Another school shooting

[Viva_La_Migra]

This one from a state with arguably the most restrictive gun control laws on the books. My friends on the left say this is why guns should be seized and banned. I say this is why restrictive gun laws need to be repealed and let people defend themselves.

God bless the victims and their families. May the perpetrator be brought to justice.

 

[k0nkuzh0n]

I say this is why restrictive gun laws need to be repealed and let people defend themselves.

We can give everyone nukes while we are at it :toung:

 

[RealMoneyIssues]

We can give everyone nukes while we are at it :toung:

Ok, now you are being rediculous...

 

[Viva_La_Migra]

We can give everyone nukes while we are at it :toung:

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)

"The great object is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.)

"The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 46.)

"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." (Second Amendment to the Constitution.)

It was the intent of the framers of the Constitution to allow the people to have access to arms that could be used to overthrow a government that had become tyrannical. Civilian merchant ships often had cannons on them to fight pirates. Civilian owned cannons were used in the civil war. I think even Gatling Guns were owned by civilians in the fight against indians. Civilian ownership of military grade arms was not unheard of in the first half of our history.

An argument could be made that yes, the Second Amendment guarantees that a civilian could have a nuclear weapon if he or she could purchase or make one. That said, I am quite happy that weapons of mass destruction are not available for civilian purchase. There are idiots out there that shoot themselves in the foot with their handguns. I can only imagine the destruction that would be caused if someone was playing with their personally owned ICBM and started WWIII by accident.:blink:

 

[James48843]

An argument could be made that yes, the Second Amendment guarantees that a civilian could have a nuclear weapon if he or she could purchase or make one. That said, I am quite happy that weapons of mass destruction are not available for civilian purchase. There are idiots out there that shoot themselves in the foot with their handguns.

I am surprised at your zeal to take weapons away from law abiding citizens, Viva. Private possession of nuclear weapons clearly is protected under the Supreme Court Decision "United States v.s. Miller" FindLaw | Cases and Codes

where the bar that the Surpreme Court set, is whether or not the weapon is one used by the Military, as the Court found (incorrectly, by the way) that there was no military use for a sawed-off shotgun, therefore the shotgun could be regulated.

The opinion stated, in Miller, that it was ok for Congress to ban saw-off shotguns because "a regyualted milita" clause didn't apply, saying that no miltiary use could be found for a sawed off shotgun. Clearly, ICBM's don't fall into the category of no miltiary use, or, as the Court would say.," ... this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

Clearly there IS an "ordinary military equipment use" for nukes, so, under Court precident, they should be legal.

So tell me Viva, why are you in such a hurry to take away weapons from people? You don't believe in the second amendment, eh?

(They'll take away my ICBM only when they pry it from my hot, irradiated fingers).

 

[Viva_La_Migra]

I am surprised at your zeal to take weapons away from law abiding citizens, Viva. Private possession of nuclear weapons clearly is protected under the Supreme Court Decision "United States v.s. Miller" FindLaw | Cases and Codes

where the bar that the Surpreme Court set, is whether or not the weapon is one used by the Military, as the Court found (incorrectly, by the way) that there was no military use for a sawed-off shotgun, therefore the shotgun could be regulated.

The opinion stated, in Miller, that it was ok for Congress to ban saw-off shotguns because "a regyualted milita" clause didn't apply, saying that no miltiary use could be found for a sawed off shotgun. Clearly, ICBM's don't fall into the category of no miltiary use, or, as the Court would say.," ... this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

Clearly there IS an "ordinary military equipment use" for nukes, so, under Court precident, they should be legal.

So tell me Viva, why are you in such a hurry to take away weapons from people? You don't believe in the second amendment, eh?

(They'll take away my ICBM only when they pry it from my hot, irradiated fingers).

I had to give you props for that one. Great use of sarcasm!

I know it's hard to believe, but even I think there are some weapons that should not be available for civilian use. That said, I wonder where they hold the auctions for the old M1A1 Abrams tanks? Oh, and an F-14 Tomcat would be cool to have in the barn. Great conversation pieces! :nuts:

 

[SkyPilot]

That being said, criminals and rougue states will always have nukes (even if only dirty bombas) and firearms. When we take away them away from the legal and law abiding citizenry, only the rougues and criminals will have them, and the state powers (which in themselves may be rougue and criminal). I want my nuke! Actually a phaser set on stun would do nicely! Dif-tor heh smusma.

 

[James48843]

.... That said, I wonder where they hold the auctions for the old M1A1 Abrams tanks? Oh, and an F-14 Tomcat would be cool to have in the barn. Great conversation pieces! :nuts:

\

You have to buy M1A1 tanks one piece at a time, Viva. They don't sell off the whole thing all at once. However, if you watch long enough, you CAN pick up the pieces...

0001 - Uncategorized at Government Liquidation

 

[Mapper]

The rub here is that even legal and law abiding citizens make bad decisions. I don't want to take guns from any responsible citizen but I sure would like to find a way to keep them used in a more judicious manner, as the consequences can be high. This shooting (and countless others) are unfortunate examples of utterly senseless suffering.

I would much rather these shooters just have a good ol' fashioned fist fight with whomever their beef is with. That would be much closer to taking responsibility for one's actions.

 

[Viva_La_Migra]

The rub here is that even legal and law abiding citizens make bad decisions. I don't want to take guns from any responsible citizen but I sure would like to find a way to keep them used in a more judicious manner, as the consequences can be high. This shooting (and countless others) are unfortunate examples of utterly senseless suffering.

I would much rather these shooters just have a good ol' fashioned fist fight with whomever their beef is with. That would be much closer to taking responsibility for one's actions.

Nothing about that school shooting event yesterday was legal, law abiding, or responsible. This was more than a bad decision. It was a criminal act. An example of a bad decision would be to try to disassemble your gun when it is still loaded. There's a huge difference between the two.

I would prefer these messed up people just off themselves.

 

[SkyPilot]

I agree, a supervised boxing match between miscreants would be preferable, but criminals like this are cowards and will use cowardly means to accomplish the goals of their vengeance and vendetta. They will use whatever means at hand and law and rule have no substance or deterrent in their thinking. Laws only set boundaries for people of good conscience, and rules of prosecution for the malefactors who are caught after the fact. No written law ever stops or deters those who are purposed to inflict their will upon others, but rather, only trembling fear of catastrophic consequence, and only then if they have a working conscience.

The rub here is that even legal and law abiding citizens make bad decisions. I don't want to take guns from any responsible citizen but I sure would like to find a way to keep them used in a more judicious manner, as the consequences can be high. This shooting (and countless others) are unfortunate examples of utterly senseless suffering.

I would much rather these shooters just have a good ol' fashioned fist fight with whomever their beef is with. That would be much closer to taking responsibility for one's actions.

 

[James48843]

They'll take away my ICBM
only when they pry it
from my hot, irradiated fingers​