

Quite true.
If they remained on their own, there'd be no problem. And neither this thread, nor the issue it addresses, would exist.

It takes a person to kill, and a village in Chicago's case, black on black crime.

It takes a culture of gun fetishism to come up with epidemics of mass shootings.
Which, once again, is the topic.

 

[Rustic]

Under existing socio/psychological circumstances your scenarios are readily predictable -- mainly because armed citizens are the exception rather than the rule and those who are armed are pre-consciously confident that their antagonist and potentially helpful bystanders are not. While I'm not saying occasional road-rage shootings will not occur in an armed society I am confident they will be few and far between. Because potential shooters will have cause to think twice before acting.

What I'm saying is the imposition of myriad gun laws has had a profound effect on the collective psychology of Americans. It has caused a significant percentage of the population to fear and despise guns. It has divorced them from the reality that guns are an essential component of the American spirit.

I can't agree with either of the points in the second paragraph. I see no basis to support the idea that gun laws create fear and loathing of guns by anybody. Rather, the abuse of them in mass shootings does that. Nor can I agree that "guns are an essential component of the American spirit". That's been true historically but not necessarily. That is, it's not something that needs to continue, or ever needed to be there before, in order to perpetuate the concept of "America".

If it were possible to assuredly eliminate the existence of guns in the hands of ordinary citizens without imposing the most aggressively totalitarian, brutally unConstitutional methods, the arguments of gun-control advocates might make sense. But the fact is gun-control laws within a Constitutionally free society disarm only the law-abiding and the sane.

So you have only two choices. Do you wish to live in an armed but free society or in an unarmed totalitarian society? As we have become painfully aware, the in-between option isn't working.

Again I disagree that these are the only two choices. The preferable choice, not listed above, would be a free society that is unarmed voluntarily. And that has nothing to do with passing laws.

There is no reason to fear guns...
They can do nothing on their own

Quite true.
If they remained on their own, there'd be no problem. And neither this thread, nor the issue it addresses, would exist.

It takes a person to kill, and a village in Chicago's case, black on black crime.

It takes a culture of gun fetishism to come up with epidemics of mass shootings.
Which, once again, is the topic.

No, it takes one demented individual.

 

[Little-Acorn]

It takes a culture of gun fetishism to come up with epidemics of mass shootings.

A made-up "fact" with no backing or proof.