Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Why is America prone to university mass muderings? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jakko247)
    Nice to see people have Neg'd me for this thread.
    Thanks guys!
    Claiming that the American population experiences "general psychosis" and then failing to provide any support for such a claim is pretty lowbrow. Either that, or you've got a hell of a career in TV journalism in the near future.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Also, I think people who're brushing off the 2nd amendment need to learn what a constitution is for. If you just ignore bits when you don't like them, it stops being a constitution. It starts the road down a slipery slope - what bit do you ignore next because it doesn't fit in with what you want? Free speech? Regular elections?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    Also, I think people who're brushing off the 2nd amendment need to learn what a constitution is for. If you just ignore bits when you don't like them, it stops being a constitution. It starts the road down a slipery slope - what bit do you ignore next because it doesn't fit in with what you want? Free speech? Regular elections?

    Would basically be like throwing out the Magna Carta


    "Nawww I don't like those bits mate, lets throw this old thing out and start over..."
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Texan88)
    Would basically be like throwing out the Magna Carta


    "Nawww I don't like those bits mate, lets throw this old thing out and start over..."
    Not in the slightest. We are talking about an ammendment to the US constitution, why is it so bad to consider ammending the ammendment?

    The founding fathers clearly didn't view the constitution as an unbreachable set of rules inscribed in stone. It is supposed to be a living document.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    Not in the slightest. We are talking about an ammendment to the US constitution, why is it so bad to consider ammending the ammendment?

    The founding fathers clearly didn't view the constitution as an unbreachable set of rules inscribed in stone. It is supposed to be a living document.
    But that's the point - it's not suggesting an amendment to the amendment that's stupid, it's suggesting they should just ignore that part of the constitution, or that they're being pig-headed by bringing up that it's in the constitution (as per here) that's stupid.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    Not in the slightest. We are talking about an ammendment to the US constitution, why is it so bad to consider ammending the ammendment?

    The founding fathers clearly didn't view the constitution as an unbreachable set of rules inscribed in stone. It is supposed to be a living document.

    There are 27 amendments to the us constitution, 10 of which were prettymuch when it was made. You must not realize how HARD it is to amend the constitution and for good reason as well, you don't want the congressmen amending it willy nilly... In the course of 200 years, 27 changes seems not half bad seeing as how 2 of them involve alcohol and 2 involve voting. Over the course of 240~ years with the abolishment of slavery, and everything that has happened since I think thats quite a good record
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    But that's the point - it's not suggesting an amendment to the amendment that's stupid, it's suggesting they should just ignore that part of the constitution, or that they're being pig-headed by bringing up that it's in the constitution (as per here) that's stupid.
    I think this misses the point. It doesn't matter if something is in the constitution or not, it doesn't make it right. It could say that putting babies on spikes was allowed, but an argument that was solely basedaround the idea that it is okay to put babies on spikes becauseit is in the constitution has no actual foundation as the constitution isn't an absolute.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Texan88)
    There are 27 amendments to the us constitution, 10 of which were prettymuch when it was made. You must not realize how HARD it is to amend the constitution and for good reason as well, you don't want the congressmen amending it willy nilly... In the course of 200 years, 27 changes seems not half bad seeing as how 2 of them involve alcohol and 2 involve voting. Over the course of 240~ years with the abolishment of slavery, and everything that has happened since I think thats quite a good record
    I'd say it was an awful record. Essentially you have to live by a set of rules codified 240 years ago. Hardly democratic.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xSkyFire)
    They got squirrel AIDS
    2 camels in a tiny car.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by -WhySoSerious?)
    2 camels in a tiny car.
    You win
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anoneemous)
    Unless you have the 1 less kill streak reward
    Good point, but i thinkk you need at least a Pave Low for it to be a killing spree
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    I think this misses the point. It doesn't matter if something is in the constitution or not, it doesn't make it right. It could say that putting babies on spikes was allowed, but an argument that was solely basedaround the idea that it is okay to put babies on spikes becauseit is in the constitution has no actual foundation as the constitution isn't an absolute.
    I didn't say it was right or wrong. I simply said that when you start ignoring laws because you don't like them, you're on a highway to hell. If you (general, not you specifically) think the gun laws should be changed, then support ammending the constitution - don't support ignoring the constitution. At the end of the day, a constitution is but a document. Many, many countries that have committed terrible atrocities had fully functioning constitutions in the beginning - the Soviet Union springs to mind. All it takes is one instance of ignoring it and the whole thing becomes pointless. Something being the law doesn't make it correct, you're right; but that doesn't mean the solution is to ignore it is all I'm saying. People in this thread seem to be suggesting that sticking to the constitution is stupid or wrong - it really isn't.
    Offline

    14
    Was reading the article and it said the assailant "she had shot dead her brother more than 20 years ago but faced no charges. " How did that happen, wonder whether she would have been charged if she was an ethnic minority. I think it is poor licensing control's, after the incident with her brother she should have been bared from buying firearms.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    I'd say it was an awful record. Essentially you have to live by a set of rules codified 240 years ago. Hardly democratic.
    You know they have other laws too, right? And the constitution should be hard to amend. It's the very backbone of a country. If every new administration could change it, it'd be pointless. It was designed so that it would, realistically, take two consecutive presidents in order to ratify an amendment, and that's the way it should be, or else you'll have a constitution that changes every four or eight years, and then it stops being a consitution; it's just statute law.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a.posteriori)
    Claiming that the American population experiences "general psychosis" and then failing to provide any support for such a claim is pretty lowbrow. Either that, or you've got a hell of a career in TV journalism in the near future.
    I think you've cited my post wrong, either that or you have made your own (wrong) conclusions about what I meant.

    I meant 'general psychosis' as in the condition which affects all nations, America as well as Britain or any state for that matter. I wasn't (as you've percieved it to be) generalising that the American populace experiences (as a whole) the phenomenon that is psychosis

    I never once stated or even inferred that the American population experienced 'general psychosis'.
    So for you to conclude I did, is really quite strange :yes:

    It is nonetheless, quite strange that once every so often, an atrocity which is in natured towards causing mass fatalities at an institute of learning, happens in America.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JW92)
    I honestly can't believe Americans still believe in the right to bear arms.
    I still can't quite fathom how those crazy Yanks managed to misconstrue their own law to such a bizzare extent. I mean how stupid do you have to be to misinterpret the right to "bear arms".

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shon3n jump)
    I still can't quite fathom how those crazy Yanks managed to misconstrue their own law to such a bizzare extent. I mean how stupid do you have to be to misinterpret the right to "bear arms".


    haha classic family guy. !

    I dont see why it should be so difficult to stop making it easy for people to get guns in the U.S.A sure there will always be guns but surely if they atleast try and ban guns then gun crime would go down ?

    i mean its way to easy for americans to get there hands on guns and because its so easy all it takes is one person to lose there temper and BANG ! another shooting/massacre/murder it just seems idiotic.

    they should handle there anger like us british get drunk start a fight with a much bigger person/lampost/tree/car/building then in go home/hospital and sleep/pass out/knocked out and when you wake up the world doesnt seem like such a bad place except for a really sore head and maby a broken knuckle or two
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i think the right to bear arms statement got through many peoples' heads.


    Way to stereotype.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cyclone33)
    i think the right to bear arms statement got through many peoples' heads.


    Way to stereotype.
    I think you may be missing the joke :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well obviously because she was checking if the gun was working, and some American people, being kind and stupid, volunteer to be targets when checking the gun.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 15, 2010
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.