CDZ GUNS: a challenge to both liberals and conservatives

[Foxfyre]

No state or local community should be able to pass any law discriminatory toward any person just because that person is who/what he/she is through no fault of his/her own. But any state or local community should be able to pass any law that applies to all persons regardless of who/what/they are. So if a state/city wants to pass a law prohibiting indecent exposure, setting requirements for who can be legally married under the law, prohibiting open saloons or public drunkenness or profanity or littering or soliciting for sex or money or prohibiting open and/or concealed carry or any other provisions they want for their society, the federal government should have no say whatsoever in that.

If that is not the case, then none of us have any liberties whatsoever other than what the federal government allows us to have. And that is a complete reversal of what the Founders intended with the Constitution and the great nation founded under its auspices.

I do agree with the overall message, however, when it come to the rights of the citizens, I have a problem. Think of it this way. If we allow states to have a ban on the ownership/possession of handguns (a clear violation of the 2nd as decided in Heller), what then, would stop a state from banning speech of a given variety? In other words what is the fundamental difference between banning handguns and banning anti-semitic speech, for example? I find BOTH bans to be clear violations of their respective amendments (2nd and 1st). Therefore, I find BOTH to be equally appalling, even though I find anti-semitism to be appalling in and of itself.

We agree on much. Decent, compassionate, tolerant people hate exclusion of people purely on who they are, what they think, what they believe, what they say and will criticize anti-semitic or any other hateful displays or speech everywhere it occurs.

But where you and I are not going to agree is that yes, technically, any local entity, community, county or state should have the ability to order what kind of society they want to be and the federal/central government should have little or no say in that. I have no problem with federal law that says, unless there is a compelling reason to do so, a public entity cannot ban men, women, Jews, Muslims, Christians, straights, gays, etc. etc. etc. A compelling reason might be if it is a Christian organization advertising itself as such, it should not be compelled to put non-Christians on its governing board or some such as that. Or if it is a men's club for men only, it should not be required to admit women, etc. Or when it comes to biological needs/differences/morality/safety we should be able to have separate restrooms, locker rooms, sleeping accommodations and such for men and women.

So yes, I think a public entity--i.e. any place open to the general public--has every right to dictate what speech is or is not acceptable within that segment of society. If I want to require coats and ties or no service or shirts and shoes or no service, or prohibit profanity or bigoted speech, it should be my right to do so in my place of business. And if I do not want guns in my place of business, it should be my right to say sorry, no guns--leave them at home or check them at the door, but we are a gun free establishment. (No, I would not do that if I was running a business, but it should be my right to do.)

So long as it does not discriminate against any specific person, demographic, or group but applies the same rules to everybody, it should be my right to decide what will and will not be allowed in my place of business. Even if some people are more inconvenienced than others.

The same goes for the community, the county, and the state. Each Constitutionally is authorized to establish whatever sort of society it wishes to have and to be able to enforce that and the federal government or the courts should have very little say in that. Some aren't going to do it the way we think it should be done, but the more that intended right of the states and the people is infringed, the fewer liberties we all have.

Let me cut to what I see as the fundamental disagreement here is:

So long as it does not discriminate against any specific person, demographic, or group but applies the same rules to everybody, it should be my right to decide what will and will not be allowed in my place of business. Even if some people are more inconvenienced than others.

Agreed, it is your business, and as such you should have the RIGHT to run it as you see fit, within the constraints you have set forth. However...

The same goes for the community, the county, and the state.

This is entirely different. Here is the case law president that was set:
"In Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), the Supreme Court held that Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution..." Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia
Hence, any law that would violate the COTUS, is therefore unconstitutional and not permitted under the Supremacy Clause, which states:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

As I have told many others, I do not allow others, certainly not the courts, to dictate what is right and wrong to me. The law itself may or may not represent virtue or righteousness, and very often it does not. And it is the nature of the courts these days to exaggerate the intent of what law or rulings exist and make that fit their own agendas.

So for the purpose of this discussion, I don't CARE what the law of the land is. I am looking for a compromise between an American left with its agenda and the American right with its agenda to find some way to compromise on a way to correct a problem that both see exists. That compromise might or might not involve new laws or changing existing ones.

Right now each side is dug into their own agenda and that is all that matters to them. So if we can't even have the conversation, no solution to the problem is going to be possible.

Perhaps we should treat mass shootings like all other murders and not look for a "special" solution. Truth is that it's the idea that it's a special sort of crime that is creating all the trouble.

The mass murders are a small part of death via violent acts in the USA, but they get a huge lion's share of the media coverage and are studied like virtually no other crime. 17 died at Parkland and that is a tragedy of terrible proportions. The media covered it almost non stop for days and has covered it intermittently since and we all know more about that shooting than we know what happened in our our respective communities this week.

Hundreds of kids die on Chicago streets, in the projects, etc. every year that passes and the vast majority of us never hear about them except as a statistic. And that is repeated to various degrees in other cities across the country.

I want an honest national discussion on why this keeps happening and what needs to happen to stop it.

 

[2aguy]

Reasonable restrictions on civilian guns that are not likely to ever be used for hunting or self protection or recreational target shooting but that are designed to effect maximum damage?

AR-15s are used for both hunting and self protection......as are all the other semi auto rifles and pistols.....

Reasonable gun registration even at gun shows, so that effective background checks can be run and guns can be denied or confiscated from those who are clearly incompetent to have them or who are a danger to themselves or society?

Do you realize that felons and criminals...under the Haynes v. United States Supreme Court decision do not need to register illegal guns because it would violate their Right against self incrimination...so if actual criminals don't have to register their illegal guns.....how do you expect to require legal gun owners to register their legal guns...

Gun registration was used in Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, New York and California to eventually confiscate guns......and in Germany, the disarmed were murdered in gas chambers.........

Criminals do not get their guns from gun shows, they use straw buyers or steal the guns....straw buyers can pass current federal background checks which means they can pass any background check at a gun show or for a private sale.....on the other side, forcing background checks on private property increases the time and cost to people who have committed no crime. We can already arrest felons who buy guns illegally, so we don't need to increase background check laws......

Maybe the problem is the people who do bad things with the guns and not the gun themselves, and certainly bad people who do terrible things don't care what laws they break to do them, but can we admit that at least some reasonable restrictions are worthwhile to consider? Could we compromise on some things in order to achieve agreement and cooperation from most everybody to actually fix the problem?

The problem isn't a lack of gun laws.....the problem is democrat politicians constantly releasing violent gun criminals out of jail...to shoot more people, and the government failing to deal with actually dangerous people they know about.....

Felons can't buy, own or carry guns....we can already arrest them. We don't need more laws to do this...we can do it already...

The only thing we should do...increase jail sentences for gun criminals....this is how Japan stopped the Yakuza from using guns in their latest gang war........we need to put a 30 year sentence on actual gun crime, rape, robbery and murder.....this has the added benefits of no increase in pointless paperwork, no added cost to law abiding gun owners, and no legal jeopardy for law abiding gun owners....we actually focus on people who use guns to commit crimes...not people who own guns for self defense..

I hope this helps....

I come from a long line of hunters and not a single one of them has ever gone hunting with an AR-15. I am quite certain that an AR-15 isn't necessary to hunt any kind of game anybody is hunting.

So while I appreciate the information on guns--I own guns, am a damn good shot, and a card carrying member of the NRA and a strong 2nd Amendment advocate--the premise of the thread is what you or any others would be willing to compromise on in order to achieve a mutual effort to make schools and our society in general more safe.

It's not "what's necessary" to exercise to hunt. The second amendment is not about huniing. NO compromise should be made.

Nor is the OP about what is necessary for hunting. My post was in response to somebody who insisted AR-15s are used for hunting. Any reasonable person would agree that AR-15s are not NECESSARY for hunting.

Thus, if I could get all or most of those cultural things on the list in the OP, I could agree to ban manufacture and sale of AR-15s with a pretty clear conscience. Do I think that banning AR-15s would solve the problem in any way? Not at all. But understanding that some here think they would, that is one of some concessions I would be willing to make in order to get what I believe would be a solution to the problem.

You see I believe our culture is creating and cultivating criminal minds and intent and sociopathic tendencies. I want us to stop doing that. The pro gun control crowd almost certainly disagrees with me on that, but would they consent to all or most of the cultural fixes in order to get at least some of the gun control they want?

No one needs to justify to government why they should be free to exercise their Constitutional rights. Specifically in this case, we don't need to convince government if we have a right to an AR15 or not, we do.

Just like we don't need to convince government to give us free speech, a jury trial or a warrant to search our home.

Why would they bother putting it in the Constitution if it's our job to convince government to protect that right? That's not really a protected right at all

But that is non sequitur to the point I was making. I haven't made an argument about convincing the government to do anything. This argument is about convincing all of us to stop the taunts and threats and yelling past each other and agree on what we want to do to stop the mass shooting and other unconscionable violence in our society and what each side of the debate might be able to agree to in order for that to happen.

It can't happen if all we do is say we want things like we want it and everybody else can just go to hell. It is that mentality that pretty much put us in the current mess in the first place.

This argument is about convincing all of us to stop the taunts and threats and yelling past each other and agree on what we want to do to stop the mass shooting and other unconscionable violence in our society and what each side of the debate might be able to agree to in order for that to happen.

The anti gun side isn't interested in doing what works. The anti gun side wants to ban guns......that's it. Each law they put out, each thing they want to do......only effects law abiding gun owners.....when we point this out, they say we want people to die.

There is no agreeing to what they want. Each agreement ends up being our giving up one more type of gun, a bullet or a magazine......then, the next time a mass shooting happens, that is the starting point for the next give up from our side.....

Tell us...how do you agree with people who want your side to give up everything....?

 

[danielpalos]

In the wake of yet another tragic school shooting, it is reasonable to have a national discussion on what to do about it. And since the discussion so far is a) more gun control vs b) more guns/protection for the kids, and there seems to be little middle ground, the solution seems to be an unattainable goal for most of American society.

So the challenge is:

Would liberals be willing to consider the truth in the following and consider working toward social policy to achieve it?

--kids need a responsible mom and a dad in the home. Very very few criminals or violent people of any sort come from such homes.

--kids benefit from a religious faith that teaches love, respect for life and authority, caring from others. Good churches and synagogues aren't producing many criminals.

--kids need role models that demonstrate some of the best to which we can aspire instead of heaping admiration and fame, making heroes out of, or generating sympathy for those who promote hate, anger, violence, and lawless behavior.

--kids need to be taught personal responsibility and accountability in which the norm is educating yourself, staying away from illegal substances and activities, meriting a good reputation, learning a trade, getting married before having kids, and contributing to your family, your community, your country. Such people are rarely involved in any kind of bad acts.

--kids need video games, television programs, and movies that promote real heroism, good triumphing over evil, and rejection of violence except in self defense. When video games have the player having to do bad, even evil things to win, how can that not translate how they relate to their real world? When what passes for entertainment promotes the worst kind of violence, promiscuity, immorality, and sympathy for the bad guys, it is no wonder that children become desensitized to violence or the pain of others and see bad acts as glorious acts. It all is teaching the kids and it is invariable that some of them will be motivated to act on it.

Maybe correlation isn't causation when it comes to kids being violent, but I sure think we need to look at what we really are teaching and how that contributes to the social problems we have.
​

And if the liberals were willing to acknowledge the advantage in all or most of that, would the conservatives/libertarians be willing to consider:

Reasonable restrictions on civilian guns that are not likely to ever be used for hunting or self protection or recreational target shooting but that are designed to effect maximum damage?

Reasonable gun registration even at gun shows, so that effective background checks can be run and guns can be denied or confiscated from those who are clearly incompetent to have them or who are a danger to themselves or society?

Maybe the problem is the people who do bad things with the guns and not the gun themselves, and certainly bad people who do terrible things don't care what laws they break to do them, but can we admit that at least some reasonable restrictions are worthwhile to consider? Could we compromise on some things in order to achieve agreement and cooperation from most everybody to actually fix the problem?
​

So that's it. This is the CDZ so keep it reasonably civil if the topic interests you. And the poll is designed so that you can change your choices if you are inspired to change your point of view during the discussion.

Discuss.

​

​

Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well.

Muster the militia until crime drops.

Better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia!

 

[hunarcy]

I do agree with the overall message, however, when it come to the rights of the citizens, I have a problem. Think of it this way. If we allow states to have a ban on the ownership/possession of handguns (a clear violation of the 2nd as decided in Heller), what then, would stop a state from banning speech of a given variety? In other words what is the fundamental difference between banning handguns and banning anti-semitic speech, for example? I find BOTH bans to be clear violations of their respective amendments (2nd and 1st). Therefore, I find BOTH to be equally appalling, even though I find anti-semitism to be appalling in and of itself.

We agree on much. Decent, compassionate, tolerant people hate exclusion of people purely on who they are, what they think, what they believe, what they say and will criticize anti-semitic or any other hateful displays or speech everywhere it occurs.

But where you and I are not going to agree is that yes, technically, any local entity, community, county or state should have the ability to order what kind of society they want to be and the federal/central government should have little or no say in that. I have no problem with federal law that says, unless there is a compelling reason to do so, a public entity cannot ban men, women, Jews, Muslims, Christians, straights, gays, etc. etc. etc. A compelling reason might be if it is a Christian organization advertising itself as such, it should not be compelled to put non-Christians on its governing board or some such as that. Or if it is a men's club for men only, it should not be required to admit women, etc. Or when it comes to biological needs/differences/morality/safety we should be able to have separate restrooms, locker rooms, sleeping accommodations and such for men and women.

So yes, I think a public entity--i.e. any place open to the general public--has every right to dictate what speech is or is not acceptable within that segment of society. If I want to require coats and ties or no service or shirts and shoes or no service, or prohibit profanity or bigoted speech, it should be my right to do so in my place of business. And if I do not want guns in my place of business, it should be my right to say sorry, no guns--leave them at home or check them at the door, but we are a gun free establishment. (No, I would not do that if I was running a business, but it should be my right to do.)

So long as it does not discriminate against any specific person, demographic, or group but applies the same rules to everybody, it should be my right to decide what will and will not be allowed in my place of business. Even if some people are more inconvenienced than others.

The same goes for the community, the county, and the state. Each Constitutionally is authorized to establish whatever sort of society it wishes to have and to be able to enforce that and the federal government or the courts should have very little say in that. Some aren't going to do it the way we think it should be done, but the more that intended right of the states and the people is infringed, the fewer liberties we all have.

Let me cut to what I see as the fundamental disagreement here is:

So long as it does not discriminate against any specific person, demographic, or group but applies the same rules to everybody, it should be my right to decide what will and will not be allowed in my place of business. Even if some people are more inconvenienced than others.

Agreed, it is your business, and as such you should have the RIGHT to run it as you see fit, within the constraints you have set forth. However...

The same goes for the community, the county, and the state.

This is entirely different. Here is the case law president that was set:
"In Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), the Supreme Court held that Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution..." Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia
Hence, any law that would violate the COTUS, is therefore unconstitutional and not permitted under the Supremacy Clause, which states:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

As I have told many others, I do not allow others, certainly not the courts, to dictate what is right and wrong to me. The law itself may or may not represent virtue or righteousness, and very often it does not. And it is the nature of the courts these days to exaggerate the intent of what law or rulings exist and make that fit their own agendas.

So for the purpose of this discussion, I don't CARE what the law of the land is. I am looking for a compromise between an American left with its agenda and the American right with its agenda to find some way to compromise on a way to correct a problem that both see exists. That compromise might or might not involve new laws or changing existing ones.

Right now each side is dug into their own agenda and that is all that matters to them. So if we can't even have the conversation, no solution to the problem is going to be possible.

Perhaps we should treat mass shootings like all other murders and not look for a "special" solution. Truth is that it's the idea that it's a special sort of crime that is creating all the trouble.

The mass murders are a small part of death via violent acts in the USA, but they get a huge lion's share of the media coverage and are studied like virtually no other crime. 17 died at Parkland and that is a tragedy of terrible proportions. The media covered it almost non stop for days and has covered it intermittently since and we all know more about that shooting than we know what happened in our our respective communities this week.

Hundreds of kids die on Chicago streets, in the projects, etc. every year that passes and the vast majority of us never hear about them except as a statistic. And that is repeated to various degrees in other cities across the country.

I want an honest national discussion on why this keeps happening and what needs to happen to stop it.

Simple. Enforce the laws we have and mandatory treatment of the mentally ill if they are judged to be a threat to society.

 

[oldsoul]

We agree on much. Decent, compassionate, tolerant people hate exclusion of people purely on who they are, what they think, what they believe, what they say and will criticize anti-semitic or any other hateful displays or speech everywhere it occurs.

But where you and I are not going to agree is that yes, technically, any local entity, community, county or state should have the ability to order what kind of society they want to be and the federal/central government should have little or no say in that. I have no problem with federal law that says, unless there is a compelling reason to do so, a public entity cannot ban men, women, Jews, Muslims, Christians, straights, gays, etc. etc. etc. A compelling reason might be if it is a Christian organization advertising itself as such, it should not be compelled to put non-Christians on its governing board or some such as that. Or if it is a men's club for men only, it should not be required to admit women, etc. Or when it comes to biological needs/differences/morality/safety we should be able to have separate restrooms, locker rooms, sleeping accommodations and such for men and women.

So yes, I think a public entity--i.e. any place open to the general public--has every right to dictate what speech is or is not acceptable within that segment of society. If I want to require coats and ties or no service or shirts and shoes or no service, or prohibit profanity or bigoted speech, it should be my right to do so in my place of business. And if I do not want guns in my place of business, it should be my right to say sorry, no guns--leave them at home or check them at the door, but we are a gun free establishment. (No, I would not do that if I was running a business, but it should be my right to do.)

So long as it does not discriminate against any specific person, demographic, or group but applies the same rules to everybody, it should be my right to decide what will and will not be allowed in my place of business. Even if some people are more inconvenienced than others.

The same goes for the community, the county, and the state. Each Constitutionally is authorized to establish whatever sort of society it wishes to have and to be able to enforce that and the federal government or the courts should have very little say in that. Some aren't going to do it the way we think it should be done, but the more that intended right of the states and the people is infringed, the fewer liberties we all have.

Let me cut to what I see as the fundamental disagreement here is:

So long as it does not discriminate against any specific person, demographic, or group but applies the same rules to everybody, it should be my right to decide what will and will not be allowed in my place of business. Even if some people are more inconvenienced than others.

Agreed, it is your business, and as such you should have the RIGHT to run it as you see fit, within the constraints you have set forth. However...

The same goes for the community, the county, and the state.

This is entirely different. Here is the case law president that was set:
"In Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), the Supreme Court held that Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution..." Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia
Hence, any law that would violate the COTUS, is therefore unconstitutional and not permitted under the Supremacy Clause, which states:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

As I have told many others, I do not allow others, certainly not the courts, to dictate what is right and wrong to me. The law itself may or may not represent virtue or righteousness, and very often it does not. And it is the nature of the courts these days to exaggerate the intent of what law or rulings exist and make that fit their own agendas.

So for the purpose of this discussion, I don't CARE what the law of the land is. I am looking for a compromise between an American left with its agenda and the American right with its agenda to find some way to compromise on a way to correct a problem that both see exists. That compromise might or might not involve new laws or changing existing ones.

Right now each side is dug into their own agenda and that is all that matters to them. So if we can't even have the conversation, no solution to the problem is going to be possible.

Perhaps we should treat mass shootings like all other murders and not look for a "special" solution. Truth is that it's the idea that it's a special sort of crime that is creating all the trouble.

The mass murders are a small part of death via violent acts in the USA, but they get a huge lion's share of the media coverage and are studied like virtually no other crime. 17 died at Parkland and that is a tragedy of terrible proportions. The media covered it almost non stop for days and has covered it intermittently since and we all know more about that shooting than we know what happened in our our respective communities this week.

Hundreds of kids die on Chicago streets, in the projects, etc. every year that passes and the vast majority of us never hear about them except as a statistic. And that is repeated to various degrees in other cities across the country.

I want an honest national discussion on why this keeps happening and what needs to happen to stop it.

Simple. Enforce the laws we have and mandatory treatment of the mentally ill if they are judged to be a threat to society.

Simple answer, not so simple to actually do. Enforce the laws we already have, simple, sort of, straight forward for sure. However, we do need to take a hard look (at ALL levels of government from federal to local) at what those laws are, and use facts, reason and science to determine their effectiveness. This aspect also needs to include a comprehensive look at the effectiveness of our judicial system; based again on facts, reason and the use of scientific evidence, to determine the effectiveness of of said system. Then keep what makes sense, and change what has proven to have a level of effectiveness that is unacceptable. Not so simple now, is it?

As to the treatment of the mentally ill... What does that mean? Who decides what "mentally ill" is defined as? How does this "treatment" work in practice? Who pays for it? These, and many other, questions must be asked and adequately answered before ANY real proposals can be contemplated and debated. Then, and only then, can we, as a society, fairly evaluate what we want to be done, how we want it to be done, who we want to do it, and what oversight (if any) we want in place to minimise abuses. At that point, we can, finally, discuss proposals to change the law(s). So, this aspect is even more complex, especially given that the mental health profession is highly subjective, and therefore more susceptible to abuses than other disciplines of health care.

 

[danielpalos]

the right wing Only seems to have problems.

that is why, the left wing prefers to have, Only solutions.

Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well.

Muster the militia until crime drops.

Better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia!

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Would [you] be willing to consider the truth in the following and consider working toward social policy to achieve it?

I understand the term "social policy" to mean "coercive law backed up by state-initiated violence"; so no, I cannot accept any faux-solutions born from that misguided foundation. There is only one answer to man's problems - the basic morality of the non-aggression/self-defense principle (and, of course, benign technology created from this moral perspective).

I understand how idealistic this sounds to many people, but unfortunately, that is the only solution that actually solves. So we may as well get cracking on it and see how far we can get. This means that all our attention on policy is valuable time wasted. The best we can do is to be the change we want to see in the world, and inspire via that example. As luck would have it, most people are followers, not leaders, and so they will tow the line for a moral society, just as they now tow the line for an immoral one. And yes, it is wholly immoral to leverage state violence against your neighbor, regardless of your "good intentions".

And what are those intentions exactly? What are you trying to achieve when you vote? Are you merely voting for someone to "represent" you by expressing your own rights on a larger scale? No, of course not. You're voting for that person to have special "rights" that you do not claim for yourself (such as taxation and creation of law which must be obeyed under threat of punishment).

You do not claim to the right to tax your neighbor under threat of violence (even to provide him with useful services), as you would no doubt see that as immoral. You do not claim the right to bust down his door with a squad of men holding machine guns and drag him to a cage in your basement for having 20 pounds of pot in his garage, as you would also see this as beyond the scope of your individual rights. And yet, you will vote for others to do these very things, so what does this say about your intentions? It says that you are trying to make an immoral act moral by laundering it through the mechanism of ritual called "governmental law". It is merely an act of immorality in disguise.

Therefore, this conversation is on the wrong track from the outset, and can yield nothing but further chaos; just as every like discussion has yielded over our 242 year history.

 

[Foxfyre]

Would [you] be willing to consider the truth in the following and consider working toward social policy to achieve it?

I understand the term "social policy" to mean "coercive law backed up by state-initiated violence"; so no, I cannot accept any faux-solutions born from that misguided foundation. There is only one answer to man's problems - the basic morality of the non-aggression/self-defense principle (and, of course, benign technology created from this moral perspective).

I understand how idealistic this sounds to many people, but unfortunately, that is the only solution that actually solves. So we may as well get cracking on it and see how far we can get. This means that all our attention on policy is valuable time wasted. The best we can do is to be the change we want to see in the world, and inspire via that example. As luck would have it, most people are followers, not leaders, and so they will tow the line for a moral society, just as they now tow the line for an immoral one. And yes, it is wholly immoral to leverage state violence against your neighbor, regardless of your "good intentions".

And what are those intentions exactly? What are you trying to achieve when you vote? Are you merely voting for someone to "represent" you by expressing your own rights on a larger scale? No, of course not. You're voting for that person to have special "rights" that you do not claim for yourself (such as taxation and creation of law which must be obeyed under threat of punishment).

You do not claim to the right to tax your neighbor under threat of violence (even to provide him with useful services), as you would no doubt see that as immoral. You do not claim the right to bust down his door with a squad of men holding machine guns and drag him to a cage in your basement for having 20 pounds of pot in his garage, as you would also see this as beyond the scope of your individual rights. And yet, you will vote for others to do these very things, so what does this say about your intentions? It says that you are trying to make an immoral act moral by laundering it through the mechanism of ritual called "governmental law". It is merely an act of immorality in disguise.

Therefore, this conversation is on the wrong track from the outset, and can yield nothing but further chaos; just as every like discussion has yielded over our 242 year history.

I understand the 2nd Amendment people reluctance/refusal to consider the proposed gun control in the OP but what proposals requested of the left do you take issue with? And how are any coercive or suggest violence of any sort?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I understand the 2nd Amendment people reluctance/refusal to consider the proposed gun control in the OP but what proposals requested of the left do you take issue with? And how are any coercive or suggest violence of any sort?

First, I want to say that your intentions and ideas are generally laudable, and that my exception largely regards the core assumptions illustrated in the OP. As a minor objection, I see the notion of "illegal" as irrelevant as it regards substances and activities, and law does not necessarily reflect morality or appropriateness. An exception of greater gravity concerns guns being regarded as tools for sport or self-defense against other citizens, whereas they are most importantly tools for protection against governmental oppression.

I'm not a "2nd Amendment" person, per se, as I recognize the Constitution to be an invalid, immoral hindrance to mankind's progress. I do, however, agree with the spirit of freedom outlined in that amendment, as well as its lucid recognition of tyrannical government as the primary threat facing the peaceful individual. It cannot be denied that governmental confiscation of private property by force (largely via taxation) far exceeds what private thieves could ever hope to achieve; and that governmental violence (largely via police brutality, wrongful arrest, and war) can also be seen as rendering private instances of such actions nigh-unto negligible.

And, as previously stated, your suggestion that "social policy" be implemented implies that you condone law as a solution. This I cannot abide, as law is, by definition, the coercive threat of violence.

 

[SeaGal]

In the wake of yet another tragic school shooting, it is reasonable to have a national discussion on what to do about it. And since the discussion so far is a) more gun control vs b) more guns/protection for the kids, and there seems to be little middle ground, the solution seems to be an unattainable goal for most of American society.

So the challenge is:

Would liberals be willing to consider the truth in the following and consider working toward social policy to achieve it?

--kids need a responsible mom and a dad in the home. Very very few criminals or violent people of any sort come from such homes.

--kids benefit from a religious faith that teaches love, respect for life and authority, caring from others. Good churches and synagogues aren't producing many criminals.

--kids need role models that demonstrate some of the best to which we can aspire instead of heaping admiration and fame, making heroes out of, or generating sympathy for those who promote hate, anger, violence, and lawless behavior.

--kids need to be taught personal responsibility and accountability in which the norm is educating yourself, staying away from illegal substances and activities, meriting a good reputation, learning a trade, getting married before having kids, and contributing to your family, your community, your country. Such people are rarely involved in any kind of bad acts.

--kids need video games, television programs, and movies that promote real heroism, good triumphing over evil, and rejection of violence except in self defense. When video games have the player having to do bad, even evil things to win, how can that not translate how they relate to their real world? When what passes for entertainment promotes the worst kind of violence, promiscuity, immorality, and sympathy for the bad guys, it is no wonder that children become desensitized to violence or the pain of others and see bad acts as glorious acts. It all is teaching the kids and it is invariable that some of them will be motivated to act on it.

Maybe correlation isn't causation when it comes to kids being violent, but I sure think we need to look at what we really are teaching and how that contributes to the social problems we have.
​

And if the liberals were willing to acknowledge the advantage in all or most of that, would the conservatives/libertarians be willing to consider:

Reasonable restrictions on civilian guns that are not likely to ever be used for hunting or self protection or recreational target shooting but that are designed to effect maximum damage?

Reasonable gun registration even at gun shows, so that effective background checks can be run and guns can be denied or confiscated from those who are clearly incompetent to have them or who are a danger to themselves or society?

Maybe the problem is the people who do bad things with the guns and not the gun themselves, and certainly bad people who do terrible things don't care what laws they break to do them, but can we admit that at least some reasonable restrictions are worthwhile to consider? Could we compromise on some things in order to achieve agreement and cooperation from most everybody to actually fix the problem?
​

So that's it. This is the CDZ so keep it reasonably civil if the topic interests you. And the poll is designed so that you can change your choices if you are inspired to change your point of view during the discussion.

Discuss.

​

I'll take a stab at it Foxfyre.

In the first instance you are asking a group of people to 'consider' certain truths - in the second you are asking people to actually submit to further legal restrictions. Giving up freedom legally in exchange for a promise to 'think' about the issue. That's not really a compromise.

We have federal, state and local laws regarding purchase and possession of firearms. There already are restrictions in place - what laws are there to address the issues you've challenged the left to consider?...and do we really want laws regulating those social problems?

It first must be asked what would have prevented Nikolas Cruz from entering Marjory Stoneman Douglas HS with a rifle and killing 17 people? If raising the legal age to purchase a gun to 21 would have prevented it - I could get behind that. If it was to outlaw single moms from raising boys would the left get behind that?

This appears to be the story of a troubled child for many years. The troubled child was the killer, the gun was the tool. Should we strive to outlaw mentally troubled people - the mentally unstable, the psychopath, the sociopath from society - yes. Should we strive to outlaw mentally troubled folks access to guns - sure...and we do.

Many people have expressed the willingness to address age limits, mental health limits, number of rounds in a clip, add-ons to increase rapidity of fire - the left has yet to get beyond the looks of an AR15. Maybe they think AR stands for assault rifle, who knows. The one recurring theme in all mass killings is the mental instability and/or ideology of the perpetrator.

btw - An interesting report, which requires careful reading below the headline.

House votes to strike rule banning guns for some deemed mentally impaired

 

[Foxfyre]

I understand the 2nd Amendment people reluctance/refusal to consider the proposed gun control in the OP but what proposals requested of the left do you take issue with? And how are any coercive or suggest violence of any sort?

First, I want to say that your intentions and ideas are generally laudable, and that my exception largely regards the core assumptions illustrated in the OP. As a minor objection, I see the notion of "illegal" as irrelevant as it regards substances and activities, and law does not necessarily reflect morality or appropriateness. An exception of greater gravity concerns guns being regarded as tools for sport or self-defense against other citizens, whereas they are most importantly tools for protection against governmental oppression.

I'm not a "2nd Amendment" person, per se, as I recognize the Constitution to be an invalid, immoral hindrance to mankind's progress. I do, however, agree with the spirit of freedom outlined in that amendment, as well as its lucid recognition of tyrannical government as the primary threat facing the peaceful individual. It cannot be denied that governmental confiscation of private property by force (largely via taxation) far exceeds what private thieves could ever hope to achieve; and that governmental violence (largely via police brutality, wrongful arrest, and war) can also be seen as rendering private instances of such actions nigh-unto negligible.

And, as previously stated, your suggestion that "social policy" be implemented implies that you condone law as a solution. This I cannot abide, as law is, by definition, the coercive threat of violence.

Thank you for a well reasoned, thoughtful, and above all civil and non ad hominem response. That is increasingly rare on this board and elsewhere in this kind of medium. And while I think you would be a constructive and interesting contributor to any debate on the subject, I suspect we could not achieve compromise as I respect and appreciate the Constitution as a liberating document like no other, and probably cannot be convinced to see it as you say you see it. I like to think, however, that I don't close my mind to another point of view if another's argument is superior to my own.

(As an aside, I don't consider the assigned sound bites, repetitious insults and disparaging characterizations, asinine descriptions, the you-guys-did-it-too-and worse and other childish arguments on either side as either useful to the debate or constructive in any way, and certainly not superior to my argument. Or yours for that matter.)

 

[Foxfyre]

In the wake of yet another tragic school shooting, it is reasonable to have a national discussion on what to do about it. And since the discussion so far is a) more gun control vs b) more guns/protection for the kids, and there seems to be little middle ground, the solution seems to be an unattainable goal for most of American society.

So the challenge is:

Would liberals be willing to consider the truth in the following and consider working toward social policy to achieve it?

--kids need a responsible mom and a dad in the home. Very very few criminals or violent people of any sort come from such homes.

--kids benefit from a religious faith that teaches love, respect for life and authority, caring from others. Good churches and synagogues aren't producing many criminals.

--kids need role models that demonstrate some of the best to which we can aspire instead of heaping admiration and fame, making heroes out of, or generating sympathy for those who promote hate, anger, violence, and lawless behavior.

--kids need to be taught personal responsibility and accountability in which the norm is educating yourself, staying away from illegal substances and activities, meriting a good reputation, learning a trade, getting married before having kids, and contributing to your family, your community, your country. Such people are rarely involved in any kind of bad acts.

--kids need video games, television programs, and movies that promote real heroism, good triumphing over evil, and rejection of violence except in self defense. When video games have the player having to do bad, even evil things to win, how can that not translate how they relate to their real world? When what passes for entertainment promotes the worst kind of violence, promiscuity, immorality, and sympathy for the bad guys, it is no wonder that children become desensitized to violence or the pain of others and see bad acts as glorious acts. It all is teaching the kids and it is invariable that some of them will be motivated to act on it.

Maybe correlation isn't causation when it comes to kids being violent, but I sure think we need to look at what we really are teaching and how that contributes to the social problems we have.
​

And if the liberals were willing to acknowledge the advantage in all or most of that, would the conservatives/libertarians be willing to consider:

Reasonable restrictions on civilian guns that are not likely to ever be used for hunting or self protection or recreational target shooting but that are designed to effect maximum damage?

Reasonable gun registration even at gun shows, so that effective background checks can be run and guns can be denied or confiscated from those who are clearly incompetent to have them or who are a danger to themselves or society?

Maybe the problem is the people who do bad things with the guns and not the gun themselves, and certainly bad people who do terrible things don't care what laws they break to do them, but can we admit that at least some reasonable restrictions are worthwhile to consider? Could we compromise on some things in order to achieve agreement and cooperation from most everybody to actually fix the problem?
​

So that's it. This is the CDZ so keep it reasonably civil if the topic interests you. And the poll is designed so that you can change your choices if you are inspired to change your point of view during the discussion.

Discuss.

​

I'll take a stab at it Foxfyre.

In the first instance you are asking a group of people to 'consider' certain truths - in the second you are asking people to actually submit to further legal restrictions. Giving up freedom legally in exchange for a promise to 'think' about the issue. That's not really a compromise.

We have federal, state and local laws regarding purchase and possession of firearms. There already are restrictions in place - what laws are there to address the issues you've challenged the left to consider?...and do we really want laws regulating those social problems?

It first must be asked what would have prevented Nikolas Cruz from entering Marjory Stoneman Douglas HS with a rifle and killing 17 people? If raising the legal age to purchase a gun to 21 would have prevented it - I could get behind that. If it was to outlaw single moms from raising boys would the left get behind that?

This appears to be the story of a troubled child for many years. The troubled child was the killer, the gun was the tool. Should we strive to outlaw mentally troubled people - the mentally unstable, the psychopath, the sociopath from society - yes. Should we strive to outlaw mentally troubled folks access to guns - sure...and we do.

Many people have expressed the willingness to address age limits, mental health limits, number of rounds in a clip, add-ons to increase rapidity of fire - the left has yet to get beyond the looks of an AR15. Maybe they think AR stands for assault rifle, who knows. The one recurring theme in all mass killings is the mental instability and/or ideology of the perpetrator.

btw - An interesting report, which requires careful reading below the headline.

House votes to strike rule banning guns for some deemed mentally impaired

Great post Seagal and thank you.

I probably could have made it more clear, but the purpose of the thread was not to make policy but to at least open up the conversation. Most liberals would insist they are the moral and righteous ones and take strong umbrage that they do not support those things I asked them to consider. Yet they pretty much universally support policy that prevents that list from becoming the cultural norm again. As a starting basis it once was the way that America mostly was.

And I offered some things that the right could give away without really giving away anything important as a compromise to get those on the left to come to the table and talk about the whole package.

So far not one person on the left has indicated any interest whatsoever about talking about ANY of the issues I offered for them to consider but several have expressed considerable contempt for me because I made the list.

In defense of those on the left, most (not all) of those on the right have also refused to even discuss it but insist they have compromised all they intend to and the subject is closed. Which is unfortunate because when both sides assume intractable positions, there will be no solution to the problems. Ever.

And as for your link, yes, the problem is not that anybody has argued that those who are incompetent and a danger to themselves or others should not be restricted from access to guns. Of course such people should not have them. But the problem is that many think that mental illness/disorders of ANY type should be the criteria for denying somebody any form of firearm which is utterly ludicrous. Stripping anybody of their constitutional rights simply cannot be justified without serious due process, and it certainly cannot be done by somebody who doesn't like guns making up a list of those who can't have them.

But the fact that 26 of the 27 most violent mass murderers have been men who grew up without a biological father in the home I think is a statistic that should be seriously looked at.

 

[SeaGal]

But the fact that 26 of the 27 most violent mass murderers have been men who grew up without a biological father in the home I think is a statistic that should be seriously looked at.

Always a pleasure to read and respond to your posts!

My personal opinion, and I've heard many on the right express much the same - there are discussions to be held regarding minimum age, rounds, modifications - but there also needs to be reciprocity on mental health, family structure, anti-social behaviors and identification of such. I believe that we need some sort of assurance that these new laws would be more than just a one-sided, pretty, feel-good bandaid. So far, I've seen no indication of that.

 

[Foxfyre]

But the fact that 26 of the 27 most violent mass murderers have been men who grew up without a biological father in the home I think is a statistic that should be seriously looked at.

Always a pleasure to read and respond to your posts!

My personal opinion, and I've heard many on the right express much the same - there are discussions to be held regarding minimum age, rounds, modifications - but there also needs to be reciprocity on mental health, family structure, anti-social behaviors and identification of such. I believe that we need some sort of assurance that these new laws would be more than just a one-sided, pretty, feel-good bandaid. So far, I've seen no indication of that.

I agree. And I wouldn't accept promises for the future in return for compromises now either. We have seen far too much of that. Both Reagan and Bush 41 agreed to higher taxes in various areas in return for promises to cut $2 of spending for every $1 in new taxes. We got the new taxes right on schedule, but somehow Congress never got around to those spending cuts.

Those kinds of deals won't work for me and I don't expect anybody to agree with them. But if we can get something firmed up on both sides, I think it worth the effort.

 

[SeaGal]

I agree. And I wouldn't accept promises for the future in return for compromises now either. We have seen far too much of that. Both Reagan and Bush 41 agreed to higher taxes in various areas in return for promises to cut $2 of spending for every $1 in new taxes. We got the new taxes right on schedule, but somehow Congress never got around to those spending cuts.

Those kinds of deals won't work for me and I don't expect anybody to agree with them. But if we can get something firmed up on both sides, I think it worth the effort.

That's exactly what happened with Reagan granting amnesty to illegal immigrants in exchange for tougher immigration enforcement. The amnesty happened, the enforcement didn't. 'Round and 'round we go...

An interesting BBC piece on the Swiss with their high gun ownership rates and low gun violence rates.
Living with guns the Swiss way
Maybe there's a starting point for a conversation in there somewhere.

 

[hunarcy]

Let me cut to what I see as the fundamental disagreement here is:
Agreed, it is your business, and as such you should have the RIGHT to run it as you see fit, within the constraints you have set forth. However...
This is entirely different. Here is the case law president that was set:
"In Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), the Supreme Court held that Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution..." Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia
Hence, any law that would violate the COTUS, is therefore unconstitutional and not permitted under the Supremacy Clause, which states:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

As I have told many others, I do not allow others, certainly not the courts, to dictate what is right and wrong to me. The law itself may or may not represent virtue or righteousness, and very often it does not. And it is the nature of the courts these days to exaggerate the intent of what law or rulings exist and make that fit their own agendas.

So for the purpose of this discussion, I don't CARE what the law of the land is. I am looking for a compromise between an American left with its agenda and the American right with its agenda to find some way to compromise on a way to correct a problem that both see exists. That compromise might or might not involve new laws or changing existing ones.

Right now each side is dug into their own agenda and that is all that matters to them. So if we can't even have the conversation, no solution to the problem is going to be possible.

Perhaps we should treat mass shootings like all other murders and not look for a "special" solution. Truth is that it's the idea that it's a special sort of crime that is creating all the trouble.

The mass murders are a small part of death via violent acts in the USA, but they get a huge lion's share of the media coverage and are studied like virtually no other crime. 17 died at Parkland and that is a tragedy of terrible proportions. The media covered it almost non stop for days and has covered it intermittently since and we all know more about that shooting than we know what happened in our our respective communities this week.

Hundreds of kids die on Chicago streets, in the projects, etc. every year that passes and the vast majority of us never hear about them except as a statistic. And that is repeated to various degrees in other cities across the country.

I want an honest national discussion on why this keeps happening and what needs to happen to stop it.

Simple. Enforce the laws we have and mandatory treatment of the mentally ill if they are judged to be a threat to society.

Simple answer, not so simple to actually do. Enforce the laws we already have, simple, sort of, straight forward for sure. However, we do need to take a hard look (at ALL levels of government from federal to local) at what those laws are, and use facts, reason and science to determine their effectiveness. This aspect also needs to include a comprehensive look at the effectiveness of our judicial system; based again on facts, reason and the use of scientific evidence, to determine the effectiveness of of said system. Then keep what makes sense, and change what has proven to have a level of effectiveness that is unacceptable. Not so simple now, is it?

As to the treatment of the mentally ill... What does that mean? Who decides what "mentally ill" is defined as? How does this "treatment" work in practice? Who pays for it? These, and many other, questions must be asked and adequately answered before ANY real proposals can be contemplated and debated. Then, and only then, can we, as a society, fairly evaluate what we want to be done, how we want it to be done, who we want to do it, and what oversight (if any) we want in place to minimise abuses. At that point, we can, finally, discuss proposals to change the law(s). So, this aspect is even more complex, especially given that the mental health profession is highly subjective, and therefore more susceptible to abuses than other disciplines of health care.

All who are "mentally ill" deserve treatment, but those who pose a threat to themselves and/or others are the ones we must focus on in this context. If they are that ill, they are not competent to decide on what treatment they should receive. So, a Judge, using the diagnosis and advice of a psychiatrist should decide for them and assign them to a facility to be treated and cared for until they are no longer a danger to themselves and others.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Thank you for a well reasoned, thoughtful, and above all civil and non ad hominem response. That is increasingly rare on this board and elsewhere in this kind of medium. And while I think you would be a constructive and interesting contributor to any debate on the subject, I suspect we could not achieve compromise as I respect and appreciate the Constitution as a liberating document like no other, and probably cannot be convinced to see it as you say you see it. I like to think, however, that I don't close my mind to another point of view if another's argument is superior to my own.

(As an aside, I don't consider the assigned sound bites, repetitious insults and disparaging characterizations, asinine descriptions, the you-guys-did-it-too-and worse and other childish arguments on either side as either useful to the debate or constructive in any way, and certainly not superior to my argument. Or yours for that matter.)

Much obliged for the kind words! The spirit of this thread is the spirit of peace and harmony. You and I are of like mind in that regard. Our aims do not differ, only the means we prescribe. However, since I resonate deeply with your commitment to keeping an open mind (my position has changed rather drastically in recent years), I would be remiss if I did not elaborate on why I see law as antithetical to our ultimate goal (the Constitution, unfortunately, included; though I agree that it is an historically progressive attempt at government).

First, as a practical note, our current situation is what our Constitution eventually yielded, which does not speak well to its merit. In addition, Russia, China, and other nations that descended into outright madness had remarkably similar constitutions, which did nothing to prevent the atrocities that mar their history. Our own Constitution did nothing to prevent itself from becoming a doormat, and I don't see why that would change no matter how many times we reboot the effort.

The Constitution cannot be a liberating document. It creates a government, which - no matter how limited - is a restriction on freedom by definition. Government is a gun. That's all it's ever been, and all it can ever be. It cannot liberate, only coerce assent via threat of violence. In addition, the Constitution begins with an unfounded assertion of power - but whence came this power? "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes..." Oh, it "shall", shall it? Howso? No answer provided.

As a friend, I implore you to read or listen to Lysander Spooner's book, "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority" if you have not done so already. I dare say that you MUST be familiar with this book and address the objections made therein to legitimize your advocacy of this document (all due respect, of course). Personally, I would very much like to hear your reaction to it, as your great respect for the document leads me to believe that if anyone could address the objections, it may very well be you. You may find it here, ad-free:

 

[Foxfyre]

As I have told many others, I do not allow others, certainly not the courts, to dictate what is right and wrong to me. The law itself may or may not represent virtue or righteousness, and very often it does not. And it is the nature of the courts these days to exaggerate the intent of what law or rulings exist and make that fit their own agendas.

So for the purpose of this discussion, I don't CARE what the law of the land is. I am looking for a compromise between an American left with its agenda and the American right with its agenda to find some way to compromise on a way to correct a problem that both see exists. That compromise might or might not involve new laws or changing existing ones.

Right now each side is dug into their own agenda and that is all that matters to them. So if we can't even have the conversation, no solution to the problem is going to be possible.

Perhaps we should treat mass shootings like all other murders and not look for a "special" solution. Truth is that it's the idea that it's a special sort of crime that is creating all the trouble.

The mass murders are a small part of death via violent acts in the USA, but they get a huge lion's share of the media coverage and are studied like virtually no other crime. 17 died at Parkland and that is a tragedy of terrible proportions. The media covered it almost non stop for days and has covered it intermittently since and we all know more about that shooting than we know what happened in our our respective communities this week.

Hundreds of kids die on Chicago streets, in the projects, etc. every year that passes and the vast majority of us never hear about them except as a statistic. And that is repeated to various degrees in other cities across the country.

I want an honest national discussion on why this keeps happening and what needs to happen to stop it.

Simple. Enforce the laws we have and mandatory treatment of the mentally ill if they are judged to be a threat to society.

Simple answer, not so simple to actually do. Enforce the laws we already have, simple, sort of, straight forward for sure. However, we do need to take a hard look (at ALL levels of government from federal to local) at what those laws are, and use facts, reason and science to determine their effectiveness. This aspect also needs to include a comprehensive look at the effectiveness of our judicial system; based again on facts, reason and the use of scientific evidence, to determine the effectiveness of of said system. Then keep what makes sense, and change what has proven to have a level of effectiveness that is unacceptable. Not so simple now, is it?

As to the treatment of the mentally ill... What does that mean? Who decides what "mentally ill" is defined as? How does this "treatment" work in practice? Who pays for it? These, and many other, questions must be asked and adequately answered before ANY real proposals can be contemplated and debated. Then, and only then, can we, as a society, fairly evaluate what we want to be done, how we want it to be done, who we want to do it, and what oversight (if any) we want in place to minimise abuses. At that point, we can, finally, discuss proposals to change the law(s). So, this aspect is even more complex, especially given that the mental health profession is highly subjective, and therefore more susceptible to abuses than other disciplines of health care.

All who are "mentally ill" deserve treatment, but those who pose a threat to themselves and/or others are the ones we must focus on in this context. If they are that ill, they are not competent to decide on what treatment they should receive. So, a Judge, using the diagnosis and advice of a psychiatrist should decide for them and assign them to a facility to be treated and cared for until they are no longer a danger to themselves and others.

There are so many different types of mental disorders aka 'mental illness' that you simply cannot use a one-size fits all phrase in setting policy. Many people are under treatment for some kind of mental disorder that in no way renders them a danger to themselves or others. And some are a danger to themselves or others and should not have access to any dangerous objects or substances. You and I are not qualified to diagnose anybody in that regard.

 

[Foxfyre]

Thank you for a well reasoned, thoughtful, and above all civil and non ad hominem response. That is increasingly rare on this board and elsewhere in this kind of medium. And while I think you would be a constructive and interesting contributor to any debate on the subject, I suspect we could not achieve compromise as I respect and appreciate the Constitution as a liberating document like no other, and probably cannot be convinced to see it as you say you see it. I like to think, however, that I don't close my mind to another point of view if another's argument is superior to my own.

(As an aside, I don't consider the assigned sound bites, repetitious insults and disparaging characterizations, asinine descriptions, the you-guys-did-it-too-and worse and other childish arguments on either side as either useful to the debate or constructive in any way, and certainly not superior to my argument. Or yours for that matter.)

Much obliged for the kind words! The spirit of this thread is the spirit of peace and harmony. You and I are of like mind in that regard. Our aims do not differ, only the means we prescribe. However, since I resonate deeply with your commitment to keeping an open mind (my position has changed rather drastically in recent years), I would be remiss if I did not elaborate on why I see law as antithetical to our ultimate goal (the Constitution, unfortunately, included; though I agree that it is an historically progressive attempt at government).

First, as a practical note, our current situation is what our Constitution eventually yielded, which does not speak well to its merit. In addition, Russia, China, and other nations that descended into outright madness had remarkably similar constitutions, which did nothing to prevent the atrocities that mar their history. Our own Constitution did nothing to prevent itself from becoming a doormat, and I don't see why that would change no matter how many times we reboot the effort.

The Constitution cannot be a liberating document. It creates a government, which - no matter how limited - is a restriction on freedom by definition. Government is a gun. That's all it's ever been, and all it can ever be. It cannot liberate, only coerce assent via threat of violence. In addition, the Constitution begins with an unfounded assertion of power - but whence came this power? "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes..." Oh, it "shall", shall it? Howso? No answer provided.

As a friend, I implore you to read or listen to Lysander Spooner's book, "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority" if you have not done so already. I dare say that you MUST be familiar with this book and address the objections made therein to legitimize your advocacy of this document (all due respect, of course). Personally, I would very much like to hear your reaction to it, as your great respect for the document leads me to believe that if anyone could address the objections, it may very well be you. You may find it here, ad-free:

It is late but your argument deserves a reasoned and respectful response. Tomorrow.

 

[Picaro]

As I have told many others, I do not allow others, certainly not the courts, to dictate what is right and wrong to me. The law itself may or may not represent virtue or righteousness, and very often it does not. And it is the nature of the courts these days to exaggerate the intent of what law or rulings exist and make that fit their own agendas.

So for the purpose of this discussion, I don't CARE what the law of the land is. I am looking for a compromise between an American left with its agenda and the American right with its agenda to find some way to compromise on a way to correct a problem that both see exists. That compromise might or might not involve new laws or changing existing ones.

Right now each side is dug into their own agenda and that is all that matters to them. So if we can't even have the conversation, no solution to the problem is going to be possible.

Perhaps we should treat mass shootings like all other murders and not look for a "special" solution. Truth is that it's the idea that it's a special sort of crime that is creating all the trouble.

The mass murders are a small part of death via violent acts in the USA, but they get a huge lion's share of the media coverage and are studied like virtually no other crime. 17 died at Parkland and that is a tragedy of terrible proportions. The media covered it almost non stop for days and has covered it intermittently since and we all know more about that shooting than we know what happened in our our respective communities this week.

Hundreds of kids die on Chicago streets, in the projects, etc. every year that passes and the vast majority of us never hear about them except as a statistic. And that is repeated to various degrees in other cities across the country.

I want an honest national discussion on why this keeps happening and what needs to happen to stop it.

Simple. Enforce the laws we have and mandatory treatment of the mentally ill if they are judged to be a threat to society.

Simple answer, not so simple to actually do. Enforce the laws we already have, simple, sort of, straight forward for sure. However, we do need to take a hard look (at ALL levels of government from federal to local) at what those laws are, and use facts, reason and science to determine their effectiveness. This aspect also needs to include a comprehensive look at the effectiveness of our judicial system; based again on facts, reason and the use of scientific evidence, to determine the effectiveness of of said system. Then keep what makes sense, and change what has proven to have a level of effectiveness that is unacceptable. Not so simple now, is it?

As to the treatment of the mentally ill... What does that mean? Who decides what "mentally ill" is defined as? How does this "treatment" work in practice? Who pays for it? These, and many other, questions must be asked and adequately answered before ANY real proposals can be contemplated and debated. Then, and only then, can we, as a society, fairly evaluate what we want to be done, how we want it to be done, who we want to do it, and what oversight (if any) we want in place to minimise abuses. At that point, we can, finally, discuss proposals to change the law(s). So, this aspect is even more complex, especially given that the mental health profession is highly subjective, and therefore more susceptible to abuses than other disciplines of health care.

All who are "mentally ill" deserve treatment, but those who pose a threat to themselves and/or others are the ones we must focus on in this context. If they are that ill, they are not competent to decide on what treatment they should receive. So, a Judge, using the diagnosis and advice of a psychiatrist should decide for them and assign them to a facility to be treated and cared for until they are no longer a danger to themselves and others.

A lot of mental illness is immediately observable, but as we can see here there are sociopaths who are pretty much blind to human empathy and sanity, and are incapable of making any sort of decisions without endless sophistry and hubris over what the meaning of 'is' is. These loons are the problem, they've been led to believe they should be taken seriously as 'Deciders N Stuff', and add in the idiotic narrative that 'nothing in the past ever worked, and they wuz all backwards and bigoted and we need trendy fashionable 'NewThink' now! Cuz, pop psychology has the answers to everything!