It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Irishhaf
and if nothing else this shooting has shown 1 armed guard on a campus that big is not enough.
originally posted by: luthier
This person had already had warning signs of mental illness. Already had warning. You can then get a temporary warrant for surveillance. You can change laws around mental illness and threats of violence.
originally posted by: Kryties
Speaking of changing laws, you know that is why it is called the 2nd Amendment don't you? Meaning the law can be changed as it has been before.
originally posted by: Aazadan
originally posted by: Kryties
Speaking of changing laws, you know that is why it is called the 2nd Amendment don't you? Meaning the law can be changed as it has been before.
Original intent is a big factor in interpreting the law. Sometimes it can change without changing what is written down.
Regardless, I think the most sensible compromise would be to start limiting ammo. Strict controls on a specific number of lethal rounds per year, and only being allowed to purchase such ammo for weapons you can prove you own alongside moving most ammo sales to use things like rubber bullets and bean bag rounds.
This would make guns less lethal without banning them, while still maintaining the home security. We would probably need some sort of specific provision in there for hunting too, possibly involving the purchase of more lethal rounds but only for a limited subset of approved hunting weapons, and some sort of control system that prevents the build up of ammunition stockpiles.
originally posted by: Krakatoa
In the context of the 2nd amendment, the word "arms" includes powder and ball (i.e. ammo). That too, is protected from infringement. If you disagree, then by all means begin a campaign to convene a Constitutional Convention and modify/repeal the 2nd Amendment. That is the only LEGAL way to accomplish what you seek without the risk of infringement upon the rights of every citizen.
originally posted by: Aazadan
originally posted by: Krakatoa
In the context of the 2nd amendment, the word "arms" includes powder and ball (i.e. ammo). That too, is protected from infringement. If you disagree, then by all means begin a campaign to convene a Constitutional Convention and modify/repeal the 2nd Amendment. That is the only LEGAL way to accomplish what you seek without the risk of infringement upon the rights of every citizen.
Can you back this up? I'm not aware of any court cases where it has been ruled ammunition falls under the 2nd. Furthermore, Heller reinforces the idea that the 2nd, like all rights is subject to reasonable regulation so long as it doesn't put at risk the basic intent of guns which is for self protection.
The idea I suggested could place strict limits on lethal ammunition, enough that one could keep loaded weapons in their home for an invader or to go hunting, which would satisfy the purpose of the 2nd, but not enough for someone to go on a shooting rampage. It would also still allow for unlimited access to less lethal ammunition, which is still sufficient for self protection but would result in fewer casualties in mass shootings.
originally posted by: lordcomac
I didn't vote for trump, but if you don't believe trained, armed, and willing staff wouldn't put a quick end to a shooting, you're the nut.
originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Krakatoa
What you just cited are dictionary, not legal definitions. Do you have any court rulings to support your case?
According to Israel, Peterson remained outside Building 12 for about four minutes. The shooting lasted about six minutes, he said. When the shooting began the deputy was inside the school handling a matter with a female student.
A review of surveillance video showed that the deputy was in position and armed but never entered the building. He remained stationed outside the building while the shooting went on.
originally posted by: lordcomac
I didn't vote for trump, but if you don't believe trained, armed, and willing staff wouldn't put a quick end to a shooting, you're the nut.