14 Apr '13 02:27Originally posted by normbenignWhile I agree with Mr. Noir that our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms shouldn't be taken away simply because of the wrongful acts of a few psychopaths, I disagree with his argument that conceal carry holders and media self-regulation can stop mass shooters. First, most mass shooters are suicidal maniacs who don't necessarily care about their own life nor the body count of their victims. Even if a concealed carrier kills the psychopath before he can kill multiple people, the psychopath knows that the police are going to search his home and find his journal detailing his plans and self-absorbed ramblings. The media, in turn, will get a hold of those materials and give the psychopath his fleeting moment of fame.
Hear the answer from Mr. Colion Noir.
http://www.youtube.com/mrcolionnoir
Other question answered:
What gunshow loophole?
Other common sense gun knowledge. Listen if you dare.
14 Apr '13 09:31Originally posted by MoneyManMikeYou show a touching faith in the potency of mental health services. Woody Allen, of course, is a great admirer of psychanalysis for example, and a tribute to its speedy and economical impact.
While I agree with Mr. Noir that our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms shouldn't be taken away simply because of the wrongful acts of a few psychopaths, I disagree with his argument that conceal carry holders and media self-regulation can stop mass shooters. First, most mass shooters are suicidal maniacs who don't necessarily care about thei ...[text shortened]... ppening, I think he can prevent some from happening by having strong mental health programs.
14 Apr '13 09:42Originally posted by finneganYes, but one day an evil dictator will take over! Meanwhile, American citizens armed with assault rifles will easily beat the most powerful military force in the world, should an evil dictator take power in America.
You show a touching faith in the potency of mental health services. Woody Allen, of course, is a great admirer of psychanalysis for example, and a tribute to its speedy and economical impact.
Most countries have a simpler way to reduce gun crime. They reduce guns and take the risk of an evil dictator overcoming the forces of democracy as a result. So far this aproach has been pretty good.
14 Apr '13 10:08Originally posted by KazetNagorraWhat if your armed civilians are the force that makes dicatorship possible? That is at least as realistic a scenario as your one! Dictators have some tendency to get substantial support among the population, often by selecting external enemies around which all can unite in anger. Meanwhile, propoganda against the enemy within sorts out the locals nicely - witness McCarthyism.
Yes, but one day an evil dictator will take over! Meanwhile, American citizens armed with assault rifles will easily beat the most powerful military force in the world, should an evil dictator take power in America.
14 Apr '13 10:35Originally posted by MoneyManMikenobody is taking it away. it is not a fundamental right like the right to a buthole or freedom. you can bear arms or arm bears if you are bloody fit, mentally and phisically.
While I agree with Mr. Noir that our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms shouldn't be taken away simply because of the wrongful acts of a few psychopaths, I disagree with his argument that conceal carry holders and media self-regulation can stop mass shooters. First, most mass shooters are suicidal maniacs who don't necessarily care about thei ...[text shortened]... ppening, I think he can prevent some from happening by having strong mental health programs.
14 Apr '13 12:06Originally posted by MoneyManMikeI disagree. Mass shooters typically pick a defenseless group of people to pick on. If they are suicidal, they wish to be the ones taking their own lives and not someone else in order to evade potential pain and detention. These people are cowards.
While I agree with Mr. Noir that our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms shouldn't be taken away simply because of the wrongful acts of a few psychopaths, I disagree with his argument that conceal carry holders and media self-regulation can stop mass shooters. First, most mass shooters are suicidal maniacs who don't necessarily care about thei ...[text shortened]... ppening, I think he can prevent some from happening by having strong mental health programs.
14 Apr '13 16:44Originally posted by whodeyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting
I disagree. Mass shooters typically pick a defenseless group of people to pick on. If they are suicidal, they wish to be the ones taking their own lives and not someone else in order to evade potential pain and detention. These people are cowards.
None of these psychopaths will ever walk into a NRA convention and start shooting.
As for the media, the only way to have them not report mass murdering is if they are abortion doctors. 😛
14 Apr '13 16:59Originally posted by ZahlanziActually, it is a fundamental right to keep and bear arms. See http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2739870581644084946&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr . That right encompasses firearms that are in common use at the time. The AR-15 is certainly in common use right now; therefore, the legislature cannot ban that firearm.
nobody is taking it away. it is not a fundamental right like the right to a buthole or freedom. you can bear arms or arm bears if you are bloody fit, mentally and phisically.
gun control is about, obviously, controlling guns. making sure they don't reach psychopaths. not about banning them. you don't allow a blind man to get a driving license. and each ...[text shortened]...
and about banning ar-15, well, we also ban bazookas, c4, nuclear weapons and mustard gas.
14 Apr '13 17:04Originally posted by finneganPeople are free to move to countries with gun control to their liking.
Most countries have a simpler way to reduce gun crime. They reduce guns and take the risk of an evil dictator overcoming the forces of democracy as a result. So far this aproach has been pretty good.
14 Apr '13 17:06Originally posted by MoneyManMikeDon't get up on your high horse now,
Actually, it is a fundamental right to keep and bear arms. See http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2739870581644084946&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr . That right encompasses firearms that are in common use at the time. The AR-15 is certainly in common use right now; therefore, the legislature cannot ban that firearm.
14 Apr '13 17:30Originally posted by johnnylongwoodyLook, we cannot ignore the plain language of the US Constitution just because we don't like it anymore or because we disagree with it. The Preamble states that the US Constitution was established to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. Clearly the Framers felt that the Second Amendment would do just that. And if the US Constitution is outdated in some way, the Framers provided a process by which the States could amend it.
do you not think that the second amendment is outdated
and needs to be brought up to date with today's modern
society and today's modern thinking?
14 Apr '13 18:08Originally posted by MoneyManMikeIf Congress passed an amendment to restrict gun ownership, would you support those restrictions?
Look, we cannot ignore the plain language of the US Constitution just because we don't like it anymore or because we disagree with it. The Preamble states that the US Constitution was established to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. Clearly the Framers felt that the Second Amendment would do just that. And if the US Con ...[text shortened]... ion is outdated in some way, the Framers provided a process by which the States could amend it.
How to Stop Mass Shootings
Back to Top