Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Two School Shootings Happen Hours Apart" video.

Sandy Hook was a rarity that could have happen in different ways. It also shows a flaw in a gun free zone. The gun laws Kyle is suggesting are not common sense like he claims. The fact he uses the phrase "common sense" shows he doesn't know what he is talking about. There are better ways to solve this problem than have the all knowing and all trusting government take away our rights like we are children. You know, we couldn't play nice so we get grounded and lose our guns. Creating more gun laws will not solve the issue of violence.
4
atheistmecca Yes someone should be allowed to own an "assault rifle" with 30 or more bullets. The 2nd amendment was to prevent tyranny. When it was written during the revolutionary was Great Britain was building up a massive army and occupy the colonies. The colonies developed a militia to defend themselves, and in the end attack the army. They used the militia to attack the government at the time. That is why the 2nd amendment talks about the militia and keeping arms. John Adams wrote to his wife in 1777 how there were militia men in the colonies that didn't possess arms. They lacked the resources because of the Great Britain government. They lacked the ability to attack an oppressive government. The 2nd amendment was to allow the citizens to have the ability to fight against tyranny. Guns will continue to go to Mexico and Canada. As I said serial numbers can be filed off and they have in Mexico. They don't care. They will find a way to get ahold of the guns. And no the government can't just away our guns.
2
atheistmecca With federal background checks you run the risk of a registry and where do you stop in background checks? Anyone label as special ed. in school could be banned. That can go all the way down to taking a speech class. It isn't common sense in that the second amendment was design for the states and individuals to form a militia to prevent tyranny, especially against the federal government. The federal government creating background checks doesn't give it any bounds on what it can do. Same with the "assault weapons" ban, that is such a vague term it can mean anything. Magazine limits is the same thing. Where do the limits stop? 10 rounds, 15 rounds, 7 rounds, 3 rounds? The VA Tech shooter had two handguns, one with a 10 round magazine and another with a 15 round one. He killed over 30 people. So you place a 10 round limit, he instead kills 28, 29? After the next major shooting then what? Create more laws because obviously the previous one didn't work. Creating these federal laws creates the system where the federal government has no bounds in what they can ban. After the next major shooting they will want to create more to where the complete banning of guns comes into place. Mexican cartels get guns easily and still would because guns are an archaic piece of technology. This isn't "common sense" but more complicated. And US citizens shouldn't be treated as children and have stuff taken away just because we don't play nice.
1
atheistmecca You register your car at the state level and get insurance due to a state law. Plus you only have to register your car if you want to drive it. You can own a car and not register it, you just can't drive it on the roads. And owning a car is not a right protected by the constitution, owning a gun is.
1
atheistmecca And we can find a way to stop those that doesn't involve removing our rights and freedoms. It is a problem but we can't just eliminate our rights and freedom and bring on government oppression as a response.
1
bacontizzle The time when the constitution was written is irrelevant. A nuclear weapon is not an arm. Also based on what you are saying we should ban free speech. 200 years ago they had no internet or telegram or any forms of communication beyond yelling down the street on a horse. We now have smart phones and internet to connect with anyone at anytime. So should we ban free speech and press due to more technology?
1
bacontizzle You need to learn about history and how this country was set up. We have state rights. You will revolt against a state or local government. The states will revolt against the fed. If the fed. attack it's citizens against a citizen that is violating the constitution and infringing on that state and the state will take care of it. Learn some history bud.
1
atheistmecca They were talking about arms and forming state militia to revolt against tyranny much like the founding fathers had to fight against a centralized federal government. Other people do have the right to live without the fear of getting shot. Murder is illegal. Assault is illegal. If it happens it happens and is a tragedy, no more of a tragedy than if you die in a car accident even though we have driving laws or if someone attacks you with a ball bat while you are exercising your freedom of speech just because they disagree with you. As I said we have to try to stop violence.
1
atheistmecca One of the founders was an inventor, they saw a time when technology would get better. The idea of the 2nd amendment is to prevent tyranny. It doesn't matter what type of weapons they had.
1
atheistmecca Sure, why not?
1
bacontizzle Yes, they knew technology would get better. Thy didn't place an expiration date on the constitution. As I said, with your argument we should ban free speech because of the internet.
1
atheistmecca Slavery wouldn't be happening because the 2nd amendment to for the citizens to protect themselves against tyranny. Slaves were not consider citizens. The constitution was change to make them citizens thus they have the same rights protected including the 2nd amendment. The idea of the 2nd amendment and the idea of banning slavery were different.
1
atheistmecca There use to be duels during the time the constitution was written. Alexander Hamilton died in one. We seem a little more civil these days.
1
atheistmecca The constitution was to place limitations on the governments. There were flaws but the idea was to give the citizens protection over the government. Most of what was added to the constitution, especially early, added to that idea. The 2nd amendment was to give US citizens a chance to fight against tyranny if it were to ever get violent. I hear these people who try to discredit the 2nd amendment and it makes me wonder if they were alive in the 1700s would they have supported the Revolutionary War? Or would they have supported King George and more taxes?
1
bacontizzle The established the 2nd amendment with the idea of giving citizens the ability to fight against tyranny. If technology improved in guns than that means US citizens should have access to arms that have the same fire power as what the federal government has. As I said, the founding fathers were smart, they would have foresaw a time when guns were very powerful.
1
atheistmecca I don't think 30,000 shootings is civil. We have better ways of preventing violence that doesn't involve removing our rights.
1
bacontizzle How does the government work? Please enlighten me? Really we don't have plenty of checks and balances. The federal government has overstepped it's bounds to where the states are losing their rights. And citizens still need protection from local governments.
1
atheistmecca No my right doesn't out weigh other's rights to live. You look at all the mass shootings and they occur a gun free zones. We are seeing more and more gun laws but shootings still happen. And you think your way is working? As I said, the VA Tech shooter had two handguns, one with a 10 round magazine and another with a 15 round one. He killed 33 people. The most deadly school attack was in Bath Township, MI where 42 people died because of a bomb. Should we ban freedom of press? Should we spy on people and tap into their computers because I can do a very simple google search and find out how to make a bomb. With my knowledge of chemistry and physics I can make a bomb and meth and start selling and killing. I guess we should have the government spy on citizens. Ultimately that is what you want. You want the government to strip us of our rights every time a tragedy happens instead of working to fix the problem. You want the government to protect you and make you feel "safe". A little clue for you, the government doesn't care about you. Also, life is dangerous. We can either choose as a society to help each other or we can choose to be oppressed. You decide.
1
bacontizzle Who are the "right" people?
1
atheistmecca As I said before the VA Tech shooter killed 33 people without an extended magazine. Chris Whitman killed 16 without an extended magazine. How much of a limit you want to place on them? If another mass shooting happens than what do you do. Most gun deaths happen with hand guns. Also it comes back to the 2nd amendment was to prevent tyranny. Tracking every gun opens up an registry to where the government can easily take every gun if they want too. You don't want that. Plus it isn't hard to just file off serial numbers. Universal background checks are tricky. If they were to be done they would have to be done at the state and local level. What is tricky about them is that who to you say is qualified for a gun? We are going so extreme now that any red flag would prevent someone from owning a gun. We will have doctors and teachers and so on being deputized in preventing gun ownership. If during a background check it could come up that a person got into a fight in middle school which prevents them from owning a gun. I could be consider unfit to own a gun. I have characteristics of autism, I watch violent movies and play violent video games. I have been in a fight in high school. I use to draw violent pictures in grade school. I own 4 guns and treat them like they are loaded and never point them at someone. Where is your stopping point in background checks? Also a background check would have done nothing to prevent a lot of those mass shootings. Look at Connecticut, that man took it from his mother. You are not going to stop guns from going into Mexico. A gun is an archaic piece of technology, they will continue to exist and if regulated enough will be a part of a black market much like drugs are and like alcohol was. Having 30,000 gun related violence is not good. As I said we should find a way to prevent all forms of violence, not just gun violence. You don't solve anything by removing guns. People will use other methods to commit a violent act. We have to find a way to prevent violence that doesn't involve removing our rights. As I said before, one can find methods in building a bomb, should we regulate free speech?
1
atheistmecca The militia was developed to defend against a standing army. A standing army is unconstitutional but with one developed we need a militia even more. The 2nd amendment was designed to give defense against the government. Serial numbers are how guns are tracked. If a group of criminals get a hold of guns they just file off the serial numbers so it can't be tracked anymore.
1
Dyvim Tvar When you don't agree with the government you change it. Do you vote against certain politicians you don't agree with? If you do than based on your logic you are anti-American because you hate the government and thus want to change it with voting out a politician you don't like. With guns it is a way to change the government if you need to get violent doing it. While we should always go the peaceful route and hopefully will continue to do so it is an option we should have.
1
Dyvim Tvar No you said voting was anti-American. You feel that changing the current government is anti-American. Where we can do it with our guns we can also do it with our vote. Also you think we should just follow any or law that government enforces on us with no question? Ok comrade.
1
Dyvim Tvar Attacking an oppressive government with a militia is the same as attacking it with voting. You are changing government you don't agree with. We always try to take the civil route but we might have to go violent. In Athens, TN that government regulated voting by law, basically banning it for some, and the citizens there attacked. You would have just accepted the law as being an American. Basically to you a law that keeps others from voting must be followed. This is how communist countries become developed, people not fighting back.
1
atheistmecca To you it may be stupid. In Athens, TN the local government there was restricting voting to where the citizens didn't have a voice. They revolted with guns to get a voice. We try to use civil methods to change a government but if the government is going to fight back or act tyrannical than we should have the ability to use violent force. Voting and using a gun to change a government are the same. We try our best to remain civil but we should have the option to revolt if the government isn't going to corporate in a civil way. You should read up on the history of the US more.
1
Dyvim Tvar The police are government officials. A police officer shooting someone should be looked into with the justice system. If the government is not going to do anything about an officer doing an unjustly shooting than we should vote out our elected officials and put in ones that will. If they refuse than maybe you should be considering using force to change a fascist state. You see, if you weren't allow to own guns than you will have government officials killing others with no accountability. How are you going to stop them?
1
Dyvim Tvar And the liberal left want to ban guns making it so we are unable to fight against a militarized police if we have too. Seems like both sides have issues. Since, according to you, we have a particular political group that is so anxious to militarize government officials I am not surprise you want more guns for yourself for protection.
1
Dyvim Tvar You said that "Cons" want to militarize the police. So how are you going to fight against that? With guns. But you want to ban guns thus you want to ban the ability to fight against a militarized police if needed. Define an "idiot". Define a violent criminal. Define a mental patient. You are creating broad requirements for people who will be banned from guns. A government can easily take that and keep it so there will be so few guns in private citizens' hands that they will basically be banned.
1