Originally posted by Prusak #FineAndDandy:

I give you 5 posts to stop attacking each other

I'm done with him, his blatant disregard for anything resembling empathy or truth makes me want to shoot (oops) him, but instead I will just ignore him.

I will continue with the discussion with the remaining rational people.

Originally posted by robomagon:

Originally posted by rojimboo:

Stop pretending as if you had balls.

You can't even debate the topic.

So if I disagree with you I must be lying? A little concieted with yourself aren't you?

No.

I know for a fact you are lying, and that in RL you would never have the courage to say something like that to the faces of the victims' families, or god forbid if something were to happen to your family.

Why do I know this?

Because you are a nerd cowering behind his keyboard and internet anonymity.

Originally posted by robomagon:

Originally posted by rojimboo:

Mighty hypocritical aren't we?

Would you change your tune if your loved ones were shot in the mall perhaps?

Is this a lack of empathy issue?

How am I hypocritical?

Nope.

No again.

Stop pretending as if you had balls.

You can't even debate the topic.

Originally posted by robomagon:

Ahem.

Attention families of the deceased.

Your loved ones died a justified death to protect personal freedom.

Mighty hypocritical aren't we?

Would you change your tune if your loved ones were shot in the mall perhaps?

Is this a lack of empathy issue?

Originally posted by robomagon:

Originally posted by rojimboo:

Most people wouldn't be adverse to the idea of mentally ill people walking around with rifles with live ammunition.

I mean, psychological screenings are commonplace in many workplaces.

What is one step further, if it saves lives?

I don't really see a downside so far to it.

Maybe you can enlighten me.

Freedom.

There are plenty of "steps" we could take to save lives at the cost of personal freedom. As long as you don't care about the difference between being alive and living.

Please inform the families of the deceased their loved ones died a justified death to protect personal freedom.

It's a laughable argument to begin with, assuming there is such a thing as personal freedom when it comes to the safety (or death) of bystanders.

And if you are on about the 2nd amendment, having been brainwashed by the NRA lobbyists, I can only say woe unto you.

1. “The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, thus gun control measures are unconstitutional.”

Those who make this argument are misinformed as to the original intent of the 2nd Amendment and have either been tricked by the modern gun lobby’s marketing or are actively perverting its meaning.

First, here is the text of the 2nd Amendment:

“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.”

Gun enthusiasts and gun lobbyists love to cite the 2nd amendment to the constitution as the catch-all defense to their right to carry any weapon that they can get their hands on (ex. assault rifles). In order to do this, these gun owners/sellers have hopelessly perverted the original intent of the 2nd Amendment and have expanded its guarantee of the right to “keep and bear arms” far beyond its original bounds.

From its passage and until the late 20th century, the 2nd Amendment to the constitution was interpreted to protect the rights of states to maintain militias and for militiamen to sustain arsenals. In the early years of our country, there was no standing federal army (the founders were afraid of a national standing army consolidating power) and the states were expected to sustain a state militia in order to contribute to the national defense; this expectation necessitated protections for militias that would facilitate militiamen keeping weapons for their service.

The 2nd amendment was predicated upon the maintenance of state militias—something that has become irrelevant in the face of our federal armed services—and is not something that should have allowed individuals to claim the right to own weapons. State militias had the right to bear arms, but individual, unattached Americans had no such right—this distinction in the difference between the 2ndAmendment being a collective right or an individual right.

Chief Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger—a Republican—said the following about the proposal that the 2nd Amendment is aimed at protecting every American’s right to own guns:

“…one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I’ve ever seen in my life time. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies—the militias—would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.”

As Justice Burger said in no uncertain terms, before gun lobbyists and activists began campaigning to change the understanding of the 2nd Amendment in the late 20th century, nobody considered it to be an individual right. Unfortunately, a decades-long concerted effort by gun lobbyists and big money conservatives has successfully shifted the meaning of the 2nd Amendment so that it can be used to justify letting anybody own any weapon that they choose.

g3

In 2008, the right wing contingent on the most recent Supreme Court (the same people who said that corporations are people) decided to throw away centuries of juris prudence and extend the 2ndAmendment as an individual protection for gun owners’ right to bear arms. During the case, United States v. Emerson, the Supreme Court decided that the 2nd Amendment is not a collective protection for gun ownership in militias, but rather a protection for individuals to own and operate weapons. This decision flies in the face of centuries of settled law and, like Citizens United v. FEC is just another case where right wing extremist wearing robes have perverted our country’s longstanding understanding of our laws.

Despite the changed definition of the 2nd Amendment, reasonable gun control regulations are not unconstitutional on their face; the 2nd Amendment may now be interpreted as an individual right, but this does not mean that it is unlimited.

Many restriction on who can own firearms (ex. state laws barring felons from owning guns), where guns can be carried (ex. no-gun zones) and which guns are legal (ex. the assault weapons ban) have been held as constitutional. What gun control proponents (people who care more about children being killed then their ability to buy 4 assault rifles in one day) suggest is not a blanket ban on guns, but an expansion of the already constitutional limits that exist. It may not be constitutional for the government to put a blanket ban on weapons, but it is certainly proper for it to enact strong restrictions which keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of people who cannot responsibly operate them.

Even in its perverted form, the 2nd Amendment is not the perfect defense for gun ownership and is not an impediment for gun control regulation. After all, if the 2nd Amendment were absolute, imprisoned criminals would have the constitutionally protected right to carry a missile launcher with them while in the prison; using it to hurt people or damage property would be a crime, but carrying it would be a simple exercise of constitutional rights. In this direction, madness and mass killings wait for our society.

The next time a gun enthusiast proposes that the 2nd Amendment gives them the absolute right to bear any arms that they wish, pose the previous situation to them and ask them to reconcile their interpretation of the Amendment with realistic laws. What you will get as an answer will be a contorted explanation on how criminal conduct negates the 2nd Amendment rights (absolute rights don’t work like that—case in point: the 1st Amendment) and how it is not sane or safe for criminals to have access to weapons while in prison. To be fair, they are half correct that such a gun policy is neither sane nor safe in our prisons, but, then again, neither is their proposed gun control regime on general society.

Link[theprogressivecynic.com]

Originally posted by Stake from Jate Farm:

Originally posted by rojimboo:

Most people wouldn't be adverse to the idea of mentally ill people walking around with rifles with live ammunition.

I mean, psychological screenings are commonplace in many workplaces.

What is one step further, if it saves lives?

I don't really see a downside so far to it.

Maybe you can enlighten me.

Because if it's a test, then it can be cheated, and if it's a machine, then that'd be expensive as all hell to implement in most gun shops.

That, and I can't find anything on the Washington shooter being mentally disturbed.

I guess mentally ill people can just download an online book called "How to appear sane" and cheat in the psychiatrist's/psychologist's assessment of the issue.

But it's better than nothing.

Originally posted by robomagon:

Originally posted by rojimboo:

Actually, ethnicity has long been disproven as a link to violent crime.

Don't believe every correlation published on Fox.

All it takes is one.

Most people would be adverse to the idea of mentally ill people walking around with rifles with live ammunition.

I mean, psychological screenings are commonplace in many workplaces.

What is one step further, if it saves lives?

I don't really see a downside so far to it.

Maybe you can enlighten me.

Originally posted by robomagon:

Originally posted by rojimboo:

All it takes is one.

Psychological screening is common throughout the civilised world, especially dealing with firearms and live ammunition.

Things like depression probably doesn't qualify seeing as everyone will be depressed at some point in their lives, but I leave that to the experts.

How about racial screening then? I'm sure there's plenty of data to support that certain races are more likely to commit violent crimes with guns.

Actually, ethnicity has long been disproven as a link to violent crime.

Don't believe every correlation published on Fox.

Originally posted by robomagon:

Originally posted by rojimboo:

So regarding the recent WA shooting.

Guy with history of mental illness got himself a rifle and live ammunition.

The result? As expected.

More gun control please.

My sympathies for your countrymen and women.

How is that the expected result? There are many people with mental illnesses that have guns. That's an atypical result.

All it takes is one.

Psychological screening is common throughout the civilised world, especially dealing with firearms and live ammunition.

Things like depression probably doesn't qualify seeing as everyone will be depressed at some point in their lives, but I leave that to the experts.

So regarding the recent WA shooting.

Guy with history of mental illness got himself a rifle and live ammunition.

The result? As expected.

More gun control please.

My sympathies for your countrymen and women.