What other countries do differently than the US to stop mass shootings

L

BS. So if I own a beehive in Wisconsin am I responsible for the guy in California that died from an allergic reaction to a bee sting?

 

Who's talking about you?

 

And to make it easier to train them for the next war...Which by the way is why the Treaty of Versailles outlawed private ownership of guns in the first place, not because they had stupid idea that it would make the German people safer.

 

What was that stupid thing you said again? The largest mass murders in the didn't even involve fire arms.

 

So we should completely ignore mass shootings. Got it.

 

1 million people in America just died to Covid in the past couple of years. Given the number of school shootings in America, it would take 10,000 years for that many children to die in school shootings. In other words, it a statistical nonentity as a risk factor for children. On the other hand, government tyranny and butchery of it's own people is a statistical CERTAINTY. Perhaps liberals shouldn't be working so hard to turn our government into butchers.

 

Yes, I did. Thanks. It supports everything I have said.

No, not true.

Enough of all the repetition. Feel free to believe anything you want, but at least we agree that the NRA line "first thing Nazis did was ban guns is a pile of BS.

They (they allies) just wanted to disarm German in every aspect. Germany didn't prepare for the next war with private guns, but by a massive government driven manufacturing effort which mass-produced weapons of all kinds for the German military for WW2. They also trained German males from young age via the Hitler Jugend program

 

I bet you wouldn't stand face to face with the parents who lost kids in school shootings and say that...NO, you wouldn't.....

LOL, ya and how is that happening ...let's hear the fairy tale

 

Not enough obviously.

 

Our own government has engaged in tyranny, I could list a dozen examples off the top of my head.... I bet the ranch you couldn't list even one. I will give a couple to help you out. Lets see if you can name any (you can't).
1. Slavery
2. Tuskegee medical experiment
3. Japanese internment
4. Waterboarding

Now that we have established the tyranny that our government is capable of, why in the hell would support handing them ALL of the physical power and remove it completely from the people? The biggest threat to citizens has always been and will always be the government. The role of the American government is to PROTECT AT ALL COSTS the rights of the people enumerated in the Constitution. Here you are begging them to strip those rights (after being programmed by the MSM who are owned by the same people as the politicians).

 

Efforts regarding mental health are a waste of time. At least it does help keep people off the gun control kick.

 

Big deal. The last two are not even consequential.

 

The 2A makes no distinction. It says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

I don't wonder that you are tired of "the repetition". But, honestly, if you think that the Waffengesetz 1938 "deregulated" firearms acquisition in Nazi Germany, especially as enumerated in Article 12 and forward, then you must have used very strange translator software indeed! BTW, you're right about Nazi training for the Hitler Jugend program -- like I said, the law promoted gun use and training, but only for Nazis, their government functionaries, and Nazi-'friendly' organizations, not the ordinary, unaffiliated German public....

Let's agree, then, on the points which, after all this back-and-forth, we can agree on and move on. Like you said earlier, "I support national carry license for those who pass criminal background checks and mental & physical evaluation for 1st time buyers." I agree with you! I think (please correct me if I have misunderstood) that you and I also agree on a "Red Flag" registry, and, longer, 'zero-tolerance' prison terms for those convicted of crimes carried out using firearms.

. "Ein Prosit!"

 

Why did you make a long post about the words "Well Regulated", only to come back to pretend the words are not there, or that they don't mean anything?

Its not about what I think it DID reregulate it. Gun laws were more strict before it, and less strict after it. No one said it removed all regulations, it just made them less strict.

Carry on corporal.

 

I didn't say they are meaningless. I merely said they do not mean what you (or whomever I was responding to) was claiming them to mean. They are there to establish the reason that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed; so that a well-regulated militia could be assembled.

 

Ok, so maybe you think you Well Regulated = Proper working order, or maybe you don't.

I believe it means "in proper working order".

Getting a straight answer is like pulling duck's teeth.......

 

I don't know how much more clear I could have been. The 2A is stupidly simple to understand. Only those whose agenda is impeded by the 2A seek to obfuscate and redefine its meaning and pretend it means something it does not, as you did.

As an aside, it is also stupidly simple to pull ducks teeth; they are toothless. Only those who need to pretend ducks have teeth to justify their position find it difficult.

 

That's what the saying means.

Pulling ducks teeth = Mission impossible.

Its impossible to get a straight answer from you, because you argue for the sake of arguing.

Yes. It was never meant to create a militia of criminally insane psychopaths, but a properly functioning one. Well functioning militia has people who are fit, sober and mentally stable.

 

My answers to your questions have not been evasive or obfuscatory. I don't know what makes you believe otherwise. You do, of course, have the opportunity to support your own assertions, as I have mine. For instance, show some writings of the authors of the 2A that discuss the need to limit access to arms, or membership in the militia, to only the fit, sober and stable.

 

The Nazi gun laws were MORE strict for those they didn't trust or have any special affiliation with, and those who they didn't 'like', but, much more accommodating for those they did 'like'.

In your Post #174, you stated, "They were a heck of lot more rigid before the Nazis deregulated the gun laws." How you can say that the Waffengesetz 1938 deregulated German gun laws is absolutely mystifying to me -- the whole thing is one long litany of Nazi-esque REGULATION!

But, fine, have it your way... I'm tired of trying to drive a nail into a slab of corundum.... You seem to hate the NRA über alles, and you've allowed that to cloud your overall judgement, IMHO.... But, hey, I'm only a 'corporal'...

. "Na und? Ich war auch Gefreiter."

 

I did. I explained what a well regulated militia looks like. You, in the other hand, seem to believe any child, cripple, mentally insane, criminal and junkie can be part of well functioning militia.

 

Its not a judgment issue, it is a matter of historical fact. Even you know it, because you don't disagree, you argue something else (that their laws were selective). Your argument still means they relaxed the bans, you are just trying to dress it as something else.

As for NRA, I hate liars, especially when I see that their lies are taken for gospel. As I said, I used to be a member of the NRA, but had to cancel because I did not appreciate them taking me for a fool. Some people believe their stories, and some others know its BS, but pass it on anyway.

 

IOW well regulated means controlled and functioning properly according to it's purpose.
I don't see any of that among your gun owners.
Instead someone took a part of the original law and dropped out the first half.
The purpose no longer exists and the arms références in the original law no longer exist either.
The whole law is irrelevant to life today.

 

The problem isn't there.
It is that the context set out in the first part does not apply or exist anymore.
Therefore the conclusion based on those conditions are irrelevant.