Questions for our American friends

[Roubignol]

@Santeefats

When I was teenager, one of my schoolmates told me that he made small "bombs" in a small hut in the garden.
According to him, that was not difficult to make a bomb, but to make a bomb that will not explode with when you are making and transporting it... was not 100% certified.

How do you know when you follow a link that the guy who wrote the operating mode to realize a bomb, did not write a dangerous procedure that could blow up the bomb when you will try to make it?

There was a masked guy who shared several videos to make similar "easy to make" ISIS bombs on youtube, the most important video explaining the most difficult part of the process was deleted by youtube.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by Puhbear69

The NRA CEO Wayne La Pierre said on contrary:

"the socialists and the US-Media misusing the tragedy. They would mislead and cover up failures of the schools, the families and the FBI. The idea of ​​some of our opponents, that armed security makes us less secure is completely ridiculous",

he says.

Everyone could easily decide himself, what's here ridiculous !

"The families"? Did he say that? Is he referring to the families of the victims? Even by the standards of the NRA that would be a really shocking thing to say.

[Rogerbh]

There were more than one family that housed the shooter during the period of 39 Law Enforcement interactions at their homes.

[Puhbear69]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

"The families"? Did he say that? Is he referring to the families of the victims? Even by the standards of the NRA that would be a really shocking thing to say.

It didn't noticed this if I'm honest.

But I think he meant the failures of the perpetrators (actually and in the past) - or better I hope so for this CEO.

The translation is correct - "the families"

The source is "Der Spiegel" and they are usually well informed.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

Hey scoundrel long time no post at you.

IMO the NRA over reacts but I think I know why. I think the NRA is afraid to give in on any gun legislation because once they are reasonable how can they not be so when more such legislation comes up?
Again just my thoughts, but????

When the collateral damage of such tactics of stone walling and absolute intransigence are children shot in schools (their teachers as well) then what you say is indeed a reason but it is no excuse whatsoever and I think my point holds good. This organisation is an enemy of civilisation and civil peace in the USA and that is God's honest truth.

[Roubignol]

It seems that in several US states, the people can change the impact of the second amendent.

Through an initiative


Some resolutions were concretely taken in 2016 in several states, but still look very weak for a European citizen.

Guns

Approved: Washington state passed the first gun control ballot measure of the night, with the approval of Initiative 1491, which allows courts to issue protection orders to remove an individual’s access to firearms, such as domestic abusers.

Approved: California voters followed suit, passing a proposal that requires people buying ammunition to undergo background checks and outlaws possession of high-capacity ammunition magazines.

Approved: Nevada voters narrowly passed a measure to expand background checks, requiring that firearm transfers go through a licensed dealer. The proposal exempts transfers between immediate family members.

Rejected: Gun control advocates were dealt a major blow in Maine with the narrow defeat of Question 3, a measure that called for universal background checks. The proposal was supported by billionaire Michael Bloomberg and would have been a big victory for gun safety groups in a state that has traditionally supported gun rights.

Maybe in the most democratic states, it's time to the population to revoke the 2nd amendement through an initiative.

[bombermouse]

You can talk all you want about the second amendment, how people today are no damn good and how guns don't kill anybody, people do. The fact remains, the USA is the only country in the world with a mass shooting problem. What we're doing DOES NOT work. I have three shotguns and a deer rifle and have zero problems with reasonable or even, given the situation, fairly unreasonable regulations.

If you're planning on holding the forces of the evil government at bay with your AR 15 or equivalent, forget that fantasy. I've been a Marine and if it comes down to Marines vs. NRA poster boys, I'll bet on the Marines every time and give you all the points you want.

[scotpens]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Maybe in the most democratic states, it's time to the population to revoke the 2nd amendement through an initiative.

That's not how it works. The only way to change or rescind a Constitutional amendment is with another amendment. A Constitutional amendment has to be proposed in either house of Congress, then it has to pass by a two-thirds vote of both houses. Finally, it must be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures (states may submit an amendment to a popular vote, but that's not required).

Voters may be able to amend their state constitution through the initiative process, but not the U.S. Constitution.

Like it or not, the Second Amendment is here to stay. It isn't going away anytime, ever.

[forfucksake]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

@Decadence
How many children would have been killed if the crazy killer would have had a knife instead of a gun?

Why do we rarely have these disasters in Europe, when we get twice the American population on our continent?

That's children who are killed AT school. If schools are not secure, which kind of society does it show?



He was too stupid to make a bomb.
That's not that easy to get the informations and to build one.




Is it still the fact that most American citizens approve of it? They must have changed their opinions after all these free massacres. Are there any real statistics today?
Several states are as strong as European countries, when other ones are totally irresponsible.

The kind of society that thinks burner phones are a good idea, so there criminals and terrorists don't get harassed by the johnny law.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by scotpens

That's not how it works. The only way to change or rescind a Constitutional amendment is with another amendment. A Constitutional amendment has to be proposed in either house of Congress, then it has to pass by a two-thirds vote of both houses. Finally, it must be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures (states may submit an amendment to a popular vote, but that's not required).

Voters may be able to amend their state constitution through the initiative process, but not the U.S. Constitution.

Like it or not, the Second Amendment is here to stay. It isn't going away anytime, ever.

What might change is the ritualistic deification of firearms and the assumption that all guns are legitimate in all circumstances and that the right to bear arms extends to anyone and everyone, including people know to suffer from dangerous mental illness and personality disorders. As far as I know the Founding Fathers did not intend the letter of the constitution to be a replacement for common sense. For example:

• The Colt AR-15 is a purpose designed murder weapon. Its' only practical application is to distribute up to eight rounds a second very inaccurately except at short range. For hunting it is far less practical than a bolt action 8mm hunting rifle, but it is an excellent mass homicide weapon. Since it does not serve any legal purpose as well as many other alternative forearms, it makes sense to ban this specific weapon and ban weapons which conform to the same characteristics. That would not contradict the right to bear arms.
• Background checks - does the right to bear arms really extend to armed robbers or rapists newly discharged on parole, people recently diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and so forth? If it does, then America is hopelessly screwed.
• The intent to utilise weapons as a method of resisting the elected government and the rule of law is not a legitimate purpose of gun ownership and this is clarified in the bit of the 2nd Amendment which the NRA never cites: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state". All discussions of the second amendment should include the recognition that it is subservient to a purpose, the purpose being the security of a free state. Letting people buy guns over the counter with no checks and no regulation undermines the security of a free state and we see this in the plague of mass shootings the USA suffers and which are so rare everywhere else in the first world except in the USA.

The NRA takes the position that any form of gun control or gun regulation by definition violates the second amendment. IMHO this is palpably untrue. Parents and relatives of school age children who do not want to put them at the disposal of deranged shooters looking for soft targets need to stand up to the NRA and insist that sane gun laws are consistent with the right to bear arms and are "necessary to the security of a free state."

I don't think America needs to change the second amendment. I think America needs to change her fucked up gun culture.