Guns, the NRA, the constitution and senseless shootings

And so does the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

 

Amendments can be added to amend previous ones. The whole three-fifths thing comes to mind.

 

Fair enough.

But you're the first person I've heard suggest repealing or amending the Second Amendment.

 

perfect premise. let's keep our system of law and punishment intact until it comes to enforcing gun laws. with that one and only law, we'll adapt, well shit, let's say kuwait's system of gun control. i'm sure it's one helluva international example.

you're no different than a right-winger douchebag who wants to wire-tap citizens simply because he's wringing his hands at a problem ... take away rights to make you safer.

 

come on dog. don't you think they can figure out how to make guns in colombia? they sure do a pretty good job with cola.

 

You still have your right to bear arms. What's wrong with shotguns and rifles?

There are two reasons for owning a handgun: For fun and for protection. The protection part is just goofy, and I think deep down, even the gun lovers know it. So, is the fun part really worth all of this? Wouldn't it really be that big of a deal to do your target shooting with a shotgun or rifle?

And by the way, the Second Ammendment, God love it, is so outdated it's comical. The right to bear arms is tied to citizens being able to protect themselves from a bad, bad government. OK, fine ... if we're talking about both sides being equally armed. But now, if our government goes tyrant, shit, they could pass out handguns to every man, woman and child and we'd still be screwed.

 

Certainly. I'm not in any way suggesting that we'll ever get all the guns off the streets. But if you shut down the major suppliers of those guns right now, the drop will be monumental.

Look at Germany, for example, which outlaws handguns. Don't you think there are "bad guys" there who are looking for guns? Of course there are. But the supply is limited to what they can smuggle in, not to a 48-hour waiting period.

 

I apologize, I don't have the patience to read 11 pages, especially in my current intoxicated state. So I apologize if this point's already been made.

But doesn't the contrast between the VT shootings and the Appalachian State shootings suggest that MORE private ownership of guns might make us safer as a society, rather than less?

 

OK, let's say that every person on the VT campus has the right to carry a gun. Of those people, a reasonable percentage do so.

In one day, I'll be generous and say that all 32 shooting deaths could've been prevented.

Now, what about all those other days? All of those days in which thousands of college students, many of whom we wouldn't trust to handle a sack of fireworks, are walking around with guns? All of those days in which every petty, dumbass argument can be taken to the extreme because a handgun is readily available?

How do you think the numbers would play out?

 

i disagree with you about the protection part being goofy. i do not think that's a given.

 

Well, the Appy State shooter was stopped by a student with a gun.

The VTech shooter wasn't stopped.

That's a pretty striking contrast, no?

 

You say simplistic, I say simple.