Today's mass shooting in the US

Yas786 said:
Yeh because porn kills more children than guns do:p.

America is one pretty messed up place if they honestly believe that porn is more dangerous than simple gun controls :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Friction burns vs gun shot wounds...
Both can be self inflicted...

The question is, can anyone convince them that porn is free speech under the 1st amendment. ;)

Is the CDC banned from doing studies on porn as they are guns?
 
MissChief said:
There's an idea. The second amendment talks about a well regulated Militia. If you want to own a gun, join a militia that's regulated. And requires membership fees. And regular attendance at meetings. And drug screening.
Click to expand...

We went over this last time and the second amendment also doest offer protection for weapons not associated with said militia. It could be argued that only weapons of the day, associated with the militia are protected.

The second amendment really isn't as strong as it's often made out, the reason it's not challenged is purely political.
 
LOAM said:
We went over this last time and the second amendment also doest offer protection for weapons not associated with said militia. It could be argued that only weapons of the day, associated with the militia are protected.
Click to expand...

By that same reasoning you could argue (wrongly i believe) that the 1st amendment no longer applies because the internet didn't exist when the constitution was wrote and the aiblity to use social media to spread destructive beliefs/ideologies wasn't available several centuries ago.
 
magick said:
By that same reasoning you could argue (wrongly i believe) that the 1st amendment no longer applies because the internet didn't exist when the constitution was wrote and the aiblity to use social media to spread destructive beliefs/ideologies wasn't available several centuries ago.
Click to expand...

Well quite, perhaps its time they updated them to bring them in line with a modern thinking world?

The difference is though is that the internet constitutes an accepted medium of communication and expression of speech. Where as the The second amendment specifically allows gun ownership only for the members of a well regulated militia, of which there are none currently. And as stated offers no protection of weapon types not having a relationship of said "well regulated militia"

Is one man a militia ?
 
Last edited:
LOAM said:
It could be argued that only weapons of the day, associated with the militia are protected
Click to expand...

Seems pretty plain to me - the ideal of it is that a state (and that isn't necessarily a state in the US states sense) should be able to raise an effective militia [should it need to] and the ability to do so shouldn't be infringed upon - which would necessitate weapons appropriate for the task at hand whatever day and age.

EDIT: Interestingly would that not also compel members of that state to maintain themselves in a condition appropriate for being able to act like a militia i.e. fitness, etc. ?

LOAM said:
Where as the The second amendment specifically allows gun ownership only for the members of a well regulated militia
Click to expand...

It doesn't - the wording has been testing in court - the significant bit is the ability to raise a militia and to that end people need to have access to appropriate equipment which is spelled out somewhat in the case of firearms.
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
Seems pretty plain to me - the ideal of it is that a state (and that isn't necessarily a state in the US states sense) should be able to raise an effective militia [should it need to] and the ability to do so shouldn't be infringed upon - which would necessitate weapons appropriate for the task at hand whatever day and age.

EDIT: Interestingly would that not also compel members of that state to maintain themselves in a condition appropriate for being able to act like a militia i.e. fitness, etc. ?
Click to expand...

the problem i tend to have is if you think of the context of the second amendment- america was a fledgling state, with some really powerful enemies (specifically the british) with vast amounts of unclaimed land and an indigeonous population who wouldn't be happy with that land being taken from them.

in that context it's absolutely understandable the need to maintain a militia to supplement the regular army in the event of conflict. however it's pretty irrelevant now.

yes there's still the argument of "well the militia is to ensure there can never be a totalitarian state" however that's another argument entirely, and one could argue that forced governmental transparency and accountability is more pertinent to acheiving that in this day and age. certainly the rest of the world's democracies seem to maintain themselves just fine without the need for a heavily armed populace.
 
Rroff said:
Seems pretty plain to me - the ideal of it is that a state (and that isn't necessarily a state in the US states sense) should be able to raise an effective militia [should it need to] and the ability to do so shouldn't be infringed upon - which would necessitate weapons appropriate for the task at hand whatever day and age.

EDIT: Interestingly would that not also compel members of that state to maintain themselves in a condition appropriate for being able to act like a militia i.e. fitness, etc. ?



It doesn't - the wording has been testing in court - the significant bit is the ability to raise a militia and to that end people need to have access to appropriate equipment which is spelled out somewhat in the case of firearms.
Click to expand...

Ok form a militia, they can still work within that especially when they define it as "Well Regulated" which puts it in to the realms of a maintained and controlled entity etc. In a modern context the populace of America would be better served to protect themselves against a totalitarian state by arming themselves with an education and learning some critical thinking skills rather than popping to the circle K for an Uzi.
 
Apparently Marjory Stoneman Douglas school had an armed guard who never saw the gunman.
Very effective it seems.

So, arming teachers instead... Can't see that ending badly at all. I'm sure that my school having three teachers had that breakdowns in the four years I was there wouldn't cause any problems if they were armed. Let alone the supply teachers.
 
DJMK4 said:
Really america, armed teachers?
Click to expand...

How could it possibly go wrong.

Flibster said:
So, arming teachers instead... Can't see that ending badly at all. I'm sure that my school having three teachers had that breakdowns in the four years I was there wouldn't cause any problems if they were armed. Let alone the supply teachers.
Click to expand...

We had a history teacher once who snapped - straight out of training, etc. first job and really not cut out for teaching combined with 2-3 pupils who were completely unmerciful - I'm pretty sure if she'd been armed there'd have been a few less pupils that day even though she only lost it for 2-3 seconds before realising how much she'd ****** up and ran out in tears.

EDIT: Looking back on it it was a spectacularly stupid setup all around she was inexperienced and too nice/shy for her own good and everyone including the staff knew it and they put 3 well known trouble makers together into the same group and a group that where everyone else was above their ability level almost like she was setup.
 
Last edited:
Apparently it's common for American teacher to have to buy basic supplies out of their own salaries, so the government can't afford to pay for essentials for education, but supposedly can afford to pay for guns and training...

If American teachers are anything like many of the ones I remember from my school days, there are going to be a bunch that I wouldn't trust with a staple gun let alone a shooty gun (lovely teachers but fumble fingered and forgetful), let alone the fact that many teachers are going to be smaller/weaker than their students (given how many are typically women).
 
How many turn the gun on themselves? Armed teachers won't discourage those that plan to die anyway.

Is this some kind of Robocop storyline? Is some shady tech company going to propose a cyborg solution?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom