(02-18-2018, 01:12 PM)TJBender Wrote: 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

---