It's Katie Couric!

[Care4all]

Of course you gun nuts miss the entire point of the film - that we need to reduce gun violence even further and focus on a few seconds that hurt your little thin-skinned feelings. Whine whine whine whine is all I hear from you crazies. Meanwhile over 40,000 people per year in the U.S. are killed or injured by gun violence (exclusive of suicides). What are you doing to help decrease that number? Whine?
Consider joining everytown.org to help make us safer instead of whining.

again...where did you get 40,000....it is a lie .....so please tell us where you got that lie from.......

Did you read his post?

He didn't say 40000 were killed, he specifically said killed OR INJURED....

Did you MISS the part where he said injured???

 

[beagle9]

You did it intentionally.

Katie Couric Regrets 'Poor Decision' to Insert Pause in Anti-Gun Doc

At least she acknowledged and apologized. Good for her!
I wish I could see and get the same from the politicians who don't dare correct themselves this way

A sincere apology requires restitution. She needs to do a 'documentary' about why gun owners are right and she is a whore.

RE: Restitution NOW you're talking
Billy_Kinetta and JimBowie1958
My bf explained she did not openly apologize but other people did.
He said they skirted over this and did not correct it to the same degree of the damage done.

OK so I said what can we do to demand a public correction?
He said that facebook, etc. are all run by liberal media and will silence any attempt.

I said can't we create such a powerful message of correction that it goes viral.
He doesn't think it will get out to that level. I disagree!
So Gentlemen, Billy_Kinetta JimBowie1958 and others
I propose to form a team to write up a script for leaders on BOTH left and right
concerned about responsible law enforcement and use of arms for defense, not for crime
by mentally ill or criminally abusive people, to produce a media message that can be
circulated to call for corrections and unity on Second Amendment issues.

I have some politically active friends ready to put positive messages out
on Pacifica Public Radio and Public Access broadcasting, and one launched
his own video company and needs paid work.

What if I write up a message for Allen West and Sheila Jackson Lee, two of the
most love/hate figures on left and right, to stand together and call for
Constitutional education, training and responsibility as a requirement for gun ownership,
similar to police and military training, but open this up to all citizens to receive training.

Would THAT send a message that the media could not ignore?

I am willing to invest 1,000 in funding a team to write, edit and produce a bipartisan
message that unites people on all sides of gun debates around SOLUTIONS.

And ask the team what do you want in the message. What is short enough that
can fit in a 30second to 3 minute message we can ask Katie Couric to run ON NATIONAL TV
to correct the problem in addition to apologizing to the group she maligned by manipulation?

The points I would recommend to unite people in agreement before issuing a joint statement:
1. The Second Amendment is NOT to be taken out of context with the rest of the Bill of Rights, that includes the right of people to be secure in persons houses and effects and the right to due process. So the bearing of arms is NOT to be abused to disrupt the right to assemble peacefully and securely in houses, in private and in public, and NOT to be abused to deny DUE PROCESS or to obstruct justice, but is for DEFENSE. Can we agree that the Second Amendment cannot be abused if it is taught within the context of the rest of the Constitution?

2. the "right of the people" to keep and bear arms means "Law-Abiding Citizens"
It is NOT for people with criminal intent or criminal illness who need corrective treatment, therapy and rehab for abusive behavior. For all citizens to have equal access to arms, this means equal access to Constitutional education and training in law enforcement, civil due process and govt. Public civic education will also indirectly solve the problems of police abuses or resisting arrest, by teaching all citizens per district the proper procedures and protocol; so that everyone agrees to comply with the same process, or else the people unable to follow laws will be screened out as needing additional help. By promoting and providing such education, this will help screen out abusive people who are not mentally fit for brandishing weapons and/or not legally competent to serve as police or in govt. Everyone will benefit.

I think three points need to be hammered home.

1. We all have a right to self-defense. If criminals have access to guns then those who obey the law must have access to them as well to defend themselves. Telling them to await government response is to put them into the tender mercies of criminals and that is unacceptable.

2. We have a constitutional right to own guns, just like Rosa Parks had to ride in any part of the bus she wanted to. We are not afraid or paranoid for demanding the ability to exercise these rights.

3. The armed populace is the final line of defense of our nations freedoms and to have a government of, by and for the People from whom our government derives every iota of its legitimacy. An unarmed population has no more ability to force its sovereign will than the Germans under Hitler, Russians under Stalin or Ugandans under Amin.

Therefore we will NEVER agree to disarm ourselves and will fight to the last adult standing to protect these rights.

Thank you, JimBowie1958
You may have answered one of my questions I had before I present next week at a meeting
on gun laws, rights and violence.

(A) One of the dominant elders in the group is decidedly for disarming,
citing that "more people are killed by their own guns in their homes than by criminals".

1. My bf said that stat is FALSE, and to 'go google' the REAL stats on how many people are killed by gun violence by criminal shooters vs. how many people are killed by accident by their own guns (I already know the arguments about why not ban cars since cars cause more accidents, deaths, injuries and damage than guns, but that argument doesn't EMOTIONALLY convince opponents. It just makes them reach for a different bullet.)
2. Can ANYONE send or post LINKS to STATS on the real comparison of gun shooting deaths by criminals with their own weapons vs. people killed by accident or in crimes gone wrong by their own guns?

(B) JimBowie1958
I REALLY want the SPIRIT of the argument that is similar to "not banning ALL citizens from having guns just because SOME people have accidents"

I like your argument in #1 but it is not the "emotional equivalent and WEIGHT" of the passionate emotional argument that "we want to prevent too many accident deaths that seem disproportionate to the benefits"

To have the SAME WEIGHT, then with or without proving it by citing stats (which doesn't work with emotionally driven arguments) What is the political equivalent of arguing that the right to bear arms is still worth the sacrifice of losing lives to accidents:

1. is it abortion
That even though MOST abortions are NOT to save the lives of women, but 85% of abortions end up harming women emotionally through post abortion syndrome.
It is still more important not to infringe on free choice because govt is intruding too much.

So be consistent. If you are going to argue that ALL guns should be banned,
then why not ban ALL abortions. If you are going to restrict guns to just military and police,
then why not restrict abortions to just medically necessary ones?

Or else it is discrimination, by treating these rights and beliefs differently.
Banning one but refusing to ban another.

Is that the equivalent?

2. I like your equating it to civil rights that people have by nature.

The way I explained it to another liberal Democrat was that changing the law to ban or add restrictions
was "depriving liberty" from someone who used to have freedom to buy guns. So what crime was committed by which people, what due process of law was conducted to determine WHO should lose those rights?

Is it fair to treat ALL people like criminals or like 'irresponsible or unsuccessful gun owners who will set themselves up to be harmed or killed by their own guns because something goes wrong'

Should we punish the majority who are responsible because of the smaller percentage that have accidents or fail at defending themselves from crime where the criminal uses their own gun against them?

If that is the target problem, why is banning guns the only solution?

Is banning abortion the only solution to preventing harm in those situations?

What do you think? What has the equivalent emotional weight
of "banning weapons" as an easy solution, that sounds good so people stop there.

3. Again my bf cited drug laws.
Why insist on restricting and regulating guns, but deregulating and decriminalizing illegal drugs.

What about that argument? Any others?

. The whole key is punishment for crimes. Make the punishments match the crimes, and get guns away from the truly mentally ill in society, but do it in a way that is not agenda riddled by those who desire all guns be taken away from the good citizens of society, instead of from the criminals and the mentally ill. If allow the libs to run things or allow them to attempt to change things for the better, then all we get is biased agenda riddled bull crap that doesn't do anything but trample the rights of the good citizens of this nation. If confiscate a weapon from an idiot who was wrecklace or dangerous with a weapon, then make an example of the idiot that will send a message out to all other criminal minded idiots that it is very unwise to brandish a weapon in ways that are threatening or wrecklace to the innocent around them. If kill someone as in murder someone with a weapon/gun, then the trial should take place, then the person should be hung by the neck until dead, and not live in a hotel I mean jail on the tax payer dime while the victim is rotting away in the earth. It's time to get tough on criminals again, but first we got to get the criminal sympathizers out of their positions of power in this nation.

 

[JimBowie1958]

JimBowie1958
You've given me an idea.
Maybe I should open this up as a contest.

Whoever can convince my friend Jimmy Dunne of the Death Penalty Education Center
to cease this argument that "more people are killed by their own weapons"
should get a prize.

The key is citing different stats that show otherwise may not work as the
EMOTIONAL reason for the argument. If people are arguing based on
personal belief or emotion, then the argument needs to APPEAL to that
in order to convince the person to change their mind.

If he's attached to a false perception, then the argument may need
to be INDEPENDENT of whether it's true or false, such as making
a parallel comparison with an argument he's equally impassioned about.

If he's against the death penalty, then how can that be
used to make a parallel argument? Would that work?
(ie to show he is arguing one way in one case, but
in the other case contradicting that same argument? anyone?)

There is no guarantee that an ideologue when confronted with overwhelming evidence contrary to their ideology wont simply refuse to accept the evidence and persist in his beliefs anyway.

Ideology is the equivalent of a secular religion.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Of course you gun nuts miss the entire point of the film - that we need to reduce gun violence even further and focus on a few seconds that hurt your little thin-skinned feelings. Whine whine whine whine is all I hear from you crazies. Meanwhile over 40,000 people per year in the U.S. are killed or injured by gun violence (exclusive of suicides). What are you doing to help decrease that number? Whine?
Consider joining everytown.org to help make us safer instead of whining.

again...where did you get 40,000....it is a lie .....so please tell us where you got that lie from.......

Did you read his post?

He didn't say 40000 were killed, he specifically said killed OR INJURED....

Did you MISS the part where he said injured???

But still, I missed the source as well. Can you or he provide the source for that 40k annual death/injury statistic?

 

[2aguy]

Of course you gun nuts miss the entire point of the film - that we need to reduce gun violence even further and focus on a few seconds that hurt your little thin-skinned feelings. Whine whine whine whine is all I hear from you crazies. Meanwhile over 40,000 people per year in the U.S. are killed or injured by gun violence (exclusive of suicides). What are you doing to help decrease that number? Whine?
Consider joining everytown.org to help make us safer instead of whining.

again...where did you get 40,000....it is a lie .....so please tell us where you got that lie from.......

Did you read his post?

He didn't say 40000 were killed, he specifically said killed OR INJURED....

Did you MISS the part where he said injured???

Yeah...still doesn't add up to 40,000 twit.......

8,124 murdered by illegal gun use

15,000 non fatal gun accidents...

586 accidental gun deaths......

Show us your mad math skill that turn those numbers into 40,000....

 

[2aguy]

JimBowie1958
You've given me an idea.
Maybe I should open this up as a contest.

Whoever can convince my friend Jimmy Dunne of the Death Penalty Education Center
to cease this argument that "more people are killed by their own weapons"
should get a prize.

The key is citing different stats that show otherwise may not work as the
EMOTIONAL reason for the argument. If people are arguing based on
personal belief or emotion, then the argument needs to APPEAL to that
in order to convince the person to change their mind.

If he's attached to a false perception, then the argument may need
to be INDEPENDENT of whether it's true or false, such as making
a parallel comparison with an argument he's equally impassioned about.

If he's against the death penalty, then how can that be
used to make a parallel argument? Would that work?
(ie to show he is arguing one way in one case, but
in the other case contradicting that same argument? anyone?)

You can't convince him.......he will include suicides and no matter how many times you explain that guns are banned in Japan, China and South Korea, and they have higher suicide rates than we do....also France and many other gun banning countries.....it will not change his mind...

Also...guns are used to save lives more than they take them...8,124 gun murders in 2014...90% of the shooters are convicted felons and 70-80% of the fifties are also convicted felons, not normal people........leaving about 1,642 truly innocent mirder victims.........and it won't matter to him......

Guns are not the problem.......controlling criminals is...and he is already biased against the criminal justice system....

Japan had a gun problem with their organized criminals.....they stopped it by imposing 30 year sentences on gun crimes......that dried up their yakuza gun problem.......ask him if he would be in favor of 30 years for illegal possession of a gun by a felon...which will target minorities the most since they are currently doing the majority of gun crimes......

See how he responds to that...

 

[2aguy]

Of course you gun nuts miss the entire point of the film - that we need to reduce gun violence even further and focus on a few seconds that hurt your little thin-skinned feelings. Whine whine whine whine is all I hear from you crazies. Meanwhile over 40,000 people per year in the U.S. are killed or injured by gun violence (exclusive of suicides). What are you doing to help decrease that number? Whine?
Consider joining everytown.org to help make us safer instead of whining.

again...where did you get 40,000....it is a lie .....so please tell us where you got that lie from.......

Did you read his post?

He didn't say 40000 were killed, he specifically said killed OR INJURED....

Did you MISS the part where he said injured???

Yeah...still doesn't add up to 40,000 twit.......

8,124 murdered by illegal gun use

15,000 non fatal gun accidents...

586 accidental gun deaths......

Show us your mad math skill that turn those numbers into 40,000....

And he stated exclusive of suicides so don't even try to add those in.......and they wouldn't count anyway...

 

[2aguy]

Of course you gun nuts miss the entire point of the film - that we need to reduce gun violence even further and focus on a few seconds that hurt your little thin-skinned feelings. Whine whine whine whine is all I hear from you crazies. Meanwhile over 40,000 people per year in the U.S. are killed or injured by gun violence (exclusive of suicides). What are you doing to help decrease that number? Whine?
Consider joining everytown.org to help make us safer instead of whining.

again...where did you get 40,000....it is a lie .....so please tell us where you got that lie from.......

Did you read his post?

He didn't say 40000 were killed, he specifically said killed OR INJURED....

Did you MISS the part where he said injured???

But still, I missed the source as well. Can you or he provide the source for that 40k annual death/injury statistic?

They can't....I can source my numbers to the FBI homicide table 8 and the CDC Wisqars data base...and they don't add up to 40,000.... They may have gotten those numbers from an anti gun website...

 

[emilynghiem]

JimBowie1958
You've given me an idea.
Maybe I should open this up as a contest.

Whoever can convince my friend Jimmy Dunne of the Death Penalty Education Center
to cease this argument that "more people are killed by their own weapons"
should get a prize.

The key is citing different stats that show otherwise may not work as the
EMOTIONAL reason for the argument. If people are arguing based on
personal belief or emotion, then the argument needs to APPEAL to that
in order to convince the person to change their mind.

If he's attached to a false perception, then the argument may need
to be INDEPENDENT of whether it's true or false, such as making
a parallel comparison with an argument he's equally impassioned about.

If he's against the death penalty, then how can that be
used to make a parallel argument? Would that work?
(ie to show he is arguing one way in one case, but
in the other case contradicting that same argument? anyone?)

There is no guarantee that an ideologue when confronted with overwhelming evidence contrary to their ideology wont simply refuse to accept the evidence and persist in his beliefs anyway.

Ideology is the equivalent of a secular religion.

OK JimBowie1958 now we're talking
Given my friend's political beliefs and religion
how do we set up the parallel.
what is the equivalent political belief to his that he "doesn't want govt abused to impose on all people"
Should I just ask the group to figure this out, until he agrees what is
the equivalent from the other side he doesn't want imposed on him either?

Hmmm so we have at least 5 degrees of these beliefs

+3 absolutely NO restrictions on the right to bear arms by govt
-3 absolutely NO guns in the hands of citizens, totally banned
So these two extremes cancel out

+2 MINIMAL restrictions/regulations on guns if this is voted in by majority rule (but still opposed)
-2 MAXIMUM restriction/regulations that can get passed by majority rule (but still want more)
So these two levels cancel out

+1 favor MINIMAL restrictions/regulations but will accept and not oppose laws made by majority rule
-1 favor MAXIMUM restrictions/regulations but will accept and not oppose laws made by majority rule

0= neutral which nobody I know is, so I will provide:
>=0 favor consensus but will accept whatever combination of the above that other people consent to
<=0 demand consensus, will not accept anything less than agreement since beliefs are involved,
and will otherwise protest (this is me, I'm not perfectly neutral and have a bias toward consensus as
the only proveable standard, though I try to be on the other side of 0 and work with reality of what's possible)

 

[emilynghiem]

Of course you gun nuts miss the entire point of the film - that we need to reduce gun violence even further and focus on a few seconds that hurt your little thin-skinned feelings. Whine whine whine whine is all I hear from you crazies. Meanwhile over 40,000 people per year in the U.S. are killed or injured by gun violence (exclusive of suicides). What are you doing to help decrease that number? Whine?
Consider joining everytown.org to help make us safer instead of whining.

Dear sonic and Care4all
Sorry I missed your replies that you did try to research and cite where my friend was getting the gun violence stats from.

sonic what I propose is
1. medical research into spiritual healing methods that have been used BOTH to
a. diagnose and screen dangerous and criminal mental illness early and distinguish normal anger or mild abuse from truly chronic addictions or psychopathic/obsessed predatory type disorders that require either detention or treatment as the person poses a danger to themselves or others
b. to treat and either manage these or cure them. NOTE: if people are not cured fully physically of extreme conditions that relapse (such as pedophilia which can take 25 years to cure in mild to moderate cases while severe ones seem incureable even to the most experienced experts in spiritual healing, similar to cases of cancer that range in degree or stages of cureable to terminal/incureable) then if they are at least healed in spirit they will not desire to hurt others but will work WITH doctors and authorities to "stay safe" instead of rebelling and refusing to comply with help. So even that can be changed to the point they will comply with authorities instead of staying in denial and danger to others. They will agree to stay detained under treatment
c. in cases where the people start out in such denial and sickness they REFUSE to get help with their abuse and criminal problems, the cases where such people got help started with FAMILY or other friends getting the spiritual help of healers to intervene (see Scott Peck "Glimpses of the Devil" on healing two schizophrenic patients that refused treatment).
It may be necessary to add a legal clause, that if people are AWARE of such a criminal threat of sickness (on the level of AIDS or Ebola which pose threats of death to others) but fail to report it and enable others to get hurt by not doing so, then they become legally and financially liable for damages if the person is too legally incompetent to be held responsible. Something like that could be explored IF spiritual healing is proven and provided as a public resource where people agree to be required to call for help. In cases there are no criminal abuses it stays voluntary. But if criminal actions or threats already cause "disruption or breach of the peace" it could be made mandatory to report dangerous people who could kill others.

I would propose that districts look into citizenship education and tests to be required of people upon turning 18 similar to driver's licenses in order to confirm legal privileges, where people learn the laws similar to learning the laws of the road before driving a car. This would screen people out who refuse to learn or comply, possibly due to mental or criminal abusive addictions that require treatment. If school districts get a tax break, that if crime rates are reduced and fewer people are going to prison at a cost of 50K in taxes per year, then that district gets to keep more of its tax based to fund education, then this would reverse the trend we have of more Black men going to prison instead of college which can cost half as much as prison.

2. agree on policing procedures on "due process" and guns for defense and law enforcement
By having citizens, police and teachers in each district agree what are the procedures
for law enforcement or apprehension/detention processes, then this will screen out anyone who
is abusive and cannot comply but need psychological or medical help. And will train the capable
citizens and police on gun responsibility and safety so everyone is on the same page.

For example, I would teach the laws as
1. you have the right to free speech and free exercise of religion, but
within the context of the right of people PEACEABLE to assemble and to petition to redress grievances.
Ie your freedoms within the First Amendment cannot be taken out of context with
the REST of the First Amendment where you violate or abuse the same laws you are invoking.

So you can't abuse your freedom to disrupt the equal freedom and peace of others,
or else it causes objections and protests that can get violent. Don't abuse the law
to abuse others, but respect "equal rights freedom and protection" under law.
If you have a grievance, use freedom of speech and press to petition CIVILLY
and not use force or coercion because that starts the cycle of abuse and violence,
ie bullying to competing with greater force of exclusion or coercion.

2. you have the right to bear arms, but within the context of the REST of the Bill of Rights,
which include the right of people to SECURITY or peace within their persons houses and effects.
So you can't abuse arms to violate other laws within the same standards you are citing.

Another way to agree on this:
Agreeing to interpret the right of the people to bear arms
is the right of law abiding citizens to bear arms.
Law abiding includes police and military and govt
equally as civilians who aren't police military or official govt.
The law makes us equally where we commit to enforce it equally.

3. I would recommend that citizens teachers and police distribute the
basic laws and process that all people in each district should agree to follow
in order to live there. And if they do not agree to sign a statement on this,
they either need mental or medical help if they have a criminal issue,
or work out grievances legally if there is a conflict in how the ordinance is written,
or they can move to a different district if they AGREE that is easier than resolving
the conflict in how the local ordinance is written.

Examples of the Bill of Rights, Code of Ethics, Police Mission statement etc.
are posted here that fit on one page handouts: ethics-commission.net

This process of discussing and resolving conflicts over law will help
teach conflict resolution, mediation and consensus on law, and screen out
abusive or truly impaired people who need help to follow the same standards of law.

That is the best approach to prevention and correction I have found.
And I would include the spiritual healing process to handle the otherwise
unresolvable issues with personality conflicts and mental/medical conditions
that otherwise prevent people from complying with law and respecting consent of others.

For resources on spiritual healing for further medical research and development:
freespiritualhealing

 

[beagle9]

Of course you gun nuts miss the entire point of the film - that we need to reduce gun violence even further and focus on a few seconds that hurt your little thin-skinned feelings. Whine whine whine whine is all I hear from you crazies. Meanwhile over 40,000 people per year in the U.S. are killed or injured by gun violence (exclusive of suicides). What are you doing to help decrease that number? Whine?
Consider joining everytown.org to help make us safer instead of whining.

Dear sonic and Care4all
Sorry I missed your replies that you did try to research and cite where my friend was getting the gun violence stats from.

sonic what I propose is
1. medical research into spiritual healing methods that have been used BOTH to
a. diagnose and screen dangerous and criminal mental illness early and distinguish normal anger or mild abuse from truly chronic addictions or psychopathic/obsessed predatory type disorders that require either detention or treatment as the person poses a danger to themselves or others
b. to treat and either manage these or cure them. NOTE: if people are not cured fully physically of extreme conditions that relapse (such as pedophilia which can take 25 years to cure in mild to moderate cases while severe ones seem incureable even to the most experienced experts in spiritual healing, similar to cases of cancer that range in degree or stages of cureable to terminal/incureable) then if they are at least healed in spirit they will not desire to hurt others but will work WITH doctors and authorities to "stay safe" instead of rebelling and refusing to comply with help. So even that can be changed to the point they will comply with authorities instead of staying in denial and danger to others. They will agree to stay detained under treatment
c. in cases where the people start out in such denial and sickness they REFUSE to get help with their abuse and criminal problems, the cases where such people got help started with FAMILY or other friends getting the spiritual help of healers to intervene (see Scott Peck "Glimpses of the Devil" on healing two schizophrenic patients that refused treatment).
It may be necessary to add a legal clause, that if people are AWARE of such a criminal threat of sickness (on the level of AIDS or Ebola which pose threats of death to others) but fail to report it and enable others to get hurt by not doing so, then they become legally and financially liable for damages if the person is too legally incompetent to be held responsible. Something like that could be explored IF spiritual healing is proven and provided as a public resource where people agree to be required to call for help. In cases there are no criminal abuses it stays voluntary. But if criminal actions or threats already cause "disruption or breach of the peace" it could be made mandatory to report dangerous people who could kill others.

I would propose that districts look into citizenship education and tests to be required of people upon turning 18 similar to driver's licenses in order to confirm legal privileges, where people learn the laws similar to learning the laws of the road before driving a car. This would screen people out who refuse to learn or comply, possibly due to mental or criminal abusive addictions that require treatment. If school districts get a tax break, that if crime rates are reduced and fewer people are going to prison at a cost of 50K in taxes per year, then that district gets to keep more of its tax based to fund education, then this would reverse the trend we have of more Black men going to prison instead of college which can cost half as much as prison.

2. agree on policing procedures on "due process" and guns for defense and law enforcement
By having citizens, police and teachers in each district agree what are the procedures
for law enforcement or apprehension/detention processes, then this will screen out anyone who
is abusive and cannot comply but need psychological or medical help. And will train the capable
citizens and police on gun responsibility and safety so everyone is on the same page.

For example, I would teach the laws as
1. you have the right to free speech and free exercise of religion, but
within the context of the right of people PEACEABLE to assemble and to petition to redress grievances.
Ie your freedoms within the First Amendment cannot be taken out of context with
the REST of the First Amendment where you violate or abuse the same laws you are invoking.

So you can't abuse your freedom to disrupt the equal freedom and peace of others,
or else it causes objections and protests that can get violent. Don't abuse the law
to abuse others, but respect "equal rights freedom and protection" under law.
If you have a grievance, use freedom of speech and press to petition CIVILLY
and not use force or coercion because that starts the cycle of abuse and violence,
ie bullying to competing with greater force of exclusion or coercion.

2. you have the right to bear arms, but within the context of the REST of the Bill of Rights,
which include the right of people to SECURITY or peace within their persons houses and effects.
So you can't abuse arms to violate other laws within the same standards you are citing.

Another way to agree on this:
Agreeing to interpret the right of the people to bear arms
is the right of law abiding citizens to bear arms.
Law abiding includes police and military and govt
equally as civilians who aren't police military or official govt.
The law makes us equally where we commit to enforce it equally.

3. I would recommend that citizens teachers and police distribute the
basic laws and process that all people in each district should agree to follow
in order to live there. And if they do not agree to sign a statement on this,
they either need mental or medical help if they have a criminal issue,
or work out grievances legally if there is a conflict in how the ordinance is written,
or they can move to a different district if they AGREE that is easier than resolving
the conflict in how the local ordinance is written.

Examples of the Bill of Rights, Code of Ethics, Police Mission statement etc.
are posted here that fit on one page handouts: ethics-commission.net

This process of discussing and resolving conflicts over law will help
teach conflict resolution, mediation and consensus on law, and screen out
abusive or truly impaired people who need help to follow the same standards of law.

That is the best approach to prevention and correction I have found.
And I would include the spiritual healing process to handle the otherwise
unresolvable issues with personality conflicts and mental/medical conditions
that otherwise prevent people from complying with law and respecting consent of others.

For resources on spiritual healing for further medical research and development:
freespiritualhealing

. Who runs these programs is key, but many Pandora's boxes could be opened if the program's creators or operators have political agenda's involved. Sad for us all really, because that is what has been holding us back for ever now.