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

[JoeB131]

1) "Gun deaths" is a meaningless tautology.

2) The success of a DGU is not measured by its lethality.

the problem with that logic is that you can claim anything is a DGU. which is why you get annual estimates of DGU ranging from 47,000 a year (The FBI Study) to 5 Million (the largely discredited Kleck)

Pretty much, any time a gun nut feels better about his tiny dick could be considered a DGU by you guys.

1) "Gun nut" to describe all private owners of guns is just poisoning the well.

Someone who wants to carry a gun around with him all the time and wonders why Churches and Schools and Bars and Work-places don't want him to has crossed the line into "Gun Nut" territory.

Also, you chart is misleading because private gun owners almost never stop mass shootings.

 

[JoeB131]

1) Hold Gun Sellers responsible for who they sell guns to criminally.

They already are.

2) Allow lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

They already are.

Your implication that they are not is wrong and intellectually dishonest. For OBVIOUS reasons.

Do some research. in 2005, Congress passed a law that immunizes gun sellers and manufacturers from class action and individual lawsuits. this happened after a jury awarded the victims of the DC Snipers a multi-million dollar award because they had sold to the snipers despite one being a felon and the other a minor.

 

[LOki]

Total cop out. Totally expected.
Again, you answered why Militia is there exactly the way a gun nut would. Again totally expected.
But you become totally emasculated when you have to also have to account for the words "well regulated" and come up with the predicted Mumbo Jumbo about clauses and grammar. John Roberts would be proud.
I own you.

You barely own the stains in your underwear.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."
Not the right of the militia...
Not the right of the people in the militia...
The right of the people.
Nothing in the constitution supports your position.
Nothing.

If that were the intent, it could have been articulated as,

quote:

Amendment II:
The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.​

end quote

Had it been writ as such, it would follow exactly the same format as the other 26. It would have been direct, clear, concise and unambiguous

But it wasn't, and it doesn't and it isn't.

Why the departure?

The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment only declares that "the security of a free State" is contingent upon the existence of "a well regulated Militia".

A well regulated Militia is dependendent upon the right of the people--the whole body of the individual soverigns--to keep and bear Arms, which is why the 2nd Amendment declares that the right shall not be infringed.

 

[LOki]

1) Hold Gun Sellers responsible for who they sell guns to criminally.

They already are.

2) Allow lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

They already are.

Your implication that they are not is wrong and intellectually dishonest. For OBVIOUS reasons.

Do some research. in 2005, Congress passed a law that immunizes gun sellers and manufacturers from class action and individual lawsuits. this happened after a jury awarded the victims of the DC Snipers a multi-million dollar award because they had sold to the snipers despite one being a felon and the other a minor.

Nonsense. Gun manufacturers and sellers are still liable for their criminal acts. Do some research.

 

[JoeB131]

Nonsense. Gun manufacturers and sellers are still liable for their criminal acts. Do some research.

I have. they aren't. YOu pretty much have to catch them openly breaking the law to get any kind of action against them.

 

[LOki]

1) "Gun deaths" is a meaningless tautology.

2) The success of a DGU is not measured by its lethality.

the problem with that logic is that you can claim anything is a DGU. which is why you get annual estimates of DGU ranging from 47,000 a year (The FBI Study) to 5 Million (the largely discredited Kleck)

Pretty much, any time a gun nut feels better about his tiny dick could be considered a DGU by you guys.

Of course the only DGU criteria you'll accept is the one that feeds your tautological "gun death" argument.

You've been owned Princess, by your own admission.

1) "Gun nut" to describe all private owners of guns is just poisoning the well.

Someone who wants to carry a gun around with him all the time and wonders why Churches and Schools and Bars and Work-places don't want him to has crossed the line into "Gun Nut" territory.

Also, you chart is misleading because private gun owners almost never stop mass shootings.

Gun Free Zones.

*mic drop*

 

[LOki]

Nonsense. Gun manufacturers and sellers are still liable for their criminal acts. Do some research.

I have. they aren't. YOu pretty much have to catch them openly breaking the law to get any kind of action against them.

Then you need only provide title and citation for this"...law that immunizes gun sellers and manufacturers from class action and individual lawsuits."

I have no fear that you will. It doesn't exist.

 

[Dan Daly]

Again, the words in the 2nd Amendment are there for a reason.

Indeed.
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."
Not the right of the militia...
Not the right of the people in the militia...
The right of the people.
Nothing in the constitution supports your position.

"Nothing" -- and yet there's that inconvenient conditional phrase, batting leadoff ....

It is neither inconvenient nor conditional, it merely states a reason why a the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...to ensure the basis of a well-regulated (trained, disciplined, equipped) militia, which is essential to the security of a free state (unlike other states of the time where standing armies were the norm).

It's not rocket surgery, and these lame attempts to play word games with such a simple phrase doesn't make you look smart...it makes you look silly and not well educated.

The phrase has no function. It sits there as if it's an intended conditional phrase, implying, yet stopping short of actually saying, that said rights shall apply specifically to citizens in a "well regulated militia".

Its presence there can mean only one of two things. Either:
(1) it IS intended as a conditional phrase, limiting the articulated right to a "well regulated militia" -- in which case it fails to directly state that;
OR
(2) It is NOT intended as a conditional phrase, and therefore has no function, in which case it's fatally ambiguous.

Again, a Constitution is not a court decision. It has no need for explanations, bases of reasoning, or any other incarnation of "why we're doing this". That's not what a Constitution does and not the place for it.

You really want to suggest that, completely out of left field this little phrase suddenly departs from the format of the entire Constitution, injects a thought no one can explain, and then we go back to direct language again? That's what I call word games.

You can like the Second Amendment, you can dislike it, you can feel indifferent --- but you can't sit here and deny how the fuck English works. It's fatally flawed as written. I don't know what it was intended to mean. No one does.

I don't have to suggest anything, you can simply refer to Heller where the Court held in part:

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part[emphasis added], the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

Again, your silly arguments have no basis in simple English, logic, reason, or law.

 

[Dan Daly]

Again, the words in the 2nd Amendment are there for a reason.

Indeed.
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."
Not the right of the militia...
Not the right of the people in the militia...
The right of the people.
Nothing in the constitution supports your position.

"Nothing" -- and yet there's that inconvenient conditional phrase, batting leadoff ....

It is neither inconvenient nor conditional, it merely states a reason why a the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...to ensure the basis of a well-regulated (trained, disciplined, equipped) militia, which is essential to the security of a free state (unlike other states of the time where standing armies were the norm).

It's not rocket surgery, and these lame attempts to play word games with such a simple phrase doesn't make you look smart...it makes you look silly and not well educated.

The phrase has no function. It sits there as if it's an intended conditional phrase, implying, yet stopping short of actually saying, that said rights shall apply specifically to citizens in a "well regulated militia".

Its presence there can mean only one of two things. Either:
(1) it IS intended as a conditional phrase, limiting the articulated right to a "well regulated militia" -- in which case it fails to directly state that;
OR
(2) It is NOT intended as a conditional phrase, and therefore has no function, in which case it's fatally ambiguous.

Again, a Constitution is not a court decision. It has no need for explanations, bases of reasoning, or any other incarnation of "why we're doing this". That's not what a Constitution does and not the place for it.

You really want to suggest that, completely out of left field this little phrase suddenly departs from the format of the entire Constitution, injects a thought no one can explain, and then we go back to direct language again? That's what I call word games.

You can like the Second Amendment, you can dislike it, you can feel indifferent --- but you can't sit here and deny how the fuck English works. It's fatally flawed as written. I don't know what it was intended to mean. No one does.

As stated, just like the 9/11 Truthers when you keep asking them to explain things, they get crazier and crazier as they go on. First they refused to address why the word Militia was there. Then once they did that, they tried to act like the words "well regulated militia" were 3 independent words and well didn't describe "regulated" and neither had anything to do with the word militia. As crazy as it sounded, then they doubled down on the framers, in this one amendment, the framers just mentioned a subset to mention it.

I have already outlined what those crazy SCOTUS justices had to say on the matter...but hey, keep flailing in a ignorance-triggered fit...it's funny to watch.

 

[Dan Daly]

2) Allow lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

Are you also going to allow lawsuits against Chevrolet when somebody uses one of their cars to run over a nagging ex-husband?

(Do these people even realize how ridiculous their "solutions" are?)

Cars aren't designed to kill people.

Guns are.

so the comparison that you gun nuts compensating for tiny peckers keep throwing out there is... silly.

Guns are designed to allow a human to send a projectile down range, cars are designed to allow a human to send himself down range. This notion that one is "designed to kill" is about as silly as saying that the female vagina is designed to give you the gleep.

 

[Rustic]

2) Allow lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

Are you also going to allow lawsuits against Chevrolet when somebody uses one of their cars to run over a nagging ex-husband?

(Do these people even realize how ridiculous their "solutions" are?)

Cars aren't designed to kill people.

Guns are.

so the comparison that you gun nuts compensating for tiny peckers keep throwing out there is... silly.

This country does not have a firearms problem, a nonissue.

 

[Rustic]

No, people who think they know better how you should live, than you do... and who want to disarm you so they can force their will on you (that is, modern liberals) beget more violence.

When the victims try to fight back and refuse disarmament, the resulting violence is not the victims' fault. It's still the liberals' fault, who tried to coerce them in the first place.

Out of 33,000 gun deaths a year, on 200 of them are civilians with guns using them in self-defense. Your cure is far worse than the disease.

And the best way to reduce mass shootings, is still allowing everyone to carry. Most people still won't bother. But a few will. And the criminal knows that when he wants to shoot up a shopping mall or school, knows that a few adults in the crowd are probably carrying... and he won't know which ones they are. But he knows it's unlikely he'll be able to rack up the huge body counts he wants, to get weeks of lurid headlines after he's dead. And so he often will change his mind and not try, since he can't get his massive posthumous publicity. And that mass shooting will be prevented, without a shot being fired.

That's the idiocy of the gun nut. In fact, gun nuts have never stopped other gun nuts. The FBI found that most mass shooters are stopped by the police or themselves.

And while you do have stories like the person at the Gabby Gifford shooting who almost shot the person who disarmed Loughner, or the CCW hold who went after the guy in the Joker Costume who shot two cops only to be shot in the back by his girldfriend, stories of CCW holders stopping active shooters are few and far between. Usually because these incidents are over before anyone figures out what is going on.

Still no laws that will stop these shootings, more laws can never work.

 

[Rustic]

2) Allow lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

Are you also going to allow lawsuits against Chevrolet when somebody uses one of their cars to run over a nagging ex-husband?

(Do these people even realize how ridiculous their "solutions" are?)

Cars aren't designed to kill people.

Guns are.

so the comparison that you gun nuts compensating for tiny peckers keep throwing out there is... silly.

Guns are designed to allow a human to send a projectile down range, cars are designed to allow a human to send himself down range. This notion that one is "designed to kill" is about as silly as saying that the female vagina is designed to give you the gleep.

He deflects a lot...

 

[paulitician]

Reasonable compromise. We have to get more serious about not allowing dumbasses to own firearms. We also have to get more serious about not allowing dumbasses to give other dumbasses and children firearms. There has to be stricter guidelines and punishments for those who give others and especially children, firearms.

 

[Rustic]

Reasonable compromise. We have to get more serious about not allowing dumbasses to own firearms. We also have to get more serious about not allowing dumbasses to give other dumbasses and children firearms. There has to be stricter guidelines and punishments for those who give others and especially children, firearms.

Na, not really...

 

[candycorn]

Again, the words in the 2nd Amendment are there for a reason.

Indeed.
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."
Not the right of the militia...
Not the right of the people in the militia...
The right of the people.
Nothing in the constitution supports your position.

"Nothing" -- and yet there's that inconvenient conditional phrase, batting leadoff ....

It is neither inconvenient nor conditional, it merely states a reason why a the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...to ensure the basis of a well-regulated (trained, disciplined, equipped) militia, which is essential to the security of a free state (unlike other states of the time where standing armies were the norm).

It's not rocket surgery, and these lame attempts to play word games with such a simple phrase doesn't make you look smart...it makes you look silly and not well educated.

The phrase has no function. It sits there as if it's an intended conditional phrase, implying, yet stopping short of actually saying, that said rights shall apply specifically to citizens in a "well regulated militia".

Its presence there can mean only one of two things. Either:
(1) it IS intended as a conditional phrase, limiting the articulated right to a "well regulated militia" -- in which case it fails to directly state that;
OR
(2) It is NOT intended as a conditional phrase, and therefore has no function, in which case it's fatally ambiguous.

Again, a Constitution is not a court decision. It has no need for explanations, bases of reasoning, or any other incarnation of "why we're doing this". That's not what a Constitution does and not the place for it.

You really want to suggest that, completely out of left field this little phrase suddenly departs from the format of the entire Constitution, injects a thought no one can explain, and then we go back to direct language again? That's what I call word games.

You can like the Second Amendment, you can dislike it, you can feel indifferent --- but you can't sit here and deny how the fuck English works. It's fatally flawed as written. I don't know what it was intended to mean. No one does.

I don't have to suggest anything, you can simply refer to Heller where the Court held in part:

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part[emphasis added], the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

Again, your silly arguments have no basis in simple English, logic, reason, or law.

We'll see when Hillary starts appointing judges. The mood of the court seems to wish to make the nation a better place nowadays. The monthly bloodbaths are not good for the nation so I expect them to do something to either remedy the problem or provide some relief to those affected by the existence of the 2nd Amendment--i.e. people getting killed needlessly. It's much easier to remedy the problem than mitigate the outcome.

 

[LOki]

The monthly bloodbaths are not good for the nation so I expect them to do something to either remedy the problem or provide some relief to those affected by the existence of the 2nd Amendment--i.e. people getting killed needlessly. It's much easier to remedy the problem than mitigate the outcome.

Abortion.

*mic drop*

 

[M14 Shooter]

We'll see when Hillary starts appointing judges. The mood of the court seems to wish to make the nation a better place nowadays. The monthly bloodbaths are not good for the nation so I expect them to do something to either remedy the problem or provide some relief to those affected by the existence of the 2nd Amendment--i.e. people getting killed needlessly. It's much easier to remedy the problem than mitigate the outcome.

More mindless nonsense.

 

[Rustic]

Indeed.
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."
Not the right of the militia...
Not the right of the people in the militia...
The right of the people.
Nothing in the constitution supports your position.

"Nothing" -- and yet there's that inconvenient conditional phrase, batting leadoff ....

It is neither inconvenient nor conditional, it merely states a reason why a the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...to ensure the basis of a well-regulated (trained, disciplined, equipped) militia, which is essential to the security of a free state (unlike other states of the time where standing armies were the norm).

It's not rocket surgery, and these lame attempts to play word games with such a simple phrase doesn't make you look smart...it makes you look silly and not well educated.

The phrase has no function. It sits there as if it's an intended conditional phrase, implying, yet stopping short of actually saying, that said rights shall apply specifically to citizens in a "well regulated militia".

Its presence there can mean only one of two things. Either:
(1) it IS intended as a conditional phrase, limiting the articulated right to a "well regulated militia" -- in which case it fails to directly state that;
OR
(2) It is NOT intended as a conditional phrase, and therefore has no function, in which case it's fatally ambiguous.

Again, a Constitution is not a court decision. It has no need for explanations, bases of reasoning, or any other incarnation of "why we're doing this". That's not what a Constitution does and not the place for it.

You really want to suggest that, completely out of left field this little phrase suddenly departs from the format of the entire Constitution, injects a thought no one can explain, and then we go back to direct language again? That's what I call word games.

You can like the Second Amendment, you can dislike it, you can feel indifferent --- but you can't sit here and deny how the fuck English works. It's fatally flawed as written. I don't know what it was intended to mean. No one does.

I don't have to suggest anything, you can simply refer to Heller where the Court held in part:

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part[emphasis added], the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

Again, your silly arguments have no basis in simple English, logic, reason, or law.

We'll see when Hillary starts appointing judges. The mood of the court seems to wish to make the nation a better place nowadays. The monthly bloodbaths are not good for the nation so I expect them to do something to either remedy the problem or provide some relief to those affected by the existence of the 2nd Amendment--i.e. people getting killed needlessly. It's much easier to remedy the problem than mitigate the outcome.

You insist on worrying about an nonissue, pussy whipped you are.

 

[paulitician]

Reasonable compromise. We have to get more serious about not allowing dumbasses to own firearms. We also have to get more serious about not allowing dumbasses to give other dumbasses and children firearms. There has to be stricter guidelines and punishments for those who give others and especially children, firearms.

Na, not really...

Too many dumbasses out there. There has to be a threat of harsh punishment to those who are irresponsible with firearms. You give a firearm to someone or especially a child, you are responsible. And i mean serious prison time.