The attempt to refrain the gun control debate

[Valerie]

I love this guy...

Retired NASA astronaut Mark Kelly, the husband of former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), called for tighter gun control after a horrific school shooting left 27 dead, including 20 children, in Newtown, Conn.

"I just woke up in my hotel room in Beijing, China to learn that another mass shooting has taken place - this time at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in CT," Kelly wrote in a Facebook post today (Dec. 14).

On behalf of himself and Giffords, he offered thoughts and prayers to the families of the victims, but urged the public's response to consist of "more than regret, sorrow, and condolence" this time.

"The children of Sandy Hook Elementary School and all victims of gun violence deserve leaders who have the courage to participate in a meaningful discussion about our gun laws - and how they can be reformed and better enforced to prevent gun violence and death in America," Kelly wrote. "This can no longer wait."


Former Astronaut Mark Kelly Calls for Gun Control | Space.com

 

[RoadVirus]

The people haven't been dead 24 hours and the anti-gun hacks are up and at em.

 

[Valerie]

The people haven't been dead 24 hours and the pro-gun hacks are up and at em.

Fixed that for you...





A rational human reaction is to ponder how terrible things could possibly be prevented. Tough.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I cannot understand why these people persist in thinking - or pretending to think, anyway - that the way to end school shootings is to take away every gun in the country not owned by a police officer or member of the military. Yeah, because THAT'S a small, realistic, achievable goal.

How about this as a realistic, doable alternative? Each school chooses a group of its teachers as the designated first-response team. The school district sends them to all the necessary gun ownership and gun safety classes, and requires them to regularly qualify with their weapons, the same way police officers and members of the military are required to do. Those teachers are then required to carry their weapon on their person at all times while on school grounds. They can carry them concealed, if they think the sight would unduly alarm the students. Then, when some lunatic dirtbag comes to the school and tries something like this, those first-response teachers hustle over and blow his ass to Hell where it belongs.

How long do you suppose such a plan would be in effect before crazed shooters decide that schools are not the target-rich environment they used to be, and quit going there?

Let's be serious here, folks. We trust these people with our children's safety and well-being every day anyway. Are you really going to tell me that they can't be trusted to protect that safety and well-being with a gun in hand? Can you really say that that courageous teacher we're seeing pics of, who died shielding her students with her body, wouldn't have GLADLY double-tapped that shithead to protect those kids instead, had she been able to?

You all know how I feel about raising taxes, but I would happily have my taxes raised a little bit to cover the cost of forming an armed first-response team at each of my local schools.

 

[bripat9643]

I have been listening to the pundits talk about the need to get guns out of the hands of crazy people, and how happy they are that Obama said something needs to be done to stop tragedies like the one today. What, exactly, are the alternatives? We have no way to determine if someone is going to flip out and go on a shooting spree. Even if we did, what are we going to do? If we put them in a database that prevents them from buying a gun what is to stop them from stealing one? Should we require everyone to be tested, and lock everyone who the tests identify as a danger up? Do we really want to create a society that locks people up because they might do something?

The way I see it is we have two choices, either deny everyone freedom, or accept the fact that crazy people are going to do crazy things. If anyone has an actual alternative to those options I would love to hear it.

Are you for real? There nothing impossible about banning anything shorter than a hunting rifle, all semiautomatics and high-capacity magazines. And making licensing of the rest hard and expensive, so only determined hunters could get it.

Then if you are a homicidal maniac, where would steal your gun from? Police?

Thanks for showing your totalitarian cloven hoof to the forum.

 

[Valerie]

Oh please whip me some more, you dominatrix you.

Hi, you have received -326 reputation points from Cecilie1200.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Write your own posts, fucktard.

Regards,
Cecilie1200

Note: This is an automated message.

 

[bripat9643]

I cannot understand why these people persist in thinking - or pretending to think, anyway - that the way to end school shootings is to take away every gun in the country not owned by a police officer or member of the military. Yeah, because THAT'S a small, realistic, achievable goal.

How about this as a realistic, doable alternative? Each school chooses a group of its teachers as the designated first-response team. The school district sends them to all the necessary gun ownership and gun safety classes, and requires them to regularly qualify with their weapons, the same way police officers and members of the military are required to do. Those teachers are then required to carry their weapon on their person at all times while on school grounds. They can carry them concealed, if they think the sight would unduly alarm the students. Then, when some lunatic dirtbag comes to the school and tries something like this, those first-response teachers hustle over and blow his ass to Hell where it belongs.

How long do you suppose such a plan would be in effect before crazed shooters decide that schools are not the target-rich environment they used to be, and quit going there?

Let's be serious here, folks. We trust these people with our children's safety and well-being every day anyway. Are you really going to tell me that they can't be trusted to protect that safety and well-being with a gun in hand? Can you really say that that courageous teacher we're seeing pics of, who died shielding her students with her body, wouldn't have GLADLY double-tapped that shithead to protect those kids instead, had she been able to?

You all know how I feel about raising taxes, but I would happily have my taxes raised a little bit to cover the cost of forming an armed first-response team at each of my local schools.

Have the gun control fanatics ever noticed how all these mass shootings occur in "gun free zones?" The very places where liberals are able to impose their idiotic gun policies without restraint are the favorite targets of homicidal maniacs. I doubt you'll ever hear about a mass shooting at a NASCAR rally or at a football game.

 

[daveman]

You wana save people it’s time to outlaw sugar, driving, crossing the street until driving is outlawed... Smoking, drinking and hundreds of other things that kill people every year.

Many useful and even life saving things also kill people. But what makes a handgun so useful these days?

That would be saving lives again, dumbass.

I don't know if you're a woman, but I am, and I'd be fascinated if you could name for me one other item that will level the playing field between me and a violent man the way a gun in my hands can.

 

[daveman]

I cannot understand why these people persist in thinking - or pretending to think, anyway - that the way to end school shootings is to take away every gun in the country not owned by a police officer or member of the military. Yeah, because THAT'S a small, realistic, achievable goal.

How about this as a realistic, doable alternative? Each school chooses a group of its teachers as the designated first-response team. The school district sends them to all the necessary gun ownership and gun safety classes, and requires them to regularly qualify with their weapons, the same way police officers and members of the military are required to do. Those teachers are then required to carry their weapon on their person at all times while on school grounds. They can carry them concealed, if they think the sight would unduly alarm the students. Then, when some lunatic dirtbag comes to the school and tries something like this, those first-response teachers hustle over and blow his ass to Hell where it belongs.

How long do you suppose such a plan would be in effect before crazed shooters decide that schools are not the target-rich environment they used to be, and quit going there?

Let's be serious here, folks. We trust these people with our children's safety and well-being every day anyway. Are you really going to tell me that they can't be trusted to protect that safety and well-being with a gun in hand? Can you really say that that courageous teacher we're seeing pics of, who died shielding her students with her body, wouldn't have GLADLY double-tapped that shithead to protect those kids instead, had she been able to?

You all know how I feel about raising taxes, but I would happily have my taxes raised a little bit to cover the cost of forming an armed first-response team at each of my local schools.

A reasonable solution.

The irrational gun-haters will not agree with it.

 

[Valerie]

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.





In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. The majority carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purchase. Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purchases as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.

Thus, the Supreme Court has revitalized the Second Amendment. The Court continued to strengthen the Second Amendment through the 2010 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago (08-1521). The plaintiff inMcDonald challenged the constitutionally of the Chicago handgun ban, which prohibited handgun possession by almost all private citizens. In a 5-4 decisions, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine. However, the Court did not have a majority on which clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. While Justice Alito and his supporters looked to the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas in his concurrence stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should justify incorporation.



However, several questions still remain unanswered, such as whether regulations less stringent than the D.C. statute implicate the Second Amendment, whether lower courts will apply their dicta regarding permissible restrictions, and what level of scrutiny the courts should apply when analyzing a statute that infringes on the Second Amendment.

Second Amendment | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[Cecilie1200]

I cannot understand why these people persist in thinking - or pretending to think, anyway - that the way to end school shootings is to take away every gun in the country not owned by a police officer or member of the military. Yeah, because THAT'S a small, realistic, achievable goal.

How about this as a realistic, doable alternative? Each school chooses a group of its teachers as the designated first-response team. The school district sends them to all the necessary gun ownership and gun safety classes, and requires them to regularly qualify with their weapons, the same way police officers and members of the military are required to do. Those teachers are then required to carry their weapon on their person at all times while on school grounds. They can carry them concealed, if they think the sight would unduly alarm the students. Then, when some lunatic dirtbag comes to the school and tries something like this, those first-response teachers hustle over and blow his ass to Hell where it belongs.

How long do you suppose such a plan would be in effect before crazed shooters decide that schools are not the target-rich environment they used to be, and quit going there?

Let's be serious here, folks. We trust these people with our children's safety and well-being every day anyway. Are you really going to tell me that they can't be trusted to protect that safety and well-being with a gun in hand? Can you really say that that courageous teacher we're seeing pics of, who died shielding her students with her body, wouldn't have GLADLY double-tapped that shithead to protect those kids instead, had she been able to?

You all know how I feel about raising taxes, but I would happily have my taxes raised a little bit to cover the cost of forming an armed first-response team at each of my local schools.

A reasonable solution.

The irrational gun-haters will not agree with it.

No, they won't, because saving lives isn't really their goal, however much they say it is.

 

[Valerie]

I cannot understand why these people persist in thinking - or pretending to think, anyway - that the way to end school shootings is to take away every gun in the country not owned by a police officer or member of the military. Yeah, because THAT'S a small, realistic, achievable goal.

How about this as a realistic, doable alternative? Each school chooses a group of its teachers as the designated first-response team. The school district sends them to all the necessary gun ownership and gun safety classes, and requires them to regularly qualify with their weapons, the same way police officers and members of the military are required to do. Those teachers are then required to carry their weapon on their person at all times while on school grounds. They can carry them concealed, if they think the sight would unduly alarm the students. Then, when some lunatic dirtbag comes to the school and tries something like this, those first-response teachers hustle over and blow his ass to Hell where it belongs.

How long do you suppose such a plan would be in effect before crazed shooters decide that schools are not the target-rich environment they used to be, and quit going there?

Let's be serious here, folks. We trust these people with our children's safety and well-being every day anyway. Are you really going to tell me that they can't be trusted to protect that safety and well-being with a gun in hand? Can you really say that that courageous teacher we're seeing pics of, who died shielding her students with her body, wouldn't have GLADLY double-tapped that shithead to protect those kids instead, had she been able to?

You all know how I feel about raising taxes, but I would happily have my taxes raised a little bit to cover the cost of forming an armed first-response team at each of my local schools.

A reasonable solution.

The irrational gun-haters will not agree with it.

No, they won't, because saving lives isn't really their goal, however much they say it is.

What do you imagine their goal is...???

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I have been listening to the pundits talk about the need to get guns out of the hands of crazy people, and how happy they are that Obama said something needs to be done to stop tragedies like the one today. What, exactly, are the alternatives? We have no way to determine if someone is going to flip out and go on a shooting spree. Even if we did, what are we going to do? If we put them in a database that prevents them from buying a gun what is to stop them from stealing one? Should we require everyone to be tested, and lock everyone who the tests identify as a danger up? Do we really want to create a society that locks people up because they might do something?

The way I see it is we have two choices, either deny everyone freedom, or accept the fact that crazy people are going to do crazy things. If anyone has an actual alternative to those options I would love to hear it.

Alternatives? Easy. Outlaw war guns. AR 15's, AK's, ect. Limit the magazine capacity for all civilian weopons. Stop putting killing and guns on a pedestal. The whole psychological schtick is sick.

Look at the things people are saying on this board. Someone talks about politics, and you get phrases like "lock and load", "second amendment solutions", "revolution", easy little phrases that roll off the tongue, and all mean killing fellow Americans. Of course "I don't mean that!". Well, then what the hell do you mean? And what do you think the fruitloops think you mean? They actually are acting out your sick fantasies.

That would more then likely not pass Constitutional muster per Heller. Capacity restrictions do seem valid, however.

There is also no evidence that banning ARs or AK/M clones would reduce gun violence; pistol grips and detachable magazines do not make for an ‘assault weapon.’

But you are otherwise correct with regard to the violent nature of American society, where violence is perceived as a legitimate means of conflict resolution.

 

[Valerie]

The adult woman found at the secondary crime scene was related to the shooter, a police news release said, and many media outlets have reported it was the shooter's mother, Nancy Lanza.


POLICE INVESTIGATE THE GUNS

Nancy Lanza legally owned a Sig Sauer and a Glock, both handguns of models commonly used by police, and a military-style Bushmaster .223 M4 carbine, according to law enforcement officials who also believe Adam Lanza used at least some of those weapons.

"We're investigating the history of each and every weapon and we will know every single thing about those weapons," Vance said.

Nancy Lanza was an avid gun collector who once showed him a "really nice, high-end rifle" that she had purchased, said Dan Holmes, owner of a landscaping business who recently decorated her yard with Christmas garlands and lights. "She said she would often go target shooting with her kids."

Police find good evidence on motive for Connecticut school massacre | Reuters

 

[daveman]

I cannot understand why these people persist in thinking - or pretending to think, anyway - that the way to end school shootings is to take away every gun in the country not owned by a police officer or member of the military. Yeah, because THAT'S a small, realistic, achievable goal.

How about this as a realistic, doable alternative? Each school chooses a group of its teachers as the designated first-response team. The school district sends them to all the necessary gun ownership and gun safety classes, and requires them to regularly qualify with their weapons, the same way police officers and members of the military are required to do. Those teachers are then required to carry their weapon on their person at all times while on school grounds. They can carry them concealed, if they think the sight would unduly alarm the students. Then, when some lunatic dirtbag comes to the school and tries something like this, those first-response teachers hustle over and blow his ass to Hell where it belongs.

How long do you suppose such a plan would be in effect before crazed shooters decide that schools are not the target-rich environment they used to be, and quit going there?

Let's be serious here, folks. We trust these people with our children's safety and well-being every day anyway. Are you really going to tell me that they can't be trusted to protect that safety and well-being with a gun in hand? Can you really say that that courageous teacher we're seeing pics of, who died shielding her students with her body, wouldn't have GLADLY double-tapped that shithead to protect those kids instead, had she been able to?

You all know how I feel about raising taxes, but I would happily have my taxes raised a little bit to cover the cost of forming an armed first-response team at each of my local schools.

A reasonable solution.

The irrational gun-haters will not agree with it.

No, they won't, because saving lives isn't really their goal, however much they say it is.

It never is. Greater government control over individual lives is. Always.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I have been listening to the pundits talk about the need to get guns out of the hands of crazy people, and how happy they are that Obama said something needs to be done to stop tragedies like the one today. What, exactly, are the alternatives? We have no way to determine if someone is going to flip out and go on a shooting spree. Even if we did, what are we going to do? If we put them in a database that prevents them from buying a gun what is to stop them from stealing one? Should we require everyone to be tested, and lock everyone who the tests identify as a danger up? Do we really want to create a society that locks people up because they might do something?

The way I see it is we have two choices, either deny everyone freedom, or accept the fact that crazy people are going to do crazy things. If anyone has an actual alternative to those options I would love to hear it.

Alternatives? Easy. Outlaw war guns. AR 15's, AK's, ect. Limit the magazine capacity for all civilian weopons. Stop putting killing and guns on a pedestal. The whole psychological schtick is sick.

Look at the things people are saying on this board. Someone talks about politics, and you get phrases like "lock and load", "second amendment solutions", "revolution", easy little phrases that roll off the tongue, and all mean killing fellow Americans. Of course "I don't mean that!". Well, then what the hell do you mean? And what do you think the fruitloops think you mean? They actually are acting out your sick fantasies.

That would more then likely not pass Constitutional muster per Heller. Capacity restrictions do seem valid, however.

There is also no evidence that banning ARs or AK/M clones would reduce gun violence; pistol grips and detachable magazines do not make for an ‘assault weapon.’

But you are otherwise correct with regard to the violent nature of American society, where violence is perceived as a legitimate means of conflict resolution.

Violence IS a legitimate means of conflict resolution, depending on the conflict.

Consider, for example, the conflict of a lone, crazy gunman entering a school and shooting masses of students and teachers. I personally consider violence, in the form of someone shooting and killing the gunman instead, to be a perfectly valid and quite desirable resolution to that conflict. How about you?

 

[Zander]

Lanza reportedly tried to buy rifle, was denied - Video on TODAY.com

 

[Valerie]

Lanza reportedly tried to buy rifle, was denied - Video on TODAY.com

I guess there wasn't much else any law could do to prevent such a random act of violence.


The legal owner failed to secure their firearm...

 

[Valerie]

Alternatives? Easy. Outlaw war guns. AR 15's, AK's, ect. Limit the magazine capacity for all civilian weopons. Stop putting killing and guns on a pedestal. The whole psychological schtick is sick.

Look at the things people are saying on this board. Someone talks about politics, and you get phrases like "lock and load", "second amendment solutions", "revolution", easy little phrases that roll off the tongue, and all mean killing fellow Americans. Of course "I don't mean that!". Well, then what the hell do you mean? And what do you think the fruitloops think you mean? They actually are acting out your sick fantasies.

That would more then likely not pass Constitutional muster per Heller. Capacity restrictions do seem valid, however.

There is also no evidence that banning ARs or AK/M clones would reduce gun violence; pistol grips and detachable magazines do not make for an ‘assault weapon.’

But you are otherwise correct with regard to the violent nature of American society, where violence is perceived as a legitimate means of conflict resolution.

Violence IS a legitimate means of conflict resolution, depending on the conflict.

Consider, for example, the conflict of a lone, crazy gunman entering a school and shooting masses of students and teachers. I personally consider violence, in the form of someone shooting and killing the gunman instead, to be a perfectly valid and quite desirable resolution to that conflict. How about you?

I agree when it comes to "gun free" zones, it's not a smart idea to be a sitting duck.

 

[Valerie]

A reasonable solution.

The irrational gun-haters will not agree with it.

No, they won't, because saving lives isn't really their goal, however much they say it is.

It never is. Greater government control over individual lives is. Always.

I don't believe there is any hidden agenda to disarm private citizens so as to better control us or somehow overpower citizens militarily.


It's rational to consider what "well regulated" means when it comes to protecting the rights as well as the security of every citizen...