Obama's Speech following Oregon massacre

[SoonerBounce13]

Here is a good article. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...t-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

8 of the 14 shouldn't have been given guns. I think that anyone that disagrees that we atleast least need to modify the background checks and procedures is crazy.

 

[thebigabd]

might be a little unfair to compare just gun violence since some developed countries ban guns or have very high restrictions on guns. Go look into their violent crime rates and see where they ranks

So what you are saying is that countries who ban guns or have high restrictions on guns see less gun crime? Isn't that the exact point some are making? How do you stop gun violence? Don't have guns. Period.

I am not for arming teachers. Maybe one or two in each building but nobody would know whom it is and they would have to have some type of military background or a lot of training.

I'm a big proponent of armed security at schools though.

The problem with armed security at schools is as follows:

Cost--- School districts will, in all likelihood, pay for full-time armed security and never have a need for it.

Image--- It sends a message that as a country, as a culture, we are on the wrong path when we have armed people patrolling high schools and colleges. These are places of learning, of opportunity, and they shouldn't be treated more like prisons than schools.

Let's say we have a big ship.... and there are holes in the ship. Armed security at churches, movie theaters, high schools, colleges,, arming teachers, more guns, etc are just getting more people to grab a bucket and pitch water out of the boat. It doesn't patch the hole in the ship. The only thing that will eliminate gun violence is the reduction of guns on a massive scale, particularly hand guns. Again, there are millions of absolute morons out there. Millions of emotionally unstable people. Millions of desperate, poverty stricken people.

In 1776 the population of the entire country was 2 million, and the weapon of the time could fire like 2 inaccurate shots per minute if you were a professional soldier... Society in 1776 was agricultural based... There weren't millions of different kinds of people living like sardines in big cities.. Today, there are 323 million. There are more than 350 million guns in circulation right now... They are producing and selling thousands and thousands more guns all the time, every day. They are producing handguns that fit in a purse or front pocket, they are selling AK-47's at my local Academy Sports and Outdoors.

It's madness... and it won't stop until we stop looking at one line in the constitution like it's some kind of message from God that can't be questioned, that can't be thought of in historical context.. As if God/Jesus wants this. As if God/Jesus would support this system. As if Jesus himself would be carrying around a 9mm and an AK-47.

In 10 years guns killed 346,681 people... That is carnage on a massive scale. In that same time period, terrorists killed 312 people. Guns in the US killed twice as money people as terrorists have world-wide.

There isn't a single damn thing that supports any theory that more guns is the answer. It's a mindset that people just can't go over. This line in the constitution has caused so much death. Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, etc would not support this. These were brilliant minds. They didn't know what was coming 200 years later. If there were people walking around the colonies shooting each other all day every day, they wouldn't have written that down.

Sorry for the rant... it's just ridiculous how many people die in this country. I looked out my damn office window in Tulsa, OK when some kid was shot dead in the street. Just a few weeks ago someone got shot in the head in the Quiktrip parking lot near my office at 51st and Yale. It's like the wild west, or some kind of lawless 3rd world country. And people just refuse to do anything legitimate about it because they feel like they have this unquestionable right to own a deadly weapon.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

So what you are saying is that countries who ban guns or have high restrictions on guns see less gun crime? Isn't that the exact point some are making? How do you stop gun violence? Don't have guns. Period.

The point I'm trying to make is that violent crime rates (see murder rates/rape rates) don't go down when guns go away

Cost--- School districts will, in all likelihood, pay for full-time armed security and never have a need for it.

We can find a way. Schools are putting in tornado shelters they never need. Price shouldn't be an issue

Image--- It sends a message that as a country, as a culture, we are on the wrong path when we have armed people patrolling high schools and colleges. These are places of learning, of opportunity, and they shouldn't be treated more like prisons than schools.

oh c'mon. It isn't like there are going to be swat teams walking the halls.

When I was in high school, we had an armed security guard somewhere on campus all day every day. He formed a relationship with the students. He talked with them, joked with them.

Let's say we have a big ship.... and there are holes in the ship. Armed security at churches, movie theaters, high schools, colleges,, arming teachers, more guns, etc are just getting more people to grab a bucket and pitch water out of the boat. It doesn't patch the hole in the ship. The only thing that will eliminate gun violence is the reduction of guns on a massive scale, particularly hand guns. Again, there are millions of absolute morons out there. Millions of emotionally unstable people. Millions of desperate, poverty stricken people.

your analgy is good...but not for the point you are making. taking guns away is not patching the hole. Fixing the issue is. The issue is bad people having guns and mental illness. Bad people will still have guns if you make guns illegal.

In 10 years guns killed 346,681 people... That is carnage on a massive scale. In that same time period, terrorists killed 312 people. Guns in the US killed twice as money people as terrorists have world-wide.

How convienent you set it at 10 years...

You also have to take into account how many of those were suicides.

Shall I compare dui deaths, or overdoses, etc with terrorist deaths? It is an asinine comparison.

There isn't a single damn thing that supports any theory that more guns is the answer.

Nobody is saying that. Well I mean the only ones saying anything about more guns are people like you saying that people like me are saying it.

Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, etc would not support this. These were brilliant minds. They didn't know what was coming 200 years later. If there were people walking around the colonies shooting each other all day every day, they wouldn't have written that down.

So i'm guessing knives were outlawed in the 1700s

Sorry for the rant... it's just ridiculous how many people die in this country. I looked out my damn office window in Tulsa, OK when some kid was shot dead in the street. Just a few weeks ago someone got shot in the head in the Quiktrip parking lot near my office at 51st and Yale. It's like the wild west, or some kind of lawless 3rd world country. And people just refuse to do anything legitimate about it because they feel like they have this unquestionable right to own a deadly weapon.

wrong.
People want to fix it. but differ on the best way to do it.

 

[thebigabd]

oh c'mon. It isn't like there are going to be swat teams walking the halls.

When I was in high school, we had an armed security guard somewhere on campus all day every day. He formed a relationship with the students. He talked with them, joked with them.

I think we had a cop patrolling the halls at BA when I was there.

your analgy is good...but not for the point you are making. taking guns away is not patching the hole. Fixing the issue is. The issue is bad people having guns and mental illness. Bad people will still have guns if you make guns illegal.

With 350 million guns in circulation and counting, there is no way to keep bad people from having guns. Plus, someone who is good today may be bad tomorrow. People who are bad today may be good tomorrow as well. Choices people make are what determines if they are good/bad. And when something happens, they will have access to a gun. The availability of the gun itself is the problem. With a population of 325 million and counting, you can't manage it. Even if 1% of the entire population was potentially bad, that is a ton of death.

How convienent you set it at 10 years...

You mean how inconvenient for your argument that we didnt use 1 isolated incident against the 33,000 people every year killed by guns?

So i'm guessing knives were outlawed in the 1700s

Again... 2 million people vs 325 million people... Urban/Industrial vs. Agricultural... Different racial problems... Different poverty problems.. Different weapons... Different economic system. There are hundreds of things different about 2015 than 1776. All of these things combined illustrate why the law needs to be taken in historical context.

Shall I compare dui deaths, or overdoses, etc with terrorist deaths? It is an asinine comparison.

Incorrect. DUI deaths, car crashes, etc are not intentional acts of murder. Firearm deaths are not an accident, and it's ridiculous to argue that lots of people die in car ACCIDENTS than die via violent and intentional gunfire.

People want to fix it. but differ on the best way to do it.

I already know the best way to do it. Look at other countries who don't have these problems and do what they do. Of course, we can't do that because of the 2nd amendment. And until people change their view on the 2nd amendment, this has not changed and will never change.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

With 350 million guns in circulation and counting, there is no way to keep bad people from having guns. Plus, someone who is good today may be bad tomorrow. People who are bad today may be good tomorrow as well. Choices people make are what determines if they are good/bad. And when something happens, they will have access to a gun. The availability of the gun itself is the problem. With a population of 325 million and counting, you can't manage it. Even if 1% of the entire population was potentially bad, that is a ton of death.

ding ding ding. You can put any laws in place....bad people will get guns. That is what we have been saying this whole thread. You can't legislate this epidemic away.

 

[thebigabd]

ding ding ding. You can put any laws in place....bad people will get guns. That is what we have been saying this whole thread. You can't legislate this epidemic away.

You misunderstand... There is no way to keep bad people form having guns IF guns are allowed. Stop producing certain types of guns and ammo, increase effectiveness of background checks and mental evaluations, etc and the problem will get better.

People in the UK don't kill each other with guns because they don't have guns, is the point I am making.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

Incorrect. DUI deaths, car crashes, etc are not intentional acts of murder. Firearm deaths are not an accident, and it's ridiculous to argue that lots of people die in car ACCIDENTS than die via violent and intentional gunfire.

So if you kid got killed by a drunk driver you would be cool with them saying, oh it was just an accident.

Not all of those 300k plus deaths by gun were intentional

I already know the best way to do it. Look at other countries who don't have these problems and do what they do. Of course, we can't do that because of the 2nd amendment. And until people change their view on the 2nd amendment, this has not changed and will never change.

Please list said countries who don't have these problems. Then we can look at what problems they do have and the results will surprise you if you look at it with open eyes.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

You misunderstand... There is no way to keep bad people form having guns IF guns are allowed. Stop producing certain types of guns and ammo, increase effectiveness of background checks and mental evaluations, etc and the problem will get better.

dude c'mon.

People in the UK don't kill each other with guns

but they do kill each other...they do rape each other...cops are killed at an alarming rate. There are less gun deaths per person, but not less death per person.

If you envy them so much, why don't you move there?

 

[thebigabd]

If you envy them so much, why don't you move there?

Haha... haven't heard that in awhile. I can't remember what the issue was about 10-15 years ago but there was a lot of "move to Canada if you don't like it" sentiment going on... I am an American, love America, and want to fix a problem. I don't want to run away from it.

 

[SoonerinNC]

We are apparently bringing in 200,000 aliens from the Arab countries. Apparently many if not most are young healthy men. Do you think there is a chance that some of them are ISIS plants. With the rise of world terrorism, do you feel safer than you did 20 years ago.

And which of the mass shootings were not in gun free zones? Newtown, the Colorado theatre, the Oregon CC, Virginia Tech, Collumbine, even the Marine Recruiting Office was a gun free zone.

I have been out of the military for many years and that was the last time I touched a gun. I did grow up on a farm and had guns.

But with the possibility of terrorists coming into a mall or my neighborhood and shooting up innocent people including me and my wife I am considering getting a gun.

And by he way I have heard many quotes and read many articles that say that violent crimes are lower without a counter argument by the anti-gun crowd. The big increases in violent crime are in Chicago and Washington DC where they have confiscated guns and have the toughest gun laws on record.

All of this energy should be focused on getting the illegal guns away from the gang bangers. And maybe privitizing the background checks. They would develop a system that would do a good job and do a lot better job than any government agency.

 

[thebigabd]

What's not a gun free zone, by the way? Is the argument that because they aren't walking into military facilities and police stations and doing these shootings proof that there should be no gun free zones?

Of course a movie theatre is a gun free zone... it's a movie theatre. Of course Sandy Hook Elementary School is a gun free zone... it's an elementary school for kids up to 9 years old... Most colleges have campus police, and they are armed. Does gun free in that context meaning the teachers and students aren't all packing heat?

 

[SoonerBounce13]

What's not a gun free zone, by the way? Is the argument that because they aren't walking into military facilities and police stations and doing these shootings proof that there should be no gun free zones?

Of course a movie theatre is a gun free zone... it's a movie theatre. Of course Sandy Hook Elementary School is a gun free zone... it's an elementary school for kids up to 9 years old... Most colleges have campus police, and they are armed. Does gun free in that context meaning the teachers and students aren't all packing heat?

can't tell if serious or not

 

[sybarite]

And by he way I have heard many quotes and read many articles that say that violent crimes are lower without a counter argument by the anti-gun crowd. The big increases in violent crime are in Chicago and Washington DC where they have confiscated guns and have the toughest gun laws on record.

This mantra is actually just that. Sometimes, you have to look past the statistics cited by the NRA and look to what the statistics actually are. The high rate in Chicago and Washington are often cited. Yet, the fact that NYC has a very low rate with stronger gun controls seems to be ignored. Indeed, if you look at all of the cities across the country, there is a correlation between fewer deaths and fewer guns. But, there is also a correlation between extreme poverty and gun-related deaths. You have to pretty much ignore the type of stuff the NRA puts out and look at things like government statistics---all of them.

The point that many are making is that the US has a murder rate that is more comparable of that of a third-world nation with internal conflict. I don't think Australia, Japan, or any European nation is even close to the US. Australia can have guns. But, they put some restrictions on types. In Europe, you generally have to be members of a gun club and shoot on their premises. Nobody gets shot in bars or arguing over a parking space. The key is that we don't see a bunch of toddlers shooting other toddlers. We average about one toddler murder per week by lax attitudes towards guns.

I grew up in small town Oklahoma where everyone had a gun. But, we didn't carry it everywhere. It was behind the seat in a pickup if we had it with us. Usually, it was on a rack at home. It was a rifle or shotgun. You don't really see a lot of murders with the type of guns that we had.

The idea that guns are useful for defense is rather absurd. How many people per year actually are protected from murder by a neighbor with a gun? If anything, it's a weapon that is handy if you get made at your wife---which accounts for a lot more murders than guns will ever save. The number of women and children killed far exceeds the numbers that they kill.

I haven't shot a gun since the military, some fifty-two years ago. That's recent enough for me. I live in a city. Nobody has ever broken into my home or assaulted me with a weapon. If you break into my house at night, the lights are out. I don't even know how to load my 22 automatic rifle---inherited. But, I do know my house in the dark, and I have weapons in every room, just not guns.

 

[WTSooner]

can't tell if serious or not

That is an example of why I can't take him seriously. Dude doesn't even know enough about the current law(s) to know what a gun free zone is, yet he's got this all figured out.

smh

 

[BoulderSooner]

cars kill far more people than guns .. why don't we ban cars ... (wait does that sound foolish) .. but by the way no one is guaranteed the right to own a car ..

for those that want less guns change the second amendment ... otherwise .. you are wasting time ..

 

[DenverSooner]

Getting rid of handguns or ammo. LMAO

Not even Obama himself would suggest that as "reasonable". Matter of fact, it's downright stupid.

And blatantly unconstitutional.

I love the argument that the Constitution is 240 years old and therefore we should simply ignore it. The Constitution is brilliant and we should always follow it. One of its most brilliant parts is Article V, which provides for Amendments. If we don't like part of the Constitution, including the Second Amendment, we need to amend the Constitution not violate it.

I also like the argument that several mass shootings are not gang related. It completely ignores the point being made that the statistics are misleading because they do not separate out the gang related shootings. I have no idea if your point was valid but his argument was not a valid response.

 

[DenverSooner]

A friend of mine said there won't be any movement on this issue until Congress is affected personally. Their family members don't go to public schools, community colleges or historic black churches so they hide behind the 2nd amendment in spite of the fact that the overwhelming majority of the citizens of this country want a minimum or stricter background checks for all gun purchases.

How is a person respecting the Second Amendment hiding behind it? They all took an oath to uphold it and everyone one of them should do that.

I don't have an issue with people disagreeing with me on gun ownership and the effectiveness of gun control. I think reasonable minds may differ; however, for all that are against guns and support gun control, propose to amend the Constitution not ignore it.

 

[sybarite]

How is a person respecting the Second Amendment hiding behind it? They all took an oath to uphold it and everyone one of them should do that.

I don't have an issue with people disagreeing with me on gun ownership and the effectiveness of gun control. I think reasonable minds may differ; however, for all that are against guns and support gun control, propose to amend the Constitution not ignore it.

I thought you were an attorney. How does your reading of the Second Amendment guarantee the individual the right to carry a gun?

First, is there a requirement for a militia.

Secondly, there is no mention of guns by the Constitution. It refers to the right to bear arms. Does that mean a gun? What type of gun? You can't simply adopt the most extreme interpretation and demand that it is valid. All rights have limits.

We have the right to assembly. Is that ever regulated?

We have the right to free speech. Is that ever regulated?

But, "arms" is somehow defined as any gun that someone elects to carry? Even Reagan knew better.

 

[WTSooner]

We have the right to assembly. Is that ever regulated?

We have the right to free speech. Is that ever regulated?

But, "arms" is somehow defined as any gun that someone elects to carry? Even Reagan knew better.

And there is already gun regulation in place. Right?

 

[DenverSooner]

I thought you were an attorney. How does your reading of the Second Amendment guarantee the individual the right to carry a gun?

First, is there a requirement for a militia.

Secondly, there is no mention of guns by the Constitution. It refers to the right to bear arms. Does that mean a gun? What type of gun? You can't simply adopt the most extreme interpretation and demand that it is valid. All rights have limits.

We have the right to assembly. Is that ever regulated?

We have the right to free speech. Is that ever regulated?

But, "arms" is somehow defined as any gun that someone elects to carry? Even Reagan knew better.

This is just silly.


There is not a requirement for a militia. The Second amendment states: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Your argument that it is somehow tied to use in a militia lost in the Supreme Court and was clearly always wrong. If you could only have guns in the militia, it would state: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms in the militia shall not be infringed. The first clause merely sets forth one reason for the second clause. The first clause does not limit the second clause.

Arms clearly includes guns and it is silly to make an argument that it doesn't. Quite frankly the framers likely intended the people to be able to own any weapons the government could own because they did not trust the government or standing armies. Today that is probably not such a good idea and I can certainly live with the current law. The Supreme Court actually found a graceful way to deal with this particular problem but I am not sure I buy it.

To suggest you cannot carry is as absurd as suggesting arms does not include a gun. The language is keep and bear. Keep means to possess. Bear means to carry on one's person and to have and posses. To argue that carrying guns is not protected by the Second Amendment as drafted is absurd. Why not just amend the Second Amendment?

The Supreme Court has decided it means rifles and hand guns. I personally think it meant cannons and anything else the military had because it is designed in part (but not in total) to allow the people to form a militia that can over throw or support a government. With that said, I don't really want people to have surface to air missiles that can shoot down passenger planes.

There is absolutely nothing extreme about my position. I am applying the plane meaning of the words used. You are grasping at straws trying to find an interpretation that supports your view. The plain meaning of the word arm (in this context) is a weapon. A gun is weapon. Had they intended to exlcude certain weapons, like guns, they would have said except for guns. They you would have a right to keep and bear knives, clubs and other weapons that are not guns. However, that is not what was done.

Assembly really isn't regulated. A government may require a permit but that is about it. They generally may not deny the permit. People are required to have a permit to carry a gun in most states. So both are regulated.

Speech is not regulated in any meaningful way and virtually every attempt to regulate speech fails. Time place and manner restrictions are allowed on certain commercial speech but most of the existing laws would likely lose if actually challenged and taken all the way to Supreme Court. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. You can't use free speech to justify fraud or other lying (like defamation). But for the most part, the government cannot tell us what to say or stop us from saying things.