I'm a Christian, and I absolutely detest American "thoughts and prayers"-ism. It's done so much damage to America (or abroad) and not just passively let evil deeds to keep happening, it also created and justified many of those deeds. Especially on gun violence, it's downright vile and the 2nd amendment "interpretation" (more like ignoring 100% of the context and 80% of the text before & after "right to bear arms").

This toxic combo of "thoughts & prayers" and "rights to bear arms".... is this "American Exceptionalism"? It happens to no other countries, and I don't see many of their government are less "democratic" or "free," nor its citizens have less rights.

The passivity of whole "thoughts and prayers" is NOT what Jesus said, nor what Jesus wants its followers do. If people read the NT, then they'll know Jesus is more of a SJW progressive/activist than what half of the US - the right leaning people - say Jesus is.

Oh, the all-too-easy "my heart breaks for..." whatever tragedy a politician/faith leaders heard and then DON'T do anything that they can help bring legislation to minimize said tragedy? Just as bad and hypocritical.

What gives a "law abiding" citizen the right to bare mass killing machine guns? Or owning hundreds and thousands of ammo in a home? For self-defense? Is that necessary? Really it's just a twisted sense of entitlement/freedom or some kind of nihilistic fetish. You know, I have the crazy "Borat" idea that if I'm an American (I'm Canadian, so I don't have the "right" to do anything directly), I'd troll the far-right Republican cultists using my Christian "credential" to demand my right to bear ANY arms... like anything from bombs, grenades to tanks, fighter jets and nuclear missiles as a private collection as long as I can afford it (Hooray, Capitalism!). It's my freaking "God"-given right! Carry the selective 2nd amendment reading to the extreme to see how ridiculous the status quo already is! ... But the thing is, I'm not sure anymore if there already IS a critical mass of far-right crazies that really believe what I said make total sense.

Always found it strange that people only defended the right to bear arms when it meant guns. Carrying a gun was fine but brass knuckles! GIT HIM!

"The modern interpretation".

Which brings it in line with the original intention of the document. I.e. the people are the militia and they have a right to bear arms.

"I can't imagine that Franklin would have expected that children should go to elementary school in fear of being murdered by their classmates either."

I'm glad you can't imagine it, because statistically it's occurrence is almost zero. They should fear this no more than fearing being eaten by a shark, struck by lighting, or killed in a plane crash.

"with a few lobby organizations like the NRA"
Why are you including the NRA? At the last presidential election they didn't even make the top 50 contributors.

https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/318177-lobbyings-top-50-whos-spending-big

Does this change your assessment?

@eric3579 -- I agree that that is a sticking point. I have trouble buying it because there are already limitations on the "right to bear arms".

The 2nd amendment:
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.


Certainly, one could argue that licensing / registration of firearms would count as infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. However, "arms" is rather unspecific. Merriam Webster defines it as "a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm".

The government has already decided that limiting the access to some "arms" is fine, and doesn't infringe on the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms. For example, in many states it is "legal" to own a fully automatic, military use machine gun. BUT:
1) It had to be manufactured before 1986
2) Said machine gun has to be registered in a national database
3) The buyer has to pass a background check

So there's 3 things already infringing on your constitutional right to bear a specific kind of "arm". A firearm -- not a missile, grenade, or bomb or something "obviously" ridiculous. And actually, even "destructive devices" like grenades are technically not illegal to own, but they require registration, licenses, etc. that the ATF can grant or refuse at their discretion. And their discretion generally leads them to NOT allow civilians to exercise their right to bear that particular sort of "arm".

If those limitations / exceptions aren't an unconstitutional infringement on the right to bear arms, certainly reasonable expansion of the same sort of limitations might also be OK.

I empathize with pro-gun people's fear of "slippery slope" escalating restrictions; the potential to swing too far in the other direction. But at some point you gotta see the writing on the wall. To me, it seems like it would be better for NRA-types to be reasonable and proactive so that they can be part of the conversation about where and how the lines are drawn. In other words, accepting some reasonable "common sense" limitations (like firearm licensing inspired by driver's licensing) seems like a good way to keep any adjustments / de-facto exceptions to the 2nd amendment reasonable (like the laws about machine guns). Otherwise, you're going all-in. With a not particularly good hand. And that's when you can lose everything (ie., 2nd amendment removal rather than limited in sane ways that let responsible people still keep firearms).

One way to resolve the issue might be to redirect some of the immense intelligence focus from Islamic terrorism to domestic terrorism.

That is what this is, domestic terrorism. It may not always have a manifesto behind it, but that is not relevant. There were numerous people who said this person was probably a school shooter in the making. He was doing things with white power groups and militias. Why didn't our mass spying that we do catch that? Because it wasn't an Islamic group.

We can ban assault rifles or put limits on them, we can make mandatory psych evals required for gun purchases, or we could do any number of things. While we look into what we can legislate, we should also be looking into how we can use resources we have in place to STOP JUST THIS SORT OF THING.

As anyone who knows me knows, I am a hardcore supporter of the right to bear arms. I am not an NRA member, because they aren't really concerned about the right to bear arms, just that they keep getting money from gun manufacturers. I still think we can keep AR type rifles, but we should have a national mandate on clip size, number of clips allowed, and we should have a mandatory psych eval required if you plan on purchasing anything other than a hunting rifle. Yes, that includes handguns.

I'm sure there have been any number of legal precedents set. Doesn't change the fact that the major point of the second amendment was not self-defense.

Besides, it's an anachronism. You can have all the guns you want, but you ain't defending shit if your (or another) government decides to go full Hitler.

Look, you're already not allowed bombs or RPGs or missiles or whatever, so your right to bear "arms" has been infringed.

Aside from the raving Alex Jones style lunatics, everyone already agrees that there are limits on the weapons available to civilians. So the second amendment isn't inviolate. It's just a question of degrees.

Besides, pretty sure the constitution has been changed before (14th and 21st most famously).

But again, I'm just glad I don't live in a country where people genuinely believe that they need a gun for home defense.

Perhaps the 2nd amendment has just been taken out of context, maybe it's the right to "bear arms". So when you hunt bears you get to keep it's arms.


Or maybe it was a spelling mistake, and it's the right to "bare" arms. So everyone has a right to roll up their sleeves and wear singlets.


Either way basing your lifestyle on a out-dated document that is clearly not relevant to modern society, you might as well be praying to Zeus.

With all respect, and much consideration towards your emotional disposition to the matter, your vehemence and near maleficence on the issue is not met with similar kind, and is not respected by me as a form of open discussion.

Although I may agree that the reporter does indeed present himself as an a*****e, obviously degrading whatever planned speech or agenda this student had, it is not worth the spew which you present...

I must agree, however, that the general western population does little to nothing towards the meaningful progression of Human society.

On the other hand, what you advocate is a pipe dream, the likes of which I cannot fathom working, even with my liberal UK perspective. Though I do believe in banks being controlled, so they don't become to large to fail, as well as re-distribution of wealth from the top "1%" classes, how could one, if caring for the safety of their nation, advocate the lessening of funds towards a strong military?

I must also put into perspective, as I am guessing you are an American, what you Americans have compared to the world. You want to throw away your rights to bear arms, not considering what you would do without them. Here in London, we have no way to defend ourselves against getting mugged, many times at gunpoint(handguns are banned here, get the picture?). You want to stop giving money to your military, and ISIS just killed over a hundred people in France. You have more control over your personal freedom than anyone else, not to mention the strongest nation in the world, and you want to abandon the practices which got you there... Brilliant.

Both of the male officers were canned at later points due to related issues, one lied on a police report about a different beating and the other beat another person up and got caught on video.

However, apparently Denver has unlimited appeals for PO's, which means after a couple of years both of these officers were reinstated. Additionally the DA in the area has a long history of looking the other way when it comes to prosecuting cops.

I don't condone shooting or beating officers, lowering ourselves to that standard makes us no better. I do think it is beyond time to take severe steps to curtail these types of officers, through judicious use of repeated psych exams and zero tolerance policies. If you do something and get caught, you should do time and/or NEVER allowed to be an officer again. You should also lose your right to bear arms like a felon does, because you broke your trust with the public you were supposed to serve.

"Why should any society capitulate for such an insignificant demographic group?

Gays make up less then 4% of population. "

We are talking about letting two people marry each other, in what way exactly is this capitulation?

The gun fondling nutters in the NRA make up about 1% of the population. Personally, I think their obsession with guns is rather perverse and more than a little creepy. Why cant we just take away their right to bear arms? They are just 1%! why should they have the same rights as other people?

Mormons are like less than 4% too, Take away their freedom of religion! No need to give them the same rights as catholics?

The fallacy though is that there is a strong anti-gun movement. There isn't The pro-gun people desperately cling to that strawman fallacy any time there is a call for gun control.

The number of people who are actually "anti-gun" in the US are too small to politically matter, but who knows, as @ChaosEngine pointed out, maybe that will change someday as attitudes and technology changes, but that day is not today.

However, the majority of people ARE for gun control/regulation. The vast majority of Americans have no problem with armed citizenry. The debate is ACTUALLY about the level of armament. They want stiffer controls to keep them out of the hands of criminals and the mentally disturbed. And maybe some required training/certification for those that do choose to own firearms, just like we test periodically for drivers licenses.

Even the pro-gun people should (I hope) agree that nuclear arms should be under tight control and not in the hands of civilians. Should a civilian be able to own a cruise missile? a tank? A battleship cannon? How about one of those new magnetic rail cannons being developed? If you agree that these types of weapons should not be used by civvies, then you are pro-gun control.

The question is just one of degree. I completely agree that "assault" weapons is too vague a term and stricter definitions need to be created to define what civvies should and shouldn't have.

Precedent is already set. We have a constitutional right to bear arms as well as many other rights, but rights have been taken away countless times (with the consent of the governed) for people who have proven that they can be a harm to others, so you can't really argue that the 2nd amendment is inalienable. Many, if not all, rights have conditions to them.

There are ALWAYS exceptions.

I've harped on it before and I'll harp on it again. Bill Maher is exactly right. There is no "anti-gun" party. We have a "loves guns" party and a "likes guns" party.

There is NO significant anti-gun movement in America. But the pro-gun people are scared so they try to bogeyman you into thinking there is.

Couldn't agree more. Just because it's our right to bear arms, doesn't mean we have to wave them in everybody's face.