Would background checks stop mass shootings?

There are 186 comments on the Local TV Station KTVZ story from Apr 11, 2013, titled Would background checks stop mass shootings?. In it, Local TV Station KTVZ reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Local TV Station KTVZ.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#51 Apr 27, 2013
WorkingClassClown wrote:
Mass shootings have always happened and will never just completely stop.
In the USA: about two dozen times a year.

Maybe we should do something to at least stop a few?
peacegirl

Charlottesville, VA

#52 Apr 27, 2013
But why are we still living by the paranoid ideals of people that actually NEEDED to be armed. Why should we have to put so much emphasis on defending ourselves? I happen to enjoy just living. I'd like to think we've progressed enough after almost 300 years. In honor of the thousands of men and women that have given their lives so we may live in peace, I choose to live without the limitations of apocalyptic paranoia. I've lived in big cities, rural communities, lesser developed countries, and went to school in LA. Never, ever have I felt the need to be in possession of a gun, not once.
Shooter57

Turlock, CA

#53 Apr 27, 2013
moronfinder wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe the Ammendment states 'a well organized militia", not self imposed commando.
READ!!!!!!
Well Moronfinder I see you finally looked in the mirror and found one!!!
Shooter57

Turlock, CA

#54 Apr 27, 2013
peacegirl wrote:
But why are we still living by the paranoid ideals of people that actually NEEDED to be armed. Why should we have to put so much emphasis on defending ourselves? I happen to enjoy just living. I'd like to think we've progressed enough after almost 300 years. In honor of the thousands of men and women that have given their lives so we may live in peace, I choose to live without the limitations of apocalyptic paranoia. I've lived in big cities, rural communities, lesser developed countries, and went to school in LA. Never, ever have I felt the need to be in possession of a gun, not once.
And that is your right! However that doesn't mean I am going to be forced to give up my God given right to own a firearm to protect myself or others if the need arises.
Shooter57

Turlock, CA

#55 Apr 27, 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.
Spot on GunShow1 !!!

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#56 Apr 27, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
"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
MEANINGLESS CONJECTURE:

"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed".

That is part of the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. And ANYTHING to the contrary NOTWITHSTANDING.

The court has ZERO POWER to overturn the Constitution.

"Those then who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered, in court as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only law.

"This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written Constitutions ... It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath, which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

"That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions--a written Constitution--would of itself be sufficient, in America, where written Constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the Constitution."

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void."--Chief Justice Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison, 5, U.S.(Cranch) 137, 174,176.]

"The primary principle; underlying an interpretation of constitutions is that the intent is the vital part and the essence of the law."--Rasmussen v. Barker, 7 Wyo. 117; 50 p 819.

Away with you, traitor.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#57 Apr 27, 2013
Shooter57 wrote:
<quoted text>
Spot on GunShow1 !!!
Thank you. How's it going over in Cali?(I was born and raised in San Jose).

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#58 Apr 27, 2013
peacegirl wrote:
But why are we still living by the paranoid ideals of people that actually NEEDED to be armed. Why should we have to put so much emphasis on defending ourselves? I happen to enjoy just living. I'd like to think we've progressed enough after almost 300 years. In honor of the thousands of men and women that have given their lives so we may live in peace, I choose to live without the limitations of apocalyptic paranoia. I've lived in big cities, rural communities, lesser developed countries, and went to school in LA. Never, ever have I felt the need to be in possession of a gun, not once.
Here's why:

Those who say "it can't happen here" are totally oblivious to historical FACT;

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

1932-33 Soviet Dictator Joseph Stalin's 'government' sponsered famine, causing the deaths of 7 to 10 million in the Ukraine.

1937-38 Japanese soldiers 'Rape' Nanking province of China, causing the deaths of 300,000.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 6 million Jews and countless others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.(Some estimates bring the total closer to 13 million

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Pol Pot's Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, over 2,000,000 people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated by the Khmer Rouge.

1992-95 Bosnia-Herzegovina conflict; 200,000 dead.

1994 Rwanda, Hutu militia kill 800,000 Tutsis.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of 'gun control' or from the lack of being able to defend themselves: about 64,700,000

Spelled out, that is;

SIXTY-FOUR MILLION,

SEVEN-HUNDRED

THOUSAND PEOPLE!

There are some reports, that the total number Murdered, is actuallly MUCH HIGHER!

See:'Innocents Betrayed' on the J.P.F.O. website....

(170,000,000)
http://www.innocentsbetrayed.com/index2.htm

That ALL happened in the last 100 years.

"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Those that do not take heed of that MAXIM, usually wind up DESTROYED. As ALL of history PROVES most conclusively.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#60 Apr 27, 2013
WorkingClassClown wrote:
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
Very well put! Hat-tip.

Believe this mainly started in the 1960's, with the disintegration of the family.
peacegirl

Charlottesville, VA

#61 Apr 27, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Kudos to you for having a dictionary so handy. I'm sure it helps you a great deal.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#62 Apr 27, 2013
peacegirl wrote:
<quoted text>
Kudos to you for having a dictionary so handy. I'm sure it helps you a great deal.
It is crucial to understand the original meaning of words when studying law. Especially when understanding Constitutional law.

"The primary principle; underlying an interpretation of constitutions is that the intent is the vital part and the essence of the law."--Rasmussen v. Barker, 7 Wyo. 117; 50 p 819.

"The national government is one of enumerated powers, and a power enumerated and delegated by the Constitution to Congress is comprehensive and complete, without other limitations than those found in the Constitution itself...."

"...The Constitution is a written instrument, and, as such, its meaning does not alter. Its language, as a grant of power to the national government, is general and, as changes come in social and political life, it embraces all new conditions within the scope of the powers conferred.

"In interpreting the Constitution, recourse must be had to the common law and also to the position of the framers of the instrument and what they must have understood to be the meaning and scope of the grants of power contained therein must be considered...."---U.S. Supreme Court, South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 (1905).

"It is a rule of law that, in order to ascertain the import of a contract, the evident intention of the parties, at the time of forming it, is principally to be regarded. Previous to the formation of this Constitution, there existed certain principles of the law of nature and nations, consecrated by time and experience, in conformity to which the Constitution was formed."--Mr. Elliot, Debate in U.S. House of Representatives, Oct. 25, 1803.(The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution),[Elliot's Debates, Volume 4]
peacegirl

Charlottesville, VA

#63 Apr 27, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
It is crucial to understand the original meaning of words when studying law. Especially when understanding Constitutional law.
"The primary principle; underlying an interpretation of constitutions is that the intent is the vital part and the essence of the law."--Rasmussen v. Barker, 7 Wyo. 117; 50 p 819.
"The national government is one of enumerated powers, and a power enumerated and delegated by the Constitution to Congress is comprehensive and complete, without other limitations than those found in the Constitution itself...."
"...The Constitution is a written instrument, and, as such, its meaning does not alter. Its language, as a grant of power to the national government, is general and, as changes come in social and political life, it embraces all new conditions within the scope of the powers conferred.
"In interpreting the Constitution, recourse must be had to the common law and also to the position of the framers of the instrument and what they must have understood to be the meaning and scope of the grants of power contained therein must be considered...."---U.S. Supreme Court, South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 (1905).
"It is a rule of law that, in order to ascertain the import of a contract, the evident intention of the parties, at the time of forming it, is principally to be regarded. Previous to the formation of this Constitution, there existed certain principles of the law of nature and nations, consecrated by time and experience, in conformity to which the Constitution was formed."--Mr. Elliot, Debate in U.S. House of Representatives, Oct. 25, 1803.(The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution),[Elliot's Debates, Volume 4]
Sorry, too busy LIVING life.
moronfinder

Charlottesville, VA

#64 Apr 27, 2013
Shooter57 wrote:
<quoted text>
And that is your right! However that doesn't mean I am going to be forced to give up my God given right to own a firearm to protect myself or others if the need arises.
I don't recall anything about firearms in any bible. Too bad Jesus wasn't packing, huh?

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#65 Apr 27, 2013
moronfinder wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't recall anything about firearms in any bible. Too bad Jesus wasn't packing, huh?
“When a strong man armed, keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace”--Jesus, Luke 11:21

"Then said he unto them, "But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one".--Jesus, whom is the Christ - The Lord, Luke 22:36

"And this know, that if the goodman of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched, and not have suffered his house to be broken through".--Jesus, Luke 12:39
moronfinder

Charlottesville, VA

#66 Apr 27, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
“When a strong man armed, keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace”--Jesus, Luke 11:21
"Then said he unto them, "But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one".--Jesus, whom is the Christ - The Lord, Luke 22:36
"And this know, that if the goodman of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched, and not have suffered his house to be broken through".--Jesus, Luke 12:39
Still doesn't mention anything about weapons of mass destruction.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#67 Apr 27, 2013
moronfinder wrote:
<quoted text>
Still doesn't mention anything about weapons of mass destruction.
Then you obviously haven't read the Bible.
The man

Houston, TX

#68 Apr 27, 2013
Background checks would be good for anyone trying to become a citizen.
If they are deemed crazy we do not need them.
moronfinder

Charlottesville, VA

#69 Apr 28, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you obviously haven't read the Bible.
I read as much as I could stomach.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#70 Apr 28, 2013
Shooter57 wrote:
<quoted text>
And that is your right! However that doesn't mean I am going to be forced to give up my God given right
HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH!~

so now god gives you the right to own a firearm!

HAHAHAAHAHAHAH!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#71 Apr 28, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
MEANINGLESS CONJECTURE:
"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed".
{click}

If you don't like the Second Amendment the way it is, GayDavy, why don't you try to change it to your version?

Thomas Jefferson owned 600 humans and would not allow a black person to own a firearm.

>>

PS: Thanks for proving you don't even know the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.

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
News No wedding for Bristol Palin May 20 Truth and Facts 6
Stop white on white crime May 20 Truth and Facts 30
News Concealed Carry Reduced Crime But NOT on Chicag... May 18 Truth and Facts 3
News Local Jews upset by Holocaust references in cam... (Jun '12) May 17 Robbie Siegmyer 115
News The Free Beacon Thinks Purchasing Ammunition Sh... May 17 JEFF1234 1
Democrats: Get A $2,000 Tax Credit For Turning ... May 10 Prep-for-Dep 22
News 'Batman' shooting tragedy exploited on various ... (Jul '12) May 8 gragulum 11
More from around the web