'Right To Live Life In Complete, Stunned Horror,' Added To Constitution

In the wake of yesterday’s gruesome mass shooting that claimed the lives of 27 people, including 20 schoolchildren, the United States ratified a new constitutional amendment this afternoon guaranteeing American citizens the right to live life in a perpetual state of abject horror. “The provisions of the 28^th Amendment will fully protect the right of all individuals to spend every waking moment utterly terrified at the thought of a deranged stranger with a semiautomatic combat rifle gunning them down,” said House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), explaining that the measure also permits Americans to suffer panic attacks anytime their loved ones go to work, school, malls, or virtually any other public location. “In addition, the new amendment prevents the government from ever infringing on a citizen’s inalienable right to lie awake at night visualizing the images of crying children being ushered out of a school and wondering where it could happen next.” The new amendment comes on the heels of numerous other proposed changes to U.S. law, including a highly contested bill that would protect the right of Americans to ignore a widespread, deadly problem until it is far too late.

Courtesy of The Onion.

There needs to be stricter gun laws, we're not competent enough and I don't care what anyone says. This isn't Switzerland, they're a different breed of people.

That about cuts to the chase of things, doesn't it?

I think we need stricter gun control too and I was going to start a separate thread about it (instead, I'll just hijack this one).

My problem isn't with controlling guns per se, it's the types of guns that are available today (which our founding fathers couldn't have foreseen). I'm not a gun enthusiast but I'm not sure that semi or automatic weapons ought to be available. Somebody could have tackled that bastard if he'd had a couple of old-fashioned guns that he had to stop and reload.

I don't see how restricting people from having automatic weapons that can kill hundreds of people at a time is inflicting on our rights.

That's all well and good, but when people want to kill they will kill.

The worst school death toll in the US didn't even come from guns. It came from bombs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Getting the gun genie back in the bottle is going to be nearly impossible. Weapons that fire automatically (pull the trigger, bullets are fired automatically until the ammunition runs out) are already banned, and can't be purchased or owned without very strict permits.

Weapons that fire semi-automatically (each pull on the trigger fires one bullet, then automatically loads the next bullet for the next trigger pull) are pretty much the standard on most hand and long guns and have been for a long time.

Magazine capacity is already generally limited to 10 rounds or less depending on firearm and state.

The answer is likely less about guns and more about culture and society. But no one wants to really tackle that issue, so guns will be easier to deal with.

As an aside, my opinion is that the founding fathers would not support gun control of any kind. Their intent was to keep the public armed, to prevent any government from imposing its will against the populace by force.

(12-15-2012, 08:49 PM)Jimbone Wrote: The answer is likely less about guns and more about culture and society. But no one wants to really tackle that issue, so guns will be easier to deal with.

People are freaks and always will be, you can't change it and the easiest answer is to take access to guns away. What would you suggest, rehabilitation?

This isn't directed at any one person - how long do you think it would take the cops to reach your home after calling 911?

I think more people who already own guns should control them better. Too many stories about kids getting ahold of guns, accidental shootings, and serious repercussions due to lack of discretion by gun owners who allow others access to them. Sadly, common sense can't be legislated.

I don't understand, for example, what the elementary school shooter's mother was thinking by making guns a tangible focus for a kid with a personality disorder who was reportedly prone to blow-ups. I'll never find out, at least not directly from her.

I don't know if putting more restrictions on gun types, places where guns can be carried, who can qualify... would help solve the problems or not. I understand both sides of the debate regarding gun control.

In the wild west every home had firearms and shit like this didn't happen.

It's all George Bush's fault.

(12-15-2012, 09:00 PM)Duchess Wrote:

This isn't directed at any one person - how long do you think it would take the cops to reach your home after calling 911?

I live in a small town a block away from the fire station. That time I pushed my husband out the window and set him on fire took about 8 minutes.

(12-15-2012, 09:11 PM)sally Wrote:

(12-15-2012, 09:00 PM)Duchess Wrote:

This isn't directed at any one person - how long do you think it would take the cops to reach your home after calling 911?

I live in a small town a block away from the fire station. That time I pushed my husband out the window and set him on fire took about 8 minutes.

So, Hypothetically speaking, according to your account.
If some guy decided to kick in your door, bend you over the kitchen table and introduce to anal, your ok with a No Guns rule that would have stopped the situation seven minutes before the cops could get there?
Because when Seconds count, the police are only minutes away

(12-15-2012, 08:56 PM)sally Wrote:

(12-15-2012, 08:49 PM)Jimbone Wrote: The answer is likely less about guns and more about culture and society. But no one wants to really tackle that issue, so guns will be easier to deal with.

People are freaks and always will be, you can't change it and the easiest answer is to take access to guns away. What would you suggest, rehabilitation?

I would suggest locking down the schools and putting death row inmates to death and killing the kid killers and rapists.
Then we can talk about gang bangers and drug dealers.

(12-15-2012, 08:56 PM)sally Wrote: People are freaks and always will be, you can't change it and the easiest answer is to take access to guns away. What would you suggest, rehabilitation?

We used to put freaks in sanitariums and asylums. Those facilities basically don't exist anymore because we're a more enlightened society. Now it's not PC to stigmatize anyone, and community inclusion via out patient therapy is what is being used.

I'd say it's not working out so well.

Giving some of these freaks a lobotomy doesn't sound like such a bad idea.

If I had an urge to kill people I would plan it out really well and kill and torture every pedophile in my area. I'm waiting for the day when one of these freaks do something noble, like blowing up the IRS. But no, they just want to kill innocent children because it's easy.

(12-15-2012, 09:08 PM)Duchess Wrote:

In the wild west every home had firearms and shit like this didn't happen.

Exactly my point. The weapons weren't as sophisticated.

JB, if we're supposed to be armed to battle our government, every person in Syria would own a chemical weapon. Or maybe all of us should own mini-nukes or ballistic missiles.

(12-15-2012, 09:00 PM)Duchess Wrote:

This isn't directed at any one person - how long do you think it would take the cops to reach your home after calling 911?

Long enough that I'm not interested in waiting.

(12-15-2012, 09:36 PM)username Wrote: Exactly my point. The weapons weren't as sophisticated.

JB, if we're supposed to be armed to battle our government, every person in Syria would own a chemical weapon. Or maybe all of us should own mini-nukes or ballistic missiles.

Hey look, I didn't write the 2^nd amendment - they did. I was just stating the opinion and thoughts behind it.

I'd like to re-phrase what Sally said and see what we think about it:

'People drink & drive and always will, you can't change it and the easiest answer is to take access to alcohol (or vehicles) away'

I think gun violence causes more deaths than alcohol related vehicle accidents, but I'm just guessing. JB has a good point.

That is a good point but a drunk driver doesn't typically kill 26 people in one fell swoop.

When the gun control debate sprung up again after the Trayvon Martin killing, this article was published. I thought it was interesting.

Snipped:

In 1975, 60 percent of the homicides in the U.S. were committed using a handgun. By 2005 that number had shot up to nearly 80 percent, with the rise in gang related gun killings even steeper.

The more handguns there are out there, the more likely they will be used to commit a violent crime. In 2008, 31,593 Americans were killed by handguns. In addition, over 40,000 were injured in nonlethal gun attacks, leaving some victims crippled for life.

Compare these appalling casualty figures to the slightly over 1,000 U.S. Armed Service personnel and private contractors who were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan during the same period. Clearly we gun-toting Americans are our own worst enemies.

Not only that, but in ten states (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Virginia and Washington) you are more likely to be killed by a gun than in a car accident, according to an analysis just released by the advocacy group, the Violence Policy Center (VPC).

This is surprising given that 90 percent of U.S. households have cars, whereas fewer than a third own guns, VPC's Legislative Director Kristen Rand points out.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-sc...52079.html

Around 11,000 people per year are killed in drunk driving accidents. Total deaths from car accidents (including non-alcohol related) is around 40,000 per year.

The stats above for gunshot fatalities must include suicides. Murders from handguns are around 12,000 per year.