Obama's Feckless Leadership

[BT]

The men who wrote the second wanted the citizens to have the same type of arms as the standing army, because they would join that standing army if needed and bring their own arms.

[Plane]

If the maniac had been armed with the sort of weapon the men who wrote the Second Amendment had in mind, namely a cap-and-ball, black powder flintlock or musket, most of the children and teachers would have been able to flee.

He certainly was not a member of a "well-regulated militia", either.

If one of the teachers had a single shot muzzle loading gun , they would have had a slim chance instead of none.

Alas, their second admendment rights were infringed so badly that they had no firearm to defend themselves at all.

The Founders lauded the fact that at the time the people had greater firepower than the US Army , a situation they intended to preserve and said as much. If they had not been such free thinkers they would have done the more conventional thing and empowered an ogliarchy rather than enfranchising the common man.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Washington took his Army against the moonshiners in the Whiskey Rebellion, because the government needed the revenue.  Perhaps Jefferson thought constant revolutions were necessary IN THEORY, but he surely would not have wanted to be overthrown. I doubt he would have even welcomed the overthrow of Adams.

[sirs]

If the maniac had been armed with the sort of weapon the men who wrote the Second Amendment had in mind, namely a cap-and-ball, black powder flintlock or musket, most of the children and teachers would have been able to flee.

See, that's transitioning from ignorance to idiocy.  I realize this perseveration on trying to make it about black powder muskets, but contrary to your illconcieved deductions, that's NOT what the founders had limited the 2nd amendment to.  that's merely the arms that were present.  The 2nd amendment doesn't say a right to bear black powder muskets, its a right to bear arms.  That would be lever action henry rifles during the 1800's, bolt action rifles in the 1900's, and semi-automatic rifles now

He certainly was not a member of a "well-regulated militia", either.

Actually, he was, since the 2nd also references THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE.  But why have you (not so surprisingly) avoided addressing the real goal of compromise here.....who shouldn't have access to firearms, which is a legitimate issue, and how best we can attempt to find some common ground.  Here's a hint, trying to paintbrush all responsible gun owners as gun nuts isn't a good opening

[Xavier_Onassis]

All irresponsible gun owners are gun nuts and unless there is a registration required, no one will ever know the difference. Like a driver's license to drive a car, for example.

[sirs]

Registering doesn't identify responsible vs irresponsible.  Worse, it provides the Federal Government a complete database of who owns what.    I see you've added a new qualifier.....irresponsible gun owners.  Considering they're not the primary source of these shootings, you're again paintbrushing too big a group with the idea of regsitering, anyway

So, since that's not working the problem, let's focus on where we can find common ground.  So, putting aside the gun, how can we better identify the mentally damaged, pathologically inclined folks?

[Xavier_Onassis]

That would be lever action henry rifles during the 1800's, bolt action rifles in the 1900's, and semi-automatic rifles now

==================================================================
Only if you are foolish enough to believe that you can read the minds of dead people.

Licensing cars and drivers works pretty well. We should license guns and their owners too.

[sirs]

That would be lever action henry rifles during the 1800's, bolt action rifles in the 1900's, and semi-automatic rifles now
==================================================================
Only if you are foolish enough to believe that you can read the minds of dead people.

LOL.....YOU'RE THE ONE apparently reading their minds citing they had to mean black powder muskets only        I don't have to read minds, just the Constitution.  It says arms, NOT black powder muskets

Licensing cars and drivers works pretty well. We should license guns and their owners too.

Already explained how that doesn't work.  Now, back to the problem...how can we best identify the mentally damaged, pathologically inclined folks, as to deny them, and them alone from accessing anything dangerous, be it firearms, axes, swords, hammers, power tools, cars?

[Xavier_Onassis]

I say it WILL work.

You are no expert on much of anything.

Since you worship the Founding Fathers so very much, I suppose you also think slavery is fine and merits 3/5ths of a vote for each slave as well.

[sirs]

I say it WILL work.

HOW?  What you say vs what is, are 2 entirely different functions.  HOW does it deny them, and them alone from accessing anything dangerous, be it firearms, not to mention axes, swords, hammers, power tools, cars?  There's a moutain load of irresponsible drivers.  How does registering them get them off the streets, and preventing them from using them in the 1st place??

You are no expert on much of anything.

Trying to change the subect?  Are you that devoid of debate, already??  I'm far more informed on the 2nd amendment than you've ever demonstrated.   

Since you worship the Founding Fathers so very much, I suppose you also think slavery is fine and merits 3/5ths of a vote for each slave as well.

Perhaps you missed the part how the Constitution can be amended, per our founding fathers.  Again, this is beside the point, and dare I say a deflection effort.  Let's try again.....how can we best identify the mentally damaged, pathologically inclined folks, as to deny them, and them alone , from accessing anything dangerous, be it firearms, axes, swords, hammers, power tools, cars?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Registering cars and drivers keeps  a whole lot of them off the streets. I fail to see how you can't recognize this.

And you have your own silly interpretation of the 2nd Amendment,and you are simply wrong about it.

As I said, I do not recognize your expertise about this or anything else you have discussed.

 

[sirs]

Registering cars and drivers keeps  a whole lot of them off the streets.

HOW??  What you do or don't recognize or how ridiculous your interpretations of the 2nd amendment are, has squat to dow with how supposedly registering one's weapon prevents someone from using it to harm/kill.  That's YOUR claim.  So how does it??

[Xavier_Onassis]

If the gun is registered and used in a crime, then the police can check the ballistics and trace it back to the registered owner. Even if the gun is stolen, that gives them more to go on.

You appear to be several fires short of the proverbial Happy Meal, as always.

[sirs]

If the gun is registered and used in a crime,..

Meaning the crime has been committed, ergo it fails at preventing the act to begin with, and fails to prevent the psychotic from killing the person they just killed in the crime

The idea here is to help prevent these crimes.  Is that not your goal??  So now that we've dispensed with how registering does pretty much squat in determining responsible vs not, how can we best identify the mentally damaged, pathologically inclined folks, as to deny them, and them alone , from accessing anything dangerous, be it firearms, axes, swords, hammers, power tools, cars?

[BT]

I am not comfortable allowing some third party to determine my fitness for gun ownership based on subjective and arbitrary diagnosis of mental fitness.