Gun Control Debate #6

[Karinna]

(quote)
Myth: The Supreme Court ruled the Second Amendment is not an individual right
Myth: The Second Amendment is a collective right, not an individual right
Myth: The Heller Decision created new law
Myth: The Second Amendment was established to control slaves
Myth: The “militia” clause is to arm the National Guard
Myth: The Second Amendment allows Congress to regulate ownership of guns for militia purposes
Myth: U.S. v. Cruikshank denied an individual right to bear arms
Myth: U.S. v. Miller said that the Second Amendment is not an individual right
Summary of various court decisions concerning gun rights

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/second-amendment/

 

[Woodland]

The Gun debate is an easy one.

Either ignore it or do massive confiscation. The latter of course means stomaching the horrors of watching your neighbors being murdered, at the hands of the forces you've authorized to take their means of defense away. Soon enough that same force will turn on those who allowed it, then where will you be? In a room where the showers have no water?

The Constitution has always been about limiting the Federal government, not giving it imperial powers. "Right of the people" means individuals. People form militias, not governments. Governments can only form armies, not militias. That's why the framers of the Constitution said that right shall not be infringed, they feared a force of government being created in the distant future, that might seek to do that very thing. The right of the people to form militias was the bulkhead to thwart such action. Yet, the Court over the last century has done nothing but try to abolish that right at every turn. Now, that we are witnessing the mass attempt to remove the people's defense, to thwart oppressive government. We understand more so now than ever, the absolute necessity, of why the framers put it in there, in the first place.

UBM - poor choice of wording (imo) aside, have never been able to grasp/fathom/understand/comprehend the lack of empathy for victims of mass or other shootings by an American. Florida? Really?

 

[Karinna]

RBBM. “A well regulated militia...” So firstly the amendment says “well regulated” not a free for all anarchic society who live for individualism. WELL regulated. So obviously if they are well regulated there should be strict controls.

Secondly militia. Not common people. Militia. At a time when the US was in its infancy and needed the common man’s help to back up the military to stop foreign forces taking the US. Now the US has a strong militia and the capability to nuke any attacking countries out of existence.

And remember this was written in 1791. Over 225 years ago when semi and fully automatic weapons hadn’t even been thought of by the most forward thinking inventor.

If it the second amendment is supposed to be taken literally then where is the cut off point. What arms are acceptable? Should a citizen be allowed to use nerve agents, bombs, tanks, nuclear warheads?

The second amendment was written for the US society at that time. Over 225 years have passed and I don’t think the Queen of England is marching to your door to take your land.

The Meaning of the Words in the Second Amendment
The 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.

Militia

The word "militia" has several meanings. It can be a body of citizens (no longer exclusively male) enrolled for military service where full time duty is required only in emergencies. The term also refers to the eligible pool of citizens callable into military service. (dictionary.com)

The federal government can use the militia for the following purposes as stated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

Is today's National Guard the militia? It is a part of the well-regulated militia.[1] (As mentioned in GunCite's, The Original Intent and Purpose of the Second Amendment, it was not the intent of the framers to restrict the right to keep arms to only those serving active militia duty.)

For a definition of today's militia as defined, by statute, in the United States Code, click here.
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

The Gun debate is an easy one.

Either ignore it or do massive confiscation. The latter of course means stomaching the horrors of watching your neighbors being murdered, at the hands of the forces you've authorized to take their means of defense away. Soon enough that same force will turn on those who allowed it, then where will you be? In a room where the showers have no water?

The Constitution has always been about limiting the Federal government, not giving it imperial powers. "Right of the people" means individuals. People form militias, not governments. Governments can only form armies, not militias. That's why the framers of the Constitution said that right shall not be infringed, they feared a force of government being created in the distant future, that might seek to do that very thing. The right of the people to form militias was the bulkhead to thwart such action. Yet, the Court over the last century has done nothing but try to abolish that right at every turn. Now, that we are witnessing the mass attempt to remove the people's defense, to thwart oppressive government. We understand more so now than ever, the absolute necessity, of why the framers put it in there, in the first place.

Links and sources please! TIA [emoji106]

None of the reasonable discussion here is about one extreme or the other — a weapons free-for-all or wholesale banning and confiscation. That’s also not what any US lawmakers have proposed. It’s not what polled Americans say they want (including gun owners).

The links showing these facts are laced through 6 threads, including this one.

In case you are wondering I have lost my mind.

Rather than spend hours trying to remove posts in varies discussion that discuss the gun debate I thought I would give this a try just this once.

The reason I have kept the gun control debate off Websleuths is that people will lose their minds. Sorry not trying to say I don't have faith in you. I am saying I don't have faith in some of you.

All OF WEBSLEUTHS RULES APPLY.

No name calling,
No rudeness
Mainstream media and respected journals, websites only. No crazy right or left wing sites.

This is like any other topic on Websleuths.

If someone could please make a post with the links to the demonstrations coming up that would be a good way to start.

I will be watching this thread all through the evening.

Full disclosure. In my opinion, it is obscene that we have automatic weapons available. period. However, I believe that Government will never have the courage to do the right thing and stop taking money from the NRA and start getting these weapons out of the hands of angry people. Therefore it is up to us to try and stop creating the kids who are so angry they feel killing is the only way. We keep waiting on the powers that be to do something and more and more innocents are killed. No more waiting. Let's pinpoint who these kids are and take them out of society, preferably via a mental health facility, and stop the carnage before one more AR-15 or any other assault rifle is picked up by the hands of a potential killer.

Go for it.

Tricia

Thread #1
Thread #2
Thread #3
Thread #4
Thread #5

 

[Karinna]

Links and sources please! TIA [emoji106]

None of the reasonable discussion here is about one extreme or the other — a weapons free-for-all or wholesale banning and confiscation. That’s also not what any US lawmakers have proposed. It’s not what polled Americans say they want (including gun owners).

The links showing these facts are laced through 6 threads, including this one.

We don't always have to provide links and sources if just stating our opinions far as i'm aware.
If stating a fact we should provide a link to the stated fact to support that, otherwise it is just taken as our opinion.
That is how i have understood it to be here on WS anyway.

 

[Lulu_la_Nantaise]

The Gun debate is an easy one.

Either ignore it or do massive confiscation. (...)

SBM

Why?

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

We don't always have to provide links and sources if just stating our opinions far as i'm aware.
If stating a fact we should provide a link to the stated fact to support that, otherwise it is just taken as our opinion.
That is how i have understood it to be here on WS anyway.

Yes, I’m aware. That’s my understanding, too. If it’s opinion, it should be specified as such.

I surmise by your articulate responses that you have a high-functioning understanding of how declarative sentences work.

“I have a cold,” for example. “I am not a mod,” is another one. [emoji6] “I think it’s cold outside,” is another.

 

[jillycat]

I can't speak for the victims families from Las Vegas but I doubt they would find a ban on bump stocks as a token move.
Former Justice Stevens is voicing his opinion as are many people.
That doesn't mean that the youths marching and protesting are of the same mind.
Some do think the 2A is archaic. I agree. It's like the bible. People can read into it to suit their own agenda or beliefs.
The NRA already has more sway than they should with our laws. I don't think we need to consult them for every gun law that might make it to the table. IMO

I can't speak for anyone at all. I can only say that the average person never heard of a bump stock until Vegas and I've not seen any final conclusions that bump stocks are what allowed the number of casualties. I've seen a lot of "may have rigged the guns he used" references. And then came "It's the bump stocks that did it". How many of these shootings involved bump stocks? That's what I mean about screaming until something, anything is done. Whether it solves problems or not.

What we do know about Vegas is that firing down into a tightly packed unsuspecting targets who can't see where you are and can only hope to move fast enough in a best guess direction makes for easy targets. But before that, this guy acquired and hauled in a small arsenal and set up a sniper room and no one knew it. This seems to be central to how this happened.

My other point was that there are a lot of political lobbies with way too much money and influence over other people's lives and the policies that affect them. Are we going after all of them via constitutional amendment, or just one? I'm not a member of the NRA. I never will be. I don't financially support or align with ideological groups. I think any politician can be and usually is bought by lobbies. But I disagree that amending the constitution is the vehicle for shutting down unwanted influence and speech and markets. Apply that to all other influence and speech and market activity and see how it fits.

The base that aligns with the NRA is now fully rallied. How was that effective for the side that insists everyone else can step out of the way because they're in charge now?

Maybe we have to look at all the layers of this problem and spend the time and energy it will take to address all of them, understanding that we will never fully rid society of violence that people prone to it decide to inflict.

So far, gun bans, parts bans, psychotropic drugs, locking people in medical environments and calling it 'treatment', and screaming matches and marching and taking back the Executive and Legislative branches hasn't worked. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Just an observation.

 

[Footwarrior]

Bump stocks allowed the Las Vegas shooter to achieve a rate of fire close to the rate of fully automatic weapons. In roughly ten minutes he killed 58, wounded 422 and terrorized thousands.

Mass shooters tend to follow what has been done before. Future mass shooters will be trying to buy bump stocks. I don’t want that to be as easy as it was for the Las Vegas shooter. Especially considering that their only legal use is for cheap thrills at the range.

Mass shooters are seldom criminal masterminds. They usually don’t know where to find black market dealers selling illegal weapons. Force them to ask around and they are likely to ask the wrong person and raise the attention of law enforcement.

 

[human]

The Gun debate is an easy one.

Either ignore it or do massive confiscation. The latter of course means stomaching the horrors of watching your neighbors being murdered, at the hands of the forces you've authorized to take their means of defense away. Soon enough that same force will turn on those who allowed it, then where will you be? In a room where the showers have no water?

The Constitution has always been about limiting the Federal government, not giving it imperial powers. "Right of the people" means individuals. People form militias, not governments. Governments can only form armies, not militias. That's why the framers of the Constitution said that right shall not be infringed, they feared a force of government being created in the distant future, that might seek to do that very thing. The right of the people to form militias was the bulkhead to thwart such action. Yet, the Court over the last century has done nothing but try to abolish that right at every turn. Now, that we are witnessing the mass attempt to remove the people's defense, to thwart oppressive government. We understand more so now than ever, the absolute necessity, of why the framers put it in there, in the first place.

A room with no water? I am confused. Are you referring to Puerto Rico?

 

[KaaBoom]

Ex-Supreme Court justice urges Second Amendment repeal in U.S. gun rights debate

Former Justice John Paul Stevens, who sat on the country’s highest court for 35 years before retiring in 2010, is one of the highest-profile legal figures to join the national debate on school shootings, gun violence and firearms ownership.

The long-running debate flared anew after a gunman killed 17 students and faculty at a Florida high school in February, prompting an upsurge of gun control activism by teenage students, including mass protests nationwide last weekend.

“Rarely in my lifetime have I seen the type of civic engagement schoolchildren and their supporters demonstrated in Washington and other major cities throughout the country this past Saturday,” Stevens, 97, wrote in an opinion article in the New York Times. “These demonstrations demand our respect.”

His repeal proposal goes further than demands by the student demonstrators, who have generally called for measures such as raising the minimum age for purchasing guns from 18 to 21 and requiring more comprehensive background checks for buying firearms.

Ex-Supreme Court justice urges Second Amendment repeal in U.S. gun rights debate

 

[ohreally]

Everyone can certainly have thier opinion on what was meant by militia and what the writers meant when they wrote the constitution, and how it effects laws today.. What really matters is how the United States Supreme Court rules as law based on thier interpretation of the constitution. They are the ones that have said that individuals rights to bear arms are covered by the 2nd and 14th admendment. https://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php
On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller (PDF), the United States Supreme Court issued its first decision since 1939 interpreting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense. It also ruled that two District of Columbia provisions, one that banned handguns and one that required lawful firearms in the home to be disassembled or trigger-locked, violate this right.

 

[STANDREID]

This sort of thing is precisely why Trump's approval rating is going up and why he will be re-elected in 2020.

 

[flourish]

This sort of thing is precisely why Trump's approval rating is going up and why he will be re-elected in 2020.

What sort of thing?
Link regarding approval rating, please.
Link regarding reelection, please.

 

[Blef]

This sort of thing is precisely why Trump's approval rating is going up and why he will be re-elected in 2020.

His approval rating is rising because of the humongous slump it had in December. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/03/why-are-trump-approval-ratings-on-the-rise.html

 

[flourish]

http://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx

His highest is still lower than the average for past presidents. Nothing to brag about

 

[bluesneakers]

What sort of thing?
Link regarding approval rating, please.
Link regarding reelection, please.

Psst:

They are up 7 points from "historic" lows
Rating of 42% is still low for a president at this stage of tenure

And

The more you stare at the numbers, the more it looks like Trump had a really bad month in December and now his popularity is reverting to the mean. That provides no particular reason to believe it’s going to keep drifting upward.

Nothing to get excited about and likely unrelated to gun reform issues.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/03/why-are-trump-approval-ratings-on-the-rise.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-rating-rises-seven-points-from-historic-lows

eta: One day I will learn to read backwards, but not today.

 

[ohreally]

Interesting research on who was really at the March for our Lives. According to this research only 10% were under 18. Most were there for other reasons than gun control or school safety. Many were there for the free concerts. The last statement is very interesting. She says it' one thing to turn out for a free concert and another to get out and vote in November.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-mostly-young-people/?utm_term=.180672c554bf

 

[ohreally]

A Pennsylvania high school rifle team is being flooded with donations from local businesses and residents after its school district voted to reject a National Rifle Association grant.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/03/28/nra-dirty-money-pennsylvania-school-rifle-team-rejected

 

[human]

Interesting research on who was really at the March for our Lives. According to this research only 10% were under 18. Most were there for other reasons than gun control or school safety. Many were there for the free concerts. The last statement is very interesting. She says it' one thing to turn out for a free concert and another to get out and vote in November.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-mostly-young-people/?utm_term=.180672c554bf

So all of these oldies were there for a free concert? I imagine the oldies vote