General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI don't care what anyone thinks about their right to own guns
These things suck. There is absolutely no reason or excuse to have so many guns. For every fucking lunatic in the US to own a gun. The second amendment was never made to justify the current frenzy.
Fuck the NRA. FUCK the 2nd amendment. Fuck this lunacy. I'm sick of watching people die.
My heartfelt sympathy to the family and friends of Alison Parker and Adam Ward.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/26/us/virginia-shooting-wdbj/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
LonePirate
(13,417 posts)Granted, it will be a long journey filled with plenty of setbacks and protests from the gun crowd; but it will happen. We have reached a point where we need to say enough is enough and start dealing with the primary enabler of this gun violence epidemic. Maybe Elizabeth Warren will step up and start this movement.
marym625
(17,997 posts)We start it here and now. This insanity has to end!
As soon as the us disarms its nukes and scales back its military budget in order to promote something a little more civil than the constant war mongering which has been the tune since i was able to vote- ill be happy to see a peaceful society.
until then you might as well stick your head in the sand.
i would love to see the day, but so far as i can tell delusion never served anyone well, for very long.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)As the country crowds and gets bluer, it's inevitable.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Is likely going to be looking for a new job. There may be a few deep blue states where that would be a popular move but I doubt it. Regardless, it will never happen because it only takes 13 states to kill a proposed amendment and there are far more than that which would never support such repeal.
On edit, I would also note that any Democrat running for president that proposed repealing the 2d Amendment would suffer an epic loss. We undoubtedly would lose purple/swing states like Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida and others.
AnPak
(31 posts)It would be a rare state that would overwhelmingly vote against the Constitution...
LonePirate
(13,417 posts)You should not judge a long term goal by a modern day litmus test. Repealing the 2A and fixing our culture will not happen this year or anytime soon. Still, we can work on changing minds and opinions so that in 20, 30, or how many ever years, we can finally excise this antiquated Constitutional menace to our life and liberty.
CrispyQ
(36,457 posts)
lancer78
(1,495 posts)the granting of rights, not taking them away. You are comparing apples and oranges.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Repealing the 2A goes against recent history including marriage equality.
I was going to make this exact point but seem someone beat me to it. And I was even going to say "fundamental difference." In any event, I'll go ahead and say that expanding eligibility for marriage to ensure equal rights and protection is in no way similar to taking away one of the rights considered so important that it was included among the individual rights explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights by the founders of this country.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Sure, it would allow legislatures (and Congress) to enact bans on civilian possession of firearms, but do you actually think such bans would be honored? In both New York and Connecticut, far less draconian measures have been enacted into law...only to be ignored by a significant majority of effected persons, and by multiple law enforcement agencies, who refuse to make enforcement any sort of priority. They've been about as effective as marijuana prohibition...
LonePirate
(13,417 posts)Putting gunmakers out of business, prohibiting gun possession and changing American culture to devalue guns and remove them from existence are the next steps. None of this is going to happen immediately but they can happen once we start advocating for them as our society slowly changes to abhor guns and the violence associated with them.
Gun ownership rates have been dropping for years. This is unlikely to change. Much like Republicans, the number of gun owners faces a demographic reduction which we on the left need to use to our advantage.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)It also takes 2/3rd's of the Congress to vote for a Constitutional, think you can get that?
Chuuku Davis
(565 posts)Than any six years in history
LonePirate
(13,417 posts)That still doesn't change the fact that the percentage of the US population who owns a gun continues to drop with each passing year.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)No, you can't, there is proof through the FBI's NICS that more people are buying firearms, and if IL. is any indication with their hundreds of thousands of new FOID cards, then the trend is more new firearm owners.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)If there were no second amendment, plaintiffs would argue that the right exists and is protected by the ninth amendment.
There are also state level constitutions to deal with.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)...I would even say that interpreting the right as anything other than pre-existing is fallacious. Specifically, a "denial of the antecedent" fallacy...
For the amendment to confer the right to keep and bear arms, it would have to be worded quite differently. That same holds true for restricting the RKBA to the militia: a different construction would be required.
CTyankee
(63,903 posts)state without CT's regulations to buy a gun. Stolen handguns are used in most violent crime are a problem precisely because there are so many guns out there to steal. This has been studied by social scientists. Until that changes, guess what? Nothing changes. Which might be just fine with some people but it isn't with me.
Hotler
(11,416 posts)and that would be sweet. 
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)There is no movement in that direction. There is even some evidence of the opposite.
LonePirate
(13,417 posts)The NRA, other gun nutters and their Repub puppets control the debate about guns in this country. No one from the left ever joins the conversation. Maybe Obama will step up and start advocating for a repeal after next year's election. Perhaps Elizabeth Warren will bring her voice to the subject as she could certainly energize the movement and would suffer no ill effects from such a position.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)or a lecture?
LonePirate
(13,417 posts)If not, then an opinion posted on this site carries very little influence in the outside world.
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)December 2012
Biden to Head Gun-Control Effort
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100327788
President Barack Obama on Wednesday appointed Vice President Joe Biden to lead an effort to draft policies to reduce gun violence, a call to action after the massacre of 26 people, including 20 children, at a Connecticut elementary school.
"This time, the words need to lead to action," Obama said in his announcement, urging Congress to take action early next year.
The president has vowed to use "whatever power this office holds" to safeguard the nation's children after Friday's shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn. Twenty children and six adults were killed at the school by a gunman carrying an arsenal of ammunition and a high-powered, military-style rifle. The gunman also killed his mother before killing himself.
Augst 2013
New executive orders aim to curb import of military surplus and close loophole that lets felons circumvent background checks
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/29/joe-biden-new-executive-orders-gun-laws
Joe Biden, the US vice-president, has made a renewed call on Congress to introduce legislation that would curb the epidemic of gun violence across the US, telling resistant politicians that "if Congress doesn't act, we'll fight for a new Congress".
In comments at the ceremonial swearing-in of the new head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Biden said that the Obama administration remained committed to the pursuit of new legislation designed to reduce gun deaths. Announcing two new executive orders that tweak gun laws through the unilateral application of presidential powers, Biden said: "We're going to get this done."
Biden's return to the issue of gun violence is a signal that the White House has not let go of its ambitions to effect change in the wake of the Newtown elementary school tragedy last December in which 20 five-and-six-year-olds as well as six adults died. President Obama made the tightening gun controls one of the priorities of his second term in office but since then has been stymied by largely Republican opposition in Congress and by a virulent counter-attack by the leading gun lobby, the National Rifle Association.
June 2015
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/19/politics/obama-gun-control-change-in-attitude/
San Francisco (CNN)Making his second call in as many days for tighter gun control laws, President Barack Obama on Friday told a crowd of mayors it was again time for a national conversation on the scourge of mass shootings in America.
"We need a change in attitude," Obama said in remarks to the annual meeting of the U.S. Conference of Mayors in San Francisco. He said the country was "shocked and heartbroken" by the shooting deaths of nine churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina this week.
The morning after the shooting, Obama made a direct and personal call for bolstering gun control laws from the White House, admitting the current balance of power in Washington makes any meaningful action unlikely.
CTyankee
(63,903 posts)
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)That is why there is no advocacy for repeal.
hack89
(39,171 posts)It says the 2A protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. And no Dem will even mention removing from the party platform including Elizabeth Warren. She is smarter than that.
Don Lemon
(21 posts)Americans couldn't give two shits about gun violence. Maybe you haven't noticed? 20 children gunned down and nothing. People love guns more than their fellow citizens. It's the disgusting reality that Americans just don't care, and they never will.
RiffRandell
(5,909 posts)Not going to happen. My father-law is a responsible deer hunter. Do I like it? No.
At least my husband told his Dad he doesn't want to go kill wildlife when he was young and pushed it.
Him and his Dad are cool and respect that.
If we couldn't even get reform after Newtown it is not happening.
My father -in-law believes in no-uzi weapons.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)There are so many ammosexuals, and other people who think that guns are going to protect them from the boogie man, because the media constantly stresses these stories. If we changed the media, and its message, we might get rid of some of this, but there are still ammosexuals out there who think that if they have a lot of guns, that they can beat the US military.
And the NRA promotes this ammosexuality.
So I think that the only way that we here in the US are going to get away from guns is to move to a different continent.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)Maybe on-camera assassination of popular media employees will stir the popular media to action at last? I'm not sanguine. The United States loves guns and the brutality they cause far more than we love our children, our friends, our neighbors, our families, or anything else.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Go guns!
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)The ones that do have lots of guns. Of that 32% I think only a very small group is batshit crazy nutz and they are the NRA that buys legislators like they were a mark down item at Macys.
We can, and will, make a difference someday. Look at what's happening now, three Democratic Presidential candidates all talking about gun control. When did that happen last?
Runningdawg
(4,516 posts)ADMIT to having at least one gun. When you add in all the people who lied, I bet you can easily double that number.
I am a liberal, living in a red state. We have more than one gun in our home, most people in OK do, but I don't think you will find a single one of us willing to tell a stranger on the phone we have them.
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)
Ghost in the Machine
(14,912 posts)about gun ownership, when in fact it's some organized theft ring looking for targets to hit... especially in rural areas.
It's like the same scam where people call pretending to be with some "Home Alarm" Company. They'll ask if you already have an alarm... if not, they ask if you would be interested in a free estimate, or sometimes even offer a "free installation if they can put their sign in your yard and on your windows". Then they will ask if you work, and if so, what hours you work so they know the best time to contact you. You give them the information, then they know the best time to case, then hit, your house. They may spend a week watching the habits of your neighbors too, so they know that no one will spot them.
I was called a few times back when I had a landline and my standard response was either "No" or "Does a pellet rifle count?"
The same goes for polls of people who have tried drugs: The percentage of people who admit to having used, or still use, marijuana is WAYYY higher than those who admit to have tried, or still use, harder drugs like cocaine, heroin, meth, etc. Most people who have tried, or still use marijuana see it as harmless, so have no problem telling a stranger that they have tried it, but harder drugs are still "taboo", so they aren't so willing to admit to trying, or still using them.
Peace,
Ghost
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I stand by my assertion that that kind of poll will always significantly under-report gun ownership. Whether paranoia or not, a large number of gun owners will be disinclined to admit such to any stranger.
the band leader
(139 posts)asking a stranger on the telephone if they have ever cheated on their taxes, or had an abortion, or looked at internet pornography. It falls into that category of things commonly known as "none of your fucking business". As such, the polls will ALWAYS under represent the true number. Telephone polls, being so prone to this kind of bias are not an accurate estimation of actual gun ownership trends. What we need are concrete numbers that reflect actual gun sales and we have that in the form of the NICS back ground check which, as you can see, paints a much different picture of gun ownership in America.
does this look like Gun ownership is decreasing in America?
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)sarisataka
(18,600 posts)do you support this statement made above
or do you envision a different path?
former9thward
(31,981 posts)Last edited Wed Aug 26, 2015, 07:54 PM - Edit history (1)
The 32% is nonsense. When I lived in Chicago handguns were illegal but everyone had one. Since it was illegal no one would admit it except to friends.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)former9thward
(31,981 posts)No one tracks who owns guns.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)make it out to be. Especially when balanced out with people who claim they own a gun when they don't and vice versa.
It's certainly far more reliable than YOUR anecdote or MY anecdote.
former9thward
(31,981 posts)to a complete stranger on the phone is crazy. They have no idea whether it is a legitimate survey or some robber looking to score some guns. You want to believe agenda driven surveys, go ahead. I will stay in reality.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)have their grandfather's 100 year old gun that hasn't been fired in 50 years or they think they have their uncle's gun but aren't sure.
Your whole speculation of there are millions and millions of gun owners who are lying is grade A speculation.
former9thward
(31,981 posts)MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)). You seem to not only trust in speculation, but speculation that fits YOUR idea of what data is correct only. You just assert it as if it were fact. Worse still, what you claimed would be hard, if not impossible to falsify. So essentially you just made something up and it's true in your mind no matter what.
Since it's not falsifiable and you're making the claim that disagrees with the data, the responsibility is on you to prove it true, not just assert it true.
Again as for the speculation I presented, these were merely possibilities that could make the numbers go the other way. I have no idea if they're true or not (or to what extent) just like I have no idea whether your claim is true or not (or to what extent). I don't put stock in speculation. I'd investigate it if I did it for a living - but outside of that, I treat it as all rubbish for now.
A simple analogy would be like the conservatives who claimed the polls were wrong about Romney-Obama or McCain-Obama and that people would tell a pollster that they supported Obama because they didn't want to be perceived as racist or because conservatives/republican voters would be viewed as "bad people". Many republicans and conservatives asserted this as FACT and it was unfalsifiable. Until the election. In which case they were proven wrong.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/266615-study-finds-ppp-kos-the-most-accurate-pollsters-in-2012
So same deal. You can't just assert something as fact with mere speculation. You've got to give some evidence.
former9thward
(31,981 posts)Just an agenda driven survey that you don't even link to. I just read a Chicago columnist who said it is 35% -- from another anonymous survey he did not link to. If it make you feel good to think it is 32% or whatever number you want to assign, go ahead. I live in the real world. I can't give you any percentage because no one tracks guns or gun owners. I have read that there are 100 million guns in the U,S. I have read there are 200 million. I have read there are 300 million. The truth is no one has a clue to the real number whether its the NRA or the Brady group. And the only people who take "surveys" on this stuff are groups with agendas.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)grandmother and 69 year old mother don't for a fact.
My FIL is the only one who owns one. My BILs do not.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)and you want to believe that firearm ownership is going down, when all indicators are that the increase in NICS checks, firearms classes, the increase in CCW permits means that firearm ownership is increasing.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)less interested in guns so that indicates a longer term trend.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Why do you believe a poll, one that you agree with, despite all opposing indicators that firearm ownership is actually increasing?
The FBI's NICS says that more and more background checks are being conducted than ever before, there are more and more citizens obtaining CCW permits,
Would you believe a poll if it said gun ownership was increasing?
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)
Initech
(100,063 posts)And the gun nuts drank from that Kool-Aid. And thlat piece of shit Alex Jones is laughing all the way to the bank while people like this go on killing sprees. Oh and did I mention Alex Jones is a piece of shit? 
marym625
(17,997 posts)
MisterP
(23,730 posts)greatlaurel
(2,004 posts)Take care.
CTyankee
(63,903 posts)safety regulation that would reduce the carnage in this country. That organization's power is overwhelming the people's will.
Response to CTyankee (Reply #263)
Name removed Message auto-removed
closeupready
(29,503 posts)I know it's too much to ask people to wait for evidence on this guy and his issues, but give it a try.
mythology
(9,527 posts)Guns are a consistent factor in so many deaths because it's easy to kill with a gun.
Yes there are incidents like the Boston Marathon bombing of McVeigh in Oklahoma, but those are far less common. Gun violence is a daily occurrence. At some point it doesn't really matter that these guys have various issues, it matters that the prevalence of guns makes it easy to have multiple innocent people killed with such consistency.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)and the next guy, and the next guy, and the one after that, and the one after that. Isolated incident, mentally disturbed individual, just like all the dozens, hundreds of others. All of them "sadly disturbed individuals"; most of them also "law-abiding gun owners"...right up until the point when they weren't. And again the same tired old calls to "not politicise this horrible tragedy", just like last time, and the time before that. Never mind that the one thing they all have in common is legally-obtained firearms; much as people like you hate to admit it? Guns are the problem. Not mental illness. Other countries likely have similar levels of mental illness in their populations; I don't expect that the British, or Australians, are any less prone to mental illness or violence than Americans. But those countries have stricter gun control laws, and as a result don't have the number of incidents like this that the USA does. If this guy hadn't had a gun? Yes, he might have snapped and attacked people with a machete...but probably not. Guns are the problem, full stop.
zappaman
(20,606 posts) Agschmid
(28,749 posts)steve2470
(37,457 posts)KG
(28,751 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
TexasBushwhacker
(20,174 posts)in Australia. Of course, they don't have any major gun manufacturers there, so banning the import of guns works too.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)(suggesting, ironically, that the government sold them in the first place). As to banning imports, how well has that worked? Do Australia's gangs have trouble getting them? Manufacturing them?
We have had gun "buy backs" here as well. If you want to get a good deal on firearms, hang around the perimeter of these events and make an offer. You can call it the "buy back" loophole.
marym625
(17,997 posts)SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)[center]
[/center]
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)(and just to be clear: I refer to the kind of manufactured mental illness depicted in the cartoon)
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)take to get off drugs.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Any doubt it was a gun he used?
And fuck that free to leave. I want my country proud and free. That includes free not to be murdered because of gun nuts.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)Any doubt it was a gun?
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Not being facetious. Your question inquires about a fact which is NOT in doubt.
Has nothing to do with your 'fuck the 2nd amendment' 'nobody has a right because I say so!' arguments.
marym625
(17,997 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)olddots
(10,237 posts)what ever 
the band leader
(139 posts)without tripping over a gun. You're the ones feeding the frenzy.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Little change because the comfort zones of so many hateful Narratives are more important than some notion of change.
Hhhh-heh-heh. You said "guys." Hhhh-heh-heh.
marym625
(17,997 posts)the band leader
(139 posts)because you have been that good for their business. Your fail is the stuff of legends. Historians will talk about your fail a hundred years from now when all those firearms are still floating around. You couldn't have been more successful at arming this country if you had set out trying to do that. I sometimes wonder if that's actually what you were secretly trying to do in fact.
Here's what the ATF says about it:
Gun production has more than doubled over the course of the Obama administration, according to a new report from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
[…]
The ATF’s annual firearms commerce report tracks the number of guns manufactured in the United States, which provides an indication of gun sales around the country.
The number of guns manufactured increased by 18 percent during the George W. Bush administration, while the Clinton administration actually saw a 9 percent reduction.
But under President Obama, gun production has spiked 140 percent to 10.8 million firearms in 2013, the most recent year for which data is available.
The year before President Obama entered office, gun manufacturers produced about 4.5 million firearms.
[…]
Pistols are the most popular type of gun, accounting for 4.4 million of the firearms made in 2013, according to the report. Meanwhile, gun manufacturers produced 3.9 million rifles and 1.2 million shotguns.
The number of pistols made has nearly tripled during the Obama administration, which could also reflect more people turning to firearms for personal protection, Pratt suggested.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Has nothing whatsoever to do with gun manufacturers, the NRA, the fact the NRA isn't taxed, 2nd amendment nuts, racist asswipes afraid of the boogie man.
Give me a break.
And racism is all President Obama's fault
the band leader
(139 posts)
marym625
(17,997 posts)[blockqu
the band leader
(139 posts)Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)It's not those of us who look for sane gun laws. It's gun nuts who cling to guns when they "think" their precious guns are going to be taken away that bring up gun numbers. It's the stupid of America that need to own guns. Let's hope some day we will be able to walk the streets without gun nuts lurking around to save the day, or shoot innocent people in the process of being a "Hero".
Fuck guns.
the band leader
(139 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)You're right.
Electing a black guy scared the bejeebers out of white people, many of whom ran out and bought guns.
the band leader
(139 posts)But by all means, please continue.
glinda
(14,807 posts)"packing" when I go out my door from my home.
I don't want to argue with those who feel my statement is an attack but I have a right or rather used to anyways.
marym625
(17,997 posts)laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)I'm Canadian and most Canadians I've talked with about this have this same experience:
I went on a road trip with a friend (also Canadian) to the US to meet up with some people we had known online for quite a number of years. We did a few tourist-y things. Visited our friends, had a great time. When we crossed back over the border, we both sighed loudly at the same time, then looked at each other and burst out laughing. We talked about it for awhile - we were both SO tense while in the US. Knowing that so many guns were around freaked us the fuck out. We pushed it to the back of our thoughts while we were having a good time, but it was there the whole time. When we crossed over the border, it was like this HUGE relief that we didn't have to think about THAT anymore. Hence the sigh.
ileus
(15,396 posts)so there....we're even.
RIP my friends....I'll miss you being part of my morning routine.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Or all the children killed every year because of guns and the idiots that own them.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)their next gun, or being able to strut into Chuck E Cheese with a gun tucked in their pants. Dang disgusting.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts) 
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)take the AKs out of their stores?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)
Don't shop at WalMart, I shop at reputable gun stores.
BTW, WalMart doesn't sell AK's, they sell AR's.
Can't even get that right.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)we all grew up and got older.
marym625
(17,997 posts)I think that's the second time we've actually agreed
maxsolomon
(33,310 posts)Start regulating that militia. Enforce the definition of militia. Make them march up and down.
Heller vs. DC is not the end of this story.
I'm down with that.
Deny and Shred
(1,061 posts)The most important part of the 2nd is what it doesn't say, namely "Individuals shall have the right to bear arms to protect themselves, their family and their property."
The 'while part of the militia' insertion would bring the 2nd ammendment closer to what the writers intended. Where else do the founders expound on what the militia is? The Constitution.
"Article 1, section 8: Congress shall have the power ...
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
This comes a few sentences after they state unequically there is to be no expenditure for a standing army " To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years." Nobody ever mentions that transgression against the Constitution.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Yeah...um...no.
That's not how the bill of rights works. You don't see anything in the first amendment about "individuals shall have the right to free speech", do you?
The bill of rights is a list of restrictions on governmental exercise of power, designed to protect rights, not a list of rights which are granted.
Congress shall make no law...
...shall not be infringed. (by whom? government)
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house... (soldiers for whom? quartered by whom? Government)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated... (violated by whom? Government)
Are you detecting a trend here?
Don't take my word for it though, the framers themselves have spoken on this:
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
http://billofrights.org/
Deny and Shred
(1,061 posts)How about 'The government shall not infringe upon the right of persons to bear arms so each may protect themselves, their families, and their property.' That appears to be the current interpretation, and fits the trend, no? They didn't say thet though.
So does the 2nd exist so the people can form a milita to protect themselves from the government, not to be called forth by the government? I know both Franklin and Jefferson expressed that idea due to fears of an overly powerful central government. I've read many interpretations of the 2nd that make that argument. If that is the case, then the people should have no restrictions on the arms they can posess in order to repel the government. Today, that would mean tanks, nukes, strike fighters, etc. This interpretation does give credence to securing a free state.
Or can the people keep and bear arms so they are proficient with weapons when called upon by the government as a militia because the founders determined that a proficient militia's importance outwieghs the goverment's fear of rebellion? In that case, the use of arms ought to be in service of an eventual militia, not for protection of themselves, family and property. Essentially target practice.
If their idea was for individuals to keep and bear arms that can't be taken by the government in order to protect themselves, family and property, like we have now, they worded it very poorly, and threw in the militia part for no reason at all.
What do you think is the exact restriction meant by the founders in the 2nd? Enlighten me.
beevul
(12,194 posts)In fact, they basically did.
"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."
It enumerates no exceptions (in the case of individuals, for example), where the government may ignore this restriction on its power.
In modern language, it says "because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state (not 'ONLY if and where a well regulated militia is necessary...'), the right of the people (the body from which the militia is drawn) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Based on what you or someone else thinks they should have said to convey that message, perhaps, however, what they did write conveys that message perfectly, if one reads the preamble to ascertain their intent:
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
None of the first ten amendments are unclear, if one reads them with the preamble as a guide.
Deny and Shred
(1,061 posts)I've seen dozens of interpretations of the 2nd. Many believe the modern language interpretation makes the 'militia' the subect and the 'shall not be infringed the predicate', as in 'A Well-Regulated Militia ... shall not be infringed.' The preamble may serve as a guide, but with far from pinpoint accuracy. The states wanting to clarify to avoid abuse of power and extend confidence does not automatically convey true intent perfectly, especially with modern vs colonial language differences. The term 'people' then was often used to differentiate the general populace from nobles. In the 2nd it has come to mean individuals, though they used the term 'persons' often back then to distinguish individual from the populace in general. Why not in 2A?
You wrote "The right of the people (the body from which the militia is drawn) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" still implies that the sole reason to KBA is in service of an eventual militia, not as protection of self, family and property. The non-response to my first part also implies that you don't think RKBA was intended as the people's right to defend themselves from the government.
Article 1 Section 8 offers the purpose of the militia. The term militia was clarified in a later Act as men age 17-45 and any former member of the Armed Forces. If we go with that definition, which, IIRC, is the last US government decree on the matter, then all women and non-vets over age 45 have no right to KBA. Sorry Mr Nugent.
I appreciate the civility. Many DU discussions would have been off the rails into insult-town by now.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Since we know that the bill of rights does not authorize anything, and only restricts government, any interpretations that are not in line with that can be dismissed as inaccurate.
That's why we don't use modern language to interpret it...unless we want to obscure or otherwise muddle what the framers intended.
Why not in 1st or the 4th too?
You wrote "The right of the people (the body from which the militia is drawn) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" still implies that the sole reason to KBA is in service of an eventual militia, not as protection of self, family and property. The non-response to my first part also implies that you don't think RKBA was intended as the people's right to defend themselves from the government.
Not to me it doesn't. People obviously had to hunt for food and protect themselves from wild animals and other assorted threats in that time. I think in many cases, this one included, they did not state the obvious, because it was...well...obvious.
No. Amendment 2 is a blanket restriction. There are no exceptions to this blanket restriction such as 'this restriction on government does not apply when it comes to 46 year old and older indviduals' or the like. It is 'BECAUSE a well regulated militia is necessary to a the security of a free state', not 'ONLY if/when/where a a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
The 'militia clause' is justificatory, not qualificatory. Anything qualificatory would have been written in the constitution rather than the bill of rights. Two different documents, with very different and very distinct purposes for each.
Likewise, and you are absolutely correct about 'off the rails'.
Deny and Shred
(1,061 posts)Don't mean to hit your with a ton of questions, don't feel compelled to address them all but you got me going ...
You suggest the RKBA includes obvious arms uses at the time on the frontier - hunting, repelling wild animals and other threats. Does the current absence of those wild animal threats in most parts of the country obviate that aspect, and limit the obviousness to hunting - for food not sport? If we replace obvious frontier threats with modern non-rural threats that still require a gun according to many, are those needs so obvious? Is Stand Your Ground an appropriate articulation of the evolving 'obvious' the founders intended?
So, BECAUSE the militia is necessary suggests the government cannot infringe on the militia because the founders believe a free state needs a militia. Essentially, a free state needs a populace that is proficient with weapons upon which the government can call to form a militia "if/when/where". Yes?
A miliitia formed in order to 'put down inserruections, repel invasions' etc (Article1Sec8)? A populace whom, when called upon, will need a minimum of training. This 'ready force' is what is necessary for a free state? Does the militia have another purpose?
"The 'militia clause' is justificatory." Justifying if not the militia, then what - the RKBA? In that case, why the comma? Wouldn't "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" have been clearer that they intended no infringement on that right specifically? Without the comma, the argument can be made that the RIGHT is the subject, the two phrases before it clauses. As written, Militia appears to be the subject of the sentence, the free state and RKBA phrases as the clauses.
'A well regulated militia ... shall not be infringed' does restrict the government. It is restricting govt from abolishing or infringing upon the militia. This is consistent with the Bill of Rights, no authorizing rights involved. If it restricts govt from abolishing the RKBA, then why mention the militia at all? Then why the comma?
That non-comma version appears to be the interpretation that is currently applied in practice. If the militia clause is justficatory, is the existence of the militia still justified in today's society that has no need of the militia, and if not, doesn't that obviate the justification for the RKBA?
beevul
(12,194 posts)The problem with the above, is that wild animal threats are not absent in most parts of the country. This for example:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/08/21/bear-family-beats-heat-swim-new-jersey-pool/32106623/
I'm not suggesting the homeowner should have shot those bears, however, they are a threat, for a fact. In NJ. In my own circumstance, I have to shoot the occasional coyote, that thinks my pommies would make a good lunch. Coyotes are even found in pretty urban areas. Again, I don't suggest shooting unless one really needs to. FWIW, I carry a snake stick around in my vehicle and get rattlers and the occasional bull snake or hognose snake off the road, rather than killing them or running them over as some would.
I think that yes, those needs are still obvious. I do not believe that anyone should ever be required by law to retreat. Requiring such, allows one to be manipulated by the hypothetical violence prone individual and takes away from the ability of the person being attacked to control the outcome based on his/her circumstances which no law can ever predict or truly fit. I doubt very much that the framers would have been for requiring individuals to retreat in that sense, after having fought against the crown, the action of which, was completely contrary to a duty to retreat.
No. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is the only stated right in amendment 2, and therefore can be the only right being referred to, that shall not be infringed. The government was granted powers in the constitution relating to the militia. But that's a different document with a different purpose entirely. Also, I'm not certain that 'a free state' refers to 'the state' rather than 'a state of freedom'.
State militias have been called out during numerous disasters IIRC.
Justifying the restriction on government power. Rumor has it that the original bill of rights was only passed with the single comma. Regardless, the documents purpose as stated in the preamble sets the context.
Again, rumor has it that the original was passed with a single comma. And, since government was never granted power to abolish the militia in the constitution, why would it be necessary to forbid it here? Besides that, we know that there is a right of the people to keep and bear arms. The militia is mentioned, because it is justification for the restriction on government, and is the entity which is drawn from 'the people' who have the right to keep and bear arms.
You can not draw an armed militia from a disarmed people.
Its also rumored to be the one that actually was passed into law. "that has no need of the militia" is subjective. One can obviate the justification to ones hearts content, but the restriction on government remains.
It could very well say 'the yellow moon, being made of green cheese, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, and the government would be no less restricted.
Response to Deny and Shred (Reply #267)
beevul This message was self-deleted by its author.
Keefer
(713 posts)10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code
Notes
prev | next
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
Pay particular attention to (b) (2).
maxsolomon
(33,310 posts)Not my first gun massacre rodeo.
"Unorganized" does not exclude the need for "well-regulation" of the militia.
And yes, I am aware what "well-regulated" meant in ye olden days.
Keefer
(713 posts)didn't mean overly-controlled.
maxsolomon
(33,310 posts)I'd like that militia definition cleaned up, too. Amazingly sexist and ageist.
Keefer
(713 posts)"well-regulated" meant "functioning correctly."
maxsolomon
(33,310 posts)that "functioning correctly" is exactly what our Militia is NOT doing.
and yes, "at the time it was written", that meant that the GUNS were "functioning correctly".
It says "A well-regulated MILITIA...," not "A well-regulated GUN..."
That means the militia is supposed to be well-regulated.
Unless you're reading it differently than I am.
maxsolomon
(33,310 posts)the concern was assurance that the militia had working firearms.
I don't agree.
ThoughtCriminal
(14,047 posts)Not the Constitution. And Congress can regulate who is considered part of the militia.
And that the right to bear arms does to apply to women or to men over the age of 44?
So we do not need to amend the Constitution.
I love it when people cite that page.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Uh huh, you just keep on believing that.
maxsolomon
(33,310 posts)The Law EVOLVES. Scalia won't have his brain implanted in a robot. I don't believe Hillary will appoint someone who'd have voted with the majority in that case.
I've said in other posts today that this is a generational change that will take decades. It took decades (specifically, 4 since the Cincinnati Revolution in 1977) to get to this point. I don't expect to see it - I've got 40 years left, max. But I expect the box that 2nd Amendment Absolutists have built to crumble over time, and the passion for RKBA to fade.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-five-extra-words-that-can-fix-the-second-amendment/2014/04/11/f8a19578-b8fa-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)god bless you.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)I'll knr.
marym625
(17,997 posts)The Traveler
(5,632 posts)This country has gone full gun nutter. I have guns. I don't have assault rifles ... but I have guns.
And I have a car ... a potentially lethal weapon. And I am required to maintain insurance on my car. Since I am a good responsible driver my rates are reasonable. Because it is a performance vehicle, I pay a little bit more than if I owned a family car.
It seems to me that there is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that precludes requiring gun owners to maintain insurance. More guns ... higher premiums. Got an AR-15? Higher premiums. Keep 50 round mags? Higher premiums. And no gun insurer should be required to sell you insurance without a background check and psych evaluation. And if your record is such that no insurer would cover you, that's your problem. You probably shouldn't have a gun.
And there is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that precludes registration. OK so make me register my guns ... doesn't infringe on my right to keep and bear. I could go on but you get my point.
So ... there's a lot we can do to restore gun ownership sanity to the land without tampering with the Bill of Rights.
We will never keep incidents of this sort from EVER happening ... but we sure as hell can do things to reduce the frequency of these events. Why haven't we? Because of an effective lobby and propaganda organ for the gun manufacturing industry.
So I agree with half of your position. Fuck the NRA.
Trav
marym625
(17,997 posts)Thank what I want. It is a good idea. Thank you
The Traveler
(5,632 posts)mary ... I sure do understand how you feel. It sickens me. Between the idiots with guns and the militarized police this is becoming a really unpleasant country. I live in Georgia, an open carry state. Can't even take your kid to a park without running into some asshole strutting around with their weapon.
We have to do something. The idea of opening up the Bill of Rights to modification scares me, tho. Too many chances for radical righties to mess things up in that process, methinks. But we have to do something. We can't go on this way.
It is always good to converse with a fellow Sanders supporter. 
Trav
marym625
(17,997 posts)Thank you
Senator Tankerbell
(316 posts)When I got my driver's license, I had to take classes and pass a driving test. We should have a similar policy toward guns.
The Traveler
(5,632 posts)It seems to be just common sense ... but in so many ways common sense has fled the country, it appears.
Trav
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)driving a car is a privilege, not a right, owning a firearm is a right, not a privilege.
See the difference?
Senator Tankerbell
(316 posts)I do think an argument could be made that driving a car is a right but I know what you mean. It isn't in the bill of rights. Would it have been included if cars had been invented at that point? We'll never know.
From a constitutional law stand-point, you may be correct. It really depends on how the supreme court would decide on it. The current make-up of the court, as well as previous courts, would agree with you. Maybe we would need to amend the constitution in order to require licensing. I know that isn't likely.
But as a practical matter, would you oppose a requirement for people to take gun-safety classes followed by a test? Would you oppose mental health screening as part of that process? That seems like a reasonable compromise between banning guns and just letting anybody with a pulse have as many as they want. I know plenty of people who have guns who don't worry me at all because they are responsible but I also know some people who I really don't think should have them.
It's a tough issue. My first priority isn't actually making more gun laws. My first priority is improving mental health services. That and creating a more just society generally could solve the problem without the need for more gun-control.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Driving a car on public roads, on the other hand, is a privilege.
Senator Tankerbell
(316 posts)But why is it a privilege and not a right? Is it simply because it isn't enumerated in the constitution? I think that it is considered a privilege only because of potential harm that can be caused by unsafe and uninsured drivers. The only reason we don't apply the same logic to guns is the second amendment. Is that a good enough reason? I'm not sure.
And just to be clear, I don't have a problem with guns. I have shot guns before and it was fun. I even went duck hunting a few times as a kid. I don't own one currently but if I wanted to buy one, I wouldn't mind getting a license. I think that simply appealing to the founders is not a sufficient argument. Wise as they were, they were not omniscient.
beevul
(12,194 posts)The problem with your theory, is that we DO apply the same logic:
Car ownership - unlicensed.
Car use in public - generally requires a license
Gun ownership - generally does not require a license
Public carry - generally requires a license
When it becomes licensed, it is no longer a right.
branford
(4,462 posts)and exist in many jurisdictions, and it is already illegal under federal law for someone adjudicated as a danger to themselves and others to purchase, own or carry firearms. Many, if not most, gun owners and gun rights advocates (including the NRA) also have no desire for the truly mentally ill and dangerous to have access to firearms, and support better mental health services.
The idea that "anybody with a pulse can have as many guns as they want" is simply not even remotely true. Firearms are very highly regulated products at the federal, state and local levels, particularly for an item expressly protected in the Constitution. The fact that some want significantly more regulation or restrictions, or would like "undesirable" people (however one chooses to define the term) to lose access, does not change this undeniable fact.
For a constitutional standpoint, what gun controllers cannot do is pass laws for the express purpose of just dissuading gun ownership or to diminish "gun culture."
Also, be careful about using automobiles as a regulatory standard for firearms. Virtually anyone can acquire a driver's license, including felons and the mentally ill, they cannot be denied because of membership in unpopular groups or to those who hold loathsome beliefs, the quality of drivers on the road is certainly nothing to brag about, a license is not required to own or operate a vehicle on private property, and most significantly, a license in any state permits the owner to drive any car anywhere in the USA. If guns were suddenly regulated like cars, gun rights advocates would win their largest net gain in American history.
Senator Tankerbell
(316 posts)I would just say that I did not mean to suggest using automobiles as a regulatory standard for firearms. I was just using it as analogy. Obviously, implementation would need to be very different. Saying that guns could be regulated like cars are regulated is not saying guns should be regulated in exactly the same way cars are regulated.
Also, I live in Virginia so I guess it just seems to me like anybody can get as many guns as they want. And in general, I don't really have a problem with that. I'm just trying to think of ways to prevent senseless violence which is made much worse when using guns. Maybe there would be mass-stabbings instead but you can at least run away from a knife-wielding maniac. But then what about ninja throwing-stars...
branford
(4,462 posts)the laws already on the books, many of which are entirely uncontroversial.
For instance, the BAFTE often does not follow-up on rejected NICS background checks and the the relevant databases are often incorrect or not up-to-date, as was the case in the Charleston church shooting.
I would additionally note that the states and localities demanding more gun control also tend to be the most liberal and comparatively lenient in sentencing criminal offenders, including those who commit crimes with guns.
Senator Tankerbell
(316 posts)But why do you think enforcement hasn't happened? NRA has been saying for decades that they support enforcement of current laws but do they really? More enforcement means fewer sales and higher costs right?
branford
(4,462 posts)In fact, the NICS background check system actually exists because of the NRA's support. As a matter of policy, it is my understanding that they have no objections to restrictions against convicted felons and those adjudicated as a danger to themselves and others. You (or I) may have ample reason to disagree with many NRA positions, but they are not some omniscient or omnipotent boogeyman.
More importantly, regardless about one's opinion concerning the NRA, they do not control who or how the federal or state authorities investigate for gun crimes, nor do they have any influence over the databases used for background checks. They are not responsible for the incompetence or negligence of the government.
Senator Tankerbell
(316 posts)But I do think lobbying efforts extend beyond which laws get passed. Here is one example: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/02/07/nra-interferes-with-atf-operations/1894355/
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)but mental health screening?
I'm real iffy on that, just because it could be abused by the govt, now, I might be open to a screening as long as the govt doesn't get to pick who is giving that screening.
BTW, thanks for the civil debate, not too often that happens with the issue of firearms, as you can see.
Senator Tankerbell
(316 posts)I agree it could be abused. Maybe an applicant would just need to get any state-licensed psychologist or psychiatrist to sign off on their application. Something like that. I think there are ways to prevent government abuse. It would be difficult though.
beevul
(12,194 posts)To use it in public, not to own it. Ownership and public usage are apples and oranges.
No. Because certain elements see only gun control as a solution, and automatically put themselves on the other side of the issue from people that believe strongly in gun rights.
Find ways to reduce gun violence without picking a fight with tens of millions of people, and you may see a different result.
The Traveler
(5,632 posts)In modern society, driving is far more essential for most to daily living than gun ownership. So you are right, the two subjects are not equivalent. Still, we most of us are capable of learning from one situation and applying those lessons (with adaptation, of course) to another.
And I am required to maintain insurance .... to retain my driver's license! So, sure, I can own a car without insurance. I can't use it ... nor can I drive another car.
The remainder of your post consists of assertion without evidence. I can dump a lot of evidence of the NRAs lobbying and propaganda function ... but google is your friend if you are interested. To accept your second assertion, we must conclude that those lobbying and propaganda efforts, conducted with great expense, have had no effects on policy deemed by the NRA as positive. That is an obviously farcical conclusion, therefor we can reject your second assertion. The NRA certainly believes its efforts have effect.
"Find ways to reduce gun violence .... "
OK. Suggest some.
Trav
beevul
(12,194 posts)Irrelevant.
First, this is exactly the same sort of assertion without evidence, that you accuse me of making.
Second, whatever jurisdiction you live in, and purport to have this rule, assuming its factually true (which I don't believe) would be the exception not the rule.
That generally isn't the way things work, and most people would not accept changing things to work like you suggest.
And third, YES YOU CAN still use it, and YES YOU CAN still drive another car. Just not on public roads.
Your license is not a 'license to drive'. Its a 'license to drive on public roads'. There is a difference, even if it eludes you.
You're speaking of the 'what' - the nra/lobbying/ect. I'm speaking of the 'why' - why that happens.
It is unclear to me what exactly you are referring to here. What assertion specifically?
The Traveler
(5,632 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)You wish to apply all of the rules restrictions and such, of driving a car in public, to private ownership of a firearm.
Logical
(22,457 posts)maxsolomon
(33,310 posts)What is YOUR plan? Just ?
Or perhaps "solve" mental illness?
Logical
(22,457 posts)maxsolomon
(33,310 posts)i'll put you down for , then.
marym625
(17,997 posts)And two are reasonable and would at least start to alleviate the problem.
Maybe we get States to start requiring insurance. It would be interesting to see if any insurance company would insure any gun owner.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Most mass shooters obtained the gun legally.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Insuring. A license that actually tests your knowledge and ability. Then insurance
hack89
(39,171 posts)never understood that particular argument.
beevul
(12,194 posts)It is intended to make gun ownership more burdensome.
You have noted, I'm certain, that they want insurance and licensing on simple ownership, rather than on public usage as with autos.
beevul
(12,194 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)
safeinOhio
(32,673 posts)mass shooters..Handguns used in most street crime are not obtained legally. They are bought without background checks.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Mass shootings loom large in terms of media coverage. They do not, however, constitute a significant percentage of homicides. Whatever political capital needs to be spent on reforming gun policies, it's insane not to spend it on "street crime" shootings, which constitute the large majority of non-suicide firearms deaths.
Logical
(22,457 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)First, you cannot insure against your own intentional criminal acts. Insurance also wouldn't cover the effects of violence unconnected to the owner's firearms. Personal insurance is not a some general crime victim recovery fund.
Second, since the incidence of firearm negligence among lawful gun owners is minuscule, despite the occasional graphic news story (recall that the USA has about 100+ million legal gun owners and over 300+ million firearms), the cost for such policies would be (and are) negligible. In fact, most homeowners and renters policies cover accidents involving firearms. As for your question about whether insurance companies would cover gun owners, note that most already do.
Third, if the intent and design of the policy is to discourage the exercise of a constitutional right by simply making it burdensome or expensive, it would almost certainly be unconstitutional as little more than a veritable "poll tax." If you don't agree with the fact that the RKBA is constitutionally protected, you are free to seek to amend the Constitution. The procedures are clear and it has been done 27 times. Good luck.
Fourth, the vast majority of crime involving guns does not involve legal firearm owners, and therefore this policy would have little to no effect on crime rates. "Mass shootings" are also an extremely small percentage of gun crime.
Fifth, firearm accident insurance is already cheap and readily available, and the NRA is one of its largest proponents. If specific firearm insurance became mandatory, it would be a huge financial windfall for the NRA not only as a provider and vendor, but also as an endorser as they are the largest firearms safety organization in the country.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)I am bookmarking this for the future. It nice to see someone with actual knowledge weighing in, as opposed so people flinging crap at the wall to see what sticks.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Unless the NRA is an insurance provider, how do they get a windfall from insurance?
Second, it is not a poll tax to make sure you are insured. If you use your gun in a legal manner that hurts a bystander, or if your child gets your gun and accidentally shoots his friend, their families have some chance for monetary compensation. For hospital bills, physical therapy, home care, if they should live.
Im not "flinging shit at walls to see what sticks." I'm not stupid nor ignorant.
There is no reason testing, including written and practical, in addition to psychological tests to own a gun. Then you have to have insurance. There is absolutely no reason that there is a protection for people because of gun owners who fuck up while doing something legal with their weapons
branford
(4,462 posts)just like AARP is a broker/vendor of health and life insurance. The NRA offers and number of services and products relating firearms and gun owners. As the unquestionably largest and most respected gun safety organization (notwithstanding your opinion about the organization; also note the difference between the NRA and NRA-ILA), its endorsement of relevant policies is also quite lucrative. Simply, mandating firearm insurance, to the extent constitutional, would provide significant additional revenue to the NRA's preexisting business operations. Many would further choose to purchase insurance through the NRA or other gun rights groups as a form of political protest. Never underestimate unintended consequences, just like how calls for gun control increase firearm sales.
Your post explicitly questioned whether any insurer would insure a gun owner. You obviously didn't realize that most homeowner's and renters policies already provide coverage for firearm accidents, and independent policies and riders are currently cheap and readily available. Despite the occasional scary news story or tragic anecdote, firearm accidents are actually quite rare in relation to the number of lawful gun owners and number of firearms in the USA, and no need for insurance for uncompensated losses has been demonstrated, no less insurance of more than very minimal cost.
Nevertheless, it is generally unconstitutional to require the payment of sums targeted to condition or restrict the exercise of constitutional rights (similar to a "poll tax"
. Since firearm insurance cannot compensate for criminal misuse of a firearm, uncompensated losses for accidental firearm events is not a proven national problem, and there's no actual evidence that a insurance requirement would reduce firearm accidents or criminality, a mandatory insurance scheme would almost certainly be held unlawful. Good intentions would not change the constitutional analysis.
Your claim that insurance must be mandatory because there's "no reason testing, including written and practical, in addition to psychological tests to own a gun" is simply ludicrous as a matter of law and policy. You are certainly entitled to your personal opinions about gun ownership and insurance, but such beliefs are not consistent with current jurisprudence concerning product liability, no less concerning a constitutionally protected product, nor consistent with public opinion, electoral reality, and polling trends.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)I have no problem with adults owning five-round magazine (max) rifles and shotguns... being anonymous here, I can say that I own a few. I now live in the Sierra Nevada on five acres, few neighbors, lots of calm and mostly harmless wildlife. But I don't hunt -it's not fair. I just skeet and target... my 22LR rifles aren't even close to 30-06 power. I would have never considered owning these when I lived in S.F. or on the central coast. It is simply a new skill and challenge to learn.
Handguns are another matter and I think they should be banned.
marym625
(17,997 posts)But the fucking NRA doesn't distinguish between one type or another or where people are.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)Simply a bad news gun manufacturers' lobby group.
marym625
(17,997 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Better call the Dept. of Homeland Security and tell them, because it would seem that they disagree with you.
-none
(1,884 posts)It helps to bury (sorry) the facts and spin the truth.
beevul
(12,194 posts)And you don't distinguish between people that misuse guns and people that don't.
How is your lack of distinguishing any better than theirs?
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)And better education.
The dumbing down of America was part of the republican plan. And it is working
Andy823
(11,495 posts)When it comes to guns?
thereismore
(13,326 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)The only gun in any house I have ever lived in was a non-firable Japanese rifle an uncle gave to my dad. My uncle served in the Pacific in WW II and he gave it to Dad as a souvenir of his time at war.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Not the memorabilia part. Just never owned one and never will
secondwind
(16,903 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)Response to marym625 (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Enjoy your stay.
Response to hifiguy (Reply #69)
Name removed Message auto-removed
marym625
(17,997 posts)This is a "right" that seriously infringes on everyone's right to pursue happiness, on our right to live, on our very existence. So fuck that noise.
Response to marym625 (Reply #71)
Name removed Message auto-removed
marym625
(17,997 posts)I just don't care anymore when it comes to guns.
greatlaurel
(2,004 posts)It is a disgrace that a marketing campaign to sell products to fools has so much political sway. The gun marketers make Nestle and Monsanto look like pikers.
marym625
(17,997 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)samsingh
(17,595 posts)the gun culture is sick and twisted and reaching some sort of tipping points. the sad part though is how many people will be murdered by guns before sanity prevails.
jonno99
(2,620 posts)You might consider that what you describe as the "sick gun culture" is simply representative of the culture at large.
Going after guns to minimize folks being killed is like putting up an air freshener to mask the smell of the ashes smoldering in your kitchen garbage can. IOW - you're fooling yourself...
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)Guns make murder easy.
samsingh
(17,595 posts)I guess its the ease with which guns can kill that makes the problem an epidemic.
weren't switch blades illegal (don't know if they still are), and can you walk around with long swords, or drive without insurance or a license. In each case, we have implemented controls to make something safer. Except with guns, because of all the 'yes' but arguments.
jonno99
(2,620 posts)is NOT the "gun culture", but the "violence culture".
The vast majority (99+) of gun owners are, in varying degrees, members of the "gun culture". These are the sports shooters, bench rest/target shooters, hunters, etc. Additionally you have those who are merely interested in the level of protection that a firearm affords (single women, cops, security guards, etc.).
The above groups have been around for more than a century without issue. IOW - the above folks are NOT the problem.
(Side note: one of the schools I attended as a kid had a firing range down in the basement - and this was in MN. Can you imagine that today?!)
The problem now is the culture of violence. Do you think that the drug-trafficking turf wars would disappear if every gun magically vanished?
maxsolomon
(33,310 posts)Absent the unequalled level of firearms/capita in America, our violence would be far less deadly.
beevul
(12,194 posts)samsingh
(17,595 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)jonno99
(2,620 posts)In the US:
~28 will die today from drunk drivers
~1600 will die today from death related to cancer.
Each of these deaths are horrible, and my guess is that most of these victims had family & friends "sick of watching them die".
Unfortunately we live in a media-saturated environment where "mass killings" & "gun violence" get top billing. But the fact is most of the dying in this country occurs where few people outside the immediate circle know about it. Does that make those deaths any less horrific?
marym625
(17,997 posts)There are no laws against owning a gun. Not for "upstanding adults"
Hardly a decent comparison. Either scenario
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Drink drivers kill about the same number of a people every years and murders comitted with guns.
Just sayin'....
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)in the last 20 years, firearms deaths have been cut in half, and of those firearm deaths, appox. 2/3rd's of those are suicides.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)There are appox. 32.000 firearm deaths yearly in the US, according to the FBI's UCR, they break those stats down to suicides, long gun deaths, handgun deaths, accidental/negligent deaths, so on and so forth.
The text in this is not aimed at you. I just copied from a replied on a couple months ago. It's the statistics I'm using.
These are a paste from another post in which I replied to someone else that used incorrect or deliberately twisted CDC statistics:
That's
Accidental discharge non- transport 505
Intentional self inflicted. 21,175
Assault (homicide) 11,208
Undetermined intent 281
Injury by firearm that caused
Other problems that ended in death 33,636
That's 66,805. That's OK with you?
In the age groups 10 to 54, suicide is in the top 5, ages 55 to 64 it's in the top 10
I will be happy to put up the numbers for accidental deaths if you like.
Skew the statistics anyway you like. To try to make it sound like the numbers are negligible or insignificant so you are justified in having no gun laws, no permits, etc is ridiculous. Someone can't help dying from cancer. But each and every single one of the deaths from guns was completely preventable.
Let's take a look at the cause of death in homicides with firearms by age group. We'll just look at the age groups where homicide is in the top 5 causes of death. That's ages 1 to 34.
Main page to pull this from
http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe
Those are directly from the CDC. 11,208 is a far cry from 62.
You have repeatedly stated that educated people wouldn't vote for gun control. You use ridiculous comparison to drugs (so many things wrong with that I wouldn't even know where to begin) You continually say "emotions" like there should not be emotions involved in senseless death. You use one example of a horrendous act in the UK and say that the numbers don't matter. Your arguments are not worth addressing and I have no desire, whatsoever, to continue this conversation with you.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)In 2013, 10,076 people died in car accidents due to an alcohol impaired driver. That's very comparable to the 11,208 who were murdered using firearms, especially given that in some years, the deaths by drunk driving exceed firearm murders.
Every year, about 88,000 people die of alcohol related causes.
Smoking related deaths top 480,000 per year!
Over 41,000 people per year die from exposure to second-hand smoke.
None of these deaths are "ok." But we can;t make the world risk-free, either. We make risk tolerance decisions all the time.
marym625
(17,997 posts)No, we can't make the world risk free but we sure as shit don't have to keep making it easier for someone to kill someone else.
The laws on drunk driving and smoking have become increasingly stringent. Yet gun laws have become increasingly lacks.
Statistical
(19,264 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)Homicide is not the only thing that happens because of guns.
When the number of children shot is zero, then talk to me about no gun control needed
Statistical
(19,264 posts)Last edited Sun Aug 30, 2015, 08:19 PM - Edit history (1)
Any child being injured is not trivial but firearm injuries are relatively rare. Among fatal injuries firearms make up about 0.4% of all unintentional injuries resulting in death
http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe?_service=v8prod&_server=aspv-wisq-1.cdc.gov&_port=5099&_sessionid=oWgZZFB9O52&_program=wisqars.dd_percents10.sas&age1=.&age2=.&agetext=AllAges&category=UNI&_debug=0
Some sensible gun control such as universal background checks and better ways to keep mental ill from obtaining firearms are a good idea but honestly they aren't going to significantly change the child mortality rate.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Moreover, your comments suggesting demeaning sex with the Constitution don't speak well of your respect for that document at all.
Aren't these sorts of decisions up to -everyone-?
Isn't THAT how democracy is -supposed- to work?
Of course today's shooting of a white female television reporter, her crew and interviewee are terrible. Empathy exists in abundance for family and friends of Alison and Adam.
But, I don't think throwing away the Constitution, rejecting democracy, in a fit of emotion to make the USA fit your view is anything but very solipsistic.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)She will dictate to us our thoughts, our activities, our rights, to her sole satisfaction. Apparently.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Gun violence is awful and too common in the US.
But, that doesn't mean we should overthrow our constitution and government by consent of the governed
closeupready
(29,503 posts)she screamed bullshit and ran away. Going back to her opening post, when she says she doesn't care what anyone else thinks, I think she means it, since she obviously isn't here to reflect or converse with others.
Adding insult to injury, I happen to treasure our civil rights, and I'm not prepared to relinquish them on a whim, and certainly not on someone else's whims.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)By which I mean it goes way too far.
I don't own guns, I am not into guns. I abhore gun violence. My brother took his own life with a gun that our senior brother sold him just to make a buck. I dream of a nation with much less gun violence.
But.
I cherish the concept of democratically elected representative government. I cherish the Constitution and I think it's one-hell-of-a-document. Far from perfect, yes, but certainly both pointing toward perfection and the path to getting there.
Suggesting that democratic process involving all voices isn't important, and suggesting noncompliance with the Constitution is just abhorrent to me.
marym625
(17,997 posts)What are you talking about? Demeaning sex? What?
You are so very wrong and off mark it's hard to imagine how you got there.
The Second Amendment is a very small part of the Constitution that has misinterpreted, reinterpreted, screwed with, fucked up down and sideways from the beginning. It's now being used to excuse complete lunacy and the majority of the country agrees that gun ownership and use is out of control. Corporate greed and fear mongering are used to keep the ignorant armed.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)I am NOT going to hand over the government of the nation to people who respond with hyperbolic emotion as you did.
R.E.A.D. what you posted. C.O.N.T.E.M.P.L.A.T.E. what what your posting REALLY implies.
I think you'll feel differently after doing that.
It's possible to be very anti-gun violence without declaring the Constitution and representative government should be abolished
marym625
(17,997 posts)Interpretation of the second amendment somehow means I want to throw out the Constitution and civil rights is ludicrous.
My response is emotional because people are dying senseless deaths at alarming rates. Because these deaths don't have to happen. Because people care more about their fucking precious guns than they care about people. Because the majority of guns are made for killing people and nothing else. Because the forefathers could not possibly have known what was going to happen with guns. Because the second amendment has been twisted and fucked up to appeas the NRA and gun manufacturers.
Emotional, yes. Doesn't make it wrong
beevul
(12,194 posts)Good god where do you come up with this nonsense?
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
http://billofrights.org/
The above refutes your assertion. Completely.
It was ALWAYS intended to be restriction on government, granting nothing, and protecting the rights of individuals, and the framers penned the words above, which make that crystal clear.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Do a little research and get back to me.
beevul
(12,194 posts)
phylny
(8,379 posts)The schools were on lock down, and I varied my route from my first client in Moneta to Roanoke. This is a very red, very Republican, very gun-oriented community with NRA stickers and "Don't Tread on Me" license plates. It'll be interesting to see how the community responds. I don't expect any change, really.
Victim blaming has already started. Watch the NRA move in swiftly.
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)shows either a lack of intelligent thought, or stubbornness, or both. It certainly is oxymoronic.
marym625
(17,997 posts)and complete and total frustration with the insanity that is the American frenzy / fascination with gun ownership
JT1979
(9 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)you state you don't care what anyone else thinks on a forum in which the PURPOSE of the forum is to exchange opinions.
marym625
(17,997 posts)And I really don't. I have heard it all for decades. There is nothing that can be said about it that hasn't already been said. The conversation should no longer be about removing restrictions, the "right" to open carry anywhere anyone wants. It should be about limits and having strict rules, enforcing protections against stupid, crazy asswipes with guns. And that includes every single person who has a gun near a child, near a crazy person or who just doesn't give a shit about other people
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)Words mean something. Your statement says you don't care if someone does or does not own a gun. That does not make sense.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Yes, words mean everything.
I'm sick of it. There is nothing more that can be said defending or arguing against gun control. It is time for action.
Someone posted a map of the US and the state laws on gun control in this thread. It shows a very frightening change in laws over the last 3 decades. Funny how the removal of reasonable laws coincides with the NRA rise in power, the republican plan to privatize everything and the dumbing down of America. You think there is no correlation?
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)In the last 30 years in Minnesota, where I live, the only gun laws that has been passed that increases access to guns is the shall issue CCW law and a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to hunt and fish. All other laws passed have restricted access to guns.
Also, in Minnesota, many Democratic candidates are endorsed by the NRA.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)It doesn't show a general rollback of gun control. It shows only the changes in laws regarding concealed carry.
madokie
(51,076 posts)more than they have a right to a gun is all I got to say.
fuckit 15 months in Vietnam and I own no guns and won't have one in my home
marym625
(17,997 posts)Truly.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)and do welcome them in my home.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)Fucked up skewing of the second amendment and the lack of laws regarding guns bears and impedes my rights and I am sick of it
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)
TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)The op is just spouting. Guns aren't going anywhere.
I'm not entirely sure why anyone would want to get rid of just about the only thing that can equalize a conflict between some huge guy and a little old lady. It's almost like their trying to make sure victims can't defend themselves.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)enforcement and my brother an avid hunter. My ex- was a trap shooter and gun lover....a very responsible one. Consequently I have experienced responsible ownership that never harmed anyone. I am not afraid of guns. I have always had other things that have had to come first. Now it's my turn. This old lady is going to buy a .38 revolver for my protection. I live alone and in the country. If anyone has a problem with that they are welcome to offer suggestions of what I would do with a home invader. Just askin'
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)The president, congress, and the party platform disagree with your view of the second amendment.
As do the American people.
Yours is the fringe view, and pretty much everyone here reading this everyone knows it.
As to your rights being impeded, somehow, I doubt it.
randys1
(16,286 posts)clearly says guns are to be regulated by militias.
Which would mean we remove ALL Guns to said well regulated militias.
the band leader
(139 posts)TeddyR
(2,493 posts)I'm happy to debate the merits of gun control/bans but if you are misreading the Constitution then there is too big of a disconnect to begin with -- the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, period. The prefatory clause states that a "well regulated militia" -- meaning a militia trained in the use of arms -- is one of the reasons for protecting this right. That is not the only reason and many state constitutions at the time this country was formed stated that citizens had the right to bear arms for the defense of themselves. Many also included similar prefatory clauses addressing all kinds of rights other than the right to bear arms. I recommend reading The Commonplace Second Amendment, which discusses the use of prefatory clauses in state constitutions. And another important point is that at the time the Constitution was drafted the "militia" included all able-bodied citizens, i.e., the "people."
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)I will continue to keep and responsibly use my firearms, including concealed carrying my legal firearm.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)If you buy the Constitution, you buy the whole thing, gun rights and all. It's a package deal. We don't get to choose only the parts we like. If we did, the NRA would choose the 2nd Amendment and throw out the rest. I happen to think some of what you suggest is appropriate, under the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment, but the courts do not agree with me, never have, and probably never will. So there is no way to keep guns away from crazy people. The best we can do is keep crazy people away from the rest of us, perhaps by undoing what Reagan did when he shut down a significant portion of the mental health apparatus in this country.
CTyankee
(63,903 posts)tell the goddamn truth about guns and the 2nd A.
"The best we can do..." oh, please, that's just giving up. I've heard this a million times "No can do!" Fuck that. This country won WW2 and put a man on the moon. WE can do something about this gun problem.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)We didn't win WWII. We helped win WWII. And it wasn't unconstitutional. The moon landings were also in perfect harmony with our Constitution. Most effective means of gun control would be overturned as unconstitutional, so were left to sort of dab at the edges with ineffective regulations. There are a few things, such as expanding background checks, we can do without violating the Constitution, and these will help, but they will not have a big effect. If you think any president will even try to challenge the 2nd Amendment, you are incorrect. They know it's politically difficult, and useless.
CTyankee
(63,903 posts)isolationist country with a not so great military to fight wars in two different areas of the world. We developed the Bomb by assembling the best minds, many of those immigrants, and throwing resources at the problem. We did hard things.
You are saying we cannot change the Constitution EVER. Yes we can and we have. Lots of things that were "politically incorrect" at one time (shall we talk about the slaveholders who developed our Bill of Rights?) but got changed.
I refuse to give up. There are constitutional democracies that have effective gun control. We are the outliers when it comes to modern constitutional democracies and guns. That is a simple fact.
I refuse to let the NRA continue to rule with regard to this issue. I'm surprised that anyone here would use that organization's message. Res ipsa loquitur.
deathrind
(1,786 posts)Repealing the 2nd is not going to happen.
But here are a few ideas...
1st- 100% background checks on all firearm purchases private or commercial.
2nd- Yearly registration for accountability / traceability.
3rd- Max Capacity of 10 rounds.
4th- Mandatory initial and recurring safety training. Something the NRA used to be very good at.
5th- Tougher laws for negligent ownership. There is no such thing as a “tragic accident” when it comes to a firearm. It is not a “tragic accident” when the 3 year old finds a firearm and shoots themselves or another. It is pure negligence on the owner’s part for not having the firearm safely secured.
There is no way to stop firearm violence 100%. There are too many firearms in circulation and humans are…. humans. Having said that firearm ownership is a serious responsibility and needs to be treated as such. If one wants to own a firearm that is fine but that person needs to show that they are a responsible person who understand the seriousness of that ownership. None of the ideas above are anything more than an inconvenience, certainly not an infringement but they would help to reducing the violence we see all too often.
marym625
(17,997 posts)This is a good start.
I know there is no way we'll ever get rid of guns, and therefore, gun violence. Certainly never going to get rid of idiots or assholes. But this insanity of no restrictions or minimal restrictions, has to end.
phylny
(8,379 posts)mandatory insurance.
I especially like your suggestion on tougher laws for negligent ownership. Let's start putting people in jail when their toddler/child finds a gun hanging around and uses it.
Any sane gun owner should applaud your list, if they care anything about the lives of others.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)seveneyes
(4,631 posts)If you are muscle beach strong, more power to you, but hey, teacher, leave us defenders of our own lives alone ...
Response to marym625 (Original post)
Post removed
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)Back in the real world, states are ditching gun control faster than you can imagine.
marym625
(17,997 posts)But it can be changed. We can be as relentless. And I plan to be
colsohlibgal
(5,275 posts)There is a complete misrepresentation of the Second Amendment. It was written two centuries ago in a far different America. It really had to do with militias when we had no standing army.
Nobody is advocating that nobody can own a gun. However there should be stringent background checks and limits on what kind of guns ordinary citizens can own. Everyday people do not need military grade weapons.
The cowards in our Congress need to act, need to stand up to the NRA for once.
The argument that sensible gun control will not stop all shootings is true....but it would severely reduce them and isn't that better than doing nothing?
I now see the NRA as a terrorist organization. When 5 year olds being shot in the face and killed won't move them they need to go.
Had we acted when we should have acted many who have been killed might still be here, including the two today who should have enjoyed many more decades on earth.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)already in private hands.
The NRA is a terrorist organization?
Better call the Dept. of Homeland Security and tell them, because it would seem that they don't agree with you.
Homicides have been halved in the last 20 years according to the FBI's UCR, and remember, appox. 2/3rd's of those firearms deaths are suicides, so better mental health services would help reduce those deaths.
beevul
(12,194 posts)No, there really isn't. It had to do with restrictions on governmental exercise of power.
Don't take my word for it though, read the words of the framers themselves:
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
Billofrights.org
There ARE limits on what kinds of guns people can own. Were you proceeding from the standpoint that there aren't?
'Military grade' is an anti-gun talking point, and a general falsehood.
You assert that it would 'severely reduce' shootings. How exactly would it do that?
marym625
(17,997 posts)seveneyes
(4,631 posts)Then you turn to those wise enough to be armed against those out to do harm to you of innocence ...
Response to seveneyes (Reply #218)
Township75 This message was self-deleted by its author.
marym625
(17,997 posts)
Township75
(3,535 posts)Or fill up our prisons when someone uses a gun for hunting or self defense?
Or do y really think that the police which tend to be republicans is going to do your work for you?
beevul
(12,194 posts)Long time no see.
Don't see too many old time J/PS posters or any bent around these days.
Township75
(3,535 posts)Hope you are well. I kinda abandoned the site on 2007 or 8. Show up once in a blue moon mostly because the LBN section lets me see news I don't find in my own. I here much ?
marym625
(17,997 posts)Show me where I said anything about making guns illegal.
Wanting reasonable control is not the same as banning.
seveneyes
(4,631 posts)Nuff said. Now hit the Gym to defend yer self against the big bad wolf.
marym625
(17,997 posts)You are certainly not the first person to say that here.
Just love the "you must have a gun or you'll die" crap. People saying that might as well be working for the NRA.
Javaman
(62,517 posts)simmer down there.
Omnith
(171 posts)Then you'll understand why the second amendment is so important.
CTyankee
(63,903 posts)Yeah, I read history.
marym625
(17,997 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)let's do away with the Internet and go back to just hand cranked printing presses or word of mouth.
Yeah, I read history also.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Because anything more advanced wasn't around when it was written and ratified....
<"SARCASM MODE" to "OFF">
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)to today's modern society, but not any of the other Amendments.
marym625
(17,997 posts)And the second amendment, thank you.
When someone can state emphatically and with indisputable proof exactly what was meant in the second amendment, and that the authors were well aware of the future development of guns, then I'll buy the need to keep the amendment, as is. Which one though? The one that was ratified? You pick.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...to the Second Amendment?
marym625
(17,997 posts)The rest, that hasn't already been changed, has held to the test of time. It's a living document, not etched in stone. It's difficult to change, as it should be, but it can and has a changed. Or should we still say slaves are only 3/5 of a person?
Response to marym625 (Reply #315)
friendly_iconoclast This message was self-deleted by its author.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)You can find out by reading my posts and replies.
It is such an assumptive, loaded, bullshit, question. It deserves no response but I decided to give you one anyway.
I'm positive I'm doing more than you, about anything political
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...aside from getting those that already agreed with you to reiterate their support?
marym625
(17,997 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)You are of course also free to alert on any post.
You are not free to demand others agree with you, or to dictate what questions you may be asked in a thread in General Discussion. So, for the third time:
What concrete results have you achieved towards repealing the Second Amendment
and/or eliminating civilian gun ownership?
marym625
(17,997 posts)And I know exactly what I'm allowed to do, thank you.
I would respond to your question if you weren't being so unbelievably self righteous and lost the holier than thou attitude. You just jumped right past my question about a certain changed amendment after your earlier ridiculous question.
So, I think I will just keep responding in kind without a direct response to your question.
beevul
(12,194 posts)It does restrict only government, and authorizes nothing.
Response to Omnith (Reply #247)
olddots This message was self-deleted by its author.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)I despise people who put objects of destruction ahead of human lives. We have not gone 8 days without a mass shooting this year. 60, 60! children have died from gunshots this year alone.
So they fall back on slimy justifications of the 2nd Amendment because they lack any other moral authority. I don't give a rat's ass that they are perfectly legal. I DON'T CARE IF THEY ARE LEGAL. I WANT THEM GONE. I WANT PEOPLE TO STOP DYING AND I WANT GUN NUTS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT EASY ACCESS TO GUNS IS THE PROBLEM.
Otherwise, shut the fuck up about the 2nd Amendment. Just shut up. Now. You are not helping.
CTyankee
(63,903 posts)they all learned to say "pesky" to make you look ridiculous for ignoring the obvious (their meaning, not mine). They will start using it any time now, just you wait and see...yup, we're supposed to throw up our hands and say "there's nothing we can do because of that pesky 2nd Amendment!
If you wait long enough that word will come up in an argument with them. I'm just surprised I haven't seen it yet this time around...just remember, you heard it here...
beevul
(12,194 posts)I would rather think, that instead of doing that, that you guys would look for ways to reduce gun violence and all violence for that matter, outside of gun control. Instead, you guys certainly seem to have no interest in the path of least resistance, and seem focused strictly, and solely on gun control, where you encounter the most resistance.
That gives the very real impression, when combined with the annual reduction in firearm homicides, that its only the guns you guys are interested in going after.
Oh...the false premise? That's this:
The 'gun control or nothing' premise so many of you seem to be proceeding from.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Notice how States with the least restrictions have the highest number of children being shot.
randys1
(16,286 posts)the fun the toy provides.
If my racing game on PS3 and wheel that I bought to play it caused deaths, I would have to give up my toy.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Thank you.
And we can't ever forget what an actual toy has been allowed to excuse, Tamir Rice's murder.
randys1
(16,286 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)I'll continue to talk about and defend the 2A, I will not 'shut the fuck up. Now'. I will continue to express my opinion.
Don't like it?
Too bad, deal with it.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)No one here is obliged to defer to self-righteousness and moral panic-mongering
beevul
(12,194 posts)I despise proceeding from the false premise that its a matter of guns vs human lives. That premise is clearly false.
You haven't the moral authority to make that claim. Just because the anti-gun talking point manual tells you to claim moral authority, does not mean its yours to claim, and in this case, it certainly isn't.
Too bad, tens of millions of others care quite a lot about keeping them legal.
There can be only one proper response to that:
Then take it up with the people doing the killing, and leave the 99+ percent of us who own guns and aren't killing anyone alone.
Not a single one of us is going to acknowledge that, because it isn't the truth, or a fact.
You might as well be asking us to acknowledge that the world is flat, water is highly flammable, and theres a man in the moon.
Negative ghost rider. We are just as entitled to our opinions, and speaking them, as you are yours.
And we will continue to do so, whether you like it or not.
roamer65
(36,745 posts)You have to take a class or two, but you can get a permit to own and have one in your home. But Canada does not even remotely have same problems we do with guns. I really think we need to start a national dialogue about why we live in fear of each other so much. The guns are simply a vehicle through which Americans are acting out a deeper national sickness.
Lots of violence, and guns aren't causing the violence. Not sure what is, but blaming it on guns is lazy and ignores the real problem.
marym625
(17,997 posts)However, part of the problem is here, you don't have to take a class and often need nothing but the money to buy it
Mira
(22,380 posts)