The more I think about this, the more I think it's time for a Constitutional amendment. The founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment to allow people with muskets and powder-loaded pistols to defend themselves if a foreign government invaded the country. They could not have foreseen "semi-automatic" weapons that are stupidly easy to turn into full automatic spray 'n pray hand cannons. The concept of a repeater rifle was foreign to them, so how can we argue that pistols with a 10-round or higher capacity were covered? Armor piercing rounds? Tracers? When they wrote the Second Amendment, it was three rounds a minute at best. Now? A bump stock can make an AR-15 fire 6 rounds per second.

The Seventh Amendment is almost entirely ignored today because, as written, it's obsolete. So's the Second Amendment. No foreign armies are going to occupy America anytime ever, and your guns have nothing to do with that. I doubt I'll ever get to the point of saying ban guns entirely, but I don't think anything out there needs more than six bullets in it. Think about how much time would be spent reloading, and all the extra ammo, weight and bulk that would have to be carried around. I don't know why bump stocks are legal anymore. I don't know why any weapon that's legal if held a certain way and a felony if held a different way hasn't been outright banned. If you can honestly say that stricter gun laws regulating the type and capacity of weapons allowed for civilian use wouldn't have stopped (or at least lowered the body count of) the mass shootings that are happening all the damn time, then you're either an idiot or an indoctrinated parrot of the alt-right.

There's a mental health problem. Yes, families are different than they were 40 years ago, but want to know something that will blow your mind? In the '70s, people with severe mental health problems were in hospitals, and the undiagnosed didn't have an assortment of high-powered, high capacity rifles in their redneck daddy's closet to choose from.

---

The more I think about this, the more I think it's time for a Constitutional amendment. The founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment to allow people with muskets and powder-loaded pistols to defend themselves if a foreign government invaded the country. They could not have foreseen "semi-automatic" weapons that are stupidly easy to turn into full automatic spray 'n pray hand cannons. The concept of a repeater rifle was foreign to them, so how can we argue that pistols with a 10-round or higher capacity were covered? Armor piercing rounds? Tracers? When they wrote the Second Amendment, it was three rounds a minute at best. Now? A bump stock can make an AR-15 fire 6 rounds per second.

The Seventh Amendment is almost entirely ignored today because, as written, it's obsolete. So's the Second Amendment. No foreign armies are going to occupy America anytime ever, and your guns have nothing to do with that. I doubt I'll ever get to the point of saying ban guns entirely, but I don't think anything out there needs more than six bullets in it. Think about how much time would be spent reloading, and all the extra ammo, weight and bulk that would have to be carried around. I don't know why bump stocks are legal anymore. I don't know why any weapon that's legal if held a certain way and a felony if held a different way hasn't been outright banned. If you can honestly say that stricter gun laws regulating the type and capacity of weapons allowed for civilian use wouldn't have stopped (or at least lowered the body count of) the mass shootings that are happening all the damn time, then you're either an idiot or an indoctrinated parrot of the alt-right.

There's a mental health problem. Yes, families are different than they were 40 years ago, but want to know something that will blow your mind? In the '70s, people with severe mental health problems were in hospitals, and the undiagnosed didn't have an assortment of high-powered, high capacity rifles in their redneck daddy's closet to choose from.

Good luck your living in a dream world of you think any gun control of any kind is going to pass as amendment.

---

That is a misrepresentation of the purpose for the 2nd Amendment. The argument for the 2nd Amendment being used exclusively for single-shot weapons is dishonest. No more so than it is to say that the 1st Amendment is for hand-written letters, the spoken word, or old news papers. Should your speech online, telephone, etc. not also be protected? After all, they couldn’t have known about those.

There were weapons that fired multiple shots more quickly than single-shot pistols. Hell, a canon is more lethal than a rifle, and the Founding Fathers encouraged the personal use for those.

The Founding Fathers didn’t create this Amendment for only foreign enemies. It’s a bit disengenouis to leave that part out. I’m not at the point where I believe a civil war is likely or that the government will do something worthy of one soon, but I’m not willing to say we won’t be there one day. Domestic enemies are included.

Bump stocks shoot fast, sure, but they aren’t practical at all. They’re widely inaccurate, and humans can shoot nearly as fast without assistance. I don’t even understand the obsession with getting rid of personal use rifles when only a very small percentage of all gun related deaths include one. Handguns make up the vast majority of deaths.

Restricting ammo capacity is naive. Ignoring the domestic enemy portion of the 2nd Amendment, let’s assume you use it only in self defense. If you only have 6 rounds, then you’re screwed. It isn’t practical defend yourself with only 6 rounds, and you may not even be able to hit your target with that few. A gun fight isn’t an easy and stress free event. You don’t want a victim limited to 6 rounds.

I’ll ignore the insults but I don’t agree with your solution. I’ll agree that it may have lowered it minimally but I don’t think you’d see it drop like you think. Besides, you’d have so many people making extended magazines and naming them something else. Much like how convenience stores sell crack pipes, or how businesses sell bongs, or the numerous or things that are named one thing and intended for another.

---

The more I think about this, the more I think it's time for a Constitutional amendment. The founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment to allow people with muskets and powder-loaded pistols to defend themselves if a foreign government invaded the country. They could not have foreseen "semi-automatic" weapons that are stupidly easy to turn into full automatic spray 'n pray hand cannons. The concept of a repeater rifle was foreign to them, so how can we argue that pistols with a 10-round or higher capacity were covered? Armor piercing rounds? Tracers? When they wrote the Second Amendment, it was three rounds a minute at best. Now? A bump stock can make an AR-15 fire 6 rounds per second.

The Seventh Amendment is almost entirely ignored today because, as written, it's obsolete. So's the Second Amendment. No foreign armies are going to occupy America anytime ever, and your guns have nothing to do with that. I doubt I'll ever get to the point of saying ban guns entirely, but I don't think anything out there needs more than six bullets in it. Think about how much time would be spent reloading, and all the extra ammo, weight and bulk that would have to be carried around. I don't know why bump stocks are legal anymore. I don't know why any weapon that's legal if held a certain way and a felony if held a different way hasn't been outright banned. If you can honestly say that stricter gun laws regulating the type and capacity of weapons allowed for civilian use wouldn't have stopped (or at least lowered the body count of) the mass shootings that are happening all the damn time, then you're either an idiot or an indoctrinated parrot of the alt-right.

There's a mental health problem. Yes, families are different than they were 40 years ago, but want to know something that will blow your mind? In the '70s, people with severe mental health problems were in hospitals, and the undiagnosed didn't have an assortment of high-powered, high capacity rifles in their redneck daddy's closet to choose from.

very well worded demagoguery and hysteria.  

1.) The 2nd amendment wasn't just drafted for the invasion of a foreign army, it was also for self defense and the ability of the people to hold their government accountable to the preservation of their inalienable rights.  under the third principle its actually more adherent to the intent of the founders to index the weapons available to the public to that of those offered to the military itself (as a musket was at the time of the drafting) so you have no leg to stand on.  

2.) This isn't a 2nd amendment issue.  It's a 4th amendment issue.  Any of our rights can be suspended or revoked through substantive due process.  In this case there were literally 40 plus instances when a government agency interacted with this individual and could have not only edjudicated him mentally unfit to own a gun, he should have been institutionalized because he clearly demonstrated VIOLENT BEHAVIOR that was both a threat to HIMSELF AND OTHERS.  This is the universal definition of a mental disorder that warrants involuntary commitment not just putting someone's name on a list.  This person specifically isn't just a shooter, this was someone who had all the makings of a serial killer or mass murderer in general.  If we woke up 20 years from now and we found 100 people buried in this kids back yard would that be a win for the anti-gun nuts?  

Omar Mateen, known to authorities, boston bomber, Nadal Hassan etc. etc. etc.  The idea that these people were allowed to hurt people is ridiculous, second only to the idea that we should disarm responsible gun owners because the bureaucrats we already give half the money in the country to can't properly evaluate a kid who was SELF MUTILATING HIMSELF ON SOCIAL MEDIA AND ADVERTISING THAT HE WANTS TO HURT PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

---

The more I think about this, the more I think it's time for a Constitutional amendment. The founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment to allow people with muskets and powder-loaded pistols to defend themselves if a foreign government invaded the country. They could not have foreseen "semi-automatic" weapons that are stupidly easy to turn into full automatic spray 'n pray hand cannons. The concept of a repeater rifle was foreign to them, so how can we argue that pistols with a 10-round or higher capacity were covered? Armor piercing rounds? Tracers? When they wrote the Second Amendment, it was three rounds a minute at best. Now? A bump stock can make an AR-15 fire 6 rounds per second.

The Seventh Amendment is almost entirely ignored today because, as written, it's obsolete. So's the Second Amendment. No foreign armies are going to occupy America anytime ever, and your guns have nothing to do with that. I doubt I'll ever get to the point of saying ban guns entirely, but I don't think anything out there needs more than six bullets in it. Think about how much time would be spent reloading, and all the extra ammo, weight and bulk that would have to be carried around. I don't know why bump stocks are legal anymore. I don't know why any weapon that's legal if held a certain way and a felony if held a different way hasn't been outright banned. If you can honestly say that stricter gun laws regulating the type and capacity of weapons allowed for civilian use wouldn't have stopped (or at least lowered the body count of) the mass shootings that are happening all the damn time, then you're either an idiot or an indoctrinated parrot of the alt-right.

There's a mental health problem. Yes, families are different than they were 40 years ago, but want to know something that will blow your mind? In the '70s, people with severe mental health problems were in hospitals, and the undiagnosed didn't have an assortment of high-powered, high capacity rifles in their redneck daddy's closet to choose from.

Your post reads as if you are just looking for an argument with zero room for debate. It is full of all kinds of misinformation and ignorance.
I'm assuming you mean the Bill of Rights that amended the Constitution. With that said, couldn't you hold your thoughts to every amendment? You have quite the Utopia point of view with a little counter-intuitive demeaning of a subset of people.

- Not foreseen "semi-automatic." (repeating arms and automatic arms existed before the Bill of Rights)
- Stupid easy to turn into full automatic (Possible yes, stupid easy, no) (FYI, full auto is less effective than single shot)
- Three rounds per minute at best...  (Way off)
- Bump stock turning AR-15 to 6 rounds per second  (Bump stock isn't necessary for rapid fire and once again makes the firearm no more deadly/effective)
- No foreign invading armies  (Why do you think this hasn't happened and never will?)
- Folks in the 70's had no access to high capacity firearms (1911 existed since 1911, M1 existed in 40s, AR-10 existed in 50s, M-16 existed in 1964, (30-06, .308, 45-70 semi-auto rifles), etc)

Just a few items in your post that show you probably should not speak to the 2nd Amendment or firearms in general. A lot of parroting of anti-gun information I see...

---

and whomever keeps repeating the tripe that Ronald Regan is solely responsible for deinstitutionalization should just STOP!

---

and whomever keeps repeating the tripe that Ronald Regan is solely responsible for deinstitutionalization should just STOP!

The movie "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" was the biggest factor in turning the public (and congress) against mental hospitals.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

The more I think about this, the more I think it's time for a Constitutional amendment. The founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment to allow people with muskets and powder-loaded pistols to defend themselves if a foreign government invaded the country. They could not have foreseen "semi-automatic" weapons that are stupidly easy to turn into full automatic spray 'n pray hand cannons. The concept of a repeater rifle was foreign to them, so how can we argue that pistols with a 10-round or higher capacity were covered? Armor piercing rounds? Tracers? When they wrote the Second Amendment, it was three rounds a minute at best. Now? A bump stock can make an AR-15 fire 6 rounds per second.

The Seventh Amendment is almost entirely ignored today because, as written, it's obsolete. So's the Second Amendment. No foreign armies are going to occupy America anytime ever, and your guns have nothing to do with that. I doubt I'll ever get to the point of saying ban guns entirely, but I don't think anything out there needs more than six bullets in it. Think about how much time would be spent reloading, and all the extra ammo, weight and bulk that would have to be carried around. I don't know why bump stocks are legal anymore. I don't know why any weapon that's legal if held a certain way and a felony if held a different way hasn't been outright banned. If you can honestly say that stricter gun laws regulating the type and capacity of weapons allowed for civilian use wouldn't have stopped (or at least lowered the body count of) the mass shootings that are happening all the damn time, then you're either an idiot or an indoctrinated parrot of the alt-right.

There's a mental health problem. Yes, families are different than they were 40 years ago, but want to know something that will blow your mind? In the '70s, people with severe mental health problems were in hospitals, and the undiagnosed didn't have an assortment of high-powered, high capacity rifles in their redneck daddy's closet to choose from.

Well, I guess everyone else took care of this mountain of wrong.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The more I think about this, the more I think it's time for a Constitutional amendment. The founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment to allow people with muskets and powder-loaded pistols to defend themselves if a foreign government invaded the country. They could not have foreseen "semi-automatic" weapons that are stupidly easy to turn into full automatic spray 'n pray hand cannons. The concept of a repeater rifle was foreign to them, so how can we argue that pistols with a 10-round or higher capacity were covered? Armor piercing rounds? Tracers? When they wrote the Second Amendment, it was three rounds a minute at best. Now? A bump stock can make an AR-15 fire 6 rounds per second.

The Seventh Amendment is almost entirely ignored today because, as written, it's obsolete. So's the Second Amendment. No foreign armies are going to occupy America anytime ever, and your guns have nothing to do with that. I doubt I'll ever get to the point of saying ban guns entirely, but I don't think anything out there needs more than six bullets in it. Think about how much time would be spent reloading, and all the extra ammo, weight and bulk that would have to be carried around. I don't know why bump stocks are legal anymore. I don't know why any weapon that's legal if held a certain way and a felony if held a different way hasn't been outright banned. If you can honestly say that stricter gun laws regulating the type and capacity of weapons allowed for civilian use wouldn't have stopped (or at least lowered the body count of) the mass shootings that are happening all the damn time, then you're either an idiot or an indoctrinated parrot of the alt-right.

There's a mental health problem. Yes, families are different than they were 40 years ago, but want to know something that will blow your mind? In the '70s, people with severe mental health problems were in hospitals, and the undiagnosed didn't have an assortment of high-powered, high capacity rifles in their redneck daddy's closet to choose from.

Your post reads as if you are just looking for an argument with zero room for debate. It is full of all kinds of misinformation and ignorance.
I'm assuming you mean the Bill of Rights that amended the Constitution. With that said, couldn't you hold your thoughts to every amendment? You have quite the Utopia point of view with a little counter-intuitive demeaning of a subset of people.

- Not foreseen "semi-automatic." (repeating arms and automatic arms existed before the Bill of Rights)
- Stupid easy to turn into full automatic (Possible yes, stupid easy, no) (FYI, full auto is less effective than single shot)
- Three rounds per minute at best...  (Way off)
- Bump stock turning AR-15 to 6 rounds per second  (Bump stock isn't necessary for rapid fire and once again makes the firearm no more deadly/effective)
- No foreign invading armies  (Why do you think this hasn't happened and never will?)
- Folks in the 70's had no access to high capacity firearms (1911 existed since 1911, M1 existed in 40s, AR-10 existed in 50s, M-16 existed in 1964, (30-06, .308, 45-70 semi-auto rifles), etc)

Just a few items in your post that show you probably should not speak to the 2nd Amendment or firearms in general. A lot of parroting of anti-gun information I see...

Just adding to your point by playing devil's advocate here...... Before 9/11 would anyone have believed there would be a mass terrorists attack by foreign groups on U.S. soil? I wouldn't have. No one can definitively say the U.S. would never be attacked or invaded either. It is not an impossibility. Furthermore, we cannot definitively say that some crazy person wouldn't somehow come to power in the United States, possibly declaring martial law or rounding up certain groups of people, basically creating some Nazi-ish type of environment where citizens must fight, to take back the country. In fact, I see this scenario becoming more and more likely every day. The second amendment was actually created to protect citizens against the threat of their own government. I don't mean to sound like one of those doomsday preppers, but some people are naturally cautious and their reason for owning certain types of weapons may vary. It's not just "psychos" who own AR-type firearms. Some law abiding people have reasons that are perfectly logical to them and millions of other people as well. The far left may not agree, but not everyone is prepared to just surrender and die in certain life threatening, hypothetical situations.

---

The more I think about this, the more I think it's time for a Constitutional amendment. The founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment to allow people with muskets and powder-loaded pistols to defend themselves if a foreign government invaded the country. They could not have foreseen "semi-automatic" weapons that are stupidly easy to turn into full automatic spray 'n pray hand cannons. The concept of a repeater rifle was foreign to them, so how can we argue that pistols with a 10-round or higher capacity were covered? Armor piercing rounds? Tracers? When they wrote the Second Amendment, it was three rounds a minute at best. Now? A bump stock can make an AR-15 fire 6 rounds per second.

The Seventh Amendment is almost entirely ignored today because, as written, it's obsolete. So's the Second Amendment. No foreign armies are going to occupy America anytime ever, and your guns have nothing to do with that. I doubt I'll ever get to the point of saying ban guns entirely, but I don't think anything out there needs more than six bullets in it. Think about how much time would be spent reloading, and all the extra ammo, weight and bulk that would have to be carried around. I don't know why bump stocks are legal anymore. I don't know why any weapon that's legal if held a certain way and a felony if held a different way hasn't been outright banned. If you can honestly say that stricter gun laws regulating the type and capacity of weapons allowed for civilian use wouldn't have stopped (or at least lowered the body count of) the mass shootings that are happening all the damn time, then you're either an idiot or an indoctrinated parrot of the alt-right.

There's a mental health problem. Yes, families are different than they were 40 years ago, but want to know something that will blow your mind? In the '70s, people with severe mental health problems were in hospitals, and the undiagnosed didn't have an assortment of high-powered, high capacity rifles in their redneck daddy's closet to choose from.

very well worded demagoguery and hysteria.  

1.) The 2nd amendment wasn't just drafted for the invasion of a foreign army, it was also for self defense and the ability of the people to hold their government accountable to the preservation of their inalienable rights.  under the third principle its actually more adherent to the intent of the founders to index the weapons available to the public to that of those offered to the military itself (as a musket was at the time of the drafting) so you have no leg to stand on.  

2.) This isn't a 2nd amendment issue.  It's a 4th amendment issue.  Any of our rights can be suspended or revoked through substantive due process.  In this case there were literally 40 plus instances when a government agency interacted with this individual and could have not only edjudicated him mentally unfit to own a gun, he should have been institutionalized because he clearly demonstrated VIOLENT BEHAVIOR that was both a threat to HIMSELF AND OTHERS.  This is the universal definition of a mental disorder that warrants involuntary commitment not just putting someone's name on a list.  This person specifically isn't just a shooter, this was someone who had all the makings of a serial killer or mass murderer in general.  If we woke up 20 years from now and we found 100 people buried in this kids back yard would that be a win for the anti-gun nuts?  

Omar Mateen, known to authorities, boston bomber, Nadal Hassan etc. etc. etc.  The idea that these people were allowed to hurt people is ridiculous, second only to the idea that we should disarm responsible gun owners because the bureaucrats we already give half the money in the country to can't properly evaluate a kid who was SELF MUTILATING HIMSELF ON SOCIAL MEDIA AND ADVERTISING THAT HE WANTS TO HURT PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mass shootings are not a constitutional amendment problem, they are a people problem...No weapon ever created will do anything other than what the person holding it wants it to do...There is no way to know who is going to do bad things with guns any more than predicting who is going to run over a crowd of people with a vehicle, or build home made bombs, or poison a food or water supply...No measure of gun control will stop weirdos and crazies from doing their thing, the only hope would be to be ready with a plan just in case something happens...All Federal and State buildings have a security plan in place, why not schools too? 

Americans will never give up their weapons and will fight like hell to keep any and all restrictions off and away from the 2nd amendment...We have already made enough concessions to the 2nd amendment with the gun control laws we have now, that some states have started taking a stand against gun control laws and have made it legal to open carry weapons without needing a permit...There is very little room left that the American gun owners will accept in the form of gun control...

---

The 2014 Sydney siege had 3 deaths. 2 of these were by the police including the perpetrator. The fact he couldnt get hold of a high powered weapon shows the laws work.

Less familiar with the monash one but looks like that wouldnt even be newsworthy with 2 deaths in the US

---

The 2014 Sydney siege had 3 deaths. 2 of these were by the police including the perpetrator. The fact he couldnt get hold of a high powered weapon shows the laws work.

Less familiar with the monash one but looks like that wouldnt even be newsworthy with 2 deaths in the US

The buy back in Australia included 650k guns. We have hundreds of millions. There’s literally no way to get the guns off of the street. Not only would it be ineffective here, it would limit law-abiding citizens from defending themselves.

---

The 2014 Sydney siege had 3 deaths. 2 of these were by the police including the perpetrator. The fact he couldnt get hold of a high powered weapon shows the laws work.

Less familiar with the monash one but looks like that wouldnt even be newsworthy with 2 deaths in the US

Now check out all the homicide by gun in Chicago and see how well gun laws work here

---

The 2014 Sydney siege had 3 deaths. 2 of these were by the police including the perpetrator. The fact he couldnt get hold of a high powered weapon shows the laws work.

Less familiar with the monash one but looks like that wouldnt even be newsworthy with 2 deaths in the US

How can you say the law worked if the man had an illegal sawed-off shotgun? The fact lives were spared is more on the gunman's intent than the weapon on hand. The weapon/firearm does what the holder wants it to do, regardless of type. This is a point being made here.

FYI, the gun was imported in the 50's and somehow remained among the general public, unregistered, and through mandatory weapons turn in or two. Must have more gun laws!

---

Ah again so unless it stops all crime its not worth it.

May as well have no laws at all.

---

The FBI drops the ball more often than a one-armed wide receiver. If they FBI was competent, we wouldn't have the Department Of Homeland Security. But the answer to bad government is always more government, isn't it?   Maybe the FBI can refocus its effort in trying to catch The Kingsmen saying naughty words on "Louie Louie". And if they succeed this time, they should roll some tanks in on them to show them they mean business.

But it's so much easier to pass a new law targeting honest citizens than it is to stop a known criminal who broke laws already on the books. You don't really expect government bureaucrats to get up from their cushy jobs and risk facing a real criminal, do you?

And the persons responsible will keep their cushy jobs. No matter that people died because of their failure. After all, no one went to jail when veterans died because of VA incompetence, and only three were even fired.

And that's why government bureaus are incompetent, isn't it? They face no competition and have no fear of extinction. Nothing can be done with the first part, as that's a grim necessity of government. As far as the other, something could be done, but I'm afraid that ship has sailed.  Politicians pander to the masses, assuring them the government will make everything right in their world. Most accept or even favor this assurance and continue to vote for more government. They are more than willing to trade liberty for the illusion of safety. I always chuckle when I see someone on the news express shock over a government bureau's failure. Like they believe the government is infallible.

The worst thing about this latest FBI blunder is that the day before that story broke, the local sheriff, in a press conference, implored the public to "if you see something, say something". Yeah, why bother?

---

Ah again so unless it stops all crime its not worth it.

May as well have no laws at all.

If you make unrealistic laws or laws that simply can't work you might as well not make any

---

Ah again so unless it stops all crime its not worth it.

May as well have no laws at all.

Your example stopped ZERO crime!

Firearm possessed by radical cleric known to police and on bail-check, unregistered firearm-check, firearm in existence through a mandatory buybacks-check, illegal firearm (pump action) check, illegally modified firearm (sawed off)-check, illegal ammunition (lead based shot)-check, hostage situation-check, 3 deaths-check...

---

very well worded demagoguery and hysteria.  

1.) The 2nd amendment wasn't just drafted for the invasion of a foreign army, it was also for self defense and the ability of the people to hold their government accountable to the preservation of their inalienable rights.  under the third principle its actually more adherent to the intent of the founders to index the weapons available to the public to that of those offered to the military itself (as a musket was at the time of the drafting) so you have no leg to stand on.  

2.) This isn't a 2nd amendment issue.  It's a 4th amendment issue.  Any of our rights can be suspended or revoked through substantive due process.  In this case there were literally 40 plus instances when a government agency interacted with this individual and could have not only edjudicated him mentally unfit to own a gun, he should have been institutionalized because he clearly demonstrated VIOLENT BEHAVIOR that was both a threat to HIMSELF AND OTHERS.  This is the universal definition of a mental disorder that warrants involuntary commitment not just putting someone's name on a list.  This person specifically isn't just a shooter, this was someone who had all the makings of a serial killer or mass murderer in general.  If we woke up 20 years from now and we found 100 people buried in this kids back yard would that be a win for the anti-gun nuts?  

Omar Mateen, known to authorities, boston bomber, Nadal Hassan etc. etc. etc.  The idea that these people were allowed to hurt people is ridiculous, second only to the idea that we should disarm responsible gun owners because the bureaucrats we already give half the money in the country to can't properly evaluate a kid who was SELF MUTILATING HIMSELF ON SOCIAL MEDIA AND ADVERTISING THAT HE WANTS TO HURT PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mass shootings are not a constitutional amendment problem, they are a people problem...No weapon ever created will do anything other than what the person holding it wants it to do...There is no way to know who is going to do bad things with guns any more than predicting who is going to run over a crowd of people with a vehicle, or build home made bombs, or poison a food or water supply...No measure of gun control will stop weirdos and crazies from doing their thing, the only hope would be to be ready with a plan just in case something happens...All Federal and State buildings have a security plan in place, why not schools too? 

Americans will never give up their weapons and will fight like hell to keep any and all restrictions off and away from the 2nd amendment...We have already made enough concessions to the 2nd amendment with the gun control laws we have now, that some states have started taking a stand against gun control laws and have made it legal to open carry weapons without needing a permit...There is very little room left that the American gun owners will accept in the form of gun control...

Interesting fact.  Barracks Obama set the record for popular votes for President in 2008 with a little less than 70 million votes.  There are over 100 million gun owners!

---

But it's so much easier to pass a new law targeting honest citizens than it is to stop a known criminal who broke laws already on the books. You don't really expect government bureaucrats to get up from their cushy jobs and risk facing a real criminal, do you?

And the persons responsible will keep their cushy jobs. No matter that people died because of their failure. After all, no one went to jail when veterans died because of VA incompetence, and only three were even fired.

And that's why government bureaus are incompetent, isn't it? They face no competition and have no fear of extinction. Nothing can be done with the first part, as that's a grim necessity of government. As far as the other, something could be done, but I'm afraid that ship has sailed.  Politicians pander to the masses, assuring them the government will make everything right in their world. Most accept or even favor this assurance and continue to vote for more government. They are more than willing to trade liberty for the illusion of safety. I always chuckle when I see someone on the news express shock over a government bureau's failure. Like they believe the government is infallible.

The worst thing about this latest FBI blunder is that the day before that story broke, the local sheriff, in a press conference, implored the public to "if you see something, say something". Yeah, why bother?

Yeh....   It was a bad look for just about everyone.  Next up is dcf and their botched investigation of his self mutilation.

---

very well worded demagoguery and hysteria.  

1.) The 2nd amendment wasn't just drafted for the invasion of a foreign army, it was also for self defense and the ability of the people to hold their government accountable to the preservation of their inalienable rights.  under the third principle its actually more adherent to the intent of the founders to index the weapons available to the public to that of those offered to the military itself (as a musket was at the time of the drafting) so you have no leg to stand on.  

2.) This isn't a 2nd amendment issue.  It's a 4th amendment issue.  Any of our rights can be suspended or revoked through substantive due process.  In this case there were literally 40 plus instances when a government agency interacted with this individual and could have not only edjudicated him mentally unfit to own a gun, he should have been institutionalized because he clearly demonstrated VIOLENT BEHAVIOR that was both a threat to HIMSELF AND OTHERS.  This is the universal definition of a mental disorder that warrants involuntary commitment not just putting someone's name on a list.  This person specifically isn't just a shooter, this was someone who had all the makings of a serial killer or mass murderer in general.  If we woke up 20 years from now and we found 100 people buried in this kids back yard would that be a win for the anti-gun nuts?  

Omar Mateen, known to authorities, boston bomber, Nadal Hassan etc. etc. etc.  The idea that these people were allowed to hurt people is ridiculous, second only to the idea that we should disarm responsible gun owners because the bureaucrats we already give half the money in the country to can't properly evaluate a kid who was SELF MUTILATING HIMSELF ON SOCIAL MEDIA AND ADVERTISING THAT HE WANTS TO HURT PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mass shootings are not a constitutional amendment problem, they are a people problem...No weapon ever created will do anything other than what the person holding it wants it to do...There is no way to know who is going to do bad things with guns any more than predicting who is going to run over a crowd of people with a vehicle, or build home made bombs, or poison a food or water supply...No measure of gun control will stop weirdos and crazies from doing their thing, the only hope would be to be ready with a plan just in case something happens...All Federal and State buildings have a security plan in place, why not schools too? 

Americans will never give up their weapons and will fight like hell to keep any and all restrictions off and away from the 2nd amendment...We have already made enough concessions to the 2nd amendment with the gun control laws we have now, that some states have started taking a stand against gun control laws and have made it legal to open carry weapons without needing a permit...There is very little room left that the American gun owners will accept in the form of gun control...

This statement right here is the great divide on this topic.  The left will never acknowledge this point just as they will never acknowledge the difference between legal and illegal immigrant.  Much like the rights refusal to discuss climate change.  Neither side will ever have proper discourse until they both drop the theatrics.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.