School shootings - page 11

I read this on Twitter today: "The 31st school shooting of 2017 took place today. The 239th since Newtown. Name one thing we're doing to stop the slaughter of our kids." It saddens me that... Read More

  1. by   itsybitsy
    Quote from BCgradnurse
    Better go back and re-learn your history. Amendments can and have been repealed. Ever heard of Prohibition? The 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment.

    You must have been living under a rock if you don't think there wasn't outrage and a demand for change after Sandy Hook or every other mass shooting since that time. I guess you and those of your ilk just hear what you want to hear.
    Every Amendment after the 10th, wasn't in the original Constitution, set forth by the founding fathers of the United States, which is what I was referring to. The 18th Amendment was added more than 100 years after the Constitution was originally written. I think the 2nd Amendment holds more ground than banning of alcohol.

    Tell me what was banned after Sandy Hook. Or Va Tech. Or Pulse. Show me the change.
    Last edit by sirI on Feb 24
  2. by   Lil Nel
    Quote from itsybitsy
    Every Amendment after the 10th, wasn't in the original Constitution, set forth by the founding fathers of the United States, which is what I was referring to. The 18th Amendment was added more than 100 years after the Constitution was originally written. I think the 2nd Amendment holds more ground than banning of alcohol.

    Tell me what was banned after Sandy Hook. Or Va Tech. Or Pulse. Show me the change.
    LOLOLOLOL

    Nothing was banned after Sandy Hook. And that is because Congress has no balls. They are afraid of old man LaPierre.
    Last edit by sirI on Feb 24
  3. by   BCgradnurse
    Quote from itsybitsy
    Every Amendment after the 10th, wasn't in the original Constitution, set forth by the founding fathers of the United States, which is what I was referring to. The 18th Amendment was added more than 100 years after the Constitution was originally written. I think the 2nd Amendment holds more ground than banning of alcohol.

    Tell me what was banned after Sandy Hook. Or Va Tech. Or Pulse. Show me the change.
    Nothing was banned. There was no change. That's the problem. It was "too soon to talk about it". But that's not what you asked. You asked where the outrage was and I answered your question.
    Last edit by sirI on Feb 24
  4. by   itsybitsy
    Quote from MunoRN
    The 2nd amendment states that the right to bear arms in the form of a well regulated militia shall not be infringed, it does not state or imply that an unrestricted freedom to bear arms shall not be infringed. "Well regulated" by definition does not mean unrestricted, it means the opposite of unrestricted.
    You are literally butchering the Amendment to fit your definition. The full text is, "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."

    There is a COMMA, meaning separate - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State" COMMA, "the RIGHT of the PEOPLE TO to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".

    There needs to be a controlled military to protect the country and the people in the country have a right to have firearms, which cannot at all be tampered with.

    Quote from MunoRN
    but the founding fathers were clear the final interpretation is up to the Supreme Court, and the current interpretation, which comes from the most pro-gun rights Justice on the court, is that the government doesn't have the right to ban all guns or ban everyone from owning a gun, but the government absolutely can regulate what firearms are legal and who can legally own one based on excessive potential for harm.

    As a gun owner, I find the biggest threat to my right to own guns are those that argue there is no responsibility inherent with such a right, and argue that the right of a criminally insane person to own a gun specifically designed to kill as many people as possible before anybody can defend themselves is no different the right of a person who has the capacity to differentiate right from wrong owning a gun to protect themselves.
    Yes, that is what the Supreme Court has ruled, but it doesn't necessarily make it right or in accordance to what the founding fathers wanted. No body is offering that a person wanting to harm themselves or others should have guns, that's what background checks are for. But how far that background check/mental health history can go is what is worrisome.

    Quote from MunoRN
    It says it should be well regulated, not that it shouldn't be hindered

    You take the 2nd amendment to mean everyone should have access to everything the military has?
    You're misinterpreting it. But yes, if the government has it, in regards to arms, then the people should have access to it.

    [QUOTE=MunoRN;9743417]The revolutionary was fought with local militias using firearms that were otherwise used for lawful purposes, self defense and hunting mainly, so if you're arguing that the second amendment protects the type of defense and militia weapons used in the revolutionary war, then it clearly doesn't protect military specific weapons.

    It encompasses all ARMS, it doesn't differentiate. All ARMS include every arms the military processes.

    Quote from MunoRN
    The term "assault weapon" refers to high capacity, high rate of fire weapons, the specific thresholds for each of these characteristics that would make something illegal is what such a law would define. It would not be limited to AR-15 variants since it's not the outward style of the weapon that matters. High capacity and high rate of fire weapons do not provide a primarily lawful purpose and are therefore not protected.
    It would be easier if you just said automatic versus semi-automatic. Most don't know the difference and expect a semi-automatic to have the same rate of fire as an automatic because they look similar. The law only defines automatic weapons - rate of fire only comes into play BECAUSE it's an automatic, firing at rates higher than ever possible for a semi-automatic.

    Quote from MunoRN
    Being prohibited from owning a gun due to a mental health justification is not based on medical records, it's based on a court finding of being criminally insane (you don't understand the basic difference between right and wrong).

    I don't find this to be a commonly proposed action, that may well be an overstatement of the gun reform argument.
    I understand, but it is a solution offered that, especially highlight by Rubio, that HIPAA laws come into play. Background checks, as I said, aren't written into law that way, because of HIPAA, but if they were, again, the devil's advocate, as purposed by a few, it may hinder someone on obtaining a firearm that other wise would be able to get one in today's law.

    It is an overstatement on the majority, but not by much. But there are many who spout that.
  5. by   BCgradnurse
    Quote from itsybitsy
    Every Amendment after the 10th, wasn't in the original Constitution, set forth by the founding fathers of the United States, which is what I was referring to. The 18th Amendment was added more than 100 years after the Constitution was originally written. I think the 2nd Amendment holds more ground than banning of alcohol.

    Tell me what was banned after Sandy Hook. Or Va Tech. Or Pulse. Show me the change.
    So are you saying that the older amendments are the only ones that are valid? That makes no sense. Why do you think the 2nd Amendment holds more water than the 18th or 20th? Just because you say so? I doubt the Supreme Court would agree with you.
    Last edit by sirI on Feb 24
  6. by   nursej22
    For those who think that assault style rifles are no different that conventional weapons and do not merit restriction, please read this article;

    The AR-15 Is Different: What I Learned Treating Parkland Victims - The Atlantic

    "I was looking at a CT scan of one of the victims of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who had been brought to the trauma center during my call shift. The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, with extensive bleeding. How could a gunshot wound have caused this much damage?"
  7. by   sirI
    Thread closed for review.

close