Just watched it as a friend posted the link on their Facebook (I was going to post it here but I noticed you already had). I think he's got it spot on. Very well said indeed.

Oh, that's bad. Happens to me also sometimes. F*** the computers. Anyway don't bother to write it whole again. Just sum up and only if you have enough energy. :)

It's rather disturbing to think about the Second Amendment as being an attempt to achieve something that is now impossible (a second attempt to liberate the US in case a tyranny was established).

...

EDIT: I decided to add something actually meaningful. Here's what a close friend of mine wrote on the issue of gun control in the US:

[i]"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."

These words were primarily meant to clarify this section of the U.S. Constitution:

Article 1 Section 8 (paragraph numbers included for reference)
"11 - To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
12 - To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
13 - To provide and maintain a Navy;
14 - To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
15 - To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
16 - To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

What the Second Amendment very clearly clarifies is that it is the people, not the states nor the Union who hold the right to "keep and bear" weapons. Having just fought and won their own freedom the Anti-Federalists were keen to insure that their ability to fight a popular uprising was secured. This language is actually far more extensive than many believe it should be - particularly in light of nuclear weapons - but nonetheless it is there. So no matter what solution we decide to pursue as a nation, it is clear that if we wish for gun control a constitutional amendment is required.

Instead, as before, I would urge others to argue for the implementation of trained and armed first responders who will be employed in all public schools in a number deemed adequate for a quick and judicious response. Secondly, I propose that all children who are currently required to undergo a physical to matriculate into public schools also be required to undergo a mental health screening. Furthermore, I recommend that all Federal monies bound for private educational institutions be transferred on the condition that those institutions comply with the Federal standards. This second requirement will have the effect of monitoring the mental health of our children through their volatile teenage and college years, at least up to the point at which they leave the educational environment. If so desired this could extend to a condition for hiring federal employees and potentially any private agency, business, or government contracts which accepts Federal monies.

By tying any gun ownership to a stable mental past as defined by a group of experts and agreed to by Congress, and by placing trained first responders into our nation's schools, I believe that much of this problem can be eliminated. As the 77 people killed in a Norwegian massacre last year can attest, the laws currently being discussed by the U.S. certainly aren't any more flawless than my proposal above; however, by attacking the root cause I believe we can greatly impact the frequency of these attacks here while simultaneously maintaining our freedom and ensuring "the security of a free state."

I wish I could wait to write this until people were done morning this tragedy, but if I do it is likely that the Constitution will have little impact in my friend's discussions about this issue. It is also very likely that during this national debate, whether I add my opinion or not, our right to form a popular uprising will be greatly hampered. In our system of checks and balances, the jury box and our arms are the final implements between us and unchecked government power. I look no further than Syria and the rest of the Middle East to know how that turns out. The second amendment is what Thomas Jefferson's party determined was necessary to protect us from government overreach. Please don't forget that fact as we approach this issue. Please be willing to consider a plan similar to the one proposed above. May God be with the people who are mourning this great tragedy.[/i]

Whoever thought of the idea for an online shooter cease fire was not especially bright when he thought of it.

Also, for all those who keeping advocating for more authoritarian gun control laws, please shut the fuck up before you degrade yourselves any further. I've mentioned this before, guns have successfully been used against violent criminals in legitimate self-defense when no other means of protection would have worked.

http://www.14news.com/story/15152384/sc-sheriff-dead-motel-robber-was-going-to-rape-clerk
http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_stories/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx
http://news.yahoo.com/korean-war-vet-shoots-intruder-inside-home-121905171.html

If anyone thinks banning guns will keep guns away from criminals, look up Operation Fast and Furious and ask yourself if any criminal is willing to give up his/her weapons or if the criminals who already have their guns will use anti-gun laws as an opportunity to strike.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/atf-fast-furious-sg,0,3828090.storygallery

You won't be improving anything with more anti-gun policies.

But, the NRA is guilty as sin. They are the reason why the US can't have sensible gun laws because any regulation of firearms is seen by them as an infringement of the 2nd amendment.

No civilian needs a clip that can hold more than 6 bullets. If you need more than that, you have absolutely no business using a firearm. You're more likely to hit a bystander than your target.

There's absolutely no reason to allow things like the gun show background check loophole and waiting periods are ultimately a good thing.

These are all things that the NRA has opposed in recent memory.

As for the 2nd amendment, considering it wasn't even ratified and was specifically because the US did not have an army of any sort at the time, I don't really think that it makes any sense to interpret it as inclusively as the NRA does. They wrote at a time when a shooter would have to carry as many muskets as bullets if he wanted to avoid reloading. And they were flint locks which would often times fail to fire.

In other words, a massacre those days required many people to be involved, now you can have a massacre with one heavily armed individual. You'd have to be a completely ignorant individual to not understand that the 2nd amendment was not written with these weapons in mind. They couldn't imagine a crime like this happening because the technology wouldn't allow for it.

Lastly, it's the right to keep and bear arms, not firearms. It is typically interpreted by everybody as including firearms, but if we can all agree that chemical and biological weapons aren't included as well as explosives then why exactly does that guarantee a right to other technology which was effectively as far off in the future as those things?

I'm not talking about taking away all the weapons, just reasonable regulations and reasonable limits. It's not like even with fully automatic weapons you're going to be overthrowing the government.

Unless of course you live in a world where ammunition and assault weapons just magically appear out of unicorn's asses. For the rest of us living in the real world, groups that advocate for such ridiculously powerful weapons are ultimately partially responsible as the crime could not have happened without their tacit support for weapons no civilian needs.
Nope, but 1927 is the modern era of weaponry anyways. And really by the time you're looking at WWI times you end up with a much more powerful set of weapons available.

Also, F**** you for linking an article that I can't read and calling me retarded. You know damn well that this particular crime and ones like it could not be committed with a revolver.
It's not entirely true. They did expect Americans to have regular revolutions. But the purposes of the weapons was that at the time the US had no standing army. They couldn't afford one so it was disbanded following the Revolutionary War.

Hence why the 2nd amendment has that explanatory clause about it being necessary to ensure...

Nevermind, live and let live...

I agree with you on this.

I disagree with this entirely. No person or party is EVER directly responsible for the actions of another man. Every person in this world has the capacity to make their own choices in life. Every. Single. Person. If you think people can blame someone or something else for their actions, then you believe you could also place blame for your actions on someone or something else. Take responsibility for your own life.

Whether or not it's the modern era is irrelevant in this case. You said quote "Without easy access to high capacity clips and handguns these sorts of crimes would not happen" and I cited an example where neither a high capacity clip nor a handgun was used to mass murder. These crimes clearly do happen regardless of whether or not those two particular things exist (handguns and extended magazines). There are other examples of mass murders, far worse than either the Connecticut shooting or Columbine, where no gun was used at all. I'm sure you know about Timothy Mcveigh, who murdered 168 people in Oklahoma in 1995, without the use of a single firearm.

And what do you mean you can't read it? And what are you getting at by saying that particular crime can't be committed using a revolver? Isn't that exactly the point you were trying to make originally? Again I quote "Without easy access to high capacity clips and handguns these sorts of crimes would not happen" and again I respond with the fact that mass murders (which is the type of crime the Connecticut shooting is considered to be) can and do happen without using firearms.

It may. Ultimately you'd have to destroy guns and cease making new guns though in order to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals. Otherwise all you do by removing guns from circulation and displacing them elsewhere is remove them from citizens. Criminals will still find a way to have access to guns unless none exist. Mexico I suppose is a good example of that. The criminals (cartels) have all of the weapons in that country.

There's nothing wrong with that. In some situations, giving up your wallet may be safer than fighting back. But there are many criminals out there who would kill you regardless in that situation. Either because they don't at all value life, or because they don't want to leave a witness. It happens often sadly. So with that in mind, I'd at least rather go down fighting. That's just the way I am, though.

I can appreciate that. In my case, it's an issue of principles I guess. When you have a family, there are other things you have to consider. Or rather, you have to consider the same things from different angles. But ultimately, regardless of the outcome, I feel that fighting crime benefits everyone else in the long run. Perhaps you'd get hurt and it would financially stress out your family. Perhaps you'd even get killed. But in my opinion, those are the costs of doing what you can to protect others, including your family. Maybe it's from being in the military, but I've always felt like sometimes a person has to make sacrifices for what I perceive to be the greater good, which in this case would be taking a stand against criminals.

I actually don't have a wife and kids, I meant for that to mean the people that I care about in my life, some of whom are family or are practically family. Some of my friends have been so for a number of decades, so they're family to me. Same for the people I served with, they're also my family. And I would be just as willing to protect your family from harm as I would my own, even though you'd be strangers to me on the street. That's just how I feel about this issue, again perhaps something that was instilled in me from the military. And I don't see it as proving my manhood. To me, that's just how I view being a man. That is, doing what you can to protect your family or those who may be weaker than you, such as women and children. It isn't about proving anything to anyone.

Maybe one day we'll live in a world where violence is completely a thing of the past. But unfortunately we just don't live in that world yet. May not happen for another 1000 years, if ever, who knows. I guess it doesn't really matter though since we've only got about two more days to live anyways!

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that. I do think that there are situations where a gun could be the difference between you living or dying, or being able to save someone else's life. I'm sure part of that has to do with where you live or where you grew up (as well as your line of work, such as being in the military or being a police officer). Some people may grow up in nice areas and go their whole lives without ever witnessing more than a fist fight, so they may not feel the need for protection as much. If you grow up in East St. Louis, or Flint, MI, or East LA, etc., then the world is suddenly a whole lot different. That's a world where half of your friends are murdered by the time you finish high school, if you ever finish high school at all.

It's a shame that it is that way. Where I live near ESTL, they actually had to bring in a team of federal agents because the crime had gotten so bad and all of their cops were quitting or getting laid off. They are underpaid since the city is in poverty, and the criminals there aren't even remotely bothered by shooting at cops. Some criminals at least have the better judgement to not shoot at a cop, but the worst ones don't even care about that. My brother actually told a crazy story (it was also in the news) where they were standing outside of work one day, and two cars full of guys were shooting back and forth at each other while driving down the road, WHILE they were getting chased by a group of cops! They didn't even care that they were in a car chase with cops, they just kept shooting at each other. And this was right outside of a Wal-Mart and a car dealership, so it's an incredible coincidence that no innocent bystanders were hurt. Unfortunately though, people are killed by stray bullets all of the time in East. St. Louis, so it does happen.


All I was trying to say with point A is that it doesn't hurt to be prepared if you ever have to start taking care of yourself. I don't enjoy killing animals at all. I think it sucks, actually. I am not a 'trophy hunter'. But I do appreciate that if shit ever hit the fan, I'd be better prepared to feed myself and my family (those I care about, or the wife and kids I may have one day). A bullet could be considered a more humane way to kill an animal than some other methods, I believe.

You know what these idiots never do suggest, "Hey, let's ban gun sales for a week, to show support for the families of those who were killed due to America's too easy access to guns".

Nope. That would never happen as the nutjob American gun lobby would be up in arms (literally).

But video games are easy targets. Don't blame what really caused the deaths, blame something that had nothing to do with it. Far easier.

I wish I could +1000 this.

You know since so people say Firearms are so easy access in America than they must be cheap, because I always thought guns were expensive like in the $1000+

Like how much does an AK-47 costs in the U.S. (if they even sell them)

This.

While I actually agree with the earlier point about starting a Childs Play-esque relief fund for the families involved, this exact point is what would have – or at least, mostly could have – helped prevent this unthinkable situation from happening.

I remember what happened after Columbine. People blamed guns, people blamed violent video games, people blamed Marilyn Manson...no one stopped to think about the fact that Kleibold and Harris, the Columbine shooters, were bullied, marginalized, neglected, and ignored by everyone around them.

Sorry, couldn't tell you as I don't buy them, but they're not that expensive :)

I was amazed when we first moved to the US, coming from a country that doesn't allow easy access to guns and therefore has very low levels of shooting deaths, that you could actually buy guns at K-Mart (a big US discount chain department store). It's something about the US I will never understand, and thankfully will never have to deal with again :)
IMO, the two main reasons why the US has the most mass murders via gun of any developed country (and will continue to have, IMO) are these:

a) Parents who ignore their kids or have no idea what they're getting up to, which was the case with both Columbine boys

and

b) easy access to affordable guns. After all, it's nigh on impossible to kill 26 people no matter how angry or bullied you are without the use of a gun, as a knife doesn't do anywhere near as good of a job.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myyrmanni_bombing

I have studied at the same school (not at the same though) and went almost daily to that same mall.

Well they never really found out the proof did he want to kill anyone or not - but just goes showing whats possible.