This thread proves why we had to have a democratic revolution in America to begin with. That was way back in 1777 when they wanted us to hand over all our hard earned to the tyrannical British royal family who promised to "protect us". Meanwhile, here we are in 2018 and the British plebs are funding a massive royal wedding while their once powerful country continues its long hard decline into nothingness, all the while they're told "don't worry, the government will protect you" and they eat it up like that wretched shit they try to call food. We won't give up our rights and our republic just because you never had either.



"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers and will generally even if these are successful the first instance enable the people to resist and triumph over them." - Justice Joseph Story

We have our rights because we have the one and most important right of all, the right to bear arms. That right doesn't come from an imaginary god or a piece of paper, but from its enforcement by 90,000,000 armed American citizens.



Any and all debate on this issue with spineless liberals, neo-fascists, and purveyors of tyranny of all forms is more or less meaningless. The American people will never be disarmed. Not by their government, and certainly not by a bunch of whiny pussified Eurocucks who don't even know how to shoot a gun. So it's a moot point. You'll get our guns when you pull them from our cold dead hands.

^^^

When i read or hear drivel like NEO liberal or fascist being bandied about I realize I've wasted that time listening to a NEO Moron.

John Bingham wrote: ↑Mon May 21, 2018 2:51 am So you contend that there is no causal link between the easy availability of firearms in the US and mass shootings?

A strawman argument. Nobody said any such thing. You are becoming vladimir #2. The more guns available in the wrong hands the more shootings there will inevitably be, and some of those could be mass shootings. The question is what means are acceptable to achieve the desired ends. Many Americans refuse to be penalized or restricted because of the behavior of some other irresponsible people. But thanks so much for your heartfelt and genuine concern for the lives of Americans. I'm sure that is the real motive behind your comments.

lucky the Irish had restricted gun ownership.
and the Polish jews in the ghetto of Warsaw.
they may have acted irresponsibly.
plus there is the case of native Americans.
you just cannot trust ordinary people to abide by the rule of law.

why after a mass shooting does it all break down to, "we need more/sticker gun control laws"
I stated what i feel both sides would accept way back but will repeat it

to own a fire arm;
criminal record check
over 21
no mental disease
5 day waiting period
required to take a fire arm safety class

BUT at the end of the day,this is just controlling who Legally can own a gun...
if some one wants a gun in America, he will get, buy, steal one.

They should be working on why American kids are driven to shoot up their fellow students to make a point>
Is no one listening???!!!!!!

dron wrote: ↑Mon May 21, 2018 3:33 amWe won't give up our rights and our republic just because you never had either.

LOL

You have ONE right left; the right to bear arms.

They have had you so focused on that you've not even noticed they've taken everything else away, the middle class, decent education, affordable education, affordable healthcare, the right to privacy, freedom of association, freedom of expression.

Here, keep this gun, we'll make sure you keep it (the financial aspect never entered our minds) while we rip you off.

To defend yourselves against tyranny. How's that working out so far?

Give them more guns, I say.

the kid who did the shooting was 17
illegal for him to own guns
shotgun
pistol
not assault weapons.
completely illegal for him to own them or carry them.
so how is an altered legislative framework going to prevent his already illegal act?
keeping in mind, i am no advocate of the interpretation of the 2nd amendment as it presently stands.
if people break the law, more laws will not help.

obviously his father is vicariously liable.

frank lee bent wrote: ↑Mon May 21, 2018 8:33 am the kid who did the shooting was 17
illegal for him to own guns
shotgun
pistol
not assault weapons.
completely illegal for him to own them or carry them.
so how is an altered legislative framework going to prevent his already illegal act?
keeping in mind, i am no advocate of the interpretation of the 2nd amendment as it presently stands.
if people break the law, more laws will not help.

obviously his father is vicariously liable.

exactly
BUT u cant YET blame dad, We dont know if the guns were locked up or not

if you require gun owners to lock up their guns or face imprisonment as accessories to murder with sentences of 20 years or more,that might help.
the proximate cause is mental illness though- probably brought on by bullying in many cases where teens are concerned.
a similar case may perhaps be made for muslim terrorists, no matter how illogical it may seem.

in all these cases, a lack of personal responsibility and a lack of acceptance of consequences for one's actions is a large part of the equation

I come from a country where if a person owned a firearm, it was probably because they were a hunter. Until fairly recently even police went unarmed and so did criminals. The idea of owning a weapon to protect my home is a foreign one to me.

Gun ownership in the US is primarily a cultural issue, and one that people from other countries should not concern themselves with unless a bullet flies across international boundaries into Canada or Mexico. It's their country, let them decide amongst themselves.