Today's mass shooting in the US

Mr Jack said:
What just coming here to post that. Could there be anything more American?
Click to expand...
I see what you did there :eek:

*Highland Park Police Commander: 6 People Confirmed Dead After Shooting
*Highland Park Mayor: Agencies Including FBI Are Working With Local Authorities
*Highland Park Mayor: Situation Remains Active, People Urged to Remain Indoors
*Highland Park Official: Suspect Is Not Yet in Custody
*Highland Park Official: Rifle Was Recovered After Shooting
*Highland Park Official: No Indication That Suspect Is Barricaded or Has Hostages
*Highland Park Official: It Appears Shooter Was Shooting From a Roof
*Highland Park Official: Approximately Two Dozen People Are Seriously Injured
https://youtu.be/_Si5BoGy6jQ
 
Angilion said:
You're doing what you're complaining about - selectively interpreting it to mean what you've previously decided you want it to mean. Despite the fact that what you want it to mean is very clearly not what it actually says. You might quote it but you don't understand it. Or maybe you do but hope other people won't and will take your word for it.

Commas are not merely randomly placed decoration. They have a significant meaning. As an example, consider these two sentences:

I like eating, dogs and my neighbours.
I like eating dogs and my neighbours.

The words are identical but the comma radically changes the meaning of the sentence.

In the case of the second amendment of the USA, the meaning is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The bit about a militia is a supporting argument for that and a clarification of the type of arms being referred to, not the core of the meaning. It could be left out entirely without changing the meaning of the amendment.

It wasn't written that long ago. There is plenty of extant evidence for what the amendment means (taking into account the usage of American English at the time) and what the people who wrote it and the people who voted for it intended it to mean.


There's plenty of scope for arguing that the situation has changed a great deal since then and that the constitution of the USA should be amended again as a result. But claiming that the existing amendment doesn't mean what it says and what the people who wrote it and who voted for it intended it to mean is a completely different thing and I think doing so is either ignorance or dishonesty. There's no doubt that the original intent of the amendment was to ensure that the people of the USA have a right to keep and bear arms that have the potential to be useful in a war or revolution.
Click to expand...
Right to bear arms was just a useful way for the newly formed cash strapped government to cut the army out, hence why they bigged up the pretty insignificant part they actually played in the major battles.

You guys won us the war, we don't need an army.


Kind of backfired, now there army is gigantic and they all go around shooting eachother as well.
 
When they said 'rifle' I assumed it was someone just taking single shots at people. Nobody needs a weapon that shoots like that unless they're in the military. It's shocking that things like that are legal over there.
I suppose the answer will be 'if only the people in the parade had bigger guns...'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom