NRA President comes out with reasonable solutions and gets heckled by modern Nazis

How many mass shootings have been stopped by armed civilians?

NONE.

At least you managed to get a racist comment in there. Im Impressed.

The Sandy Hook school WAS a gun-free zone. The killer obviously didn't see the sign. The Aurora theater was a gun-free zone. Again, the killer missed the sign.

If an armed civilian was there, it wouldn't have been a mass shooting. By definition, a mass shooting is one where only one side is armed. Stupid, specious argument, Assup, as usual.

You really are a Kool Aid drinker Whatzup. Do you want to do a little research on the fact of your? It comes from Mother Jones. It defines any mass shooting as one where four or more people have died. Do you understand that when a shooter is stopped that the body count is mercifully low and therefore wouldn't qualifiy by their standards. The number is much higher than you want to accept and even a single instance invalidates Mother Jones. Get off the juice.

The Sandy Hook school WAS a gun-free zone. The killer obviously didn't see the sign. The Aurora theater was a gun-free zone. Again, the killer missed the sign.

If an armed civilian was there, it wouldn't have been a mass shooting. By definition, a mass shooting is one where only one side is armed. Stupid, specious argument, Assup, as usual. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Or there would have been one more casualty idiot reply from our resident idiot..

Awl4knot, you have to understand something.

The Second Amendment is not about "sporting", and it is not about self-defense against the occasional mugger.

Rather, it is about ensuring that the people will have the weapons needed to overthrow the government when and if it becomes necessary. AGAIN.

The American Revolution was a WAR, and a lot of it was fought with PRIVATELY-OWNED weapons. The Second Amendment was demanded PRECISELY to ensure that, if the new Federal government established by the Constitution of 1787 went bad, the people would be able to fight.

You REALLY should have paid attention in history class. Originally Posted by Sidewinder

Oh Sidewinder, old pard, I don't know what history classes you attended, but it wasn't the one that Justice Antonin Scalia took when he wrote the majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, a 5-4 decision that struck down a District of Columbia ordinance that limited the possession of handguns in homes. Here's a portion of the case's syllabus:

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

Here are some quotes from the majority opinion:

"From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia."

"Thus, these purposive qualifying phrases positively establish that “to bear arms” is not limited to military use."

"Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence."

So the Second Amendment had multiple purposes but I suggest to you that the militia clause has long lost it's vitality as a safeguard against federal tyranny. I mean, the National Guard is an integrated part of the nation's armed forces, so, to use a phrase from the 60's, it's been co-opted as source of revolutionary strength.

And it would be foolish, and foolhardy, to think the Second Amendment is an invitation to commit treason, which is to take arms up against the government.

Remember, you are only sentenced to death in this country for murder and treason, so think carefully before you plot and scheme to overthrow the government with some guys holed up in the boondocks. You see the types of sentences home grown jihadists get and you can expect to receive the same.

Here's a link to the opinion. It's basically a long historical debate but if you like that sort of thing, you'll be happy.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

I will grant you this. After reading the case, I don't think a complete handgun ban is going to happen, but surely there can be limits on the number of handguns in a home and the types of handguns that meet constitutional muster.

Jefferson wrote about the social contract between a ruler and those he rules. Jefferson said that the King of England had violated that contract and thus voided the agreement of the ruler with the ruled. If our government were to become tyrannical then the social contract is voided as well and revolution is not treason but required to return the government to a state under control of the people. There would be no treason and the national guard is not a source of revolutionary strength. The national guard would be a part of the state government and thus a force for oppression. A governor could and should challenge any federal activiation under those circumstances. If a third revolution broke out it will not be the people in the boondocks that will be leading it or fighting it. Though they will be far ahead in preparedness. It will be fought in the cities by veterans, policemen, and common citizens. There will be nurses, school teachers, union workers, construction workers, and students.

Every school should have their own machine gun to protect their kids. Tank too. RPG while we're at it...

Jefferson wrote about the social contract between a ruler and those he rules. Jefferson said that the King of England had violated that contract and thus voided the agreement of the ruler with the ruled. If our government were to become tyrannical then the social contract is voided as well and revolution is not treason but required to return the government to a state under control of the people. There would be no treason and the national guard is not a source of revolutionary strength. The national guard would be a part of the state government and thus a force for oppression. A governor could and should challenge any federal activiation under those circumstances. If a third revolution broke out it will not be the people in the boondocks that will be leading it or fighting it. Though they will be far ahead in preparedness. It will be fought in the cities by veterans, policemen, and common citizens. There will be nurses, school teachers, union workers, construction workers, and students. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Arm them all !!!!!

He was an embarrassment, fucking buffoon. Should have kept his mouth shut but I guess they had to say something.

If you're referring to JD, he is dead on right.

pimping again?

If you're referring to JD, he is dead on right. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

There you have it folks, StupidOldFart and JD are "two peas in a pod."

Two pees in their Depends, you mean...

Jefferson wrote about the social contract between a ruler and those he rules. Jefferson said that the King of England had violated that contract and thus voided the agreement of the ruler with the ruled. If our government were to become tyrannical then the social contract is voided as well and revolution is not treason but required to return the government to a state under control of the people. There would be no treason and the national guard is not a source of revolutionary strength. The national guard would be a part of the state government and thus a force for oppression. A governor could and should challenge any federal activiation under those circumstances. If a third revolution broke out it will not be the people in the boondocks that will be leading it or fighting it. Though they will be far ahead in preparedness. It will be fought in the cities by veterans, policemen, and common citizens. There will be nurses, school teachers, union workers, construction workers, and students. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

My reaction to this is sadness. I worry about people who live in a great country and yet are so unhappy and threatened that they write fantasy polemics for armed rebellion; giving it a romantic, populist gloss like the barricade scenes in Les Miserables.

You guys live in another world, drawing upon a history that never was, referencing value systems that didn't exist and interpreting every event through prisms that are flawed and distorted. It seems that it is a world that places more importance on guns than the rights of children to have lives full of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is a world that uses the cock-a-mammy logic that the answer to gun violence is more guns. Oh well.

Merry Christmas to you all.

Two pees in their Depends, you mean... Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I stand corrected!