Today's shooting in America thread

gordondaviesmoustache said:
I’m bound to wonder that if the Founding Fathers had inserted an amendment around the same time that it was ok to fuck kids, whether it would still be enschrined in US law and defended to the hilt, simply because of its provenance.

That’s the same Founding Fathers who all had slaves btw.
Click to expand...
How many Amendments to the Constitution are there?
How many have been repealed?
What does it take to do either one?

Normally, I find your comments more compelling. Kid fucking law? Really?! Lemmings come to mind....
 
ChicagoBlue said:
It isn’t irreversible. This is how democracy works. Elect the “correct” politicians and it is gone in a wink!

What is Britain doing about their increasing gun crime? Isn’t it illegal to carry a handgun in the British glass house?
Click to expand...
It’s irreversible in practical terms because the number of guns in circulation render it so. Irreversible and anachronistic, as it happens; a dangerous cocktail.

Outlaw, or hugely restrict guns tomorrow in the States and the problem would continue, possibly worsen, because of the ugly culture that pervades much of your society and this ridiculous notion that still has widespread currency of using firearms to repel a nefarious government.

It is illegal in the UK and carries a mandatory term of five years imprisonment. In the circumstances, I believe the forces of law and order are doing an acceptable job at maintaining a degree of control over gun crime - and I’m probably better placed to comment upon it than most, I’ll hazard.
 
Here’s a hint for the talking heads who continue to spout nonsense, as if anyone in the US cares what ANYONE in the UK thinks about their laws...

Take a look at the electoral map.
Look at the population of the red states.
Look at the population DENSITY of the red states.
Look at the electoral votes of the red states in comparison to the population and population density of those states.
Look at how many states have red governors.

Now, apply the US Constitution and what it says about Amending the Constitution.

Amending the Constitution requires 1 thing: VOTES.

Now, look at how people get elected in the US and the right wing leaning SCOTUS decision on Citizens United.

Now, go and open a beer and stop worrying about the US, unless you are planning to move here and don’t like some of the laws. In that case, pick your location accordingly.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
It’s irreversible in practical terms because the number of guns in circulation render it so. Irreversible and anachronistic, as it happens; a dangerous cocktail.

Outlaw, or hugely restrict guns tomorrow in the States and the problem would continue, possibly worsen, because of the ugly culture that pervades much of your society and this ridiculous notion that still has widespread currency of using firearms to repel a nefarious government.

It is illegal in the UK and carries a mandatory term of five years imprisonment. In the circumstances, I believe the forces of law and order are doing an acceptable job at maintaining a degree of control over gun crime - and I’m probably better placed to comment upon it than most, I’ll hazard.
Click to expand...

Ah, “practical terms!” Here I was thinking we were complaining about the Founding Fathers and what they faced when they devised the Constitution and 2A!

So, speaking of “outlawing guns,” how did that work for Chicago, where I live?

There are many layers to the onion, but PUBLIC SENTIMENT is the biggest one that will move the discussion. The problem is that most of the people who want, and own, guns don’t live in the area where the gun crime happens! This is why I asked the questions above. There is a big disconnect.

Also, check the “gun density,” and how many people own the guns in circulation.

What is and is not “practical” changes over time. No one believed we could have alcohol prohibition, but we did. Didn’t stop most people with money finding a way, just as a prohibition on guns might not stop some people from owning them. However, it would give legal teeth to the prosecution of those that disregarded the new laws.

BTW, I am in no way advocating for more guns in more hands. Rather, I find the knee jerk reactions that CONSTANTLY come up in here as both boring and simpleminded. And, I’m not suggesting you are either.

P.S. It is NOT my society, merely the society in which I currently reside. If I were King, then things would be different.
 
ChicagoBlue said:
Ah, “practical terms!” Here I was thinking we were complaining about the Founding Fathers and what they faced when they devised the Constitution and 2A!

So, speaking of “outlawing guns,” how did that work for Chicago, where I live?

There are many layers to the onion, but PUBLIC SENTIMENT is the biggest one that will move the discussion. The problem is that most of the people who want, and own, guns don’t live in the area where the gun crime happens! This is why I asked the questions above. There is a big disconnect.

Also, check the “gun density,” and how many people own the guns in circulation.

What is and is not “practical” changes over time. No one believed we could have alcohol prohibition, but we did. Didn’t stop most people with money finding a way, just as a prohibition on guns might not stop some people from owning them. However, it would give legal teeth to the prosecution of those that disregarded the new laws.

BTW, I am in no way advocating for more guns in more hands. Rather, I find the knee jerk reactions that CONSTANTLY come up in here as both boring and simpleminded. And, I’m not suggesting you are either.
Click to expand...
I simply believe that repealing the Second Amendment would have no meaningful impact on its effect on US culture over the last couple of centuries and its legacy going forward.

In that sense, it is wholly irreversible, tragically so. It would be a repeal in name only and would cause many citizens to behave more, not less dangerously.
 
laughing gravy said:
hows it silly? yor the one who does not feel safe not me America land of the BWAHAHAHAHA free
Click to expand...
Not sure where you live, but I don’t feel unsafe. Is leaving your doors unlocked the measure of personal safety? Do you leave your car doors unlocked, too?
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I simply believe that repealing the Second Amendment would have no meaningful impact on its effect on US culture over the last couple of centuries and its legacy going forward.

In that sense, it is wholly irreversible, tragically so. It would be a repeal in name only and would cause many citizens to behave more, not less dangerously.
Click to expand...
Suppositions that are probably impossible to ever test. Great argument!

And, you do realize there are myriad laws restricting the use and ownership of guns, right? It’s not the Wild West out here! The problem is, like Britain, the criminals don’t care! The difference is that anyone trying to use said gun might be faced by law-abiding citizens who will not stand idly by in fear of the **** with the gun!
 
Last edited:
Milwaukee police finally released a bodycam vid of a shooting victim... that lived.

They were called out to a 'suspect with a firearm on the roof'.

Originally they said about the victim 'he was reaching for a gun behind the air conditioning unit'. The object he dropped was a phone.

Be warned graphic content shown



I will say, if it hadn't have been for the other cop stepping in when he did, the kid would be dead by now, from squirming in pain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.