Interesting video on Sandy Hook

Yea, sorry about that one. We were allowed nut protectors.

 

People would be appalled at what goes on in high school locker rooms.

 

Smarter not harder......Im all for it.

Its like the old joke marines syorm a building and the army calls in an air strike.

 

that's why i always laugh when people say they were bullied by jocks or whatever. The overwelming majority of torture or bullying I saw was jock on jock torture. and i wouldn't call a lot of it "good natured."

 

Jon-Erik Hexum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

We always beat the hell out of each other. Literally.

 

Never heard of this

 

IP is going to tell us if the "kill by hour of use" is acceptable or not.

 

It seems irrelevant, given the staggering disparity between the two in question, the difference in practical purpose, and the existing level of regulation of each. Unless you are disputing the "billions of hours a day" driving thing, we are talking about hundreds of thousands of times if not millions of times more deadly a device in guns.

 

What exactly are you arguing? That rubber bullets are just as deadly as actual bullets? Are just as accessible and widespread? Surely not.

 

Ruptured middle meningeal artery. You can get that from baseball bats to the head, car accidents, etc.

It is a pretty common board type question.

 

I am making fun of your made up "kill by hour of use" statistic for use in banning something.

 

While abstract, it isn't made up. It is no different than pointing out that while more people choke to death every year on food than are murdered by guns in the UK, eating is far safer than getting shot, eating is far safer than even being around a loaded gun, and that eating isn't something really worth discussing as being heavily regulated all because people sometimes die by doing so.

You can list any number of potentially lethal activities. Have at it. You haven't found a rational comparison yet. MAYBE smoking or drinking, but then we regulate those already.

 

We regulate alcohol because it is explicitly mandated in the Constitution that it can be regulated.

That explicit regulation is not in the 2A. If it were, we could then have a discussion on what is appropriate regulation.

Instead, we are left discussing opinions on whether or not we can. The case law is clear: we can regulate.

The constitutional aspect of that regulation is not clear, and is thus left to the courts. It is kind of circular. Which is a bad thing.

There are any number of state proposals that were crafted by the gun lobby that were later killed on the vote by the gun lobby because of alterations.

This is one of those things that should be killed on principal, even by those that support such, simply because of the way it is being addressed. The ends do not justify the means, though that has become so much less common in society, today.

And the reason is that, even with such a high percentage of people supporting reform, the risk of amending the Constitution is too great. And so why bother, when the courts have already decided it isn't necessary?

We might as well just throw it away and rely solely on the whims of our elected representatives, because that is what is being advocated, even if on a small scale.

And the ends don't justify the means.

 

What should be killed?

I'm as certain of my interpretation of 2nd amendment as you are of yours. Why is your interpretation by default superior?

Why doesn't utility, context, and reason have a place in the discussion? Why must we default to the abstract and status quo?


Honestly, I do think an amendment is in order. By your interpretation, we are already violating the 2nd amendment by banning automatic weaponry among other things.

 

Give me your exact interpretation.

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.

Then tell me why, if your interpretation so finds that it isn't an individual right, why the Bill of Rights, applies to individuals, with the exception of the second?

And them elaborate what you take "shall not be infringed" to mean.

I also believe, but don't remember, that a "usage" [for the common defense] was struct from the original. If that is the case, why was it struck if utility and context were to be applied to the amendment?

 

I am confused by the news story linked: Investigation is 'very complex' - Video on TODAY.com

Did Lanza kill childern with an Assault Rifle or not?

 

I don't know for sure. I think some doubt crept in with the coroner's comments. All I know is the gun pulled out of the trunk was certainly a loaded shotgun, not an AR-15. Anyone claiming otherwise as part of a conspiracy isn't looking at the gun.

 

If the video I just watched was the right video, that was absolutely not an AR-15 in that trunk, and do believe it was a shotgun shell that is cleared.

I will say it is possible, based on the stock alone, that it was an SKS.

 

It looks like a choate dragunov stock, which are commonly put on SKS. No idea if that type stock would be made for an automatic shotgun.