At Least 26 Dead in Shooting at Connecticut Elementary School

[Tyburn]

You know what...if they really wanted to follow the constitution, then lets put it into context and say the ONLY firearms that an American should have are the firearms that were available in the 1700s. Because I dont think their forefathers imagined that they would start claiming that having to have large, quick fire, military grade weapons, were even included in an Amendment.

I'd be okay with that.

The Right to bear arms, therefore does not extend beyond what your forefathers knew as firearms. Anyone who thinks differently is using the consitution out of its historical context...they are extending the brackets to include things that cant have been sanctioned because they hadnt been invented yet!

Its ironic that this document is twisted as much by the conservatives for their love of guns, as it is by the liberals for their love of transitory fads.

[flo]

Originally Posted by wavetar

Understood Flo, and to be clear, I wasn't saying economic inequality was the sole cause of this, or any other mass shooting. My point was it's high time we (and I include Canada in this, we're kinda joined at the hip) took a serious look at the many internal issues which are leading to a breakdown in our societies. We concern ourselves with the rest of the world, yet our own houses are not in order, in fact, they are collapsing.

I agree the ethics are changing as you say, but the leaders of business and government have contributed mightily. Businesses by taking millions of jobs out of the nation's economy by out sourcing, and government by allowing this to happen. You can only take away so much before the strain begins to show, and attitudes begin to change for the worse.

There's a million books on socioeconomic issues, so I won't belabor the point here. I'm just saying big changes are needed. However, it has to begin with an acknowledgement that there is indeed a serious problem, and that it's a fundamental issue with our society. Without that, we remain divisive, ineffective, and powerless to make changes.

Yes, I see what you're saying. Good points, Todd.

[flo]

Originally Posted by Tyburn

You know what...if they really wanted to follow the constitution, then lets put it into context and say the ONLY firearms that an American should have are the firearms that were available in the 1700s. Because I dont think their forefathers imagined that they would start claiming that having to have large, quick fire, military grade weapons, were even included in an Amendment.

I'd be okay with that.

The Right to bear arms, therefore does not extend beyond what your forefathers knew as firearms. Anyone who thinks differently is using the consitution out of its historical context...they are extending the brackets to include things that cant have been sanctioned because they hadnt been invented yet!

Its ironic that this document is twisted as much by the conservatives for their love of guns, as it is by the liberals for their love of transitory fads.

Sorry, Dave, but you are totally wrong here. The second amendment only affirms our God-given right. The forefathers knew we had to be armed to resist a tyrannical government, like King George's. The intent of the Second Amendment is to be certain that the people were armed at the same level as the government, purely to make sure that attempted tyranny would be a bloody and dangerous business.

Careful with your statements about our supposed "love" of guns and our beloved Constitution. Just saying.

[rev]

Originally Posted by Tyburn

You know what...if they really wanted to follow the constitution, then lets put it into context and say the ONLY firearms that an American should have are the firearms that were available in the 1700s. Because I dont think their forefathers imagined that they would start claiming that having to have large, quick fire, military grade weapons, were even included in an Amendment.

I'd be okay with that.

The Right to bear arms, therefore does not extend beyond what your forefathers knew as firearms. Anyone who thinks differently is using the consitution out of its historical context...they are extending the brackets to include things that cant have been sanctioned because they hadnt been invented yet!

Its ironic that this document is twisted as much by the conservatives for their love of guns, as it is by the liberals for their love of transitory fads.

Are you kidding me?! Dave you are way smarter than that. The right to bear arms was for the purpose of defense. More specifically, it was to keep the local Militias armed. That being the case, based on what you are saying, we should only be allowed to defend ourselves with muskets?!
BTW. Over here in the USA, some of us love to shoot guns. Like, for fun. To some, its a sport. You can call it, trying to be more manly if you want, I dont care. We work, earn money, pay bills, then if we can afford it afterward, we purchase a gun or ammo and shoot. (and i promise you that none of us give a crap if anyone thinks we do it to be more of a man)
I have been quiet on this issue but man, come on.
AND! The comment before about banning guns that look like machine guns is nuts. So because a gun is black and has a larger magazine(that's a "clip"), it should be banned? Well, then i guess we cant have black handled kitchen knives because they look like small swords and heaven knows that swords have been used to kill a whole bunch of people. Guess even machetes are out of the question as well. Sorry fellas, we are going to have to gnaw our ways throught the brush instead of using a machete because it looks like a sword. I can keep going based on this ignorant way of thinking!
We should ban black or brown trucks because they look like military vehicles.
A hunting shotgun with buck shot could have killed more people in less time than that kid with the AR15 did in CT.
The fact is, PEOPLE commit crimes. Not guns.
According to the FBI, the #1 wepon of choice in violent crimes is a baseball bat. Why arent people trying to restrict baseball bat ownership? Could it be because they are used also for sport? hmmmm. Imagine that. If you really want to split hairs, look at the baseball bat. Looks like a club. What was the original use for a club?....... you see where Im going with this?

The limits need to be reasonable, yes. No need for a citizen to have a full auto weapon or grenades. I agree. I know some lame arguments will be thrown my way on this and when I get back on I will shoot them down or reason with them, but they better be stronger than, "well they look bad".

No disrepect brother. I love you man. I hope I havn't made a bunch of folks mad but, come on.

[rev]

Originally Posted by wavetar

Understood Flo, and to be clear, I wasn't saying economic inequality was the sole cause of this, or any other mass shooting. My point was it's high time we (and I include Canada in this, we're kinda joined at the hip) took a serious look at the many internal issues which are leading to a breakdown in our societies. We concern ourselves with the rest of the world, yet our own houses are not in order, in fact, they are collapsing.

I agree the ethics are changing as you say, but the leaders of business and government have contributed mightily. Businesses by taking millions of jobs out of the nation's economy by out sourcing, and government by allowing this to happen. You can only take away so much before the strain begins to show, and attitudes begin to change for the worse.

There's a million books on socioeconomic issues, so I won't belabor the point here. I'm just saying big changes are needed. However, it has to begin with an acknowledgement that there is indeed a serious problem, and that it's a fundamental issue with our society. Without that, we remain divisive, ineffective, and powerless to make changes.

Well said!!!

[Neezar]

Originally Posted by Tyburn

The joke of making such a silly statement about invasion is on you...invasion is the reason you exist on that side of the world and not this! (at least for the vast majorty of people)

[rev]

Originally Posted by flo

Sorry, Dave, but you are totally wrong here. The second amendment only affirms our God-given right. The forefathers knew we had to be armed to resist a tyrannical government, like King George's. The intent of the Second Amendment is to be certain that the people were armed at the same level as the government, purely to make sure that attempted tyranny would be a bloody and dangerous business.

Careful with your statements about our supposed "love" of guns and our beloved Constitution. Just saying.

Thank you flo!!!!!!

[Play The Man]

Originally Posted by Tyburn

The reason you never get invaded has nothing to do with your weapons. Its pure Geography....But you can be...and have been collonized. Your Whole way of being exists because various European Empires set up collonies on your soil. You may not think that that constitutes an invasion...and a full scale invasion you would be right, mainly, again due to the vastness...you are NOT one Country, but Fifty...in terms of countries...I think the French managed to invade the most of Continental America...But I can assure you also that when the British and others docked off your coasts, the land was FAR from empty. Now WTF do you suppose happened to the people who lived in those lands before your decendants conqurered. I very much doubt the vast majority of you are anything but the product of large scale immergration...Essentially your not "American" ethnically speaking at all. You are the living remains of the conquest that you guys never seem to speak about. The joke of making such a silly statement about invasion is on you...invasion is the reason you exist on that side of the world and not this! (at least for the vast majorty of people)

Modern day...Noone can attack the US coz the technology wont stretch that far without refueling...why do you think your so dependant on the West to be able to fight your wars? the same is true for you....thats why there are US bases all around Europe...its a half way point, because remove those bases and you'd be a seagoing force only...your aircraft would have to be launched, and would have to make stops on ships in order to even reach your enemies, let alone fight them.

Only Canada and mexico could invade you...you got out of Mexico by using the Republic of Texas as a shield during its collonialism period...and Canada...well you pre-empted any invasion attempt by trying to invade her right after the war of independance...unfortunately for you (in this case) there is several inland oceans between your nation and hers...and you werent very successful in your attempt...another thing you never hear Americans speak about...FAR from wanting simply to be free of British Rule...you then ACTIVELY marched on a nearby nation and tried to oppress its people. What a cheek considering how much you go on about rights and freedoms...perhaps those could be extended to the canadians also?

Tyburn, I really find it ironic that you and other Brits lecture us about gun ownership given what happened within the lifetime of people that are still alive. Please read up on WW2. Pictured above is a poster from The American Committee For Defense of British Homes. They collected donations from private American citizens to help arm England to defend against a Nazi invasion of the British Isles. According to the last weekly report released by the committee on Dec. 6, 1941 (the day before the bombing of Pearl Harbor) private American citizens had donated and shipped 5,133 shotguns and rifles, 6,337 revolvers, 110 Thompson submachine guns and 642,291 rounds of ammunition. The committee was also able to procure from U.S. government surplus and ship to Britain a total of 13, 763 revolvers, 30,000 magazines and 1.4 million rounds of ammunition. Part of the reason you are not speaking German is because American "gun nuts" helped arm you and save your bacon. When your Muslims start their takeover, please don't expect us to arm you again. I have a feeling the help won't be there this time.

[Play The Man]

Originally Posted by adamt

google 'bath massacre'

1927 school 37 dead no guns

Please see post #56

[adamt]

i'm sorry for repeating you ptm, i knew i picked that up from somewhere

i thought i came across it on facebook

i get tired of researching for stuff like that PTM, from now on I am going to just ask you and let you tell me stuff from memory

btw, thought of you the other day when I was reading about polycarp, when i was doing research on Smyrna