Mass shooting too close to home

[Celery]

The problem is not guns. Never were guns, it's people that's the problem. We're wasting our time controlling guns when we need to control people instead.

This country, the USA, was founded as a Christian nation and we all get along just fine. We open our borders to others who wants to be free like us and come live as an American.

Instead they bring their religions and ideals and try to convert the USA. As a result we don't get along. It got to where I don't like you and you don't like me. This country was based on freedom and now we got all kinds of people living here.

It's a fact that we will have this kind of problem and no gun control will solve it.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Yes but I think a criminal with a gun is far more dangerous than a criminal with a knife.

But don't take me too seriously on this. I don't really know, I'm only thinking loud and trying to figure things out.

 

[strollin]

... This country, the USA, was founded as a Christian nation and we all get along just fine. ...

This country was most definitely NOT founded as a Christian nation. Jefferson, the main author of the Declaration, was not religious. It was founded on religious FREEDOM. The founders also specifically put in provisions to separate church and state even though over the years Christian politicians have muddied that separation.

On top of that, different Christian factions don't get along particularly well in the US (or the rest of the world either).

The US motto of "In God we trust" wasn't adopted until 1956, almost 200 years AFTER the US became a nation.

 

[Celery]

Funny, I read otherwise. I guess you can't believe everything on the net.

 

[root]

I wish I could disagree with you... but I can't. Here in the UK our gun control laws only work because of how long they've been in place, thus though there are guns in circulation, there are far less. In the US, if gun control laws were made more strict, they'd also have the job of getting rid of the ones which already exist, and I'm in no doubt that criminals simply won't hand theirs back!

i disagree. Replace the word guns with drugs.

We don't give up trying to police or control drugs just because there is a huge supply out there and those that bought them are unlikely to want to give them back!

Why would we agree that guns are too difficult to police and continue to spend a fortune trying to eradicate item that (in some cases) literally grows from the soil?
Surely it is much "easier" to police firearms (that require some heavy machinery to make, that say weed or magic mushrooms, which quite literally can be produced with little more than a bucket of dirt.

The problem is not guns. Never were guns, it's people that's the problem. We're wasting our time controlling guns when we need to control people instead.

When people talk about gun control they are talking about controlling people's access to guns.

This country, the USA, was founded as a Christian nation and we all get along just fine. We open our borders to others who wants to be free like us and come live as an American.

Instead they bring their religions and ideals and try to convert the USA. As a result we don't get along. It got to where I don't like you and you don't like me. This country was based on freedom and now we got all kinds of people living here.

It's a fact that we will have this kind of problem and no gun control will solve it.

Whilst I think that statement is a bit of a broad brush...
It is fair to say that when two people with radically different values come together. And those values are based on something that cannot change. (And is wildly open to claims about what context those values are even written in, with details lost to the past, some invented "Hollywood history" around it and parts cherry picked from it...

Then yes there are going to be problems.
That document could be a religious text, scripture or even the US constitution.
(You know how people claim the right to bear arm, whilst ignoring the historical context of previous colonial rule, the necessity to form militia, the technology of the weapons available at that time etc... Coupled with a healthy does of Wild West Cowboys from Hollywood saving lives and curing injustice with their trusty guns...) it really is a recipie for disaster!

 

[Celery]

The 2nd Amendment does state that the people, not the militia has the right to keep and bear arms. Our freedom was based on the US Constitution and always will be.

That's the way the country was created and that's the way we'll live. Don't like it? Get out.

As to the foreigners like the NATO, butt out. This is our problem.

 

[Cortb]

Lol, WE are nato. The US runs it. Yeah, sure, other countries are in it, but we basically run NATO.

Also, the second amendment isn't absolute, like how you can't keep a thermonuclear warhead in your garage. There are even some non-firearm weapons that are prohibited (switchblades).

Then there's this:

The 2nd Amendment does state that the people, not the militia has the right to keep and bear arms. Our freedom was based on the US Constitution and always will be.

FAKE NEWS from the 1980's. For the first 200 years of our country the second amendment was actually understood to mean the opposite of what you're saying, that the well regulated militia was permitted to own those firearms. In the 1970's the chief justice of our supreme court actually laughed at your interpretation. This new understanding was manufactured by by Reagan and the NRA.

 

[Celery]

Let's see what it says:

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.

Let's interpret it:

Militia and people are two separate entities, meaning the Militia guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear Arms and to keep us free. It also mean that the people can assemble as a Militia to defend the state and keep our freedom.

 

[root]

I'm not in your country, so "getting out" would be a problem...
Besides which, the second amendment is just that, an amendment, the constitution of the USA is a document that can (and has been many times) changed and amended as necessary. -I pointed out before, slaves were legitimate property in the US at one point in history, then the constitution changed and suddenly that was not "your property" any more.
Likewise the constitution could change again, and the right to buy, keep and own guns as property may be removed by the government, just like slaves were.

The constitution has always been malleable like that, - so what can I say, if you don't like it where "it" -the ability of the constitution to change is a key part of the working of law, then you could always take your own advice and leave it!

On the 2nd
It seems clear that the people are the ones free to own guns, and that the reason that gun ownership is imperative is for the purpose of forming well regulated. (But not specifically governmental.) militia.
I think reading only the second sentence removes the context and is cherry picking the bits people like...
In the context straight after the revolution it seems pretty obvious that the militias are a necessity for a free state, and to be free from the state.

Anyway. You aren't allowed to form private armies or militias anymore that are free from the state, possibly to fight against the state as there are laws against that.

And as pointed out above, you are restricted from owning just "any" arms you like, specifically ones that would be of relevant use to fight against a corrupt government.
The second amendment is clearly hollowed out to the point of being almost pointless.


Regards nato, budgets are set on a countries size. So it is obvious America would pay more. It has the greatest number of citizens that benefit from military cooperation with other nations!

The American military is the worlds largest employer. If America "suddenly" cut military spending, then America could afford the welfare check for all those lost jobs!

Other nato allies have given their land for American strategic purposes.

Besides which...
No nato partners are "telling you that your citizens must give up their guns"
No reason to bring that up really, it's the equivalent of saying "oh look a cat" half way through a conversation.


It's probably gotten to that point (as it always does when talking about guns.) all the arguments are given. Nobody really changed their mind.

The government will not change the law. Guns will continue to be freely available through both legitimate and illegitimate channels. It's "too hard" to be worth trying.

I guess we'll have this conversation again in a few years after the next mass shooting that with hind sight we all say we should have seen coming anyway.

 

[Cortb]

And this is where your interpretation is flawed:

Militia and people are two separate entities

ALL able-bodied people (white men) were legally required to be in the militia. As a part of their duty to the militia they were also legally required to supply themselves with a firearm, ammunition/powder, and rucksack, maintain them both, and report regularly to the militia training grounds.

My interpretation, is that since there are no longer militias (thanks Jefferson Davis), private gun ownership should be restricted....

But, our opinions/interpretations aren't the ones that really matter.
And root is right, the constitution isn't written in stone, all it would take is a big enough outcry/tragedy and the second amendment could go the way of the 18th.