Gun Control and Mass Murder

[Sy Borg]

If I was a teacher I would change to a safer profession. No amount of money would be enough.

If you was a teacher, you might’ve known how to use the subjunctive tense.

"If you was a teacher"

If you were being logical, you would appreciate that forums need not adhere to formal standards, and you would focus on the content rather than the form.

[Robert66]

It makes me all over trembly and feverish to be so close to the answer now. I haint never considered that before, and now I can see the sense it makes - those poor Jews would have been alright, if they coulda shot their way out of trouble. Now sure some will say that a few pistols wouldn't of made a mouthful of ashes worth of difference against the Nazis. but thank the Lord we now have AR-15s! I caint wait to see the look on their face when they bust into my cabin, and there I will be settin, with my AR-15 laid across the turnip barrel, pointed their way.

[Belindi]

If I was a teacher I would change to a safer profession. No amount of money would be enough.

If you was a teacher, you might’ve known how to use the subjunctive tense.

"If you was a teacher"

If you were being logical, you would appreciate that forums need not adhere to formal standards, and you would focus on the content rather than the form.

I wonder why some people think standard English is immutable. But I may as well wonder why some people are so afraid of change they cling to formal standards. In this regard, should the USA change its Constitution? Yes, it should.

[Robert66]

If I was a teacher I would change to a safer profession. No amount of money would be enough.

If you was a teacher, you might’ve known how to use the subjunctive tense.

"If you was a teacher"

If you were being logical, you would appreciate that forums need not adhere to formal standards, and you would focus on the content rather than the form.

I wonder why some people think standard English is immutable. But I may as well wonder why some people are so afraid of change they cling to formal standards. In this regard, should the USA change its Constitution? Yes, it should.

What, you mean, like, amend it?

[AverageBozo]

If I was a teacher I would change to a safer profession. No amount of money would be enough.

If you was a teacher, you might’ve known how to use the subjunctive tense.

"If you was a teacher"

If you were being logical, you would appreciate that forums need not adhere to formal standards, and you would focus on the content rather than the form.

I have been reading the content.

Poor grammar is a sign of one’s education or of not being a native speaker of English.

[AverageBozo]

If I was a teacher I would change to a safer profession. No amount of money would be enough.

If you was a teacher, you might’ve known how to use the subjunctive tense.

"If you was a teacher"

If you were being logical, you would appreciate that forums need not adhere to formal standards, and you would focus on the content rather than the form.

I wonder why some people think standard English is immutable. But I may as well wonder why some people are so afraid of change they cling to formal standards. In this regard, should the USA change its Constitution? Yes, it should.

The US Constitution is a living document via the amendment process,but nowhere in the document or its amendments is the possession of an AR-15 protected. It’s the interpretation that needs to be changed.

[Belindi]

If you was a teacher, you might’ve known how to use the subjunctive tense.

"If you was a teacher"

If you were being logical, you would appreciate that forums need not adhere to formal standards, and you would focus on the content rather than the form.

I wonder why some people think standard English is immutable. But I may as well wonder why some people are so afraid of change they cling to formal standards. In this regard, should the USA change its Constitution? Yes, it should.

The US Constitution is a living document via the amendment process,but nowhere in the document or its amendments is the possession of an AR-15 protected. It’s the interpretation that needs to be changed.

Interpretations are subjective. So whose interpretation are you talking about? I presume it's your own interpretation you are talking about.

[GE Morton]

The US Constitution is a living document via the amendment process,but nowhere in the document or its amendments is the possession of an AR-15 protected. It’s the interpretation that needs to be changed.

How would you interpret it? Before answering, you might read the Heller decision in order to understand the current interpretation.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

[AverageBozo]

"If you was a teacher"

If you were being logical, you would appreciate that forums need not adhere to formal standards, and you would focus on the content rather than the form.

I wonder why some people think standard English is immutable. But I may as well wonder why some people are so afraid of change they cling to formal standards. In this regard, should the USA change its Constitution? Yes, it should.

The US Constitution is a living document via the amendment process,but nowhere in the document or its amendments is the possession of an AR-15 protected. It’s the interpretation that needs to be changed.

Interpretations are subjective. So whose interpretation are you talking about? I presume it's your own interpretation you are talking about.

The only interpretation that counts is neither yours nor mine. It is the responsibility of SCOTUS to interpret the law, including the American Constitution.

[Robert66]

... read the Heller decision in order to understand the current interpretation.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

The author, Justice Scalia, in order to lend more weight to a judgment carried by the narrowest of margins, resorted to rhetoric language. For example, he did not find dissenting Justice Stevens merely wrong, but 'dead wrong'; elsewhere he referred to Stevens' 'bizarre argument' when just 'argument' would have sufficed (emphases added). Scalia's intemperate use of language reveals an emotionality which in turn suggests bias. The 'current interpretation' should therefore be impartially examined. For example the notion that some weapons may be categorised as 'dangerous and unusual weapons', and that therefore there exists another category of weapons (dangerous yet usual, or commonly used, and therefore somehow publicly acceptable) warrants such examination. Heaven help us when 3D-printed, hand-held Javelin missile launchers become common.

[AverageBozo]

The US Constitution is a living document via the amendment process,but nowhere in the document or its amendments is the possession of an AR-15 protected. It’s the interpretation that needs to be changed.

How would you interpret it? Before answering, you might read the Heller decision in order to understand the current interpretation.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

In agreement with the Supreme Court’s decision, a citizen’s right to possess a handgun should not be limited.

[UniversalAlien]

What I may wonder is why, while all arguments for and against more gun control are going on, government {local and federal} doesn't
become more active in doing its job of protecting the most vulnerable, like kids in school, from the plague of homicidal maniacs,
currently using guns {though research shows they may us other means}.

Why aren't "ALL" schools protected with advanced surveillance cameras, teachers carrying 'panic buttons' that set off alarms, automatic
door locks, etc., etc., including at least one well armed and trained guard at every school

Further let's stop catering to the fantasies of these 'terrorists' and classify "ALL" cases of mass murder at schools, including the nut jobs,
as 'terrorists' plain and simple
- And not allow an insanity defense for terrorists

[GE Morton]

For example the notion that some weapons may be categorised as 'dangerous and unusual weapons', and that therefore there exists another category of weapons (dangerous yet usual, or commonly used, and therefore somehow publicly acceptable) warrants such examination. Heaven help us when 3D-printed, hand-held Javelin missile launchers become common.

All weapons are dangerous, by definition. If they were not they would not be effective weapons. So only "usual" requires any interpretation. And that is easily settled by observing their prevalence in the community. About half of all rifles and 85% of all handguns sold in the US in the last 20 years are semi-auto. They comprise about 20% of all firearms in the US (most of the rest of which are older weapons). That is pretty "usual."

https://www.ammunitiondepot.com/blog/wh ... automatics

[LuckyR]

What I may wonder is why, while all arguments for and against more gun control are going on, government {local and federal} doesn't
become more active in doing its job of protecting the most vulnerable, like kids in school, from the plague of homicidal maniacs,
currently using guns {though research shows they may us other means}.

Why aren't "ALL" schools protected with advanced surveillance cameras, teachers carrying 'panic buttons' that set off alarms, automatic
door locks, etc., etc., including at least one well armed and trained guard at every school

Further let's stop catering to the fantasies of these 'terrorists' and classify "ALL" cases of mass murder at schools, including the nut jobs,
as 'terrorists' plain and simple
- And not allow an insanity defense for terrorists

Whoa there bub, thems ma constituants yore talkin bout!

[Belindi]

I wonder why some people think standard English is immutable. But I may as well wonder why some people are so afraid of change they cling to formal standards. In this regard, should the USA change its Constitution? Yes, it should.

The US Constitution is a living document via the amendment process,but nowhere in the document or its amendments is the possession of an AR-15 protected. It’s the interpretation that needs to be changed.

Interpretations are subjective. So whose interpretation are you talking about? I presume it's your own interpretation you are talking about.

The only interpretation that counts is neither yours nor mine. It is the responsibility of SCOTUS to interpret the law, including the American Constitution.

The judiciary interprets the law, true. In a free country such as is the USA the citizen as an individual has the right and the duty to change the law as and when democratic process demands.