This European comedy sketch explains how the world sees America’s gun problem

[SmarterthanYou]

Here's some insight. I have mental illness, and I wouldn't give someone with my issues unlimited access to arms either. A basic hand gun for protection is fine, but multiple arms, and assault weapons that no civilian should have, is an obvious no. I also played violent video games through life. I think letting people like me have free reign in arms, is infringing on others rights, and not so much the other way around.

in your opinion, what is the intent of the 2nd Amendment????????

[Flash]

Here's some insight. I have mental illness, and I wouldn't give someone with my issues unlimited access to arms either. A basic hand gun for protection is fine, but multiple arms, and assault weapons that no civilian should have, is an obvious no. I also played violent video games through life. I think letting people like me have free reign in arms, is infringing on others rights, and not so much the other way around.

A basic handgun is how most homicides and suicides occur in the U. S. A very small percentage of homicides occur using rifles.

[ThatOwlWoman]

in your opinion, what is the intent of the 2nd Amendment????????

May I?

The original intent, as worded, was to ensure that citizens could keep a firearm lawfully, in order to belong to a "well-regulated militia" meant to safeguard "the security".... which could mean basically to repel marauders, attacking Natives, foreign government soldiers hoping to invade, perhaps even an American government-gone-mad. What you (plural you) gun-humpers always ignore is that "well-regulated militia" part. The writers envisioned a local citizen army of sorts, there being no standing national army at the time. Were the French to try to encroach upon the states and grab territory, were the Natives to try to overrun a settlement.... they wanted the citizenry to have the arms and the training (that "well-regulated militia" thing again) to stand against them to ensure "the security of a free State." There is absolutely nothing in there about citizens having legal access to the same firearms used by law enforcement or military. That's all made-up bullshit stuff by the NRA and the gun makers.

It's human nature to admit that you were had, that you're just a puppet. But there you go, Puppets.

[Cancel 2019.1]

May I?

The original intent, as worded, was to ensure that citizens could keep a firearm lawfully, in order to belong to a "well-regulated militia" meant to safeguard "the security".... which could mean basically to repel marauders, attacking Natives, foreign government soldiers hoping to invade, perhaps even an American government-gone-mad. What you (plural you) gun-humpers always ignore is that "well-regulated militia" part. The writers envisioned a local citizen army of sorts, there being no standing national army at the time. Were the French to try to encroach upon the states and grab territory, were the Natives to try to overrun a settlement.... they wanted the citizenry to have the arms and the training (that "well-regulated militia" thing again) to stand against them to ensure "the security of a free State." There is absolutely nothing in there about citizens having legal access to the same firearms used by law enforcement or military. That's all made-up bullshit stuff by the NRA and the gun makers.

It's human nature to admit that you were had, that you're just a puppet. But there you go, Puppets.

Obviously the founding fathers wanted every child to carry a AR-15 or AK-47 to School!
God Bless America!��

[Jade Dragon]

A basic handgun is how most homicides and suicides occur in the U. S. A very small percentage of homicides occur using rifles.

We're obviously not talking about those, we're talking about mass shootings.

[SmarterthanYou]

May I?

The original intent, as worded, was to ensure that citizens could keep a firearm lawfully, in order to belong to a "well-regulated militia" meant to safeguard "the security".... which could mean basically to repel marauders, attacking Natives, foreign government soldiers hoping to invade, perhaps even an American government-gone-mad. What you (plural you) gun-humpers always ignore is that "well-regulated militia" part. The writers envisioned a local citizen army of sorts, there being no standing national army at the time. Were the French to try to encroach upon the states and grab territory, were the Natives to try to overrun a settlement.... they wanted the citizenry to have the arms and the training (that "well-regulated militia" thing again) to stand against them to ensure "the security of a free State." There is absolutely nothing in there about citizens having legal access to the same firearms used by law enforcement or military. That's all made-up bullshit stuff by the NRA and the gun makers.

It's human nature to admit that you were had, that you're just a puppet. But there you go, Puppets.

while you are not wrong, you're not completely correct. the 'well regulated' part of the militia did not mean anything other than to be well trained, well outfitted, and well organized within it's own framework. we the people were that militia and the free state part is the state of freedom. It would not be logical to deduce that the framers of the constitution, who had just won independence from their central government trying to confiscate their arms, would want their new central government to have superiority in arms or numbers, hence the fear of the standing army thing. As to law enforcement.....since police departments or police units weren't even an idea in that time, the elected sheriff or magistrate used the citizenry AND their equal armament to help enforce law, so in essence, the founders did indeed mean to have the populace as well armed as any government agent or force that could be used against them. That's not from the NRA or the gun makers, that's from the writings of the federalist and anti federalist papers themselves.

[SmarterthanYou]

We're obviously not talking about those, we're talking about mass shootings.

so 15,000 singular deaths by handguns is ok, just not 10 or more in a single instance when done by a modern rifle????????

[Cypress]

May I?

The original intent, as worded, was to ensure that citizens could keep a firearm lawfully, in order to belong to a "well-regulated militia" meant to safeguard "the security".... which could mean basically to repel marauders, attacking Natives, foreign government soldiers hoping to invade, perhaps even an American government-gone-mad. What you (plural you) gun-humpers always ignore is that "well-regulated militia" part. The writers envisioned a local citizen army of sorts, there being no standing national army at the time. Were the French to try to encroach upon the states and grab territory, were the Natives to try to overrun a settlement.... they wanted the citizenry to have the arms and the training (that "well-regulated militia" thing again) to stand against them to ensure "the security of a free State." There is absolutely nothing in there about citizens having legal access to the same firearms used by law enforcement or military. That's all made-up bullshit stuff by the NRA and the gun makers.

It's human nature to admit that you were had, that you're just a puppet. But there you go, Puppets.

Nicely done.

So the authors of the Constitution were not really thinking about these guys when they wrote the 2nd amendment?

[ThatOwlWoman]

while you are not wrong, you're not completely correct. the 'well regulated' part of the militia did not mean anything other than to be well trained, well outfitted, and well organized within it's own framework. we the people were that militia and the free state part is the state of freedom. It would not be logical to deduce that the framers of the constitution, who had just won independence from their central government trying to confiscate their arms, would want their new central government to have superiority in arms or numbers, hence the fear of the standing army thing. As to law enforcement.....since police departments or police units weren't even an idea in that time, the elected sheriff or magistrate used the citizenry AND their equal armament to help enforce law, so in essence, the founders did indeed mean to have the populace as well armed as any government agent or force that could be used against them. That's not from the NRA or the gun makers, that's from the writings of the federalist and anti federalist papers themselves.

Yep... and again, focus on that "well-regulated" part, and how it pertained to a group of armed men training together in case of an emergency. Do you think that today's gun-owners are 'well-regulated' in any sense of that word?

[RB 60]

Yep... and again, focus on that "well-regulated" part, and how it pertained to a group of armed men training together in case of an emergency. Do you think that today's gun-owners are 'well-regulated' in any sense of that word?

Bottom line...
You want em, come and get em.

[SmarterthanYou]

Yep... and again, focus on that "well-regulated" part, and how it pertained to a group of armed men training together in case of an emergency. Do you think that today's gun-owners are 'well-regulated' in any sense of that word?

many of them try to be, but for the harassment of local, state, and federal governments. not to mention the thousands of fraidy cat liberals who don't think they should be doing that. you also have to take in to account those of us who are former active duty military..........I still train with my weapons. would you consider that well regulated?

[Minister of Truth]

Well, let us know when the greater nations of the world make a citizen out of you.

[Minister of Truth]

Yep... and again, focus on that "well-regulated" part, and how it pertained to a group of armed men training together in case of an emergency. Do you think that today's gun-owners are 'well-regulated' in any sense of that word?

Aside from the sheer volume of regulations on the books? Having a well-regulated militia, such as the Minutemen, is the reason why the 2nd Amendment was drafted - for revolution against a tyrannical government that leftists either believe cannot come about or should come about to bring about order. That being said, the founders also considered the general public to be the militia, and if properly armed, capable of fomenting revolution, which is why the 2nd gives a blanket protection against infringement.

[Gotcha68]

Sure there is. We've realized that the kinds of things you propose to stop these actions won't work. There were laws in place that made the school in Florida a gun free zone. Why didn't the shooter abide by that law? There are laws that say people shouldn't murder other people. Why didn't the shooter abide by those laws?

Those are two example where the written word didn't stop someone from doing something and the ONLY thing you left wing gun haters can say is put more words on paper in order to stop this from happening.

The most recent mass shootings involved things already being in place that should have stopped them according to the mindset of lefties. In Texas, the shooter shouldn't have been able to buy a gun. The law that you idiots say should be in place to prevent it already was. It wasn't the gun's fault, it was the fault of someone or several someones not doing their job. In Florida, there was enough time and information that something like this could happen provided to the FBI. THEY failed to notify the local office and had over a month to do so. You lefties want to blame the gun.

When the gun itself can grow legs/arms, walk to the location where a shooting takes place, and shoot itself with his own hands I'll be right there with you blaming the gun. Until then, mature people will address the true causes and those of you with childlike mentalities can incorrectly blame the gun simply because you hate guns.

Why so much push back on more words if they don't mean anything or have no effect? Let's add more useless words and see what happens? What can it hurt at this point? It might even save a life or two.

[Gotcha68]

Bottom line...
You want em, come and get em.

Are you actually stating that if the govt came to take your guns there would be a Waco like stand off with your house at the center of it and you behind your closed front door with all your guns ready to rock and roll while the police/military were outside preparing to get your guns by force?

Is that your contention with comments like this?