So what IS the best way to reduce or prevent mass shootings?

[Little-Acorn]

The word 'arms' refers to the gun, not to the ammunition.

Looks like we have another standard liberal fanatic on hand. Hoping against hope that her mentor Herr Goebbels was right when he said that if you repeat a lie often enough, it will become The Truth.

 

[candycorn]

You are the one who is stupid. Where in the Constitution does it say you have the right to own ammunition?

"Arms" includes ammo, obviously.

Nice try.

(It's amazing how stupid liberals need normal Americans to be, to believe that the Framers didn't mean to include gunpowder, bullets etc. in their definition of "arms".)

Does it include taser guns? Just curious how elastic your reading of the 2nd Amendment is. A 500 pound bomb could be called an armament also...right? Are bazooka's included? TOW Missiles?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sure -- because that won't violate the constitution or anything.

The Constitution doesn't say anything about ammunition.

Not even you are so stupid to believe that, in terms of the 2nd Amendment, firearms and their ammunition are independent from one another.

Exactly. That's what I am saying

Then you are indeed more stupid than I thought -- no minor achievement, that..

You are the one who is stupid. Where in the Constitution does it say you have the right to own ammunition?

Not only are you more stupid than I thought, but that stupid on purpose.
Impressive.

 

[candycorn]

The word 'arms' refers to the gun, not to the ammunition.

Looks like we have another standard liberal fanatic on hand. Hoping against hope that her mentor Herr Goebbels was right when he said that if you repeat a lie often enough, it will become The Truth.

See M14 Shooter even little Ake saw your game.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You are the one who is stupid. Where in the Constitution does it say you have the right to own ammunition?

"Arms" includes ammo, obviously.

Nice try.

(It's amazing how stupid liberals need normal Americans to be, to believe that the Framers didn't mean to include gunpowder, bullets etc. in their definition of "arms".)

Does it include taser guns? Just curious how elastic your reading of the 2nd Amendment is. A 500 pound bomb could be called an armament also...right? Are bazooka's included? TOW Missiles?

Please do try to keep up with jurisprudence -- not doing so only illustrates your ignorance.

 

[Esmeralda]

I say, since we have the 'right to bear arms' then sell 'em to people, but do not sell ammunition. Make ammunition illegal.

Sure -- because that won't violate the constitution or anything.

The Constitution doesn't say anything about ammunition.

Not even you are so stupid to believe that, in terms of the 2nd Amendment, firearms and their ammunition are independent from one another.

Exactly. That's what I am saying You have the right to own guns, based on the Constitution. However, you do not have the right to own ammunition: based on the Constitution. Firearms and their ammunition are two separate things. Right.

No, dimwit, the Second Amendment does not say, "keep and bear guns". It says, "keep and bear arms". A gun is not an arm without ammunition. It's just a hunk of metal.

Maybe this is too technological for you. Try this: a bow is just a stick. A bow and arrow are a weapon. It's a two-parter.

And it occurs to me that you know this, otherwise you wouldn't want to take away people's ammunition. The whole point is to stop them from having arms, isn't it?

Have all the 'arms' you want, just no ammunition.

 

[candycorn]

I assume you'll also accept it when the Court finally gets around to cleaning up the monthly bloodbaths by re-examining why the Framers put the word in there? Am I right?

They already addressed that issue. Interesting how you only consider the Supreme Court to be the last word when it's a word you like.

FYI, there is nothing about the Second Amendment that enables "monthly bloodbaths", dumbass.

No kidding. It calls for a Militia to have weapons. Once Hillary is installed as President, Scalia succumbs to Father Time as we all eventually will, and she installs some center-left jurists...we'll see the amendment re-examined.

If that happens the blood shed will be so great, this country will not survive it... And rightly so.

Not too long ago I thought succession was crazy... It's sounding better and better every time it comes up.

In most of the world, the arms are limited to the police and legitimate military. They lead prosperous peaceful lives.

How do you plan to take those arms from people???

Gun nuts are law abiding nuts. Are you saying they value their guns more than the rule of law? Interesting.

 

[candycorn]

You are the one who is stupid. Where in the Constitution does it say you have the right to own ammunition?

"Arms" includes ammo, obviously.

Nice try.

(It's amazing how stupid liberals need normal Americans to be, to believe that the Framers didn't mean to include gunpowder, bullets etc. in their definition of "arms".)

Does it include taser guns? Just curious how elastic your reading of the 2nd Amendment is. A 500 pound bomb could be called an armament also...right? Are bazooka's included? TOW Missiles?

Please do try to keep up with jurisprudence -- not doing so only illustrates your ignorance.

The word Militia is there for a reason.

Awk! Polly want a cracker?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The word 'arms' refers to the gun, not to the ammunition.

Looks like we have another standard liberal fanatic on hand. Hoping against hope that her mentor Herr Goebbels was right when he said that if you repeat a lie often enough, it will become The Truth.

They know they cannot argue from anything other than emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
They hate themselves for it, but they realize they have no other choice.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You are the one who is stupid. Where in the Constitution does it say you have the right to own ammunition?

"Arms" includes ammo, obviously.
Nice try.
(It's amazing how stupid liberals need normal Americans to be, to believe that the Framers didn't mean to include gunpowder, bullets etc. in their definition of "arms".)

Does it include taser guns? Just curious how elastic your reading of the 2nd Amendment is. A 500 pound bomb could be called an armament also...right? Are bazooka's included? TOW Missiles?

Please do try to keep up with jurisprudence -- not doing so only illustrates your ignorance.

The word Militia is there for a reason.

Good to see you still understand that you are wrong.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The word Militia is there for a reason.

Awk! Polly want a cracker?

Is this liberal fanatic still trying to pretend guns are only for militias?

And ignoring the fact that this line was completely debunked just a few minutes ago?

Herr Goebbels would be proud.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The word Militia is there for a reason.
Awk! Polly want a cracker?

Is this liberal fanatic still trying to pretend guns are only for militias?
And ignoring the fact that this line was completely debunked just a few minutes ago?
Herr Goebbels would be proud.

Goebbels understood that 'the big lie" theory applied to the people who disseminate it as well as those who hear it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Sure -- because that won't violate the constitution or anything.

The Constitution doesn't say anything about ammunition.

Not even you are so stupid to believe that, in terms of the 2nd Amendment, firearms and their ammunition are independent from one another.

Exactly. That's what I am saying You have the right to own guns, based on the Constitution. However, you do not have the right to own ammunition: based on the Constitution. Firearms and their ammunition are two separate things. Right.

No, dimwit, the Second Amendment does not say, "keep and bear guns". It says, "keep and bear arms". A gun is not an arm without ammunition. It's just a hunk of metal.

Maybe this is too technological for you. Try this: a bow is just a stick. A bow and arrow are a weapon. It's a two-parter.

And it occurs to me that you know this, otherwise you wouldn't want to take away people's ammunition. The whole point is to stop them from having arms, isn't it?

You people are so pathetic. You are arguing a moot point and calling me stupid. It seems pretty stupid to me to argue a moot point: there is no point for debate because a gun and ammunition are completely separate things, and ammunition is not included in the 2nd Amendment.

What is it about the words "shall not be infringed" that you don't understand yet?

 

[candycorn]

The word Militia is there for a reason.

Awk! Polly want a cracker?

Is this liberal fanatic still trying to pretend guns are only for militias?

And ignoring the fact that this line was completely debunked just a few minutes ago?

Herr Goebbels would be proud.

The word "Militia" is in the amendment for a reason. Am I saying you can't have a gun unless you're in a militia? No.
Am I saying the constitutional standing for you to have a gun isn't there? You betcha.

 

[candycorn]

They already addressed that issue. Interesting how you only consider the Supreme Court to be the last word when it's a word you like.

FYI, there is nothing about the Second Amendment that enables "monthly bloodbaths", dumbass.

No kidding. It calls for a Militia to have weapons.

Please cite the text of the constitution that says this.
Oh wait... you won't because you can't.
You lose, puppy. Again.

The word Militia is there for a reason. You'll have to be pretty stupid to think the framers were just putting random words into the amendments.

Get used to it (or join a militia). The court's job is to correct the other branches. The correction is coming. All we need is HRC in the oval and the Dems to re-take Congress (and political will to do it which is always suspect at best).

The word "militia" is there, as I said before while you were , to clarify a reason why THE PEOPLE (aka individual citizens) should have an uninfringed right to keep and bear arms, a reason that is not already mentioned or implied elsewhere.

Not a modifying clause. Nothing is going to change the rules of English.

Yes, much like the sentence fragment you just wrote.

And Well-Regulated? What about that? A well-regulated Militia...that is what the Constitution allows. Every gun owner I know of (outside of those in the National Guard--where they don't even bring their personal weapons (roh-roh)) couldn't tell a flanking maneuver from a flank steak. If they were asked to fix bayonets, they would first ask what is wrong with them.

So now you have to go back to the drawing board and explain how today's redneck buying a personal arsenal is somehow a member of a "well regulated Militia".

Get busy little man.

----

Remember to bend your knees when you lift the goal posts....don't want you throwing your back out.

Well Cecilie1200 Where you at?

 

[candycorn]

I assume you'll also accept it when the Court finally gets around to cleaning up the monthly bloodbaths by re-examining why the Framers put the word in there? Am I right?

They already addressed that issue. Interesting how you only consider the Supreme Court to be the last word when it's a word you like.

FYI, there is nothing about the Second Amendment that enables "monthly bloodbaths", dumbass.

No kidding. It calls for a Militia to have weapons. Once Hillary is installed as President, Scalia succumbs to Father Time as we all eventually will, and she installs some center-left jurists...we'll see the amendment re-examined.

If that happens the blood shed will be so great, this country will not survive it... And rightly so.

Not too long ago I thought succession was crazy... It's sounding better and better every time it comes up.

In most of the world, the arms are limited to the police and legitimate military. They lead prosperous peaceful lives.

Yes, most of the world is full of peaceful, fluffy puppies and unicorns shooting glittery rainbows out their asses.

No, most of the world is full of nations that have sensible gun laws and those nations live in peace and are fairly prosperous.

 

[candycorn]

The word Militia is there for a reason.
Awk! Polly want a cracker?

Is this liberal fanatic still trying to pretend guns are only for militias?
And ignoring the fact that this line was completely debunked just a few minutes ago?
Herr Goebbels would be proud.

Goebbels understood that 'the big lie" theory applied to the people who disseminate it as well as those who hear it.

Goebbels would be proud of his best apprentice; you.

The word militia is there for a reason. Why is it there if not to indicate that the militia was the intended user of the weapons it provides for?

 

[Pogo]

Something I wrote in 2007 after another mass murder then. As true now as it was then.

-------------------------------------------------------

What IS the best way to reduce or prevent mass shootings?


No method is 100% perfect, of course, and never will be as long as we are a society of imperfect people.

But most of the methods being tried today, pretty much have no effect. Indeed, insane mass murderers seem to be drawn to the "Gun Free Zones" set up by naïve liberals. Where else can they be guaranteed a large collection of unarmed, vulnerable targets, with many uninterrupted minutes to blow away as many people as they like before the cops get there?

Is there a viable way to cut down the numbers of such shootings, and/or the body counts?

Many of the whackos (people who actually start shooting into crowds, at malls, post offices, schools etc.) know it is a suicide mission. The idea that they may be killed, obviously doesn't deter them... in that way, anyway.

But what most of them want, is to go out with a huge splash. They want huge headlines after the fact, crying and wailing about the ten or twenty or thirty innocent people who died, how horrible it all is, wailing and gnashing about what we could have done to prevent it, three-page exposes about the shooter's disturbed childhood and how unfair society was to him, etc. etc. To their twisted minds, that's worth getting dead over.

But if they show up at their planned execution site, start pulling the trigger, wound the first person, miss with the next shot, and then get get shot through the middle of the bod by someone in the crowd they never suspected might have his own gun, next day's headlines will be much less lurid. Some nut pulled a gun and fired two shots, wounding one. The wounded person is now recovering in the hospital, and the nut is dead, end of story. He's a footnote on page 28, if that.

And THAT's what the whackos don't want to happen. They want huge headlines and weeks of media coverage, even after they are dead, that's mostly why they're doing it.

If everyone is allowed to carry, most people still won't bother. I probably wouldn't most of the time. But some people will. And a nutcase like this guy will never know which people in the crowd, are the ones with their own gun. Could be the granny in the wheelchair over there, whose kids were killed in a home invasion robbery five years ago, who swore she'd never go unarmed again, and never misses her weekend hour or two at the practice range.

The deranged whacko is certainly insane. But he's obviously still coherent enough to have a goal in mind, and to do what he needs to carry it out. And he's probably coherent enough to realize that a few unknown people in the crowd who have guns and are practiced in their use, can and will deny him the splashy headlines he wants. And there's nothing he can do about it.

It's enough to often make even a deranged whacko reconsider his plans. Why start shooting at a public event, if you're simply going to become dead three seconds later with little or no lurid body count to show for it?

Letting law-abiding citizens carry freely is, and has always been, the best deterrent to crime. Criminals know there will be somebody nearby who will discourage them quickly. Only in so-called "gun free zones" are the criminals guaranteed the freedom to carry out their crimes.

Or does somebody think that some nutcase who is ready and willing to murder dozens of people, will turn around and obey a new "No guns permitted here" law?

Give everyone a gun, this will not prevent shootings, but unless the shooter is in a tower like the one in Texas, someone in the room will shoot the shooter before he can kill all of his or her victims.

Of course. Because as everybody knows, when a fire breaks out the thing to do is drown it in gasoline. That'll show it.

You want to "prevent more violence" by standing still complacently while someone shoots you? You go on with your bad self. Bye.

Excellent. DC Comics Drama Queen checks in to elevate the discussion.

Be still my fart.

 

[Rustic]

They already addressed that issue. Interesting how you only consider the Supreme Court to be the last word when it's a word you like.

FYI, there is nothing about the Second Amendment that enables "monthly bloodbaths", dumbass.

No kidding. It calls for a Militia to have weapons. Once Hillary is installed as President, Scalia succumbs to Father Time as we all eventually will, and she installs some center-left jurists...we'll see the amendment re-examined.

If that happens the blood shed will be so great, this country will not survive it... And rightly so.

Not too long ago I thought succession was crazy... It's sounding better and better every time it comes up.

In most of the world, the arms are limited to the police and legitimate military. They lead prosperous peaceful lives.

Yes, most of the world is full of peaceful, fluffy puppies and unicorns shooting glittery rainbows out their asses.

No, most of the world is full of nations that have sensible gun laws and those nations live in peace and are fairly prosperous.

Still no answer, how do you plan to disarm the nation??

 

[saveliberty]

Stronger mental health system, which confines the violent.

Make firearms a mandatory class in school.