Have the Americans accepted that gun crime is a price worth paying to be able to hold arms?

[Bob Blaylock]

Is there no middle ground? I've read a lot of view points and BOTH sides have valid concerns. It is when neither side will give anything that we end up with an embarrassing stalemate…

What middle ground do you think there can be. Either we Americans have a right to keep and bear arms, which our government is forbidden from infringing, or else we do not. And the Constitution is rather clear about whether or not we have this right.

When you on the wrong cry for “compromise” what you really mean is that you want us to give up this right, a bit at a time, while getting nothing in return other than an empty promise of safety that no rational person believes will be fulfilled. That's not compromise; that's fraud and tyranny.

Benjamin Franklin had it exactly right when he said that those who would surrender essential liberty for a promise of safety deserve neither.

 

[petro]

Freedom isn't pretty. I hear totalitarian societies are nice and safe and orderly. If safety is more important to you than freedom, there are plenty of places you can live that will give you the illusion of safety that you desire.

Is there no middle ground? I've read a lot of view points and BOTH sides have valid concerns. It is when neither side will give anything that we end up with an embarrassing stalemate where it looks to the world as if we don't care that citizens are shot daily. Didn't you learn that with our rights come responsibilities to our society as a whole? Maybe they don't teach that anymore. I don't know.

With rights there are responsibilities. The point is that those who are responsible are being blamed for the behavior of the criminally irresponsible. Who by being criminal ignore any law or future law regarding so-called "common sense" gun laws. It's as simple as that. The Bill of Rights offers no compromise on those rights. As far as what the rest of the world thinks, I really could care less. It's our Bill of Rights, not theirs. I bet however, there are about 90 German women right now who wish they had the right to conceal carry.
With power also comes responsibility. Obama has ignored this responsibility by passing a feel good executive action based on emotion not on actual facts or the Constitution.

 

[emilynghiem]

"Have the Americans accepted that gun crime is a price worth paying to be able to hold arms?"

The realists among them have said [mass killings] are the price they are prepared to pay.

cnm I agree with C_Clayton_Jones post that the primary issue is mental health unchecked and untreated.

The price we pay is for neglecting to solve addiction abuse and mental health issues, especially criminal illness in the case of murders, rapes,
and other preventable crimes we take for granted.

For that, not only victims but society has paid the price.

Not just with gun violence but other cases where mental and criminal illness cost lives when these diseases can be diagnosed, treated
and either managed or curely completely.

It is a shame that we have solutions to mental illness, but these are so individualized and a lot of them spiritual in therapy,
they cannot be readily legislated or regulated by govt. The forgiveness therapy that works to heal mental illness and other diseases,
by its nature on invoking the will to forgive in order to restore healing HAS to be chosen FREELY by the person in order to work.

So this is not politicized in the media the way gun control issues are.
The legislation and political attention gets misdirected.

SEE resources for medical research into natural healing of mental, criminal and also physical diseases:
freespiritualhealing

I'm glad to see C_Clayton_Jones statement that I find well written and solidly agree with.
What I would add is the suppressed knowledge of spiritual healing is the key to addressing mental health issues
on a sustainable curable basis. To get rid of the political divide separating left and right, religious from secular,
and faith from science, I have proposed to replicate medical research studies on this field of healing.
I believe that will change the medical and mental health systems, criminal justice, and also political relationships.

Someday, we won't even have debates distracting from the real problems because the solutions will become commonplace.

 

[emilynghiem]

Is there no middle ground? I've read a lot of view points and BOTH sides have valid concerns. It is when neither side will give anything that we end up with an embarrassing stalemate…

What middle ground do you think there can be. Either we Americans have a right to keep and bear arms, which our government is forbidden from infringing, or else we do not. And the Constitution is rather clear about whether or not we have this right.

When you on the wrong cry for “compromise” what you really mean is that you want us to give up this right, a bit at a time, while getting nothing in return other than an empty promise of safety that no rational person believes will be fulfilled. That's not compromise; that's fraud and tyranny.

Benjamin Franklin had it exactly right when he said that those who would surrender essential liberty for a promise of safety deserve neither.

Dear OldLady and Bob Blaylock
1. If there will always be two camps in conflict, one saying it means regulating militia and that's what the arms are for, one saying it's the people who have the rights, and the militia/govt is separate and membership is not required for people to bear arms:

Please note that the same wording of the 2nd Amendment is interpreted both ways.
So if we keep it as is, obviously that is good enough to accommodate both beliefs.
If it is changed, then it favors one belief over the other, so that isn't going to be approved to change it, either way.

(Just like the same Bible is used by Protestants and Catholics, and other denominations who don't agree on all of it; but if you try to change the wording, then groups will protest and demand the original wording. So just leave it as is, and by religious freedom everyone can still interpret and teach it as it applies and works for them.)

2. Instead of changing the law as written
why not reach an agreement how people is interpreted.
I propose interpreting people to mean "LAW ABIDING CITIZENS"
so this is clear the right to bear arms is withing the context of following and enforcing laws, not violating them.

someone in militia still qualifies as a law abiding citizen.
someone in govt, someone in military and police.
citizens whose intent are law abiding are included.

But not criminals seeking to abuse arms, that is not what the law authorizes or it would contradict other protections in the law about security.
Not sick people like the Ft. Hood shooter or police officers who turn out to be serial rapists.
Guns are not authorized for use by people with criminal illness or intent.

It doesn't mean you strip them of all their gun rights, but we put emphasis on making sure all people are law abiding citizens so this does not become an issue of whose rights to target and how. The focus should be on commitment to make sure all citizens are law abiding to reduce risk of crime and abuse, by screening out issues and solving them upon first sign of trouble.

The same way alcoholics in recovery can get to a stage where they know they need to stay away from alcohol and bars (or anyplace that has access to put them at risk), when mentally ill or addicted people get to that similar stage in recovery, they also know to seek help to stay safe and stay away from danger.

We can all make agreements, even with people who are mentally impaired or in process of recovery, what this law means, so we support that goal together. People become self-policing when whole communities make this commitment and seek help if anything prevents that standard from being maintained.

People who are unable to agree and exercise being a "law abiding citizen" would be legally incompetent and require assisted supervision anyway by someone who is a "law abiding citizen" able to exercise this level of responsibility. We can screen that better in communities with an agreed commitment to uphold laws instead of leaving this to chance

Having a public consensus on what this means as "law abiding"
would resolve the need to argue over whether people are members of militia or not.
Even if they are military or police, you don't want criminally ill officers invoking rights when they aren't legally competent and responsible but impaired.

That's what I would propose.
I don't think any wording needs to be changed, but perhaps parties could sign agreements
to interpret "people" as "law abiding citizens" and allow both beliefs about requiring official militia or not.
And agree not to push laws that would attempt to impose one belief over the other.

I would also recommend the same screening/training for both police, military and citizens
in order to ensure people accept legal responsibility as "law abiding citizens."
But leave it to districts, cities or states to determine their own agreed process for this training and screening.

It has to ensure "law abiding citizens" as the standard, but may vary from state to state, or per district,
similar to each local level determining its own policy on conceal and carry or open carry, and opting in or out.

 

[12icer]

AT all times when you allow something to be "interpreted" by a government, it is interpreted as giving them the power to take it AT will. Any idea that the government has a "RIGHT" of any kind is completely FALSE. Letting the government assume the position of distributor of rights ends with NO INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS as it has in every government model that has ever used it. Those who would make laws to restrict gun owners have but ONE SINGLEMINDED AGENDA, the COMPLETE DISARMAMENT OF THE CITIZENRY BY ANY MEANS. That includes killing anyone who does not agree or comply with their agenda. Just ask 70 people from Waco, OH you can't they are dead!!! Your government has killed more people in the name of 'Gun control" than even the mass murders under b o and many more have died on his watch than any two or more presidents before him. The removal of the death penalty, and the lack of enforcement of EXISTING CRIMINAL PENALTIES for GUN CRIME coupled with the social policy of letting bad behavior go unpunished till it becomes violent, and lack of individual responsibility are the driving forces in ALL murders. If the government spent as much time destroying the GANGS in this country as it does harassing law abiding gun owners, there would be less gun deaths in this country than any other

 

[regent]

Where do the gangs get the guns?

 

[12icer]

You should Know where they come from if you take a stance on either side of this thread. If you take a stance against gun owners without knowing, it proves the other sides point. You should actually research ANY subject FULLY before you believe anything some group of idiots brings to the national idiot news force.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Where do the gangs get the guns?

From police officers.
Philadelphia police officer shot, injured in car - CNN.com

 

[regent]

I wonder what the attraction of guns really is? When entering the barracks for basic training, there on the walls were racked guns and half the recruits ran to the guns touching them in their locked racks and admiring them, it was like a love affair. There must be a number of reasons for the love affair, and I wonder if there are studies on this?

 

[hadit]

Damn, I keep forgetting why it is so important for people to have guns. Is it the same reason kids need to have toy guns and need to pretend to shoot one another? But that brings up still another question, why is it important for kids to pretend to shoot one another with toy guns? Do all people ever grow out of that stage with time, or do some get left in that period?

Kids, especially boys, always have and always will play at combat. It's part of our heritage as humans, from when the family leader (the bigger, stronger, men) needed to be able to protect his family via personal combat. It's still a useful ability today, as calling 911 just means there'll be someone there with a mop and bucket to clean up after the fact.

 

[hadit]

I wonder what the attraction of guns really is? When entering the barracks for basic training, there on the walls were racked guns and half the recruits ran to the guns touching them in their locked racks and admiring them, it was like a love affair. There must be a number of reasons for the love affair, and I wonder if there are studies on this?

Most things that can be deadly hold a great deal of appeal. Why do you think girls go for the "bad boy"? Guns can be dangerous if misused, but when properly and safely used can be a lot of fun.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I wonder what the attraction of guns really is? When entering the barracks for basic training, there on the walls were racked guns and half the recruits ran to the guns touching them in their locked racks and admiring them, it was like a love affair. There must be a number of reasons for the love affair, and I wonder if there are studies on this?

Have nothing useful to say, so you go for the ad hom - eh?