I ask that because I was in the military yet have no desire to own a gun. If the majority of gun owners have no background working with guns and the majority of those with said background don't own a lot of guns what does that say about American gun culture ?
I ask that because I was in the military yet have no desire to own a gun. If the majority of gun owners have no background working with guns and the majority of those with said background don't own a lot of guns what does that say about American gun culture ?
Precisely nothing. Do you have to work in IT to have an interest in computers? Or to work in a garage to have an interest in cars? Of course you don't.
There is probably a much higher concentration of ex military and police guys in the hobby/business, but the fact that some aren't doesn't imply anything negative.
I'm willing to compromise on this: we move the soldiers in Afghanistan to positions as guards in schools. If it gets us out of this goddamned war, I'm all for it. I wasn't sure whether to put that in green text or not, so I left it normal
What amuses me is that the NRA president is also blaming video games. So, therefore, we can deduce that it's not the gun, but the shooter, but it's not the gamer, but the game.
What amuses me is that the NRA president is also blaming video games. So, therefore, we can deduce that it's not the gun, but the shooter, but it's not the gamer, but the game.
I've played violent video games since Goldeneye 64. I have yet to shoot up a school.
I ask that because I was in the military yet have no desire to own a gun. If the majority of gun owners have no background working with guns and the majority of those with said background don't own a lot of guns what does that say about American gun culture ?
Precisely nothing. Do you have to work in IT to have an interest in computers? Or to work in a garage to have an interest in cars? Of course you don't.
There is probably a much higher concentration of ex military and police guys in the hobby/business, but the fact that some aren't doesn't imply anything negative.
Further anecdotal evidence: I was at work the day of Sandy Hook, and one of the TVs behind the register in Home Theater was set to the news. A customer I was ringing up was very upset by what had happened, and said he had been in the military and wanted nothing to do with guns because it's far too easy to do harm with them.
Sorry for the double-post, but I've found the first piece of possibly good reactionary legislation about this: "H.R. 6692: To amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to exempt the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) from sequestration." I'm going to have to keep an eye on this.
We have covered this on the forum before. The three fifths compromise had to do with population count for the purpose of representation in the House of Representatives.
I think everyone can agree that "all other persons" was just a euphemism for black slaves - the number of white slaves was negligible in comparison. I also don't think the purpose of the "3/5" really matters - You know that shit wouldn't fly today, and that's the point of Jason's argument - The time when the Constitution was written was very different.
Yes, it was only slaves (and not free blacks) that were counted as 3/5 according to the compromise. The compromise also took place in a context where it was already accepted that only men of property could actually vote.
However, setting aside the pedantry, the main point (as highlighted by trogdor9) stands.
I think there should be a mandatory 24 hour training course on gun safety required for anyone who wants to own a gun, to be renewed every x years. The training must be given by certified individuals, and must be completed before any firearm can be purchased. Probably wont stop a mass shooting like this, but can help stop much more common deaths like accidents and spur of the moment shootings.
Well, there is a deeper, more fundamental question.
What is the purpose of the second amendment?
The first amendment's purpose can be very well argued, both from a historical perspective and with a modern relevance. It's very easy to set forth clearly defined and strong rationale for the amendment's origin as well as its current importance. The second, however, I feel does not have as much of a modern relevance.
I think your appraisal of its modern relevance is biased by your emotional stance on gun violence. I don't think there's going to be armed rebellion in the US any time soon, but I still shudder at the idea of police forces like the NYPD being the privileged, armed class.
Comments
There is probably a much higher concentration of ex military and police guys in the hobby/business, but the fact that some aren't doesn't imply anything negative.
I wasn't sure whether to put that in green text or not, so I left it normal
Had to add the underscores at the bottom to make the top text be on top. Memegenerator is a shitty generator, but I couldn't get quickmeme to work.
We have covered this on the forum before. The three fifths compromise had to do with population count for the purpose of representation in the House of Representatives.
However, setting aside the pedantry, the main point (as highlighted by trogdor9) stands.
What is the purpose of the second amendment?
The first amendment's purpose can be very well argued, both from a historical perspective and with a modern relevance. It's very easy to set forth clearly defined and strong rationale for the amendment's origin as well as its current importance. The second, however, I feel does not have as much of a modern relevance.
So, what is the purpose of the second amendment?