Oregon Community College Shooting - What law (if any) could have prevented it?

Alate_One

Alate_One

Well-known member
jeffblue101 said:
lets be clear here, are you advocating that we get rid of the second amendment?
Click to expand...

Which of you have actually READ the second amendment?


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 bit about regulation and militia. Now for some reason the supreme court decided in 2008 and 2010 (against longstanding precedent) that this meant people have an individual right to bear arms (activist court anyone)? But it's pretty obvious regulation is perfectly permissible and was intended and been enacted from the start of the nation.
 
musterion

musterion

Well-known member
2gv22qw.jpg
 
J

jeffblue101

New member
Alate_One said:
Which of you have actually READ the second amendment?


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 bit about regulation and militia. Now for some reason the supreme court decided in 2008 and 2010 (against longstanding precedent) that this meant people have an individual right to bear arms (activist court anyone)? But it's pretty obvious regulation is perfectly permissible and was intended and been enacted from the start of the nation.
Click to expand...

I only asked a question Alate, and you still haven't answered. let me phrase it in a better way for you, are advocating that we should get rid of the 2nd amendments most prevalent interpretation.
 
Totton Linnet

Totton Linnet

New member
Silver Subscriber
musterion said:
Not that yours or Manc's disarmed opinion counts on this, but which people? Law abiding citizens? Criminals? Both?
Click to expand...

It should be obvious that IF it were possible to disarm the people that would be best, but as it is not possible so then the answer must be the other way, everyone must bear arms and openly especially the police.

As a Christian I would not bear arms
 
B

bybee

New member
Totton Linnet said:
It should be obvious that IF it were possible to disarm the people that would be best, but as it is not possible so then the answer must be the other way, everyone must bear arms and openly especially the police.

As a Christian I would not bear arms
Click to expand...

If I were called to bear arms I would.
 
PureX

PureX

Well-known member
Totton Linnet said:
It should be obvious that IF it were possible to disarm the people that would be best, but as it is not possible so then the answer must be the other way, everyone must bear arms and openly especially the police.
Click to expand...
That's a lot like saying that if we can't stop people from driving dunk, we should encourage drunk driving as much as possible.

You realize that's crazy, right?
 
Alate_One

Alate_One

Well-known member
jeffblue101 said:
I only asked a question Alate, and you still haven't answered. let me phrase it in a better way for you, are advocating that we should get rid of the 2nd amendments most prevalent interpretation.
Click to expand...
The newest interpretation, yes.

That doesn't mean "no guns for anyone except military", it never did.
 
Alate_One

Alate_One

Well-known member
PureX said:
That's a lot like saying that if we can't stop people from driving dunk, we should encourage drunk driving as much as possible.

You realize that's crazy, right?
Click to expand...

A better analogy is this: We can't stop nations from getting nuclear weapons, therefore every nation should have nuclear weapons, and lots of them!
 
J

jeffblue101

New member
Alate_One said:
The newest interpretation, yes.

That doesn't mean "no guns for anyone except military", it never did.
Click to expand...

okay and what should the "old" interpretation imply for the current gun ownership, in other words according to the "old" interpretation, what laws can't be passed and are there any limits on the laws that can be passed.
 
Totton Linnet

Totton Linnet

New member
Silver Subscriber
musterion said:
Tot, do you agree or disagree with this?

m6YvX.jpg.jpg
Click to expand...

I disagree....I am not a pacifist, I see the sword as a necessary instrument of government, nationally and internationally...but I personally am pacifist. I know other Christians take a different view, I respect their view......my trust is in God.

But I do not believe the basic premise goodmen/badmen.

The world looks at America in wonderment.

FYI ol' Chuck was not really Moses :)
 
Totton Linnet

Totton Linnet

New member
Silver Subscriber
PureX said:
That's a lot like saying that if we can't stop people from driving dunk, we should encourage drunk driving as much as possible.

You realize that's crazy, right?
Click to expand...

Well I'm with Charming Manc really except I see how impossible it would be to disarm America now.

That being the case then everybody needs to be armed...it does seem strange I know but I point out the fact that in the days of the wild west death by gunshot was more rare than people think.

At the moment these shooters go for soft targets, that in itself tells you that if the people were armed the shooters would be deterred.

Always remember this, it is a fact.

People who get a buzz out of inflicting pain and terror are themselves afraid of the same pain and terror they afflict on others.
 
Totton Linnet

Totton Linnet

New member
Silver Subscriber
What IS beyond belief to other nations is the range of armoury available on the market and lack of any credible control.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top