BREAKING: Maryland school shooting

BattleCorp wrote: »

Not that it has anything to do with this conversation but there was a hell of a lot of resistance to getting rid of slavery. But slavery is completely wrong. Owning a gun isn't necessarily wrong. They aren't the same thing.

By the way, who here is arguing that the American Constitution can't be changed? I certainly am not arguing that.

But you have to adhere to the law as it is, not how you'd like it to be. If it's changed, so be it. Is there the will to remove the 2nd Amendment from the US Constitution right now, I don't think so.



^^^^^^^^^^^^
I don't agree with that statement. Just because you own a gun and don't want to give it up, that doesn't mean that you don't value life.

I think you'll find that a lot of gun owners (myself included) are in favour of some sort of gun control. I'm not in favour of banning guns, I'm in favour of doing the utmost to make sure they don't fall into the wrong hands.



I'm actually in agreement with you here. I think guns should be restricted to those who are of sound mind, good character etc. I also believe there should be background checks etc.

Indeed I think everyone means restricting guns even if they say banning. Most people consider guns to be banned in Ireland when in reality they are just rare and awkward to get.

The issue is that people are pointing out that in the states they value guns more than children's lives. Even after Florida the NRA is still set against age restrictions. This isn't about every single gun owner giving up their guns. People are more arguing against the gun culture and laws in the states (which you also seem to be against).

Yup at a certain point it will have to be removed as a right if people are serious but I see no reason for a complete ban on all guns ever (I am not sure if any country has that).

I do believe a large proportion of Americans have had enough of these gun tragedies, but unfortunately since democratic rule is in short supply due to the highly complex nature of their political system, which more or less resembles a some what dysfunctional form of plutocracy, they are stuck with these outcomes for the foreseeable future

elbyrneo wrote: »

Sweet Lord this thread is depressing reading. The constitutional rights argument is utter garbage.

It's the 2nd amendment. An amendment. See the "amend" in there. Of course the constitution can be changed. That's want an amendment is.......

It's simple so, all you need to do is either get an amendment proposed by Congress, with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, or you can get a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of the State legislatures.

elefant wrote: »

Enlightening stuff.

What do you suggest so?

https://youtu.be/E33Z0RPWuHs

Merica

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

I’m confused.

There is The Constitution but also each state has it’s own constitution?
So if your states constitution says guns can only be purchased by people over 30 years old (just making that up), could you then ignore that and say the other Constitution says I can?
If the main Constitution said over 30s only can you refer to your states constitution saying that rule doesn’t apply here?

Supremacy Clause. Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.

Billy86 wrote: »

No, but if you oppose making it harder to get guns in order to prevent these kind of situations then it does mean that you support school shootings more than you do gun control.

I am in favour of gun control. But I don't equate gun control with banning guns. I equate gun control with making sure that guns are in safe hands.

I propose making it harder for people with a criminal past from getting a firearm. I propose making it harder for people with addiction issues, mental issues etc. from getting guns.

I don't propose to make it harder for normal, well adjusted people from getting guns.

How will keeping guns away from responsible, well adjusted people help prevent school shootings?

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm like a broken record here. Why can't someone own a gun and still value life?

If I own a gun, does that mean I support school shootings?

I don't think there is a country in the Western Democratic World that says to its citizens: "You can't own a gun".

There are very few that regard it as a God-given right (literally--the US Declaration of Independence says that "all men...are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights") to walk around bearing a loaded battlefield weapon, with the understanding that little provocation is required to entitle you to kill somebody with it.

In this country you can own a gun, subject to certain restrictions. You can own a gun in France, Germany, Spain, Finland, heck even in Britain--although handguns have been outlawed since Dumblane--it is perfectly legal to own a gun for perfectly reasonable purposes.

These do not include discouraging people from keying your car, or looking at your girlfriend's arse or taking out adolescent frustrations on your local school population.

So don't confuse the two. I'm sure you love your kids. But if you want to own a gun, in this country at least, keep it under lock and key, don't transport it in a loaded state and whatever you do, don't aim it at another human being.

How ****ing hard is that to fathom?

BattleCorp wrote: »

It's very ****ing easy to fathom.

Where have I been advocating that everybody should have a gun, or that they shouldn't be locked up etc.? Go ahead, look through my posts and if you find where I said everybody should have a gun or that they shouldn't be kept safe, I'll give you the biggest public apology ever.

I do keep my guns under lock and key. It's the law here in Ireland. And not any old lock and key. It has to be in a gun safe to a certain standard - BS7558 in fact. And the windows and doors have to be a certain standard. And the alarm has to be a certain standard. And I have a gun safe in the boot of my car for transport to and from the range.

Good!

And if you look back through my posts, on this thread and others (if you could be bothered, but you probably have a life ) you might notice that I have often said I have no problem with Irish gun owners complying to Irish gun laws.

It is American gun laws and gun culture that are anomalous compared to most of the rest of the democratic "free" world. They're the weirdos on this topic. Their cognitive dissonance extends to insisting on the word "exceptional" rather than "anomalous" to justify what to most people is the unjustifiable.

Their dopey notion of "American Exceptionalism", roughly translated as one law for Americans and another for everybody else, allows them to convince themselves they don't have a problem with anything. Except immigrants, of course.

I actually don't think we have any business telling Americans what their gun laws should be. They are big enough and powerful enough to make up their own minds and take their own decisions. But any attempt to mimic their gun culture by approving similar "right to bear arms" legislation over here should be resisted, in my view, to the utmost.

So at one extreme, you are an Irish gun owner who hankers after a similar gun culture to America's being introduced here, in which case I personally think you are a dangerous weirdo who should be treated with the utmost suspicion.

Or, at the other extreme, you are generally satisfied, and happy to comply, with Ireland's stringent gun laws which allow you to use appropriate firearms for reasonable purposes (eg hunting, sports shooting at inanimate targets, vermin control), in which case, should you suggest that such laws might be appropriate for America, you would be viewed by many "gun rights activists" there as a dangerous pinko SJW loonie with unsavoury and un-American attitudes and should be ridiculed as such.

To which of the two extremes are you closer in your outlook?

Just curious.

Snickers Man wrote: »

So at one extreme, you are an Irish gun owner who hankers after a similar gun culture to America's being introduced here, in which case I personally think you are a dangerous weirdo who should be treated with the utmost suspicion.

Or, at the other extreme, you are generally satisfied, and happy to comply, with Ireland's stringent gun laws which allow you to use appropriate firearms for reasonable purposes (eg hunting, sports shooting at inanimate targets, vermin control), in which case, should you suggest that such laws might be appropriate for America, you would be viewed by many "gun rights activists" there as a dangerous pinko SJW loonie with unsavoury and un-American attitudes and should be ridiculed as such.

To which of the two extremes are you closer in your outlook?

Just curious.

Or perhaps he, like me, is just someone who knows that wailing and gnashing of teeth by outsiders won't make Americans change their culture.

BattleCorp wrote: »

I would like certain things loosened up a little but I certainly am not calling for an American style system over here.

That's a perfectly decent point of view. I see no reason for us to be arguing

I think the younger generation in America will be the catalyst for change in America.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/24/us/politics/students-lead-huge-rallies-for-gun-control-across-the-us.amp.html

mad muffin wrote: »

It’s okay. A solution has been put forth and… it looks like a real winner.

http://www.mcall.com/news/breaking/mc-pol-schuylkill-county-blue-mountain-bucket-of-rocks-in-classes-20180323-story.html

This is absolutely ridiculous.

You will never take away the guns from the "bad guys". It's too late to introduce gun control now. All that will happen then is the bad guys have guns and the good guys dont.

Arm the teachers. It's the only solution.

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Yes Donald, of course it is, have some more sweeties!

Indeed, yours is an interesting point well made and substantiated.
Good job!