Deadly shooting at US university
- Thread starter Ghost_007
- Start date
Actually the wording is perfect.
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.
Meaning, basically, that in times of need we can count on a volunteer force made of civillians to protect this nation, for that reason the People should be allowed to own and carry what ever weapons they can get.
Now through the whole Constitution 'the People' always refers to free people of the United States.
Now a more modern (slang) way to say ther same thing would be.
The People's right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed, becuase there will be a time when they have to step up and save the damn day.
But if he went voluntarily then there is no court order, thus no record. Also anything you suffer or do as a minor does not stand against you, unless you were tried as an adult
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
Indeed, most countries with strict gun controls have much lower murder rates.
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
Yes, meaning all those NOT part of an organized citizen militia mandated to preserve the security of the state shall be relieved of their firearms.
Actually, not, Britian's murder rate per capita is higher than ours. Sure, there gun death rate is lower, but guns are not the first choice of murderers anyway, Poison is.
Oh, nice to meet you, you must be the board moron. The right isn't a Collective Right, to be implemented by the state. It is an individual one that the People enjoy. The Militia part is incidental to the right.
As the US launches into a plethora of maudlin “tributes” to the victims of the VT terrorist attack (yes, it was a good ol’ home-grown American domestic terrorist attack that had nothing to do with Muslims – shock, horror, surprise), I’m wondering if Americans will hold any memorials for the nearly 200 people that died in bombings in Baghdad on Wednesday. The bombings killed a total of 191 people and wounded 250. These casualties are a direct result of the illegal and utterly disgusting invasion and occupation of Iraq that, up until the American invasion, was a secular country that posed no terrorist threat to the US.
33 dead vs 191 dead
How about it? Candle light vigils for the poor Iraqis that the US has so effectively “liberated” from violence?
33 dead vs 191 dead
How about it? Candle light vigils for the poor Iraqis that the US has so effectively “liberated” from violence?
This bit from the Wall Street Journal is pretty funny:
No, that does not track true. Switzerland and Israel, for instance, have few firearms restrictions and low murder rates. England and Japan have strong restrictions and low murder rates, but then their murder rates were low prior to the legislation as well. The problem is primarily cultural, not legislative. More restrictive laws typically change murder rates very little if at all.
~Raithere
Nice attempt at scapegoating.
Okay explain in detail how it was Illegal?
Second explain how the people of Baghdad were any safer under the thumb of a man who used chemical weapons against them?
Third explain why the US is responsible for a person knowingly using an explosive device to kill other? Did we tell him to do it? Did we hold a gun to his head and tell him do it or die?
Welp--- looks like the motive is now clear. The kid's manifesto finally arrived in the mail
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18187368/
BTW--- I don't know why all you guys are saying this is a gun control issue. He could have done the same thing with a bomb, or poisoning people. Heck - McVeigh killed almost 130 people with modified fertilizer.
If you want to philosophize/problem solve, why not address the root of the problem......society's compulsions to kill
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18187368/
BTW--- I don't know why all you guys are saying this is a gun control issue. He could have done the same thing with a bomb, or poisoning people. Heck - McVeigh killed almost 130 people with modified fertilizer.
If you want to philosophize/problem solve, why not address the root of the problem......society's compulsions to kill
crazy151drinker
Registered Senior Member
I find it quite peculiar that it is commonly agreed that the Bill of Rights and the rest of the ammendmants are INDIVIDUAL rights- yet when it comes to the 2nd Ammendment people say its only the collective right of Militias. Which of course are run by the States (IE National Guard). Which of course can be trumped by the Federal Govt (My Guard Unit was activated under Federal orders for example...). So these so called Militias (see National Guard) which are supposed to be a check to the power of Government (see Tyranny and Bad People)- are in fact run by the Government. The Framers did not intend it to be this way (and they all owned guns themselves...). So obviously the right to bear Arms is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.
Not to mention that there are 250,000,000+ firearms in this country its a taaaaad bit late to ban them.
Our problems are cultural. We have our classic puritan values of pro-violence/anti sex (Stay a Virgin! Now go kill some Indians!).
If you want to reduce hand gun violence in the US you must legalize and tax drugs. If there was no $$$ to be made selling drugs then gang members would have nothing to shoot each other over.
On a side note, the historical restriction of gun rights is collectively tied to the war on drugs- (starting with the first one- Prohibition). All the mobsters in the 20's shooting people created the first gun ownership restrictions and its been downhill from there.
You want gun rights? Legalize and tax drugs.
Think about it- the left gets drugs legalized, lower murder rates, and more tax income for schools or medicare. The right gets more guns, less people in prison, and and a new business market. A win win for everyone.
Except of course for the drug cartels of the world- who also want drugs to be illegal.
Not to mention that there are 250,000,000+ firearms in this country its a taaaaad bit late to ban them.
Our problems are cultural. We have our classic puritan values of pro-violence/anti sex (Stay a Virgin! Now go kill some Indians!).
If you want to reduce hand gun violence in the US you must legalize and tax drugs. If there was no $$$ to be made selling drugs then gang members would have nothing to shoot each other over.
On a side note, the historical restriction of gun rights is collectively tied to the war on drugs- (starting with the first one- Prohibition). All the mobsters in the 20's shooting people created the first gun ownership restrictions and its been downhill from there.
You want gun rights? Legalize and tax drugs.
Think about it- the left gets drugs legalized, lower murder rates, and more tax income for schools or medicare. The right gets more guns, less people in prison, and and a new business market. A win win for everyone.
Except of course for the drug cartels of the world- who also want drugs to be illegal.
John99,
Sometimes you can only push people around for so long before they react violently.
This guy Cho obviously felt bitterly persecuted by an as yet anonymous figure or figures. There must be a lot more on the tape to explain this and I just hope they release it soon otherwise its going to seem like a cover up.
if you legalize all drugs then gangs will just find other things to sell that are illegal,
like pimpin women for example,
peace.
like pimpin women for example,
peace.
Swivel isn't back.
I think that a lot of people deny that this persecution exists. I've seen people on this forum deny that bullying exists, and even worse, blame the victim for the bullying. Can we know that people like Cho would even voluntarily commit an act of violence unless driven to it by systematic abuse over a period of time? The more "typical" human that I know, the kind that is supposedly normal, resorts to violence very quickly. They even think of people as strange if they are gentle in their relations with other living creatures. When a person who is basically kind and gentle is forced to adopt violence it doesn't fit right. It can take that person over worse than someone born to it and become a much more intractable ideology. This is exactly like the fact that new converts to a religion are often the most gung-ho of the lot.
im sick of seeing this on london news to be honest. this is not even uk news and we cant stop broadcasting it,
this is nearly as annoying as when princess diana died. (not quite though)
seriously people in other less developed countries die all of the time and our news does not over play the story anything like this, look what happens in the iraqi schools,
no dissrespect to the victims and families but im tired of hearing about it. its on every news channel all the damn time, this will make me stop caring about it, just like when diana died, for the first day i was like oh damn, then after a couple of days of not bieng able to escape the news i was like "ok i dont care anymore fuck her" and its the media's fault i feel this way even though i seem a tad evil, but im not. im just sick of hearing the same shit over and over.
peace.
this is nearly as annoying as when princess diana died. (not quite though)
seriously people in other less developed countries die all of the time and our news does not over play the story anything like this, look what happens in the iraqi schools,
no dissrespect to the victims and families but im tired of hearing about it. its on every news channel all the damn time, this will make me stop caring about it, just like when diana died, for the first day i was like oh damn, then after a couple of days of not bieng able to escape the news i was like "ok i dont care anymore fuck her" and its the media's fault i feel this way even though i seem a tad evil, but im not. im just sick of hearing the same shit over and over.
peace.
Bullshit.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not for banning all guns.
However, I am against twisting the Constitution to bolster your argument.
Rifles in the hands of trained members of regulated, legitimate militias is what they had in mind.
The Founding Fathers in The Second Ammendment of the Constitution of the United States of America said:
The various states' National Guards have an unfringable right to bear arms.
The right to bear arms was about the right of individual states to protect themselves from foreign powers, and if it came down to it, the Federal Government.
It was a matter of states' rights, not individual rights.
Really?
Is that why it refers to a "well regulated Militia"?
EXACTLY!
If it were "incidental", it wouldn't have even been mentioned.
I have respect for madanthonywayne.
I disagree with almost everything he says, but I believe he has come to those decisions and beliefs through honest introspection and truly believes what he stands for.
He's a good man that I happen to disagree with.
He sometimes gets a bit carried away, but that's only because he is genuinely passionate about his beliefs.
You, on the other hand, are a dishonest, apologist jackass, saying whatever you have to in oder to do your part, towing the line.
That earns no respect from me.
Again, it refers to a "well regulated Militia". Individuals walking the streets with concelaed handguns and semi-automatic rifles is NOT a well regualted Militia.
I'll conceed that you can argue that individulas can own rifles, in case the time comes in which they are called to arms and asked to form a Militia by the state - but that most certainly does not cover the individuals' right to carry pistols and assault rifles.