Notice From My Cold Dead Hands...... (1 Viewer)

[andalusian]

They didn't say musket, they said militia and wanted it effective.

They said "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms".

All I am saying is that it is hypocrisy to use the 18th century meaning of one word (regulated) but not the other (arms).

The reality of the situation is that this fascination with a legal document which is well out of date is the biggest cause of this issue, the US has a homicide rate (of all kinds, together, regardless of tool) that is an order of magnitude higher than most first world western countries - and to think that easy access to tools that make it easy commit such crimes is not a big part of it - is absurd.

 

[Chris Craig]

Leads me to believe maybe there was no A/C in the school? Fresh air is nice, but you just can't have that...

There is no AC in my school. We don't prop doors open. Though we're not in Texas. The Humidity there is terrible. Still, it sounds like even after gunfire started outside, the door remained propped open. Wondering why it wasn't closed.

Should have closed before she went and got her phone. Should've, would've, could'ves though.

 

[Chris Craig]

Or there was an awards assembly for students and parents that morning and parents were entering and leaving the school.

The bigger question is why was the armed school officer not at the school?

True.

Yeah, I'm wondering if they are lying about that to cover it up. If he wasn't there, for sure, why not? What was he doing? Did he patrol between different schools? Out eating?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

They didn't say musket, they said militia and wanted it effective. Militia is the civilian equivalent to infantry.

Thereby, civilians are encouraged to own and train with weapons equivalent to the average infantry soldier...

If you rearrange the letters in A well regulated Militia you get Willamette aerial guild. Clearly this means the founding fathers wanted everyone in Portland to have their own aircraft carrier.

 

[Phatguysrule]

If you rearrange the letters in A well regulated Militia you get Willamette aerial guild. Clearly this means the founding fathers wanted everyone in Portland to have their own aircraft carrier.

I think this is a fantastic idea... and the republicans might actually get on board with it!

 

[calvin natt]

I went to HS in California. There are no hallways with doors on the entire campus of MOST school in CA. You walk room to room outside. Then open a door and that’s it. Every door is accessed from the wide open. There is not a single entrance. The entire school is THE entrance. Guess those kids just need to figure it out.

 

[jonnyboy]

Well, in 18th century parlance arms was a musket, not an AR15.

Can't have all sides of the bread buttered and not dirty your hands...

Muskets were the AR15s of that era. The muskets individuals were given the right to own at that time were the same technology foreign armies were using in war. If you wanted to be technical, an AR15 is inferior to the rifles most armies use today.

 

[Phatguysrule]

They said "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms".

All I am saying is that it is hypocrisy to use the 18th century meaning of one word (regulated) but not the other (arms).

The reality of the situation is that this fascination with a legal document which is well out of date is the biggest cause of this issue, the US has a homicide rate (of all kinds, together, regardless of tool) that is an order of magnitude higher than most first world western countries - and to think that easy access to tools that make it easy commit such crimes is not a big part of it - is absurd.

It's not. If they wanted to limit it to knives they would have said knives. If they wanted to limit it to muskets instead of canons they would have said that. They didn't. They specifically said it was to make the militia effective. You can't have an regulated militia using arms from 200 years prior.

If they wanted the people to be less capable than the typical soldier they would have said the right of the people to keep and bare bows and arrows shall not be infringed. They didn't, because obviously, they wanted the militia to be effective against an attacking force.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I went to HS in California. There are no hallways with doors on the entire campus of MOST school in CA. You walk room to room outside. Then open a door and that’s it. Every door is accessed from the wide open. There is not a single entrance. The entire school is THE entrance. Guess those kids just need to figure it out.

You could build a hell of a hallway for a million bucks... or a real nice fence around the school with only 1 entrance, which is monitored. This is a far easier solution to attain than restricting access to guns enough to make a difference.

Nobody is opposed to fences or hallways.

 

[calvin natt]

They didn’t know that 200 years later there would be weapons like we have today. And if they did they probably thought we would be fucking smart enough to maybe make some adjustments to the language. “But Mr President what if someday any 18 kid could go get this weapon that fires off hundreds of deadly bullets that explode inside of bodies and they go into schools and concerts and just kill people” “Oh Charles, don’t be silly, you need to relax. They’ll never let that happen, they will surely make an amendment to prevent that”

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Muskets were the AR15s of that era. The muskets individuals were given the right to own at that time were the same technology foreign armies were using in war. If you wanted to be technical, an AR15 is inferior to the rifles most armies use today.

That's like saying cannons were the nukes of that era.

Muskets were muskets. Nothing more.

 

[Phatguysrule]

They said "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms".

All I am saying is that it is hypocrisy to use the 18th century meaning of one word (regulated) but not the other (arms).

The reality of the situation is that this fascination with a legal document which is well out of date is the biggest cause of this issue, the US has a homicide rate (of all kinds, together, regardless of tool) that is an order of magnitude higher than most first world western countries - and to think that easy access to tools that make it easy commit such crimes is not a big part of it - is absurd.

The reality of the situation is that a large percentage of the population appreciates that document and will not support changing it. And even if, after a long battle, and hundreds of billions of dollars spent, we did decide to change it, it would still take us hundreds of years to restrict guns to the point of making a difference.

Pandora's box has already been opened here in the US. You can't just close it. It doesn't work that way.

 

[calvin natt]

You could build a hell of a hallway for a million bucks... or a real nice fence around the school with only 1 entrance, which is monitored. This is a far easier solution to attain than restricting access to guns enough to make a difference.

Nobody is opposed to fences or hallways.

So a prison. That’s the solution. Metal detectors and walls that people can’t scale. Got it.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

You could build a hell of a hallway for a million bucks... or a real nice fence around the school with only 1 entrance, which is monitored. This is a far easier solution to attain than restricting access to guns enough to make a difference.

Nobody is opposed to fences or hallways.

Again, before the shooter went inside the school he walked outside of the school and shot into the windows of classrooms. Only having one way out of the school grounds would have only made that situation worse.

 

[Phatguysrule]

They didn’t know that 200 years later there would be weapons like we have today. And if they did they probably thought we would be fucking smart enough to maybe make some adjustments to the language. “But Mr President what if someday any 18 kid could go get this weapon that fires off hundreds of deadly bullets that explode inside of bodies and they go into schools and concerts and just kill people” “Oh Charles, don’t be silly, you need to relax. They’ll never let that happen, they will surely make an amendment to prevent that”

This is a solid point. Not that I agree, but that's fine... That's not the situation we are in. It wasn't updated in time. We now have very strong gun culture. tens of millions of people who have loved guns for generations.

That will INCREDIBLY hard to overcome. And again, even if we were able to do that, there is no feasible way to remove enough guns to matter in our lifetimes, or probably our grandchildren's.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Again, before the shooter went inside the school he walked outside of the school and shot into the windows of classrooms. Only having one way out of the school grounds would have only made that situation worse.

You would never be limited to one way out. That would violate all building codes. Only 1 way in.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

You would never be limited to one way out. That would violate all building codes. Only 1 way in.

The shooter crashed a truck before making entry. He could have made his own way in with the truck if needed.

 

[Phatguysrule]

So a prison. That’s the solution. Metal detectors and walls that people can’t scale. Got it.

Huh? You are keeping people out, not in. This is technology we've had for well over a hundred years... My kids school only has one way in. You have to ring the bell to get in, and the office has to hit a button to let them in.

They can get out 30 different ways at any time.

 

[Phatguysrule]

The shooter crashed a truck before making entry. He could have made his own way in with the truck if needed.

Uh oh, I guess it's time to outlaw cars...

 

[andalusian]

The reality of the situation is that a large percentage of the population appreciates that document and will not support changing it. And even if, after a long battle, and hundreds of billions of dollars spent, we did decide to change it, it would still take us hundreds of years to restrict guns to the point of making a difference.

Pandora's box has already been opened here in the US. You can't just close it. It doesn't work that way.

Just because it exists and a portion of the population supports it does not mean it should not be discussed, especially when we know that the vast majority of the USA population (close to 90% in a Harvard study) support expanded background checks.

Progress needs to happen on multiple fronts - and avoiding the real culprit (easy access to tools that make these crimes so easy) is nothing more than kicking the can down the road.

I do not expect it to happen over-night, but if we do not continue to harp on it and discuss it, it never will.

 

[calvin natt]

Huh? You are keeping people out, not in. This is technology we've had for well over a hundred years... My kids school only has one way in. You have to ring the bell to get in, and the office has to hit a button to let them in.

They can get out 30 different ways at any time.

The appearance of a prison. Walls so no one can get in. One main entrance, which would require a metal detector. People can get out through other doors, which of course Columbine type duos would just go open for the other shooter.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Just because it exists and a portion of the population supports it does not mean it should not be discussed, especially when we know that the vast majority of the USA population (close to 90% in a Harvard study) support expanded background checks.

Progress needs to happen on multiple fronts - and avoiding the real culprit (easy access to tools that make these crimes so easy) is nothing more than kicking the can down the road.

I do not expect it to happen over-night, but if we do not continue to harp on it and discuss it, it never will.

I didn't say it shouldn't be discussed. I've encouraged the discussion. I appreciate it.

My point is that we should put the bulk of our efforts behind the changes that could be most easily attained and have the greatest impact.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Uh oh, I guess it's time to outlaw cars...

A kid who just turned 18yrs old and only worked part-time at a Wendy's was able to purchase 2 AR-15s, 60 magazines, and over 1000 rounds of ammunition.

It was too easy and too cheap for a kid to be able to buy that much of an arsenal.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Time for a $5k federal tax per AR-15.

 

[Phatguysrule]

The appearance of a prison. Walls so no one can get in. One main entrance, which would require a metal detector. People can get out through other doors, which of course Columbine type duos would just go open for the other shooter.

No metal detectors necessary. Our school doesn't look like a prison at all. It looks like an incredibly inviting campus, with nice green fields surrounding it and play equipment, etc. Our kids absolutely love it.

If a kid wants to bring a gun to school in his backpack there is nothing you're going to do to stop that. Except maybe disallow backpacks and put them in uniforms. Even then, you can buy under clothes holsters.

And as we've already discussed, it would take literally hundreds of years to remove enough guns to limit access this much.

 

[andalusian]

I didn't say it shouldn't be discussed. I've encouraged the discussion. I appreciate it.

My point is that we should put the bulk of our efforts behind the changes that could be most easily attained and have the greatest impact.

Greatest impact would be restricting access to the tools that make these kinds of crimes so easy, I would agree that it is far from the most easily attained given the marriage a lot of people have to this antiquated document and the political currency it carries. So, I disagree with the idea that repeatedly pointing the real issue is a mistake, but I agree that there are other elements that should be done.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Greatest impact would be restricting access to the tools that make these kinds of crimes so easy, I would agree that it is far from the most easily attained given the marriage a lot of people have to this antiquated document and the political currency it carries. So, I disagree with the idea that repeatedly pointing the real issue is a mistake, but I agree that there are other elements that should be done.

You are welcome to keep trying to limit the access to 400 million items. That will take hundreds of years.

1 per minute, every day, 24hrs per day is 760 years.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Time for a $5k federal tax per AR-15.

I honestly think this would make the problem worse. And again, I'm not a fan of the AR-15. I don't own one, and never have. Though building one does look like a fun project...

 

[andalusian]

You are welcome to keep trying to limit the access to 400 million items. That will take hundreds of years.

1 per minute, every day, 24hrs per day is 760 years.

Limit access to ammunition - and the 400 million guns very quickly become paper weights.

 

[calvin natt]