Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Here's an idea. Everyone who wants to talk about gun laws, for and against, go start a new thread to talk about it. 'K?
I'll even start one for you if you want.

Ye, gods, the crisis isn't even over.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Here's an idea. Everyone who wants to talk about gun laws, for and against, go start a new thread to talk about it. 'K?
I'll even start one for you if you want.

Ye, gods, the crisis isn't even over.

But Obama said we should use tragedies like this to make political points.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
The old "New laws wont work, bad guys dont follow them anyways" argument

Why have any laws then if the bad guys will just ignore them? They're just stifling muh freedoms.

What laws do you believe would have prevented this incident?

 Ouze wrote:
Truly, Obama is history's greatest monster.

Perhaps not history's greatest monster, but he did put out a statement while the situation was still unfolding in San Bernardino.

CBS News wrote:Speaking to CBS News moments after news broke of the shooting, Obama called for "common sense gun safety laws" and urged lawmakers to pass a law to prevent individuals on the "No Fly List" who are barred from boarding commercial flights from legally purchasing firearms.

You see, Ouze, our President apparently cannot grasp the concept of what civil rights actually mean.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List

Let's start with the section "Controversy" and work our way down from there. In their lawsuit, the ACLU stated, "many innocent travelers who pose no security risk whatsoever are discovering that their government considers them terrorists – and find that they have no way to find out why they are on the list, and no way to clear their names."

Did you catch that? No way to know how they got there and no way to clear their names. Wow. I don't know about you but the idea of abridging a civil right based on a pre-generated list (criteria unknown) scares the hell out of me more than any terror incident.

The way the Constitution is worded, one could do much without actually rescinding the 2nd Amendment.

1) Seize all weapons
2) Replace them with smoothbore muzzle-loaders, the firearms the Founding Fathers had in mind.
3) Bomb those who resist from orbit with high-yield nuclear weapons. We've spent trillions on the damned things, might as well get some use out of them.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
The old "New laws wont work, bad guys dont follow them anyways" argument

Why have any laws then if the bad guys will just ignore them? They're just stifling muh freedoms.

So, trampling on the Constitution to make you feel safer without actually being safer is a better option?

Yknow 200 years later the meaning of the 2nd amendment is still up for debate on if it actually applies to unrestricted gun access or if its obsolete since we havent required a "well regulated militia" since the Revolutionary days.

But thats a different debate, though it doesnt seem you're interested in any debate about it since you're using the trump card "trampling my constitution" already.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
The old "New laws wont work, bad guys dont follow them anyways" argument

Why have any laws then if the bad guys will just ignore them? They're just stifling muh freedoms.

What laws do you believe would have prevented this incident?

We'll never know, debate on what can be done wont ever be allowed since its taboo to even mention anything regarding guns apparently

Anyways, gun debate, off topic yada yada.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
The old "New laws wont work, bad guys dont follow them anyways" argument

Why have any laws then if the bad guys will just ignore them? They're just stifling muh freedoms.

So, trampling on the Constitution to make you feel safer without actually being safer is a better option?

To many people, usually left-wing, this seems the preferable solution, unfortunately.

You get it with the right-wing too, when they spout BS about making Islam illegal or rounding up Muslims, conveniently forgetting about our 1st Amendment and ignoring that such actions would do nothing to make them safer, probably quite the opposite.

And so it is with Second Amendment issues too, you get the folks that want to ignore the Second Amendment to gain some false notion of safety, when all it is really doing is hurting the rights of the innocent and law-abiding.

You pass the laws and then let the courts decide if it's constitutional. Simple stuff really.

 d-usa wrote:
You pass the laws and then let the courts decide if it's constitutional. Simple stuff really.

If they can ever get a law to pass for constitutional review, it would be interesting to see

Maybe the nuclear option is a bit overboard, but in the interests of moderation, I propose that we use drones. Why not? We minimize collateral damage in that case, and they're cheap.

Though, again, we have spent trillions on nuclear weapons and haven't used any of the damn things in 70 years.

 Psienesis wrote:
Though, again, we have spent trillions on nuclear weapons and haven't used any of the damn things in 70 years.

They've been used consistently and effectively their entire service life; as a deterrent.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
You pass the laws and then let the courts decide if it's constitutional. Simple stuff really.

If they can ever get a law to pass for constitutional review, it would be interesting to see

Where have you guys been? SCotUS has already affirmed our 2A rights in multiple cases. Check out Heller vs DC and McDonald v Chicago for the most recent ones.

Obama should hold comments till after the fact. If he's thinking the same old dynamics in previous mass shooting (nutjob + weapon) compare to (I hope to God its not) Muslim going workplace violence then we as a country have a major issue now.

Edit

Name of the disgruntled employee who left is
Masuk Si-ed. (just got mention) specualtion but the name is going out over the net

 Psienesis wrote:
The way the Constitution is worded, one could do much without actually rescinding the 2nd Amendment.

1) Seize all weapons
2) Replace them with smoothbore muzzle-loaders, the firearms the Founding Fathers had in mind.
3) Bomb those who resist from orbit with high-yield nuclear weapons. We've spent trillions on the damned things, might as well get some use out of them.

Its "Right to bear arms". Not "Right to bear only a particular type of arms as retroactively defined by such and such".

 Jihadin wrote:
Obama should hold comments till after the fact. If he's thinking the same old dynamics in previous mass shooting (nutjob + weapon) compare to (I hope to God its not) Muslim going workplace violence then we as a country have a major issue now.

Police reports from the area are currently BOLO 3 white males.

 Psienesis wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Obama should hold comments till after the fact. If he's thinking the same old dynamics in previous mass shooting (nutjob + weapon) compare to (I hope to God its not) Muslim going workplace violence then we as a country have a major issue now.

Police reports from the area are currently BOLO 3 white males.

Name mention so far going over net is Masuk Sa-id (SP)

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
The way the Constitution is worded, one could do much without actually rescinding the 2nd Amendment.

1) Seize all weapons
2) Replace them with smoothbore muzzle-loaders, the firearms the Founding Fathers had in mind.
3) Bomb those who resist from orbit with high-yield nuclear weapons. We've spent trillions on the damned things, might as well get some use out of them.

Its "Right to bear arms". Not "Right to bear only a particular type of arms as retroactively defined by such and such".

And the only arms to bear when it was written were muskets, bows and arrows, melee weapons. The concept of an autoloading firearm did not (and would not) exist for nearly another century. It is by this same logic that we have banned civilian ownership of things like M-60 machine guns and missile launchers.

 Psienesis wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Obama should hold comments till after the fact. If he's thinking the same old dynamics in previous mass shooting (nutjob + weapon) compare to (I hope to God its not) Muslim going workplace violence then we as a country have a major issue now.

Police reports from the area are currently BOLO 3 white males.

Muslims aren't a race, there are people of every ethnicity who are Muslim. Them being white doesn't really rule anything out. They could be Jihadis, they could be a trio of nutcases, they could really be anything at the moment.

 Psienesis wrote:
The way the Constitution is worded, one could do much without actually rescinding the 2nd Amendment.
2) Replace them with smoothbore muzzle-loaders, the firearms the Founding Fathers had in mind.

Can we get ships with huge cannons on them with enough firepower to destroy other ships and bombard coastal cities and fortifications? The founding fathers obviously had those in mind as well, seeing as there were many ships with those capabilities in private hands at the time, and the Constitution even has guidelines for issuing Letters of Marque, allowing American civilian-owned ships with those capabilities to attack, capture, or destroy enemy ships.

 Psienesis wrote:
Maybe the nuclear option is a bit overboard, but in the interests of moderation, I propose that we use drones. Why not? We minimize collateral damage in that case, and they're cheap.

Though, again, we have spent trillions on nuclear weapons and haven't used any of the damn things in 70 years.

I think you're on the right track, maybe Russia can solve americas gun problems after they're done solving the ME problem america created.

 Breotan wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Truly, Obama is history's greatest monster.

Perhaps not history's greatest monster, but he did put out a statement while the situation was still unfolding in San Bernardino.

CBS News wrote:Speaking to CBS News moments after news broke of the shooting, Obama called for "common sense gun safety laws" and urged lawmakers to pass a law to prevent individuals on the "No Fly List" who are barred from boarding commercial flights from legally purchasing firearms.

You see, Ouze, our President apparently cannot grasp the concept of what civil rights actually mean.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List

Let's start with the section "Controversy" and work our way down from there. In their lawsuit, the ACLU stated, "many innocent travelers who pose no security risk whatsoever are discovering that their government considers them terrorists – and find that they have no way to find out why they are on the list, and no way to clear their names."

Did you catch that? No way to know how they got there and no way to clear their names. Wow. I don't know about you but the idea of abridging a civil right based on a pre-generated list (criteria unknown) scares the hell out of me more than any terror incident.

Yup, within less than 24 hours of the reports of the shooting the President of the United States used his bully pulpit to ask Congress to pass a law that strips US citizens of a constitutional right without due process.

We have gun crime because we have freedom of gun ownership. Any citizen who can pass a NICS check can buy a gun. Tens of millions of Americans own firearms including people who may decide in the future to commit crimes with their guns but we give people the benefit of the doubt because we believe people are innocent until proven guilty and our right to own firearms is protected by federal and state laws. This is going to remain true for the foreseeable future because the type of draconian restrictions some people advocate can't be done without rewriting the federal Constitution along with multiple state constitutions and rescinding a whole lot of federal, state and local laws.

The way the constitution is worded we could ban all firearms and allow people to possess bear arms. As in, the arms of a bear. Cause only the word of the law, not the spirit, has any meaning in the court of law, amirite?

I hope you aren't be serious Psienesis.

 Psienesis wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
The way the Constitution is worded, one could do much without actually rescinding the 2nd Amendment.

1) Seize all weapons
2) Replace them with smoothbore muzzle-loaders, the firearms the Founding Fathers had in mind.
3) Bomb those who resist from orbit with high-yield nuclear weapons. We've spent trillions on the damned things, might as well get some use out of them.

Its "Right to bear arms". Not "Right to bear only a particular type of arms as retroactively defined by such and such".

And the only arms to bear when it was written were muskets, bows and arrows, melee weapons. The concept of an autoloading firearm did not (and would not) exist for nearly another century. It is by this same logic that we have banned civilian ownership of things like M-60 machine guns and missile launchers.

Incorrect. Private citizens at the time often owned entire warships or even fleets of warships, often of better quality than many national governments could afford. A Warship wasn't cheap to operate either. The closest analog would be if someone today owned and operated their own private Nimitz class aircraft carrier or Nuclear Submarine, including the entire armament and fighting crew.

Any arguments that the founding fathers didn't mean any and all weapons or any kind that ever existed or ever will exist are laughably wrong.

 Psienesis wrote:
The concept of an autoloading firearm did not (and would not) exist for nearly another century.

Not true. For example.

Whew. Glad its 2015 and not 1776

 Hordini wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
The way the Constitution is worded, one could do much without actually rescinding the 2nd Amendment.
2) Replace them with smoothbore muzzle-loaders, the firearms the Founding Fathers had in mind.

Can we get ships with huge cannons on them with enough firepower to destroy other ships and bombard coastal cities and fortifications? The founding fathers obviously had those in mind as well, seeing as there were many ships with those capabilities in private hands at the time, and the Constitution even has guidelines for issuing Letters of Marque, allowing American civilian-owned ships with those capabilities to attack, capture, or destroy enemy ships.

Many of the cannons used in the revolutionary war were privately owned and merchants could lawfully arm their ships with cannon.

Cannons are definitely cool but they'd be awfully expensive to fire and a real pain to get to range if you didn't have enough private land to fire it on. There's already plenty of stuff you can own and build that can arguably have the same level of firepower as 18th century cannon.

 Hordini wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
The concept of an autoloading firearm did not (and would not) exist for nearly another century.

Not true. For example.

Also the Puckle Gun.

You get some outstanding ideas on that in Delaware during Pumpkin Chunkin time

Edit

Doing a house to house search for third suspect

 Psienesis wrote:
The way the Constitution is worded, one could do much without actually rescinding the 2nd Amendment.

1) Seize all weapons
2) Replace them with smoothbore muzzle-loaders, the firearms the Founding Fathers had in mind.
3) Bomb those who resist from orbit with high-yield nuclear weapons. We've spent trillions on the damned things, might as well get some use out of them.

So only the precise things that existed when the Constitution and Bill of Rights was written are protected?

Enough with the 2nd amendment stuff. It's just going to get us locked because arguing about whether or not ships with cannon were intended or not is in no way on topic.