Stupefying notions about the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

[McBell]

Thank you for that explanation. Now could you explain to me why a civilian would need a "clone of a M-16"? What is the purpose of this gun? Is it actually used for hunting?

The novelty of have a firearm that looks and feels (somewhat) like an M16?

I do not know anyone who uses an AR-15 to hunt with.
There are firearms that are more powerful and more accurate than an AR-15 that people use to hunt with.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm no expert, but I would guess they would have the same mandate as armed police and armed guards that operate in other high traffic public places, such as airports.

But would they be armed police, or would they be specialist school security?

The thing is, I don't see the avaliablity of guns changing, so you have to consider the alternatives. Otherwise you'll keep having Newtowns and Auroras.

If the availability of guns doesn't change to some degree, there's no avoiding it. Have gun will shoot, as they say.

 

[marcus freudental]

Thanks for posting that list. I guess I have two comments to make.
Firstly, no one knows the 'reason' why this shooting happened - saying, "if only they were religious then God would have saved them" is a bit of wishful thinking, which sadly is not born out by the evidence from similar incidents. Having said that, when something bad happens I take it as a message from God to do some serious introspection.
Secondly, allowing people to own assault weapons and keep them at home
plus
having media which shows increasing amounts of violence
is not a sensible combination.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Thank you for that explanation. Now could you explain to me why a civilian would need a "clone of a M-16"? What is the purpose of this gun? Is it actually used for hunting?

LOL, what you seem to misunderstand is, I am not required to demonstrate a need for any weapon, I have an absolute right to own any weapons without regard to my present need.

Need has nothing to do with my second amendment right. :sorry1:

If you must know, While a pistol or shotgun would meet any present need I have to defend myself from an individual. If there was ever a group of armed assailants who tried to attack me, an assault rifle would be the exact tool I would need to defend myself.

An AK47 can penetrate body armor. If say an UN force came to this country to disarm me, an assualt weapon would be an excellent tool to use to resist this action against my rights.

As a free man, I have every right to possess any means necessary to protect myself from any threat to my second amendment freedoms.

I don't feel threatened by my local police force, sheriffs department or state police. I recognise their authority over me.

I don't however recognise any foreign government or world authority over my right to bear arms.

I have pledged allegiance to my sovereign country, not any world authority.

 

[Skwim]

LOL, what you seem to misunderstand is, I am not required to demonstrate a need for any weapon, I have an absolute right to own any weapons without regard to my present need.

Really! Who says?

 

[McBell]

LOL, what you seem to misunderstand is, I am not required to demonstrate a need for any weapon, I have an absolute right to own any weapons without regard to my present need.

Except for the fact that you do not have an absolute right to own any weapon...

Need has nothing to do with my second amendment right. :sorry1:

Agreed

As a free man, I have every right to possess any means necessary to protect myself from any threat to my second amendment freedoms.

No, you do not.
At least not in the USA.

I don't feel threatened by my local police force, sheriffs department or state police. I recognise their authority over me.

I don't however recognise any foreign government or world authority over my right to bear arms.

I have pledged allegiance to my sovereign country, not any world authority.

agreed.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the second amendment specify that the right to bear arms is only necessary in a "well regulated militia"? To me, that doesn't mean "people can own guns for whatever purpose they deem it necessary".

 

[McBell]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the second amendment specify that the right to bear arms is only necessary in a "well regulated militia"? To me, that doesn't mean "people can own guns for whatever purpose they deem it necessary".

Nope:

The long awaited decision in McDonald v. Chicago is out, with the result that was expected by most court watchers. Following on the heels of the Heller decision (D. C. gun ban case), the Supreme Court ruled that the personal right to keep and bear arms applies not only to the federal government and its jurisdictions but to state and local governments as well.

Read more at McDonald v. Chicago: Second Amendment Applied to States/Municipalities | The Moderate Voice
​

Now even though the Second Amendment allows for individuals to own guns, it does not prevent the Government from restricting certain guns, or types of guns, that said individuals may own.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Nope:

​

How does that contradict what I said?

 

[McBell]

How does that contradict what I said?

The ruling states that individuals have the right to personal guns.

Also from the link:

McDonald v. Chicago arose out of two nearly identical city ordinances, one from the City of Chicago, the other from nearby Oak Park, Illinois. The ordinances effectively banned the private ownership and possession of almost all handguns.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The ruling states that individuals have the right to personal guns.

Also from the link:

​

Would it be rude to ask the same question again? Where did I say otherwise?

 

[McBell]

Would it be rude to ask the same question again? Where did I say otherwise?

Your use of the word "only".

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Your use of the word "only".

What's wrong with it? The second amendment does only specify "a well regulated militia".

 

[McBell]

What's wrong with it? The second amendment does only specify "a well regulated militia".

No it doesn't:

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.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No it doesn't:

​

Yes, it does.

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.

Note that it doesn't say:

A non-regulated bunch of people being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It specifically says that the right to bear arms exists because of the necessity of a "well trained militia" in the security of a free state. That is literally what it means.

 

[McBell]

Yes, it does.

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.

Note that it doesn't say:

A non-regulated bunch of people being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It specifically says that the right to bear arms exists because of the necessity of a "well trained militia" in the security of a free state. That is literally what it means.

And the court case I linked to is where the Supreme Court of the United States disagree with you.

Thus its relevance.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And the court case I linked to is where the Supreme Court of the United States disagree with you.

Thus its relevance.

But that court ruling just says that private gun ownership comes under the second amendment. That doesn't really contradict anything I've said about the meaning of the second amendment whatsoever.

 

[fantome profane]

LOL, what you seem to misunderstand is, I am not required to demonstrate a need for any weapon, I have an absolute right to own any weapons without regard to my present need.

Need has nothing to do with my second amendment right. :sorry1:

You are quite correct, I don't understand at all. I am completely mystified. I live in a free democratic country, but I don't have the "right to bear arms". This is true of most civilized nations. I admit I don't understand the second amendment, it seems like a big mistake on the part of your founders.

If you must know, While a pistol or shotgun would meet any present need I have to defend myself from an individual. If there was ever a group of armed assailants who tried to attack me, an assault rifle would be the exact tool I would need to defend myself.

An AK47 can penetrate body armor. If say an UN force came to this country to disarm me, an assualt weapon would be an excellent tool to use to resist this action against my rights.

As a free man, I have every right to possess any means necessary to protect myself from any threat to my second amendment freedoms.

I don't feel threatened by my local police force, sheriffs department or state police. I recognise their authority over me.

I don't however recognise any foreign government or world authority over my right to bear arms.

I have pledged allegiance to my sovereign country, not any world authority.

So you think that the United Nations is likely to send armoured storm troopers to attack you. Is this a common fear among Americans? Why are you all so afraid?

 

[Halcyon]

But would they be armed police, or would they be specialist school security?

I would guess the latter, police are too valuable to restrict to guard duties. Plus a dedicated security guard for a certain school would learn it's layout extremely well, whereas armed police would probably be rotated to other duties.

If the availability of guns doesn't change to some degree, there's no avoiding it. Have gun will shoot, as they say.

Exactly.

I'm not saying armed security at schools is the best answer, but it's not the daftest thing I've ever heard either.

LOL, what you seem to misunderstand is, I am not required to demonstrate a need for any weapon, I have an absolute right to own any weapons without regard to my present need.

Need has nothing to do with my second amendment right. :sorry1:

If you must know, While a pistol or shotgun would meet any present need I have to defend myself from an individual. If there was ever a group of armed assailants who tried to attack me, an assault rifle would be the exact tool I would need to defend myself.

An AK47 can penetrate body armor. If say an UN force came to this country to disarm me, an assualt weapon would be an excellent tool to use to resist this action against my rights.

Oh.

I guess that's the end of rational discourse then.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I would guess the latter, police are too valuable to restrict to guard duties. Plus a dedicated security guard for a certain school would learn it's layout extremely well, whereas armed police would probably be rotated to other duties.


Exactly.

I'm not saying armed security at schools is the best answer, but it's not the daftest thing I've ever heard either.


Oh.

I guess that's the end of rational discourse then.

No, I have demonstrated that I can raise a family and live in this country without so much as a traffic ticket my entire life. I am a responsible gun owner. If you want to make things harder for people to buy guns and ammo, I can support that. It is when you want to stick your nose into my gun safe with a bunch of ambiguous new laws about what I can and cannot own, I have a serious problem. So long as I purchased everything legal in the first place and can prove it, I should be grandfathered in and not subject to ever changing laws.

Lets say I may be required to keep them on my property and not carry them about town, I can even support that. You can require that I keep them safely stored, I already do that.

Lets focus on people's mental issues and their criminal records and quit harassing law abiding citizens because a weapon I may own looks scary to you.