Fort Lauderdale airport shooting: 5 shot dead, shooter in custody

Always a hook

By diehard Go To PostIt's going to take away their vehicles too?

Can we not with absurdist comparisons.

By blackace Go To PostAlways a hook

There's always some precedent that already exists when someone is like "how we do x." We do it all of the time. Also

By diehard Go To PostNot that it matters because its a direct violation of the second amendment and would be overturned by the supreme court anyway..

Courts often do not give a fuck if something violates the constitution if they have another agenda. Hence the MJ thing.

still laughing at the "how often do you think that will happen?" quip

There's a reason elder abuse exists now and have their own special attorneys. Wooo. The stern warning I got when I was put on a trust by one.

"You don't get to spend this money without express permission from them or we comin' for you."
"Okay..."

So many people actually pay off doctors to say their relative is no longer lucid and demented so they can get at money.

By reilo Go To PostI agree with you diehard, but you already can't buy a gun if you have a medical marijuana card. That disqualifies you from gun ownership and it's held up by the courts.

what a country

By diehard Go To PostIt's going to take away their vehicles too?

The idea is absurdly stupid. What constitutes a "crazy person"? Have doctor declare it? Cool, i'll just go to another doctor and have a second opinion, and sue the first doctor while i'm at it. Not that it matters because its a direct violation of the second amendment and would be overturned by the supreme court anyway.

It's nice to declare obvious statements like "we shouldnt let crazy people have guns" but try to look at both the semantics and aftereffects of what would be required to accomplish such things.

As someone from Australia.

It's really not absurd.

But lets keep pretending that Americas fascination with killing itself with guns is normal and that it's a great thing. Cause Murrica.

By giririsss Go To PostAs someone from Australia.

It's really not absurd.

But lets keep pretending that Americas fascination with killing itself with guns is normal and that it's a great thing. Cause Murrica.

That's not his point really.

Placing certain kinds of modifiers to the Bill of Rights is a big deal.

By giririsss Go To PostAs someone from Australia.

It's really not absurd.

But lets keep pretending that Americas fascination with killing itself with guns is normal and that it's a great thing. Cause Murrica.

Let's keep pretending that saying things like "Cause Murrica" is a still funny or relevant

By DY_nasty Go To PostThat's not his point really.

Placing certain kinds of modifiers to the Bill of Rights is a big deal.

Yeah. Hiding behind the BoR should continue to be a thing.

And all of those things already have modifiers on them. Free speech, except in slander and libel.

And i'm out of this conversation. Because it's been had before. And every argument done a million times. So, until everyone in America loses some one close to them to gun violence, it won't get resolved. I'm not wishing it upon you or them. But the collective taking of heads out of asses doesn't seem to be something the country wishes to do voluntarily.

By DY_nasty Go To PostThat's not his point really.

Placing certain kinds of modifiers to the Bill of Rights is a big deal.

It's not a big deal if and when certain groups of people feel threatened. It's been done over and over. Hell the Patriot Act itself is one big middle finger to all sorts of parts of the bill of rights.

The big deal is that it is the ultimate have your cake and eat it too... Keep guns, but decide who is worthy to own them.

By diehard Go To PostNot that it matters because its a direct violation of the second amendment and would be overturned by the supreme court anyway.

No it's not. Pleqse explain how it is a violation. Second time I've asked

People go on and on about our rights and constitutional freedoms when states routinely pass shit that's an affront to them or our federal congress does "for our own security." Just give me a break guys.

By Tea Go To PostIt's not a big deal if and when certain groups of people feel threatened. It's been done over and over. Hell the Patriot Act itself is one big middle finger to all sorts of parts of the bill of rights.

I get that. However, that particular argument that he has is a solid one. States should/could do more and the federal government should/could encourage it. In too many cases though, the laws in place either aren't enforced, LE doesn't act (here is a great example), or it wouldn't have mattered at all because criminals are going to criminal.

At the same time, its increasingly difficult to make any substantial argument for or against when people (not trying to pick on anyone in this thread) argue from a point of ignorance about the existing standards and laws in place. Yes, planes have transported weapons of all sorts for decades. "Planes shouldn't let people bring guns on board" .....huh? Like, that being the starting point of the debate just isn't going to be productive.

By giririsss Go To PostYeah. Hiding behind the BoR should continue to be a thing.

And all of those things already have modifiers on them. Free speech, except in slander and libel.

And i'm out of this conversation. Because it's been had before. And every argument done a million times. So, until everyone in America loses some one close to them to gun violence, it won't get resolved. I'm not wishing it upon you or them. But the collective taking of heads out of asses doesn't seem to be something the country wishes to do voluntarily.

Hiding behind.... ....

the fuck? lol

You make it sound like Free Speech isn't under fire constantly. Yeah, gotcha, Sandy Hook made it clear that their won't be an immediate and sudden resolution ever, but at the same time an immediate and sudden resolution isn't how you tackle the second amendment's modern day problems. This country loses its shit over amendments more than they do over actual wars.

People give more of a shit about the second than any other. You see people giving a fuck about voter suppression, roe v wade, suspension of habeas corpus, and searches and seizures like they do some kind of limit to what ammo and type of weapon they can procure?

By Fenderputty Go To PostNo it's not. Pleqse explain how it is a violation. Second time I've asked

Its ....odd and I don't agree with it, but should things like the right to a fair trial be tossed aside because of mental state or what a doctor says? That kind of thing. You add modifiers to something that clearly says "should not be infringed" and you have obvious problems.

By Tea Go To PostPeople go on and on about our rights and constitutional freedoms when states routinely pass shit that's an affront to them or our federal congress does "for our own security." Just give me a break guys.

Well some happen to care about certain ones more than others.

By giririsss Go To PostYeah. Hiding behind the BoR should continue to be a thing.

What the fuck is this? What do you think the Bill of Rights is, just something for fun?

By Fenderputty Go To PostNo it's not. Pleqse explain how it is a violation. Second time I've asked

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/16/appeals-court-rules-mental-health-ban-on-gun-ownership-might-violate-second-amendment.html

This is regarding an actual non-voluntary commitment to a mental facility, let alone whatever metric you think should have been used to keep guns away from this guy that committed this act in Fort Lauderdale.

By DY_nasty Go To PostWell some happen to care about certain ones more than others.

I think people ignoring gun culture from any angle are doing the discussion a disservice and to be blunt, are being willfully ignorant about how much the constitution really matters.

By Tea Go To PostPeople give more of a shit about the second than any other. You see people giving a fuck about voter suppression, suspension of habeas corpus, and searches and seizures like they do some kind of limit to what ammo and type of weapon they can procure?

A lot of people think it matters more because if their vote doesn't mean shit at the end of the day, their gun still will.

Its not... entirely a belief that I subscribe to, but I get it.

The cognitive dissonance in the US that you can't be an EMT if you're bipolar but you can own a gun is quite, something.

By Tea Go To PostI think people ignoring gun culture from any angle are doing the discussion a disservice and to be blunt, are being willfully ignorant about how much the constitution really matters.

Constitution still matters. But this country never gave a fuck about people like you or me to begin with. It was founded on guns so like.... that's gonna come first lol.

'Gun culture' is really vague too.

By reilo Go To PostThe cognitive dissonance in the US that you can't be an EMT if you're bipolar but you can own a gun is quite, something.

I'm pretty sure there is no blanket statement on "if you are bipolar you can't be an EMT".

By reilo Go To PostThe cognitive dissonance in the US that you can't be an EMT if you're bipolar but you can own a gun is quite, something.

That doesn't make sense lol. ...I know what you're trying to get at but it still doesn't work.

If you voluntarily commit yourself and get diagnosed with bipolar disorder and are on medication? Good luck getting hired. And no court will defend you on that.

By DY_nasty Go To PostConstitution still matters. But this country never gave a fuck about people like you or me to begin with. It was founded on guns so like…. that's gonna come first lol.

'Gun culture' is really vague too.

That's what I'm saying. The constitution applies to a narrow subset of people and can be rendered null whenever. It's not a good defense. Not to mention people like Jefferson actually talked about rewriting it from scratch every several years to keep up with the times. That being said my point is gun culture, as in how deeply ingrained owning a gun is, or what have you, is why the conversation needs to be more nuanced. One side, typically non-Americans talking flippantly about just banning the things is laughable but so is the other side consistently bringing up the second amendment. Amendments are constantly modified for the times, that's the point of the constitution and amendments themselves. That's the point of congress. We don't have the constitution in its OG form precisely because it was written in the context of its time and WE HAD TO MODIFY IT to include new states and expand rights to broader sets of people.

There is no precedent that the second amendment has to stay as it is and pristine, so this but but Bill of Rights shit is stupid.

By reilo Go To PostIf you voluntarily commit yourself and get diagnosed with bipolar disorder and are on medication? Good luck getting hired. And no court will defend you on that.

Medicated and controlled? Yeah.... Its discrimination if they don't.

Can we all agree that the people who want major gun reform are in the voting minority? And by voting minority I mean the motherfuckers who will actually go out to the polls and vote on something, not say they're against or for it and then do nothing come election day.

So when people say cause Murrica, I think that's what they mean. At least I hope so because we've made it pretty clear that we don't intend to change anything that will have any type of major effect on laws in any state.

I also don't think we should ignore that any politician that would dare to propose such legislation is immediately putting their life in danger. Some gun nut would love to jump on that grenade if a massive bill dared to make it through the house. I honestly believe that's why everyone tiptoes around the topic. Yes, some are in the pocket of gun lobbyists, but also, votes. Because again, the people that vote don't want anything to change.

Can we also not make asinine comparisons. The real discussion needs to be about what are reasonable baby steps to keep guns more responsibly used if anything. Most are used in suicides and accidents. We only ever talk about them being used in massacres. I mean you want to get on about Mental Health, far more people are blowing their head off then using it against others.

But the Bill of rights does exist. Changes can be made but those conditions will never (well, anytime soon) be met. So dismissing it because you think it should be modified or even bringing up the fact that it doesn't matter because it is possible to modified is.. also stupid.

It's a shit discussion point that doesn't go anywhere. The constitution exists to be modified and consistently is, or things amended and suspended. If you want to talk about WHY it would be difficult to do so, that's different.

By Tea Go To PostThat's what I'm saying. The constitution applies to a narrow subset of people and can be rendered null whenever. It's not a good defense. Not to mention people like Jefferson actually talked about rewriting it from scratch every several years to keep up with the times. That being said my point is gun culture, as in how deeply ingrained owning a gun is, or what have you, is why the conversation needs to be more nuanced. One side, typically non-Americans talking flippantly about just banning the things is laughable but so is the other side consistently bringing up the second amendment. Amendments are constantly modified for the times, that's the point of the constitution and amendments themselves. That's the point of congress. We don't have the constitution in its OG form precisely because it was written in the context of its time and WE HAD TO MODIFY IT to include new states and expand rights to broader sets of people.

There is no precedent that the second amendment has to stay as it is and pristine, so this but but Bill of Rights shit is stupid.

If your argument is that the constitution doesn't matter, then its just not a solution. I'm all for an amendment, but that's a huge discussion in itself.

The first kickback though, and its always gonna come up in situations like this... is how the situation would've been different with some change to the amendment. Nothing changes. America's issue is accessibility to guns out the ass. Constitution really isn't gonna effect that.

By Tea Go To PostIt's a shit discussion point that doesn't go anywhere. The constitution exists to be modified and consistently is, or things amended and suspended. If you want to talk about WHY it would be difficult to do so, that's different.

Discussing its modification is already a non-starter. People don't want it, and 2/3rds of congress just won't vote for it.

The only discussion is what the second amendment covers, which is why the mental health debate got started.

By diehard Go To PostDiscussing its modification is already a non-starter. People don't want it, and 2/3rds of congress just won't vote for it.

The only discussion is what the second amendment covers, which is why the mental health debate got started.

Okay, just to be 100 - congress doesn't want the packages presented so far. The fact that most proposals have been shit is also part of the problem. "Assault weapon ban" and other things were bullshit and I know you can explain why better than most.

So its not just '2/3s just won't for it'. Its a mess and lobbyists like it that way. Popular vote is all over the place and just shows that people generally have no idea what they're talking about mostly...

a good baby step would be not to allow you to ship ammo on a plane