Meanwhile in America

[TheFinnFan]

So he was muslim extrimist who killed innocent christians. ...

And peeps are not allowed to say that.
our media left out the muslim part too.

...mad world.

 

[ItsOKImAPilot]

Good post. But as I said in an earlier post, the 2nd amendment is to allow you to bear arms in order to establish a local militia. It's not so you can feel safe in case you get burgled.

If it were to change I would give up my gun. I've a brilliant knife set too. In all seriousness, the Constitution should not be read so literally in my opinion. It's interpretation needs to be fluid to the times we are living in so that every person can feel safe and feel like they are being treated/represented fairly.

 

[moyeslovechild]

Most gun murders are comitted by people using illegally held guns.

because there are so many in circulation legally and the gun trade is so immense

feck knows what u can do about it when there are so many in circulation, even if the will was there...

 

[moyeslovechild]

So he was muslim extrimist who killed innocent christians. ...

And peeps are not allowed to say that.
our media left out the muslim part too.

...mad world.

where have you got hes muslim from

from what ive read only religious sign is he didnt like organised religion

meff

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

So he was muslim extrimist who killed innocent christians. ...

And peeps are not allowed to say that.
our media left out the muslim part too.

...mad world.

No indication whatsoever that he was a Muslim.

His social media accounts had images in support of the IRA, and he listed himself as a "conservative republican" on a dating site. On that site his username was Ironcross45 - Iron cross being a military medal from nazi Germany, if I remember right

 

[BMFin]

If it were to change I would give up my gun. I've a brilliant knife set too. In all seriousness, the Constitution should not be read so literally in my opinion. It's interpretation needs to be fluid to the times we are living in so that every person can feel safe and feel like they are being treated/represented fairly.

I think this is the fundamental issue with most of US politics: strict vs loose interpretation of the Constitution.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

I think this is the fundamental issue with most of US politics: strict vs loose interpretation of the Constitution.

Exactly. Surely the word "amendment" should be a pretty big clue that the constitution was never meant to be set in stone forever?

The founders did a phenomenal job of setting the groundwork for a nation that has grown into a super power in a relatively short space of time, but they were only human and couldn't POSSIBLY foresee what would happen hundreds of years down the line.

The idea of (for example) a fully automatic weapon, capable of killing dozens of people in a matter of seconds wouldn't have even entered their heads when they thought it was a good idea that people be able to own guns.

 

[TheFinnFan]

No indication whatsoever that he was a Muslim.

His social media accounts had images in support of the IRA, and he listed himself as a "conservative republican" on a dating site. On that site his username was Ironcross45 - Iron cross being a military medal from nazi Germany, if I remember right

Turned to islam according to finnish net magazine

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

Turned to islam according to finnish net magazine

Fair enough, but I'll wait to see it from something resembling a trustworthy source before jumping on that particular bandwagon.

Same thing has been said about most of the recent shooters, and it's been false in the overwhelming majority (if not all) cases

 

[The Cowboy]

If it were to change I would give up my gun. I've a brilliant knife set too. In all seriousness, the Constitution should not be read so literally in my opinion. It's interpretation needs to be fluid to the times we are living in so that every person can feel safe and feel like they are being treated/represented fairly.

Nah, I'm not buying that. You're saying you want to interpret a pretty clearly worded statement so you can protect yourself against assailants. Was that the original intention of the amendment? No. It was so you could form together to protect your nation.

This isn't like interpreting the old testament, this is very specific wording intended for a very specific reason.

 

[TheFinnFan]

Fair enough, but I'll wait to see it from something resembling a trustworthy source before jumping on that particular bandwagon.

Same thing has been said about most of the recent shooters, and it's been false in the overwhelming majority (if not all) cases

True. Lets see.

 

[The Esk]

I suppose it is bad form and against convention to talk about the affairs of another nation, and apologies to any American readers for me saying this, but it has to be said.

Repeal the right of Americans to carry guns in public spaces (just as they are not permitted to be carried on Government premises). Licence and regulate permitted activities such as hunting (as in the UK), and permit if you must, the use of fire arms at home as a means of self defence.

How many more innocent people must die before sensible decisions are taken?

 

[Huyton Layne]

Muslim Nazis?? We're the word zombie away from the end of the world or a great computer game.

 

[BMFin]

Exactly. Surely the word "amendment" should be a pretty big clue that the constitution was never meant to be set in stone forever?

The founders did a phenomenal job of setting the groundwork for a nation that has grown into a super power in a relatively short space of time, but they were only human and couldn't POSSIBLY foresee what would happen hundreds of years down the line.

The idea of (for example) a fully automatic weapon, capable of killing dozens of people in a matter of seconds wouldn't have even entered their heads when they thought it was a good idea that people be able to own guns.

For most of the people that follow a more strict doctrine, the idea of allowing too loose of an interpretation is soon followed by the slippery slope of a total erosion of other "liberties". There is a very large, somewhat paranoid, group of people that really believe everything will be taken away from us by big government.

I do contract work for a company that purchases, amongst other things, military grade vehicles for LOCAL police. Hillsborough County (Tampa, FL) just bought vehicles with .50 caliber rifles mounted on them. What does a county agency need that for? I'm not agreeing with the those that lay awake at night clutching their assault rifles (I don't own a gun, and I'm personally afraid of them), but if you were to know what some of these agencies possess, you'd be shocked.

 

[ItsOKImAPilot]

Nah, I'm not buying that. You're saying you want to interpret a pretty clearly worded statement so you can protect yourself against assailants. Was that the original intention of the amendment? No. It was so you could form together to protect your nation.

This isn't like interpreting the old testament, this is very specific wording intended for a very specific reason.

There are many ways I can protect myself from assailants without a gun, but as the law of the land stands I can have one as my last resort. That's the way it is interpreted now and while I may not agree with it, it does me well to own a gun at this time. I do not particularly care if tomorrow it changes and guns are completely banned.