Obama: Mass shootings are 'something we should politicize'

Lets consider the time period when the 2nd amendment was written...

If a mentally unstable person got a hold of a "weapon" -- back then it would have been a muzzle loading musket or possibly a sword. If that mentally unstable person went on a "rampage", they might kill 1-2 people before the entire town dogpilled on top of them.

People lived in smaller communities with slower firing weapons with insanely long reloading times and very short ranges.

Today, however, a mentally unstable person can steal a family member's guns and fire many rounds accurately at quite a range before being stopped.

The founding fathers never probably could have foreseen the problems we're facing today. Gun development had been really slow the previous 400 years or so before them, and they probably assumed the same pace would continue for another 400 years.

We are living in a completely different set of circumstances than our founding fathers. A mentally unstable person with a modern firearm can cause significantly more damage to their community than the same mentally unstable person in 1776.

We need to keep this in mind, our weapons are more deadly -- much more so.

a reply to: shooterbrody

CRAP I was attmpting to espond to MYSTIC...with that...
SORRY.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

No were not.

Modern society is little different than the days of the founders.

'Bad' people has always been a part of society. They will always be apart of society.

No LAWS is ever going to change that.

Hell that is the reason we have so many laws. That doesn't stop anything. Just punishes those than never do anything wrong.

When it gets down right to it human nature is just ugly.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Lets consider the time period when the 2nd amendment was written...

If a mentally unstable person got a hold of a "weapon" -- back then it would have been a muzzle loading musket or possibly a sword. If that mentally unstable person went on a "rampage", they might kill 1-2 people before the entire town dogpilled on top of them.

People lived in smaller communities with slower firing weapons with insanely long reloading times and very short ranges.

Today, however, a mentally unstable person can steal a family member's guns and fire many rounds accurately at quite a range before being stopped.

The founding fathers never probably could have foreseen the problems we're facing today. Gun development had been really slow the previous 400 years or so before them, and they probably assumed the same pace would continue for another 400 years.

We are living in a completely different set of circumstances than our founding fathers. A mentally unstable person with a modern firearm can cause significantly more damage to their community than the same mentally unstable person in 1776.

We need to keep this in mind, our weapons are more deadly -- much more so.

So by that logic we should ban autos because the mentally unstable can steal one and run it into a crowd?

I can keep posting the same quotes that show the founding fathers did foresee the populace being disarmed and they did not agree with it.

Do you really think less effective firearms will kill any less?

a reply to: cavtrooper7

NP
thanks for letting me know

a reply to: shooterbrody

So by that logic we should ban autos because the mentally unstable can steal one and run it into a crowd?

See the problem with that is, and those are trying to push mental instability.

The 'crazies' have enough mental acuity to pick a weapon, rather than a car, or something else.

True crazy people, by the CRAZY definition will use anything around them.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

That's true, but if we're going to bring the intent of the founding fathers into this, then we need to also offer up the counterargument. The intent of 2A was ultimately for the citizenry to act as a last line of defense for the country against a hostile force. I think its very reasonable to believe that they would not have wanted subsequent generations limited to obsolete technology to fulfill 2A's original purpose. There's also that whole thing about Congress having the authority to grant letters of marque and reprisal, which basically authorizes civilians to outfit private warships (and Revolutionary era warships=cannons). Given that, I don't think we can say with any certainty that they would disapprove of the firearms currently available to our civilian populace.

originally posted by: lucifershiningone
a reply to: neo96

Your one of those that cries about gun control but rejoice this shooting is proof your voice is being heard.

Thanks to you guys, the mentally ill can easily get a gun. The lack of strict gun control lets anyone get a gun....no matter what your intentions are. Your winning, so why complain..

Look proof you dont really know gun control laws..........

Tell me, when someone doesnt have a criminal record, or is undiagnosed, just HOW is that "strict" gun control law gonna work?

originally posted by: neformore
...
Knocking Obama for taking a stand here simply shows an arrogance and an unwillingness to think.

How many people are going to die next time I wonder?

ETA - some people need to look up the meaning of the word amendment.

Really, do tell us again why is it that Chicago Illinois alongside New York happen to be two of the states with the highest gun violence and gun deaths in the nation?... States which have some of the stricter gun laws in the entire nation.

Why don't you think about that for a minute instead of drinking in the Kool-aid that Obama and his thugs offer you?...

Ha! I posted in the wrong thread.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Tell me, when someone doesnt have a criminal record, or is undiagnosed, just HOW is that "strict" gun control law gonna work?

Gun dealers and private sellers will be required to develop ESP in order to make a sale...

See what I did there?

a reply to: neformore

Because neformore, only those "things" that the government have an agenda on are the ones that gets all the media attention, is a hypocrisy, that is why I posted what I posted.

Hypocrisy.

No, guns will not be banned, the same that prescribe drugs manufactured will never be held accounted for the millions of death their medications causes, the same way that cars, or cellular phones all that are linked to everyday deaths will never be banned.

But the agenda is to start opening the door for government to legislate on gun rights, even if is behind the disguise of getting them off the hands of those that should never have them.

But the truth is that those that should never have them always are going to find a way to get them.

Whatever is coming will it help the senseless killing of innocent? by any other means, you tell me.

a reply to: TownCryer

That is not true, criminals can get their hands on guns no matter what and the government is not going to do a darn thing to stop it, because contraband is rampant.

But those people that are honest tax payers and are exercising their rights to bear arms are the ones that will be targeted the most because they are the ones been exposed when they buy arms, the background to own a license is not a walk in the park.

But criminals do not have to go to all that to get their guns.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Lets consider the time period when the 2nd amendment was written...

If a mentally unstable person got a hold of a "weapon" -- back then it would have been a muzzle loading musket or possibly a sword. If that mentally unstable person went on a "rampage", they might kill 1-2 people before the entire town dogpilled on top of them.

People lived in smaller communities with slower firing weapons with insanely long reloading times and very short ranges.

...

Wow...really?... Take for instance another of the "gun free zones" given to us thanks to Progressive Democrats, in this case the Clintons, when Clinton outlawed firearms in military bases and now many military service personnel have to die before a police officer from outside goes into the base and shoots the murderer... If firearms hadn't been outlawed in military bases, you would have a faster response against those who want to murder our soldiers and sailors, there would be less military personnel dead, and they wouldn't have to wait most often for police officers from outside the base to come rescue our soldiers.

The same applies in cities. If law abiding citizens weren't so restricted to own and bear firearms the response to deranged or extremist attackers would be much faster, with less deaths from innocents.

BTW, back at the time of the U.S. founding fathers if there was a deranged person trying to kill people, that person would be stopped by the other American citizens with FIREARMS, it wouldn't be because the derange person was using a muzzle loading musket... In fact, back then most people were very accurate with their muzzle loading muskets and could do a lot more damage if they wanted to than just killing 1-2 people...

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Back in the days, people used to kill each other and they would be buried in unmarked graves in the woods, because it was not population accountability.

Now we get to know who is killed, by who and when.

a reply to: neo96

That's not answering my question, is it?

That's obfuscation, again.

But what you are saying there is that - using your own logic - all gun owners are responsible for these acts. You can't have it both ways.

So, lets de-escalate that road of obfuscation and do this the sensible way.

Not all gun owners are responsible for these acts, in the same manner that not all muslims are responsible for terrorism.

That's a rational standpoint.

So, now we're being rational, lets take the partisan politics out of it too.

What's the answer to stopping these mass shootings?

I thought this article was thought-provoking and argued a good point.

Judging by many of the replies in this thread, it's going to go down like a lump of lead.

The Second Amendment expressly endorsed the substantive common-law rule that protected the citizen’s right (and duty) to keep and bear arms when serving in a state militia. In its decision in Heller, however, the majority interpreted the amendment as though its draftsmen were primarily motivated by an interest in protecting the common-law right of self-defense. But that common-law right is a procedural right that has always been available to the defendant in criminal proceedings in every state. The notion that the states were concerned about possible infringement of that right by the federal government is really quite absurd.

This is a thought-provoking chart as well, illustrating a sick culture. Seek help!

originally posted by: neformore

What's the answer to stopping these mass shootings?

You're not asking the right question.

What's the answer to stopping people from killing people?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You're so focused on hating Obama that it comes across like you actually don't give a damn that so many people were just killed.

So here's a better idea.

Why don't you come up with a suggestion that stops people being needlessly killed instead of spouting partisan political BS all the time?

Looks to me, considering the pathetic logic on display in this thread that the government are going to have to simply close all gun shops, ban the carrying of guns in cars and public places (unless your work activity requires you to carry a gun), and confiscate (with force if necessary) all guns from those who have them.

Not a single gun advocate will voluntarily give up their gun. The gun owner does not care a jot about those who die in gun rampages. They care more for their own amendment right to have one, than the deaths of others in future rampages. That is the actual fact, no matter how much the gun owner and gun advocate protests with silly little deflections regarding the issue, in their heads more guns are the answer. Yee hai! it's the Ok Coral all over again! You are just not right in your heads!

The right to life and to live it is a greater right than the amendment right to own and carry a gun. There is just no contest. Guns are made specifically to cause harm or to kill, so in effect, gun owners and gun advocates are equally saying I want the right to maim or kill, and regardless of the mitigating circumstances around the firing of a gun at a person, you also want the right not to be prosecuted.

The bastard in Oregon is said to have been born in Lancashire, North-West England, where I live, and oddly enough, you have to go back to 1819 to the Peterloo Massacre (committed by British troops) for the last gun rampage occurrence in this county. We have mentally disturbed people here in Lancashire, but no gun carriers, and no gun rampages. Who'd have thunk it, eh? what a revealing correlation.