Shooting reported at Umpqua Community College in Oregon.....Another one :{

Master Zik said:
Get More: Comedy Central,Funny Videos,Funny TV Shows

You don't understand irony.

Not even gonna repeat what everyone else said :lol: but it's not extreme irony cuz those gun-control laws would help prevent random killers from getting guns and spraying the entire Senate with automatic weapons who those guards would have to try and stop. That's what the law is for, not taking guns away from trained guards.
Click to expand...

Did Oregons gun control laws stop the shooter? Oregon already has very strict gun control laws.
 
Why lock your front door at night? If a criminal wants to open it he would just kick it down, so there's no point in locking it
 
blco02 said:
Did Oregons gun control laws stop the shooter? Oregon already has very strict gun control laws.
Click to expand...

What do you have to say about the fact that aside from a few outliers, states with more gun control laws and less guns per house hold have fewer gun related deaths than the states with few laws and more gun related deaths?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/50-state-study-more-gun-laws-fewer-deaths/

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2014/06...0-States-By-Gun-Sense-And-Gun-Violence-Deaths
 
sea manup said:
Why lock your front door at night? If a criminal wants to open it he would just kick it down, so there's no point in locking it
Click to expand...
terrible example. locking ur door is a form of protecting yourself. to be correct, it would be passing a law that makes it harder for you to buy locks. or passing a law that makes all locks tougher to open.

in your nonsensical example u said why lock a door cuz a criminal will kick it down. stupid. more like... lets pass a law that criminals cant break into houses or kick other peoples doors down. OH WAIT..... that does exist. AND IT DIDNT STOP THEM. so neither  the lock, nor the law stopped em? sheesh. we better add some more breaking and entering laws.
 
Last edited:
jdfrenchbread23 said:
What do you have to say about the fact that aside from a few outliers, states with more gun control laws and less guns per house hold have fewer gun related deaths than the states with few laws and more gun related deaths?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/50-state-study-more-gun-laws-fewer-deaths/

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2014/06...0-States-By-Gun-Sense-And-Gun-Violence-Deaths
Click to expand...
to that i say::

1. states with less cars have less car accidents

2. amish country has less power blackouts than anywhere in america

3. states with more gun control laws AND LESS GUNS have fewer related deaths

see what im getting at here? also, from the article "He said his study suggests but doesn't prove that gun laws — or something else — led to fewer gun deaths." so the lead researcher says the results prove nothing. and thats what u choose to stand on for argument?
blco02 said:
I'm not trusting a study cited by dailykos
laugh.gif


Read this book and educate yourself. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime
Click to expand...
 i dont believe in the NRA's we need more guns. I dont think that at all. people are stupid. giving everyone a gun just means the chance of an idiot or coward having a gun in a bad situation just skyrocketed. that is DEFINITELY not the answe.
 
TEKtheMAESTRO said:
to that i say::

1. states with less cars have less car accidents
2. amish country has less power blackouts than anywhere in america
3. states with more gun control laws AND LESS GUNS have fewer related deaths

see what im getting at here? also, from the article "He said his study suggests but doesn't prove that gun laws — or something else — led to fewer gun deaths." so the lead researcher says the results prove nothing. and thats what u choose to stand on for argument?

 i dont believe in the NRA's we need more guns. I dont think that at all. people are stupid. giving everyone a gun just means the chance of an idiot or coward having a gun in a bad situation just skyrocketed. that is DEFINITELY not the answe.
Click to expand...

I'm not making an argument. I'm asking him where he stands on that claim after he said that oregons gun laws didn't stop the shooting from happening. But he chose not to acknowledge it all together.
 
the equivalent would be passing a law that makes it illegal for locksmiths to sell duplicates of your keys to strangers, wouldn't it?

I don't know, at some point a long time ago this thread stopped making sense.
 
Blco just deflecting, the ole "it won't stop it from ever happening, so why bother" is the worst bull **** excuse outchea right now

Seat belts and air bags and other safety measure hasn't stopped people from dying in car crashes, but it greatly reduced them

Cigarette laws didn't stop people from smoking, but it greatly reduced the number of smokers.

No one is pushing gun control as a magic bullet, they're just acknowledging there is a problem, and want to put in place policies try to reduce gun deaths.

-BTW

After Colobine, the NRA was outchea in support of background checks and closing loopholes. And now the Dems and Obama want the same thing, it is some how an attack on people's freedoms

Mannnnn :lol:
 
Last edited:
blco02 said:
Master Zik said:
Get More: Comedy Central,Funny Videos,Funny TV Shows

You don't understand irony.

Not even gonna repeat what everyone else said :lol: but it's not extreme irony cuz those gun-control laws would help prevent random killers from getting guns and spraying the entire Senate with automatic weapons who those guards would have to try and stop. That's what the law is for, not taking guns away from trained guards.
Click to expand...

Did Oregons gun control laws stop the shooter? Oregon already has very strict gun control laws.
Click to expand...
Obviously they don't have strict enough or thorough enough laws if a mother could buy a bunch of guns and give them to her mentally ill son.

Perhaps the aim shouldn't just be stricter gun control laws but strict enforcement of those laws.
 
Master Zik said:
Obviously they don't have strict enough or thorough enough laws if a mother could buy a bunch of guns and give them to her mentally ill son.

Perhaps the aim shouldn't just be stricter gun control laws but strict enforcement of those laws.
Click to expand...
how do u enforce a law in someones home? she knew her son has some sort of mental problem. even as far as calling him autistic some years back. but she still thought it was a good idea to let him be around guns. u cant stop stupidity, and too many people are stupid. negligent. maybe harsher punishments for breaking those laws. who knows.
 
TEKtheMAESTRO said:
Master Zik said:
Obviously they don't have strict enough or thorough enough laws if a mother could buy a bunch of guns and give them to her mentally ill son.


Perhaps the aim shouldn't just be stricter gun control laws but strict enforcement of those laws.
Click to expand...

how do u enforce a law in someones home? she knew her son has some sort of mental problem. even as far as calling him autistic some years back. but she still thought it was a good idea to let him be around guns. u cant stop stupidity, and too many people are stupid. negligent. maybe harsher punishments for breaking those laws. who knows.
Click to expand...
Not 100% sure yet but as far as background checks and having firearms in the house with children present and the mentally ill there needs to be a focus there. Some mandatory safeguards need to be set in place that can and would be enforced (on some cops will check steez).

I know we can't pass laws banning stupidity or enforce that but we should be continually trying to lessen the opportunity for it. I mean I feel after some details like that both sides should be in agreement in preventing a situation like that instead of this we can't do anything about school shootings, gun laws are irrelevant, we can't do anything about so lets just give up and deal with it attitude.
 
States with lax gun control laws are actually pretty safe in terms of homicides; they just have a bunch of old white dudes (and some under-21 kids, which shouldn't have a handgun anyway under existing laws) blowing themselves away, which inflates the "gun deaths" number. People automatically associate that term with "person X shot person Y," but that's just not true for the majority of "gun deaths" (suicides accout for ~2/3 of them). Helping people that are in a bad place and think that suicide is the answer would actually eliminate most of these gun deaths without even making one change regarding legality of guns.

As far as homicides go, though mass/school shootings are instant headline-makers, they are actually a small percentage of the total tally. As many others have already said, most homicides are simply gang X shooting gang Y. Again, the motivating forces that drive people to take up the gang lifestyle is the actual cause behind this violence. If the CAUSE was addressed, and not the EFFECT, you would have almost no gun deaths at that point.

All that would be left would be the mass shooters. Take away the media glorification of them (make the current circus illegal) and they would quickly dwindle away, knowing that no one would know their name, see their face; they would just be a nameless coward that everyone hated, so what would be the point of dying early, pumped full of police (and CCW) bullets?
 
TEKtheMAESTRO said:
Master Zik said:
Obviously they don't have strict enough or thorough enough laws if a mother could buy a bunch of guns and give them to her mentally ill son.


Perhaps the aim shouldn't just be stricter gun control laws but strict enforcement of those laws.
Click to expand...

how do u enforce a law in someones home? she knew her son has some sort of mental problem. even as far as calling him autistic some years back. but she still thought it was a good idea to let him be around guns. u cant stop stupidity, and too many people are stupid. negligent. maybe harsher punishments for breaking those laws. who knows.
Click to expand...

You kinda just said it though. With stupidity being so abundant in this country why should we have systems in place to let so many stupid people fall through the cracks and be able to get their hands on guns?
 
Interesting read on gun control

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-simple-truth-about-gun-control

What the New York Police Department found out, through empirical experience and better organization, was that making crime even a little bit harder made it much, much rarer. This is undeniably true of property crime, and common sense and evidence tells you that this is also true even of crimes committed by crazy people (to use the plain English the subject deserves). Those who hold themselves together enough to be capable of killing anyone are subject to the same rules of opportunity as sane people. Even madmen need opportunities to display their madness, and behave in different ways depending on the possibilities at hand. Demand an extraordinary degree of determination and organization from someone intent on committing a violent act, and the odds that the violent act will take place are radically reduced, in many cases to zero.

Look at the Harvard social scientist David Hemenway’s work on gun violence to see how simple it is; the phrase “more guns = more homicide” tolls through it like a grim bell. The more guns there are in a country, the more gun murders and massacres of children there will be. Even within this gun-crazy country, states with strong gun laws have fewer gun murders (and suicides and accidental killings) than states without them. (Hemenway is also the scientist who has shown that the inflated figure of guns used in self-defense every year, running even to a million or two million, is a pure fantasy, even though it’s still cited by pro-gun enthusiasts. Those hundreds of thousands intruders shot by gun owners left no records in emergency wards or morgues; indeed, left no evidentiary trace behind. This is because they did not exist.) Hemenway has discovered, as he explained in this interview with Harvard Magazine, that what is usually presented as a case of self-defense with guns is, in the real world, almost invariably a story about an escalating quarrel. “How often might you appropriately use a gun in self-defense?” Hemenway asks rhetorically. “Answer: zero to once in a lifetime. How about inappropriately—because you were tired, afraid, or drunk in a confrontational situation? There are lots and lots of chances.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
interesting... pardon my ignorance, but I actually took a couple minutes to read up on the second amendment and the changes in its interpretation over the years. the two lessons learned are 1) it is short and does not explicitly grant individuals the right to own guns without a reason, and 2) given how its interpretation has changed over time, it's not the black or white impenetrable law that the NRA would have you believe.

to put it another way, we could just as easily justify protecting everyone's right to own guns as we could taking away guns from everyone except well-organized militias.
 
Last edited:
whywesteppin said:
interesting... pardon my ignorance, but I actually took a couple minutes to read up on the second amendment and the changes in its interpretation over the years. the two lessons learned are 1) it is short and does not explicitly grant individuals the right to own guns without a reason, and 2) given how its interpretation has changed over time, it's not the black or white impenetrable law that the NRA would have you believe.

to put it another way, we could just as easily justify protecting everyone's right to own guns as we could taking away guns from everyone except well-organized militias.
Click to expand...



According to this strange interpretation, if I start a militia then I should be able to have fully automatic weapons, grenades, rocket launchers, etc. without any infringement. This is necessary to the security of a free state.Or maybe the First Amendment only applies to militias as well. That would seem to be the case, considering this interpretation of the wording. It certainly is a black and white impenetrable law. I'd like to see how people would react to stricter regulations on freedom of speech. You can argue for stricter gun regulations, but don't pretend that the Constitution doesn't clearly state that the rights of THE PEOPLE shall not be infringed. The Bill of Rights is not a handbook for militias. It enumerates specific rights that cannot be infringed upon by the government.
 
Last edited:
jdfrenchbread23 said:
Interesting read on gun control

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-simple-truth-about-gun-control
Click to expand...
interesting take, but heavily biased. saying that control will eliminate gun violence in the way that anti-biotics eliminate bacterial infections. wishful thinking. the war on drugs did nothing to stop drug trafficking or crime. the war on terrorism did nothing to stop terrorism. ****... we're having this conversation because now domestic terrorism is running rampant. media refuses to call this domestic terrorism however. with these given examples, how is the war on guns... going to stop gun crime?

do remember that in MOST of the recent mass shootings, the shooter shouldnt have even been in possession of the weapons. they were illegally obtained in most of the mass shootings in the past 2 or 3 years. a couple of the cases were when someone actually owned the gun they were shooting. these people stole their guns or bought em off the street 9 times out of 10. what law would they have paid attention to when they were determined to get a gun knowing it was illegal? they knew it was illegal before they hit the corner and started asking where they can get a rifle or a handgun.

the simple truth about gun-control is that its a nice idea. the complex truth is that if u do the numbers theres roughly 300 million guns in the US in total. that number compared to the number of gun deaths vs the number of cars compared to the number of car deaths etc etc etc are very good. people accept car accident deaths. people accept smoking related deaths like cancer or heart failure. gun deaths get looked at like "well if there were less guns we wouldnt have so many deaths." even if 10,000 died yearly from guns..thats 0.3% of the population. and theres probably a 3rd of that in gun deaths per year. less guns isnt the answer.

im not saying im against gun control, im just saying it wont work. if u have a garden full of weeds, u can cut them down all day every day. but until u pull from the root, the weeds remain. attack the root.
Diego said:
You kinda just said it though. With stupidity being so abundant in this country why should we have systems in place to let so many stupid people fall through the cracks and be able to get their hands on guns?
Click to expand...
we dont have systems in place TO let so many people fall through the cracks... we have systems in place THAT let people fall through the cracks. why? becuz most of the time u cant catch them. in ALL of these recent mass murders, the criminal has a squeaky clean record where ud never know anything was wrong on paper. the only ones who know something is wrong is the criminal himself and maybe those immediately around him. but what test will show that? what background check? its not like u get vetted to get a gun and have a fullscale investigation done on u.
 
JChambers said:
According to this strange interpretation, if I start a militia then I should be able to have fully automatic weapons, grenades, rocket launchers, etc. without any infringement. This is necessary to the security of a free state.Or maybe the First Amendment only applies to militias as well. That would seem to be the case, considering this interpretation of the wording. It certainly is a black and white impenetrable law. I'd like to see how people would react to stricter regulations on freedom of speech. You can argue for stricter gun regulations, but don't pretend that the Constitution doesn't clearly state that the rights of THE PEOPLE shall not be infringed. The Bill of Rights is not a handbook for militias. It enumerates specific rights that cannot be infringed upon by the government.
Click to expand...


If it's so clear cut how did this happen:

"In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita..." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military."

Even in its most liberal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (Heller 2008), the Supreme Court still stated: "... the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose".

Unless you're claiming you have a better understanding of Constitutional Law than the Supreme Court does, I'm going to disagree with you on all this.
 
Last edited:
whywesteppin said:
JChambers said:
According to this strange interpretation, if I start a militia then I should be able to have fully automatic weapons, grenades, rocket launchers, etc. without any infringement. This is necessary to the security of a free state.Or maybe the First Amendment only applies to militias as well. That would seem to be the case, considering this interpretation of the wording. It certainly is a black and white impenetrable law. I'd like to see how people would react to stricter regulations on freedom of speech. You can argue for stricter gun regulations, but don't pretend that the Constitution doesn't clearly state that the rights of THE PEOPLE shall not be infringed. The Bill of Rights is not a handbook for militias. It enumerates specific rights that cannot be infringed upon by the government.
Click to expand...


If it's so clear cut how did this happen:

"In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934" The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military."

Even in its most liberal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (Heller 2008), the Supreme Court still stated: "... the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose".

Unless you're claiming you have a better understanding of Constitutional Law than the Supreme Court does, I'm going to disagree with you on all this.
Click to expand...

" The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military."


This is hilarious to me. So in every other section of the Bill of Rights, they are talking about the common man,but in this 2nd one (which is only second in the document to the right of free speech), they are strictly talking about the military? :D :smh: Look at your quote again. It actually solidifies my stance:

"because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita..."

So it would have been completely acceptable, without regulation, had it been part of a "well regulated militia". :smh:

I know the current government's interpretation of it.The text is very clear.The Supreme Court is heavily politicized.It could be argued that the National Firearm Act itself is unconstitutional. Let's not pretend that the Supreme Court has always upheld the Constitution and the rights protected by it. The Constitution holds more power than any court in the land. It doesn't tell us what we can do, it tells the government what it absolutely cannot do. It also wasn't meant to be a guideline of the only rights that we have as human beings. It's purpose has become mangled through the years because of increased governmental power.If I can see with my own two eyes that grass is green, a bunch of old government Justices aren't going to convince me that it is blue, no matter how many times they meet up or how many pages of legalese are written. We are also clearly protected against unreasonable search and seizure by the Fourth Amendment, yet the Supreme Court has ruled that a dog barking is probable cause for a search because drugs may be nearby. Drug dogs have less than a 50/50 chance at positive hits.,:lol: Nearly all of our rights can be stepped on under the guise of an absolutely unconstitutional drug war.The Constitution was written for the people.It is sad that you believe that a law degree and court appointment are required to understand it. This unfortunately seems to be a common belief in this country. No wonder we have lost so many rights along the way and fallen victim to such a strong reliance on the state for everything.

"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."

Straight to the point. The reason that the first part is there is to emphasize the importance of this right, not to limit it. To victims of the current police state, "well regulated" might seem to mean control by the government. We are so used to everything being regulated for us by Big Brother, that we have missed the fact that the term may have actually meant something completely different back when the document was created.


"The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it."

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

It seems clear that "well regulated" was not included to refer to governmental regulations at all.

This further expounds upon the wording and its meaning and purpose in the document:



"We begin this analysis by examining how the term “regulate” was used elsewhere in the Constitution. In every other instance where the term “regulate” is used, or regulations are referred to, the Constitution specifies who is to do the regulating and what is being “regulated.” However, in the Second Amendment, the Framers chose only to use the term “well regulated” to describe a militia and chose not to define who or what would regulate it.

It is also important to note that the Framers’ chose to use the indefinite article “a” to refer to the militia, rather than the definite article “the.” This choice suggests that the Framers were not referring to any particular well regulated militia but, instead, only to the concept that well regulated militias, made up of citizens bearing arms, were necessary to secure a free State. Thus, the Framers chose not to explicitly define who, or what, would regulate the militias, nor what such regulation would consist of, nor how the regulation was to be accomplished."

http://bearingarms.com/well-regulated/


View media item 1745646
 
Last edited:
whywesteppin said:
JChambers said:
According to this strange interpretation, if I start a militia then I should be able to have fully automatic weapons, grenades, rocket launchers, etc. without any infringement. This is necessary to the security of a free state.Or maybe the First Amendment only applies to militias as well. That would seem to be the case, considering this interpretation of the wording. It certainly is a black and white impenetrable law. I'd like to see how people would react to stricter regulations on freedom of speech. You can argue for stricter gun regulations, but don't pretend that the Constitution doesn't clearly state that the rights of THE PEOPLE shall not be infringed. The Bill of Rights is not a handbook for militias. It enumerates specific rights that cannot be infringed upon by the government.
Click to expand...


If it's so clear cut how did this happen:

"In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita..." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military."

Even in its most liberal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (Heller 2008), the Supreme Court still stated: "... the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose".

Unless you're claiming you have a better understanding of Constitutional Law than the Supreme Court does, I'm going to disagree with you on all this.
Click to expand...
There's gonna be a day when they make handguns that shoot bombs and ppl will cite the 2nd amendment then too.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom