Another school shooting in the US

[Jacko51]

Texas shooting: Fifteen killed in attack at US primary school

WWW.BBC.CO.UK

Madness

[Rory]

Puddled that lot.

[bycars rob]

More blood on the NRA hands.

[Iron Curtain]

Sadly it’s time to post this again.

Watching the gun loving American blunder his way to a conclusion that undermines his own position at the end is gold.
 

“bUT yOu CAnT cHAnGe tHE 2Nd AmENdMenT” they will cry.

As Jim Jeffries says… yes you can, it’s called a ****** amendment!!

[Jacko51]

You can change any amendment to the constitution. The 18th amendment (prohibition) was repealed in 1933.

The 2nd amendment which was ratified in 1791 stated “ 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”.  The desire for a well regulated Militia was understandable at a time when America had just won its independence and feared a backlash from Britain. The sort of arms which citizens could bear were muskets which fired a single shot and took ages to reload.  There was no expectation that weapons which fired dozens of high velocity shots in a matter of seconds would become available 200 years later and brainless folk would imagine that the 2nd amendment referred to them.

 

[Bycarsbill]

1 hour ago, bycars rob said:

More blood on the NRA hands.

Absolutely correct, but do you think they're bothered? No, the NRA has 'friends' in high places in the USA administration and for a big chunk of the American population, the constitutional right to bear arms seems inviolate--absolute madness!!

[mbycars]

Its about time the human race grew up. 😢

[WV]

Madness. I saw a quote on the bbc yesterday from a conservative from the town saying that teachers should be given guns to stop this sort of thing happening. Absolutely mental. Why is the answer always more guns. Puddled. 

[Regal Beagle]

On 25/05/2022 at 09:02, Jacko51 said:

You can change any amendment to the constitution. The 18th amendment (prohibition) was repealed in 1933.

The 2nd amendment which was ratified in 1791 stated “ 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”.  The desire for a well regulated Militia was understandable at a time when America had just won its independence and feared a backlash from Britain. The sort of arms which citizens could bear were muskets which fired a single shot and took ages to reload.  There was no expectation that weapons which fired dozens of high velocity shots in a matter of seconds would become available 200 years later and brainless folk would imagine that the 2nd amendment referred to them.

 

Yet you could own a warship with big cannons on it though and there was no evidence at all that any type of gun was restricted by the second amendment.

So it's plausible that they would have restricted high capacity magazines and automatic guns had they known they would exist. It's equally plausible (and in fact the default constitutional position) that they would not have restricted them - seen as they didn't restrict anything else.

45 minutes ago, WV said:

Madness. I saw a quote on the bbc yesterday from a conservative from the town saying that teachers should be given guns to stop this sort of thing happening. Absolutely mental. Why is the answer always more guns. Puddled. 

How was this mass shooter stopped out of interest?

 

I get that this is very emotive and there's not many things in human nature as evil as a school shooting, but the rush to politicize it and especially to claim the victims to be victims of a political opposition is absolutely gross.

 

Conservatives didn't kill anyone, the NRA didn't kill anyone, a lunatic with a gun did and a hero with a gun stopped him.

 

Now, for the absolute liars who frequent this forum, here is a disclaimer; I'm anti-gun but that doesn't mean that I'd be prepared to rip up the enshrined rights of citizens so that my idea can be implemented - that is called tyranny and I fear that far more than I fear guns. 

I know it's racist or whatever to have a nuanced view on things and especially if Vice or MSNBC or the Guardian is telling you to think  in binary terms.

 

My point for posting in this thread is: If you are going to politicize the deaths of children then at least be balanced, honest and own what you are actually implying. If you don't know something to be true, it's pretty <ovf censored> to assert that it will prevent the deaths of children without backing it up with any evidence.

 

Moving forwards, there's three options:

-Amend or repeal the second amendment

-Leave it as it is

-Tyrannical dictatorship

 

I don't care which of the first two they choose, as long as they choose. And as for the third one, some would argue that preventing tyranny is a major point of the second amendment existing. 

 

[tommytunstall]

1 hour ago, Regal Beagle said:

Yet you could own a warship with big cannons on it though and there was no evidence at all that any type of gun was restricted by the second amendment.

So it's plausible that they would have restricted high capacity magazines and automatic guns had they known they would exist. It's equally plausible (and in fact the default constitutional position) that they would not have restricted them - seen as they didn't restrict anything else.

How was this mass shooter stopped out of interest?

 

I get that this is very emotive and there's not many things in human nature as evil as a school shooting, but the rush to politicize it and especially to claim the victims to be victims of a political opposition is absolutely gross.

 

Conservatives didn't kill anyone, the NRA didn't kill anyone, a lunatic with a gun did and a hero with a gun stopped him.

 

Now, for the absolute liars who frequent this forum, here is a disclaimer; I'm anti-gun but that doesn't mean that I'd be prepared to rip up the enshrined rights of citizens so that my idea can be implemented - that is called tyranny and I fear that far more than I fear guns. 

I know it's racist or whatever to have a nuanced view on things and especially if Vice or MSNBC or the Guardian is telling you to think  in binary terms.

 

My point for posting in this thread is: If you are going to politicize the deaths of children then at least be balanced, honest and own what you are actually implying. If you don't know something to be true, it's pretty <ovf censored> to assert that it will prevent the deaths of children without backing it up with any evidence.

 

Moving forwards, there's three options:

-Amend or repeal the second amendment

-Leave it as it is

-Tyrannical dictatorship

 

I don't care which of the first two they choose, as long as they choose. And as for the third one, some would argue that preventing tyranny is a major point of the second amendment existing. 

 

As long as there is a Republican Party you will have guns, no amount of school shootings will change their stupid ideaology.

[Regal Beagle]

52 minutes ago, tommytunstall said:

As long as there is a Republican Party you will have guns, no amount of school shootings will change their stupid ideaology.

 

How many lives are saved by guns each year in America out of interest? And can the republican party take the credit for those lives saved if they have to have victims attributed to them?

Secondly, if the democrats were to manage to repeal the second amendment, would then they be at fault for any increase in non-firearm murders?

 

Just in the interest of balance and honesty.

 

 

 

 

[Fozza19]

1 hour ago, tommytunstall said:

As long as there is a Republican Party you will have guns, no amount of school shootings will change their stupid ideaology.

I don't think you understand how many Democratic supporters have and love their guns too.

[Jacko51]

I don't think the Democrats want to repeal the 2nd Amendment.  They want gun control - the sort of thing we have in this country that allows people like my brother to buy a gun for sporting purposes (clay pigeon shooting in his case) but prevents an 18 year old with mental health issues from walking into a shop and buying a military assault rifle.  I can't see that such controls in any way lead to any sort of dictatorship?? 

[WV]

9 hours ago, Regal Beagle said:

 

How was this mass shooter stopped out of interest?

 

 

Thought you might back the gun nuts. Just had a weird feeling. What happens when a teacher goes nuts and shoots up their classroom? Should we then give the janitor guns or the kids themselves just in case?  I think you are just a contrarian and therefore can not be taken seriously as I don't even believe that you believe what you write. 

[Regal Beagle]

1 hour ago, WV said:

Thought you might back the gun nuts. Just had a weird feeling. What happens when a teacher goes nuts and shoots up their classroom? Should we then give the janitor guns or the kids themselves just in case?  I think you are just a contrarian and therefore can not be taken seriously as I don't even believe that you believe what you write. 

That's funny because not only did I not "back the gun nuts" - I did the exact opposite and quite clearly stated it.

 

I also predicted that this kind of accusation would occur

Quote

Now, for the absolute liars who frequent this forum, here is a disclaimer; I'm anti-gun

 

So you can ask whatever you want as long as you do so honestly and in good faith. Your current post is not honest and is not good faith and therefore I will ignore it.