BREAKING NEWS: disgruntled employee just killed eleven (11) co-workers in Virginia Beach

Agreed. It was the conservative icon, Reagan who first pioneered the legislation which generally emptied our mental health facilities onto the streets. Done ostensibly to safeguard the overall rights of the mentally ill it quickly devolved into yet another conservative scheme to save money on social services

However I still disagree strenuously that nothing besides incarceration can be done if people exercising their 'constitutional rights" endanger all of us. Society and technology change and evolve all the time and the utility of all rights vs their dangers should change too

 

When he WAS president, were you critical of him on his lack of gun reform just as you are Trump? Or do you admit that you have a double standard?

 

It is the established guidelines of the forum. If one does not wish to take part in an open, honest, and legitimate debate or discussion, and cannot add anything of relevancy to a discussion, then they are supposed to stay out of the discussion and not derail it with off topic nonsense.

 

AFAIK Obama agreed with the general Democrat view on guns. I go beyond that but I'm not going to criticize it because the Republican view is even worse. And Trump, in hinting that his "2nd Amendment people" should have murdered Hillary had she won, goes beyond even the standard Republican view, though that IS the view held by many gun advocates IMO.

 

Which legal exercisings of constitutional rights, specifically the second amendment, have gone on to endanger the lives of others? Can such be demonstrated and presented?

 

The possession of guns which make killing many people very easily by almost anyone endangers us all and has no offsetting utility I can see.

 

Possession of a firearm does not actually endanger anyone, regardless of what type it may be, or where the possession occurs. It is only when someone decides to commit an action, specifically an illegal action, that those around them are actually endangered. The second amendment covers the possession, but it does not cover the murdering of others.

A common saying on the subject is that the constitutional rights of one individual end where the constitution rights of another individual begin. In this case it means the protections within the second amendment end at the point when one is being shot at for no legitimate reason. If the one with the firearm is not going around shooting at anyone and everyone, then their carrying a fully-automatic firearm in public does not actually put anyone at the risk of harm. It is no different than the operation of a motor vehicle on a public right of way. That being it is legal so long as nobody is put at the risk of harm through deliberate actions on the part of the operator.

 

What you seem to be arguing is that nothing is dangerous unless it is being used, therefore we should permit anything no matter how dangerous it is and the only protection society may expect is that we may pass laws saying that the device may not be used. That is patently absurd.

 

You'll never talk him out of his irrational fear of firearms.

 

Such is ultimately the situation as it is presently, both in the united states and elsewhere around the world. The only protection the public and society at large has against illegal acts are laws declaring said acts to be unacceptable, be the act either arson, murder, of motor vehicle-related manslaughter. There are no physical barriers to prevent an individual from engaging in a harmful and/or dangerous act that has the potential to kill others. The only thing currently preventing any given individual from committing mass murder is the unwillingness to commit such actions against others.

Examine any given action on the part of yourself on a given day, and it will be found the same applies to yourself as well.

 

So nobody ever takes preemptive actions against dangers? Nobody ever says we should try not to arm the dangerously insane? We give driver's licenses to blind people? We never put rails around high places?

Guns have no real use in the modern world and are very dangerous. Why should they be permitted?

 

I dont have to engage with you.

 

I wonder how many of the pro gun posters here, if they had a family member as one of the victims of this (or any of the monthly mass murder events) would change their stance?

 

I remember seeing this one guy from Louisiana on tv who had lost a daughter, and was pulling out his pistol saying how she might still be alive if only......Ammosexuality, truly one of the most persistent and deadly perversions known in America

 

Mmmm, the answer to the difficulties with the 2nd amendment ....ban bullets. Sure you can make your own but one years jail for every bullet on your possession will reduce firearms to be as useful as a baseball bat or in the case of a pistol...a dinner plate.

Hunters can own arrows...that makes for a more level playing field.

 

So if Obama was still president or another Democrat was president, what mass shootings would have been avoided?

 

Even when shooting are happening so often
https://mb.ntd.com/over-30-people-shot-in-chicago-in-one-weekend-3-dead_341952.html

 

I'm fuzzy on the details of that. I was under the impression that civil rights groups were protesting about keeping the mentally ill involuntarily in mental hospitals and pushed to have them released.

 

Unconstitutional.
http://www.islandlawblog.com/washington-d-c-ammunition-ban-violates-second-amendment/

 

I reckon I could break wind in the Grand Canyon and it would be unconstitutional. ...
Thanks for the info on that.

 

You might get in trouble for releasing greenhouse gases in a protected area.

 

And Reagan saw a chance to save money on social services. A win-win for everyone but the people actually involved and who gives a **** about them, as usual in Greater Amerika.

 

Maybe all, maybe none. If I put up a traffic light at a dangerous intersection how many lives have I saved?

 

Is "maybe all" based on the idea that a democratic President may have championed in new gun laws?

 

Does the above do anything to change the points raised about how there are no safeguards or guarantees in life to protect against the actions of individuals?

Barring other matters of discussion that could be brought up in explanation, the simplest explanation is because they are already present, they are being produced and acquired in extremely large numbers, and there is simply no way of undoing or otherwise mitigating what has already come to pass. Firearms are here to stay in their current fashion, simply because they are too numerous to address. It is the same explanation given regarding illegal aliens residing within the united states, and why efforts are not being made to remove them.

In short, simple, easy to understand terms of explanation, the problem is too far gone to do anything of substance about. In medically-related comparisons, the patient has lost too much blood to survive.