Repealing the 2nd Amendment would be a good start.

Maybe, maybe not.

Regardless, at least they'd be made to suffer for their idiocy. And convicted of a crime, which means they can never have a gun again.

Uh, why not? If you're unethical wtf do you care if you're not legally allowed to own one? Afaict there are enough firearms to go around for everyone, legal or not.

They absolutely should be locked up with their guns taken away.

I doubt stiffer penalties will prevent gun deaths as much as education.

When the NRA Calls the Shots: Inside the 'Reasonable Killing' of a 13-Year-Old Boy

Of course they make laws that enable the people that buy guns to get away with murder. Laws that are supposed to prevent the bad people from owning guns only work after the fact.

Nevada Background Check Law "Impossible" to enforce

Our AG is an interesting fellow.

Seems like that kid's parent should've kept an eye on him

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming

edit: And since when did stealing change warrant the death penalty?

Yeah, seems like a city where they don't even try and prosecute a shooting this pathetic because everyone is afraid everyone else has a gun is not what was intended by the 2A.

The argument of taking away the rights of the people to protect them is a dangerous thought. It could be applied to most all our rights and privileges. I feel the power of the constitution is that it protects these rights from people who believe they can be sacrificed for the greater good. we should be fighting for the power of the constitution to protect our rights, even the ones you disagree with.

Today you may agree that the right they are willing to sacrifice is worth it but you compromise the power of the constitution for the future in protecting a right you believe can not. I feel if we protect the constitution by supporting the 2nd ammendment it will prove to be in the greater good as it will protect all of them

You may feel one could not lead to the other but you are thinking in a small period of time, while you then use the argument of a change in the times to justify the abolishment of a constitutional right

It seems most anti 2nd ammendment people use the same argument that they rightly dismiss. How is your reasoning more justified than the next, how can we not apply the same reasoning to gambling or alcohol? If I said no one needs to drink, that x people die in dui accidents, that x suicides are alcohol related, that x people die of related disease, that x% of crime involved alcohol, ect,ect, and you're are scum if you drink or aren't willing to give up something as stupid and unnecessary as alcohol, what's your argument? What if when you say x people commit suicide by gun that I break that down to x% of those were a result of gambling, x% alcohol, x% were related to religion and speech, who needs the privlage or right to any of those?

The regulations some propose would be grotesque if applied to other rights or freedoms. Should we have mandatory background checks and classes to have children? The right to vote or freedom of speech? If you fear a specific person owning a gun how can you not fear how they use their other rights or privileges?

You didn't even read the ****ing article. Where in the 2A does it say I have the right to shoot anyone if I feel scurred?

The constitution can be amended and has been amended in the past. When you change one thing, it doesn't change everything else, so amendments can be taken on an individual basis.

As to the second amendment, it should be evaluated on its own merits and if changing it is for the greater good. If everyone being armed is in the best interests of society, then we should leave it alone. But when you look at other countries who have more restrictive gun laws and much lower incidents of gun violence, it's kind of hard to argue that more guns is a good thing.
Last I checked, this isn't a constitutional right, but some classes on child rearing wouldn't be a bad thing.
Well, if it prevents someone like Trump from being elected...

<- Page 1 of the thread is that way

Bad shoot by a guy not legally allowed to own a firearm. How is this relevant to the NRA? Nothing about this constitutes the use of the "castle doctrine", and is a murder by a a felon with a gun.

The second amendment wasn't written for the best interests of society, it was written to protect the security of a free state, ie out of control government. You can argue all you want about a bunch of rednecks fighting the US Army and who would win, but that is what it was written for.

Not according to Missouri law:
Since you obviously didn't read the article, I'll give you a quote:

And yet it isn't being prosecuted because it of the laws the NRA got it's lapdogs to pass in the state.

Maybe the bolded is true, but that's not what it's being used for today.

They also wrote that only non-slaves could vote. Times change, and the idea of an armed citizen militia is no longer valid in this day and age, period. Pretending that it does won't change that reality.

Don't try to pretend that your sniveling cowardice is patriotism
People need to remember to start using smaller words in this thread so the fake tough guys can keep up

The reason why cuck is these losers' favorite insult is because they want everyone to be exactly like them. Afraid to leave the house without a gun for fear of unarmed teenagers.

[QUOTE=JimHammer;51442222]Not according to Missouri law:

70ft away, running away, hardly constitutes castle doctrine. This is a case that I have a difficult time not seeing prosecuted. Furthermore, he had the weapon illegally, that alone is a federal charge (that he will likely see no time for a evidenced by other similar cases)

Bolded/underlined is castle doctrine, and that's how it should be imo. What this article discusses is neither a home intruder, nor was the felon with an illegal gun close enough to the change thieves to justify "imminent danger". I'll say again, this was a bad shoot by a felon that was committing a federal crime by illegally possessing a firearm.

If he was willing to break the law to illegally purchase a firearm, and use it in a manner that everyone besides this DA would constitute as murder, how would anther law like magazine restrictions help?

Do you think opening the NICS background check system to civilians could have helped prevent this felon from illegally purchasing a firearm?

"People sometimes break laws, why even have them?"

Lol this is the party of ideas

I'd argue that the threat of a government dissociated from those they are elected to represent, and above punishment from the laws they create, is more prevalent today than it was when the Bill of Rights was enacted. If ever there was a time that the second amendment needs to exist, I'd say it's when a tyrannical, dictatoresq leader with no military or political background that has openly admitted to paying off elected representatives becomes President of the United States.

Read the article. It is explained why no charges were brought. Hint: a very broad interpretation of the castle doctrine.

Whether he had the weapon legally or illegally has no bearing on if this was a legitimate self defense situation or not.