Now we've got 8 dead in NYC from a truck crash. ISIS is actually responsible for this one!

The history of slavery is a more important factor than guns.

Interesting. I didn't see any story about this on Facebook. Usually when something like this happens, my feed is crazy with stories about it. Must be because six of the eight dead weren't American.

Easy availability of guns makes escalation of violence born from the history of slavery possible.

You can't start a fire without a flame, heat, or spark. Gun control is an excuse for negligence.

However, it's true that one of the reasons we even have a 2nd Amendment is because of slavery. The southern states were afraid that if there wasn't something in the Constitution to protect their guns and their "militia" they wouldn't be able to hunt down escaped slaves.

I have not read that in any valid source.

Based off my studies the 2nd Amendment exists due to a Whig philosophy from the country section of Parliament in late 17th century England. This philosophy, or I should say political viewpoint, was against the rise of a standing army. This debate, set first after William and Mary took the throne, becoming a heated discussion in England for years. Those arguing agai st having a standing army wanted England to call upon the weapon holding lords if war was needed much like how wars were conducted in medieval times. The country section of parliament was worried the men of their time were growing soft, but more importantly standing armies would create a more centrally powered government which would be disadvantageous to the country members.

This debate sets up the historical context for the 2nd Amendment. The "Founding Fathers" often found themselves agreeing with Whig philosophies now developed for over a hundred years by the time of the founding of the United States. Now the whole idea behind being anti-standing army was to decentralize the nation. When the constitution was being made, many of the early political minds that shaped the country were avidly against the creation of a constitution, and instead favored working on the Articles of Confederation. They feared a constitution would lead to an overly centralized government. Chief amongst these like minded folks, or Anti-Federalists, was Thomas Jefferson. Eventually a constitution is agreed upon, but only under stipulations or rights. These Bill of Rights are written in part by Thomas Jefferson, and sure enough he writes an amendment, the second one, which is all about being anti-standing armies.

Just go back and re-read the second amendment. A lot of people get wrapped up in the first section, however the second section discusses a "well-regulated militia." This is because the idea, as it were, was to not develop a class of people who only served in the military, and instead the power to declare war would fall unto the people. The art of drafting was to be practiced if war was needed. Obviously this concept of no standing army did not last and could not last over the course of time. Even Jefferson himself had a hard time up holding his own lofty ideals. But that is the basis of the second amendment.

I don't disagree with you. I did say that it was one of the reasons for the 2nd but not the only one. There is writing indicating that at least to some, they worried about the north stopping their 'militia' used to track down slaves, and that's why that particular amendment is also the only one mentioning "states" specifically to make it clear.

Patrick Henry and George Mason publicly argued that slaves would rebel and there would be nothing the owners could do unless the Constitution guaranteed them their guns, so it's not as if that wasn't a part of the reason it was passed. Madison eventually placated them into ratifying the Constitution by adding the 2nd.

"In this state," Patrick Henry said, "there are two hundred and thirty-six thousand blacks, and there are many in several other states. But there are few or none in the Northern States.... May Congress not say, that every black man must fight? Did we not see a little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed as to make emancipation general; but acts of Assembly passed that every slave who would go to the army should be free."

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/1389 ... ve-slavery

Note as well as the Constitution already provides for a military in the Articles, but that only applies to the feds. This amendment was specifically added so that the feds couldn't outlaw the state militia or take away their guns.

Fair enough

Now I am not sure I have read you correctly. What did you say the history of slavery was a more important factor for?

This is crazy.

The argument read like a joke unless you meant to poke fun at those right-wing nuts mocking liberals for not supporting arming people to defend themselves against police brutality.

1. The laws and judicial system are not on the side of armed people claiming self-defense against the state. Not a level playing field.

2. The state's apparatus always out-weapons the civilians. An arms race is not a plausible outcome.

3. More guns and escalation are not the solution. Less guns is.

The difference between America and Europe or Japan.

The courts also tend to be against black men getting shot and for cops shooting them. Also what does it matter? The question isn’t about what is legal, but what is right.



That’s not true even if you look at history around the world since wwii. Also even if you don’t win an arms race, a weapon can make a difference.



Then why not disarm the police and military? Also you are begging the question.

Another thing. If a background check is good enough for the police and military so they can use any weapon they want, why isn’t it good enough for civilians to have any weapon?

At least 27 people have died after a gunman opened fire at a church in Texas during Sunday services, police say.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41880511

San Antonio on November 5th, the day the plot to blow up British parliament was scheduled. Coincidence?

There didn't used to be this many shootings surely? Did America's gun laws get weaker or something?

Was the shooter a Kingsman fan?

Yeah, why not? Let's work to demilitarize the police. Let civilians take control of the police through democratic means. Have a civilian position to oversight police investigation. Reform the criminal justice system.

So much disinformation is being spread about the identity of the alleged shooter. Everywhere from the comment section of news articles, to Twitter and facebook accounts is littered with false information. It seems like there is a concerted effort spreading fake news.

In theory, but it is difficult to prevent force without force.

Probably a Rambo fan we know about them.

Do I need to see kingsman?

Anyway, kingsman doesn’t have the popularity in the underground that v for vendetta does.

Don't think there is any connection. If he was really going for that he would have attacked a government building or something. V didn't shoot up a church.

[youtube1][/youtube1][youtube][/youtube]

For what it’s worth, anonymous protests with the masks have targeted religion.

[youtube]http://m.youtube.com/watch?t=8s&v=JCbKv9yiLiQ[/youtube]