society as a whole should, and be moderate about it

If you give the government power to decide, they can declare being conservative a mental illness and take away guns
If you give the people the power to decide, it becomes mob rule

also the 2nd amendment must be preserved at all costs

The vast majority of people who own firearms are very responsible with them. Should we then deny them their rights because of a minority of people who have committed crimes using firearms?

Group punishment?

I know only one of you is guilty of this, but you're all getting punished? That doesn't seem at all like justice.

well your first statement is wrong already, cuz by that logic,

we should ban vehicles, cuz truck of peace people do bad mojo with them

as well as ban fast food restaurants cuz people get heart attacks from them
ban sports, cuz people died there too

My first statement?

well i was agreeing with you, we shouldn't ban guns because a few crazy people went postal

cuz by that logic we should ban pretty much everything

ban windows, cuz people jump outside of them

bridges

Indeed.

or turn into london, where you get knives confiscated

better watch out whilst running with scissors, or the police will arrest you

basically "Because some people have been proven crazy, your society should therefore be treated like children"

Maybe it would be better if everyone were required to learn how to use a firearm and how to be safe with it. Some of them might not be so goddamned scared of firearms after that. Hard to say. But I'm a Texas girl, I've been around Firearms all my life, got my first rifle when I was 12, have been hunting, took Hunter Safety classes, all kinds of nifty stuff. Never felt any desire to go shoot up a school or a theater or any other place like that, never had any desire to shoot anybody. But my experiences when I was in ROTC at least showed me that I would be able to point a firearm at someone and pull the trigger if it were necessary.

its not carelessness that causes "mass shootings"

its people going balistic

@Giovanna Liviana article 13 is usually the one reference for freedom of movement. And while the second amendment says shall not be infringed, it also says a well regulated militia, so which is it?

That was a big deal, too, at least for me, because I had "Never point a gun at someone unless you mean to use it" drilled into my head by my dad for years.

What do you think a "militia" was in 1791?

Before you answer, be advised that the constitution itself refers to a federal army. If the Second Amendment were referring to a government-controlled body of people, why would it not use the same term?

Why use the term well regulated? There is a difference between the state and the federal government.

isnt a milita basically an organised band of civilians formed to protect themselves?

The National Guard is not now and never was a militia.

@Dr.Wol yes.

You can point to the phrase well regulated militia all you want, but the second part says the right of the people, not the right of the militia.

Penn is that you? 😛

Alright, let's give everyone nukes

The people who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were very careful in their choice of words and language.

And tomahawk missiles

I see, so a slippery slope fallacy is your response?

Or is that an all-or-nothing fallacy, better known as bifurcation fallacy or false dilemma?

Even with all the restrictions put in place after the Murrah building was bombed, it is still rather easy to make explosive and incendiary devices. Those will kill more people than an AR-15.

What is an "arm" or "arms"

Is it firearms or armaments?

Are we going to start playing semantic games now?

This is all a game of semantics

That's all law is

What do you think a well regulated militia would have in terms of "arms"?