Would background checks stop mass shootings?

Apr 11, 2013 Full story: Local TV Station KTVZ 186

The tragic shootings in each of these and other towns have ignited public sentiment for some kind of gun reforms and fired up gun advocates to protect what they see as their constitutional right of easy access to firearms.

Full Story

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#27 Apr 26, 2013
moronfinder wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe the Ammendment states 'a well organized militia", not self imposed commando.
READ!!!!!!
"The declaration of rights in this constitution, essentially the same in the other States, sets forth the civil rights of the citizens. Free and equal by birth, all men have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights: to life and liberty; to property and to happiness; to freedom in the worship of God; to free elections and the impartial administration of the laws; to jury trial and exemption from unreasonable searches searches and seizures; to liberty of the press; to keep and bear arms; to peaceable assembling and to petition; to freedom of debate in legislatures; to immunity from ex post facto laws--that is, from "laws made to punish actions done before the existence of such laws and which have not been declared crimes by preceding law;" to freedom from excessive bail or sureties, from excessive fines, or cruel or unusual punishments; to exemption from the quartering of soldiers in private houses without the owner's consent in time of peace, or in time of war save as the law may prescribe. These fundamental notions in government are set forth in all the State constitutions and are to be traced in enactments by colonial assemblies, to provisions in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, to the Great Charter, or to the unwritten law of England; and many of them to a time in Anglo-Saxon history beyond the memory of man."-- Francis Newton Thorpe, The Story of the Constitution of the United States, 1891.(Francis Newton Thorpe was an American legal scholar, historian, political scientist,and Professor of Constitutional History at the University of Pennsylvania).
mornfinder

Charlottesville, VA

#28 Apr 26, 2013
Coddle your kill toys all you Yosemite Sam gunslingers. History is proving your ignorance. See you at the next mass shooting by another nut job with a gun boner. Don't worry, you probably won't have to wait too long.
daveman

Charlottesville, VA

#29 Apr 26, 2013
Hakin Ali Hakin wrote:
I've got a new bumper sticker. " Support Mental Health or I'll KILL YOU". Daveman, wake up! Enforce the Gun control laws that we already have and there would not be a problem. News Flash, without exception, every last mass shooter, was either raised in a liberal household or a registered DEMOCRAT! Do we try to outlaw Democrats? That would be stupid now. Enforce the laws we have on the books. Not make feel good laws and attack law biding gun owners!! ALI P.S. The MORON who stabbed all those people on campus with a knife. There are idiots out there trying to ban the "Type of knife" he used. What is next? ban forks, baseball bats, spoons? All this is to Mucking Fuch for me!!!!
Wow. I'm speechless. But I must ask just how you know "without exception" the household political views of "every last mass shooter"? Fascinating.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#30 Apr 26, 2013
mornfinder wrote:
Coddle your kill toys all you Yosemite Sam gunslingers. History is proving your ignorance. See you at the next mass shooting by another nut job with a gun boner. Don't worry, you probably won't have to wait too long.
Not quite. It's proving the EXACT OPPOSITE. If We The People were all armed as was Constitutionally INTENDED. Then there wouldn't even be a quarter of the violence we see today. Only a complete suicidal fool would try to attempt a mass shooting in that event.

Our government has NO obligation to provide individual protection PERIOD. They are charged with the duty of providing for the common defense. Thus making it not only the right, but the DUTY of the citizens to provide for their own defense. Check the court rulings on the subject if you have any doubts.
moronfinder

Charlottesville, VA

#31 Apr 26, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"The declaration of rights in this constitution, essentially the same in the other States, sets forth the civil rights of the citizens. Free and equal by birth, all men have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights: to life and liberty; to property and to happiness; to freedom in the worship of God; to free elections and the impartial administration of the laws; to jury trial and exemption from unreasonable searches searches and seizures; to liberty of the press; to keep and bear arms; to peaceable assembling and to petition; to freedom of debate in legislatures; to immunity from ex post facto laws--that is, from "laws made to punish actions done before the existence of such laws and which have not been declared crimes by preceding law;" to freedom from excessive bail or sureties, from excessive fines, or cruel or unusual punishments; to exemption from the quartering of soldiers in private houses without the owner's consent in time of peace, or in time of war save as the law may prescribe. These fundamental notions in government are set forth in all the State constitutions and are to be traced in enactments by colonial assemblies, to provisions in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, to the Great Charter, or to the unwritten law of England; and many of them to a time in Anglo-Saxon history beyond the memory of man."-- Francis Newton Thorpe, The Story of the Constitution of the United States, 1891.(Francis Newton Thorpe was an American legal scholar, historian, political scientist,and Professor of Constitutional History at the University of Pennsylvania).
Ok. So where do you draw a limit with arms? Is it just every man for himself, and the guy with the most and/or the biggest wins? And what about the types of arms? One would have to lucidly believe that if the founding fathers saw the kind of damage that modern arms inflict, they would have been mortified, and they would have put limitations on their accessibility. What about grenades? Or flame throwers? Or chemical/biological weapons? And if we don't regulate firearms and other weapons, then why bother with police, or for that matter the military? I really don't believe the vision was for every man to build an Alamo and harm yourself to the teeth. That's a recipe for destruction.
No problem with hunting. No problem with realistic home/personal defense. But having weapons of war among the general population is not only irresponsible, it's absolutely deranged. Why would anyone need a machine gun, and hundreds/thousands of rounds at their disposal? If the argument is "the govt. can't tell me how many bullets I use to defend myself", then that comes across as someone who seems to be a little too paranoid, and maybe a thorough mental health/background check should be in order. Hey, the stats don't lie. If there's a gun in the house, it is more likely to be involved in something bad happening, than something good.
moronfinder

Charlottesville, VA

#32 Apr 26, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not quite. It's proving the EXACT OPPOSITE. If We The People were all armed as was Constitutionally INTENDED. Then there wouldn't even be a quarter of the violence we see today. Only a complete suicidal fool would try to attempt a mass shooting in that event.
Our government has NO obligation to provide individual protection PERIOD. They are charged with the duty of providing for the common defense. Thus making it not only the right, but the DUTY of the citizens to provide for their own defense. Check the court rulings on the subject if you have any doubts.
Sadly, court rulings usually don't equate into common sense. See any murder conviction.
So let me get this straight. In 'your' perfect world with everyone armed, if someone pulls out a gun in a crowd, and every single person there responds by pulling their gun out as well, and everybody is pointing a gun at everybody, then NOBODY'S GONNA GO OFF? There won't be anyone there with a shaky hand that accidentally pulls the trigger? Are you serious? Excuse me while I go have 1000 bong hits to process your thinking..........wow!
moronfinder

Charlottesville, VA

#33 Apr 27, 2013
The Flying Pig wrote:
When was the last time a 'background check' actually stopped any crime from happening?
If a law doesn't stop a crime, then what's the purpose of the law?
I'll tell you: Revenue generation.
In almost all cases of human laws, the sole purpose of VALID law is simply two things:
1. To define the acceptable limits of human behavior
2. To define describe the consequences of transgressing the law
So in essence, what that means is: If you do a prohibited thing, then this is what will happen to you.
The more laws a community has, the less free it is. And when there are so many laws that not even a judge may know all of them completely, then there is tyranny, for nobody may know at any given moment if he is transgressing one or another law.
So,'background checks' are nothing more than an excuse to trammel the rights of all.
Excuses pave the road to hell.
"Trammel"?
August

Belleview, FL

#36 Apr 27, 2013
yankee republican wrote:
Good point!
It looks like a full ban is the only way to stop the carnage if our children.
SUPPORT A FULL BAN NOW!!!!
Only if Stupid can be banned.

“Better Dead than red!”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#38 Apr 27, 2013
NO They would not!
moronfinder

Charlottesville, VA

#39 Apr 27, 2013
yankee republican wrote:
Good point!
It looks like a full ban is the only way to stop the carnage if our children.
SUPPORT A FULL BAN NOW!!!!
Just look at the success stories from Germany, Australia, Japan, and Great Britain. Hard to deny the facts.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#40 Apr 27, 2013
moronfinder wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok. So where do you draw a limit with arms?...
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and EVERY OTHER TERRIBLE IMPLEMENT of the soldier, are the BIRTHRIGHT of an American .... The UNLIMITED power of the sword is NOT in the hands of EITHER the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the HANDS OF THE PEOPLE."

- Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, February 1788.(Mr. Coxe was a leading proponent of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and an American political economist and a delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress in 1788-1789. He was appointed revenue commissioner by President George Washington on June 30, 1792).

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#41 Apr 27, 2013
moronfinder wrote:
<quoted text>
Sadly, court rulings usually don't equate into common sense. See any murder conviction.
So let me get this straight. In 'your' perfect world with everyone armed, if someone pulls out a gun in a crowd, and every single person there responds by pulling their gun out as well, and everybody is pointing a gun at everybody, then NOBODY'S GONNA GO OFF? There won't be anyone there with a shaky hand that accidentally pulls the trigger? Are you serious? Excuse me while I go have 1000 bong hits to process your thinking..........wow!
Funny, but our forebears didn't seem to have a problem. Thomas Jefferson used to go everywhere he went in Washington D.C. LOOK AT D.C. NOW....

"What are the inalienable and inherent rights that belong to the individual? The first and nearest one is what? The right of enjoying and defending his life. Whether he be saint or sinner, Protestant or Catholic, or what not, the first inalienable right he has, and ought to be protected in, is that of enjoying and defending his life. The next in importance is the right of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of his conscience. The third, the right of seeking and pursuing his safety and happiness. The fourth, the right of communicating his thought and his opinions. Fifth, the right to acquire and protect property. Sixth, the right to meet and consult with his fellows as to what will promote the common welfare. Seventh--and while enjoying all these rights, these six that I have just mentioned, he has the right to bear arms in defense of himself, his family and his state, and no man can take it away. There are seven inalienable and inherent rights of the individual man."

- Mr. C.T. Allen, Oct. 9, 1890.[Official Report of the Proceedings and Debates in the Convention, Kentucky]

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#42 Apr 27, 2013
"...everywhere he went ARMED..."

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#43 Apr 27, 2013
moronfinder wrote:
<quoted text>
"Trammel"?
tram·mel
/&#712;tram&#601;l/
Noun
A restriction or impediment to someone's freedom of action: "free from the trammels of materialism".
Verb
Deprive of freedom of action.
Synonyms
noun. hindrance
verb. hamper - impede - fetter - hinder - obstruct - encumber

Don't feel bad, as the public school system doesn't teach reality any more.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#44 Apr 27, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny, but our forebears didn't seem to have a problem. Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson owned 600 humans and would not allow a black person to own a firearm.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45 Apr 27, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
"What are the inalienable and inherent rights
Justice Scalia
US Supreme Court
still alive
Opinion matters

GayDavy
Multiple aliases
Ashamed of all of them
Opinion worthless
Flagged for cross posted spam

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46 Apr 27, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia.
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

Justice Scalia
Speaking for the SCOTUS majority
this century

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#47 Apr 27, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
"Like most rights ...
"The constitutional right to bear arms is intended to guaranty to the people, in support of just government, such right, and to afford the citizen means for defense of self and property. While this secures to him a right of which he cannot be deprived, it enjoins a duty in execution of which that right is to be exercised. If he employs those arms which he ought to wield for the safety and protection of his country, his person, and his property, to the annoyance and terror and danger of its citizens, his acts find no vindication in the bill of rights. That guaranty was never intended as a warrant for vicious persons to carry weapons with which to terrorize others. Going armed with unusual and dangerous weapons, to the terror of the people, is an offense at common law. A man may carry a gun for any lawful purpose, for business or amusement, but he cannot go about with that or any other dangerous weapon to terrify and alarm a peaceful people."

- Chief Justice William T. Spear, Supreme Court of Ohio, State v. Hogan, 63 Ohio 202, 58 N.E. 572, 52 L.R.A. 863, 81 Am. St. 626 (1900).

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48 Apr 27, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"The constitutional
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

Justice Scalia
Speaking for the SCOTUS majority
this century

Since: Apr 13

Utica, NY

#49 Apr 27, 2013
I think the only way to help REDUCE mass shootings is to 1) raise the quality of life, and 2) have better parenting.

Mass shootings have always happened and will never just completely stop. but if most americans were happy with life, maybe had a little extra money to do nice things for their family, then peoples rage wouldnt reach the point of taking other peoples lives.

And the epidemic of bad parenting has started to catch up with us. No, the television is not a babysitter, and yes, you have to teach what is right and wrong- when it happens if possible.

If everyone stopped being such a selfish prick and cared about others feelings then kids at school would get along better (and not want to shoot the bullies face off) and give the chance for someone to talk out their frustrations with more than just the only other social outcast available to them.

It's a long process, just like what got us here, but goddamn it needs to happen

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Ferguson braces for grand jury decision 8 hr Here Is One 14
Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second ... (Nov '13) 10 hr Marauder 12,171
Magnum Research Introduces Stainless Steel Dese... Wed Here Is One 1
Concealed carry does not make us safer (Nov '09) Tue fae31 6,985
Texas open carry is shooting itself in the foot Dec 20 Independent1 9
Open Carry Activist Charged With Shooting Ex-Hu... Dec 13 Here Is One 3
Deer Hunting Time Dec 9 kurtcooksalot16 1
More from around the web