What should the end goal of our gun policy be?

[alang1216]

I am especially curious as to why you think a law can be enacted that will prevent people from breaking another law.

exactly when did I ever say this?

You said you would "like to take steps to prevent criminals from breaking the law and obtaining guns."
It's illegal for felons to buy, own or possess firearms. How do you prevent them from doing so, if not enact another law?

Apparently there is already a system in place, The National Instant Criminal Background Check System. No new laws required. Is it fully operational and effective? I think it should be both.

 

[Contumacious]

“What should the end goal of our gun policy be?”

Wrong question.

Correct question: “What standard of judicial review should firearm regulatory measures be subject to?"

Answer: strict scrutiny.

Rationale: the right of individuals to possess firearms pursuant to the right of self-defense is fundamental, where regulations and restrictions must be supported by a compelling governmental interest, narrowly tailored to address that interest, and applied in a comprehensive, consistent manner.

Examples of firearm regulatory measures which would pass Constitutional muster per strict scrutiny:

Background checks

The designation of felons, the mentally ill, and undocumented immigrants as prohibited persons.

The prohibition of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.

Regulations concerning the commercial sales of firearms.

Prohibitions of weapons determined to be dangerous and unusual and not in common use by the general public.

Examples of firearm regulatory measures which would not pass Constitutional muster per strict scrutiny:

Purchase permits and registration requirements.

Licensing requirements (save that of concealed carry).

Prohibitions of firearms based on appearance, configuration, or functionality, such as banning AR and AK platform rifles, or other weapons in common use by the general public not determined to be dangerous or unusual.

Training requirements.

Bans, restrictions, and limitations on magazine capacity or types of magazines.

Ammunition bans.

Waiting periods.

Restrictions on the number of firearms that may be purchased during a given time period.

“What standard of judicial review should firearm regulatory measures be subject to?"


Given the FACT that we are FREE PEOPLE and that NO AUTHORITY was ever granted to fedgov to regulate firearms then

the federal government must IMMEDIATELY ABOLISH:

1- The Gun Control Act of 1968
2-The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993
3- The Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA)
4- National Firearms Act (NFA) 26 USC 53

The purpose of those laws are to incite violence against WE THE PEOPLE and to provide pretexts to fedgov to persecute law abiding citizens.

BATF cocksuckers used the National Firearms Act - 26 USC 53 - to persecute, terrorize and incinerate the Davidians alive


Senator Schumer (D-TelAviv) concluded that incinerating the Davidians was lawful because they were not Jews.


.

“What standard of judicial review should firearm regulatory measures be subject to?"


Given the FACT that we are FREE PEOPLE and that NO AUTHORITY was ever granted to fedgov to regulate firearms then

the federal government must IMMEDIATELY ABOLISH:

1- The Gun Control Act of 1968
2-The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993
3- The Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA)
4- National Firearms Act (NFA) 26 USC 53

The purpose of those laws are to incite violence against WE THE PEOPLE and to provide pretexts to fedgov to persecute law abiding citizens.

BATF cocksuckers used the National Firearms Act - 26 USC 53 - to persecute, terrorize and incinerate the Davidians alive.


.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I am especially curious as to why you think a law can be enacted that will prevent people from breaking another law.

exactly when did I ever say this?

You said you would "like to take steps to prevent criminals from breaking the law and obtaining guns."
It's illegal for felons to buy, own or possess firearms. How do you prevent them from doing so, if not enact another law?

Apparently there is already a system in place, The National Instant Criminal Background Check System. No new laws required. Is it fully operational and effective? I think it should be both.

I see... so you don't want to "take steps to prevent criminals from breaking the law and obtaining guns" as the step has already been taken.

 

[Pogo]

You left out the part about the Militia. Hate when you guys interpret the Constitution.

LOL, liberals can't read at a high school level.

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

Note the form of the sentence,

Because A, B

In that form, it's saying for the reason of A, B is true. A is not a qualifier for B, it's an explanation of B

So the founding fathers said

Because "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the State"

Note again that's an explanation, not a restriction or a qualifier

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

That is the power given. Note the militia is not part of the power. It states simply and directly the right shall not be infringed.

You're welcome for this English lesson that apparently government schools didn't give you when you were 12 as they should have done

Here's the elephant-in-the-room flaw in that theory:

The Amendment doesn't *NEED* to justify its own reasoning. A Constitutional Amendment is a simple flat declaration, not a court argument or a point asserted in a debate. There is literally no need to do that. The conditional phrase could have been struck altogether, if that were the purpose.

And if you look around, you'll find none of the other Amendments take the trouble to explain their reasoning either. Not a single one. Nor do they need to.

That renders the theory quite dubious, and suggests the phrase is there for another reason. Would that they had stated it clearly but ----- they didn't.

Is there a point to that? It changes nothing. And the writing of all the amendments have inconsistencies in style and substance. Some mix concepts, some have one simple concept, some have a ordered list of concepts. Your elephant is just a dead elephant, nothing more

Of course there's a point, that being that it renders your whole explanation of what the clause is for a dubious theory.

Answer the question it brings up -- why would a Constitutional Amendment, alone among all other Amendments, singularly need to explain itself? WHO exactly is it talking to? Why does no other Amendment take the time to justify its existence ---- yet this one does?

These queries of course all assume your theory of the clause as self-justification.... and not a clumsily worded clause of limitation, which is the other glaring possibility.

That's very much a live elephant. And they live a long time.

No, it is not. You are trying to read the second in a manner that agrees with what you want it to mean rather than what it does.

No matter how you slice the first clause it does not negate the rest of the amendment or the fact that it directly protects the right of the people. That is exactly what you are trying to do by connecting the right with the militia - something that the language of the second completely and utterly avoids doing. It is very clear.

Further, when you look into what the founders considered the 'militia' then the argument that the right is not a personal right to bear arms is even more nonsensical. The SCOTUS has said as much as well.

You may believe that the right is outdated. You may believe that it cannot be applied to today's realities as the use and function of firearms has changed so much. Those are valid points. They are not, however, points that allow one to violate the amendment. There is a clear method to changing outdated or incorrect portions of the constitution. Should anyone believe that the second should not confer a personal right they should not be trying to argue that the meaning is something it is not - they should simply be changing it.

Ummm..... I don't have a "way I want it to mean", and I stated that from the outset. This point is about how English works. The fact remains, there is no known reason a Constitutional Amendment needs to explain itself. Prove me wrong. That makes the theory of its purpose as proposed still viable but unlikely, which leads us to consider other possibilities.

And as I also made clear, none of those possibilities can be proven since the Amendment does not spell out what it meant.

So I'm not the one dismissing viable possibilities here. Nor am I the one presuming what my intentions are. That's a hint.

 

[alang1216]

I see... so you don't want to "take steps to prevent criminals from breaking the law and obtaining guns" as the step has already been taken.

I don't know. How effective is the system? I'd guess all federal law breakers are in the system but what about the states? Are they reporting to the database?

What about people with a history of mental illness? Tricky subject I know but are we doing all we can?

 

[OldLady]

The thing I'm trying to get at is the reason behind America's deep-rooted love affair with guns. As many 'gun lovers' point out, guns don't kill people; people kill people. So I'm focusing on the people, the why. In our culture, the two--people and guns--make a more volatile and deadly mix than in a lot of other cultures that don't include both valuing violence and having easy access to killing machines. My theory is that American culture is still too close to its frontier roots to realistically consider disarming the populace. The experience of being on a frontier, necessarily self-reliant and surrounded by real life-threatening dangers, has echoed down the years because cultural values change much more slowly than our actual environment does.

I'm not done thinking this over yet, but know this: changing people's cultural values doesn't happen overnight, and what I'm talking about has nothing to do with taking away your gun.

Well, you are attempting to look unbiased but frame your argument with using loaded terms like gun loving. Gun loving means what exactly? If they don't make you pee? I have them for self defense. Banning guns is no guarantee of safety, how many foreign shootings would you need to see?

We've had guns since day one, ordered them through the mail even. Hardware stores used to carry them when I moved here 30 years ago. But we didn't have the school shootemups or theater slayings so you need to ask yourself what changed? The guns evolved into evil sentient beings? Or has culture degraded. Those are the only two options.

It wasn't conservatives that changed the culture, liberals always need more liberalism to fix what they screw up. They can't learn. We need guns now more than ever.

you are attempting to look unbiased but frame your argument with using loaded terms like gun loving
I was actually too lazy to write "Second amendment supporters" Sorry the term touched a nerve.
Or has culture degraded.
Maybe. I prefer the term "changed." I still want to know why. You aren't getting my point at all, just reacting to a perceived threat, since you know I'm (usually) a liberal.

you should be a second amendment supporter

you are a first amendment supporter as well correct

I am. I'm one of the frustrated people who believes the Second discusses the need to keep a somewhat ready militia. If I've got my history right, there was no standing army and the people brought their own weapons if military action was called for. But like I said before, whatever the Second Amendment means, I will let others figure out the 'control' part. I'm going to focus on the people part.

 

[Pogo]

But....if our culture had stronger respect for human life, none of us would need to own a single gun, much less twenty.

It is exactly because of the thugs who want to rape, pillage, and murder like vikings that I need to be armed at all times.

I'm sorry you live in such a bad neighborhood. The Viking thugs are human beings, too, and most could have been taught more respect for human life. An opportunity was missed. Do I think we will never have bad guys? No. But many of the thugs taking life today believe they are defending themselves or their honor. Without thinking about the grave, grave weight of taking a human life.
Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends.
J. R. R. Tolkien, The Lord Of the Rings, Book Four, Chapter One

So you're going to quote a work of literary fiction? And as far as the thugs - it is what it is. We can wax poetic all we want about what could have been or should have been or about the fact that they are "people too". But at the end of the day, I'm going to protect myself and my family. I'm not going to let any of us die simply because J.R.R. Tolkien wrote an absurd book about people flying around on broom sticks and you've taken that as your reality.

Fictional characters can say wise stuff; they don't write the books, ya know? I can tell you didn't read Tolkein; the broomsticks were Harry Potter. But anyway, no surprise you would dismiss my ideas out of hand. The opportunity was missed with you, too, apparently.

Well you are correct - I never read any of that nonsense. I never read Harry Potter and I never read Lord of the Rings. And you know what? I didn't watch either of the movies.

I'd much rather deal in reality than fantasy. And while I realize that the fictional character didn't write the book, I'm not sure J.R.R. Tolkien is qualified to speak about gun rights just because he's (apparently) a good fictional author.

The problem with individuals like you is that rather than looking at F.B.I data, looking at studies, speaking with law enforcement, etc. you'd rather delve into fiction and pull your ideas for public policy from that. It just doesn't work.

I apologize for getting snippy with you; I don't think you're a lost cause. I was p.o.'d that you insulted Tolkien.
What's important is that my proposition -- and even Gandalf's warning -- wasn't an anti-gun argument. OF COURSE you must protect your family and yourself. I wouldn't dream of telling you not to.

The thing I'm trying to get at is the reason behind America's deep-rooted love affair with guns. As many 'gun lovers' point out, guns don't kill people; people kill people. So I'm focusing on the people, the why. In our culture, the two--people and guns--make a more volatile and deadly mix than in a lot of other cultures that don't include both valuing violence and having easy access to killing machines. My theory is that American culture is still too close to its frontier roots to realistically consider disarming the populace. The experience of being on a frontier, necessarily self-reliant and surrounded by real life-threatening dangers, has echoed down the years because cultural values change much more slowly than our actual environment does.

I'm not done thinking this over yet, but know this: changing people's cultural values doesn't happen overnight, and what I'm talking about has nothing to do with taking away your gun.

Bingo, nothin' but net. This is the whole crux-- the social values that idolize firearms.

America has a gun fetish, grown out of a worship of violence. Clear evidence of that fetish is the way said fetishists melt down emotionally like a baby having its pacifier taken away. This is the very issue I joined this site over in 2012, the bozz of the day at that point in time being this TV commentary that made the same point --- poignantly delivered during a singing of "God Bless America":

​

We note that this video, and every other YouTube iteration of it (and there be many) characterize the commentary as a "gun control rant" ---- even though Costas never once mentions gun control, any kind of laws, or the Second Amendment. That's the fetishists melting down as described above. We also note that innumerable wags on this message board and others were calling on Bob Costas to be "fired" for expressing this opinion. Same thing.

Finally we note that the "tragic event in Kansas City" he refers to as the starting point was the murder-suicide committed by Kansas City Chiefs player Jovan Belcher, who blew his own brains out in front of his coaches, the "loud noise in a car" reference was a shooting in Jacksonville a week prior, and that this Costas buzz was subsequently overtaken less than a week later when Adam Lanza walked into a school and mowed down 20 more.... followed in turn by Webster.

---- but we "don't have a gun culture". Please.

 

[OldLady]

I'm sorry you live in such a bad neighborhood. The Viking thugs are human beings, too, and most could have been taught more respect for human life. An opportunity was missed. Do I think we will never have bad guys? No. But many of the thugs taking life today believe they are defending themselves or their honor. Without thinking about the grave, grave weight of taking a human life.
Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends.
J. R. R. Tolkien, The Lord Of the Rings, Book Four, Chapter One

So you're going to quote a work of literary fiction? And as far as the thugs - it is what it is. We can wax poetic all we want about what could have been or should have been or about the fact that they are "people too". But at the end of the day, I'm going to protect myself and my family. I'm not going to let any of us die simply because J.R.R. Tolkien wrote an absurd book about people flying around on broom sticks and you've taken that as your reality.

Fictional characters can say wise stuff; they don't write the books, ya know? I can tell you didn't read Tolkein; the broomsticks were Harry Potter. But anyway, no surprise you would dismiss my ideas out of hand. The opportunity was missed with you, too, apparently.

Well you are correct - I never read any of that nonsense. I never read Harry Potter and I never read Lord of the Rings. And you know what? I didn't watch either of the movies.

I'd much rather deal in reality than fantasy. And while I realize that the fictional character didn't write the book, I'm not sure J.R.R. Tolkien is qualified to speak about gun rights just because he's (apparently) a good fictional author.

The problem with individuals like you is that rather than looking at F.B.I data, looking at studies, speaking with law enforcement, etc. you'd rather delve into fiction and pull your ideas for public policy from that. It just doesn't work.

I apologize for getting snippy with you; I don't think you're a lost cause. I was p.o.'d that you insulted Tolkien.
What's important is that my proposition -- and even Gandalf's warning -- wasn't an anti-gun argument. OF COURSE you must protect your family and yourself. I wouldn't dream of telling you not to.

The thing I'm trying to get at is the reason behind America's deep-rooted love affair with guns. As many 'gun lovers' point out, guns don't kill people; people kill people. So I'm focusing on the people, the why. In our culture, the two--people and guns--make a more volatile and deadly mix than in a lot of other cultures that don't include both valuing violence and having easy access to killing machines. My theory is that American culture is still too close to its frontier roots to realistically consider disarming the populace. The experience of being on a frontier, necessarily self-reliant and surrounded by real life-threatening dangers, has echoed down the years because cultural values change much more slowly than our actual environment does.

I'm not done thinking this over yet, but know this: changing people's cultural values doesn't happen overnight, and what I'm talking about has nothing to do with taking away your gun.

Bingo, nothin' but net. This is the whole crux-- the social values that idolize firearms.

America has a gun fetish, grown out of a worship of violence. Clear evidence of that fetish is the way said fetishists melt down emotionally like a baby having its pacifier taken away. This is the very issue I joined this site over in 2012, the bozz of the day at that point in time being this TV commentary that made the same point --- poignantly delivered during a singing of "God Bless America":

​

We note that this video, and every other YouTube iteration of it (and there be many) characterize the commentary as a "gun control rant" ---- even though Costas never once mentions gun control, any kind of laws, or the Second Amendment. That's the fetishists melting down as described above. We also note that innumerable wags on this message board and others were calling on Bob Costas to be "fired" for expressing this opinion. Same thing.

Finally we note that the "tragic event in Kansas City" he refers to as the starting point was the murder-suicide committed by Kansas City Chiefs player Jovan Belcher, who blew his own brains out in front of his coaches, the "loud noise in a car" reference was a shooting in Jacksonville a week prior, and that this Costas buzz was subsequently overtaken less than a week later when Adam Lanza walked into a school and mowed down 20 more.... followed in turn by Webster.

---- but we "don't have a gun culture". Please.

Thanks for sayin' it better than I could. I was beginning to wonder if I'm too stupid for this conversation.

 

[Pogo]

So you're going to quote a work of literary fiction? And as far as the thugs - it is what it is. We can wax poetic all we want about what could have been or should have been or about the fact that they are "people too". But at the end of the day, I'm going to protect myself and my family. I'm not going to let any of us die simply because J.R.R. Tolkien wrote an absurd book about people flying around on broom sticks and you've taken that as your reality.

Fictional characters can say wise stuff; they don't write the books, ya know? I can tell you didn't read Tolkein; the broomsticks were Harry Potter. But anyway, no surprise you would dismiss my ideas out of hand. The opportunity was missed with you, too, apparently.

Well you are correct - I never read any of that nonsense. I never read Harry Potter and I never read Lord of the Rings. And you know what? I didn't watch either of the movies.

I'd much rather deal in reality than fantasy. And while I realize that the fictional character didn't write the book, I'm not sure J.R.R. Tolkien is qualified to speak about gun rights just because he's (apparently) a good fictional author.

The problem with individuals like you is that rather than looking at F.B.I data, looking at studies, speaking with law enforcement, etc. you'd rather delve into fiction and pull your ideas for public policy from that. It just doesn't work.

I apologize for getting snippy with you; I don't think you're a lost cause. I was p.o.'d that you insulted Tolkien.
What's important is that my proposition -- and even Gandalf's warning -- wasn't an anti-gun argument. OF COURSE you must protect your family and yourself. I wouldn't dream of telling you not to.

The thing I'm trying to get at is the reason behind America's deep-rooted love affair with guns. As many 'gun lovers' point out, guns don't kill people; people kill people. So I'm focusing on the people, the why. In our culture, the two--people and guns--make a more volatile and deadly mix than in a lot of other cultures that don't include both valuing violence and having easy access to killing machines. My theory is that American culture is still too close to its frontier roots to realistically consider disarming the populace. The experience of being on a frontier, necessarily self-reliant and surrounded by real life-threatening dangers, has echoed down the years because cultural values change much more slowly than our actual environment does.

I'm not done thinking this over yet, but know this: changing people's cultural values doesn't happen overnight, and what I'm talking about has nothing to do with taking away your gun.

Bingo, nothin' but net. This is the whole crux-- the social values that idolize firearms.

America has a gun fetish, grown out of a worship of violence. Clear evidence of that fetish is the way said fetishists melt down emotionally like a baby having its pacifier taken away. This is the very issue I joined this site over in 2012, the bozz of the day at that point in time being this TV commentary that made the same point --- poignantly delivered during a singing of "God Bless America":

​

We note that this video, and every other YouTube iteration of it (and there be many) characterize the commentary as a "gun control rant" ---- even though Costas never once mentions gun control, any kind of laws, or the Second Amendment. That's the fetishists melting down as described above. We also note that innumerable wags on this message board and others were calling on Bob Costas to be "fired" for expressing this opinion. Same thing.

Finally we note that the "tragic event in Kansas City" he refers to as the starting point was the murder-suicide committed by Kansas City Chiefs player Jovan Belcher, who blew his own brains out in front of his coaches, the "loud noise in a car" reference was a shooting in Jacksonville a week prior, and that this Costas buzz was subsequently overtaken less than a week later when Adam Lanza walked into a school and mowed down 20 more.... followed in turn by Webster.

---- but we "don't have a gun culture". Please.

Thanks for sayin' it better than I could. I was beginning to wonder if I'm too stupid for this conversation.

Not at all; more likely you're too intelligent.

This is what I've been saying since I got to this site. And the next level of that observation would be this: Mass Killings in the US: Masculinity, Masculinity, Masculinity

--- which is what I'm referring to way back here:

What does your mental health test look like?

OPINION: Paul Ryan blames mass shootings on mental health laws

NRA-ILA | 63% of Americans Blame Mental Health—Not Guns—for Mass Shootings

So, no mental health test. It seems not much weight given to anyone on the mental health list, anyway.

If we just enforced those who have been declared mentally ill through due process of law, that would fix most of the problem. Most shooters who are mentally ill have long histories

I have not researched this so take that into consideration...but there are a lot of mentally ill people in the country and only a tiny fraction are involved in shooting others or themselves. So if we are going to focus time and resources on helping the mentally ill is gun control really the priority? I would guess they have other problems that are a much higher priority, but again I have not looked into this.

Very good point that only a tiny fraction are involved in shooting anybody. Far more significant is that only a tiny fraction of shooters are female. That's another clue.

Our gun problem is not legislative; it's spiritual.

 

[Contumacious]

I'm sorry you live in such a bad neighborhood. The Viking thugs are human beings, too, and most could have been taught more respect for human life. An opportunity was missed. Do I think we will never have bad guys? No. But many of the thugs taking life today believe they are defending themselves or their honor. Without thinking about the grave, grave weight of taking a human life.
Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends.
J. R. R. Tolkien, The Lord Of the Rings, Book Four, Chapter One

So you're going to quote a work of literary fiction? And as far as the thugs - it is what it is. We can wax poetic all we want about what could have been or should have been or about the fact that they are "people too". But at the end of the day, I'm going to protect myself and my family. I'm not going to let any of us die simply because J.R.R. Tolkien wrote an absurd book about people flying around on broom sticks and you've taken that as your reality.

Fictional characters can say wise stuff; they don't write the books, ya know? I can tell you didn't read Tolkein; the broomsticks were Harry Potter. But anyway, no surprise you would dismiss my ideas out of hand. The opportunity was missed with you, too, apparently.

Well you are correct - I never read any of that nonsense. I never read Harry Potter and I never read Lord of the Rings. And you know what? I didn't watch either of the movies.

I'd much rather deal in reality than fantasy. And while I realize that the fictional character didn't write the book, I'm not sure J.R.R. Tolkien is qualified to speak about gun rights just because he's (apparently) a good fictional author.

The problem with individuals like you is that rather than looking at F.B.I data, looking at studies, speaking with law enforcement, etc. you'd rather delve into fiction and pull your ideas for public policy from that. It just doesn't work.

I apologize for getting snippy with you; I don't think you're a lost cause. I was p.o.'d that you insulted Tolkien.
What's important is that my proposition -- and even Gandalf's warning -- wasn't an anti-gun argument. OF COURSE you must protect your family and yourself. I wouldn't dream of telling you not to.

The thing I'm trying to get at is the reason behind America's deep-rooted love affair with guns. As many 'gun lovers' point out, guns don't kill people; people kill people. So I'm focusing on the people, the why. In our culture, the two--people and guns--make a more volatile and deadly mix than in a lot of other cultures that don't include both valuing violence and having easy access to killing machines. My theory is that American culture is still too close to its frontier roots to realistically consider disarming the populace. The experience of being on a frontier, necessarily self-reliant and surrounded by real life-threatening dangers, has echoed down the years because cultural values change much more slowly than our actual environment does.

I'm not done thinking this over yet, but know this: changing people's cultural values doesn't happen overnight, and what I'm talking about has nothing to do with taking away your gun.

Bingo, nothin' but net. This is the whole crux-- the social values that idolize firearms.

America has a gun fetish, grown out of a worship of violence. Clear evidence of that fetish is the way said fetishists melt down emotionally like a baby having its pacifier taken away. This is the very issue I joined this site over in 2012, the bozz of the day at that point in time being this TV commentary that made the same point --- poignantly delivered during a singing of "God Bless America":

​

We note that this video, and every other YouTube iteration of it (and there be many) characterize the commentary as a "gun control rant" ---- even though Costas never once mentions gun control, any kind of laws, or the Second Amendment. That's the fetishists melting down as described above. We also note that innumerable wags on this message board and others were calling on Bob Costas to be "fired" for expressing this opinion. Same thing.

Finally we note that the "tragic event in Kansas City" he refers to as the starting point was the murder-suicide committed by Kansas City Chiefs player Jovan Belcher, who blew his own brains out in front of his coaches, the "loud noise in a car" reference was a shooting in Jacksonville a week prior, and that this Costas buzz was subsequently overtaken less than a week later when Adam Lanza walked into a school and mowed down 20 more.... followed in turn by Webster.

---- but we "don't have a gun culture". Please.

America has a gun fetish, grown out of the fact that WE WANT TO STAY ALIVE.


.


..

 

[OldLady]

So you're going to quote a work of literary fiction? And as far as the thugs - it is what it is. We can wax poetic all we want about what could have been or should have been or about the fact that they are "people too". But at the end of the day, I'm going to protect myself and my family. I'm not going to let any of us die simply because J.R.R. Tolkien wrote an absurd book about people flying around on broom sticks and you've taken that as your reality.

Fictional characters can say wise stuff; they don't write the books, ya know? I can tell you didn't read Tolkein; the broomsticks were Harry Potter. But anyway, no surprise you would dismiss my ideas out of hand. The opportunity was missed with you, too, apparently.

Well you are correct - I never read any of that nonsense. I never read Harry Potter and I never read Lord of the Rings. And you know what? I didn't watch either of the movies.

I'd much rather deal in reality than fantasy. And while I realize that the fictional character didn't write the book, I'm not sure J.R.R. Tolkien is qualified to speak about gun rights just because he's (apparently) a good fictional author.

The problem with individuals like you is that rather than looking at F.B.I data, looking at studies, speaking with law enforcement, etc. you'd rather delve into fiction and pull your ideas for public policy from that. It just doesn't work.

I apologize for getting snippy with you; I don't think you're a lost cause. I was p.o.'d that you insulted Tolkien.
What's important is that my proposition -- and even Gandalf's warning -- wasn't an anti-gun argument. OF COURSE you must protect your family and yourself. I wouldn't dream of telling you not to.

The thing I'm trying to get at is the reason behind America's deep-rooted love affair with guns. As many 'gun lovers' point out, guns don't kill people; people kill people. So I'm focusing on the people, the why. In our culture, the two--people and guns--make a more volatile and deadly mix than in a lot of other cultures that don't include both valuing violence and having easy access to killing machines. My theory is that American culture is still too close to its frontier roots to realistically consider disarming the populace. The experience of being on a frontier, necessarily self-reliant and surrounded by real life-threatening dangers, has echoed down the years because cultural values change much more slowly than our actual environment does.

I'm not done thinking this over yet, but know this: changing people's cultural values doesn't happen overnight, and what I'm talking about has nothing to do with taking away your gun.

Bingo, nothin' but net. This is the whole crux-- the social values that idolize firearms.

America has a gun fetish, grown out of a worship of violence. Clear evidence of that fetish is the way said fetishists melt down emotionally like a baby having its pacifier taken away. This is the very issue I joined this site over in 2012, the bozz of the day at that point in time being this TV commentary that made the same point --- poignantly delivered during a singing of "God Bless America":

​

We note that this video, and every other YouTube iteration of it (and there be many) characterize the commentary as a "gun control rant" ---- even though Costas never once mentions gun control, any kind of laws, or the Second Amendment. That's the fetishists melting down as described above. We also note that innumerable wags on this message board and others were calling on Bob Costas to be "fired" for expressing this opinion. Same thing.

Finally we note that the "tragic event in Kansas City" he refers to as the starting point was the murder-suicide committed by Kansas City Chiefs player Jovan Belcher, who blew his own brains out in front of his coaches, the "loud noise in a car" reference was a shooting in Jacksonville a week prior, and that this Costas buzz was subsequently overtaken less than a week later when Adam Lanza walked into a school and mowed down 20 more.... followed in turn by Webster.

---- but we "don't have a gun culture". Please.

America has a gun fetish, grown out of the fact that WE WANT TO STAY ALIVE.


.


..

I want you to stay alive, too. Keep your guns until we figure out how to get other people to stop shooting them at people.

 

[P@triot]

I want you to stay alive, too. Keep your guns until we figure out how to get other people to stop shooting them at people.

And therein summarizes the failure of liberal ideology. The belief that we can somehow "figure out" how to stop people from killing. How to prevent hunger. How to prevent homelessness. That we can build utopia.

My dear....after tens of thousands of years of mankind and it's history, I can tell you unequivocally that there will never come a day where we can figure out how to stop man from killing. Evil will always exist. Always. There will always be sociopaths. There will always be mental illness. And there will always be pure, unadulterated evil.

Anyone spending time trying to "figure out" how to stop man from killing is wasting more time than someone trying to capture a unicorn so they can ride it to the end of the rainbow to capture the leprechauns pot of gold.

Trying to create utopia is senseless. A wise person accepts the reality and then tries to figure out how best to survive and thrive under those realities. The best way to survive and thrive is to carry a gun.

 

[kaz]

I am especially curious as to why you think a law can be enacted that will prevent people from breaking another law.

exactly when did I ever say this?

You said you would "like to take steps to prevent criminals from breaking the law and obtaining guns."
It's illegal for felons to buy, own or possess firearms. How do you prevent them from doing so, if not enact another law?

Enforce the current laws and arrest them for carrying a gun when they have had their Constitutional rights restricted through due process of law and keep them in jail

 

[kaz]

LOL, liberals can't read at a high school level.

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

Note the form of the sentence,

Because A, B

In that form, it's saying for the reason of A, B is true. A is not a qualifier for B, it's an explanation of B

So the founding fathers said

Because "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the State"

Note again that's an explanation, not a restriction or a qualifier

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

That is the power given. Note the militia is not part of the power. It states simply and directly the right shall not be infringed.

You're welcome for this English lesson that apparently government schools didn't give you when you were 12 as they should have done

Here's the elephant-in-the-room flaw in that theory:

The Amendment doesn't *NEED* to justify its own reasoning. A Constitutional Amendment is a simple flat declaration, not a court argument or a point asserted in a debate. There is literally no need to do that. The conditional phrase could have been struck altogether, if that were the purpose.

And if you look around, you'll find none of the other Amendments take the trouble to explain their reasoning either. Not a single one. Nor do they need to.

That renders the theory quite dubious, and suggests the phrase is there for another reason. Would that they had stated it clearly but ----- they didn't.

Is there a point to that? It changes nothing. And the writing of all the amendments have inconsistencies in style and substance. Some mix concepts, some have one simple concept, some have a ordered list of concepts. Your elephant is just a dead elephant, nothing more

Of course there's a point, that being that it renders your whole explanation of what the clause is for a dubious theory.

Answer the question it brings up -- why would a Constitutional Amendment, alone among all other Amendments, singularly need to explain itself? WHO exactly is it talking to? Why does no other Amendment take the time to justify its existence ---- yet this one does?

These queries of course all assume your theory of the clause as self-justification.... and not a clumsily worded clause of limitation, which is the other glaring possibility.

That's very much a live elephant. And they live a long time.

No, it is not. You are trying to read the second in a manner that agrees with what you want it to mean rather than what it does.

No matter how you slice the first clause it does not negate the rest of the amendment or the fact that it directly protects the right of the people. That is exactly what you are trying to do by connecting the right with the militia - something that the language of the second completely and utterly avoids doing. It is very clear.

Further, when you look into what the founders considered the 'militia' then the argument that the right is not a personal right to bear arms is even more nonsensical. The SCOTUS has said as much as well.

You may believe that the right is outdated. You may believe that it cannot be applied to today's realities as the use and function of firearms has changed so much. Those are valid points. They are not, however, points that allow one to violate the amendment. There is a clear method to changing outdated or incorrect portions of the constitution. Should anyone believe that the second should not confer a personal right they should not be trying to argue that the meaning is something it is not - they should simply be changing it.

Ummm..... I don't have a "way I want it to mean", and I stated that from the outset. This point is about how English works. The fact remains, there is no known reason a Constitutional Amendment needs to explain itself. Prove me wrong. That makes the theory of its purpose as proposed still viable but unlikely, which leads us to consider other possibilities.

And as I also made clear, none of those possibilities can be proven since the Amendment does not spell out what it meant.

So I'm not the one dismissing viable possibilities here. Nor am I the one presuming what my intentions are. That's a hint.

I agree, there is no reason a Constitutional amendment needs to explain itself. But they did. So what do you want for it, a cookie?

A logical person would think that explaining it would make it stronger, they felt so strongly they said how critical it is to a free people. For some bizarre reason you think explaining how critical the right is makes it not really a right at all. But then you are a chick, all emotional and all.

 

[P@triot]

I want you to stay alive, too. Keep your guns until we figure out how to get other people to stop shooting them at people.

By the way - you do realize why these ISIS and Al Qaeda idiots don't come over to the U.S. and open fire on people with full automatic military weapons like they've done in France on multiple occasions now and other nations, don't you? It's because they are scared shitless of us. And no - it's not liberal political correctness that scares them. It's the fact that tens of millions of American's are fully armed. Even though they hate us more, they'd rather shoot Europeans where they can kill hundreds while the unarmed sheep are waiting for help to arrive.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Enforce the current laws and arrest them for carrying a gun when they have had their Constitutional rights restricted through due process of law and keep them in jail

Just keep in mind that the 2nd amendment's explicit language says that there is no due process of law that permits the govt to restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

That was the amendment's entire purpose, in fact.

The only thing that can permit it, is Jury Nullification. Which must operate strictly on a case-by-case basis. I gave an example earlier... which no one has refuted or even argued against.
What should the end goal of our gun policy be?

My own guess is, the Framers intended for the principle of Jury Nullification to apply here. The restaurant mass-murderer tells the cops they have no power to take his gun. The cop responds by cracking the guy's skull with his billy club, hard, and taking away his gun anyway. Did the cop violate the strict words of the 2nd amendment by doing so? Maybe yes. But is there a judge or jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.

 

[kaz]

Enforce the current laws and arrest them for carrying a gun when they have had their Constitutional rights restricted through due process of law and keep them in jail

Just keep in mind that the 2nd amendment's explicit language says that there is no due process of law that permits the govt to restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

That was the amendment's entire purpose, in fact.

The only thing that can permit it, is Jury Nullification. Which must operate strictly on a case-by-case basis. I gave an example earlier... which no one has refuted or even argued against.
What should the end goal of our gun policy be?

That's ridiculous, it doesn't say that. Where did you come up with that? The fifth amendment says your rights cannot be restricted without due process of law. It doesn't say any exceptions when due process of law is followed and your rights are restricted

 

[Little-Acorn]

The fifth amendment says your rights cannot be restricted without due process of law.

That's ridiculous, it doesn't say that. Where did you come up with that?

It says that no one can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

The right to keep and bear arms is neither life, liberty, nor property.

 

[alang1216]

Enforce the current laws and arrest them for carrying a gun when they have had their Constitutional rights restricted through due process of law and keep them in jail

Just keep in mind that the 2nd amendment's explicit language says that there is no due process of law that permits the govt to restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

That was the amendment's entire purpose, in fact.

The only thing that can permit it, is Jury Nullification. Which must operate strictly on a case-by-case basis. I gave an example earlier... which no one has refuted or even argued against.
What should the end goal of our gun policy be?

My own guess is, the Framers intended for the principle of Jury Nullification to apply here. The restaurant mass-murderer tells the cops they have no power to take his gun. The cop responds by cracking the guy's skull with his billy club, hard, and taking away his gun anyway. Did the cop violate the strict words of the 2nd amendment by doing so? Maybe yes. But is there a judge or jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.

The 1st amendment's explicit language says that there is no due process of law that permits the gov't to restrict the right of free speech but the Supreme Court found plenty of exemptions. ALL rights have limits.

 

[Little-Acorn]

ALL rights have limits.

Already refuted earlier in this thread.