Mass Shootings - Why?

[JimFromTN]

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

good for you

 

[Mike D Texas]

Ironically, I am far more worried about the people deciding to overthrow the government because they don't like who the people elected than I am the government. People stormed the capitol in an attempt to overturn an election in this country. That wasn't 100 or 200 years ago. That was a little over a year ago. I am not hanging onto my ARs to defend myself from the government. I am hanging onto them to defend myself and my country from them.

Surely you don't believe the false narrative that a group of unarmed individuals were there to attempt some kind of government overthrow or procedural overthrow?

I only saw one group of people armed and that was the government, and they killed an unarmed civilian/citizen.

THAT should worry you and every American as that is what they see as utopia and their end goal. It's been repeated through history multiple times. The 2A is the only thing stopping it from happening here. It should be protected/preserved at all costs.

 

[762x51]

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 Its no longer applicable.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.

i can agree with you on that, but i dont think our politicians would.

 

[Orange Dust]

Surely you don't believe the false narrative that a group of unarmed individuals were there to attempt some kind of government overthrow or procedural overthrow?

Are you guilty of assault if you hit someone with a feather? Woops, I better take that back, in some states you might be...... GEESSSSSH! Getting sideways again...

 

[JimFromTN]

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

Actually, its because I brought AR's into the conversation and it went off the rails. I don't think you can have an honest constructive conversation about the topic without at least mentioning it. Like I said, its the elephant in the room that is a forbidden topic. You can't say, how about we make it harder for lunatics to get their hands on ARs. If you say that, you have committed treason and hate the constitution.

Also, I think its all been said
more armed guards at schools
arm the teachers
get rid of video games
get rid of violent movies
put God back in school
get rid of woke liberals
make parents be better parents
do something about mental health

Did I miss something?

Of course when you bring up any solutions that may make it harder for lunatics to get their hands on firearms, the response is that they will find another way. If that is the case, they could walk into Chucky Cheese instead of a school and do the same thing so why bother protecting the schools. They will just find another way.

 

[James K.]

I can't let this one pass unchallenged. Regarding the Ryan Busse interview, as the fact checkers are fond of saying, "Lacks context."

Ryan Busse is interviewed by Greg Sargent in an opinion piece published in the Washington Post. He has found a niche among Progressives, much as Adam Kinsinger and Liz Cheney and the notorious Lincoln Project Anti-Trumpers. His writing is in the New York Times, The Dailey Beast, and the New Yorker, all noted for their gymnastics in pushing the cause of Progressivism-facts be d*****. He is on CNN with Chris Hayes and Christiane Amanpour. He's chatting with Trevor Noah. He published one book: Gunfight: My Battle Against the Industry that Radicalized America, in October 2021. He is everywhere a good Progressive preacher should be.

When your tool is a hammer, every problem becomes a nail. And he loves to hammer him some AR-15s. That has been his ticket to modern day relativism.

Thank you so much for your fastidious, excellent revelation of context. Context is everything....& your information changes the dialogue & exposes the true intentions.
Todays "Progressives" are the previous generations radicals.
"Progressive" is a term they coined to hide the fact that they are true radicals, wolves in sheep's clothing, who are actively aiming to replace our Republic with a Socialist government.... the exact opposite of what this country was founded on.
I am with Thomas Jefferson on this one,
"I prefer dangerous freedom to peaceful slavery"
Has America grown tired of the responsibility that freedom requires?

 

[1mechanic]

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 need to read more history books or look at what intelligent people of the time were saying. They were definitely saying the right to bear arms was to protect your freedom.

 

[vedauvoo]

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.

This whole ...well regulated militia question was exhaustively examined in "District of Columbia v. Heller". Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion is 64 pages of weighty reading, but there is an excellent one-page summary by Ed Whelan in National Review, June 26, 2008:

District of Columbia v. Heller: Scalia’s Majority Opinion | National Review

Here’s a quick (and, given its 64 pages, necessarily highly selective) summary of Justice Scalia’s opinion for a 5-member majority in District of Columbia v. Heller, invalidating D.C.’s handgun ban…

www.nationalreview.com

From that summary a quote from Scalia:

The prefatory clause [a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,] "fits perfectly" with the operative clause [the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed], as the founding generation knew that "the way tyrants had eliminated a militia … was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people's arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents." (25) But the prefatory clause "does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting."

So yeah, the 2nd amendment is all about protecting our freedom.

 

[Rick Richard]

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

I believe you have unearthed a Troll.

 

[FEENIX]

Guns or the 2A is NOT the problem.

 

[Orange Dust]

I believe you have unearthed a Troll.

I've been trying to feed him a red pill for several pages. I'm afraid he swallowed it but washed it down with a glass of CNN. Don't give up. He's saveable if he will just do the research.

 

[Rick Richard]

I've been trying to feed him a red pill for several pages. I'm afraid he swallowed it but washed it down with a glass of CNN. Don't give up. He's saveable if he will just do the research.

Sometimes you just have to cut your losses.

 

[xsn10s]

Delete

 

[underwoodbits]

This is why we have gun control in this country, we have gun owners that believe we actually need it.

Fudd
Slang term for a "casual" gun owner; eg; a person who typically only owns guns for hunting or shotgun sports and does not truly believe in the true premise of the second amendment. These people also generally treat owners/users of so called "non sporting" firearms like handguns or semiautomatic rifles with unwarranted scorn or contempt.