Jump to content

Does The 2nd Amendment Provide Absolute Protection To Gun Owners?


DonRocks

Recommended Posts

Don and B.A.R., I think those are both helpful and creative suggestions, particularly about how to handle bullets. But there is already a huge black market for both guns and bullets, and how we then deal with that, after making that explode in size is a serious consideration. I am surprised that there isn't more discussion about targeting the actual gun and ammo manufacturers and importers. Those are who the NRA is serving and protecting anymore--not so much gun owners--and simply banning certain weapons isn't going anywhere. Making it harder and harder for them to do business and make profits may be at least part of the way to cut off the source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/3/2017 at 11:05 AM, DonRocks said:

"Country Music Guitarist and Vegas Shooting Survivor Says He's Reversed His Gun Control Stance" by Luchina Fisher on abcnews.go.com

Good for you, Caleb Keeter - the thing that saddens me is that people might not change their positions until they're victims in events like this - if only they would just open up their minds and think instead, this wouldn't need to happen.

So many people will read this and think, "Rockwell's a totalitarian who would come for our guns," and that is false. The solution begins with:

* Every single gun being registered with a serial number and owner.
* A gun-owner's permit, just like the ones people have for owning a car.
* A shooter's license, just like a driver's license, that demonstrates people have passed a rudimentary written and field test.

The above three items are already applicable to automobiles, so this is a proven model that works.

I'll let the politicians debate about taxes, penalties, etc. - I think these three things alone would go a long way; unfortunately, given the number of guns outstanding, there can be no grandfather clause - these must apply to guns already in private possession, and that's going to be a sticky wicket. However, even if they were only applied going forward, that would at least solve the problem in the long term, i.e., several decades after the laws were enacted. Waiting fifty years may seem unacceptable, but at least our children and grandchildren would begin to see the benefits of such a program.

---

"House To Vote on Gun Silencer Legislation This Week" by Gabrielle Levy on usnews.com

9 hours ago, DonRocks said:

I  have a solution to mass shootings in this country, but it's going to take some serious backbone that I doubt our electorate has: Essentially, treat guns as cars - my right to own cars has never been infringed since I turned 16.

1) Do not make guns a right unless you're in a militia (e.g., The National Guard) subject to the same rules and regulations as all other militias.

2) Require all other guns to be treated just like cars. Tax them, assign a unique serial number to each gun, and maintain a national database linking all guns to their owners.

3) Define specifications that all guns must adhere to, and annual tests the guns must pass, just like a car.

4) Require all gun owners to regularly pass both a "written test," a"field test," and a "background investigation," showing that they're responsible and competent enough  to own and use their guns, just like a drivers license.

5) For items 2)-4), decide whether or not you want to grandfather existing guns into these requirements. If you do, your gun problems will be over in about 50 years; if you don't, your gun problems will be over in about 100 years. Political backbone will be the thing that saves 50,000 Americans (I'm approximating 1,000 dead Americans annually due to mass shootings in the upcoming century- it could be many more than that). 

There's your disarmingly simple, five-point plan to solve the mass-shooting problem in the United States.

As for Texas, I don't have enough tears in my eyes to adequately cry for them, and I'm forced to look at them as casualties of war. If I met one as an individual, that would be different, but not in such large numbers. Yes, it's sad, but this involves more grief than one man is capable of enduring. My plan will end, or minimize, that grief and those tears.

"How To Reduce Shootings" by Nicholas Kristof on nytimes.com

It's so simple that it can't possibly fail work fail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/3/2017 at 11:05 AM, DonRocks said:

So many people will read this and think, "Rockwell's a totalitarian who would come for our guns," and that is false.

It is indeed false. For example, I don't have any desire to prevent hunters from killing for food - especially when you consider the quality of life the animal had versus being locked up in a pen.

Yet, once I saw this story, I couldn't unsee it - accidents happen (this hunter also fired after sunset), and it doesn't change my views, but it is at least worth knowing about.

"Woman Fatally Shot by Hunter Who Mistook Her for a Deer, Officials Say" by Matt Stevens on nytimes.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet they wonder where the people who break into homes and steal guns get them from! Thanks for practically arming our criminal class! I bet there are many more instances of criminals successfully stealing guns from homes and vehicles than there are instances of gun owners successfully defending their property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Thoughts and prayers' — and fistfuls of NRA money: Why America can't control guns by Michael Hiltzik LA Times

"The gun rights organization spent a stupendous $54.4 million in the 2016 election cycle, almost all of it in "independent expenditures," meaning spending for or against a candidate but not a direct contribution to a campaign. The money went almost entirely to Republicans to a degree that almost looks like a misprint (but isn't): Of independent expenditures totaling $52.6 million, Democrats received $265."

Thought and Prayers and N.R.A. Funding by David Leonhardt, Ian Prasad Philbrick, and Stuart A. Thompson of the NYT

A special place in hell reserved for:

  • John McCain
  • Richard Burr
  • Roy Blunt
  • Thom TIllis
  • Cory Gardner
  • Marco Rubio
  • Joni Ernst
  • Rob Portman
  • Todd Young
  • Bill Cassidy

They represent the NRA to the tune of about $40,000,000. What does all that money buy? It surely doesn't buy anything for school children, mental health programs, or a simple fucking study on gun violence by the CDC.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

image.png.e8788d349e06da3c0d257f3138d1ec8e.png

I don't know why he brings up "mentally disturbed". He doesn't seem to have a problem with them having guns.

Trump Repeals Rule Designed To Block Gun Sales To Certain Mentally Ill People by Merrit Kennedy of NPR

Oh, and fuck Chuck Grassley.

DJT is having a live press conference where he's speaking "directly" to American's children letting them know that everything will be done to keep them safe. Fuck him too.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not too soon to broach the subject; it's too late.

The only way this will ever stop is to rescind the 2nd Amendment, and even then, it will take 50 years for confiscation, enforcement, and obsolescence to make the repeal take effect.

Nobody will listen to me, of course, but I want to be on-record as saying it (I've said this for years, actually).

I'm also not going to argue this point. History alone will judge whether I'm right or wrong.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is the NRA THIS powerful? Their arguments can be clearly topped with reasoned responses. After the Las Vegas disaster NO ONE can oppose bump stocks that make a semi-automatic rifle into a machine gun? 500 people were wounded and NOTHING changed?

Maybe it's because the House term of 2 years is too short. Congressmen are in a perpetual state of raising campaign money. Would this move at all if the term were 4 years rather than 2?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mark Slater said:

Australia dealt with this problem in a direct and successful manner. It might be time for that here.

I actually saw a rebuttal to this excellent point on Facebook a few minutes ago. Evidently, because Australia was a colony of convicts, it's apples and oranges to compare it to the U.S.

We're always special.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the 2nd Amendment Provides Absolute Protection to Gun Owners.  I am not saying I agree with this, however as apathetic as "we" are as a society, few are likely to contact their representatives, and make their voices heard.  Those who represent us, will not make changes in our lifetimes, sadly I think it a losing battle.  

Currently Police officers are posted in Middle and High Schools, but I bet we are going to have them in elementary schools in the near future.  Is it extreme?  Yes, but the number of guns in society is astonishing; roughly at least 1/every man/woman and child in this country.  It is beyond control, and this latest incident will likely be forgotten within weeks.  These kids are our future.  The area this happened is a nice, typical community where people thought they were safe, not unlike where many of us live now.  The NRA, the gun manufacturers, and your friends, neighbors, family members etc, etc, who say "pry this gun from my cold dead hands," have won, and will continue to win no matter the carnage.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Ferris Bueller said:

The NRA, the gun manufacturers, and your friends, neighbors, family members etc, etc, who say "pry this gun from my cold dead hands," have won, and will continue to win no matter the carnage.  

Why?

Slaves thought they would never be freed.

Women thought they would never be heard.

Gays thought they would never be married.

The 18th amendment was every bit as sacrosanct as the 2nd, but was repealed by the 21st. There *is* a certain je ne sais quoi surrounding the "Bill of Rights," but it's only in the name.

When this comes - if it comes - it will come swiftly, and with enormous momentum, and the NRA will be looked upon with the same scorn and derision as the peddlers of cigarettes and opioids - Wayne LaPierre will be derided as one of the worst Americans ever to exist, and the politicians in his pocket will be left cowering and emasculated.

Can you believe that Harvey Weinstein, of all people, would be the primary catalyst for the current women's rights movement?

There are so many things in the world - big and small - that are morally, intellectually, and fundamentally wrong; yet, they exist because they've become entrenched in positions of power - that will always be the case, but the light of knowledge eventually flushes them out, one-by-one, and the internet is going to be their worst enemy.

In the long, long term, the more serious issues are destruction of the environment (including uncontrolled "progress" and biological weaponry) and unchecked technology (including computers (or whatever they'll call them in the future) and drones).

It is always darkest before the dawn, a truism - the problem being that, until dawn, you don't know how dark things will become: Humans are so selfish and short-sighted that they seem set on annihilating themselves halfway through the night.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it comes to gun rights, supporters pray on the perception of (in)security, incidence of crime and protection of one's personal property and/or family.  Utilizing fear as the catalyst, one always wants to protect what is their's whether the threat is real or perceived or simply asserted.  Fear of loss - If "I" cannot/do not own a gun, how do I protect myself from those who have them legally or illegally and either threaten or use said gun(s) in the commission of crimes (very broad definition here)?   NOTE: Supposedly January 2018 was the slowest month of gun sales since 2012.  Since the Trump Administration is not going to do anything at all to tighten gun laws, the fear of increased regulation is declining and actually negatively impacting gun sales.  After all, how many guns do we really need in society if we already have 300 Million+ of them in circulation?

Elected officials, or those seriously contemplating election to public office, used to have to be on the correct side of their electorate for sexual orientation, gun control and religion (Gays, Guns, God).  That sentiment has been or is being modified and the sexual orientation and religious components have been deemed less in focus, but the gun issue has not; again much of this is geographic and demographic.  After Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, and take your pick of the other education-focused tragedies, one would think tighter gun control laws would be on the forefront....these are kids or young adults just trying to go to school, learn and better themselves.  Schools should be safe.  It has not played out that way.

You never know who or what will be the determining factor in change.  As you noted, the recent focus on the #metoo movement and woman's rights stemmed from a pig in the entertainment industry; we continue to observe as others are being called out for past issues, situations or conduct.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not be surprised if the voices of high schoolers in Parkland spur something like a #metoo movement. THEY are the ones being affected by gun violence in the schools. They demand to know why anybody, mentally ill or not, is guaranteed a right to an assault or semi-assault weapon by a Second Amendment designed with muskets and guerilla militias in mind at a time when the British could have crushed our newly formed country. We are not living in those times anymore, I think some ideologues on this topic are going to find themselves more and more out of sync with a new generation. I bet a lot of people are still surprised by how quickly things have changed with gender and sexuality politics. I see no reason not to hope things could change dramatically on gun laws.

(By the way, call it gun laws instead of CONTROL! The VERY term control is loaded. We have laws, regulations about many things and they are not called CONTROL. Are food safety and occupational safety and child labor and environmental protection laws called CONTROL? Of course not. It looks to me like somebody is trying to make the very concept of sensible gun laws sound like Communist Dictatorship, which is really rich! )

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, MC Horoscope said:

I would not be surprised if the voices of high schoolers in Parkland spur something like a #metoo movement. THEY are the ones being affected by gun violence in the schools. They demand to know why anybody, mentally ill or not, is guaranteed a right to an assault or semi-assault weapon 

This effort is sadly timely but might indeed be powerful.  There is a movement afoot including a day to protest.  I hope teachers and parents of kids from kindergarten to colleges join them across the nation.  

They are targets and they need to unite and speak up.  Their protection is paramount and takes precedence over the current twisting of an ancient amendment that has not been adjusted to reflect the times.  The framers of the documents that established this country would be horrified to see those documents used to enable whack jobs to slaughter young Americans.

They should be joined by people who attend churches and houses of worship, who attend movies, go to concerts, or go to any public place where they are targets of maniacs with modern weapons

17 hours ago, MC Horoscope said:

I would not be surprised if the voices of high schoolers in Parkland spur something like a #metoo movement. THEY are the ones being affected by gun violence in the schools. They demand to know why anybody, mentally ill or not, is guaranteed a right to an assault or semi-assault weapon

I have seen 2 different calls for a national protest centered around students one in March one in April.  Social media is powerful and will spread these messages. 

Something about this reminds me of the protest period against US participation in the war in Vietnam. Protests against that war started in 1964 roughly in conjunction with the Gulf of Tonkin incident and increase in US participation.  Protestors were the minority.  It took till about ‘69, ‘70, or ‘71 when polls found a majority of Americans were against that war.  At that time mothers and fathers, neighbors and family had grown sick of seeing their sons come home in body bags and injured.

It’s been over 5 years since Sandy Hook.  Maybe enough parents of all stripes will join their kids in protest and change the political environment 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Few Headlines (and links) from the WaPo, all worthy of the 15 minutes it may take to read. 

The Florida school shooting has America’s attention. But for how long?

Divided Congress unable to act on guns, immigration despite public pressure.

Outside NRA headquarters, hundreds gather in vigil and protest.

I survived a mass shooting. My life was never the same afterward.

Now is exactly the right time to talk about gun politics

I am a Broward County Teacher; thoughts and prayers won't keep my students safe

Edited by Ferris Bueller
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Ferris Bueller said:

Outside NRA headquarters, hundreds gather in vigil and protest.

I honestly think the #metoo movement has juiced this - mothers are *pissed* to the point where they've had enough, and you haven't heard much from Wayne LaPierre lately - not like he did in the past.

Jane Black - who really shouldn't be mentioned in the same post as these other names - has started something on Facebook, and I don't recall her ever having spoken out about this.

In a twisted way, Harvey Weinstein might end up being partly responsible for stricter gun laws (he doesn't get any more credit than Ernesto Miranda does, but using slightly warped logic, it's not entirely false).

"Suspect Was a 'Good Shot' on NRA-Backed School Rifle Team" by Michael Biesecker and Collin Binkley on abcnews.go.com

When you push a book across a table, at a constant rate of 1 mm / hr, eventually, that book is going to fall onto the floor.

"Fuck You, I Like Guns" on agingmillenialengineer.wordpress.com

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Currently 2 groups are separately promoting a protest centered around students and schools:

NationalWoman’sMarch is promoting an action on March 14 which involves walking out of classes for 17 minutes that day.

In some arrangement with change.org a national student group is promoting an all day strike of schools on April 20 which is the 19rh anniversary of the Columbine shooting.

I’m unfamiliar with both groups and I hope they quickly coalesce.  If students raise a loud and enormous stink with many parents supporting them it could be a powerful movement.  I hope so.

Edited by DaveO
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Al Dente said:

I'd donate to help cover the legal cost!

Why Kids Should Sue The Government For Failing On Gun Control by Miles Howard from WBUR.

There's a really big problem with this - and this is *not* a partisan statement; it's a statement of fact - because our previous President was prohibited by Congress from appointing Merrick Garland, the swing vote may not be there, and this case will obviously make it to the Supreme Court (my feelings about this stonewalling are mentioned in Garland's link).

It is my opinion that the time for a revolt is now, and it is no longer viable to go through the normal channels of bureaucracy. 

They brought this on themselves, and it's going to happen. If, somehow, this dies down - and I'm not so sure it will - we're inching closer-and-closer to full-on rebellion against our country's process of legislation and jurisprudence, and I'm not so sure that's a bad thing. People will still get traffic tickets for driving 100 mph, but as for guns? The law is an ass (Dickens).

Isn't it ironic that people *without* guns are going to be the ones saying "fuck you" to a tyrannical government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some numbers re: the NRA its $ and members, gun ownership etc.

NRA states it has 5 million dues paying members.  At $30/member that is $150million/year

It receives corporate and individual payments .  Reportedly gun manufacturers spend significantly on the NRA.  It is their lobby and their buffer on attacks.

On gun ownership their are about as many guns privately owned as there are people—say 320 million

About 1/3 to 30% of households own guns:  their are about 126 million households—say 40 million households with guns

Thar makes about 8 guns per household that have guns.  That is an average with a wide range.  Some folks are stockpiling guns and have an armory.

While the NRA has 5 million members with very strong allegiances there are about 240 million adults of voting age.  

Besides it’s money the NRA plays tough serious politics.  Have a low NRA rating and the NRA will run someone against you. If you are a Republican with a low NRA rating they run someone against you in the primaries.  

In early Nov last year one source (using one definition) totaled 307 mass shootings in 310 days during the year. Lots of people dead and wounded.

I hope the kids spur a mass movement of voters, who significantly want protections so as to take down ardent NRA supporters in state and national elections this year and effect changes in gun laws.  

I frankly think the 2nd amendment debate and the many laws it generates are a twisting of the original meaning of that amendment.   Far as I can see tens of thousands die from gun violence and except for crazy teeny minority fringes there are no militia.

States have passed Physician gag laws

Last year after Florida’s gag law was first passed in 2011, the law was finally nullified with the state paying $1.1 million in legal fees to those that fought it.  At its most serious the state could remove a doctor’s license to practice if they violated the law.  Laws of this nature are a severe twisting of the 2nd Amendment.  The world of common sense has been turned upside down by this gun lobby 

I’m with the kids.  Mobilize the population. Stop being victims 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ferris Bueller said:

Trump 'open' to gun restrictions for certain individuals, according to White House official

Bump stock prices soar after Trump declares he'll seek ban

I think it's safe to say that the President blinked today, but blinking isn't going to stop any killings.

It would be self-defeating for any protesters to assume things will change until things are signed into law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DonRocks said:

It would be self-defeating for any protesters to assume things will change until things are signed into law.

"After Deadly Parkland Shooting, Deputies Will Now Carry AR-15 Rifles on School Grounds, Sheriff Says" by Julia Jacobo on abcnews.go.com

From the article:

At least one armed school resource deputy was on campus at the time of the shooting, and his response and actions will be "looked at and scrutinized," Israel said.

"You're darn right he was prepared to do something about it," Israel said of the school resource deputy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would follow the lead from the kids/students.  Let the parents, friends, neighbors, family members work with the kids.  I'd do the same thing(s) that other nations do--ban automatic weapons.  That works around the world.  Everything else is talk. 

If a movement arises that is as vigilant and driven on this side of the debate as the NRA is on its side of the debate the size and scope of people who can respond to the needs of the kids will massively overwhelm those that are ardent followers of the NRA.  The "movement" needs to be as singularly focused on its side as the NRA is on its side. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Fla. School Officer Waited outside Building for 4 Minutes as Killings Happened, Sheriff Says" by Julia Jacobo on abcnews.go.com

Does anyone see a fundamental problem, just by reading the title of this article?

These "deputies" don't all have a shoot-to-kill mentality. Does someone cowering while all hell is breaking loose make them a bad person? The guy was suspended without pay, and then chose to resign, and now he's being made a Pariah.

So now, it's not enough to "arm our schools" - we need to arm them with people who have George Patton's mindset.

This is Example A1 that this idea is a non-starter.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 - IF the age to purchase firearms (any and all) is raised to 21 nationwide does that help?  NOTE: Criminals are not likely affected by legal gun purchase laws.

2 - Is it a victory, as a small step in the correct gun law or control direction in this country or a band-aid?  

It is great to finally see open discussion and many people getting involved, but concerned it not enough.  

NRA backlash: Major bank and car-rental giant are ending partnerships

What it is like at a School that allows armed staff

Wall Street might be rethinking its relationship with guns

AR-15 and America's love of military-style weapons

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Ferris Bueller said:

1 - IF the age to purchase firearms (any and all) is raised to 21 nationwide does that help?  NOTE: Criminals are not likely affected by legal gun purchase laws.

2 - Is it a victory, as a small step in the correct gun law or control direction in this country or a band-aid?  

It is great to finally see open discussion and many people getting involved, but concerned it not enough.  

I'm not sure if your (excellent and necessary) questions are rhetorical, or if you're looking for actual answers, but since nobody has replied, let me answer your question with a question (cheese ball that I am) ...

Does it help with climate change  if we close the fifty most egregious CO2-emitting smokestacks?

More to your point, if "help" means "reducing school shootings," then the answer is a complex equation of 1) the number of events perpetrated by shooters ages 18-20, tempered with, 2) whether the 18-20-year-old shooters could still have access to an AR-15. This is putting it in the crudest of terms, of course, but at least it's an answer.

I suppose you could draw a parallel with raising the drinking age from 18 to 21, but the problem with this faulty logic is as follows: If you cut underage drinking down by 25%, that's *great* - a reduction of perhaps millions of teenagers (psst ... take it from the parent of a college student: They still drink in college.); if you cut the number of 18-20-year-old spree-shooters down by 25%, then a reduction of their deadly events would go from (to pull number out of a hat) 16 to 12.

---

[I've obviously taken a decisive stance in this issue, and as moderator, I feel the need right now to say one thing: "I don't want your hunting rifles, and I don't want your recreational guns." - and I'm liberal (i.e., "favoring change") only on issues I strongly feel need changing. The Constitution must be respected in America, but it has absolutely no bearing on my personal concepts of right and wrong (nor other people's: Plenty of these "2nd Amendment is sacrosanct" people would have been gleefully boozing it up during Prohibition, imposed by the equally "sacrosanct" 18th Amendment (which was rescinded by the 21st. Amendment)). As an example to the contrary of my "liberal posture" about this, certain people can thank the Lord that I'm not Federal Budget Director. I am a political Independent, and judge each-and-every issue on its own merits (including big-picture thinking), with my overriding concern being the impossibly nebulous "short-term and long-term happiness of humanity, both living and yet-to-be-born." I say "humanity" because that's sufficiently comprehensive. Flawed example for visualization purposes: I may never see a Black Rhinoceros, but it would make me sad if they went extinct (and, thinking big picture, is there a larger, more general problem that is causing their extinction (poaching, over-development, disease, toxins, etc?)) Restated, I feel that I *am* my brother's keeper, and my brothers include each-and-every person (not American; person) living and yet to live. As long as they're members of this website. I'm kidding!]

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I feel the need right now to say one thing: "I don't want your hunting rifles, and I don't want your recreational guns." 

Let's start with that AND assurances that law abiding citizens have a right to own a firearm to protect their families and properties against criminals out to harm us.

Bear in mind that when the 2nd Amendment was adopted we were still needing firearms to protect us from real BEARS and all kinds of natural threats! And to supply us with game meat in order to even survive! Don't need that so much in 2018 Colesville, Maryland! 

The subject of personal ownership of weapons was NOT even under discussion when the Bill of Rights was up. It was taken for granted that you NEEDED guns! We would not be here today without our ancestors using them for lawful purposes! How likely is it that even these wise Founders could foresee a time when BEARS were not such a danger? Or the need to hunt for survival? I say little to none. Private ownership was not even part of the equation for the 2nd Amendment, I think.

The Heller SCOTUS decision is in my opinion highly flawed and COULD be overturned like the Drew Scott and Plessy v Ferguson decisions. A new law supporting hunters in exchange for concessions on near-machine gun like assault weapon regulation COULD be possible, i think.

ETA: I do not own a gun. Never will. So don't blow me off for speaking up for self defense! My family has been lucky enough not to need guns. If that makes me an ELITE  then ordinarily I would hammer you  but if you knew my low background you'd know referring to me as ELITE might be the nicest thing anybody's ever said about me, believe me! (wink)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The questions were not intended to be rhetorical, however I can see why one may think they were.  Help - was intended to be open-ended. Since the contributors to this forum, depending on topic, tend to be respectful and well read, I wanted to gauge how "we" (society) view any type of concession on the legal aspects of gun ownership.  Since we continue to learn more about the system and how it apparently failed in the background check of the Florida shooter as well as others, if said system is revised, and/or the age to own a gun raised from 18-21, does anything truly change?  It is possible the victory, or progress or tightening of these laws may be a hollow victory which benefits no one.   Does it make guns harder to obtain legally, perhaps, but with hundreds of millions of guns in circulation within the US, I really do not think access is the true issue.  

Our schools are obviously not secure, and that is being publicized more every day.  Locked doors do not keep someone with any type of firearm out, if the glass is easily voided by gunshots.  

Here in Fairfax County, we have had numerous armed robberies in very quiet, typical neighborhoods (for this region).  If you search for "armed robberies Fairfax" what you get are numerous articles about 19 recent robberies in NoVa; this in the last few months.  I personally use two of the gas stations that were held up weekly and often at night.  Not meant as a direct comparison in any way, but remember the DC Sniper(s) scare?  I remember walking into Toys R Us and as I approached the building, people all around me were dodging right and left (zig-zagging) through the parking lots.  Ducking down behind their cars as they filled them with gas.  I refuse to live like that.  

I also want kids to go to school without fear.  There are enough things in this world to worry about, learning should not be one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MC Horoscope said:

"I feel the need right now to say one thing: "I don't want your hunting rifles, and I don't want your recreational guns." 

Let's start with that AND assurances that law abiding citizens have a right to own a firearm to protect their families and properties against criminals out to harm us.

Oh, you noticed I didn't mention that. :rolleyes:

We're in danger of veering off-topic, trying to write final legislation before there's been any type of proposal, but here are my thoughts on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There aren't many things in this world that I'm *really* good at, but one of them is taking a complex issue, and presenting it in a simple, easy-to-understand form.

The 2nd Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

can be summarized as follows:

"The Reason Why," followed by "The What"

"The What" exists because of "The Reason Why."

Is "The Reason Why" still true? If not, then "The What" can (and should) disappear.

It "can" because of basic logic.

It "should" because it's extraneous.

Written as computer pseudo-code:

IF <basic militia is necessary>
     THEN
            <right to bear arms>
      ELSE
            <no instructions given>

Yes, it really *is* that simple.

---

Parallel example:

"If it rains tomorrow, then I'm going to the movies."

IF <it rains tomorrow>
     THEN
           <I'm going to the movies>
      ELSE
           <no instructions given>

Exact same thing. If it *doesn't* rain tomorrow, we don't know what you're going to do: You haven't said anything about what you will do if it doesn't rain. Maybe you'll play golf; maybe you'll take the kids to the park; maybe you'll even go to the movies. Not enough information is in the sentence to know what you're going to do.

And I'll tell you this much: Anyone who insists that the above sentence guarantees you're going to the movies *regardless of whether or not it rains*, is feeding you false information, because YOU CANNOT IGNORE THE FIRST PART OF THE SENTENCE.

Guess what? I'm right.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having been in front of a large screen TV while the shooting at the Florida school was ongoing and seeing once again the horrors attached to a mass shooting virtually live my reaction and disgust with our national problem was revived.

We have endless mass shootings.  We have huge levels of gun violence.  Other similar nations do not.  We decry the violence.  Our government officials do Z.E.R.O.  to end it. We as a nation/government are the problem. 

I frankly think discussing this issue in the context of the 2nd Amendment is a waste of time and fruitless.

In recent times the Supreme Court has ruled 3 times in favor of the 2nd Amendment over state or local jurisdiction restrictions.  Interestingly in 1939 SCOTUS ruled that gun ownership was hindered by the militia clause and lack of militias.

The Court has changed.

The Court is dominated by politics.  The simple fact that the GOP woulen’t vote and do it’s job on Obama’s nominee to SCOTUS exposed this reality.

Interestingly though SCOTUS primarily rejects taking new 2nd Amendment cases from lower courts despite there being a healthy number of opportunities.

6 SCOTUS judges or more won’t take the cases. That includes conservative judges.  Most of the judges recognize the politics of these cases and do not wish to rule on constitutionality at this time.

By the way in 2011 in Florida, where this latest mass murder occurred, the legislatures passed and the current governor signed 2 laws that further protected guns.

One law threatened pediatricians with loss of license if they asked parents about guns in he household.  That law was overturned after 6 years of court cases and appeals.  The second law can penalize a city with a $100,000 fine if they pass restrictive gun laws and can fine a mayor $5,000.  That law is still in effect.

These two laws basically handcuffed locals from even opposing Florida’s gun laws.  Certainly these laws create conflicts with the First Amendment.  Dangerous laws in my opinion.

I wouldn’t waste a breath on the 2nd Amendment.   I would elect people who are strongly opposed to the NRA agenda for both state and national elections.  Then with enough elected officials on hand I would ban assault weapons.  

I’m not worried about details.  I’m not focused on age limits or pistols or hunting rifles.  Ban everything connected to a weapon that can produce rapid fire.  

Follow the kids.  Protect their lives and the lives of people who attend churches, go to outdoor concerts,  indoor clubs, movie theaters and every other social space.

Do what works elsewhere around the world.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...