Mass Shootings - Why?

[James K.]

^^^^^THIS^^^^^!!!

AMEN Brother!

 

[Orange Dust]

I hate to tell you this but it almost sounds like you are saying the 2nd amendment is out of date and that we are all misinterpreting what it is really saying.

No, The Bill of rights come from God. They are a limit on Government. They say what the fed cannot do to us, and the Fed only has power to change or surpress any of them if we let them. They have been picking at every one of them hoping for "Death by 1000 cuts". Government does not like the Bill of rights because it puts very strict limits on their power over us. We have been far to gullible and let them chip away at them all until they don't carry nearly the weight they used too. We will lose them all if we don't bow up and just say no.

 

[JimFromTN]

No Jim, you wanted to target Trump like any lefty and you were wrong, every admin has these problems. And you go ahead and still keep at it. There is discourse in every admin and failure to see that truth and turn blind eye is pretty indicative to me.

Actually, it seemed like we were talking about the recent riots that lasted so long in Seattle where they took over an entire block as an autonomous zone. Seemed like that was mentioned. I simply pointed out that started during the last administration. You are correct as I also pointed out by using Reagan as an example that all administrations have these problems. Perhaps people should consider that before putting the blame squarely on one side.

 

[JimFromTN]

No, The Bill of rights come from God. They are a limit on Government. They say what the fed cannot do to us, and the Fed only has power to change or surpress any of them if we let them. They have been picking at every one of them hoping for "Death by 1000 cuts". Government does not like the Bill of rights because it puts very strict limits on their power over us. We have been far to gullible and let them chip away at them all until they don't carry nearly the weight they used too. We will lose them all if we don't bow up and just say no.

The bill of rights come from God? I thought that was the Bible. The simple fact is that your explanation of a militia kind of shows that the 2nd amendment is way out of date unless of course you misspoke and want to take it back. The 2nd amendment does not say your right to own a gun protects your freedom. It says a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. As you pointed out, we have no well regulated militias and that their purpose was to take the place of a standing army because our forefathers did not want a standing army. The simple fact is that we have a standing army and no militias. The 2nd amendment needs to be rewritten or we need to bring back well regulated militias because as it is written, it makes no sense.

 

[762x51]

No, The Bill of rights come from God. They are a limit on Government. They say what the fed cannot do to us, and the Fed only has power to change or surpress any of them if we let them. They have been picking at every one of them hoping for "Death by 1000 cuts". Government does not like the Bill of rights because it puts very strict limits on their power over us. We have been far to gullible and let them chip away at them all until they don't carry nearly the weight they used too. We will lose them all if we don't bow up and just say no.

i interpret it a different way. as humans, we are afforded basic rights given to us by our creator which include the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. that means no government can give or take away those rights. then the bill of rights comes along and gives us a means of support for making sure those rights are not infringed by any government.

if we disagree with what our government is doing, we can protest, make a phone call, send a letter, put a sign in our front yard, etc. without fear of the police hauling us off to a labor camp. (1st amendment)

if someone breaks into our house or tries to hurt us, we have a means to protect ourselves. if a government becomes treasonous, again, we have the means to protect ourselves from them. (2nd amendment)

i think you see where i'm going with this. maybe i'm wrong, but that's how i see it. and i agree, the government has been chipping away at them for almost as long as they've been around.

The bill of rights come from God? I thought that was the Bible. The simple fact is that your explanation of a militia kind of shows that the 2nd amendment is way out of date unless of course you misspoke and want to take it back. The 2nd amendment does not say your right to own a gun protects your freedom. It says a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. As you pointed out, we have no well regulated militias and that their purpose was to take the place of a standing army because our forefathers did not want a standing army. The simple fact is that we have a standing army and no militias. The 2nd amendment needs to be rewritten or we need to bring back well regulated militias because as it is written, it makes no sense.

mi·li·tia
/məˈliSHə/

noun

1. a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

i think we could easily muster well regulated militias if we really needed to. what if the standing army is in control of a treasonous dictator? what if the Capitol attack on 1/6 was successful and trump had control of the military because he didnt step down? would there not have been a need to muster militias to try and take back the Capitol? i think so. (and for the record, i wouldnt have acknowledged the takeover even if it had been successful in taking over the building.)

as for re-writing amendments, no way in hell i trust anyone in government to re-write any of them, let alone the 2nd. every civilian population in recent history that has been disarmed has soon after suffered greatly at the hands of their government. soviet union, china, germany, venezuela, etc.

i believe the founding fathers knew exactly what they were writing when they wrote that amendment and that it is purposely vague or not entirely specific so that it never goes out of date. they didnt say "every man has the right to a musket and 100 lead balls...." because that would not have kept up with the times for more than about 50 years after it was written.

i think we're off topic now

 

[Orange Dust]

The bill of rights come from God? I thought that was the Bible. The simple fact is that your explanation of a militia kind of shows that the 2nd amendment is way out of date unless of course you misspoke and want to take it back. The 2nd amendment does not say your right to own a gun protects your freedom. It says a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. As you pointed out, we have no well regulated militias and that their purpose was to take the place of a standing army because our forefathers did not want a standing army. The simple fact is that we have a standing army and no militias. The 2nd amendment needs to be rewritten or we need to bring back well regulated militias because as it is written, it makes no sense.

You must also remember the British tried to disarm us and the Citizens just won a war against them. They were not willing to give up any weapon after that and were afraid of a tyrannical Government. They penned the Bill of Rights to make sure History did not repeat. The 2nd amendent is the teeth in the Bill of Rights. You really should take the time to read the Federalist Papers and the History of the American Revolution. Both are fascinating. I confess I haven't read them in years and am going off memory because I learned it once and that was enough. This Country remained much the same until the South lost the first War and we had reconstruction and some amendments to the Constitution were illegally passed to punish the South. Government has had its teeth in us ever since. American History is fascinating if you read the old before it was rewritten. It has its highs and lows, but those that don't study them both are bound to repeat the bad. This Country is more divided now than it was in 1860 IMO. Now is a great time to study up and not repeat our past mistakes.

 

[Orange Dust]

i interpret it a different way. as humans, we are afforded basic rights given to us by our creator which include the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. that means no government can give or take away those rights. then the bill of rights comes along and gives us a means of support for making sure those rights are not infringed by any government.

if we disagree with what our government is doing, we can protest, make a phone call, send a letter, put a sign in our front yard, etc. without fear of the police hauling us off to a labor camp. (1st amendment)

if someone breaks into our house or tries to hurt us, we have a means to protect ourselves. if a government becomes treasonous, again, we have the means to protect ourselves from them. (2nd amendment)

i think you see where i'm going with this. maybe i'm wrong, but that's how i see it. and i agree, the government has been chipping away at them for almost as long as they've been around.


mi·li·tia
/məˈliSHə/

noun

1. a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

i think we could easily muster well regulated militias if we really needed to. what if the standing army is in control of a treasonous dictator? what if the Capitol attack on 1/6 was successful and trump had control of the military because he didnt step down? would there not have been a need to muster militias to try and take back the Capitol? i think so. (and for the record, i wouldnt have acknowledged the takeover even if it had been successful in taking over the building.)

as for re-writing amendments, no way in hell i trust anyone in government to re-write any of them, let alone the 2nd. every civilian population in recent history that has been disarmed has soon after suffered greatly at the hands of their government. soviet union, china, germany, venezuela, etc.

i believe the founding fathers knew exactly what they were writing when they wrote that amendment and that it is purposely vague or not entirely specific so that it never goes out of date. they didnt say "every man has the right to a musket and 100 lead balls...." because that would not have kept up with the times for more than about 50 years after it was written.

i think we're off topic now

Yes, and we are on them same lines of the same page. Doesn't look like I'm very good at explaining it though. Give up the 2nd amendment and you give up them all.

 

[22250imp]

Good.

It is written that it must get worse before the final day. I'll watch with anticipation. Those that will hear truth, I'll have fellowship with. Wide is the way, for the rest of the others.


-----------
Follow on Instagram
Subscribe on YouTube
Amazon Affiliate

God is a very patient God.

 

[Orange Dust]

God is a very patient God.

sure seems like some of US are in a hurry though.

 

[Orange Dust]

this thread has gotten sideways. I assume its because no one else has a constructive idea to answer Muddy's question?????

 

[Orange Dust]

Let me try and get back on track and refocus. When my wife and I married, the Minister would not marry us until we had several counseling sessions with him both together and separate. They lasted throughout our engagement, and through our first year. He said he wanted folks he married to stay that way. Don't know how normal this is, but he did teach us how to live together and we are still married 28 years later with no end in sight. I think this is a good start and idea for rebuilding the nuclear family. All problems begin at home IMO. I think this, or something like it is essential for raising good kids. They need the stability.

 

[vedauvoo]

I probably should not wade in, but oh well...

The fault does lie at the shooter's feet. But we cannot prevent every lunatic from shooting up schools unless we make it more difficult to do so. One way would be to raise the gun buying age to 21 for semiautomatic rifles. Another would be to make ARs and other semi-automatic rifles (perhaps excepting specific models such as the Browning BAR) Class III weapons under the NFA of 1934 but grandfather current owners. Every time I go to the Phoenix range these days I see multiple rifles with suppressors. Many LRH members have them, so it cannot be that difficult. And finally, we should ban shooter games - the "science" would say there is a strong correlation to these and mass killings.

Arming more people is not what the majority of the people in this country want. Most teachers do not want to carry weapons.

You can talk all day long about lack of parenting, etc. but too many families, many of whom own guns, are afraid it is only a matter of time before their child is killed. My SIL is a school teacher. I own an AR. I don't think making them Class III is too high of a price to pay if stops these killings. Sure, you can say lunatics will find other ways to kill kids, but I am willing to bet anyone here a lot of money that the frequency of mass killings would decline. But even if it didn't, it would force society to come to terms to with the problem. No other country has the number of mass shootings that we do in the US. It is simply too easy for a lunatic to walk into a gun store, buy an AR, and shoot up a school, movie theater, or some other complex.

Anyone who believes the government is behind this probably thinks the government was behind 911. Get real. You sound ridiculous and make us look like a bunch of idiots.

We can offer solutions ourselves or we can wait until enough people do it for us. We know the cries to ban ARs grows louder with every school shooting. At some point, this will happen. Doing something now will ensure we can all shoot LR in the future.

Ok, I am ready for the pounding...

and specifically from paragraph 4:

No other country has the number of mass shootings that we do in the US.

I keep hearing this and it's just not true.

From Muddyboots post #114:

I came across this link on HT that is worth sharing and is eye opener for me. Pretty much confirms to me that society at large is broken.

Sorry, Despite Gun-Control Advocates' Claims, U.S. Isn't The Worst Country For Mass Shootings

It's become common to hear after a U.S. shooting tragedy that America is more violent than nations in heavily gun-controlled Europe. It's just another myth.

www.investors.com

US is not even in the top 10.

The claim of LRNut (and many, may others) is an example of the classic fallacy in argument, "Begging the Question", assuming something is true, and then basing observations and arguments on that assumption.

Do you have numbers from the FBI crime data, or the CDC, of some other source to support your claim?

 

[orkan]

The bill of rights come from God? I thought that was the Bible. The simple fact is that your explanation of a militia kind of shows that the 2nd amendment is way out of date unless of course you misspoke and want to take it back. The 2nd amendment does not say your right to own a gun protects your freedom. It says a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. As you pointed out, we have no well regulated militias and that their purpose was to take the place of a standing army because our forefathers did not want a standing army. The simple fact is that we have a standing army and no militias. The 2nd amendment needs to be rewritten or we need to bring back well regulated militias because as it is written, it makes no sense.

I could have sworn I had you on my ignore list. I'm remedying that right now. There is NOTHING you say that I need to see.


-----------
Follow on Instagram
Subscribe on YouTube
Amazon Affiliate

 

[JimFromTN]

You must also remember the British tried to disarm us and the Citizens just won a war against them. They were not willing to give up any weapon after that and were afraid of a tyrannical Government. They penned the Bill of Rights to make sure History did not repeat. The 2nd amendent is the teeth in the Bill of Rights. You really should take the time to read the Federalist Papers and the History of the American Revolution. Both are fascinating. I confess I haven't read them in years and am going off memory because I learned it once and that was enough. This Country remained much the same until the South lost the first War and we had reconstruction and some amendments to the Constitution were illegally passed to punish the South. Government has had its teeth in us ever since. American History is fascinating if you read the old before it was rewritten. It has its highs and lows, but those that don't study them both are bound to repeat the bad. This Country is more divided now than it was in 1860 IMO. Now is a great time to study up and not repeat our past mistakes.

I agree and understand completely but the purpose was to have militias rather than a standing army as you pointed out. Every able bodied person was expected to be armed, trained, and ready for battle. Again, because that was needed in order not to have a standing army as you pointed out. We have a standing army and we have no militias. Seems like the intent of the 2nd amendment has gone by the wayside. Its no longer applicable. Seems like the first part of the 2nd amendment dealing with militias should be removed at the very least.

maybe it should be changed from

"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."

to

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, being necessary to the security of a free State."

That's the way everyone is interpreting it. Might as well make it official and remove all doubt.