“…shall not be infringed.”
Edit - Oh, what’s your source for the claim only the minority don’t want any further restrictions?
Last edited:
Today's mass shooting in the US
- Thread starter Rroff
- Start date
“…shall not be infringed.”
Edit - Oh, what’s your source for the claim only the minority don’t want any further restrictions?
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,454
I liked 29. Tripwire, why not go all out and just fill the school with Claymores
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 28,927
But many states already have gun ownership controls, so how do you reconcile that?
Yes?
That absolutist stance doesn't really apply though does it, as there are already restrictions in place to gun ownership. What is being discussed is what further restriction should be implemented, something that polling shows the majority of Americans want to happen.
Soldato
Amendments are set in US constitution, you can't change them........ apart from the times that they did
You can just google it to find polls over years showing a majority support for tighter gun controls
Here's one from today
Most Voters Want Congress To Pass Stricter Gun Laws, Poll Finds
The recent mass shootings in Buffalo and at Robb Elementary School have renewed calls for Congress to pass gun control legislation—but it remains unlikely that they will.
www.forbes.com
Here's one that shows historical trends
Guns
Do you have a gun in your home? In general, do you feel that the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now? Do you think there should or should not be a law that would ban the possession of handguns, except by the police and other...
news.gallup.com
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 28,927
Yep, otherwise it would still be legal to keep slaves and to deny women the right to vote.
I mean the 2nd amendment was in place 2 years after the original document, the first 10 amendments were made almost right away, they're considered sacred rights afforded to US citizens. You're trying to ignore that as if the document doesn't mean anything.
Those 2 amendments extend rights to people, they don't remove existing rights.
Prohibition too. Crazy you can’t drink a beer until you’re 21 but you can buy mass murder machines As soon as you turn 18. As this guy did.
Soldato
Got to put it in context, a deluded teen kills 21 in Texas. A deluded pensioner kills tens of thousands in Ukraine from his bunker in Russia.
America needs to tighten gun ownership rules, the world needs rid of Putin.
America needs to tighten gun ownership rules, the world needs rid of Putin.
Right, so legally they can mount mini-guns on their trucks and use a tank for the school run. Anything less is an infringement.
Those controls are unconstitutional. They have been challenged in court a few times. However, when the state courts / court of appeals reject the challenges the Supreme Court are not picking them up to make a final judgement. I’m not quite sure why.
Examples of these unconstitutional restrictions are the magazine capacity laws in California and the denial of concealed carry licenses in NYC.
Just to be clear I’m putting forth the argument that pro-gun people in the US would. Not saying if it’s right or wrong.
Don
It says "arms", not "any and all arms".
It also doesn't specify "firearms". A knife is an arm. So is a nuclear bomb.
It also doesn't specify "firearms". A knife is an arm. So is a nuclear bomb.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 3,530
I'm not disputing that some people have the skills and that materials exist for constructing simple devices, albeit less effective ones.
I stand by my point that, without access to explosives or firearms, the ability to spree kill is reduced hugely.
You can just google it to find polls over years showing a majority support for tighter gun controls
Here's one from today
Most Voters Want Congress To Pass Stricter Gun Laws, Poll Finds
The recent mass shootings in Buffalo and at Robb Elementary School have renewed calls for Congress to pass gun control legislation—but it remains unlikely that they will.
Here's one that shows historical trends
Guns
Do you have a gun in your home? In general, do you feel that the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now? Do you think there should or should not be a law that would ban the possession of handguns, except by the police and other...
Cheers. I do think one of the only practical ways to move this forward would be to have a referendum of some kind and if the majority do want restrictions then that gives the House and Senate the mandate to implement change.
Who’s saying you can’t? I’ve said it’s extremely unlikely.
I think this unfortunately circles back to the money and influence problem again that the lobbyists have over the senators, especially seemingly Republican ones though not exclusively ofc.
The NRA spent about 50x less money lobbying than the Pharmaceutical industry and wayyy less then Technology companies, they have relatively small amounts of money. I'm sure you did your research on that though before you posted more misinformation.