Another Shooting

[loomis41973]

bat shit crazy

 

[dublinirish]

her dad actually told the cops in SD she was gonna go up to Youtube and shoot the place up...

 

[NorthDakota]

Oddball and Fanatic are all too often one and the same.

Vegan and Fanatic are often the same as well haha. Kinda like crossfit.

 

[dshans]

Vegan and Fanatic are often the same as well haha. Kinda like crossfit.

No argument from me on this.

 

[ACamp1900]

Vegan and Fanatic are often the same as well haha. Kinda like crossfit.

No argument from me on this.

You're forgetting the most telling label involved......


Woman.

 

[wizards8507]

 

[Legacy]

Limitations, ideally I want access to whatever the military has access to. I see why people are generally not on board with that though. The potential of having artillery, rockets, etc is not exactly ideal.

Machine guns, I mean...I can see why we don't allow them to be commercially available.

I'd enforce laws already on the books. No major gun legislation is necessary in my personal opinion. Enforce the laws we have before even considering new laws.

With mass/school shootings, we've seen handguns used as well. (See: VaTech and Fort Hood). I dont think banning the sale or possession of semi-automatic rifles would be remotely effective.

Not hearing much else on any suggestions for common sense limitations/regulations.
Here's only a bit of legal history on guns:
The Gun Control Act of 1968 established the Federal Firearms License (FFL) system, aand the types of persons prohibited from purchasing weapons. FFLs had to maintain records of sales. The Act also stipulated the conditions for private sales. An unlicensed person is prohibited by federal law from transferring, selling, trading, giving, transporting, or delivering a firearm to any other unlicensed person only if they know or have reasonable cause to believe the buyer does not reside in the same State or is prohibited by law from purchasing or possessing firearms.

In his remarks on signing the Act, Lyndon Johnson said:

The Government can help protect its citizens against the random and the reckless violence of crime at gun point. We have come here to the Cabinet Room today to sign the most comprehensive gun control law ever signed in this Nation's history.

Some of you may be interested in knowing-really-what this bill does:
--It stops murder by mail order. It bars the interstate sale of all guns and the bullets that load them.
--It stops the sale of lethal weapons to those too young to bear their terrible responsibility.
--It puts up a big "off-limits" sign, to stop gunrunners from dumping cheap foreign "$10 specials" on the shores of our country.

Congress adopted most of our recommendations. But this bill--as big as this bill is--still falls short, because we just could not get the Congress to carry out the requests we made of them. I asked for the national registration of all guns and the licensing of those who carry those guns. For the fact of life is that there are over 160 million guns in this country--more firearms than families. If guns are to be kept out of the hands of the criminal, out of the hands of the insane, and out of the hands of the irresponsible, then we just must have licensing. If the criminal with a gun is to be tracked down quickly, then we must have registration in this country.

The voices that blocked these safeguards were not the voices of an aroused nation. They were the voices of a powerful lobby, a gun lobby, that has prevailed for the moment in an election year.

But the key to effective crime control remains, in my judgment, effective gun control. And those of us who are really concerned about crime just must--somehow, someday--make our voices felt. We must continue to work for the day when Americans can get the full protection that every American citizen is entitled to and deserves-the kind of protection that most civilized nations have long ago adopted. We have been through a great deal of anguish these last few months and these last few years-too much anguish to forget so quickly.

In 1986, Congress passed the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA), which relaxed certain controls in the Gun Control Act making it legal for FFL holders to make private sales, provided the firearm was transferred to the licensee's personal collection at least one year prior to the sale. The scope of those who "engage in the business" of dealing in firearms (and are therefore required to have a license) was narrowed to include only those who devote "time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms." FOPA excluded those who buy and sell firearms to "enhance a personal collection" or for a "hobby," or who "sell all or part of a personal collection." Efforts to require criminal background checks and purchase records on private sales at gun shows were unsuccessful.
-- The NRA and the gun lobby supported the FOPA, resulting in gun shows becoming a major trafficking channel for illegal guns. A study found that 25-50% of gun vendors at gun shows were unlicensed or private sellers. The DOJ estimates there are between 2,000 and 5,200 gun shows a year in the U.S. An ATF study of its investigations concluded that approximately 26,000 guns sold at gun shows were diverted from legal to illegal commerce. A 2010 report by Mayors Against Illegal Guns found that criminals seek out states that do not require background checks at gun shows. The source of crime guns is at a rate more than two and a half times greater from those states that do not require background checks at gun shows than those that do.

- The NRA's position: Private Sales Restrictions and Gun Registration
- Giffords Law Center: Gun Shows (Includes which states who have required background checks on all sales at gun shows in their states.)

Eighty-four percent of Americans favor background checks for all sales at gun shows (87% of non-gun owners, 77% of gun owners). With such a divergence, the NRA's position on this is extreme as well as facilitating illegal gun commerce and contributing to gun violence. A more common sense regulation would be to have full background checks on all "private seller" gun sales with records of these sales, which could be kept in a database easily accessible to law enforcement when they need to trace the source of a gun used in a crime.

 

[Bishop2b5]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/F6XTVuUP0Ho" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This has been making the rounds so I'm sure some have seen it... I don't know too much about Bevin but as it pertains to just this topic the overall message is worth sharing because it articulates some misgivings I've had about the recent momentum. This is not a one prong issue but it seems that the one prong that is exclusively on, 'the wrong side' isle is getting all the attention... which is pretty transparent imo.

Just about 100% sums up my position and thoughts on the matter. Excellent video. I had never heard of this guy before, but will have to learn more about him.

 

[NorthDakota]

Not hearing much else on any suggestions for common sense limitations/regulations.
Here's only a bit of legal history on guns:
The Gun Control Act of 1968 established the Federal Firearms License (FFL) system, aand the types of persons prohibited from purchasing weapons. FFLs had to maintain records of sales. The Act also stipulated the conditions for private sales. An unlicensed person is prohibited by federal law from transferring, selling, trading, giving, transporting, or delivering a firearm to any other unlicensed person only if they know or have reasonable cause to believe the buyer does not reside in the same State or is prohibited by law from purchasing or possessing firearms.

In his remarks on signing the Act, Lyndon Johnson said:


In 1986, Congress passed the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA), which relaxed certain controls in the Gun Control Act making it legal for FFL holders to make private sales, provided the firearm was transferred to the licensee's personal collection at least one year prior to the sale. The scope of those who "engage in the business" of dealing in firearms (and are therefore required to have a license) was narrowed to include only those who devote "time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms." FOPA excluded those who buy and sell firearms to "enhance a personal collection" or for a "hobby," or who "sell all or part of a personal collection." Efforts to require criminal background checks and purchase records on private sales at gun shows were unsuccessful.
-- The NRA and the gun lobby supported the FOPA, resulting in gun shows becoming a major trafficking channel for illegal guns. A study found that 25-50% of gun vendors at gun shows were unlicensed or private sellers. The DOJ estimates there are between 2,000 and 5,200 gun shows a year in the U.S. An ATF study of its investigations concluded that approximately 26,000 guns sold at gun shows were diverted from legal to illegal commerce. A 2010 report by Mayors Against Illegal Guns found that criminals seek out states that do not require background checks at gun shows. The source of crime guns is at a rate more than two and a half times greater from those states that do not require background checks at gun shows than those that do.

- The NRA's position: Private Sales Restrictions and Gun Registration
- Giffords Law Center: Gun Shows (Includes which states who have required background checks on all sales at gun shows in their states.)

Eighty-four percent of Americans favor background checks for all sales at gun shows (87% of non-gun owners, 77% of gun owners). With such a divergence, the NRA's position on this is extreme as well as facilitating illegal gun commerce and contributing to gun violence. A more common sense regulation would be to have full background checks on all "private seller" gun sales with records of these sales, which could be kept in a database easily accessible to law enforcement when they need to trace the source of a gun used in a crime.

Good information. I can't support a national gun registry though. That sounds like an invasion of my personal life.

Regarding the "gun show" thing. Say you force private sellers to run checks on purchases made at shows, what is to stop them from just exchanging information with prospective buyers and handing the transaction after the show?

 

[drayer54]

Presented without agreement or disagreement, just an interesting perspective:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Hearing Republicans say that, look, massacres of kids are very sad but we just can't limit people's basic freedoms...<br><br>...is weird if you're a trans person who's been listening to a years-long debate about whether you need to be banned from public bathrooms TO KEEP CHILDREN SAFE.</p>— Dana Simpson ✨��✨ (@MizDanaClaire) <a href="https://twitter.com/MizDanaClaire/status/964586682719748096?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 16, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

What if... some of us said that the freedom of gun owners matters. And we also said that the freedom of a trans person matters???

Is this position allowed?

 

[dublinirish]

What if... some of us said that the freedom of gun owners matters. And we also said that the freedom of a trans person matters???

Is this position allowed?

of course, its just not very common in the GOP. Let's keep the government out of some things but not others. This hypocrisy drives people mad. It's like evangelicals saying Donald Trump is a good Christian and then he goes and fucks porn stars while his wife is home 7 months pregnant.

 

[ACamp1900]

No one says trans people should be banned from public bathrooms tho....

 

[drayer54]

I vote GOP. My platform would be: I support armed trans people carrying in the bathroom that it appears they should be using.

 

[Legacy]

Good information. I can't support a national gun registry though. That sounds like an invasion of my personal life.

Regarding the "gun show" thing. Say you force private sellers to run checks on purchases made at shows, what is to stop them from just exchanging information with prospective buyers and handing the transaction after the show?

As far as the your gun show hypothetical, that's an illegal transaction now in many states and probably violates federal law, too, since it is likely that the purchase was made to avoid prohibited persons being denied the purchase because of a background check. Private sellers at gun shows do not have to keep records of those sales except in those states that mandate it, making those type of purchases attractive to someone who has committed a felony, for instance, contributing to gun violence and crimes. It is also a crime to sell to a resident of another state.

Mandatory background checks on all gun purchases in your hypothetical would be a federal crime. Obviously, the seller is not a "law-abiding" nor "responsible" gun owner and taking an extreme position that is not in any way consistent with the vast majority of public opinion on background checks and gun sales.

If you are indicating that those types of purchases are already being made by those types of private sellers at gun shows and would just be driven underground, I agree with you. Here's links to investigations done at gun shows, demonstrating illegal transactions.
I previously linked the investigation and violations found at Gun Shows summarized by Giffords Law Center. Here's another about Trafficking and Straw Purchases

An ATF report on their investigations at gun shows from 1999 concluded that 30 percent of the guns were involved in trafficking linked somehow to gun shows.

An undercover investigation by NYC in three states - Tennessee, Ohio, and Nevada - when both federally licensed and private sellers at gun shows were told that the buyer probably would not pass a background check or were told the buyer was purchasing the gun for someone else - a straw purchase, still seventy-four percent of the dealers said they would sell those guns anyway.

Here's the NRA's position on private sales:

Private gun sales are widely supported by Second Amendment advocates, who view it as a bedrock principle in American gun ownership. It is also important to note that gun control groups widely oppose private transfers and in recent years have been pushing to either to bring them within the umbrella of “universal” background checks, or ban them outright. Gun rights groups such as the NRA have long fought these attempts on the basis that prohibiting private sales would greatly hinder the constitutional rights of gun owners, while not likely reducing crime. According to the NRA, most firearms used in crimes are obtained by theft; illegal, “off-paper” transactions; or straw purchasers.

Your hypothetical "off paper" transaction per the NRA would be one of the avenues for firearms used in crimes. Why not have "law-abiding gun owners" be subject to "universal" background checks?

 

[drayer54]

As far as the your gun show hypothetical, that's an illegal transaction now in many states and probably violates federal law, too, since it is likely that the purchase was made to avoid prohibited persons being denied the purchase because of a background check. Private sellers at gun shows do not have to keep records of those sales except in those states that mandate it, making those type of purchases attractive to someone who has committed a felony, for instance, contributing to gun violence and crimes. It is also a crime to sell to a resident of another state.

Mandatory background checks on all gun purchases in your hypothetical would be a federal crime. Obviously, the seller is not a "law-abiding" nor "responsible" gun owner and taking an extreme position that is not in any way consistent with the vast majority of public opinion on background checks and gun sales.

If you are indicating that those types of purchases are already being made by those types of private sellers at gun shows and would just be driven underground, I agree with you. Here's links to investigations done at gun shows, demonstrating illegal transactions.
I previously linked the investigation and violations found at Gun Shows summarized by Giffords Law Center. Here's another about Trafficking and Straw Purchases

An ATF report on their investigations at gun shows from 1999 concluded that 30 percent of the guns were involved in trafficking linked somehow to gun shows.

An undercover investigation by NYC in three states - Tennessee, Ohio, and Nevada - when both federally licensed and private sellers at gun shows were told that the buyer probably would not pass a background check or were told the buyer was purchasing the gun for someone else - a straw purchase, still seventy-four percent of the dealers said they would sell those guns anyway.

Here's the NRA's position on private sales:


Your hypothetical "off paper" transaction per the NRA would be one of the avenues for firearms used in crimes. Why not have "law-abiding gun owners" be subject to "universal" background checks?

Why not punish people who knowingly sell to a prohibited owner?
Make it a crime to be a felon in possession or prohibited possessor of a gun?
Have tough punishments for straw purchasers?

The criminal won't care about your background check law, but you will be adversely impacting the law-abiding gun owner who is now having a new government burden, an ineffective law, a de-facto tax, and a new hurdle to gun ownership?

The only reason to do this is to put a burden on the gun owner, make it more difficult, decrease the likelihood of someone buying a gun, and thereby discourage someone from exercising a constitutionally protected right.

By punishing every angle of an illegal sale have you not effectively accomplished the same thing?

 

[drayer54]

Just about 100% sums up my position and thoughts on the matter. Excellent video. I had never heard of this guy before, but will have to learn more about him.

She didn't get the gun grabby answer she wanted.

 

[Legacy]

Why not punish people who knowingly sell to a prohibited owner?
Make it a crime to be a felon in possession or prohibited possessor of a gun?
Have tough punishments for straw purchasers?

The criminal won't care about your background check law, but you will be adversely impacting the law-abiding gun owner who is now having a new government burden, an ineffective law, a de-facto tax, and a new hurdle to gun ownership?

The only reason to do this is to put a burden on the gun owner, make it more difficult, decrease the likelihood of someone buying a gun, and thereby discourage someone from exercising a constitutionally protected right.

By punishing every angle of an illegal sale have you not effectively accomplished the same thing?

Fair question.

Enforcement of existing laws falls both within federal and state laws. One can identify gun violence as a public health threat which is not being addressed at the federal level and where criminal acts are most affecting that danger to our society. The ATF is responsible for enforcement at the federal level. If one of the major contributors to gun violence is illegal transactions at gun shows, for instance, I imagine that you are advocating increasing penalties on those who dealers who are liable with increased funding for those enforcement agencies. States have individually established their criterias and enforce their regulations, but a true solution is a consistent regulatory standard at the federal level with standard penalties.

The well-funded NRA/gun lobby through Congress and litigation has long worked against all of these. When some federal legislation has been passed to address these, the NRA has succeeded in hamstringing the laws. They fought background checks with the Brady Bill and successfully made searching by law enforcement difficult by prohibiting a computer database of sales by federally-licensed dealers so that traces requested by law enforcement have to be done by hand at the National Tracing Center. The NRA was able to make reporting of felons to NICS for background checks by states voluntary. They fought closing the "loopholes" on private sales. They fought for the requirement that NICS purges all identifying information regarding proceed transactions within 24 hours of notification to the FFL, making a buyer go through the process including fingerprinting each time. They have effectively diminished the federal government's enforcement arm - the ATF - with funding essentially the same as at the level in 1975, while gun violence increases. The ATF has no head, because Congress will not approve any nominees for the position. The ATF has had some notable failures and is regularly called on the carpet to explain themselves to Congress. NRA's LaPierre calls ATF "jack-booted thugs". The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) have stated that, because individuals who fail a background check can easily access firearms from unlicensed sellers.

Congress Keeps Scolding the ATF for Botching Operations. Experts Say Lawmakers are Partially to Blame

The United States Attorneys were virtually unanimous in their call for additional resources. The number of ATF agents available to investigate cases in many judicial districts falls far below the number required to mount effective enforcement activities at gun shows. United States Attorneys also noted that it will be difficult to devote scarce
prosecutorial resources to gun show cases, so long as a number of the offenses remain misdemeanors.
Proposals put forth by United States Attorneys, which were never enacted, include:

-Allowing only FFL holders to sell guns at gun shows, so a background check and a firearms transaction record accompany every transaction
-Strengthening the definition of "engaged in the business" by defining the terms with more precision, narrowing the exception for "hobbyists," and lowering the intent requirement
-Limiting the number of individual private sales to a specified number per year
-Requiring persons who sell guns in the secondary market to comply with the record-keeping requirements applicable to Federal Firearms License holders
-Requiring all transfers in the secondary market to go through a Federal Firearms License holder
-Establishing procedures for the orderly liquidation of inventory belonging to FFL holders who surrender their license
-Requiring registration of non-licensed persons who sell guns
-Increasing the punishment for transferring a firearm without a background check, as required by the Brady Act
-Requiring gun show promoters to be licensed, maintaining an inventory of all the firearms that are sold by FFL holders and non-licensed sellers at gun shows
-Requiring one or more ATF agents be present at every gun show
-Insulating unlicensed vendors from criminal liability if they agree to have purchasers complete a firearms transaction form

but Congress has ignored those recommendations as they have from the Police Chiefs.

So, the NRA and gun lobby not only fights hard to preserve private sales as existing, but hampers enforcement on background checks, the National Tracing Center, voluntary state reporting of felons, ignoring law enforcement recommendations and hamstringing the ATF enforcements as much as they can.

Then, the NRA says the background checks and reporting of prohibited persons are not working and that ATF is ineffective, needing to be eliminated.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Guy in Germany plows a van into a large crowd, killing two and injuring more before killing himself. And the gun grabbers are silent. Ban trucks and vans?

 

[dshans]

Polish[/U] Leppy 22;1999470]Guy in Germany plows a van into a large crowd, killing two and injuring more before killing himself. And the gun grabbers are silent. Ban trucks and vans?

"Thoughts and Prayers."

Tragic, indeed, but how does that stack up to an AR-15 with a bump stock and cartridges that hold 100 rounds?

A single van plowing into a crowd killing two, while being equally detestable, is a far cry from the shootings at Columbine, Sandyhook, The Pulse, Las Vegas, and Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

Evil is out there, but why foster access to weapons that can wreak so much havoc in so little time?

A little restraint and constraint can go a long way.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

"Thoughts and Prayers."

Tragic, indeed, but how does that stack up to an AR-15 with a bump stock and cartridges that hold 100 rounds?

A single van plowing into a crowd killing two, while being equally detestable, is a far cry from the shootings at Columbine, Sandyhook, The Pulse, Las Vegas, and Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

Evil is out there, but why foster access to weapons that can wreak so much havoc in so little time?

A little restraint and constraint can go a long way.

Remember Nice, France in July 2016? 84 dead and 458 wounded. No gun needed. A "far cry" from the number of lives lost at those school shootings, correct?

 

[Bluto]

Remember Nice, France in July 2016? 84 dead and 458 wounded. No gun needed. A "far cry" from the number of lives lost at those school shootings, correct?

Right, now as Dshans alluded to imagine what kind of destruction they would have wrought if they had easy access to the amount of fire power the Las Vegas shooter had in addition.

 

[NorthDakota]

Evil is out there, but why foster access to weapons that can wreak so much havoc in so little time?

Tyranny. /thread

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Right, now as Dshans alluded to imagine what kind of destruction they would have wrought if they had easy access to the amount of fire power the Las Vegas shooter had in addition.

Different countries and different circumstances, but let's not pretend the criminals committing these disgusting acts follow the laws in the process.

I continue to be amazed by some people's outrage with guns but if the weapon is something else...crickets. It's almost like people hate the weapon more than the loss of innocent lives.

 

[IrishLion]

Tyranny. /thread

What tyranny are you worried about?

Other countries? That's why we have a military that we spend billions on every year.

Our own government? Individual members of the military probably aren't going to turn their weapons upon their own friends and family. If they did, a bunch of civilians with AR-15's aren't stopping the drones and tanks the military has at its disposal.

Modern technology makes the "defend against tyrannical governments" thing obsolete IMO.

(For the record, I'm not an advocate of taking everyone's guns. I just think the above argument is bunk.)

 

[wizards8507]

Our own government? Individual members of the military probably aren't going to turn their weapons upon their own friends and family. If they did, a bunch of civilians with AR-15's aren't stopping the drones and tanks the military has at its disposal.

Bullshit strawman. Nobody is proposing a hypothetical civil war of 100% of the military versus 100% of civilians. That's idiotic. On any potential issue that might lead to such a conflict, it's almost certain that portions of the military would break off and side with the people, meaning the people would also have drones and tanks and shit on their side.

There are also a thousand possible civil conflicts that wouldn't escalate to the level of the government droning the shit out of everyone. It's more a check against unjust imprisonment and exertion of tyrannical control than it is about "preventing the government from killing literally everybody." Yes, the government could choose to kill literally everybody and there's nothing civilians could do to stop it, but that's like saying you shouldn't wear a seatbelt because some auto collisions are so severe that you're going to die anyways. No shit. You wear a seatbelt to protect yourself in the marginal cases. Firearms don't protect you in the worst-of-all-holocaust-nightmare scenarios, but they sure as hell protect you in lots of medium-amount-of-bad-shit-happening scenarios.

 

[IrishLion]

Bullshit strawman. Nobody is proposing a hypothetical civil war of 100% of the military versus 100% of civilians. That's idiotic. On any potential issue that might lead to such a conflict, it's almost certain that portions of the military would break off and side with the people, meaning the people would also have drones and tanks and shit on their side.

There are also a thousand possible civil conflicts that wouldn't escalate to the level of the government droning the shit out of everyone. It's more a check against unjust imprisonment and exertion of tyrannical control than it is about "preventing the government from killing literally everybody." Yes, the government could choose to kill literally everybody and there's nothing civilians could do to stop it, but that's like saying you shouldn't wear a seatbelt because some auto collisions are so severe that you're going to die anyways. No shit. You wear a seatbelt to protect yourself in the marginal cases. Firearms don't protect you in the worst-of-all-holocaust-nightmare scenarios, but they sure as hell protect you in lots of medium-amount-of-bad-shit-happening scenarios.

Okay, I would argue that hand guns and rifles with low-capacity would be good enough as a buffer, and that civilians probably don't need any type of semi-auto rifle with a high capacity magazine in that "marginal protection" sense.

 

[NorthDakota]

What tyranny are you worried about?

Other countries? That's why we have a military that we spend billions on every year.

Our own government? Individual members of the military probably aren't going to turn their weapons upon their own friends and family. If they did, a bunch of civilians with AR-15's aren't stopping the drones and tanks the military has at its disposal.

Modern technology makes the "defend against tyrannical governments" thing obsolete IMO.

(For the record, I'm not an advocate of taking everyone's guns. I just think the above argument is bunk.)

You cant drone strike/bomb everyone in gun friendly areas of America.

A.) Our military cant handle that amount of people
B.) Our military can't occupy that amount of land.


Regardless, we lost to rice farmers in Vietnam.

 

[ACamp1900]

Also making the rounds but also worth sharing...I'm for greater restrictions and for there being more safe guards in terms of who can get firearms but I do share his concerns about protection:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6dZn0D_9VY8" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Okay, I would argue that hand guns and rifles with low-capacity would be good enough as a buffer, and that civilians probably don't need any type of semi-auto rifle with a high capacity magazine in that "marginal protection" sense.

It's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. But if we want to play the "Bill of Needs" card, no American needs fast food and heart disease is the number one killer in the country. So get rid of every fast food joint in the US.

London's mayor just announced a new "knife policy" in the city because of all the knife attacks there. Let that marinate for a few minutes...

 

[IrishLion]

It's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. But if we want to play the "Bill of Needs" card, no American needs fast food and heart disease is the number one killer in the country. So get rid of every fast food joint in the US.

London's mayor just announced a new "knife policy" in the city because of all the knife attacks there. Let that marinate for a few minutes...

It's the Bill of Rights, but everyone references the NEEDS that 2A addresses, so I don't think my line of thought should be dismissed by semantics.

I think it's also disingenuous to discuss "rights" that were granted to us in a document by dudes that didn't think black people were actual people, until an amendment legally changed that. Perhaps our beliefs on firearms can evolve in the same way?

Again, not trying to take your guns. Just looking for some potential compromises, and also looking for the authorities to do their job in the first place when they DO have the opportunity to stop bad things from happening.