Nearly twenty dead at school shooting

[mikekerrIII]

So... really, how do we get 2/3 votes in the House and the Senate, along with ratification by 2/3 of the states in the USA? It's not totally impossible, right?

Not impossible, but nearly so. Finding state legislatures willing to commit political suicide would be rough and it would be political suicide even in blue states like Delaware where I live, Any constitutional amendment is a tough thing to get passed but f'ng with the Bill of Rights would be massively more difficult. I doubt you could even get simple majorities in Congress much less the legislatures.

there is a reason that politician like Obama don't go there and it is simply that doing so is usually futile and politically poison outside of a few very liberal states that have huge urban voting blocks

[Iangould]

you need to fix your link, Ian

here's a bunch. one blaming Obama, more calling for less gun-free zones like schools. y'know, the same shit over and over again

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012...ooting-twitter

It works for me.

alternately, just google "Newtown flalse flag".

[mikekerrIII]

True... 2nd amendment people are REALLY..."passionate" about their guns.

Mosty americans are really passionate about the "Bill of Rights"

[Simbob4000]

And yet killers, time and again, opt to use guns; spends hundreds of dollars on them; wait to get background checks approved etc.

Why do you think that is?

Because? Who knows, maybe it's because guns get people all riled up and that's what they want, maybe it feels more personal, maybe it just seems like the most practical way to do it, maybe they don't want people to forget it. Hell, someone in this thread didn't know about the Oklahoma City bombing, that's the biggest domestic terrorist attack we've had, once was the largest terrorist attack on US soil.That Aurora theatre shooter had built bombs, if he had used those there it sounds like it could have been worse...but he went with guns...because.

It can't be because bombs are hard to make.

[mailedbypostman1]

Because? Who knows, maybe it's because guns get people all riled up and that's what they want, maybe it feels more personal, maybe it just seems like the most practical way to do it, maybe they don't want people to forget it. Hell, someone in this thread didn't know about the Oklahoma City bombing, that's the biggest domestic terrorist attack we've had, once was the largest terrorist attack on US soil.That Aurora theatre shooter had built bombs, if he had used those there it sounds like it could have been worse...but he went with guns...because.

It can't be because bombs are hard to make.

Why can't it be?

[Samy]

One suggestion to bp danger girl -- even though this is just a little step and won't save everyone, you *can* try to at least make your own town a safer place by pressuring local politicians. I don't know what kind of city you live in, but if you happen to live in a smaller place, it can be a lot easier to make a town of 40,000 anti-gun than turning around the entire nation. I know this is just taking care of your own immediate vicinity, but very few of us have the power to affect entire nations.

[Iangould]

Why can't it be?

Because anyone who spent their teens constructively knows they aren't.

[Samy]

Because anyone who spent their teens constructively knows they aren't.

Or deconstructively...

[mailedbypostman1]

Because anyone who spent their teens constructively knows they aren't.

I've been missing out...

[mikekerrIII]

If you look at the history of gun control in the US you will realize that Mike is presenting a straw man argument. Both state and federal laws have been more restrictive in the past thanc urrently and these restrictions have been upheld as constitutionally valid. At most, you'd need to replace a couple of the current Supreme Court justices.

No they have not been upheld as constitutionally valid, from the thirties until recently the SC was mute on the subject, Outside of a case that hinged on what was a permissible weapon under the Constitution can you cite a single SC ruling to back that claim?

[Loren]

Real gun control can happen but one of the main problems is that silliness like the assault weapons ban, that outlawed not a single assault weapon are the typical method chosen by it proponents.

Earlier this week, one Congressman was talking about banning a gun that doesn't exist.

[mikekerrIII]

Why can't it be?

Becasue they are really easy to make by anyone who can read and follow instructions.

[mikekerrIII]

Earlier this week, one Congressman was talking about banning a gun that doesn't exist.

And ignoring the fact that people have been making their own guns for centuries.

[Iangould]

Earlier this week, one Congressman was talking about banning a gun that doesn't exist.

Seeing as 3D printing of guns would make essentially all existing licensing provisions impracticable, I find nothing absurd about that.

Or should we wait until someone prints a full-auto assault rifle and goes on a rampage and then cry "why didn't They do something?".

[Monty_Cristo]

if the media to blame for anything

it putting to much attention on the shooters. These type of nuts CRAVE attention. And they know this an easy way to get it.

attention doesn't matter much if you're dead.