10 or more dead 20 or more wounded in campus massacre

[Tom Sawyer]

Guns should be purchased only after thorough nonbiased psychiatric evaluation.

Mentally stable ex military marksmen should be employed by the government as armed guards at school grounds. Crime will always happen. Slautering innocent children must be stopped though. And not by removing the second ammendment.

2¢

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

You want to post snipers at schools? That's the worst idea anyone has ever had.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Guns should be purchased only after thorough nonbiased psychiatric evaluation.

Mentally stable ex military marksmen should be employed by the government as armed guards at school grounds. Crime will always happen. Slautering innocent children must be stopped though. And not by removing the second ammendment.

2¢

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

You want to post snipers at schools? That's the worst idea anyone has ever had.

It seems like "Faith in selfless Unity for Good." means "don't actually think about anything".

 

[popsthebuilder]

You want to post snipers at schools? That's the worst idea anyone has ever had.

It seems like "Faith in selfless Unity for Good." means "don't actually think about anything".

Number one I said absolutely nothing about snipers number to how is posting trained internal terrorist counter operatives otherwise known as trained armed guards a bad idea? I really get tired of yalls in discriminant ridicule it doesn't matter what I say every one of you is going to say the f****** officer I posted the same ideal in about 4 different forms and everyone thought it was a really good idea. And talk about persecution the f*** out of here with the b*******. What's your idea just let innocent children keep getting murdered for absolutely no reason it doesn't matter what kind of extreme as they are there killing f****** kids wake the f*** up if you're not part of the solution you're part of the f****** problem

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Guns should be purchased only after thorough nonbiased psychiatric evaluation.

Mentally stable ex military marksmen should be employed by the government as armed guards at school grounds. Crime will always happen. Slautering innocent children must be stopped though. And not by removing the second ammendment.

2¢

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

You want to post snipers at schools? That's the worst idea anyone has ever had.

But the kids will now have a place to put their flowers - down the barrels of the guns like in the 60s.

Honestly though, I favor claymores built into the walls of all school entryways and lobbies. Command detonation is the best way to eliminate the threat.

 

[skepticalbip]

You want to post snipers at schools? That's the worst idea anyone has ever had.

But the kids will now have a place to put their flowers - down the barrels of the guns like in the 60s.

Honestly though, I favor claymores built into the walls of all school entryways and lobbies. Command detonation is the best way to eliminate the threat.

Gotta love claymores.

But also modern day portcullis like used in banks where the heavy bullet proof doors lock on either side of the suspect to hold them. But then the old heavy grate portcullis would be kinda neat.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

It seems like "Faith in selfless Unity for Good." means "don't actually think about anything".

Number one I said absolutely nothing about snipers number to how is posting trained internal terrorist counter operatives otherwise known as trained armed guards a bad idea? I really get tired of yalls in discriminant ridicule it doesn't matter what I say every one of you is going to say the f****** officer I posted the same ideal in about 4 different forms and everyone thought it was a really good idea. And talk about persecution the f*** out of here with the b*******. What's your idea just let innocent children keep getting murdered for absolutely no reason it doesn't matter what kind of extreme as they are there killing f****** kids wake the f*** up if you're not part of the solution you're part of the f****** problem

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Please remain civil.

 

[Ford]

Number one I said absolutely nothing about snipers number to how is posting trained internal terrorist counter operatives otherwise known as trained armed guards a bad idea? I really get tired of yalls in discriminant ridicule it doesn't matter what I say every one of you is going to say the f****** officer I posted the same ideal in about 4 different forms and everyone thought it was a really good idea. And talk about persecution the f*** out of here with the b*******. What's your idea just let innocent children keep getting murdered for absolutely no reason it doesn't matter what kind of extreme as they are there killing f****** kids wake the f*** up if you're not part of the solution you're part of the f****** problem

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Please remain civil.

Or at least sober.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Please remain civil.

Or at least sober.

I'm always sober. I might smoke pot once every two weeks if that. I will gladly remain civil as long as everyone else does.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Well can we at least use the WHOLE amendment?

And the whole tenth amendment too?

you think we haven't been using the whole tenth amendment? I'm sure we have.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

What part are we not using?

 

[arkirk]

Or at least sober.

I'm always sober. I might smoke pot once every two weeks if that. I will gladly remain civil as long as everyone else does.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Those snipers guarding the kids...do they smoke pot? Seriously we need to eliminate things we actually have no need for. We can start with the snipers, then move on to the guns. The real problem with guns is that their social effects are all negative. Far too much is made of gun tradition. Many people in our country can live an entire life and never even touch a gun. They are really not needed. They are dangerous. In fact, the only reason they exist is that they are dangerous and can only be used to either threaten or kill others. So if we want to rule by threat....get a cadre of snipers. You see where the problem is. To buy a gun and become a "responsible gun owner" is to assert that our environment is so wide open there is a lot of territory where guns can be discharged. If you don't accept that is the case, then you shouldn't have a gun. The problem is that more and more, there really are not places to discharge firearms...especially in cities. So that just leaves threat and crime their only use. The psychology of gun ownership for self protection is based on fear you will be confronted with a threat to life and limb and that a gun can somehow alleviate the threat. Somehow, this just doesn't play out that way in real life.

 

[skepticalbip]

And the whole tenth amendment too?

you think we haven't been using the whole tenth amendment? I'm sure we have.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

What part are we not using?

The whole amendment, specifically " reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Try to find any power that was delegated to the US government in the body of the Constitution to pass any legislation regarding fire arms. There are currently many such federal regulations.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

you think we haven't been using the whole tenth amendment? I'm sure we have.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

What part are we not using?

The whole amendment, specifically " reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Try to find any power that was delegated to the US government in the body of the Constitution to pass any legislation regarding fire arms. There are currently many such federal regulations.

so the states have no powers whatsoever because the 10th amendment is always in all situations ignored?

OR is there one particular thing you feel the amendment is not used for?

If it is one thing or even a list of things, neither would mean that the amendment was not used in its entirety, but not used consistantly.

As for the federal firearms laws, which laws are not in keeping with the 10th amendment?

 

[skepticalbip]

The whole amendment, specifically " reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Try to find any power that was delegated to the US government in the body of the Constitution to pass any legislation regarding fire arms. There are currently many such federal regulations.

so the states have no powers whatsoever because the 10th amendment is always in all situations ignored?

OR is there one particular thing you feel the amendment is not used for?

If it is one thing or even a list of things, neither would mean that the amendment was not used in its entirety, but not used consistantly.

As for the federal firearms laws, which laws are not in keeping with the 10th amendment?

WTF?

Who the fuck claimed the states are always completely ignored? None of the amendments or the Constitutional provisions should ever be ignored. Once is too many times.

The problem is that the US govt. only recognizes the 10th when it doesn't get in the way of what they want to do. If it gets in the way of what they want to do then "fuck it". Often it likes the 10th like when they want the states to handle something that would cause the Congress problems with public opinion.

I notice that you didn't accept my challenge of trying to find that power granted to the US govt., opting instead to offer your silly strawman.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

so the states have no powers whatsoever because the 10th amendment is always in all situations ignored?

OR is there one particular thing you feel the amendment is not used for?

If it is one thing or even a list of things, neither would mean that the amendment was not used in its entirety, but not used consistantly.

As for the federal firearms laws, which laws are not in keeping with the 10th amendment?

WTF?

Who the fuck claimed the states are always completely ignored?

You did (and I did not the states were being ignored but that the amendment was, the states would then have no power)

you think we haven't been using the whole tenth amendment? I'm sure we have.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

What part are we not using?

The whole amendment, specifically " reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Try to find any power that was delegated to the US government in the body of the Constitution to pass any legislation regarding fire arms. There are currently many such federal regulations.

​

When asked what part of the amendment wasn't being used, you said the whole amendment. If it isn't being used, would it not be fair to say it is being ignored?

The problem is that the US govt. only recognizes the 10th when it doesn't get in the way of what they want to do.

uh huh

1918-A federal statute seeks to end child labor by prohibiting the interstate shipment of goods that child laborers had produced. In Hammer v. Dagenhart, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the statute goes beyond the powers the Constitution delegated to the federal government. The court finds that under the 10th Amendment, the individual states have the right to decide how to regulate the use of child labor in manufacturing

1935-To combat the Great Depression, Congress and Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration establish the National Industrial Recovery Administration (NRA), which is one of the New Deal’s key programs. Its provisions include requirements for minimum wages and maximum hours, and certain price controls. In Schechter Corp. v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court says the program exceeds Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce and invades the states’ rights to regulate manufacturing.

1995-In United States v. Lopez, the U.S. Supreme Court grants the states more rights. It rules that Congress overstepped its authority under the commerce clause when it passed the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act. To uphold a law that determined the punishment for gun possession and gun use near schools, the court rules, would convert the commerce clause authority into general police power held only by the states under the 10th Amendment.

1997-A federal gun control law, known as the Brady Law, requires local authorities to perform background checks on potential gun buyers. In Printz v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court holds that the law violates the 10th Amendment. The federal government cannot issue directives requiring the states to address particular problems, or command state officials to enforce a federal regulatory program. The court says such commands are “fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”

2000-Legislation about domestic violence and family law traditionally had been left to the states. In United States v. Morrison, the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down a provision in the federal Violence Against Women Act because it exceeds Congress’ authority under the commerce clause and impinges on state control. A provision that permits victims of genderbased violence to bring federal lawsuits against their attackers is found to invade states’ police power.

http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/Files/Documents/Tenth Amendment.pdf

Seems like it's getting used to me.And it is getting the way of the federal govt doing what it wants to do.

If it gets in the way of what they want to do then "fuck it". Often it likes the 10th like when they want the states to handle something that would cause the Congress problems with public opinion.

I notice that you didn't accept my challenge of trying to find that power granted to the US govt., opting instead for your silly strawman.

There was no straw man, the tenth amendment gets used, and the commerce clause (which is in the constitution and seems to give gun advocates the most hissy fits) is a thing in the world of real things. Now if gun manufacturers want to give away their product and make it no longer commerce, gun advocates should have no problems.

 

[coloradoatheist]

It's interesting...how many pro choice people would be okay with the federal govt using the commerce clause to outlaw abortion? And that one doesn't even have another amendment protecting it. The next step for gun control advocates, is an amendment.

 

[maxparrish]

Chris Mercer was a law abiding citizen who owned multiple guns, per NRA doctrine, right up until he went on a shooting rampage on a community college campus.

So was every mass shooter in memory--right up until they weren't.

That is silly and untutored. Your equivalence logic implies that every law abiding citizen has the same likelihood of using (or not using) a firearm to harm the innocent. Most continue to abide by the law, a few such as Mercer, do not.

And we know that those who harbor extreme socially hostile feelings (such as Mercer), even if were previously law abiding, are unlikely to be substantially deterred by intolerant attitudes and legal prohibitions. Moronic intolerance such as a "gun free" campus, banning concealed carry, and disarming the lone security officer did nothing. Nor did, for that matter, going through a background check.

But most good folk are law abiding and not filled with rage, AND they are deterred by intolerant gun attitudes and prohibitions on gun use. Ergo, there is disproportionately several thousand fold MORE of such innocent folk who are/will be unable to defend themselves under conditions of social and legal intolerance.

If you increase tolerance, the much larger pool of innocent and the potential pool of victims will be the primary beneficiaries. You will increase both deterrence and their ability to stop killings. If you increase intolerance, the spree and mass killers will benefit.

As I said: "We don't need more guns per se', we need to tolerate law abiding citizens and public officials having practical access to firearms so as to provide equal means of self-defense." because most will continue to be law abiding, and it is INTOLERANCE of such access that benefits the Mercers of the world, not Jane Doe.

That should not be difficult to grasp, even for the most fevered gun defender in America. Unless you think "the American Character" is that EVERYONE is must be prepared to defend against a violent criminal or deranged individual , and identify such at a glance and preferably (?? not sure your actual position) neutralize the threat, your argument is beyond specious.

It is not difficult to grasp that either EVERYONE should have access to a firearm (if they wish) to defend themselves from an intruder, mass killer etc. OR citizens and officials should be able to defend others promptly and effectively. Perhaps you could explain how disarming the innocent and victims is not "specious" nor "beyond" heartless?

You've just bitch-slapped and smacked down max in a few words.

In the US there is no divine right of kings but there is certainly a divine right of gun ownership. Hopefully that too will pass.

Do you hear the sound of one hand clapping? It's deafening.

 

[skepticalbip]

It's interesting...how many pro choice people would be okay with the federal govt using the commerce clause to outlaw abortion? And that one doesn't even have another amendment protecting it. The next step for gun control advocates, is an amendment.

That would certainly be the correct way to address their desires if we want to remain a Constitutional republic rather than become a mob rule society.

 

[skepticalbip]

......................
............ Now if gun manufacturers want to give away their product and make it no longer commerce, gun advocates should have no problems.

The rest of you post is too full of BS. but this is exemplary of you ignorance of the laws. Many of the current federal regulations does not allow anyone to own certain categories of fire arms even if they make them themselves from scratch for personal use, not for sale.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It is not difficult to grasp that either EVERYONE should have access to a firearm (if they wish) to defend themselves from an intruder, mass killer etc. OR citizens and officials should be able to defend others promptly and effectively. Perhaps you could explain how disarming the innocent and victims is neither "specious" nor "beyond" heartless?

No, it's not difficult to grasp, just like the ideals behind communism aren't difficult to grasp.

However, just like communism, this idea actually falls apart when applied to reality. Greater access to guns makes things more dangerous, not safer, especially when it's Americans being given this access. Just like you shouldn't let twelve year olds drive race cars on the highway, no matter how well they do playing Need For Speed on the XBox, you shouldn't be given Americans easy access to firearms, no matter how well they'd handle themselves with them in a theoretical environment.

When there's a conflict between theory and reality, reality wins every time*

* Libertarianism not included.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

......................
............ Now if gun manufacturers want to give away their product and make it no longer commerce, gun advocates should have no problems.

The rest of you post is too full of BS. but this is exemplary of you ignorance of the laws. Many of the current federal regulations does not allow anyone to own certain categories of fire arms even if they make them themselves from scratch for personal use, not for sale.

really?

Care to show where the bullshit is?

------

so the states have no powers whatsoever because the 10th amendment is always in all situations ignored?

OR is there one particular thing you feel the amendment is not used for?

If it is one thing or even a list of things, neither would mean that the amendment was not used in its entirety, but not used consistantly.

As for the federal firearms laws, which laws are not in keeping with the 10th amendment?

WTF?

Who the fuck claimed the states are always completely ignored?

You did (and I did not the states were being ignored but that the amendment was, the states would then have no power)

you think we haven't been using the whole tenth amendment? I'm sure we have.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

What part are we not using?

The whole amendment, specifically " reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Try to find any power that was delegated to the US government in the body of the Constitution to pass any legislation regarding fire arms. There are currently many such federal regulations.

​

When asked what part of the amendment wasn't being used, you said the whole amendment. If it isn't being used, would it not be fair to say it is being ignored?

The problem is that the US govt. only recognizes the 10th when it doesn't get in the way of what they want to do.

uh huh

1918-A federal statute seeks to end child labor by prohibiting the interstate shipment of goods that child laborers had produced. In Hammer v. Dagenhart, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the statute goes beyond the powers the Constitution delegated to the federal government. The court finds that under the 10th Amendment, the individual states have the right to decide how to regulate the use of child labor in manufacturing

1935-To combat the Great Depression, Congress and Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration establish the National Industrial Recovery Administration (NRA), which is one of the New Deal’s key programs. Its provisions include requirements for minimum wages and maximum hours, and certain price controls. In Schechter Corp. v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court says the program exceeds Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce and invades the states’ rights to regulate manufacturing.

1995-In United States v. Lopez, the U.S. Supreme Court grants the states more rights. It rules that Congress overstepped its authority under the commerce clause when it passed the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act. To uphold a law that determined the punishment for gun possession and gun use near schools, the court rules, would convert the commerce clause authority into general police power held only by the states under the 10th Amendment.

1997-A federal gun control law, known as the Brady Law, requires local authorities to perform background checks on potential gun buyers. In Printz v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court holds that the law violates the 10th Amendment. The federal government cannot issue directives requiring the states to address particular problems, or command state officials to enforce a federal regulatory program. The court says such commands are “fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”

2000-Legislation about domestic violence and family law traditionally had been left to the states. In United States v. Morrison, the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down a provision in the federal Violence Against Women Act because it exceeds Congress’ authority under the commerce clause and impinges on state control. A provision that permits victims of genderbased violence to bring federal lawsuits against their attackers is found to invade states’ police power.

http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/Files/Documents/Tenth Amendment.pdf

Seems like it's getting used to me.And it is getting the way of the federal govt doing what it wants to do.

If it gets in the way of what they want to do then "fuck it". Often it likes the 10th like when they want the states to handle something that would cause the Congress problems with public opinion.

I notice that you didn't accept my challenge of trying to find that power granted to the US govt., opting instead for your silly strawman.

There was no straw man, the tenth amendment gets used, and the commerce clause (which is in the constitution and seems to give gun advocates the most hissy fits) is a thing in the world of real things. Now if gun manufacturers want to give away their product and make it no longer commerce, gun advocates should have no problems.​

----------

As for gun laws prohibiting the individual manufacture of fire arms, if you feel them unconstitutional, you challenge them in court.

And i am sure there are cases that do just that in the pipe line right now.