Gun Apprecitation Day ; 5 people shot

[Johan]

Irony, you're such a pain in the ass...

5 People Shot At 3 Different Gun Shows On Gun Appreciation Day

If the gun advocates behind this year’s inaugural Gun Appreciation Day had hoped to use the day’s festivities to build support for their anti-regulation platform, they are going to have to wait another year.

Emergency personnel had to be called to the scene of the Dixie Gun and Knife Show in Raleigh, North Carolina after a gun accidentally discharged and shot three people at the show’s safety check-in booth just after 1 pm. Both victims were transported to an area hospital, and the Raleigh Fire Department announced that the show would be closed for the rest of the day.

Gun Appreciation Day is the combined effort of dozens of far-right organizations who have been vocal opponents of gun control advocates’ efforts to reduce the number of dangerous weapons on our streets and prevent them from ending up in the hands of people with criminal backgrounds or a history of mental illness. In response to a renewed push for sensible reforms of gun laws after the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, groups like the National Rifle Association and the founders of Gun Appreciation Day have instead advocated for an increase in the number of guns in public places like elementary schools, arguing — falsely — that more guns will mean more protection for individuals.

But today’s unfortunate accident, which took place at a safety check in surrounded by hundreds of people who presumably have at least some training on how to properly handle a dangerous weapon, undermines that case. Earlier this week, an armed security officer at a Michigan charter school accidentally left his gun in a restroom that is regularly used by students as young as five years old.

A representative from Political Media, the group responsible for organizing Gun Appreciation Day, was not immediately available for comment.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...checkpoint-on-gun-appreciation-day/?mobile=nc

:rofl2::rofl2::rofl2:

 

[Mayhem]

A fanatic is defined as someone who can't change his mind, and won't change the subject.

 

[mikexmoran]

Did they appreciate being shot?

 

[Will E Worm]

And?

People are stabbed all the time. Where's the liberal whine about knife control?

 

[georges]

Perhaps you should count how many victims have made drive by shootings since the 80's with illegally owned weapons by gangs. You will count hundreds of deaths if not thousands.

 

[PlumpRump]

I personally like the smiley face in the thread title that precedes the "5 people shot," line. I guess to you gun violence is a good thing when people with whom you disagree are the ones getting shot. Pretty despicable.

 

[El Perro Mayor]

Maybe if there were more gun owners with guns there, no one would have got shot, oh wait......

 

[Jagger69]

A fanatic is defined as someone who can't change his mind, and won't change the subject.

Do we need to start listing them? There are a few of them who post regularly in this section. Any names that immediately come to mind?

 

[Straight Shooter]

And?

People are stabbed all the time. Where's the liberal whine about knife control?

You moron, because there's no such things as a mass knifing. Yes people get stabbed all the time but you never hear of someone walking into a building and stabbing and killing 20 people

 

[HappyHapyJoyJoy]

You moron, because there's no such things as a mass knifing. Yes people get stabbed all the time but you never hear of someone walking into a building and stabbing and killing 20 people

Actually... mass knifings have occurred. Though the death tolls are generally lower (or non-existent, with victims just being wounded) because it's a less effective weapon.

 

[Gordar]

Why is the 2nd amendment still needed? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it initially implemented so that people could protect themselves when invaded by a foreign power or from a too oppressive main government?

I doubt a foreign power would be crazy enough to invade the US & if they do, they'll have such advanced and/or destructive weaponry that the peashooters individuals posess won't make much of a difference. The same applies to the main government. Their weaponry is advanced enough to eradicate entire cities by just pressing on a button. What use does the gun still have?

Playing the advocate's devil, I could claim that having guns and practicing with them actually trains people so that they'll know what to do when drafted into the army. But honestly, the army uses semi-automatic & automatic weaponry & they aren't allowed in most states anyway (as far as I've been told). Add to that the lack of threat of being shot yourself and the lack of cooperation when shooting at a shooting range (read this as lack of discipline) and you'll come to the conclusion that owning a gun & using it isn't very good training.

Still, abolishing guns won't be easy. First of all, all states must comply (& I don't see Texas doing so), or border controls must be implemented around those states that don't, technically isolating them.

Second of all, the amount of guns currently available in the US would have to be collected and destroyed. This will cost a lot of money and I'm convinced that some of those guns would end up in the wrong hands, giving them even more fire power.

Third of all, even if it's implemented, as soon as the other political party comes back to power, it'll be reverted once again & I'm convinced it will piss off enough people to vote for the other political party next election. So what's the use?

If guns had been abolished approximately 95 years ago or maybe even 138 years ago, just after WWI when the US received a lot of gratitude from both France & England (the powers at the time) & also proved to be a power in it's own right or after the US civil war, then yes, it'd have been a great idea. Back then the amount of people that posessed a gun must have been a lot lower than the amount of guns currently owned by private owners and organised crime, even though it was beginning to organise, wasn't as organised as it is today. The maffia only controlled certain areas of New York and Chicago. Except for a single exectution in New Orleans, they weren't really seen anywhere else yet. They became truly powerful during the prohibition era, which was after the end of WWI. Abolishing guns today might create more trouble than it solves during the first decade or two and I doubt people are patient enough to wait for the problems to be solved.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Do we need to start listing them? There are a few of them who post regularly in this section. Any names that immediately come to mind?

Whoo hoo...I finally made a list!!!

 

[288gto]

I have only one question for americans, why guns?

 

[HappyHapyJoyJoy]

I have only one question for americans, why guns?

Because it's hard to shoot things with modern art?

... unless maybe that modern art is made out of guns...

 

[288gto]

Because it's hard to shoot things with modern art?

... unless maybe that modern art is made out of guns...

INSTEAD OF BEING PARANOIC AND AFRAID, meet your neighbour, say hi, invite him for a coffee, and befriends. money come and go, people remain.
guns wont protect you. (sport shootings and stuff under control is ok) just think that your neighbous is same as you and that he looks for a quiet life like you.

 

[HappyHapyJoyJoy]

INSTEAD OF BEING PARANOIC AND AFRAID, meet your neighbour, say hi, invite him for a coffee, and befriends.

I've met my neighbor. He's a douchebag. And I don't own any guns. I do own an axe, a chainsaw, a knife collection and couple of samurai swords though...

 

[Mayhem]

Why is the 2nd amendment still needed? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it initially implemented so that people could protect themselves when invaded by a foreign power or from a too oppressive main government?

I doubt a foreign power would be crazy enough to invade the US & if they do, they'll have such advanced and/or destructive weaponry that the peashooters individuals posess won't make much of a difference. The same applies to the main government. Their weaponry is advanced enough to eradicate entire cities by just pressing on a button. What use does the gun still have?

This entire premise is absolutely false. First of all, the 2nd Amendment makes up part of the Bill of Rights. There is no provision for "foreign invasion" in the Bill of Rights.

The 2nd Amendment was formulated to keep the citizens in ultimate power in their own country. It insures that no matter what changes are made in government and society, the people can not be taken over by a tyrant. The entirety of the Bill of Rights is a blueprint, if you will, on how to wage a second revolution, should one become necessary. So again foreign invasion is no more a basis for the 2nd Amendment than hunting or crime prevention is.

The same applies to the main government. Their weaponry is advanced enough to eradicate entire cities by just pressing on a button. What use does the gun still have?

What are you saying. That the American government would nuke Chicago or NYC if it became unhappy with its residents?

Playing the advocate's devil, I could claim that having guns and practicing with them actually trains people so that they'll know what to do when drafted into the army. But honestly, the army uses semi-automatic & automatic weaponry & they aren't allowed in most states anyway (as far as I've been told). Add to that the lack of threat of being shot yourself and the lack of cooperation when shooting at a shooting range (read this as lack of discipline) and you'll come to the conclusion that owning a gun & using it isn't very good training.

I recognize the individual words, but have not the foggiest clue what you just said.

Still, abolishing guns won't be easy. First of all, all states must comply (& I don't see Texas doing so), or border controls must be implemented around those states that don't, technically isolating them.

Second of all, the amount of guns currently available in the US would have to be collected and destroyed. This will cost a lot of money and I'm convinced that some of those guns would end up in the wrong hands, giving them even more fire power.

Third of all, even if it's implemented, as soon as the other political party comes back to power, it'll be reverted once again & I'm convinced it will piss off enough people to vote for the other political party next election. So what's the use?

Abolishing guns is impossible. Our Constitution forbids it. No gun owner is going to allow their gun to be "collected".

If guns had been abolished approximately 95 years ago or maybe even 138 years ago, just after WWI when the US received a lot of gratitude from both France & England (the powers at the time) & also proved to be a power in it's own right or after the US civil war, then yes, it'd have been a great idea. Back then the amount of people that posessed a gun must have been a lot lower than the amount of guns currently owned by private owners and organised crime, even though it was beginning to organise, wasn't as organised as it is today. The maffia only controlled certain areas of New York and Chicago. Except for a single exectution in New Orleans, they weren't really seen anywhere else yet. They became truly powerful during the prohibition era, which was after the end of WWI. Abolishing guns today might create more trouble than it solves during the first decade or two and I doubt people are patient enough to wait for the problems to be solved.

You have no knowledge of American history do you? I mean, other than being aware that we have a history, you honestly don't know anything about us. I'm not going to address, point by point, everything you got wrong. Suffice to say, you got nothing right. At this point, I'm wondering why you even posted this.

 

[Mayhem]

......

 

[Gordar]

This entire premise is absolutely false. First of all, the 2nd Amendment makes up part of the Bill of Rights. There is no provision for "foreign invasion" in the Bill of Rights.

The 2nd Amendment was formulated to keep the citizens in ultimate power in their own country. It insures that no matter what changes are made in government and society, the people can not be taken over by a tyrant. The entirety of the Bill of Rights is a blueprint, if you will, on how to wage a second revolution, should one become necessary. So again foreign invasion is no more a basis for the 2nd Amendment than hunting or crime prevention is.

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.

The exact text as adopted by your congress. Nowhere does it mention tyranny from the US government. the security of a free state can be threatened by an external force.

What are you saying. That the American government would nuke Chicago or NYC if it became unhappy with its residents?

Well, nuking may be a bit over the top, but using tanks (think of China and the Soviet Union) have in fact been used and we are talking about tyrants.

Abolishing guns is impossible. Our Constitution forbids it. No gun owner is going to allow their gun to be "collected".

Difficult, not impossible. First of all, an amendment itself a change to the original law or, in this case, constitution (just think of it, the right to own a gun wasn't even in the original constitution, which was adopted in 1787, while the 2nd amendment was adopted in 1791). It requires a 2/3 majority of both houses congress, but the constitution and amendments can be amended.

You have no knowledge of American history do you? I mean, other than being aware that we have a history, you honestly don't know anything about us. I'm not going to address, point by point, everything you got wrong. Suffice to say, you got nothing right. At this point, I'm wondering why you even posted this.

Please enlighten me.

 

[bobjustbob]

Godar, let me re post something from last week.



Let's ask someone that was there at the time about the second amendment.


"For a people who are free and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. It is, therefore, incumbent on us at every meeting [of Congress] to revise the condition of the militia and to ask ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at every point of our territories exposed to invasion... Congress alone have power to produce a uniform state of preparation in this great organ of defense. The interests which they so deeply feel in their own and their country's security will present this as among the most important objects of their deliberation."
--Thomas Jefferson: 8th Annual Message, 1808. ME 3:482

"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." --Thomas Jefferson, 1803.

"It is more a subject of joy [than of regret] that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there can be no pauper hirelings." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813.

"A well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war till regulars may relieve them, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration."
--Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.

"[The] governor [is] constitutionally the commander of the militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms." --Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1811.

"Uncertain as we must ever be of the particular point in our circumference where an enemy may choose to invade us, the only force which can be ready at every point and competent to oppose them, is the body of neighboring citizens as formed into a militia. On these, collected from the parts most convenient, in numbers proportioned to the invading foe, it is best to rely, not only to meet the first attack, but if it threatens to be permanent, to maintain the defence until regulars may be engaged to relieve them."
--Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334

"We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens, and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education. We can never be safe till this is done."
--Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813.

"I think the truth must now be obvious that our people are too happy at home to enter into regular service, and that we cannot be defended but by making every citizen a soldier, as the Greeks and Romans who had no standing armies; and that in doing this all must be marshaled, classed by their ages, and every service ascribed to its competent class."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1814.

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."
--Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. ME 9:341

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the Body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind . . . Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to his nephew Peter Carr, August 19, 1785.

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)."
--Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution with (his note added), 1776. Papers, 1:353

"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."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).


As you can see, there was more than one reasoning behind the second amendment.