The mass shooting last month in Maine — perpetrated by an Army reservist allowed to keep his guns reportedly bought days before he underwent psychiatric evaluations due to his erratic behavio…
This is such a bullshit article. Yeah the NRA is a terrible organization and there are a lot of reasons to attack them. But attacking the educational, gun safety and shooting sports programs that they offer or fund is complete bullshit and is detrimental to the public good.
This is like saying we shouldn’t offer driving classes because one day a student might get into an accident.
I agree not there by accident at all! We should have well regulated militias in every State County and City!
Well regulated meant well supplied, trained and fully manned in the late 1700. I’d love to see local armories in every city with with ranges fully stocked with state supplied ammunition and firearms that are available to the public!
The NRA and school shootings are the subject of the article, and gun control is an effective solution to the latter that the NRA continuously tries to block via any means necessary.
To use your example, it is like if those that trained people to drive also tried to block any sort of driving license program, believing that literally anyone should be allowed behind the steering wheel of a car.
The article focuses on the funding of gun safety, marksmanship and 4A courses by the NRA. Which is arguably one of the better applications that the NRA supports. You are either terrible at English comprehension or more likely simping hard for the anti 2A crowd.
Your analogy is terrible, US citizens have a 2A right to bear arms. This is written into the constitution. There is no such clause for a drivers license.
Really? You’re unable to find the correlation between this article, which talks about a school shooting, and the NRA, which has repeatedly resisted gun control efforts at every step of the way, to ridiculous degrees.
Sure, the NRA offering gun safety lessons is laudable, but in the context of also being the single organisation most obstructive of gun law reform, even when gun laws as they currently stand make such incidents ridiculously easy to commit, it doesn’t exactly wash the blood off the NRA’s hands. It’s like lauding Hitler for building the autobahn avd ignoring all the other things he did.
Your analogy is terrible, US citizens have a 2A right to bear arms.
The US constitution dies not grant an unlimited and absolute right to bear arms. There are plenty of guns and other weaponry that you are not allowed to own as a civilian, and plenty of other restrictions such as red flag laws, and licensing programs such as open carry permits.
Why would a general firearms license not fall under that purview?
Really? You’re unable to find the correlation between this article, which talks about a school shooting, and the NRA, which has repeatedly resisted gun control efforts at every step of the way, to ridiculous degrees.
You use this word correlation but I don’t think it means what you think it means. What kind of direct correlation is there between the NRA and school shootings? Please give specific examples of NRA funded or trained shooters.
Sure, the NRA offering gun safety lessons is laudable, but in the context of also being the single organisation most obstructive of gun law reform, even when gun laws as they currently stand make such incidents ridiculously easy to commit, it doesn’t exactly wash the blood off the NRA’s hands. It’s like lauding Hitler for building the autobahn avd ignoring all the other things he did.
Once again you’ve deliberately chosen to gloss over the fact that the classes the NRA provides are for the public good so you can push your anti-2A agenda. Normally I would stop reading when an individual cites Hitler in any debate. It is lazy, low IQ and diminishes the crimes that Hitler perpetrated on humanity. But I’ll make an exception in this case.
_The US constitution dies not grant an unlimited and absolute right to bear arms. There are plenty of guns and other weaponry that you are not allowed to own as a civilian, and plenty of other restrictions such as red flag laws, and licensing programs such as open carry permits.
Why would a general firearms license not fall under that purview?_
There are many standing laws on the books that violate the 2A. Fortunately there have been a number of cases rolling back these infringements on our collective rights.
Below are a few examples:
VanderStok v. Garland.
Mock b. Garland.
NYSRPA v. Bruen
District of Columbia v. Heller
McDonald v. Chicago
Just because a law is on the books does not make it unconstitutional. The same can be said for Jim Crow laws, antigay, sodomy, and antitrans laws that have been on the books for decades.
You use this word correlation but I don’t think it means what you think it means. What kind of direct correlation is there between the NRA and school shootings? Please give specific examples of NRA funded or trained shooters.
I’ve just spelled out the correlation, it’s not my fault you’re incapable or unwilling to read.
Let me dumb it down so that everyone can understand:
school shooter goes on a rampage with an easily acquired gun.
understandable national outrage occurs, talks about new gun laws start taking place
right wing organisations, most prominently the NRA, lobby against these laws and try to turn public attention against them through barefaced lies (eg: blame on videogames, media, and espousal of a bunch of theories that are either proven bunk such as ‘good guy with a gun’ or plain don’t apply (‘good guy with a gun’ in a school setting, where the good guy with a gun simply isn’t there, are too few in number and skills to contain the situation, or would simply be mistaken for a hostile actor by other good guys with guns.))
proposed fixes get delayed or scrapped
thoughts and prayers but no real action
go to step 1 and repeat thousands of times over.
Most other countries got off this shitshow ride the first or second time this happened. The US is the only first world country where this still happens, because they don’t put in gun control, and literal murder machines can be bought as easily as a games console.
There are many standing laws on the books that violate the 2A. Fortunately there have been a number of cases rolling back these infringements on our collective rights.
And the result is more bloodshed. How is that fortunate?
Go back and read the 2A again. All of it. Notice something peculiar? The 2A explicitly states that it exists in light of the fact that armed individuals were a necessity for national security. It was written back when the US didn’t have a standing military or police force. Now that it does, there’s a pretty strong argument that the 2A, as written, should no longer apply.
As for the 2A, you might be in a rush to give up your rights. Millions of us who exercise our rights daily don’t agree with your flawed assumptions about a society 200 years ago. The 2A is as valid now as it was then.
Firstly, Its in the Bill of Rights, not the Constitution. Secondly, it is my opinion that District of Columbia v. Heller is bad law and needs to be looked at again with a modern and ethical perspective (You as an individual are not a well regulated militia). Other countries dont have nearly as many preventable problems with firearms as the US does, but we are unwilling to discuss the problem in good faith because of a single line.
Your comprehension of the English language is as far reaching as your grasp of 2A rights.
I will try to spell it out simply. The Second AMENDMENT to the Constitution was part of a package known as the Bill of Rights which was passed after the Constitution was ratified as citizens were upset that basic freedoms weren’t enshrined in the Constitution. The First AMENDMENT to the constitution was the right to free speech which was important to Americans. Funny enough they thought gun rights were important as the next AMENDMENT to the Constitution featured the right to bear arms. There were many other AMENDMENTS guaranteed with the Bill of Rights but these were the first two.
Amendment change or modify the Constitution and are considered part of that governing document when ratified.
Millions of 2A supporters will not compromise on any of those rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
First, attacking the person, not the proposition. I feel like I hit a nerve, so that started off well.
Next paragraph, I don’t know who to thank for that, chatGPT Wikipedia. The location in the documents is not the issue at hand, other than "well actually"ing someone on the internet.
But that last line… And the part I take issue with.
How many 2A supporters can say with a straight face that a flintlock musket and modern weapon are even remotely comparable. The intent of these modern tools is to commit harm to your fellow man, which they do with much more efficiency than they did in the past. If the founders had the ability to see into the future, I’m confident they would have phrased the 2A differently.
Furthermore, if fear of a tyrannical government is your excuse to not take a moment of reflection on our relationship to the 2A, then you must be naive as you think I am… Revolution or whatever you want to call it does not work that way anymore. The last 60ish years of asymmetric conflict the US has been involved in should be a good enough example of that. (Best get used to dystopias, your in one)
Lastly, the part that is most frustrating is that this is a partially solved problem in countries that took action like Switzerland and Australia (that took very different paths to get to where they are today, but I want to focus on Aus). In 1996, Australia, in the wake of the worst mass shooting in their countries history, they collectively decided that the number of arms in the country was too damn high and did something about it. [Ref]
All that I propose is a good faith attempt at serious federal regulation with a focus on their current need as tools, ethics and actual results/consequences. Unfortunately, as long as the NRA exists, America will collectively sit on its hands and this all comes off as wishful thinking.
Guns are a fact of life in the US. Kids will be exposed to them. For every child killed in a mass shooting there are many more accidentally killed due to unsafe handling.
Ignoring this fact is the gun equivalent of “just say no.”
Every person should know how to safely handle a firearm. They don’t necessarily need to be expert shots, but they should know how to not accidentally shoot someone with one.
I’m a liberal gun owner and I have a standing offer to all of my anti-gun friends to show them and their families how to handle firearms, and the NRA has some great resources for teaching him safety for kids.
They’re an evil organization, but they do a few things right.
What a bat shit insane take. 99.999% or more of guns are not used in crime. And how absolutely fucking ableist of you to assume everyone is physically capable of defending themself in hand to hand combat
Telling children that drugs are bad, just say no, and never teaching them any actual information really worked out great. Drugs are outright illegal for everyone, why didn’t that stop drugs?
Let’s take that approach to something new that can be used to scare and divide people. Gun are bad, just say no. Make them all illegal. It’s not like there are 19 year old felons with full auto hand guns already all over YouTube and tiktok(that’s 3 federal crimes if you don’t realize).
Keep people scared and divided. If they aren’t they might start focusing on things that would actually save us like Healthcare, housing, income, employment, stability that everyone can have on our age of abundance.
Except for all the parts in the world that have proven it true. No, you should just keep your head in the sand and rely purely on hope that someone you know won’t be killed.
Young children shouldn’t be using guns at all. Teenagers should only be using guns at authorised shooting ranges with direct 1 to 1 supervision with a trained and certified staff member - not just any adult or parent at home.
There is no need to play with guns, and the risk of harm to others is grossly disproportionate to your desire to have a bit of fun. Your freedom for fun impinges on the freedoms of others to merely be alive and healthy, thus your freedom should be heavily restrained in this instance.
That’s because you changed the text of your earlier post. I never stated it was brave to kill anyone at any distance. You seem to be a
craven hypocritical anti-2A nut job.
You are the very embodiment of why I choose to keep my firearms and support the 2A.
Must be nice to never have to worry about defending yourself from attackers who overpower you or who have weapons.
Definitely all those black people with guns facing down the racists with guns at the Tulsa Race Massacre should’ve been brave and fought fisticuffs, 21st century style. /S (Yes I’m well aware their homes and businesses were burned to the ground despite attempts to defend themselves).
The Black Panthers were just cowards. /S
The trans folks at Tenacious Unicorn Ranch definitely were cowards for not facing bigots threatening to kill them with fists and harsh words. /S
I’ve literally only ever seen a gun take a life that didn’t deserve it. How many home invaders have you personally staved off? You know this isn’t 1921 anymore, right?
The gun culture in this country is toxic and you’re part of the problem spreading that bs to justify your own peace of mind. I’m sure you only need Jesus and your ar-15 to survive but the rest of us would like to go to the grocery store without worrying about the place being shot up by some nut job that picked up a rifle at the corner shop on a whim.
This would be a lovely take, if there weren’t so many other people running around with guns. Is it cowardly to want to protect yourself from the actual cowards?
Oh, you mean the cowards with guns? The guns that make it so easy to murder you or even schools full of children? You’re talking about those gun users specifically, right? Boy, it would be great if we could get some meaningful laws about that, huh.
This is such a bullshit article. Yeah the NRA is a terrible organization and there are a lot of reasons to attack them. But attacking the educational, gun safety and shooting sports programs that they offer or fund is complete bullshit and is detrimental to the public good.
This is like saying we shouldn’t offer driving classes because one day a student might get into an accident.
Correlation is not causation.
Out of all the things to criticise the NRA for, this is the last
Driving a car is not a valid comparison to using a gun.
You are correct guns are constitutionally protected and should not be regulated or licensed.
“well regulated militia”. 3 words that are not there by accident.
I agree not there by accident at all! We should have well regulated militias in every State County and City!
Well regulated meant well supplied, trained and fully manned in the late 1700. I’d love to see local armories in every city with with ranges fully stocked with state supplied ammunition and firearms that are available to the public!
https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf
The problem is that the NRA also actively blocks things that will actually deal with the problem, like gun controls.
Gun control wasn’t the subject of the article nor was it what I posted about. Why are you trying to change the subject?
The NRA and school shootings are the subject of the article, and gun control is an effective solution to the latter that the NRA continuously tries to block via any means necessary.
To use your example, it is like if those that trained people to drive also tried to block any sort of driving license program, believing that literally anyone should be allowed behind the steering wheel of a car.
The article focuses on the funding of gun safety, marksmanship and 4A courses by the NRA. Which is arguably one of the better applications that the NRA supports. You are either terrible at English comprehension or more likely simping hard for the anti 2A crowd.
Your analogy is terrible, US citizens have a 2A right to bear arms. This is written into the constitution. There is no such clause for a drivers license.
Really? You’re unable to find the correlation between this article, which talks about a school shooting, and the NRA, which has repeatedly resisted gun control efforts at every step of the way, to ridiculous degrees.
Sure, the NRA offering gun safety lessons is laudable, but in the context of also being the single organisation most obstructive of gun law reform, even when gun laws as they currently stand make such incidents ridiculously easy to commit, it doesn’t exactly wash the blood off the NRA’s hands. It’s like lauding Hitler for building the autobahn avd ignoring all the other things he did.
The US constitution dies not grant an unlimited and absolute right to bear arms. There are plenty of guns and other weaponry that you are not allowed to own as a civilian, and plenty of other restrictions such as red flag laws, and licensing programs such as open carry permits.
Why would a general firearms license not fall under that purview?
Really? You’re unable to find the correlation between this article, which talks about a school shooting, and the NRA, which has repeatedly resisted gun control efforts at every step of the way, to ridiculous degrees.
You use this word correlation but I don’t think it means what you think it means. What kind of direct correlation is there between the NRA and school shootings? Please give specific examples of NRA funded or trained shooters.
Sure, the NRA offering gun safety lessons is laudable, but in the context of also being the single organisation most obstructive of gun law reform, even when gun laws as they currently stand make such incidents ridiculously easy to commit, it doesn’t exactly wash the blood off the NRA’s hands. It’s like lauding Hitler for building the autobahn avd ignoring all the other things he did.
Once again you’ve deliberately chosen to gloss over the fact that the classes the NRA provides are for the public good so you can push your anti-2A agenda. Normally I would stop reading when an individual cites Hitler in any debate. It is lazy, low IQ and diminishes the crimes that Hitler perpetrated on humanity. But I’ll make an exception in this case.
_The US constitution dies not grant an unlimited and absolute right to bear arms. There are plenty of guns and other weaponry that you are not allowed to own as a civilian, and plenty of other restrictions such as red flag laws, and licensing programs such as open carry permits.
Why would a general firearms license not fall under that purview?_
There are many standing laws on the books that violate the 2A. Fortunately there have been a number of cases rolling back these infringements on our collective rights.
Below are a few examples:
VanderStok v. Garland. Mock b. Garland. NYSRPA v. Bruen District of Columbia v. Heller McDonald v. Chicago
Just because a law is on the books does not make it unconstitutional. The same can be said for Jim Crow laws, antigay, sodomy, and antitrans laws that have been on the books for decades.
I’ve just spelled out the correlation, it’s not my fault you’re incapable or unwilling to read.
Let me dumb it down so that everyone can understand:
school shooter goes on a rampage with an easily acquired gun.
understandable national outrage occurs, talks about new gun laws start taking place
right wing organisations, most prominently the NRA, lobby against these laws and try to turn public attention against them through barefaced lies (eg: blame on videogames, media, and espousal of a bunch of theories that are either proven bunk such as ‘good guy with a gun’ or plain don’t apply (‘good guy with a gun’ in a school setting, where the good guy with a gun simply isn’t there, are too few in number and skills to contain the situation, or would simply be mistaken for a hostile actor by other good guys with guns.))
proposed fixes get delayed or scrapped
thoughts and prayers but no real action
go to step 1 and repeat thousands of times over.
Most other countries got off this shitshow ride the first or second time this happened. The US is the only first world country where this still happens, because they don’t put in gun control, and literal murder machines can be bought as easily as a games console.
And the result is more bloodshed. How is that fortunate?
Go back and read the 2A again. All of it. Notice something peculiar? The 2A explicitly states that it exists in light of the fact that armed individuals were a necessity for national security. It was written back when the US didn’t have a standing military or police force. Now that it does, there’s a pretty strong argument that the 2A, as written, should no longer apply.
Your deductive reasoning is… special. I think you and this guy would get along great.
https://youtu.be/sDEL4Ty950Q?si=m9i3fLvrB-1KD3TK
As for the 2A, you might be in a rush to give up your rights. Millions of us who exercise our rights daily don’t agree with your flawed assumptions about a society 200 years ago. The 2A is as valid now as it was then.
Firstly, Its in the Bill of Rights, not the Constitution. Secondly, it is my opinion that District of Columbia v. Heller is bad law and needs to be looked at again with a modern and ethical perspective (You as an individual are not a well regulated militia). Other countries dont have nearly as many preventable problems with firearms as the US does, but we are unwilling to discuss the problem in good faith because of a single line.
Your comprehension of the English language is as far reaching as your grasp of 2A rights.
I will try to spell it out simply. The Second AMENDMENT to the Constitution was part of a package known as the Bill of Rights which was passed after the Constitution was ratified as citizens were upset that basic freedoms weren’t enshrined in the Constitution. The First AMENDMENT to the constitution was the right to free speech which was important to Americans. Funny enough they thought gun rights were important as the next AMENDMENT to the Constitution featured the right to bear arms. There were many other AMENDMENTS guaranteed with the Bill of Rights but these were the first two.
Amendment change or modify the Constitution and are considered part of that governing document when ratified.
Millions of 2A supporters will not compromise on any of those rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
First, attacking the person, not the proposition. I feel like I hit a nerve, so that started off well.
Next paragraph, I don’t know who to thank for that, chatGPT Wikipedia. The location in the documents is not the issue at hand, other than "well actually"ing someone on the internet.
But that last line… And the part I take issue with.
How many 2A supporters can say with a straight face that a flintlock musket and modern weapon are even remotely comparable. The intent of these modern tools is to commit harm to your fellow man, which they do with much more efficiency than they did in the past. If the founders had the ability to see into the future, I’m confident they would have phrased the 2A differently.
Furthermore, if fear of a tyrannical government is your excuse to not take a moment of reflection on our relationship to the 2A, then you must be naive as you think I am… Revolution or whatever you want to call it does not work that way anymore. The last 60ish years of asymmetric conflict the US has been involved in should be a good enough example of that. (Best get used to dystopias, your in one)
Lastly, the part that is most frustrating is that this is a partially solved problem in countries that took action like Switzerland and Australia (that took very different paths to get to where they are today, but I want to focus on Aus). In 1996, Australia, in the wake of the worst mass shooting in their countries history, they collectively decided that the number of arms in the country was too damn high and did something about it. [Ref]
All that I propose is a good faith attempt at serious federal regulation with a focus on their current need as tools, ethics and actual results/consequences. Unfortunately, as long as the NRA exists, America will collectively sit on its hands and this all comes off as wishful thinking.
Interesting take
Would it not be better to teach kids that handguns are unnecessary, and only owned by criminals and cowards?
Or is that a bit too 21st century?
Why not both?
Guns are a fact of life in the US. Kids will be exposed to them. For every child killed in a mass shooting there are many more accidentally killed due to unsafe handling.
Ignoring this fact is the gun equivalent of “just say no.”
Every person should know how to safely handle a firearm. They don’t necessarily need to be expert shots, but they should know how to not accidentally shoot someone with one.
I’m a liberal gun owner and I have a standing offer to all of my anti-gun friends to show them and their families how to handle firearms, and the NRA has some great resources for teaching him safety for kids.
They’re an evil organization, but they do a few things right.
What a bat shit insane take. 99.999% or more of guns are not used in crime. And how absolutely fucking ableist of you to assume everyone is physically capable of defending themself in hand to hand combat
Lmfao at using insane as a Insult then calling someone ableist.
https://fas.org/publication/the-ghost-guns-haunting-national-crime-statistics/
Lol ghost guns
Kids should be taught the value of diplomacy.
Telling children that drugs are bad, just say no, and never teaching them any actual information really worked out great. Drugs are outright illegal for everyone, why didn’t that stop drugs?
Let’s take that approach to something new that can be used to scare and divide people. Gun are bad, just say no. Make them all illegal. It’s not like there are 19 year old felons with full auto hand guns already all over YouTube and tiktok(that’s 3 federal crimes if you don’t realize).
Keep people scared and divided. If they aren’t they might start focusing on things that would actually save us like Healthcare, housing, income, employment, stability that everyone can have on our age of abundance.
No that would be factually untrue.
Except for all the parts in the world that have proven it true. No, you should just keep your head in the sand and rely purely on hope that someone you know won’t be killed.
No that’s why I teach them gun safety and marksmanship.
Children shouldn’t be using guns.
Children shouldn’t be using guns without adult supervision.
Young children shouldn’t be using guns at all. Teenagers should only be using guns at authorised shooting ranges with direct 1 to 1 supervision with a trained and certified staff member - not just any adult or parent at home.
There is no need to play with guns, and the risk of harm to others is grossly disproportionate to your desire to have a bit of fun. Your freedom for fun impinges on the freedoms of others to merely be alive and healthy, thus your freedom should be heavily restrained in this instance.
My 2A freedom doesn’t impinge upon you in any way shape or form. You can’t preemptively charge people for crimes you’ve imagined.
Why not? Kids hunt where I live.
Guns are meant to kill at a distance without your opponent touching you or possibly even seeing you, they are fundamentally a cowardly weapon.
The phrase “never bring a gun to a knife fight” is referring to intelligence not bravery.
How about “idioms don’t dictate real life and people are dieing”, does that jive with you?
So you prefer it when people kill other people up close? That is somehow brave?
You sound psychotic.
I’d rather they didn’t kill each other at all, it’s weird that you’re so defensive about being able to murder people easier.
That isn’t at all what I stated or implied. You are the one who thought it was brave to kill people close up.
Maybe you should spend some time working on yourself.
Lol, that isn’t at all what I stated or implied. You’re the one who thought it was brave to kill people from far away.
Have fun with your guns. Coward.
That’s because you changed the text of your earlier post. I never stated it was brave to kill anyone at any distance. You seem to be a craven hypocritical anti-2A nut job.
You are the very embodiment of why I choose to keep my firearms and support the 2A.
Your perspective is incredibly narrow.
Must be nice to never have to worry about defending yourself from attackers who overpower you or who have weapons.
Definitely all those black people with guns facing down the racists with guns at the Tulsa Race Massacre should’ve been brave and fought fisticuffs, 21st century style. /S (Yes I’m well aware their homes and businesses were burned to the ground despite attempts to defend themselves).
The Black Panthers were just cowards. /S
The trans folks at Tenacious Unicorn Ranch definitely were cowards for not facing bigots threatening to kill them with fists and harsh words. /S
As someone who lives outside of the US: it is nice. You guys should try it.
Honestly, I wished we would.
I’ve literally only ever seen a gun take a life that didn’t deserve it. How many home invaders have you personally staved off? You know this isn’t 1921 anymore, right?
The gun culture in this country is toxic and you’re part of the problem spreading that bs to justify your own peace of mind. I’m sure you only need Jesus and your ar-15 to survive but the rest of us would like to go to the grocery store without worrying about the place being shot up by some nut job that picked up a rifle at the corner shop on a whim.
Anyone playing fair in a life or death situation isn’t trying hard enough.
This would be a lovely take, if there weren’t so many other people running around with guns. Is it cowardly to want to protect yourself from the actual cowards?
Oh, you mean the cowards with guns? The guns that make it so easy to murder you or even schools full of children? You’re talking about those gun users specifically, right? Boy, it would be great if we could get some meaningful laws about that, huh.
Sure would.
Shit, I’m a coward I guess.