NRA Snowflakes whining about being bullied by teenagers
- Thread starter LT56
- Start date
Actually the guns that were used didn't belong to the shooter . They belonged to his mother and she paid a dear price for letting him have access to her guns . So what you were saying is wrong . That red blooded psychopath didn't own any guns so the rights to bear arms didn't take precedent for him.
Why is everyone blaming the NRA . Did they force the killer to shoot up the school ? Do we blame the booze companies when a drunk driver kills people in an accident . Do we blame the pharmacy companies who pay off doctors to prescribe more drugs for people to take even though they don't need it .
The shooting blame at the school lies entirely on the FBI and the local cops . They new he was bad news and they did nothing about it . Even the kids said the shooter was a nut case but no one listened to the kids .
I wonder when the next time a kid commits suicide because of his or her peers have drove that kid to do so will the students march about the bulling that goes on every day in and out of school . Guess who does the bulling .... the kids are doing it to themselves . Funny how there are no marches because it's the kids themselves are at fault . The good people even voted in a bully to be President .
The medical system in the States sucks . They have all kids of money for everything else but money to help the public in health care is not available .
The NRA doesn't force anyone to buy a gun . Just like the booze companies don't force an alcoholic to drink and drive .
Why not blame the NRA for everything . Taxes are too high , global warming , poverty in the cities , no good paying jobs for the people . Yea let's blame the NRA .
And therein lies the problem. There is too much access to guns, such that it statistically makes the chance of something going wrong much more likely.
Decreasing access means that there is less chance for somebody to fuck. No need to analyze what went wrong and who screwed up when there wasn't access to a gun in the first place.
We blame the NRA because they are no longer a grass roots gun safety club.
They are now a conduit and de facto super Pac for Gun Manufacturers to promote their product and lobby the government.
Specifically for a product that when used as intended kills people.
Not a whole lot of ethical high ground there......
At least you admit your viewpoint is based on paranoia and not logic.
And yes, every car is registered so why not every gun? Are you afraid the government is going to take people's cars away?
Because they have repeatedly stopped any change to gun laws, even changes that the vast majority of voters support.
And from all the press coverage, the guy in the Florida shooting owned 10 guns. They even describe when and where he bought the gun used in the shooting.
Please explain what they could have done under the current system. He hadn't broken any laws so they couldn't lock him up. There was nothing in the law requiring action because the level mental health concern he posed. There was no way to remove his guns (if they even knew he had any) unless he was convicted of a crime (and even after conviction there was no way to know if he had guns since there is no gun registration).
The NRA is the reason why no action was possible.
p.s. It is amazing that paranoid gun owners like CL are worried about 'arbitrary' removal of guns but you are making an argument that the police should have arrested him based solely on the possibility he may commit a crime.
The story being promoted by the national media is not the same as what the local broward county media has been saying.There was an investigative reporter who was doing a story on lack enforcement of laws because,the higher the crime rate,the lower school funding.
There was one report where the shooter had ,on one of many occasions that police had visited him,that he had held a gun to his mothers head.He should have been behind bars right there and then.
That did not happen.The sheriff has been accused of being a politician,and not a sheriff way before the shooting.
There is a lot that did not,as usual make it through the mainstream media filters.
Why was there nobody allowed to speak on behalf of all the students who are for the 2nd amendment?
Filter,filter,filter
This is how they create the impression that this is what all young people want.
I believe since the shooting over 100 teens have died from driving and texting.
There are over 130,000 people a year in the US who die from properly prescribed drug reactions,on top of the opiod crisis.
All of the school shooters were either on antidepressants or withdrawing from them.ALL of them
So,in spite of the sensationalism associated with a school shooting,so many other deaths are just "normalized" ,but are truly a much bigger problem.
Look at the food supply?.Its killing more Americans than anything else.
So as much as this is a tragedy,it is not the biggest problem out there.It is as usual,politics,not a true concern for the health and well being of the population.
And I'm sure,isis is laughing their heads off.Going Go kids Go!!! Yeah,put your guns down,we really like that.
You can't change reality.
The US Constitution came into force in 1789. The Second Amendment came into force in 1791. Previously, the right to keep and bear arms had been recognized by English common law. The issue (whether to expressly enshrine this right in the original constitution) was hotly debated during the ratification process (in relation to the Constitution). Several states ratified, but with appended amendments, including provisions akin to what became the 2nd amendment. To resolve the contention, the 2nd amendment was passed shortly after ratification of the Constitution.
To cite this history as an example of how Americans can "change their mind" is wholly inaccurate.
You are technically correct that the 2nd amendment could conceivably be repealed or amended, but there is no historical evidence that the right to bear arms was not, at any material time, viewed as a fundamental right integral to the formation of the United States of America.
Last edited:
As all human beings change their minds, we can certainly ignore any special talent for it that Americans may claim or be accused of. But to cite the history of amending the Constitution almost as soon as it was adopted as evidence Americans were always fixed and constant about fundamental rights seems far-fetched.
Although Madison proposed that such rights be included in the text, that was not the decision of the Congress. Those rights (with the right to bear arms among them) were not in the Constitution that was ratified and came into force in 1789, over the objections of people like Madison. He soon proposed the first lot of amendments — including No.2 — that are now known as the Bill of Rights. Far from there being no "…material time" when those rights were not "…viewed as … fundamental right
Re-phrase your point as "…viewed as a fundamental right" by some Americans, and you'll be more accurately describing the history of that most disputatious of countries, but a more balanced description would also note that 'other Americans were, and are, just as fundamentally opposed'.
I disagree. Originally, 12 amendments were proposed in 1789. 10 were promptly ratified by 11 of the 14 states (13 became 14 with addition of Virginia). One of those 10 amendments was what is now called the 2nd amendment. The other 3 states did not vote "no" to this group of amendments, they simply failed to ratify. There is no evidence of significant opposition to the 2nd amendment at that time. (There were, however, 2 amendments which never passed into law which were expressly opposed by some states.)
You can read a brief synopsis of the history here: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/bor/themes/amendments-and-states-that-got-away/
If true, putting him behind bars for something the police didn't see would require the mother to press charges. If she did not then the police could only caution the guy. And there is nothing in the law that would allow the police to take away his guns due to that call or his refusal of mental health treatment.
Do you also ask why no one was allowed to speak against Trump at his campaign rallies?
Exactly, it was a later addition to the Constitution. if you accept that the Constitution is a living document that has been amended 27 times then there is nothing preventing the system from making it 28.
And Canadian law is based strongly on English Common Law and I'm pretty content with our gun laws.
Sure, the second can be repealed. However, the process is very difficult by design and support for it is very soft- only 20%. What's more significant, even most of the Democrats would not put repeal on their platform.
Please, please get you terms right. Left-wing social justice warriors are generally referred to as "snowflakes." I doubt that many NRA members are such.
Not so much disagreeing, more like avoiding the point: The proposals that eventually became the first ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights were first drafted, and proposed as articles in the Constitution itself. The debate was fractious, the vote went against them, and they were dropped from the text the States had to vote on. That's how 'fundamental' those rights were.
A couple or so years later their proponents did manage to get their twelve 'rights' through the new Congress as proposed amendments to the Constitution and ten of themhe were ratified as you say. The other two — one of which would have prohibited gerrymandering and unequal representation that Americans fight over to this day — are still technically pending.
Those rights, including the right to bear arms, have been subject of fierce and determined dispute from the beginning of the USA until this very moment. Not fundamentally agreed. Not ever.
--------
PS: On
Yes, you are avoiding the point. It wasn't (what is now) the 2nd amendment that was fractious, but rather 2 amendments that never were ratified. Once the constitution itself was passed, a package of amendments containing the 2nd amendment was PROMPTLY and EASILY passed, indicating that there was, and had been, broad support for THOSE amendments at the same time that the constitution was being passed.
Again, you're ignoring the history trying to make this about the 2d Amendment in isolation.
It was always part of a package, that package was always contentious, and not agreed on, fundamentally or any other which way. That's why Mason couldn't gather the votes to get it in the draft Constitution. He and the other supporters of the Bill only managed to get it partially accepted years later, after much argument and changing of sides (so that Madison who had opposed, wound up as a supporter).
It's entirely specious to suggest the equal representation clauses that failed as Amendments (leaving the Republic with the undemocratic ills it still suffers under to this day) were what caused all of the other proposed rights of citizenship to fail in that first attempt. If they had the broad support you claim they always enjoyed, they could have, and would have been approved separately, just as the Amendments were.
The present debate, a repeat of the many that have followed the frequent and characteristically American abuses of that peculiar 'right' only they 'need' or want, is evidence that opinion is as divided now, as it was then. I could go on to cite similar deep divisions about freedom of association, free speech and press, and freedom from arbitrary search, that continue to this day as well, not to mention defining a whole class of humans as not being entitled to rights at all, in order to keep them enslaved,. then subjugated, then merely segregated and inferior, but that would be well off topic. I'll simply say that if Americans did agree on those fundamental rights as you assert, they wouldn't have or need the ACLU, the NAACP, or even the NRA's political activity,
The true believers at the moment are the kids — the ones repeatedly getting shot by guns belonging to irresponsible owners — and look at the abuse they're getting for using their free speech hoping to get that temporary partial agreement that's the best democracy ever manages. And sadly discovering it's a blood sport, though not as deadly as the irresponsible gun-owners and their accomplices in the NRA have made schools
--------------
PPS: I was called away earlier. I thought the original wording of what you say was the fundamental right which most Americans always accepted was illuminating: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person. Entirely and clearly about the right of the people to keep and bear arms in the service of the nation, even down to to being excused of that right on religious grounds, which was later stuck out, lest it imperil that militia.
Nothing in there about being personally unhindered in the purchase, possession or use of arms, about which people are as divided as ever.
A couple interesting stats.
89% of the protesters last week voted for Hillary Clinton
Donations to the NRA tripled after the Parkland shooting
While it’s easy to assume the left is reving this up for mid-term impact, one could also argue that what they are really doing is waking up the right and motivating them to get to the polls.
89% of the protesters last week voted for Hillary Clinton
Donations to the NRA tripled after the Parkland shooting
While it’s easy to assume the left is reving this up for mid-term impact, one could also argue that what they are really doing is waking up the right and motivating them to get to the polls.
I can't be ignoring history, since I'm citing it.
Inaccurate and irrelevant. Inaccurate, because it was the entire package of amendments, not simply the 2nd amendment, that couldn't make their way into the constitution (anyone with negotiations experience knows that that the easiest solution to that problem is to reduce the initial deal to the elements that have complete support, and then work on fleshing it out afterwards - exactly what happened). Irrelevant, because the immediate acceptance of the 2nd amendment once introduced in 1789 is only consistent with EXISTING support for it.
Some balls of twine aren't worth untangling. See above for a more straightforward account of events, taking in account the context of multi-party negotiations.
It's really their puppet masters who are being shamed/blamed. Who blames a puppet for what it does? However, the masters are attempting to deflect that blame by pretending it's directed squarely at teenagers.
If you find the argument "teenagers are not competent to be architects of public policy" to be unpersuasive to you, I've got nothing more persuasive. I wish you luck in your faith in teenagers, but I won't be joining the flock.
In a country of so many, many of which without deep roots in the American experience, it's not surprising that there is a division of opinion on this issue. Those that link the success of America to its structure of individual rights and system of government are trying to make the case to the young that there may be something they don't quite understand about gun rights, and consequences of gun control that they don't foresee.
