|
School Shooting in... Finland. 7 killed (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by ams.rld
One would think that given the average age of the posters here, most people would stop being little bitches and mind their own business by now.
If not, the right place for you is the COR. |
I was going to ask if you are an alt of Latinlover, but at least he posts news stories. All you've got are the insults. But yeah, HTP's the one who should be leaving for the Chill Out Room... |
|
|
| ams.rld |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
I was going to ask if you are an alt of Latinlover, but at least he posts news stories. All you've got are the insults. But yeah, HTP's the one who should be leaving for the Chill Out Room... |
You were going to ask me a question if I were an alt? Why, that at least would have been one step closer to intellectual curiosity for you!
Really you should have asked. I would have had more respect for you. Other than the posts dealing with Africa, you are a silly joke. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by ams.rld
You were going to ask me a question if I were an alt? Why, that at least would have been one step closer to intellectual curiosity for you!
Really you should have asked. I would have had more respect for you. Other than the posts dealing with Africa, you are a silly joke. |
Do you care to provide reasoning or just the assertion? |
|
|
| Internet TufGai |
| quote: | | In text posted on the site, Auvinen described himself as "a cynical existentialist, anti-human humanist, anti-social social-Darwinist, realistic idealist and God-like atheist" who was "prepared to fight and die for my cause." He added that, "as a natural selector," he would "eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection." |
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/15...1107/id_0.jhtml
Here's a little more info on this kid, we can start to see why he started shooting.
Wow, this kid has a lot of issues (duh). He sounds like one of those columbine shooters. It seems like teens who are a part of goth or similar cultures seem to do this the most. The exception is that kid who shot up VT. I'm not saying that kids in goth cultures do this all the time, but I'm just saying I'm noticing a trend. Maybe parents should do something if their kids start going to hot topic. |
|
|
| ams.rld |
| quote: | Originally posted by Internet TufGai
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/15...1107/id_0.jhtml
Here's a little more info on this kid, we can start to see why he started shooting.
Wow, this kid has a lot of issues (duh). He sounds like one of those columbine shooters. It seems like teens who are a part of goth or similar cultures seem to do this the most. The exception is that kid who shot up VT. I'm not saying that kids in goth cultures do this all the time, but I'm just saying I'm noticing a trend. Maybe parents should do something if their kids start going to hot topic. |
I think he was too stressed out for an age like the one we are all living in. It happens though, there are so little outlets for social outcasts to fit in. |
|
|
| OurManFlint |
I've never realized why, in the US, owning a gun(a killing instrument) is easier than obtaining a driver's licence and a car (an intrument which could potentially kill).
I've always heard the term "driving is not a right, it's a priviledge." But I've also heard "owning a gun is a right." Why isn't owning a gun a priviledge, a privildge harder to obtain than getting behind the wheele of a vehicle? |
|
|
| HardTranceProd |
| quote: | Originally posted by ams.rld
It happens though, there are so little outlets for social outcasts to fit in. |
there are so few outlets |
|
|
| noikeee |
| I can understand the people who are against gun control because they think it's better for the society that way, although I disagree with it. What I can't understand, at all, is the reasoning of the people who are against gun control only because something written 300 years ago said that's the way it should be. Seriously. It's like those people who are fundamentalist christians and will take literally absolutely everything that it's written in the Bible, just because it's written in the Bible, maaaan!! At least Jesus had super-hero powers. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Yes, which is to say, certainly nothing applicable today.
So, tell me:
1. Does the prevalence of guns in homes around the United States lessen the call for federal military establishments?
2. Can the United States military be formidable to the liberties of the people in spite of our, apparently very, very large "militia?" Furthermore, is it presently?
3. Are those who bear arms in the United States little, if at all, inferior to the United States military in discipline and the use of arms?
4. Do those Bush-voting, gun-toting, militiamen stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens
5. Who are your militia officers appointed by your local government?
6. Do the arms of the citizens of the United States form an "insurmountable" barrier, or any barrier at all, against the enterprises of ambition? As a result of this barrier, are our freedoms less threatened than the freedoms of citizens in nations whose populations are far less armed?
The reality is that guns do not provide any meaningful defense against the ability of the federal government to encroach upon our rights - no matter how big our "militia" is. Nor, further, do guns in the hands of ordinary civilians enhance or contribute to the security of the free state in any way (in fact, they are probably interfering with the security of the free state in several ways). The truth is, either our rights are secure, or guns do little to secure our rights. You can't have your cake and eat it too - so which is it, friend?
Well, it's always a good sign when you agree with the legal opinions of the ex-Attorney General and his staff. Their reputation for non-partisan legal interpretation, protecting our individual liberties, and refusing to distort or evade constitutional protections is legendary, and I dare say your position on gun control is a stunning testament to those same values.
No doubt they'd also agree that if I were to say, "I, being rich, am going to buy a yacht," then I'm going to buy a yacht no matter what and that little thing about my being rich is a totally irrelevant preface upon which my purchasing a yacht is not at all dependent. I clearly must have thrown it in just to brag, totally oblivious to the possibility that someone might think it's related to whether or not I end up buying a yacht.
Well, I agree that the prevalence of guns certainly isn't the only factor contributing to the amount of gun crimes in the U.S., but I don't think "attack[ing] the motivations which lead to violence" is ever going to be a successful enough strategy that no other restrictions are necessary. No matter how disinclined a population of individuals might be towards violence, I wouldn't entrust them all with their own weapons of mass destruction, based on the belief that they would not use them. Simply put, violent incidents will always occur - we can, and certainly ought to, strive to reduce their frequency through other means, but the more potent the weapons that those who inevitably carry out violent acts have, the higher the probability that those acts will be lethal, or the higher the body count might be. Therefore, it is in our interest that people possess the least potent weapons possible. |
In the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, Polish Jews held off the Nazi's for a little while and they were really only armed with homemade explosives and a few handguns.
|
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
I firmly believe that our Second Amendment was more or less based upon the rights of the people over that of a possibly oppressive government, which is what we were trying to escape by declaring independence from Britain in the first place. |
It is the right of the people, not the right of a person.
"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." Notice the second amendment prefaces the right to bear arms with 'a well regulated militia.' furthermore, the amendment says, "the people," not simply 'people' or an individual. the people implies that it applies to the aggregate, and when taken together with the militia clause, it is obvious that the intend is to allow states to form militias and for states to keep and bear arms. All but two of the federal circuits agree with that reading.
a case raising the exact meaning of this clause was argued in front of the supreme court on march 18th. In that case, Washington DC imposed severe restrictions on owning hand guns. I read some of the transcripts and it doesn't look good for DC because the convervative court pounced on D.C.'s attorney, and the conservatives outnumber the liberals and moderates. However, I think the court will punt on whether the law applies to state's restrictions on guns because DC is the federal government, and therefore, state sovereignty to impose gun controls was not implicated. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
It is the right of the people, not the right of a person.
"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." Notice the second amendment prefaces the right to bear arms with 'a well regulated militia.' furthermore, the amendment says, "the people," not simply 'people' or an individual. the people implies that it applies to the aggregate, and when taken together with the militia clause, it is obvious that the intend is to allow states to form militias and for states to keep and bear arms. All but two of the federal circuits agree with that reading.
a case raising the exact meaning of this clause was argued in front of the supreme court on march 18th. In that case, Washington DC imposed severe restrictions on owning hand guns. I read some of the transcripts and it doesn't look good for DC because the convervative court pounced on D.C.'s attorney, and the conservatives outnumber the liberals and moderates. However, I think the court will punt on whether the law applies to state's restrictions on guns because DC is the federal government, and therefore, state sovereignty to impose gun controls was not implicated. |
Yeah, it does seem a little fuzzy when you read it as it was written back then but when you put it in the proper context (regarding how our founding fathers thought) it loses all of it's ambiguity.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson
"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason
"A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington
Back then a militia member was basically anyone who was trained to shoot a firearm.
"I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people."
- George Mason
"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves... and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle."
- Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788, at 169
More quotes from Richard Henry Lee:
"No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state...such area well-regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen."
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
Yeah, it does seem a little fuzzy when you read it as it was written back then but when you put it in the proper context (regarding how our founding fathers thought) it loses all of it's ambiguity.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson
"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason
"A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington
Back then a militia member was basically anyone who was trained to shoot a firearm.
"I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people."
- George Mason
"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves... and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle."
- Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788, at 169
More quotes from Richard Henry Lee:
"No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state...such area well-regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen."
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." |
even with all of those quotes the right to bear arms refers to a military purpose. There is no reference to a persons right to have a handgun to shot at random targets.
If you are interested, check out the transcripts to the oral argument.
ORAL ARGUMENT TRANSCRIPTS
CASE BRIEFS (DC v HELLER)
There is an interesting exchange on how "bear arms" was a military term back when the constitution was drafted. Each time they refer to "bear arms" or "keep arms" it is a military reference. In any event, I find it slightly silly that we are arguing whether the words "bear arms" was a military term back in the 1700's, when even the purpose of the amendment is obsolete today, even on the NRA reading of the amendment. |
|
|
|
|
