[cologal]

My bad....

I heard a report that the college in Oregon had an armed guard upon further review they had reviewed that however ruled out this option.

My statement that student were packing on campus is true.

[Bonnevie]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

You can't buy an assault rifle. Fully automatic weapons are essentially illegal.

again, semi-automatic weapons can create multiple fatalities in very little time. what's being questioned is the need for anyone to own these weapons? You can own other types of guns for personal protection.

[outlaw]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

I read it. Kind of boring law review analysis designed for law professors and other academics. He seems to be influenced quite a bit by the thinking of Thomas Kuhn and his various models and the like. Kuhn's field was the history of science and paradigms. I doubt if many Congressmen and women are thinking about paradigms though not would the Founding Fathers have been writing in terms of these but probably based on their readings of English, Roman and Greek history while not trying to make a living in 1789 America.

The 2nd Amendment is about the right to bear arms. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment The debate is about who has that right-- people, a militia, a standing army, etc.

This also from 1995-- A CRITICAL GUIDE TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT Quite a lot of important events in the gun debate from then to now.

Thanks for reading it. But the debate is NOT about WHO has that right any more than a debate about who has the right to freedom of speech, or freedom of religion. It is the individual. Your dismissal of the constitution as being outdated (written in 1789; it's 2015) is unfortunate.

[newguyintv]

Originally Posted by dotti105

One thing I know, Germany, Great Britain, Australia, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway are only a few of the many countries having a lower rate of violent crime than the US. They all have laws which call for registration of handguns and possession of firearms are limited.

Assault rifles are only for the military, not for paranoid citizens

We live in the greatest country in the world. But that does not mean than we can't learn from other countries.

The gun related deaths in our country, especially those in schools, is the highest in the world. Folks there is something wrong with our system. We are NOT safer because we "we have the right to bear arms". If fact if there is a gun in your home, the likely hood of a family member dying from a gun death increases dramatically.

The system is broken, and we are doing nothing to fix it. Unless we do, more innocent children will die. Guaranteed. I hope none of them are your grandchildren.

Unfortunately the right to bear arms advocates are to stupid to understand that what you are saying is absolutely correct. Simply stated, doesn't require much brainpower to understand that significantly more rigid gun control cannot help but to reduce the number of random and mass killings.

[Bonnevie]

all I know is that several families in Oregon are hurting right now, just as those at Virginia Tech did, and Sandy Hook, and Aurora, etc. because people could buy semi-automatic rifles and guns and huge amounts of ammo for an amendment written when muskets were the guns available. Gun owners have the right to bear arms but everyone else has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Again, I agree people have a right town guns, but do they have the right to have private arsenals?

but don't worry gun aficionados, if the death of little elementary school children didn't cause change, this won't either.

[outlaw]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

James Alan Fox: Umpqua shooting - a tragedy, not a trend

Here is a link to his article. I would be more interested though in what the victims of these many shootings have to say.

This comes from another source but does probably include drug deals gone bad and the like-- Mass Shootings in 2015 - Mass Shooting Tracker

Yes. Let's keep emotion at the forefront of discussing policy. Let's have victims determine their assailants' punishment. I have a feeling there would be a lot more executions of DUI manslaughter.

[dirtbanker]

Originally Posted by Bonnevie

tell that to the parents of the Sandy Hook students, Aurora, Virginia Tech, now Oregon......I'm sure it will be a comfort to them

smoking laws have been enacted to curb where smoking is allowed.

drunk driving laws have been toughened A LOT over the years. when the need arose, laws were changed.

I did not present that information with the intent that it would comfort anyone. Your suggestion for me to contact parents that lost their children at Sandy Hook, Aurora, Virginia Tech, and Oregon is rude.

Sort of like; why don't you contact the parents of children that have died from cancer or a drunk driver and let them know you are in favor of nobody having guns.

Current smoking laws do not protect the children of smokers, but possibly the media is not dramatizing that enough for you to care about the 41,000 deaths per year, the 150,000+ lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age, the 15,000 hospitalizations each year, or the 430 infant deaths ("oh she loves her baby, she cracked the window of the car while she smokes").

Current smoking laws do protect the tobacco companies though! They can put any chemical they want in the cigarettes to make them more addictive than opium, and the consumer has no legal recourse due to the states settlement of class action suit in your behalf (remember the $1 tax credit you got) and the warnings on the side of the packaging.

Even with those "toughened" drunk driving laws there were 10,076 killed in a year. I assume those laws ease your mind and make you feel safer.

Yes, lets prioritize taking guns away from everyone due to the few cowardly killers (plus give them fame and attention via the media. Heck, the president even called a press conference to address this villain's act!) and lets ignore the masses being killed by smoking and drunk drivers...we are a dumb breed of animals.

CDC - Fact Sheet - Secondhand Smoke Facts - Smoking & Tobacco Use

Health Effects of Secondhand Smoke | American Lung Association

Impaired Driving: Get the Facts | Motor Vehicle Safety | CDC Injury Center

[Bonnevie]

I just want common sense brought to this divisive issue.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by outlaw

Thanks for reading it. But the debate is NOT about WHO has that right any more than a debate about who has the right to freedom of speech, or freedom of religion. It is the individual. Your dismissal of the constitution as being outdated (written in 1789; it's 2015) is unfortunate.

I did not say that the US Constitution is outdated just that 1995 Law Review article about it is. People still have the same failings that they did in 1789 and checks and balances are needed in 2015 just as they were in Rome in 69 AD, Jerusalem in 33 AD, etc.

And reading the US Constitution it is not clear who had the right to bear arms according to the 2nd Amendment. Some scholars think it is the militia, others the people, others an individual. Others the National Guard or some kind of standing army.

The Embarrassing Second Amendment

I did find this which is very interesting about why James Madison wrote the 2nd Amendment as he did. VPC - Second Amendment History It is just a theory though IMHO.

In his recent U.C. Davis Law Review article "The Hidden History of the Second Amendment," Roger Williams University School of Law Professor Carl T. Bogus offers a thesis that could forever change the way Americans view the Second Amendment: James Madison wrote the Second Amendment to assure the southern states that Congress would not undermine the slave system by disarming the militia, which were then the principal instruments of slave control throughout the South.

[outlaw]

Originally Posted by cologal

My bad....

I heard a report that the college in Oregon had an armed guard upon further review they had reviewed that however ruled out this option.

My statement that student were packing on campus is true.

Apparently, they weren't packing where the shooter was. And how would you feel if someone accused you of lying, when you misspoke?

[billethkid]

Originally Posted by Bonnevie

all I know is that several families in Oregon are hurting right now, just as those at Virginia Tech did, and Sandy Hook, and Aurora, etc. because people could buy semi-automatic rifles and guns and huge amounts of ammo for an amendment written when muskets were the guns available. Gun owners have the right to bear arms but everyone else has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Again, I agree people have a right town guns, but do they have the right to have private arsenals?

but don't worry gun aficionados, if the death of little elementary school children didn't cause change, this won't either.

Not a very appropriate or neighborly snipe! Have an opinion or preference but lobbing snipes only devalues any intended contribution.

By just reading the posts it is easy to ascertain there are many who do not understand the types of weapons and how they function.

A semi automatic one has to pull the trigger each time to fire the gun.
A non semi automatic one has to pull the trigger each time to fire the gun.
A non semi automatic can be fired just about as fast as a semi automatic.

Why more than one gun.
Personal preference.
Just like having different golf clubs there are different applications.
Different sports requiring different guns.
Different guns requiring different ammunitions.
Some simply collect...no different than collecting stamps.

It is unfortunate that for the most part gun education of the public is limited to what they see in the movies or on television. And worst of all from what they hear on the 24/7 media (mostly anti gun).

As for actions to be taken or change as snipped above;
> how about writing to the lawmakers to ENFORCE the existing laws on the books?

> how about having folks worry less about offending someone by saying something when they see something.

> how about the incensed public require the movie industry and hollywood and television produce STOP producing carnage training films reffered to as movies or entertainment.

Just to name a few that will most definitely have an impact.

From years of experience I KNOW I am wasting my time!

[tomwed]

Originally Posted by billethkid

Why more than one gun.
Personal preference.
Just like having different golf clubs there are different applications.
Different sports requiring different guns.
Different guns requiring different ammunitions.
Some simply collect...no different than collecting stamps.

Many believe agree with you and have for hundreds of years. And what's the difference between the clubs that were made 300 years ago and the guns that were made 300 years ago? The club is still a crooked little stick that can only hit one ball at a time. You can't aim it much better and the ball maybe goes 200 yard further.
You can make a better argument.

[cologal]

Originally Posted by outlaw

Apparently, they weren't packing where the shooter was. And how would you feel if someone accused you of lying, when you misspoke?

I corrected stated the campus was not a gun free zone as a more than one student was packing. I corrected my mistake as soon as I could, I will await the correction from the Fox News spokesperson.

Have a good day!!

[Bonnevie]

[B]From years of experience I KNOW I am wasting my time![/QUOTE][/B

oh, dear, was that a not very neighborly snipe?

I'm out of here. Apparently all the things I said regarding common sense approaches and the inability to predict who will snap are overlooked to jump on some little aside. But then the best defense is an offense.

btw, I come from a family of law enforcement and so I'm very aware of the need for protection from certain elements. They may feel as the sheriff of the Oregon town still feels that there is no need for anything to be done. I disagree as is my right.

and my comment about nothing being done was just that--an observation, not an indictment.

[outlaw]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

I did not say that the US Constitution is outdated just that 1995 Law Review article about it is. People still have the same failings that they did in 1789 and checks and balances are needed in 2015 just as they were in Rome in 69 AD, Jerusalem in 33 AD, etc.

And reading the US Constitution it is not clear who had the right to bear arms according to the 2nd Amendment. Some scholars think it is the militia, others the people, others an individual. Others the National Guard or some kind of standing army.

The Embarrassing Second Amendment

I did find this which is very interesting about why James Madison wrote the 2nd Amendment as he did. VPC - Second Amendment History It is just a theory though IMHO.

Yes, the 2nd A is racist. That's the ticket. That should do it. BTW, the militia, people, individual, are all the same. There was no National Guard back then! The purpose of the 2nd A was two fold; self protection, and to rise against an oppressive government. Guess who would have a "standing army". That's right, the government. You didn't really read it, did you?