Thoughts about shootings and gun control

[carmenjonze]

There needs to be penalties in place to insure against them being used as revenge

Same goes for your "mental health" canards.

[ProfX]

A judge has to order the red flag injunction, after hearing testimony from people who know the person as to whether they present a risk or danger.

Last I checked, presenting false information (whether for purposes of revenge or any other reason) in a court to a judge is called perjury, and is itself a crime ... so this "protection" exists already.

Interesting fact:

Counting DC, 14 states now have red flag laws. (FL is one. TX is not).

There's one state in the nation that has an "anti" law. Guess which one?

Yep, Oklahoma has a law that forbids the state from passing any sort of red flag laws at any point in the future.

[Number6]

This is a must see training class on what to do if you're involved in an active shooter event. It's 2:11 minutes long but it is powerful.

https://twitter.com/SteveSchmidtSES/sta ... 7288670208

[Number6]

We need to be careful about red flag laws. There needs to be penalties in place to insure against them being used as revenge

Red Flag laws have built-in safe guards in that a judge must be provided evidence before any weapons can be taken from someone. You seem to be under the impression that any law enforcement person can willy-nilly seize weapons under the Red Flag laws and that's not the case. Willy and Nilly have left town so your concern is unjustified.

[ProfX]

This is a must see training class on what to do if you're involved in an active shooter event. It's 2:11 minutes long but it is powerful.

https://twitter.com/SteveSchmidtSES/sta ... 7288670208

I wonder why nobody ever asks if these drills are "age appropriate" for their kids, or what they are doing to them emotionally, let alone whether they actually work. I guess only art projects and books get Moms for Liberty sufficiently worked up.

[Number6]

I wonder why nobody ever asks if these drills are "age appropriate" for their kids, or what they are doing to them emotionally, let alone whether they actually work. I guess only art projects and books get Moms for Liberty sufficiently worked up.

I wonder if in Florida, DeSantis allows them to opt out of the drills because it might make some children "uncomfortable."

[Toonces]

We need to be careful about red flag laws. There needs to be penalties in place to insure against them being used as revenge

Personally, I'd rather see 'innocent' people temporarily inconvenienced if it helps prevent a mass shooting.

Does having to wait for your ticket into a well-regulated militia really violate anyone's rights? In what instances does someone need to buy a gun "right away". If time truly is of the essence, the circumstances are probably not good ones.

It seems that gun advocates will look for any reason, real or imagined, in order to dismiss ANY measure aimed at reducing gun violence. Who really benefits from that?

If someone throws a tantrum because they can't have their gun right away, I'd think twice about whether they are a responsible gun owner.

I see self-professed responsible gun owners taking pictures with their arsenal and posting them to social media, often in response to talk about regulating guns. That isn't responsible gun behavior.

The gun lobby has done a masterful job of convincing some people the issue is black and white. Either everyone can have whatever gun they want or it's tyranny. That's just plain absurd.

[Motor City]

This is a must see training class on what to do if you're involved in an active shooter event. It's 2:11 minutes long but it is powerful.

https://twitter.com/SteveSchmidtSES/sta ... 7288670208

Yea and making business and funding source out of school shootings could be why some responses like the one in Texas were off or delayed.

[bradman]

The preface of the 2nd amendment is a reason for the right. It’s not a requirement for the right. No way can that preface be interpreted as a requirement. A militia is called. It’s not a standing military. Dam little time the militia is engaged but the common citizen of the time routinely carried their gun while not engaged in militia stuff.

The founders weren’t even considering or concerned about the right to keep and bear arms because it was the normal state of affairs. The second amendment was to guarantee the right of a state or local militia and no standing federal army. They also weren’t concerned about the right to keep and bear arms because it was a foregone conclusion. It was the natural state of a white man of the time. At the time of the writing of the constitution the right to keep and bear arms was considered and documented by law as a right of natural law, common law, and the codification by parliament. It was already inalienable.


And Heller basically said that. You have the right to arms in your home for your protection as an inalienable right of natural and common law. And that the militia phrasing in no way is a requirement.

Another thing to consider is that the second amendment is part of the bill of rights. The amendments written to protect the citizenry from abuse by the federal government. Seems odd they would do that if they thought it was a revocable right.

Some additional information. 44 state constitutions have the right to keep and bear arms.

The constitution does not give congress an enumerated power to ban guns or prohibit ownership by law abiding citizens.

Not many people i know of dispute the right to bear arms.

It the regulated part that gets blurred......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_Alarm

Although it proved to be a false alarm, the Powder Alarm caused political and military leaders to proceed more carefully in the days ahead, and essentially provided a "dress rehearsal" for the Battles of Lexington and Concord seven and a half months later. Furthermore, actions on both sides to control weaponry, gunpowder, and other military supplies became more contentious, as the British sought to bring military stores more directly under their control, and the Patriot colonists sought to acquire them for their own use.

Sure we have the right to bear arms. What we don't have a right to is the arsenals. The Powder Houses. Whether in possession of the British or the Patriots, government authorities ended up in control of, and then regulated, the weapons of war. That's where things have gotten fucked up. Want to build a arsenal of military grade weapons? Just run down to the local Wallmart. It's as easy as buying a loaf of bread.

imo, waiting periods and back ground checks are a no brainer. Damn near 75% of the American public seems to have no problem with that. From there, we have to regain control over the powder and shot.

[Libertas]

Zero RIGHT to own a gun OUTSIDE of a well regulated militia which could easily mean National Guard or locked up militia buildings.

The abomination known as "Heller" creates a right that simply does not exist in the actual 2nd Amendment.

If interpreted as written, any state could allow or not allow the ownership of any gun, I suppose. Red states would be armed to the teeth, as they are now, and most if not all blue states would have extreme restrictions since that is the common sense thing to do.

Just like voter ID is a poll tax and unconstitutional.

[ProfX]

Why does the Bill of Rights contain a passage about not being forced to quarter soldiers in your home? Is this a particular problem in modern American life? Answer: British forces would often force American colonists to quarter Redcoats during the Revolutionary War.

So ... what about that 2nd amendment?

As we celebrate the Bicentennial of the Bill of Rights, evidence has been discovered that shows the Second Amendment was prompted by British plans to disarm each and every American.
https://www.independent.org/publication ... sp?id=1422

American minutemen and militiamen wanted their right to muster their musket from the local armory, without interference by British officials and redcoats. This was the key concern behind its drafting. Not fear of their own American government. And it was never meant to be interpreted as "every 18 year old who feels like terrorizing a school can get a weapon of war".

[Libertas]

Why does the Bill of Rights contain a passage about not being forced to quarter soldiers in your home? Is this a particular problem in modern American life? Answer: British forces would often force American colonists to quarter Redcoats during the Revolutionary War.

So ... what about that 2nd amendment?

As we celebrate the Bicentennial of the Bill of Rights, evidence has been discovered that shows the Second Amendment was prompted by British plans to disarm each and every American.
https://www.independent.org/publication ... sp?id=1422

American minutemen and militiamen wanted their right to muster their musket from the local armory, without interference by British officials and redcoats. This was the key concern behind its drafting. Not fear of their own American government. And it was never meant to be interpreted as "every 18 year old who feels like terrorizing a school can get a weapon of war".

I always said that if your gun was at the armory and you wanted to use it from time to time for target practice, that would be OK in a sane world. Sounds like they had the same idea.

AS usual you come up with brilliant info, factual info.

[Libertas]

NRA just ordered all cons to vote against any reform


https://twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/status ... ySE_fsbP4w

[JoeMemphis]

Not many people i know of dispute the right to bear arms.

It the regulated part that gets blurred......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_Alarm


Sure we have the right to bear arms. What we don't have a right to is the arsenals. The Powder Houses. Whether in possession of the British or the Patriots, government authorities ended up in control of, and then regulated, the weapons of war. That's where things have gotten fucked up. Want to build a arsenal of military grade weapons? Just run down to the local Wallmart. It's as easy as buying a loaf of bread.

imo, waiting periods and back ground checks are a no brainer. Damn near 75% of the American public seems to have no problem with that. From there, we have to regain control over the powder and shot.

I agree. I have always thought that the argument that the second amendment was solely meant for the militia to be pretty weak. I would agree with BD that the militia was one of the reasons and not a requirement. That being said, I think even Scalia acknowledged that the “right” under the second amendment was not without bounds. I think reasonable limits or requirements are possible under the constitution. I think that in order to have those conversations, we need to avoid focusing on “bans”. That has gone nowhere for decades. People generally agree that we need to figure out how to keep weapons out of the hands of the wrong people. That’s a good place to start.

[gounion]

I agree. I have always thought that the argument that the second amendment was solely meant for the militia to be pretty weak. I would agree with BD that the militia was one of the reasons and not a requirement. That being said, I think even Scalia acknowledged that the “right” under the second amendment was not without bounds. I think reasonable limits or requirements are possible under the constitution. I think that in order to have those conversations, we need to avoid focusing on “bans”. That has gone nowhere for decades. People generally agree that we need to figure out how to keep weapons out of the hands of the wrong people. That’s a good place to start.

It's very possible that, since the right will ALWAYS fight ANY reasonable proposal, well, ANY PROPOSAL AT ALL, while passing laws like Stand Your Ground and Open Carry, that when something truly horrific happens, they will lose completely and the American people will simply demand a total ban.

Because the GOP is no longer a sane actor in our nation.

To be clear - because I know Glenn will make the accusation - I'm NOT for banning guns. But there's reasonable, sane things we can do that could ensure that Americans could still own guns.

[ProfX]

A ban on some semi-auto rifles and some semi-auto pistols is not a ban on all gun ownership (not even close). The "Assault Weapons" ban of 1994-2004 had its issues (I've discussed them), it was an imperfect bill, but no courts overturned it. It just expired and wasn't renewed after ten years. I would say this is the most people are calling for. Something like it (though not exactly) that deals with the semi autos. It's already close to impossible to get full autos.

Here's an interesting question. I don't think anybody thinks the 2nd amendment is a right to use body armor UNLESS you are in military/law enforcement/security personnel. Why shouldn't we ban that for people outside those professions?

All that said, even with an AR-15, if all you're allowed to have is 3 10 or 15 round mags, and you can't have body armor, your rampage could end up being a lot shorter. That is good, of course. I do agree if we're not going to ban weapons like it, the background checks and permitting (as well as age limits) should be pretty high and extensive.

[Glennfs]

A ban on some semi-auto rifles and some semi-auto pistols is not a ban on all gun ownership (not even close). The "Assault Weapons" ban of 1994-2004 had its issues (I've discussed them), it was an imperfect bill, but no courts overturned it. It just expired and wasn't renewed after ten years. I would say this is the most people are calling for. Something like it (though not exactly) that deals with the semi autos. It's already close to impossible to get full autos.

Here's an interesting question. I don't think anybody thinks the 2nd amendment is a right to use body armor UNLESS you are in military/law enforcement/security personnel. Why shouldn't we ban that for people outside those professions?

All that said, even with an AR-15, if all you're allowed to have is 3 10 or 15 round mags, and you can't have body armor, your rampage could end up being a lot shorter. That is good, of course. I do agree if we're not going to ban weapons like it, the background checks and permitting (as well as age limits) should be pretty high and extensive.

The problem is a ban is just the first step. Currently Canada has over 1500 weapons classified as assault weapons.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudea ... -1.5552131

[gounion]

The problem is a ban is just the first step. Currently Canada has over 1500 weapons classified as assault weapons.

Hand everyone bazookas. Because obviously anything less would be the first step.

[ProfX]

It passed because most Canadians favor it. That's how democracy works. Normally, anyway.

I know that number bothers you. To me it's just a number. Canadians like their guns too, Mike Moore went into that in his film, although not with quite the ... fervor ... of Americans. In general, Canadians do not seem upset that what Canada did in any way interferes with their ability to have guns for self defense, sport, or hunting. Because it doesn't. Even if "1500" sounds like a big number.

[Glennfs]

Hand everyone bazookas. Because obviously anything less would be the first step.

There you go making an emotional response because you can't discuss or dispute the truth.

[Glennfs]

It passed because most Canadians favor it. That's how democracy works. Normally, anyway.

I know that number bothers you. To me it's just a number. Canadians like their guns too, Mike Moore went into that in his film, although not with quite the ... fervor ... of Americans. In general, Canadians do not seem upset that what Canada did in any way interferes with their ability to have guns for self defense, sport, or hunting. Because it doesn't. Even if "1500" sounds like a big number.

Yes and they can pass any law they want.

We all know that the anti gun advocates will immediately start lobbying for the same here in our country.

[gounion]

There you go making an emotional response because you can't discuss or dispute the truth.

No, you're only making the slippery slope argument when it doesn't make sense. Very few Americans WANT to ban all guns. But your refusal to have ANY REGULATION OF ANY SORT are pushing more people that way, when they watch kids get their heads blown off.

What's REALLY happening from the right? Stand Your Ground and Open Carry laws that are insane and only make our problems worse.

[Glennfs]

No, you're only making the slippery slope argument when it doesn't make sense. Very few Americans WANT to ban all guns. But your refusal to have ANY REGULATION OF ANY SORT are pushing more people that way, when they watch kids get their heads blown off.

What's REALLY happening from the right? Stand Your Ground and Open Carry laws that are insane and only make our problems worse.

https://www.npr.org/2018/04/13/60214382 ... lf-defense

Over 2 million times a year honest people use a gun to defend themselves.
A fact that is disputed by your fellow travelers because in most instances nobody was shot.

[gounion]

https://www.npr.org/2018/04/13/60214382 ... lf-defense

Over 2 million times a year honest people use a gun to defend themselves.
A fact that is disputed by your fellow travelers because in most instances nobody was shot.

So if those kids had been packing they would be alive today, right?

The right says that more guns make us safer. That really hasn't played out.

[ProfX]

Yes and they can pass any law they want.

We all know that the anti gun advocates will immediately start lobbying for the same here in our country.

Can't speak for anybody but me and I am not "anti gun" although I don't own one. I am "pro responsible gun safety and ownership," though.

I don't think the U.S. needs to duplicate Canada's law. Not my position. (Nor what they are planning to do on handguns, BTW - though it would indeed be impossible to do here after Heller/McDonald).

Mine is:
1) act first on high capacity magazines
2) set strict limits on semi auto ownership
3) we can discuss which semi autos might need a complete ban, I don't know if it needs to be 1500, I don't have a numerical target. I'm more concerned with capacity for human-hunting lethality.