General Gun Violence/Gun Control

[AngTxGal]

I never said that in other countries ALL citizens are fine with their government. That would never be the case.

But I find it odd that Americans base their country's values on not trusting their government. A society based on lack of trust is not a society. In a democratic society the people vote for their government. As a result of democratic elections doesn't their government reflect their own beliefs and goals?

What I described was the actual history behind the 2nd Amendment, which was written following the Revolutionary War, when the United States became a country because it won its independence from England. It won independence because the government was corrupt, and it won it using guns.

Where are these democratic governments where citizens vote into office people they completely trust, can turn their backs on, pay money to, and believe all is well?
Maybe some countries are more homogeneous- people have one language and culture and ethnic background, and religion. Not the case here.

In the US the federal government has limited power, many things are controlled at the state level. That is one reason why gun control is so tricky.
Yes, local governments more closely reflect my beliefs and goals. But the culture here where I am is unique to here. Texas isn’t even one culture, or one belief system, or one set of goals, not even one language. It is very diverse. And then there are 50 states, and each of them is similar in some ways and unique in others.
Here there is no ‘one size fits all’, we always have to compromise. No one gets everything they want all the time, and what works for some doesn‘t work for others.
Compromise is hard, and currently it isn’t happening often enough.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

^RSBM

Didn’t Devin Kelley, the Texas church shooter that left 26 dead, grow up on a rural ranch? Using a Ruger AR-15 variant.

What Happened at the Texas Church Shooting (Published 2017)

A shooting at a church in Sutherland Springs, Tex., killed at least 26 people on Sunday.

www.nytimes.com

Former classmates say Texas shooting suspect Devin Kelley 'had a Columbine feel to him'

'You know that kid that wears a trench coat to school? He was kinda like that,' a former classmate says

www.independent.co.uk

Gunman Kills at Least 26 in Attack on Rural Texas Church (Published 2017)

A gunman, identified by law enforcement sources as Devin P. Kelley, walked into a Baptist church in Sutherland Springs, Tex., and opened fire.

www.nytimes.com

He may have grown up in a rural area but his violence was tied to his history of domestic violence. The Air Force failed to record his conviction.

 

[branmuffin]

It seems guns used in these mass shootings were purchased within 30-90 days prior to the event. Large amounts of ammo were also purchased in that time period. Sometimes multiple guns are purchased within a short period of time.

That should be a Red Flag.

Do I mean to imply that every person who purchased several guns and lots of ammo in a short period of time must be a mass shooter? No.
Am I implying doing so should be illegal? No.

I’m saying it is a Red Flag.
What do we do about that red flag? I’m not sure.

The culture here includes being skeptical that the government is working in your best interest. It is almost assumed that the federal government is likely corrupt.
Our Constitution includes the 2nd Amendment because we fought the Revolutionary War to gain our freedom from a tyrannical government. The intention is to allow citizens to defend themselves, even if who they are fighting against is their own government.
If the colonists had not had guns, we would not be Americans. We would be British.
Much of the pride in Texas comes from being once an independent country, meaning we can do this alone if we must. We are a state if it benefits us, but we don’t have to be, is kinda the mentality of many.

So- most Texans will never submit to any federal control, or registry of their guns.
Doing so would mean the government could come to every gun owners home, know what guns they had, and take their guns.
I am one of those- my guns are not registered anywhere and cannot be traced back to me.
Consider Ukraine, what if Russia had a list of all the gun owners and the guns they had and decided to come in and collect all of them. The Ukrainians would now be Russians.

That leaves us at an impasse JMO

I'm curious whether you think Texas would be successful if it wanted to be an independent country again. Because I was under the impression that Texas wanted to be annexed by the United States back when they gained independence from Mexico. Texas was independent for 10 years from 1836 to 1846 but during that period they negotiated their inclusion which took so long because Texas didn't want to abolish slavery.

There's nearly 30 million people in Texas and many of them are Hispanics who can trace their ancestry back to when they lived in Mexico. As Eva Longoria says in her CNN food series, "we never moved, the border did." One in six people in Texas are immigrants and nearly the same amount are first born of immigrant parents. Sixty five percent were born in Latin America. They've already left a banana republic so I'm not sure how attractive secession would be for many of them and whether they'd be on board with secession from the US. The more immigrants you get, the less likely you could be successful unless you had an uprising like the Civil War.

In Canada, Quebec has threatened secession from Canada. In two referendums in 1980 and 1995, the votes came in to remain in Canada. We also have a lot of immigrants from all over the world; they emigrated to Canada not Quebec and I presume the same can be said of Texan immigrants who emigrated to the US. In Canada when you look at the geographical location of where the votes came in to remain in Canada, it was the rural areas that wanted to stay and it was some larger urban areas like Quebec City who wanted to stay. I think if it ever came to a vote in Texas that would be reversed. Just my opinion.

On another note, I do find it strange that you wouldn't want to register your weapons. I remember after Armaud Arbery was murdered, Travis McMichael, one of his killers had called the police to complain about a theft of his pistol from his vehicle. His vehicle was unlocked, his weapon which was unregistered had been in plain view in its holster so to me it was just a formality. What was the point? Does no one in Texas register their weapons or keep track of the serial numbers? Would they be insured in the case of loss? And why would it matter that they couldn't be traced back to you?

The irony of the Second Amendment for me is that in reality those who chose to rise up against Britain were the traitors and someone like Benedict Arnold was the patriot. I would think the same thing would happen in modern day times if for some reason a group of Texans agitated to leave the Union. Patriot or traitor? How do you choose?

 

[MyBelle]

I'm curious whether you think Texas would be successful if it wanted to be an independent country again. Because I was under the impression that Texas wanted to be annexed by the United States back when they gained independence from Mexico. Texas was independent for 10 years from 1836 to 1846 but during that period they negotiated their inclusion which took so long because Texas didn't want to abolish slavery.

There's nearly 30 million people in Texas and many of them are Hispanics who can trace their ancestry back to when they lived in Mexico. As Eva Longoria says in her CNN food series, "we never moved, the border did." One in six people in Texas are immigrants and nearly the same amount are first born of immigrant parents. Sixty five percent were born in Latin America. They've already left a banana republic so I'm not sure how attractive secession would be for many of them and whether they'd be on board with secession from the US. The more immigrants you get, the less likely you could be successful unless you had an uprising like the Civil War.

In Canada, Quebec has threatened secession from Canada. In two referendums in 1980 and 1995, the votes came in to remain in Canada. We also have a lot of immigrants from all over the world; they emigrated to Canada not Quebec and I presume the same can be said of Texan immigrants who emigrated to the US. In Canada when you look at the geographical location of where the votes came in to remain in Canada, it was the rural areas that wanted to stay and it was some larger urban areas like Quebec City who wanted to stay. I think if it ever came to a vote in Texas that would be reversed. Just my opinion.

On another note, I do find it strange that you wouldn't want to register your weapons. I remember after Armaud Arbery was murdered, Travis McMichael, one of his killers had called the police to complain about a theft of his pistol from his vehicle. His vehicle was unlocked, his weapon which was unregistered had been in plain view in its holster so to me it was just a formality. What was the point? Does no one in Texas register their weapons or keep track of the serial numbers? Would they be insured in the case of loss? And why would it matter that they couldn't be traced back to you?

The irony of the Second Amendment for me is that in reality those who chose to rise up against Britain were the traitors and someone like Benedict Arnold was the patriot. I would think the same thing would happen in modern day times if for some reason a group of Texans agitated to leave the Union. Patriot or traitor? How do you choose?

We have to register our vehicles and pass a driving test if we want to drive them. The same should be required for firearms.

JMO

 

[surelockh33]

I’m no gun prude. I own them. I’m an expert marksman, military veteran, now a radiologist. This is the most respectful discussion I’ve seen on this subject. Some thoughts and rhetorical questions I pose:

1. The current Second Amendment SCOTUS interpretations have led to saturation of our country with guns. Is there ever a threshold where the societal cost is too high for lax restrictions?
2. Since anyone who really wants a gun, legal or otherwise, can easily get one, doesn’t that admit a problem, and also speak to the rule of law in general? If someone really wants to commit murder, they’ll do it, so why is it illegal?
3. I have colleagues and even family members who are psychiatrists with whom I’ve discussed this issue. Even though mass shootings are almost daily news, they are per capita rare, and a minority of gun-relates fatalities. Obviously when feasible anyone with mental health issues, violent social media posts, felons, domestic abusers, and many others with precursor patterns should be restricted. The reality however is many or most offenders aren’t flagged prospectively - only dots connected retrospectively. (When the underwear bomber was caught flying into Chicago I was surprised we weren’t taking off our pants before boarding planes).
4. So since mass shooters are per capita rare, it’s really asking the impossible of mental health providers, school and college staff, etc. to pick out the one in ten thousand creepy loners who will actually carry out a mass shooting. Every little bit helps, but the reflex “it’s mental health not guns” is unrealistic.
5. I admit owning guns statistically makes my family less safe, but I DO feel safer, knowing myself. Honestly the ammo/clips and guns are in separate locked safes, so I’d probably not have time to assemble one anyways. I have one physician colleague who sleeps with a loaded Beretta 92X Performance under his pillow.
6. Although most gun related homicides DO occur in densely populated urban areas, mass shootings of children emotionally affect society way more than those that are gang or drug related. I don’t know the answer, but something has to be done. Thoughts and prayers, promises to improve mental health care, and the (made more common by their ridiculous frequency) reliance on the public’s short memories just haven’t worked.

This is a really tough issue. Hope I was polite enough, and I have good friends and family all over the spectrum of this issue.

 

[SouthAussie]

We didn’t make this stuff up. Blame our forefathers.

Declaration of Independence

View the original text of history's most important documents, including the Declaration of Independence

www.ushistory.org

I guess my problem with this is that the govt mistrust originates from prior to 1776.
And the 2nd amendment originates in 1791.

And yet these events from 230+ years ago are held as a reason why modern high powered, military-style firearms are acceptable for public use in the US.

The landscape has changed a lot since then. And the US has (mostly) been highly regarded by its allies. We stand by the US in times of world conflict, and vice versa.

How do we get the (relevant) US people's mindset into 2023 instead of the late 1700s?

 

[AngTxGal]

I'm curious whether you think Texas would be successful if it wanted to be an independent country again. Because I was under the impression that Texas wanted to be annexed by the United States back when they gained independence from Mexico. Texas was independent for 10 years from 1836 to 1846 but during that period they negotiated their inclusion which took so long because Texas didn't want to abolish slavery.

There's nearly 30 million people in Texas and many of them are Hispanics who can trace their ancestry back to when they lived in Mexico. As Eva Longoria says in her CNN food series, "we never moved, the border did." One in six people in Texas are immigrants and nearly the same amount are first born of immigrant parents. Sixty five percent were born in Latin America. They've already left a banana republic so I'm not sure how attractive secession would be for many of them and whether they'd be on board with secession from the US. The more immigrants you get, the less likely you could be successful unless you had an uprising like the Civil War.

In Canada, Quebec has threatened secession from Canada. In two referendums in 1980 and 1995, the votes came in to remain in Canada. We also have a lot of immigrants from all over the world; they emigrated to Canada not Quebec and I presume the same can be said of Texan immigrants who emigrated to the US. In Canada when you look at the geographical location of where the votes came in to remain in Canada, it was the rural areas that wanted to stay and it was some larger urban areas like Quebec City who wanted to stay. I think if it ever came to a vote in Texas that would be reversed. Just my opinion.

On another note, I do find it strange that you wouldn't want to register your weapons. I remember after Armaud Arbery was murdered, Travis McMichael, one of his killers had called the police to complain about a theft of his pistol from his vehicle. His vehicle was unlocked, his weapon which was unregistered had been in plain view in its holster so to me it was just a formality. What was the point? Does no one in Texas register their weapons or keep track of the serial numbers? Would they be insured in the case of loss? And why would it matter that they couldn't be traced back to you?

The irony of the Second Amendment for me is that in reality those who chose to rise up against Britain were the traitors and someone like Benedict Arnold was the patriot. I would think the same thing would happen in modern day times if for some reason a group of Texans agitated to leave the Union. Patriot or traitor? How do you choose?

I think any mentions of Texas becoming its own country today are thought experiments only. There are no educated land/ business owners seriously considering such an act.

Reporters have a history of shoving a mic and camera into the faces of angry Joe Public to get sound bites to spin a story. If you want to know what Joe Public thinks- look at Jan 6. I consider all of them traitors And hope they are all prosecuted as such, as well as vandals, and attempted murderers, terrorists, etc.
Joe Public is clueless as to what land and business owners think and do, much less why.

Having unregistered guns is not illegal. I’ve already stated my thoughts and reasons.
For starters, let’s assume I don’t think like a racist murderer in Georgia. If you want to know his reasoning- ask him. He is pretty much on the lowest rung of Joe Public.

Exactly how does registering guns prevent mass shootings? It doesn’t.
What it could do is track guns from crime to crime- but ballistics also does that.
What it could do is track guns to owners. Why?
Criminals who don’t care if the gun is linked to them- are idiots or intending death by cop.
Mass shootings aren’t carried out by stole guns registered to a law abiding citizen. They are carried out by someone who bought the gun months ago while planning a mass murder.

JMO

 

[seasideForest]

We have to register our vehicles and pass a driving test if we want to drive them. The same should be required for firearms.

JMO

IMO you raise a valid point. I'm sure there were no driving tests when cars were first invented and driven in the US. I know for instance that driving tests weren't brought in immediately in the UK or in the Canadian province I used to live in. But at some point as populations grew and more and more people could afford a car, mandatory tests were introduced.

A lot of things have changed since the days of the Second Amendment, it seems to me it would be a good plan to have an honest look at those gun laws and especially what types of guns are covered under those laws. JMO

 

[seasideForest]

No disrespect taken
I see why people may not understand why some Americans have strong thoughts regarding supporting the 2nd Amendment.
I’m a rural Texan, have been most all my life.
Rural areas can be 30-60 min or even more from a fire station or police station. Getting to school on a bus took us about 90 min. Rural people take care of their own business and rely on neighbors.
I was raised to think that government meddling in people’s daily lives was not welcomed. Local elected politicians understood the rural life, people raised in cities Did Not.

In rural areas guns are a tool, used often, and necessary.
A pack of over 5 wild dogs attacked and killed a neighbor man in his 80s at night as he walked from truck to house. He lived about a mile away. It took a few weeks for neighbors to find the dogs and shoot them. Do you think anyone was walking from their car to their home at night without a gun until those dogs were killed? No.
Do you think the police were called to drive out there, find and take care of these dogs for us? No.

I watched my grandmother shoot a stray dog that was hit by a car, gravely injured and dying. I shot a newborn calf that had been tore up by coyotes and was dying. I‘ve shot several skunks, rabid raccoons and stray dogs, and at least 20 rattle snakes.

Never would it enter my mind for me to give a person who lives in Los Angeles or New York city advice about how they should protect themselves, drive, or any aspect of their daily life. It is ridiculous to be told by someone who has not lived my life to say that because they don’t need a gun- I don’t need a gun. They probably don’t need coveralls, a tractor, a truck, muck boots, or leather gloves either. But I do.
Listen to gun control points of view with my perspective in mind, and you will hear how ridiculous some of the ’advice’ sounds to me.

What do I know… rural kids who are raised around livestock and guns do not commit mass murder. AR-15s may be used in movies and video games, but they have no place on a ranch.
I’ve never heard of a person using such a gun on a rabid dog, to obliterate its body, throw parts and blood everywhere, and have stray bullets pass through and fly to hit things a hundred yards away. Anyone using such a thing for such a purpose is an idiot.
You use a rifle, with a scope and it takes one shot. No wounding and suffering, no stray bullets, no obliteration of a living thing.
AR-15 is not a sport rifle. It is a very dangerous toy for those who like dangerous toys. It is also a weapon of mass destruction in the hands of the gun uneducated angry immature boys who lack respect for all life.

JMO

Thank you for your long personal post. It certainly helps me understand somewhat better. I have the impression from your word usage etc. that it's an emotional topic, which I don't see negatively. It seems the gun control debate may feel as if it gets at the core of your being. I'm not sure if I'm expressing that well. But if it's similar for many Americans then that helps explain why it seems to some non-Americans such as myself that the process for change on this topic is very slow or even completely stuck.

Some points from me: Canada has a lot of rural areas too where it's going to take a good long while for the RCMP to show up. Some Canadians obviously do have guns, I'm not sure on the statistics but presuming a higher percentage of rural Canadians have guns than town/city-based Canadians. otoh there are rural Canadians without guns on the premise, including relatives of mine who are really far out in the boondocks and up north too, with wild animals roaming around etc. Historically some things were different in Canada, different development, no Second Amendment, but nonetheless there is a rural population including hunters e.g. among the First Nations but not only there.

Even the UK has some remote areas and up until maybe 30-40 years ago very narrow, single-track and twisting roads to reach those areas, not to mention lots of islands, but after the one and only mass school shooting (afaik anyway) in Dunblane in 1996, there was a petition to tighten gun laws and they were tightened. How the 1996 Dunblane Massacre Pushed the U.K. to Enact Stricter Gun Laws

Not that I've ever handled a gun before, but from afar so to speak we're on the same side of the debate with respect to AR-15s.

MOO IMO JMO

 

[Betty P]

I guess my problem with this is that the govt mistrust originates from prior to 1776.
And the 2nd amendment originates in 1791.

And yet these events from 230+ years ago are held as a reason why modern high powered, military-style firearms are acceptable for public use in the US.

The landscape has changed a lot since then. And the US has (mostly) been highly regarded by its allies. We stand by the US in times of world conflict, and vice versa.

How do we get the (relevant) US people's mindset into 2023 instead of the late 1700s?

As a genealogist, I believe people who lived during those times would not favor legalizing high powered military weapons outside of the US military. If you read the writings of people back then, they didn't have the same attitudes and paranoia. There's a great deal of writings about my ancestors from that era, by people who knew them. They were peace loving people who wanted to work their farms and raise their families. Guns were for getting food, protecting yourself against wild animals, etc. Even those who lived long enough to see the Civil War weren't paranoid of their own government or obsessed with stockpiling weapons.

Read the newspapers from that era, if you have a subscription to Newspapers.com, or through your local library.

 

[Betty P]

I guess my problem with this is that the govt mistrust originates from prior to 1776.
And the 2nd amendment originates in 1791.

And yet these events from 230+ years ago are held as a reason why modern high powered, military-style firearms are acceptable for public use in the US.

The landscape has changed a lot since then. And the US has (mostly) been highly regarded by its allies. We stand by the US in times of world conflict, and vice versa.

How do we get the (relevant) US people's mindset into 2023 instead of the late 1700s?

As a genealogist, I believe people who lived during those times would not favor legalizing high powered military weapons outside of the US military. If you read the writings of people back then, they didn't have the same attitudes and paranoia. There's a great deal of writings about my ancestors from that era, by people who knew them. They were peace loving people who wanted to work their farms and raise their families. Guns were for getting food, protecting yourself against wild animals, etc. Even those who lived long enough to see the Civil War weren't paranoid of their own government or obsessed with stockpiling weapons.

Read the newspapers from that era, if you have a subscription to Newspapers.com, or through your local library.

A lot of things have changed since the days of the Second Amendment, it seems to me it would be a good plan to have an honest look at those gun laws and especially what types of guns are covered under those laws. JMO

Just a reminder that assault weapons were banned in the US until 2004, when the law banning them was allowed to expire.

 

[branmuffin]

IMO you raise a valid point. I'm sure there were no driving tests when cars were first invented and driven in the US. I know for instance that driving tests weren't brought in immediately in the UK or in the Canadian province I used to live in. But at some point as populations grew and more and more people could afford a car, mandatory tests were introduced.

A lot of things have changed since the days of the Second Amendment, it seems to me it would be a good plan to have an honest look at those gun laws and especially what types of guns are covered under those laws. JMO

As the saying goes, Necessity is the Mother of Invention. No one needed a driver's license initially, either. We didn't need traffic lights until numerous accidents happened. The progression of car ownership created the regulations that most (civilized) countries have now. From graduated licenses, age restrictions, driving while under the influence, four leaf clover access roads to reduce collisions, seat belts, changing windows from tempered glass to laminated glass, air bags, crumple zones in vehicles, etc. Every single improvement from legislation to innovation has been enacted to ensure the safety of drivers and their passengers. When it comes to weaponry, where are those regulations? I still don't get it. I never will.

 

[ilovewings]

I guess my problem with this is that the govt mistrust originates from prior to 1776.
And the 2nd amendment originates in 1791.

And yet these events from 230+ years ago are held as a reason why modern high powered, military-style firearms are acceptable for public use in the US.

The landscape has changed a lot since then. And the US has (mostly) been highly regarded by its allies. We stand by the US in times of world conflict, and vice versa.

How do we get the (relevant) US people's mindset into 2023 instead of the late 1700s?

The founding fathers are rolling over in their graves at the perversion of the 2nd amendment. They were brilliant visionaries and I know they would understand that obviously society is very different today than it was in the 1700s. They would review the 2nd amendment and perhaps totally abolish it since it makes no sense in today's environment or rework it to fit into the reality of life today. Please tell me - do we have a well regulated militia these days??? LOL

 

[Lexiintoronto]

Good to hear the public is hearing that at least some gun owners are responsible.
It has always seemed funny to me that the liberal left spouts these two arguments at the same time.
- There are too many guns in the United States. Some figures say over 350 million guns are in circulation in the United States.
- Gun owners are not responsible people with their guns- they are causing the gun deaths.

If there are 350 million guns in this country, and even half of those guns are owned by irresponsible people or criminals we should be having WW2 every single day.
There are obviously many many thousands to millions more responsible law abiding guns owners than there are irresponsible nutty gun owners and criminals.

Deaths by guns are caused by the very few irresponsible, unsafe, or unlawful gun owners or by criminals. The math is all that is needed to see that has to be the case.

So in Gun Control debates we must realize that the many thousands to millions of law abiding gun owners will never allow the few who are idiots or criminals be used to define the laws that control what law abiding citizens can do. Laws don’t control people who don’t abide by laws.

JMO

I’m on the side of firearm control activists and I know there the vast majority of gun owners in Canada, where I am, are responsible with their weapons.

I’ve heard the argument that the bans are unfairly impacting the very people that abide by all of the regulations. ‘Why are they trying to take away something from me when I’m not part of the problem?’

It’s a valid point, responsible gun owners are going to be impacted by our bans, but the weapons we’re banning have no use in our society other than to kill people rapidly on a mass scale. There’s no good reason for a person in Toronto or another urban area to have a handgun. There’s no good reason for a person in a rural community to own an assault-style weapon.

Will it mean some people will lose their coveted collection and sport activity? Yes for some.

There will still be firearms for hunting. They’re working with the bans that will negatively affect communities where, as you said, are a necessary tool. The aboriginal communities in remote areas especially.

It seems guns used in these mass shootings were purchased within 30-90 days prior to the event. Large amounts of ammo were also purchased in that time period. Sometimes multiple guns are purchased within a short period of time.

That should be a Red Flag.

Do I mean to imply that every person who purchased several guns and lots of ammo in a short period of time must be a mass shooter? No.
Am I implying doing so should be illegal? No.

I’m saying it is a Red Flag.
What do we do about that red flag? I’m not sure.

The culture here includes being skeptical that the government is working in your best interest. It is almost assumed that the federal government is likely corrupt.
Our Constitution includes the 2nd Amendment because we fought the Revolutionary War to gain our freedom from a tyrannical government. The intention is to allow citizens to defend themselves, even if who they are fighting against is their own government.
If the colonists had not had guns, we would not be Americans. We would be British.
Much of the pride in Texas comes from being once an independent country, meaning we can do this alone if we must. We are a state if it benefits us, but we don’t have to be, is kinda the mentality of many.

So- most Texans will never submit to any federal control, or registry of their guns.
Doing so would mean the government could come to every gun owners home, know what guns they had, and take their guns.
I am one of those- my guns are not registered anywhere and cannot be traced back to me.
Consider Ukraine, what if Russia had a list of all the gun owners and the guns they had and decided to come in and collect all of them. The Ukrainians would now be Russians.

That leaves us at an impasse

JMO

For the most part, I understand your viewpoint, especially from your other posts.

But, your firearms aren’t registered? Isn’t that a requirement?

Your quote:
“Consider Ukraine, what if Russia had a list of all the gun owners and the guns they had and decided to come in and collect all of them. The Ukrainians would now be Russians”

You lost me there. Russia has bombed the infrastructure, including nuclear facilities. If Ukraine had been part of NATO Russia would not have attacked them, imo. I can tell you as a person who is part Estonian that when Russia invaded they presumed every household was armed and acted accordingly when taking over an area. It wasn’t a matter of who had guns that was the deciding factor, but who had the military power and equipment to go with it.

Ukraine is going to defeat Russian invaders because most of the world is supporting them as much as they can while trying not to trip a world war in the process, imo.

 

[Mo Thuairim]

The founding fathers are rolling over in their graves at the perversion of the 2nd amendment. They were brilliant visionaries and I know they would understand that obviously society is very different today than it was in the 1700s. They would review the 2nd amendment and perhaps totally abolish it since it makes no sense in today's environment or rework it to fit into the reality of life today. Please tell me - do we have a well regulated militia these days??? LOL

I mean, sometimes you have to get rid of outdated stuff in your constitution that doesn't fit the times. In Ireland we're in the process of removing Article 41.1 of the constitution that says a woman's place is in the home. It was written 100 years ago and already society has moved on. And so our laws have to reflect that.

The Second Amendment is just that -- an amendment to the constitution. Can't it be amended to better reflect modern life?

 

[10ofRods]

I mean, sometimes you have to get rid of outdated stuff in your constitution that doesn't fit the times. In Ireland we're in the process of removing Article 41.1 of the constitution that says a woman's place is in the home. It was written 100 years ago and already society has moved on. And so our laws have to reflect that.

The Second Amendment is just that -- an amendment to the constitution. Can't it be amended to better reflect modern life?

We have a very hard time doing that, as it requires consent of ⅔ of the 50 states. If we hold a constitutional convention, it's possible that some will try to change other parts of the Constitution and at this time in US History, it could be exceedingly dangerous (and result in the 2nd Amendment being strengthened or at least left in place, but some other thing - such as an Anti-abortion amendment could result).

While most Americans would not be in favor of an anti-abortion amendment and might be in favor of eliminating the 2nd, it's not up to the total view point. California, with 12% of the US population, and NY (about 3% of the population, I think) would almost certainly be in favor of 2nd Amendment modifications, but they would weigh no more heavily in the vote than Wyoming, which has only 568,000 people. California has 39,000,000 people. Montana would get equal weight too, with only 1 million. Red (gun loving) states probably out number the others.

It's a serious issue with almost no fix at this point in time. We rely upon our Senate and our House of Representatives to make laws (and the 2nd Amendment does not say "Hey, everyone should have guns everywhere and no one should have any limits on type of number of guns!)

Indeed, it says something very different:

Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms​

• 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 that the amendment itself mentions two things (a militia and regulation). So we have the right to own weapons, but it's because we needed a citizen militia/army back when the document was written and it does mention regulation - which is the job of Congress.
  IMO. The solution is gun regulation, allowed by the Constitution. At least right now, that's the solution. But the gun lobby is enormous and owns so many of our legislators, IMO.
  
  
  
  

 

[Mo Thuairim]

We have a very hard time doing that, as it requires consent of ⅔ of the 50 states. If we hold a constitutional convention, it's possible that some will try to change other parts of the Constitution and at this time in US History, it could be exceedingly dangerous (and result in the 2nd Amendment being strengthened or at least left in place, but some other thing - such as an Anti-abortion amendment could result).

While most Americans would not be in favor of an anti-abortion amendment and might be in favor of eliminating the 2nd, it's not up to the total view point. California, with 12% of the US population, and NY (about 3% of the population, I think) would almost certainly be in favor of 2nd Amendment modifications, but they would weigh no more heavily in the vote than Wyoming, which has only 568,000 people. California has 39,000,000 people. Montana would get equal weight too, with only 1 million. Red (gun loving) states probably out number the others.

It's a serious issue with almost no fix at this point in time. We rely upon our Senate and our House of Representatives to make laws (and the 2nd Amendment does not say "Hey, everyone should have guns everywhere and no one should have any limits on type of number of guns!)

Indeed, it says something very different:

Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms​

• 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 that the amendment itself mentions two things (a militia and regulation). So we have the right to own weapons, but it's because we needed a citizen militia/army back when the document was written and it does mention regulation - which is the job of Congress.
  IMO. The solution is gun regulation, allowed by the Constitution. At least right now, that's the solution. But the gun lobby is enormous and owns so many of our legislators, IMO.
  
  
  

That does make things very complicated. Here we change the constitution by a national referendum. The vote is rarely contentious, although removing the abortion ban from the constitution here was a divisive issue for decades. (In the end it passed comfortably.) But we change parts of our constitution regularly and it's seen as less sacred than in the US. I understand it's not as easy to get a consensus there.

 

[ilovewings]

We have a very hard time doing that, as it requires consent of ⅔ of the 50 states. If we hold a constitutional convention, it's possible that some will try to change other parts of the Constitution and at this time in US History, it could be exceedingly dangerous (and result in the 2nd Amendment being strengthened or at least left in place, but some other thing - such as an Anti-abortion amendment could result).

While most Americans would not be in favor of an anti-abortion amendment and might be in favor of eliminating the 2nd, it's not up to the total view point. California, with 12% of the US population, and NY (about 3% of the population, I think) would almost certainly be in favor of 2nd Amendment modifications, but they would weigh no more heavily in the vote than Wyoming, which has only 568,000 people. California has 39,000,000 people. Montana would get equal weight too, with only 1 million. Red (gun loving) states probably out number the others.

It's a serious issue with almost no fix at this point in time. We rely upon our Senate and our House of Representatives to make laws (and the 2nd Amendment does not say "Hey, everyone should have guns everywhere and no one should have any limits on type of number of guns!)

Indeed, it says something very different:

Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms​

• 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 that the amendment itself mentions two things (a militia and regulation). So we have the right to own weapons, but it's because we needed a citizen militia/army back when the document was written and it does mention regulation - which is the job of Congress.
  IMO. The solution is gun regulation, allowed by the Constitution. At least right now, that's the solution. But the gun lobby is enormous and owns so many of our legislators, IMO.
  
  
  

I appreciate your well thought out and informative post

 

[10ofRods]

That does make things very complicated. Here we change the constitution by a national referendum. The vote is rarely contentious, although removing the abortion ban from the constitution here was a divisive issue for decades. (In the end it passed comfortably.) But we change parts of our constitution regularly and it's seen as less sacred than in the US. I understand it's not as easy to get a consensus there.

Perhaps Ireland found an object lesson in the US Constitution. Of course, Ireland doesn't have the history of starting with just 13 states, with a goal for adding many more, as we did.

At any rate, I do believe if we had an actual national referendum, it would still be very close (on the second amendment) but there would be no risk of getting weird new amendments.

In California, we use a referendum system as well. It bumps a long, is self-correct, is overseen by our Constitution and State Supreme Court. It has been a strong reason that California has a strong economy and liberal policies. The Constitution was written by liberals with the view that the US would always be evolving and changing, and the amendment process was thought to be adequate and proper in the late 18th century.

Sigh.

IMO.

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

We have a very hard time doing that, as it requires consent of ⅔ of the 50 states. If we hold a constitutional convention, it's possible that some will try to change other parts of the Constitution and at this time in US History, it could be exceedingly dangerous (and result in the 2nd Amendment being strengthened or at least left in place, but some other thing - such as an Anti-abortion amendment could result).

While most Americans would not be in favor of an anti-abortion amendment and might be in favor of eliminating the 2nd, it's not up to the total view point. California, with 12% of the US population, and NY (about 3% of the population, I think) would almost certainly be in favor of 2nd Amendment modifications, but they would weigh no more heavily in the vote than Wyoming, which has only 568,000 people. California has 39,000,000 people. Montana would get equal weight too, with only 1 million. Red (gun loving) states probably out number the others.

It's a serious issue with almost no fix at this point in time. We rely upon our Senate and our House of Representatives to make laws (and the 2nd Amendment does not say "Hey, everyone should have guns everywhere and no one should have any limits on type of number of guns!)

Indeed, it says something very different:

Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms​

• 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 that the amendment itself mentions two things (a militia and regulation). So we have the right to own weapons, but it's because we needed a citizen militia/army back when the document was written and it does mention regulation - which is the job of Congress.
  IMO. The solution is gun regulation, allowed by the Constitution. At least right now, that's the solution. But the gun lobby is enormous and owns so many of our legislators, IMO.
  
  
  

The use of the words “well regulated” in the second amendment did not me gun regulations as we think of it today.

In the second amendment “well regulated” meant well armed, well organized, and something that functions well. That is what was intended by the founding fathers imo.

IMO MOO