• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A proposal to solve the gun crisis

Until we have a communication crisis, I don’t see why you would suggest we take a more orthodox approach to the 1A. However, the same logic that would exclude advanced weaponry from the 2A can be applied to the 1A. How could the Founders have commented on a world that includes Twitter? They cannot have an opinion on the subject because the world has developed beyond their comprehension. However, we do know that they supported the press but, something as advanced as Twitter complete with misinformation bots.. we have no idea how they would have decided on that issue

However why the focus on the 1A unless it was to deflect away from our gun crisis?
More dishonesty. You cannot pretend that one right is interpreted differently based on your political bias. It is akin to saying that it was OK to deprive thousands of Americans of their constitutional rights due to their ethnicity when FDR locked up loyal American citizens who happened to have Japanese ancestors. the interpretation of our rights is not properly changed based on a political hard on the far left has for gun owners
 
I have scowered the internet for this information. I have listened to several news programs on the telly. Surely law enforcement knows what kind of weapon was used in the FedEx shooting in Indianapolis, and they probably know how Hole got his hands on the rifle.

Despite my exhaustive search, it is readily apparent that law enforcement is holding back all information regarding the weapon.

Why?

We know the shooter's name, Brandon Scott Hole. We know he had worked at the FedEx facility, and we know his mother thought he was suicidal and a shotgun was confiscated from him.

That is all we know about him, and we know nothing about his family, not even their names.

Why is law enforcement keeping all information about this shooter a secret?

Indiana has long been considered to be a Republican stronghold. It's governor is Republican. Currently, the Republican Party holds super majorities in both chambers of the General Assembly. The two Senators are Republican.

That might explain the complete lack of information on the shooter and his weapon.
Why specifically are you so concerned about those particular things? He could have easily committed that shooting with a hunting rifle. Or any firearm with a magazine of 10 rounds. Even for handguns, standard magazines run 10-17 rounds. And people often carry more than one magazine.

OTOH if it was a shotgun...that takes more time to get rounds off.

But it seems like you believe there is some conspiracy forming...can you tell me what you're thinking and why?
 
The Times reports, "The 19-year-old gunman who killed eight people and injured seven others at a FedEx facility in Indianapolis late Thursday was a former employee of the company whose mother had warned law enforcement officials last year that he might try to commit “suicide by cop,” officials said."

Note: It is always easy to red flag a shooter after the act. There are a lot of stupid, dangerous people out there, and, for law enforcement to take action, there must be probable cause.

The gunman had a previous encounter with law enforcement — including the seizure of a shotgun from him last year.

The Times continued, "After the teenager’s mother reported him to law enforcement in March 2020, the authorities launched an investigation and put him on an “immediate detention mental health temporary hold,” Mr. Keenan said in a statement. He was not charged with a crime. “The shotgun was not returned to the suspect,” Mr. Keenan said.

"A law enforcement official, requesting anonymity, identified the suspect as Brandon Scott Hole."

Two huge questions are: A) What kind of rifle was used, and the size of the magazine? B) How did Hole get his hands on such a weapon?
what does this have to do with this thread? didn't you post this same thing on another thread?
 
Mass shootings only comprise less than one percent of all shootings.
in thirty years, less than 150 people died due to mass shootings in California. That is less than 5 a year. How many die from drug overdoses? IN 2020, more people died from inserting foreign objects up their rectums than have been killed by people using AR15s in the last 5 years
 
What "gun crisis" are you talking about?
Too many people have an irrational fear of them would be my best guess.

I suggest we add guns as a mandatory topic in school curriculum in order to help them overcome their fear.
 
It matters in this context because you called it a “conservative talking point” or something similar. I merely pointed out the source to disabuse you of that notion.
I still consider it a conservative notion because it's trying to subtly threaten that in order for the BOR to be applicable in America we need to accept that guns should and will always be a part of our supposedly civil society.
I’ve gone on at length on the militia clause and why it doesn’t mean what you think it means. I suggest you read “The Commonplace Second Amendment” which analyzes the clause the the context of justification clauses that were common in Constitutions of the time.
I'm not interested in analyzing the 2A any further because IIRC you made the illegitimate and melodramatic claim that the 2A is obvious or else you're idiotic. The 2A is a mess.
The 1A talks about free speech and press. You don’t really think newsmen shouted the news in street corners do you? Presses and means od mass communications are implicit in the amendment.
Yes, they're implicit. But they're not explicit.
The 3rd and 4th amendments both explicitly use the word house. A house is an object isn’t it? So much for the argument that only the 2A talks about objects.
The 1A is obviously about "freedom of speech and religion" (not printing press ownership). The 2A is obviously about "the security of a free state." The 3A is obviously about the quartering of soldiers not being unjustly forced, and the 4A is obviously about privacy (neither are about home ownership).

Gun proliferation proponents claim that the 2A is about unrestricted gun ownership and self-defense. If that's the case, those words should be explicit. They aren't.

Adjust your abrasive rhetoric ("idiotic") about the 2A and start discussing and debating more (intellectually) honestly.
 
Doesnt say much for men, does it? More than 90% of gun crimes are committed by men, and yet...we're focusing on GUNS? When it comes to violence, how are guns the problem?
Do you think women have higher proportions of knifings and beatings?
 
Stop whining, you can still own a musket
He can own an AR 15 or a rifle that can successfully engage in target over a mile away as well-and guess what-there is not a damn thing you can do about it
 
More dishonesty. You cannot pretend that one right is interpreted differently based on your political bias. It is akin to saying that it was OK to deprive thousands of Americans of their constitutional rights due to their ethnicity when FDR locked up loyal American citizens who happened to have Japanese ancestors. the interpretation of our rights is not properly changed based on a political hard on the far left has for gun owners

my political bias has nothing to do with it, my reality bias does. But then I guess reality has a left wing bias. Look at the reality of the rest of the worlds gun laws which permit guns for hunting only and they don’t have the mass shooting we have. And then look at the 2A which pertains to muskets and militias 230 years ago and the answer is obvious unless you’re pushing an agenda like you are
 
I believe the first step is to make firearms non-transferable. Your guns are buried with you. Metaphorically. Although you could spend eternity with their ashes if you like, I suppose.
what a stupid suggestion.
 
my political bias has nothing to do with it, my reality bias does. But then I guess reality has a left wing bias. Look at the reality of the rest of the worlds gun laws which permit guns for hunting only and they don’t have the mass shooting we have. And then look at the 2A which pertains to muskets and militias 230 years ago and the answer is obvious unless you’re pushing an agenda like you are
if reality has a left wing bias, why is it that the left wing views concerning guns are invariably dishonest, ignorant and completely devoid of having any understanding of our constitution?
 
if reality has a left wing bias, why is it that the left wing views concerning guns are invariably dishonest, ignorant and completely devoid of having any understanding of our constitution?

because they aren’t and you’re just making stuff up
 
because they aren’t and you’re just making stuff up
Your posts on guns are invariably stupid and factually barren. You pretend that the founders intended to limit our second amendment protections to arms available in 1790 or so, yet there is no evidence of that and the supreme court has already flushed that turd down the toilet. Your posts are the epitome of being based on a political animus against how gun owners vote and a desire to harass gun owners. Crime control has nothing to do with your stupid suggestions.
 
Do you think women have higher proportions of knifings and beatings?
Receiving them? Yes. Using them to commit violence? No.
my political bias has nothing to do with it, my reality bias does. But then I guess reality has a left wing bias. Look at the reality of the rest of the worlds gun laws which permit guns for hunting only and they don’t have the mass shooting we have. And then look at the 2A which pertains to muskets and militias 230 years ago and the answer is obvious unless you’re pushing an agenda like you are
But you could commit any of the recent mass shootings with a hunting rifle. Very easily. Esp. since such shooters tend to pick places that are gun-free zones or most people are assumed to be unarmed. The surprise factor (ambush) is unfortunately effective.

So I dont see how it's related to the type of gun except for preference. Are some rifles more effective at shooting quickly and penetrating? Yes but again...we mostly see deaths under 10 people thankfully (and yes, not always, I know) and you can use a standard full-size handgun...as some do...and kill the same or more (like the VT shooter).

Do you seriously think that a ban on all but hunting rifles would work? LOL I forget who it was but one poster wanted that...and then as I picked away at his argument in terms of enforceability, he ended up saying they'd also have to mandate buying a hunting license, proving you actually hunted, and then I pointed out they have to have a gun to do so LOLOL, and then pointed out they'd need to prove they'd made a kill to prove they hunted! LOL

It's not about the guns...it's about the maladjusted, malfunctioning POS's and mentally ill that CHOOSE to do this.
 
Your posts on guns are invariably stupid and factually barren. You pretend that the founders intended to limit our second amendment protections to arms available in 1790 or so, yet there is no evidence of that and the supreme court has already flushed that turd down the toilet. Your posts are the epitome of being based on a political animus against how gun owners vote and a desire to harass gun owners. Crime control has nothing to do with your stupid suggestions.
Your posts on guns are the spitting image of the ostrich with his head in the sand. The Supreme Court has been wrong before such as Plessy v. Ferguson and the Constitution itself was wrong when it wrote all men were created equal yet didn’t ban slavery. However we can look at what we thought he Founders intended. I believe the 2A was intended to guard against Federal overreach because they were keenly aware of British abuses. It wasn’t meant so that dickweeds can have fun at target ranges with semi autos while other more sinister dickweeds murder people. The Founders had no vision of the weapons of today. To claim the 2A accurately addresses them is remedial and incomplete
 
The one I just showed you:rolleyes:
Oh, you mean the Columbine crisis! For a minute there I thought you were blaming guns for the actions of some kids who murdered people at their school.
 
Oh, you mean the Columbine crisis! For a minute there I thought you were blaming guns for the actions of some kids who murdered people at their school.
The guns definitely allowed them to fulfill their twisted fantasies
 
Receiving them? Yes. Using them to commit violence? No.

But you could commit any of the recent mass shootings with a hunting rifle. Very easily. Esp. since such shooters tend to pick places that are gun-free zones or most people are assumed to be unarmed. The surprise factor (ambush) is unfortunately effective.

So I dont see how it's related to the type of gun except for preference. Are some rifles more effective at shooting quickly and penetrating? Yes but again...we mostly see deaths under 10 people thankfully (and yes, not always, I know) and you can use a standard full-size handgun...as some do...and kill the same or more (like the VT shooter).

Do you seriously think that a ban on all but hunting rifles would work? LOL I forget who it was but one poster wanted that...and then as I picked away at his argument in terms of enforceability, he ended up saying they'd also have to mandate buying a hunting license, proving you actually hunted, and then I pointed out they have to have a gun to do so LOLOL, and then pointed out they'd need to prove they'd made a kill to prove they hunted! LOL

It's not about the guns...it's about the maladjusted, malfunctioning POS's and mentally ill that CHOOSE to do this.

that’s my suggestion that we should ban all guns but hunting rifles and require people to actually prove they hunt with bows for a couple seasons before they are allowed a rifle
 
Your posts on guns are the spitting image of the ostrich with his head in the sand. The Supreme Court has been wrong before such as Plessy v. Ferguson and the Constitution itself was wrong when it wrote all men were created equal yet didn’t ban slavery. However we can look at what we thought he Founders intended. I believe the 2A was intended to guard against Federal overreach because they were keenly aware of British abuses. It wasn’t meant so that dickweeds can have fun at target ranges with semi autos while other more sinister dickweeds murder people. The Founders had no vision of the weapons of today. To claim the 2A accurately addresses them is remedial and incomplete
Remind me of you credentials in constitutional scholarship to pretend the supreme court is wrong. You just dislike how gun owners TEND to vote in elections so you push for gun laws to harass us. The founders certainly could contemplate rifles that shot faster than the ones they owned just as I can contemplate an Indy car going 350 MPH. You have absolutely no support for your claims and you merely want the constitution to allow the stupid laws you want to use to harass gun owners.

There is NOTHING in the constitution that actually empowers the federal government to restrict what arms citizens own. The expansion of the commerce clause is far more egregious than your unlearned claims about the supreme court and the second
 
that’s my suggestion that we should ban all guns but hunting rifles and require people to actually prove they hunt with bows for a couple seasons before they are allowed a rifle
we should ban people posting opinions on the second amendment and firearms until they have proven they can say shoot a "el presidente"clean in under 10 seconds and field strip an AR 15 in under a minute.
 
Remind me of you credentials in constitutional scholarship to pretend the supreme court is wrong. You just dislike how gun owners TEND to vote in elections so you push for gun laws to harass us. The founders certainly could contemplate rifles that shot faster than the ones they owned just as I can contemplate an Indy car going 350 MPH. You have absolutely no support for your claims and you merely want the constitution to allow the stupid laws you want to use to harass gun owners.

There is NOTHING in the constitution that actually empowers the federal government to restrict what arms citizens own. The expansion of the commerce clause is far more egregious than your unlearned claims about the supreme court and the second
Reduced to credential humping already, are we? Need I remind you that there was a time in the recent past when slavery was Constitutionally permissible. Is it possible that a document written in the 1700’s got some specifics wrong? I’d say so considering it MISSED calling out SLAVERY. At that time it would have been the people like me who had good sense calling out slavery and the learned judges and lawyers completely bereft of sense.
 
Reduced to credential humping already, are we? Need I remind you that there was a time in the recent past when slavery was Constitutionally permissible. Is it possible that a document written in the 1700’s got some specifics wrong? I’d say so considering it MISSED calling out SLAVERY. At that time it would have been the people like me who had good sense calling out slavery and the learned judges and lawyers completely bereft of sense.
Is there any legal scholar you can find, who claims the second amendment should be limited to the weapons that the Founders had access to?
 
Back
Top Bottom