BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: GUEST,Ericka Bernabe
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 09:43 PM

"More people die from gun violence in America than anything else and that is what we should take more seriously."

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: GUEST,#
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 12:23 AM

Guest,Ericka Bernabe: "More people die from gun violence in America than anything else and that is what we should take more seriously."

Too many people die from gun violence would be a more accurate statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: GUEST,🔫
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 08:03 AM

Too many people die from ignorance and stupidity violence would be a more accurate statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: GUEST,Joe B.
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 11:04 AM

"The Supreme Court has ruled that it's an individual right. It is not a corporate right. It is not related to a well-established militia, a well-regulated militia. But it also has ruled that it is constitutional to own a gun individually for purposes of sporting, hunting, and/or self-defense... It is an individual right, but it is also clear constitutionally that the government can limit the type of weapon you can own. For example, if the idea was to be able to repel a tyrannical government, then you should be able to own an F-15 if you have the money to buy it, with full ordnance. But you're not allowed to do that, and the court says you can deny certain weapons available for individual ownership. You can't have a nuclear bomb. So it is an individual right. You have a right for self-defense against any intruder or any illegal activity being perpetrated on you, and for your physical self-defense... Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door. Most people can handle a shotgun a hell of a lot better than they can a semiautomatic weapon in terms of both their aim and in terms of their ability to deter people coming. We can argue whether that's true or not, but it is no argument that, for example, a shotgun could do the same job of protecting you. Now, granted, you can come back and say, Well, a machine gun could do a better job of protecting me. No one's arguing we should make machine guns legal."

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 12:44 PM

No one's arguing we should make machine guns legal.

The NRA is.

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 06:52 PM

Way back in Oct., McGrath said: "Whatever the 2nd amendment means, if Americans wanted to change it, they could. "

I was answering various points back then, somehow I missed a direct reply to that..(although I answered it in other places.)

I will state that McGrath's remark is technically true, but trivially so. *IF* enough people in enough states elected enough of the 'right' legislators, we could have either a constitutional convention or have an amendment proposed to change things.

from this site:http://www.lexisnexis.com/constitution/amendments_howitsdone.asp


"How is the Constitution amended?"
Article V of the Constitution prescribes how an amendment can become a part of the Constitution. While there are two ways, only one has ever been used. All 27 Amendments have been ratified after two-thirds of the House and Senate approve of the proposal and send it to the states for a vote. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment.

The other method of passing an amendment requires a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States. That Convention can propose as many amendments as it deems necessary. Those amendments must be approved by three-fourths of the states."

Note: This is after and IF we elect the legislators who will introduce the amendment at all! Before that, we have to solve the Gerrymandering of Congressional districts that keep electing Conservatives even when more liberals live in the state.
Someone said "money talks", and it talks very loudly when those who already have too many guns are spending more money to make sure they can buy MORE guns.

... and still I can't quite get the idea across that amending a vague 250 year old rule to make sense is very clearly NOT what gun owners and manufacturers want!! (If you are in the gun business, you need a mentality that says "everyone needs more guns!" even when there are already too many guns. Guns don't decay or mold and go bad... so there is no simple, automatic mechanism for a continuing need.)
   They are using the rules to make sure the rules are not amended! The Supreme Court? 'Maybe' if we get a 7-2 liberal court someday... that is, 7 justices who are willing to risk their own lives and deal with an uprising of today's brand of militias who already have enough guns to start a war....add to this the simplistic idea that recent increases in gun violence means we all 'need' guns for self-defense and.............. gee, I hope I don't have to repeat all this again when someone says "but if you Americans really wanted to change..."

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 07:45 AM

But if you Americans really wanted to change...... 😜😄😉

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: GUEST,American
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 06:17 AM

"You Americans" What stereotype are you? I dont own a gun. Am i still included? Perhaps you are a stereotypical gun hater that stereotypes others.

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 06:32 AM

For fuck's sake! I was pulling BillD's leg by repeating his last senrence!
Back the fuck off.

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 02 Dec 15 - 03:04 PM

With sincere sympathy to the families involved. But when are you guys going to learn. Please.