Guns, the NRA, the constitution and senseless shootings

Facts are stupid things.

 

Yeah, you are right. That liberal elitist Armchair_QB certainly did try to take this conversation down.

I hate it when the left can't argue logic and has to resort to name calling.

Alma made a great post. However, he was wrong on why Tobacco is legal and meth isn't. It didn't take away from his point though.

Tom, you certainly do use your gun to destroy. Whether it is a paper target that is getting destroyed by lead or an animal. It has no other purpose.

I also think you knew where I was going with the gun discussion in comparison to computers. Computers serve a purpose: Work tools. Guns server NO OTHER purpose. See, that is why the ridiculous hyperbole about soup mixing and the like.

The gun's number 1 raison d'etre is destruction. There is nothing else in your house that you can say that for.

No. This was covered already.

The "defense" aspect only occurs when there is one individual willing to take the life of the evil doer. If everyone in the class had a gun, how many would have been proficient enough to shoot and not miss?

 

Yes, this link is to a Canadian site in favor of gun control (Link). However, their stats are legit.

To those posting about Switzerland... you are wrong. Their population has 27.2% gun ownership, not the "everybody" that has been ascribed. They have a much larger number of suicides than homicides. However, I will throw this out there for those that want to argue regarding this country: Everyone in the country is required by law to enter the military for several years. In the military you will learn about gun ownership, gun cleaning, gun safety, etc. In other words, they have more education.

Now, I am not going to say that guns are the sole reason that people murder. But, Alma is correct in stating that the ability to murder many more than should be possible is as a result of gun access.

 

At the beginning of this thread, I said I wanted to learn more about guns.

I've read almost everything I can get my hands on in a short period of time.

One of the most startling things I've seen? The stats about the European countries. It's all right there in black and white. It's scientific-- there's no room for a different interpretation.

I don't know how you can read about the victims in this case-- from one of the foremost biomechanics doctors in the world, working on a cure for cerebral palsy-- to the triple major with a 4.0 who works with special needs kids-- I don't know how you can't feel the need to at least "try" a curb on guns.

It's okay to admit you might have been wrong about something. That doesn't make you weak. It's actually a sign of strength.

 

A teacher's concerns for a student to get therapy is likely not going to be found on even the most exhaustive of background checks. The Buckley Amendment for one, protecting student's privacy. There might not have been anything on paper regarding the teacher's concerns.

As as for your last paragraph, you're a freaking idiot.

 

Conclusion: you can have all the gun laws you want. If someone wants to kill someone else, they're going to do it legally or illegally. The fault is not with the weapon of choice. It's the psycho holding it.
And there was nothing on Cho's background check to indicate he was oobatz.

 

The problem is not what's illegal. It's what's legal.
And the gun lobby didn't fight background checks because they were inefficient. It fought them because it's gotten rich and powerful suckering its members into believing that any attempt at regulation -- up to and including "tagging" explosives -- is tantamount to the Gestapo's kicking down your door. I'm tired of these people. Truly, I am.
It's also important to note the difference between the First and Second Amendments. The First begins with the absolute formulation, "Congress shall make no law." The Second begins with the conditional "A well-regulated militia being essential to the survival of a free state..." Why not "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to keep and bear arms"? Because the Founders were thinking solely of a well-regulated militia, and the only real debate was whether the state or the central government would do the regulating.

 

How the whacknuts taffy that into individual gun ownership rights is fucking baffling.

 

To be fair, they've had help. The Supreme Court has been particularly incoherent on the subject down through the years.

 

Madison moved the Second for the same reason he proposed the wildly antiquated Third, which was against quartering troops among civilians. All part of a robust anti-royal rhetoric that colored motivation for those amendments.

 

Yeah, but he real tied himself in knots over the Second.
Of course, the Third means that Prince William can't come over for a sleepover.

 

gotta love the NRA's stance. Their reply was short, sweet and to the point.