The issue is two-fold and just so tangled. The hard stance on the 2nd Amendment. The media is the problem but the 1st Amendment couldn't have foreseen this type of mass media.
All of us are exposed to the media but we don't go around killing people. It's all about mental illness.
I don't think set in stone is the appropriate metaphor. What you really are referring to is the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that currently is in force thanks to Supreme Court rulings on the subject. To my mind those are at best questionable since they effectively read out of any interpretation the rather obvious need to connect the right to bear arms to that business about a well regulated militia. The related point is all of the rights in the Constitution are not absolute, and are subject to limitation. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Freedom of religion does not mean you can have more than one wife even if your religion says that's okay. ANd on and on. The problem is the current state of interpretation of gun ownership rights is too broad. There's nothing in the language itself that requires this state of affairs.
So from what I have gathered from this thread so far, we need to throw out the constitution and reset from a more liberal starting point because our forefathers were a bunch of racist/sexist dirt bags who didn't care about much more than going home to fuck their wives/slaves and couldn't foresee technological advances in the future allowing psychopaths shooting up schools and the media making them famous. Did I miss anything? I think it would be a fantastic idea to overhaul the system that created the greatest nation on the planet because of the actions of crazy people.
I own 5 guns. And I will have 6 by the end of the year. Although I might be getting rid of my 1970's Marlin bolt action .22 because I already have a 10-22 from Ruger.
I shot a wild pig last weekend with my Taurus Judge 45/410 using a couple of Triple Defense rounds, fucking thing ran around the yard dragging it's intestines til I could get a decent head shot. I ate part of him today for breakfast.
Murica' is proud of you. I love bacon too... Honestly, hunting is one thing...But complete freedom to bear arms and these things being available to to anyone easily is what I have a problem with. I don't want to take the gun away from someone, but it should not be easily attainable and limited what types of guns can be sold.
I'm not sure what people have been posting here, so maybe the overwhelming sentiment is to scrap the Constitution, but I doubt it. I think most sane people believe that the interpretation of the second amendment in a way that doesn't permit any reasonable or rational limit on how many guns are floating around is what needs to change. I know you don't agree. I know you question the efficacy of gun control measures in general, which is fine. That's not the point. The second amendment protects your personal right to "keep and bear arms." It doesn't say which arms. Arms of all kinds have always been restricted from private ownership, and they always will be. Regardless of what you believe the Second Amendment means. Its like any other species of law, it means what the last judge interpreting says it means at that moment. There is plenty of room to limit how many guns are out there and who has them without violating the Second Amendment.
So basically if you are feeling depressed or having stress issues or anything just keep it to yourself because if actually try to get help and anything goes on your record you are fucked and all your rights get taken away. Got it. Maybe that's not what you meant but that's already what happens in my state.
Actually, it's worse in my state (VA). If you are ever temporarily detained, regardless of if you are even charged or not, you will lose your 2nd amendment rights.
I didn't post that to make a point about hunting, people were talking guns and I thought it was a cool story, bro. Actually, the pig was wandering around in my father in law's back yard and I happened to have the gun near. He's got 30 acres in the country and wild animals tend to wander too close. But since you decided to use my post to respond with a platform, I'll respond in kind. I agree with you, there should be very strict guidelines upon which a person should have to concede in order to obtain a legal firearm. I also think there should be strict laws of ethics that govern the media, who tend to use political platforms to sensationalize certain issues in order to bolster their chosen party. This pertains to the right and the left. So far, ethics have zero standing when it comes to the media, the hot click sells, and people just eat it up because they are too stupid to tell the difference, and the result is that every shooting gets plastered everywhere for weeks and the trial is covered like the OJ thing. I've seen people blame video games for teen violence for decades. At some point, the media needs to take some responsibility for the blatant sensationalism of things because they want to promote political agenda.
