How many more mass shootings need to happen?

[mudesi]

Let's wait until the next 7 or 8 of them before we admit that America needs to scrap amendment number 2 and join the rest of the civilized world.

Or is that not enough for you selfish gun lovers?

5 more dead.

Until next time.

[DS1]

1. but but but

only criminals will have guns

criminals typically shoot each other, that's where the "only criminals have guns" argument falls apart.

less guns = less crime, despite the Clint Eastwood bullshit fantasies of the pro-gun crowd.

[Hangingon]

88. In the NIU case, the shooter - a criminal - shot innocents.

So, it doesn't shoot down the argument for me.

[efhmc]

2. No one in power cares or if they do, will do anything about

the proliferation of guns.

[BlueJazz]

3. I don't believe American would give up their guns even if there were a School Shooting...

...every day.

A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[beevul]

47. The Second Amendment...

I just love how these varying interpretations of the second amendment seem to materialise out of thin air. How everyone that has one which is creative or novel and something other than what the framers instructed it to be read as can expect to be looked at as honest...is simply ludicrous.

Oh, I didn't explain. The framers actually left instructions HOW the bill of rights were to be interpreted. Yes. They really did.

Here they are - the preamble to the bill of rights:


"The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution"

www.BILLOFRIGHTS.ORG

Note that it says "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added", and understand that governments have powers, and people have rights, and note that the restrictive clauses are aimed at powers not rights.

The bill of rights is a LIST OF RESTRICTIONS ON GOVERNMENTAL POWER. NOT ON THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE.


One can not argue the "well regulated militia" interpretation, when reading it as the restriction on governmental power that it was intended to be.


When reading the second amendment and interpreting it "in line" with the preamble, it simply can not be read to restrict the rights of the people.

Sorry.

[BlueJazz]

59. Oh..I don't believe taking away Guns is the answer. I DO wish that ....

...With (or AS) the technology becomes available, it were possible to ensure that only the registered owner was able to use the weapon....Fingerprint Technology or whatever....

But again....Taking away the rights of Gun owners is NOT the answer. :)

[krispos42]

108. Two of those guns he bought from a dealer last week

Totally legal. Even if there were than kind of technology, it would have been programmed to fire for him!

[BlueJazz]

122. Yeah....I certainly don't have the answers...hell....I don't even....

...know the questions.
It's a complicated issue.
I don't have a Gun (got a rifle) but I certainly don't want to stop the Guns owners from enjoying their firearms.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mudesi]

6. 5 more dead

I'll see you next time.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kevinbgoode]

20. And wasn't the assailant a "law-abiding" citizen...until he decided

to kill someone? Or are you saying it is absolutely impossible for someone without a criminal record to obtain a firearm for the purpose of committing murder?

[karlrschneider]

25. You really don't even have the foggiest idea how ridiculous that comment was, do you?

jeezusfuckingchrist


I keep trying to figure out how to address it and no functional way emerges. How about this: What control exists to prevent YOU from committing murder tonight?

[kevinbgoode]

57. Let's try it this way. . .

Isn't the mechanism that was put into place by the murder the message that the only way to be "safe" is to dress and act according to the prescribed cultural norms of some "conservative" thought? After all, what was the victim's crime in this case?

[zanne]

117. Exactly. No matter how gun nuts want to twist logic...

There's a dark side to every human being and this country has proven that its' citizens cannot handle the responsibity of owning handguns with loose regulations. (And pleeeeeeeze don't try to tell me that there are already plenty of regulations. The NRA has been doing its work, getting those laws either loosened or ignored for decades now).

[jmg257]

123. Oh please! Because .15% of the people commit a crime with a gun the rest of us are "irresponsible"?

And that is your "reasonable" logic for trying to justify infringing on the constitutional secured rights of the other 99.85% of we, the people?

NO THANKS!

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

143. I dont trust anyone who talks of the citizens

being irresponsible kids of the government who need to be told what time to eat, sleep, ...

"There's a dark side to every human being and this country has proven that its' citizens cannot handle the responsibity of owning handguns with loose regulations."

We are a government of by and for the people and the second amendment will give pauyse to any leader who forgets that..

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson, in letter to William S. Smith, 1787

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington (Address to 1st session of Congress)

[zanne]

153. You conveniently ignored my statement about the gun lobby. nt

[jmg257]

175. "The gun lobby" has over 4 MILLION members - and represents 61 Million more gun owners.

We are thrilled that the NRA is helping to protect our freedoms.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Missy Vixen]

26. Calling me a liar is against DU rules

Furthermore, I'm not a liar.

Julie

[Name removed]

29. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beevul]

48. You lose the debate.

"It's best to allow him his penis extender"


Is that the best you can do?


"In the meantime, five families will suffer for the rest of their lives after today's events, as the families of the fatalities in the FOUR OTHER SCHOOL SHOOTINGS this week. They don't matter, though, do they? After all, Karl must have his guns."


No. Your wrong. Its not just Karl. Its the other 80 mmillion of us too. Were keeping our guns, thanks.



"I am so desperately sick of the NRA/RW talking points apologists on this site."


And WE are sosick of repuke brady/helmke talking points coming from you on the other side.

[leftynyc]

99. I don't have a penis

what's your insult to me?

[Critters2]

132. You wish you did? nt

[krispos42]

106. Ahhhhhh... there it is! The mandatory shiny metal penis comment!

By post #15! Faster than usual.

:smoke:

Now I'll be off in the corner polishing my Mannlicher...

[zanne]

142. Why don't you fondle your Mannlicher? nt

[krispos42]

163. I did

Now I'm off to masturbate to my new "Guns & Ammo".

Ooooo, yeah, work that bolt...




I mean, that what you think we all do, right?

[BoneDaddy]

107. Wow you are insulting

as well as being sexist with comments like that. It is a constitutional issue and one not so easily dismissed because of a horrible event. You show some real lack of depth in your thinking just because you are having an emotional reaction to a tragedy. Supporting the right to bear arms does not mean people are NRA apologists.

There certainly is plenty of room to have a discussion about restricting firearms to responsible citizens, waiting periods, background checks etc..but this irrrational TOTAL removal of all guns is ludicrous.

[zanne]

144. But there are plenty of gun nuts on DU who don't want any restrictions.

They can counter any argument for gun control with an argument against it, and often do. Most of them don't want ANY gun control. It's like trying to talk to crazy people.

[mitchum]

61. I'm sure you will..."like a dog returning to its vomit"

[ProfessorGAC]

72. Now 6

Another victim died early this morning. (Source WBBM-AM Newradio 78)
The Professor

[madokie]

24. I hear you Karl, the more people talk about taking away the guns the more I want to buy 'em

I'm not a gun owner now, except'n for a co2 pellet pistol but we sure are thinking of buying some for protection and for, you know, just in case. Plus guns never depreciate either

[karlrschneider]

28. I live lakeside not far from you...we don't lock our doors normally, BUT

the last year or so have noticed an influx of scum who don't play by the rules: they steal and are getting awfully close to the point of terrorizing old folks. We have made it known around the lakeside community (and I guarantee they 'get' it) that if they try any of that shit around our home they will be dealt with on the spot. They have been taught the meaning of "extreme prejudice." It works.

[Dimensio0]

43. I must admit to having similar sentiments.

I currently only own one firearm, however should it appear possible that another Federal "assault weapons ban" will be considered by Congress I do plan to take whatever steps are necessary to secure my finances so that I can afford to purchase a Saiga 12 shotgun before they are banned. I may also, if my finances permit, purchase an AR-15, as they are one of the most popular centerfire target rifles in the country.

Additionally, recent proposals in multiple states relating to unreasonable restrictions on firearms ammunition have prompted me to consider purchasing equipment for ammunition reloading.

The current administration has shown significant disregard for the Constitutional rights guaranteed all citizens of this country. It is disappointing to see that the administration's direct opposition apparently has the same disregard.

[leftynyc]

100. After watching this administration in action

I can't believe more people aren't arming themselves. It seems to me the first ten amendments protect us from the government - I have no reason to believe the 2nd amendment doesn't do the same thing.

[zanne]

124. You're going to fight the administration with your little guns?

This government has thousands of nukes. It's a fallacy that you can stage a revolution, or fight a coup to defend yourselves with your little guns. Do you have tanks hidden in your basement or something?

[jmg257]

125. No we are going to bend over and take it like wussies - that's better right?

If it comes down to a tryant using nukes against his own people, you have ALOT more problems then lawful gunowners. I would still rather be armed. You make your own choice - at least you'll die "safe" or make a good and proper subject.

But of course this all goes back to the intent of the right being secured in the 1st place, that the people WOULD always be able to out-gun a standing army. Tyranny - it is right on track, and some of we, the people want to drive the train.

[immoderate]

128. So Iraq should be a piece of cake right?

Insurgents don't need parity in weapons to make a difference.

--IMM

[zanne]

141. We're an INVADING FORCE.

You used the wrong analogy there, IMModerate. (By the way, you sound more like IMRightWing).

[immoderate]

155. LOL!

I guess you haven't seen many of my posts. The caps make it a bit ambiguous, but my name is immoderate. To me, the Democratic candidates are right wing, but I've been staying out of that fight.

Perhaps it's a bit romanticized, but I embrace the Bill of Rights, including Amendment 2. In a free country, it is my contention that there is no one who can tell me that I can't own a gun. Under posse comitatus, forces of martial law will be an invading force against a free citizenry. Let's hope those dynamics are never put to the test.

Actually, (again being a bit hyperbolic) I'm the right wingers worst nightmare -- a liberal with a gun. :hippie:

--IMM

[beevul]

131. Thats what they said...

Thats what a certain king said a couple hundred years ago:


"It's a fallacy that you can stage a revolution, or fight a coup to defend yourselves with your little guns."


I guess your in good company.

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beevul]

167. Are personal attacks all you have?

I'd hate to see how youd act when you really dont get your way.

[leftynyc]

137. I have no illusions about that

at all. I'm saying that when these laws were written this was possible. Now I just want to protect myself and my home and can't see any reason that a law abiding citizen of this country shouldn't be allowed to do that.

[Warpy]

5. How many before we redefine "danger to oneself or others"

so that somebody who is clearly out of his gourd can be brought in to a hospital for help before he blows himself and a bunch of other people away?

This country's stupid attitudes toward mental illness (moral problem) and health care (only for the rich) need to change now.

Otherwise, there will be a lot more mass shootings, mass stabbings, mass bombings, and other mayhem with or without guns.

Put the blame where it really belongs.

[mudesi]

9. Mass stabbings? Mass bombings?

When did those happen?

I keep seeing mass shootings, though.

[Jed Dilligan]

13. People are people

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/4788881.stm

You would do better fighting poverty, mental illness, and substance abuse than the tools of the violence they cause.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[deaniac21]

16. I remember mass bombings in Oklahoma and New York.

Seems the Spanish, English, Israeli, Iraqi, Saudi, Afgan, German and Italian people have some experiences in this as well.

[EstimatedProphet]

97. No, they didn't

Because only guns cause crime. Guns possess an evil spirit that takes over a person's mind and forces them to kill people.

[Warpy]

23. Bombings have been happening

and people getting hurt for a long time. You need look no farther than Eric Rudolph to figure that one out. Tim McVeigh also used explosives, but he did them more competently. The Weather Underground also used them.

As for the mass stabbings, watch the local news for those, the guys who go berserk and slash everybody in his family, wife and kids, and then heads over to the inlaws. We see those a lot around NM.

If you want to see more of this stuff, just remove one weapon and continue to ignore mental health issues and prevent people who are about to explode and take other people out of this life with them from being hauled in for evaluation and treatment.

The murder in my own family was a bludgeoning. It was the third of three just like it in a small city, but the only one they could convict the murderer of. My parents and I knew the guy and knew he was a ticking time bomb, but nobody would do anything about him until he killed. Three times.

[beevul]

50. Mass bombings?

Do you really have to be reminded of what a fool can do with a ryder truck full of anfo and bad intent, or be asked if that constitutes a "mass" bombing?

Good grief.

[krispos42]

111. Mass bombing don't happen because guns are readily available

I went to the Minnesota History Center last week to see the traveling exhibit about "Terror in America 1776 to Today".

The period in the Nineteen Teens, 20s and 30s was particularly interesting. German agents routinely blew up munitions warehouses to keep US armaments from reaching the Allies. Labor radicals and anarchists used bombs during the union fights of the error.

Given a choice, I'll take a crazy nut shooting to a crazy nut bombing. At least with a shooting, you have time to run and the casualties usually aren't that high.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

147. Yea noone would ever bomb a school right?

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

[Nailzberg]

164. Or the Sterling Hall bombing at Wisconsin.

[karlrschneider]

12. People with guns wrote the Declaration of Independence and created the USA.

I wonder how successful they'd have been without guns. "Oh, you horrible old Redcoats, go away and let us make a country or we will send nasty letters to...somebody..."

:eyes:

[Orrex]

32. A lot of them owned slaves, too.

When appealing to the mighty wisdom of the founding fathers (wealthy white male landowners, the lot of them), you can't simply pick which virtues you want to highlight and which vices you want to ignore. Your argument amounts to "they did it, so we should be able to do it, too."


I'm not even making a statement about gun control, but your argument is poorly based.

[Marrah_G]

62. I thought the arguement was right on the money.

[Orrex]

65. Really?

So all we need to do to justify a certain course of action today is to find a precedent in the behaviors of the founders?

[Marrah_G]

73. No.. the arguement that if the only people who are armed are the government it .....

...... leaves the people powerless to change things if necessary.

I have no problem with responsible gun ownership.

[Orrex]

75. But that's not the point I'm disputing

Responsible gun ownership is just fine in my book.


I'm contesting the rhetorical trick of invoking the mantra of "the founders did it," a trick that doesn't really further the discussion.

[Marrah_G]

79. There's good and bad in all societies, in all eras.

You take the good and discard the bad. The bad doesn't negate any good.

Please excuse my rambling this morning. I didn't sleep well and am in dire need of more coffee.

[Orrex]

80. I agree with you

When attempting to build on the past, it's clearly best to take the best that the past has to offer. I guess my point is that the poster simply declared one aspect of our past to be good with no further explanation than "that's how they did it." The brief nod to the efficacy of guns in the Revolution is, for the current matter, irrelevant.


And if you're tired, you hereby have my permission to sneak under your desk (or its equivalent) and catch 40 winks!

[Marrah_G]

82. I would totally take you up on your offer!

But it's Friday and I have a zillion reports to get out. Upside is that I get out at 2 PM.

[zanne]

146. How would you change things with your little guns?

It's a false argument. Just an excuse.

[BoneDaddy]

109. That was not his argument at all

His argument wasn't "they did it we should be able to". His argument was that the birth and formation of the most successful form of government for the people was necessary through the use of firearms and that it was the use of weapons that made it possible.

Acknowledging that violence MUST be used in some situations is NOT the same thing as advocating violence at the drop of a hat.

Your thinking process is incredibly immature.

[Orrex]

113. In that case, his argument works both ways

Your formulation re: "the birth of the most successful form of government" is nifty, but it's really just one of many examples that follows if we allow his argument as given.

Here's the essence of his argument, stripped of the emotionalism that you in your incredible maturity attribute to it:

Certain deeds can only be accomplished when one has the firepower to resist those who would prevent those deeds.

That argument is undeniably true and, as I stated, it works both ways.

[BoneDaddy]

133. Emotionalism is not necessarily immature

I am emotional about this topic only to those who fail to see that violence, although not my first choice (by far) to resolve conflict has been a necessity when confronted with the horror of legitimate war.

Maybe it is the end of the week and I am tired, but what point are you trying to make by saying that it works both ways?

As for my nifty phrase, it happens to be true, regardless of the obvious inconsistencies of the founding fathers.

[east texas lib]

156. Well , now...

If the potential slaves had possessed firearms they could have sent the slavers packing! But
alas, they did not.

[nebenaube]

7. relax

they will run out of mkulta operatives eventually...

[MonkeyFunk]

8. The mere existence of guns isn't causing this

there've always been lots of guns in America. Let's try to get to the real problem.

[nemo137]

30. You mean a lack of mental healthcare, a disregard for human life,

poor economic opportunities and increasing alienation from other human beings?

Nah, too hard.

[MonkeyFunk]

45. Yeah

those are the things we should worry about.

[slackmaster]

78. Yes, those are the real root causes of violent crime

Talking about solutions to them takes a lot more thought than knee-jerk cries for gun control.

[EstimatedProphet]

93. You're right

So let's just try to put a bandage over the problem, rather than actually address it. Get rid of the guns, and then all of the USA will become a paradise. Surely that's so much better than trying to deal with the poverty, unemployment, depression and mental health issues that plague this country and are the real cause of gun crimes!

[Paladin]

120. By All Means, Let's Take Care Of The "Real" Problems

You realize, don't you, that fixing those "real" problems will require trillions of dollars and the affirmative political and public will to spend those dollars where they'll do the most good, and I don't see any evidence of that money or that willpower around in this country, these days. The plain fact is that the huge quantity of easily available guns, when mixed with all those "real" problems, creates situations like the bloodbath at NIU. There are people who have gone off their meds in Oslo, Norway. There are people enjoying violent video games in Osaka, Japan. And somehow, colleges aren't getting shot up in those countries, or the rest of the world, for that matter. Sitting on our asses and letting the gun problem fester while we talk about solving those "real" problems isn't going to cut it forever.....

[Dimensio0]

127. Are you suggesting...

...that it is better to address an issue that is not the actual cause of violence because it would supposedly be less expensive than implementing an actual effective solution?

[Paladin]

157. I Thought I Expressed Myself Pretty Clearly....

....but just to catch you up---I'm all for dealing with those root problems; I'm a for-real Democrat, after all. But you gun militants don't really give a fuck about solving those big problems, you're just using that notion as a cynical ploy to direct attention away from your precious firearms. As usual, it's a talking point that you all started using around the same time here in DU. You're not fooling anybody but yourselves.

When you take the massive quantity of guns in this country and impose it on those root problems you claim to be so concerned with, you get bloodbaths like the one at NIU, one after another, while the rest of the world is free of such unspeakable acts. It's like dumping gasoline on a forest fire, and something needs to be done about it. Immediately.

[Dimensio0]

168. Your statement is presumptious.

I'm a for-real Democrat, after all. But you gun militants don't really give a fuck about solving those big problems, you're just using that notion as a cynical ploy to direct attention away from your precious firearms.

You are ascribing motive to a group of individuals without demonstrating that such a motive applies even to some of those individuals, much less that it is posessed by the entire group.

[zanne]

148. That was eloquent, Paladin.

I wish I could express myself as well as you do.

[Paladin]

158. You're Sweet. And You Express Yourself Very Well

Illegitimati Non Carborundum: Don't let the bastards grind you down.

[zanne]

165. Thanks! The "annoying bitch" is here to stay! nt

[El Pinko]

10. I don't think we need to scrap the 2nd amendment

The right to bear arms does not mean, "the right to own any sort of weapon from bazooka to atomic bomb"


At the time the constitution was written, rifles were about as fancy as it got, so I think restricting gun ownership to rifles is a fair interpretation.

[TahitiNut]

21. "At the time the constitution was written ..."

... the government had no weapons that weren't ALSO possessed by private citizens. So, if you want to take that "time" as a guide, perhaps we should either disarm our government first OR let any citizen possess H-bombs?

[El Pinko]

31. Intresting point. I have no problem with disarming the government.

Large, permanent standing armies were never the norm before WW2...

[Orrex]

34. Is that true? I don't dispute it, but it surprises me

Did private citizens own cannon? This is one of many weak spots in my knowledge of US history, so they very well might have, for all I know.

Thanks for an interesting tidbit in any case.

:hi:

[TahitiNut]

36. Yep. Indeed, it's still sorta true. After all ...

... it's the corporations that build armaments, not some federal bureaucrat. Thus, the corporations (composed of private citizens) posses the submarines, bombs, bullets, and cannon before the government does.

Indeed, the Constitution was written assuming that raising an Army meant putting citizens into service with their own weapons. (Ergo, the militia.) The U.S.S. Constitution ("Old Ironsides") wasn't so unique. Privateers ("pirates") owned and operated such ships. "Letters of Marque" were issued by governments to privateers "authorizing" them to prey upon enemy shipping.

The Constitution even prohibits permanent funding for an Army, limiting Congress to funding an Army for a maximum of two years.

We've gone upside-down. People talk about disarming citizens while corporations and the government are armed as never before in history ... armed enough to destroy the entire planet several times over.

[zanne]

150. "At the time the consitution was written".....

The only firearms available for muskets. I'm all for muskets. Why don't we go back to that? If people have to pour gun powder in their guns, tamp it down and fire a single shot, we'll all be better off.

[provis99]

37. uh, except the way the gun folks interpret it

They say, yes, the Constitution does mean you can own any weapon you want, from a machinegun to a Death Star. Arguing with a 2nd Amendment person is like arguing whether God exists with a religious person. Its pointless.

[Dimensio0]

44. I am unaware of anyone who has advocated a Constitutional right to own a Death Star.

Do you have a reference for such an assertion?

I will state now that I am assuming that you are referring to the fictional battle station from the Star Wars universe, and not a type of bladed weapon mentioned by that name as one of a list of defined "deadly weapons" in the Kentucky state constitution.

[beevul]

53. Oh bull.

"They say, yes, the Constitution does mean you can own any weapon you want, from a machinegun to a Death Star."


Cite please.


You might be able to provide a couple, but youll be needing to come up with alot more than that to back up that broad brush paintjob you just did.

And unless and until you do, its all just bluster, and a handy excuse not to have to expose YOUR position to debate.

[zanne]

58. It's cognitive dissonance with gun people.

You guys didn't think I'd stay out of this one, did you? (I'm the "annoying bitch" who has the nerve to contradict the gun-toters)

[Dimensio0]

63. I believe that you have incorrectly assessed your position.

I have not observed that you have "contradicted" any gun owners. Rather, you have demonstrated a pattern of changing the subject when someone who does not support unreasonable restrictions on firearms ownership. You should note that changing the subject is not logically equivalent to demonstrating a contradiction.

[slackmaster]

84. That's a Straw Man

They say, yes, the Constitution does mean you can own any weapon you want, from a machinegun to a Death Star.

Nobody on DU is saying that.

Who is this nebulous "They" to which you refer?

[Dimensio0]

40. You are incorrect.

Handguns were available, albeit in a more primitive fashion than at present, at the time of the writing of the United States Constitution. In fact, hand-held firearms have existed since the 1540s.

[beevul]

51. At the time the constitution was written...

"At the time the constitution was written..."


Thats an aweful dangerous standard to be suggesting...


Consider how it might be applied to the first and fourth amendments before you get to excited about it.

[jmg257]

69. For facts-sake; rifles AND pistols both were mandated by Congress as some arms the people were to

provide themselves with. Swords, bayonets etc. were also included.

Shotguns were also common at the time, though not specifically recommended for militia duty, they were well-accepted for "fowling".

[sir pball]

115. "Small Arms"

Weapons that can reasonably be operated by a single person - which pretty much limits it to rifles and handguns (which also existed at the time).

Yes, REAL assault rifles, grenade launchers, bazookas, light and even heavy machine guns are available to civilians, but they're strictly regulated by the NFA and have been misued twice IIRC since 1934, and once was by a police officer whacking an informant. Most if not all gun owners are comfortable with these regs, although re-opening the registry (closed in 1986, artificially increasing prices by a factor of 10 or more) would be a nice thing.

[zanne]

151. With the NRA in the pockets of congress...

The guns laws are getting looser and looser every day. Even alot of the existing gun laws aren't being enforced, with a little help from our NRA buddies. What is the argument against closing the gunshow loophole again? Oh, that's right...according to you, it doesn't exist. Denial, denial, denial.

[Sanctified]

118. I think the Cannons were fancier than Rifles.

And private citizens were allowed to own cannons if they could afford them of course.

[krispos42]

119. And at the time, freedom of the press meant, literally, a printing press

Saying that the First only applies to printed media is something I was waiting for Gonzo to say after he said that habeas corpus was not being taken away from prisoners because they didn't have it in the first place.

The civilian arms of the time were functionally identical to the military arms of the time. Today, civilian arms are similar to the modern military arms, except civilian arms can't fire fully-automatic.

[DianeG5385]

17. It's now once a week!!!

How is this not home grown terrorism?? Because most are mentally ill and you can't make BIG Gov't bucks off the mentally ill and you don't get elected for saving us from the local crazies even though statistics (I love statistics) show most are killed by locals. BUT!!! If they're FOREIGN terrorists all bets are off!!!! BIG BUCKS BIG TIME!!!!! They're after ussss!!!!!

I attribute the explosion of local killings to mass insanity in this our beloved US of A!!! There are some VERY upset people who cannot find a way to live because the freakin' corporations have STOLEN their good paying jobs. Those on the margin, however few, will act out. I don't defend them. I don't condemn them either for NOT all of us are STRONG. You must be STRONG to survive the onslaught directed at the MIDDLE class. VOTE in your BEST interest this year.

If you know of a troubled person in this screwed up time, help them it's in our best interest!!!

[pitohui]

116. how do you suggest we help them?

the same man, a gun owner, TWICE threatened to kill me and my hubby, and once we had a recording of the threats -- both times he was having some kind of mental meltdown and had just started/ re-started his prozac Rx (he was bipolar and should have been on another medication we now know)

you know what the cops did, even after listening to the tape? NOTHING

one of my friends was beaten, many times, by an abusive paranoid schizophrenic GF who was also on illegal drugs, what did the cops do, again, NOTHING

they won't act until somebody is already hurt and often even if somebody actually IS hurt

if you know someone who is having problems adjusting to their meds, and their doctor won't properly supervise them or admit them to hospital, then you're fucked and all you can do is stay out of the dangerous person's way IME

trying to get involved just puts you at the top of their "to do" list when they go manic or paranoid

we need universal health care, including mental health care, as it stands, cops don't want the costs of putting crazies in jail until it's too late and they've already done serious harm, and insurers don't want to cover mental health care because it's too expensive (what, like 10 percent of the pop. will suffer from depression?) -- there is no way to do this in a for profit system

there were huge bucks to be made in mental health services prior to ronald reagan and it was cruelly abused, some women were kept caged for decades or even a lifetime, therapists charged huge amounts of money for what amounted to chatting to someone every week for years == there were SO many abuses == but we've gone too far the other way, there has to be a way to set up a system where the dangerous mentally ill can be kept away from the rest of us without waiting until they've committed mass slaughter

[DianeG5385]

134. I wish I knew th answer, but locking down campuses and restricting rights is not

My concern is that these suicide attacks are similar to suicide bombers, they terrorize the populace even though personal not political. I mean, I have a son going away to college next year and my heart froze when I heard this story and it's more and more frequent! We CAN'T start living in a police state of lockdown and fear!

I think education (signs to look for) and caution are important, students need to report troubled class mates that make threats, this HAS to be taken seriously, it's just like shouting "FIRE!!" in a theatre. I think gun sellers need to report unusual gun buying activity, especially by teens and college aged kids.

Giving up our freedom and privacy is NOT the answer, that's for sure!

[jtrockville]

19. If we had stricter penalties...

we could imprison the rotting corpse of the shooter FOREVER. Or we could KILL the already dead corpse of the shooter. How's that for a deterent?

[provis99]

38. but the 2nd Amendment people would say

that punishing people who use guns is a way of punishing the 2nd Amendment, same as punishing free speech is going against the 1st Amendment. (Yes, I've actually heard this argument).

[Dimensio0]

42. Who has made such a statement?

Please provide a reference.

[jmg257]

70. Whoever you heard this from IS an ass. Punishing people who misuse guns is recommended - highly!

[slackmaster]

85. Bullshit

:eyes:

[EstimatedProphet]

98. Really?

I've never heard that argument. I've never made that argument. I've never seen that argument on this board. So trying to hold us responsible for making an argument we never made means you're making crap up.

[OzarkDem]

22. Universal health care - mental health coverage

Enforcing gun laws will help, but nothing will help as much as restoring mental health services for all.

[tuckessee]

27. molon labe

[napi21]

33. Taking guns away won't solve anything! We need to find out WHAT it is in

our society that has made it acceptable to some to think of guns as a solution when they get pi**ed off! I've asked quite a few people what they think has changed to make this a first resort so some, and noone has an answer.

Forget going back far enough to compare today with MY youth, and instead think about what things were like 30-40 years ago. Kids got into fistfights, but I sure never remember any shooting in any schools. The worst thing I recall when my boys were in school was one kid got really ticked off at another one and chased him down the hall and stuck a pencil in the side of his neck! TERRIBLE? YES! But the offender was kicked out of school and the victim was eventually OK.

There WERE shootings in poor neighborhoods. There were abductions. BUT not nearly as many as there are now. It seems like the change in mindset evolved over a long time because nost people never noticed it until on day a lot of people are asking "What the hell happened?"

I don't buy the story of violent video games, or violence in movies and on TV. There have always been war movies, westerns, & movies like Psycho.

[EstimatedProphet]

94. YES!

But that's the "easy" way out, you know. Better to just ban all guns and completely solve all the problems in the US.

[spongebobsquareshirt]

35. Teenagers are expose to violent video games

That are perhaps making them more violent. We shouldn\'t discard that possibility.

[provis99]

39. well, I guess that explains the Nazis?

All those violent video games that Hitler was playing.

[Hangingon]

91. Nazis?

I'm not folllowing. What do they have to do with this? Or video games? Must be just a knee jerk rsponse.

[krispos42]

166. Too much video games, too little reality

Their parents don't take them shooting and preach about the evilness of guns. So when they're angry and upset and rebelling against authority, the forbiddeness of guns draws them in. Without having learned proper gun handling and shooting, without feeling the kick of a .30-06 and the solid shockwave of sound from full-power 12-gauge rounds assaulting their ears, without practicing shooting clay pigeons with a .22, there is no respect. They love the fear the guns generate in people, but do not respect them.

Many parents treat gun education like fundies treat sex education: absinence only. And we know how well that works in real live, don't we?

[Dimensio0]

41. I strongly encourage all gun control advocates to take this position.

I believe that it would greatly benefit society if all gun control proponents were to cease efforts in enacting bans on specific firearms -- including classes of firearms least likely to be used in any homicide -- and the carrying of firearms in certain areas and instead concentrate completely on mustering sufficient support to amend the United States Constitution. This would allow gun control proponents to work toward a goal that could not be challenged in court -- as the United States Constitution is the highest law of the land, and nothing can contradict it -- and that would never actually be accomplished because it would be impossible to muster the super-majority across the country to attain it, leaving the right to keep and bear arms secured.

[Sanctified]

46. How many more Americans need to die by drunk drivers till we ban Alcohol, again. n/t

[NaturalHigh]

49. I'm a gun owner who has never shot anyone or anything...

other than a few paper target and aluminum cans. Should my right to defend myself be taken away because of some nut who would have managed to get hold of a gun no matter which of my rights you decided I didn't need?

[varkam]

52. I don't think anyone is arguing that you shouldn't have a right to self-defense.

Note that possession of a firearm is not a necessary condition of the right to self-defense.

[casus belli]

55. It is if you're defending against someone with a gun. n/t

[varkam]

129. No.

There is a difference between having a right and being successful in exercising that right.

[jmg257]

71. Well-noted, but it IS/HAS been recognized as (one of) the best effective means. Important enough

to be enumerated as one of only a very few unalienable rights in the Constitution.

[varkam]

130. I don't think the founders put that in the Constitution as a means of upholding...

the right of personal self-defense, though.

[jmg257]

135. There isn't any doubt. As originally proposed, the right to arms was distinctly seperate from

the militia observation - together - but seperated as all clauses were in the constitution - by a semi colon:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person"

That is how Madison orginally proposed it, as it was recommended from several state ratifying committees.

This is another - the 1st proposal from Pennsylvania:

"7. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers."

From Virginia and N.Carolina:

"That there be a Declaration or Bill of Rights asserting and securing from encroachment the essential and unalienable Rights of the People in some such manner as the following;

First, That there are certain natural rights of which men, when they form a social compact cannot deprive or divest their posterity, among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
...
Seventeenth, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper..."

And New Hampshire:

"Twelfth, Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion. —"


And this is what men like Yates thought:
Brutus 2

"The common good, therefore, is the end of civil government, and common consent, the foundation on which it is established. To effect this end, it was necessary that a certain portion of natural liberty should be surrendered, in order, that what remained should be preserved: how great a proportion of natural freedom is necessary to be yielded by individuals, when they submit to government, I shall not now enquire. So much, however, must be given up, as will be sufficient to enable those, to whom the administration of the government is committed, to establish laws for the promoting the happiness of the community, and to carry those laws into effect. But it is not necessary, for this purpose, that individuals should relinquish all their natural rights. Some are of such a nature that they cannot be surrendered. Of this kind are the rights of conscience, the right of enjoying and defending life, etc."


Quite clear the framers held the right to defense, and the right to the means of that defense (arms) very highly. Of course they also recognized the importance of an effective Militia of the people armed by themselves - in leiu of a standing army.

[varkam]

138. I don't think that it is "quite clear"...

that the framers intended to uphold the right of self-defense my personal armament. If there is any such intention, it seems to me that it is only implied - thereby being a point which can be contended. The separation that you mentioned seems more to separate a conclusion to an argument from it's supporting premise as opposed to two separate conclusions.

[beevul]

169. The thing is...

The framers didn't do anything the way it appears you think they did, in this case. The framers intended to uphold MANY things with the bill of rights. By design.

The framers actually left instructions HOW the bill of rights were to be read and interpreted. Yes. They really did.

Here they are - the preamble to the bill of rights:


"The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution"

www.BILLOFRIGHTS.ORG

Note that it says "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added", and understand that governments have powers, and people have rights, and note that the restrictive clauses are aimed at powers not rights.

The bill of rights is a LIST OF RESTRICTIONS ON GOVERNMENTAL POWER. NOT ON THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE.


The intention, is for of the second amendment to be read as a restriction on governmental power. Period.

It says so right there in the preamble. Its as cut and dry or black and white as a thing can be. Theres just no getting around that.

Therefore many things would be protected, including the right to keep arms for self defense.

[varkam]

171. I never said that bill of rights was a list of restrictions on the rights of the people.

I'm saying is that it is not spelled out that the second ammendment is persuant to the right of personal self-defense. The constitution makes no such claim.

[beevul]

172. I did not say you did.

"I'm saying is that it is not spelled out that the second ammendment is persuant to the right of personal self-defense. The constitution makes no such claim."


The BOR is not the type document that would make such a claim. All rights belong to the people, and the people have all rights, unless and until those rights are curtailed by government through power granted to it by the people.

The people have the right to keep and bear arms. The people have spoken and said that it shall not be infringed. The BOR does not spell out what rights the people have, it enumerates out rights the government shall keep its hands off.

While "self defense" may not be explicitly covered by name, there is also these:

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Self defense is quite certain to be covered by one of those.

[jmg257]

174. It doesn't say anything about "for the common defence" either. In fact THAT was rejected

by the 1st Congress, on Sept 9th, 1789 when the articles which became the BoR were being debated - it was moved "for the common defence" be added after the words "the right to keep and bear arms" - it was rejected.

The right to arms shall not be infringed - period. NO qualifier, NO restrictions. Use them for all lawful purposes - Miltia duty, defense, hunting, recreation, collecting, etc - as long as you don't MISuse them - your right is secure.

[mvccd1000]

54. You're thinking too logically.

Stop doing so, and get in touch with your feelings. As soon as you "feel" how wrong guns are, you'll immediately see the light. (I suspect it will be so bright that you'll be blinded, much like those currently arguing against the 2nd Amendment.) :)

[EstimatedProphet]

96. Well, you're the only one!

You're the only person in the US that owns guns and hasn't shot anyone!

Actually, I haven't either. So it's just us two. Out of 330 million people.

Actually, I take that back. I killed a deer once. So it is just you.

[BoneDaddy]

56. Did you get nothing from "Bowling for Columbine"?

It isn't the guns. Sure they make things more deadly, but Canada has more guns then we do and they have no where near the amount of violent episodes.

It is the mindset by mnay Americans. It is also the lack of sufficient mental health services available for people. Don't confuse the issues.

[INDIA]

76. Canada also has about 1/10th our population...

And as I recall, they had a pretty bad school shooting at a University in Quebec fairly recently.

Also, the vast majority of our gun deaths are gang/drug related. Canada doesn't have a "war on drugs" like we do. Shootings like Northern Illinois and Va Tech make headlines because they are the exception, not the rule.

Mental health services? By all accounts it probably wouldn't have stopped Va Tech, the kid had gotten plenty of care, there was just only so much you could do short of locking him up in a asylum, which is very tricky. Gang members and drug dealers aren't insane. They're just violent assholes.

[BoneDaddy]

83. No argument from me there

actually the social service system failed the Va Tech student. There was more than enough information to have him removed and jailed.

[slackmaster]

86. The same information SHOULD HAVE excluded him from buying guns

But because of deficient procedures by the state of VA, the data never got into the federal NICS database.

[BoneDaddy]

105. agreed

I am not for removing guns totally, just keeping them out of the hands of people who have mental illness.

[kevinbgoode]

126. But if this guy was "off" his MEDS and that can cause some kind

of behavioral imbalance. . .why the he*l could he obtain a gun?

[mitchum]

60. You're getting that blood everywhere with all of your hand wringing, Johnny One Note

And what OTHER parts of The Bill of Rights would you also like to see abolished?

[marions ghost]

64. We are all hostages

to the NRA.

Yes there are societal factors that need work-- but access to and availability of guns IS the main problem.

[EstimatedProphet]

114. Yep, that's it. All our problems are caused by guns.

So the guy who loses his job and has to worry about feeding his family, and can't get unemployment, and after a few months is out on the street - if it weren't for guns he'd have no problem at all. Same as the woman who has a sick mother with no insurance, and has to stand by while they rot to death. Same as the mentally-distrubed teen who might be having schizophrenic episodes. Guns cause all the problems.

[marions ghost]

136. excuse me?

I guess I should have said --availability of guns is the main problem in all these massacres and insane gun deaths, and allows people who have no business having guns to own them. I thought it was understood that I was talking about the massacre.

HOWEVER--I HAVE lived in a society where such deaths are not commonplace (Australia). I can tell you that the LACK of such events has a direct effect on society. You have to experience it to believe it. There is far more trust of strangers, far less fear of being in public places, far less aggression toward others--I would say more happiness and well-being in general. In societies where people pull together you don't have the need to be armed. Yes, I think the fact that Australia has a society where you can get unemployment, medical care and help for the mentally disturbed IS connected to the fact that massacres and murders are also NOT tolerated. Here, we tolerate all of it. We allow all sorts of abuse and intimidation of our own citizens in the name of freedom. But we are all hostages to the NRA and other powerful organizations. We are not free.

Here in America I have had a female friend killed at a shopping mall at Christmas and a male friend killed at his business. In both cases there was more insanity than motive to rob (as both had very little to take). My sis-in-law was also robbed at gunpoint, and I myself have been threatened by a man on heavy medications with a gun who thought he was protecting his property when I wasn't even on his property.

You will never convince me that something isn't WRONG about the proliferation of guns in this country. It's just out of control. When people start to arm themselves against their neighbors you have a sick society. That's just all there is to it. (& We're not talking about deer hunters here).

[EstimatedProphet]

139. Well, I have no argument at all that our society has a problem

However, what I see far too often is people wanting to simply ban guns as a solution in itself, as if that will do away with the problems. I don't for one minute believe that, and the reason I oppose it so much is because I believe that it will in fact be the opposite of solving the problem, because if gun bans are being sold as the solution then the real solutions will never occur. And, if the underlying issues making this society are actually dealt with, then gun ownership won't matter.

[Thepricebreaker]

66. Your kidding right? IT has nothing to do with it.

Your kidding right? If there was not a single gun allowed in or made in the USA - people would still get them.

Is there an Amendment protecting cocaine and weed? Of course not - Yet people can get it with ease.

This is a pointless idea to begin with because 3/4 of state congress has to ratify it - and you know it will never happen in the gun states. So its a moot point.

[aldo]

67. How many more CIA patsy killings are we going to allow?

There's no patsy like a dead patsy. They learned that when they failed to kill Oswald in that theater. "If there's no mind control, why does everyone laugh at the word conspiracy?"

Now why would the PTB be afraid of citizen gun ownership? 911Truth spreading too fast perhaps -- Willie Nelson, NYPD street cops, NYFD majority (and they take it very personally)?

[Marrah_G]

74. WTF are you rambling about?

[dantyrant]

152. Skepticism is healthy, but absent evidence...

I dunno how helpful a comment like that is.

Not every whackjob who goes postal is running coke and weapons through the Black Network or serving a secret agenda. For one thing, the media pattern doesn't fit.

[bryant69]

68. Nope not enough. It's going to take a lot more than that.

I don't own any guns, incidentally. But I am opposed to gun elimination, and I'm willing to accept the deaths caused by idiots who get their hands on guns.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[slackmaster]

77. Amendment 2 has already been gutted beyond recognition

What specifically would you do, l_s?

[mwb970]

81. This has been going on for a long time.

The very first school shooting I remember is when Gov. Rhodes had four students shot at Kent State in May 1970.

[-..__...]

87. Pathetic.

Laughable, really.

I really don't give a flying fuck how the sheeple in other "civilized" countries do things.

As I live and breath I can guaran-fucking-tee you the nonsense you suggest will never happen here.

You and others would like to see the 2nd amendment abolished?

Fine... I suggest you go for it.

Lets see if your "common sense" approach and holding hands with the "civilized world" idealism doesn't get buried in the mud.

[Hangingon]

89. I don't believe in scrapping parts of the Constitution.

Where will it end? DU is very concerned with other parts of the Constitution they feel are being "scrapped".

[dorkulon]

90. 42. (nt)

[MadHound]

92. Scrap the second amendment, no

There are logical, sane reasons for having a gun. Hunting, varmints, that sort of thing. However we do need stiff gun control laws, including repeal of CCW and other such laws, in order to have a sane, sensible gun policy.

However if we do away with guns, all we are addressing is the symptoms, not the underlying problem. If we do away with guns, that won't prevent people from going off the deep end and killing their fellow humans. Thus we need to look at the underlying problems of stress, wages, standard of living, etc. etc. to find a solution to the problem. Once we do that, I imagine that the issue of guns will take care of itself. If we don't do that, then we'll simply be replacing guns as the weapons of death with knives, home-made explosives, fire and the like.

[Dimensio0]

112. Why do you advocate the repeal of allowing the concealed carrying of deadly weapons?

Are you under the impression that states that have granted shall-issue concealed deadly weapons permits to their respective citizens have experienced a negative side-effect from such an allowance? If so, please explain this effect. If not, please explain why you advocate the repeal of a freedom that has caused no demonstratable harm.

[leftofthedial]

95. at an average of say, 5 dead per shooting . . .

about 1.2 billion more

[dysfunctional press]

101. maybe you'd be better off relocating yourself to the "civilized world".

because the second amendment is here to stay.

[Fire Walk With Me]

102. As much as I don't like the attitude of many gun lovers, if we gave them up, Bush

would have the entire country in his control in a month.

[paparush]

103. Meds (or lack thereof) Kill People

:sarcasm:

Lynyrd, I couldn't agree with you more.

[krispos42]

104. Yes, that is an excellent idea

Let's base our national laws on moral panic after high-profile incidents. What can possibly go wrong?


Because it is soooo much better the way the UK has done it: a 30% increase in homicides, but few of them done with guns.

Yeah, that works.

Tell me, how does this mode of thinking differ from the hysterical Republicans? Just minutes ago, our Fearless Leader was screaming that the House not renewing the FISA bill put all of us in danger. How many other rights have been thrown in the shitter "to make us safer"?

[pitohui]

110. by all means let's give up our guns so we can easily be picked off one by one

sorry scrapping the second amendment because of a few well publicized media events is not on the table

you might as well roll over and play dead right now

[Wizard777]

121. Okay the Army goes first! Then the police. n/t

[Unvanguard]

145. How many government abuses need to happen

before people start wondering who, exactly, we should be trusting with guns?

[Freddie Stubbs]

149. How many college students need to die from alcohol poisoning for us to scrap the 21st amendment?

:shrug:

[east texas lib]

154. Well It's real simple...

If you value your life, arm and defend yourself. Or get ready to see Valhalla. It's your
choice. And your responsibility. Choose wisely.

[Seeking Serenity]

159. I find it interesting that the whole of American history

has been a move to expanding personal freedom, from the elimination of slavery to full sufferage to rights of privacy to freedom of choice to greater awareness for gay rights, etc.

However, here is one issue in which the progressive are actually REgressive, that is, wanting to RESTRICT personal freedom.

What have we not learned from Prohibition, the War of Drugs, et al.? Nothing, apparently.

[donsu]

160. ask the Barons of gun manufacture. they have big pockets to fill with money

and the ammunition barons would have a hissy fit if gun laws were tightened.

they wouldn't have the money to go play in Dubai.

[area51]

161. How about looking at this objectively?

Shootings like this are caused by the fact that healthcare -- including mental healthcare -- is not a basic human right in this country. When some mentally ill people don't get the treatment they need, when there isn't a caseworker monitoring that they take their meds, some of them will pick up a gun -- or a knife (should we ban knives too?) and kill people. Either this country starts the transition toward single-payer, including mental healthcare, or these shootings -- and stabbings (NYC psychologist) -- will continue to be the norm.

[donsu]

162. true

nt

[burrowowl]

170. Interesting article on AlterNet about the shooting

Was he Crazy or ...

http://www.alternet.org/stories/77226/

[B Calm]

173. How will taking away my personal freedom to own a gun stop mass

shootings? Are you insane!

[DemBones DemBones]

176. Solution: the media stop giving shooters publicity.

Give shootings minimal coverage and never give out the name or show a photo of the shooter, much less show a video he made or discuss his background. These guys want to die and take others with them AND be famous posthumously. Deny them any fame. The coverage given shooters encourages others to be copycats instead of getting help for their problems.
Stop giving them a national platform to air their grievances as a reward for killing people.

If we were foolish enough to do away with the 2nd Amendment and "round up all the guns," there is no way everyone would give up their guns. The people who would comply would be law-abiding people. The old NRA slogen "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is true. The bad guys would keep their guns.

Prohibition and the War on Drugs did not cause either alcohol or drugs to disappear. Guns wouldn't disappear, either.

Besides that, a determined killer with a knife or a baseball bat can take down a few people before someone takes him down. Cars can be used as weapons, too, and have been. We can't ban everything that could be used to kill someone.