In the past two days there have been two cases of four year olds who shot ( in on case killed) someone with a gun that was carelessly left around. That’s reason alone to reconsider the number of guns in our society, but this STORY] grabbed my attention today. Gun advocates are fond of saying the guns dont kill people, people kill people but look at this story and contrast it with what happened at Georgia tech or in Sandy Hook. This individual didnt have gun, just a knife. yes there were 14 people injured but the point is they were “injured”. There are 14 people for the ER to take care of not 14 bodies for the coroner to examine.
And had that been an assault weapon Mac, every one of those fourteen victims would be dead and many more wounded. But the NRA will tout this as an example of how a demented felon can kill or injure innocent victims without a gun. They will say, “what’s next, banning knives”? They’re masters of the non sequitur and the slippery slope.
Cap’t Jack
And had that been an assault weapon Mac, every one of those fourteen victims would be dead and many more wounded. But the NRA will tout this as an example of how a demented felon can kill or injure innocent victims without a gun. They will say, "what's next, banning knives"? They're masters of the non sequitur and the slippery slope. Cap't JackAbsolutely right. Nobody ever said all killings would stop if there is effective gun control. But we know a lot of deaths would be avoided. Judging from their ridiculous arguments, the NRA types are seriously lacking in intellectual ability and they shouldn't have guns! Maybe the best way to control guns is to administer an essay question: Why should we not have strict gun control in this country, state or community. Applicants should be judged on their answer. Everyone should be refused a permit for even a pop gun if he can't come up with an intelligent answer. Anyone who can't the answer question intelligently obviously isn't able to handle a gun properly. (I know it's a pipe dream, but the rant makes me feel better, at least until someone else is killed with a gun, which, unfortunately. shouldn't take more than a few seconds. No rest for the weary!)
I’m a gun owner and a target shooter and I have a perfectly valid proposition to make to all teapartiers and strict constructionist gun owners out there. Conservatives constantly refer to the US Constitution as a document to be literally interpreted as our “Founding Fathers” did in 1787. If we are to honor the thinking of that period (teabaggers often dress in colonial garb during their rallies) I propose that all Americans should be allowed to own as many fire locks and pistoles from the post revolution period as they wish, shipped through the mail, traded at will at gun shows, swap meets and sold to neighbors and friends. Keep the background checks and age limits but absolutely NO registration with the government. These weapons may be used for , hunting, target shooting and personal defense with no permit needed to carry. There are many advantages to be had here, first they’re very inexpensive to fire being about a penny a shot, almost impossible to conceal (no crap about John Wilkes Booth, that was a cap and ball derringer and not allowed) and a single shot weapon. Flints are also very cheap. Any citizen who turns in their modern firearm will receive a voucher for a gun of their choice: Tower, Charleville, Committee of Public Safety, or a Pennsylvania Rifle. Washington should sit up and take notice of this compromise. it’ll end the deadlock while still keeping the citizens fully armed just as our sainted ancestors were against the hated British. Even Jefferson stated that every now and then we need a rebellion. this could be just what we need to defend ourselves from the hated government and their liberal masters.
Cap’t Jack
It was an X-acto knife, though. It’s not a good killing weapon. If he had used most any other knife, there would have been at least a few deaths.
I don’t think so Mike. Remember the rampage in China where a crazed neighbor attacked school kids injuring 21? None of the injuries was fatal. But that’s not the point. Had it been an assault weapon everyone of them would be dead or critically injured and probably many more. You can’t run away from a bullet but you can fron a craft knife. You only get one chance to do harm with a blade but 20 with a bushmaster.
Cap’t Jack
Had it been an assault weapon everyone of them would be dead or critically injured and probably many more. You can't run away from a bullet but you can fron a craft knife. Cap't JackNo disagreement about that, but I think you're misunderstanding me a little. I'm saying it's a stretch to equate this knife attack to a mass shooting with an assault rifle. No one died, and X-acto knives are just not really lethal weapons anyway; obviously some knives are, in the right hands, however. For instance, if this guy had used a hunting knife or steak knife, some of those students would have been killed.
I’ve never read much about it, but it has always struck me that the 2nd amendment is confusing and opaque. It’s seems pretty clear that the group who wrote the constitution could, when they chose, be extremely precise and lucid and I’ve always wondered if the language of the amendment is intentionally vague. Perhaps it was a way to address and yet not address the issue. Early in U.S. history the ruling class was intensely concerned about the possibility of rebellion. Shay’s rebellion had just occurred in 1787, yet I was taught the success Revolutionary war was made much more possible due to the citizenry owning fire arms, and that fire arms were nearly essential on the frontier, (for good and bad reasons), Certainly there must have been some conflicting opinions among the signers. Did the founding fathers palm off the issue onto future generations?
I've never read much about it, but it has always struck me that the 2nd amendment is confusing and opaque. It's seems pretty clear that the group who wrote the constitution could, when they chose, be extremely precise and lucid and I've always wondered if the language of the amendment is intentionally vague. Perhaps it was a way to address and yet not address the issue. Early in U.S. history the ruling class was intensely concerned about the possibility of rebellion. Shay's rebellion had just occurred in 1787, yet I was taught the success Revolutionary war was made much more possible due to the citizenry owning fire arms, and that fire arms were nearly essential on the frontier, (for good and bad reasons), Certainly there must have been some conflicting opinions among the signers. Did the founding fathers palm off the issue onto future generations?Jeciron here's my 2 cents: The authors wrote that amendment at a time when there were no armament factories. Guns were made in small quantities by small shops who hand built them. The need to raise armies or militia was dependent on how many guns could be had. Guns were supplied by the British and French from their somewhat more advanced manufacturing "plants" but overall the Founding Fathers also had to rely pretty heavily on the privately owned weapons of civilians. So...writing this amendment at that time(a revolution) it is easy to see that they would want to reinforce the importance of having an armed citizenry. Here's an analogy: Let's say a Restaurant was writing a list of rules and imperatives. And they were writing it at the time of their grand opening. At the time of the grand opening they got an unexpected influx of business. One of their prime ingredients for their most desired dish was eggs. During the peak of their business rush eggs almost ran out. They had made arrangements to secure eggs from suppliers, but at 1 or 2 times the eggs almost didn't come through. There was a small panic. If they ran out of eggs they would be finished. Now in the back room of the restaurant while this busy rush is happening a guy is writing the laws and rules of the restaurant. As his second rule on the list he writes: Always be well supplied with eggs! The restaurant succeeds into the future and obviously obtaining eggs is never a problem again. The restaurant owners look back at the second law about eggs and have a good chuckle... remembering their panic. The other very important factor is they wrote that amendment when they were organizing a temporary army. They made very little plans for armies and didn't envision an army after the revolution. There was an army in name I suppose but it was never large...the Founders just envisioned a citizen militia for the most part. It was very ad hoc. You had to bring your own gun and horse for the most part. I'm sure you knew this already though.
No disagreement about that, but I think you’re misunderstanding me a little. I’m saying it’s a stretch to equate this knife attack to a mass shooting with an assault rifle. No one died, and X-acto knives are just not really lethal weapons anyway; obviously some knives are, in the right hands, however. For instance, if this guy had used a hunting knife or steak knife, some of those students would have been killed.Possibly, and it would depend on where he stabbed them. In this case in the neck and head. If he cut the carotid artery, definitely and his chances with a hunting knife would be much higher. But I still contend that you can run from a knife and after seeing someone stabbed, students have one of two choices, fight the guy or run. Most would run. And if you aren't trained to use a knife as he clearly wasn't, he was deaf too, chances are the potential victims would survive. Anyway, who knows how to knife fight these days? Cap't Jack
I'm a gun owner and a target shooter and I have a perfectly valid proposition to make to all teapartiers and strict constructionist gun owners out there. Conservatives constantly refer to the US Constitution as a document to be literally interpreted as our "Founding Fathers" did in 1787. If we are to honor the thinking of that period (teabaggers often dress in colonial garb during their rallies) I propose that all Americans should be allowed to own as many fire locks and pistoles from the post revolution period as they wish, shipped through the mail, traded at will at gun shows, swap meets and sold to neighbors and friends. Keep the background checks and age limits but absolutely NO registration with the government. These weapons may be used for , hunting, target shooting and personal defense with no permit needed to carry. There are many advantages to be had here, first they're very inexpensive to fire being about a penny a shot, almost impossible to conceal (no crap about John Wilkes Booth, that was a cap and ball derringer and not allowed) and a single shot weapon. Flints are also very cheap. Any citizen who turns in their modern firearm will receive a voucher for a gun of their choice: Tower, Charleville, Committee of Public Safety, or a Pennsylvania Rifle. Washington should sit up and take notice of this compromise. it'll end the deadlock while still keeping the citizens fully armed just as our sainted ancestors were against the hated British. Even Jefferson stated that every now and then we need a rebellion. this could be just what we need to defend ourselves from the hated government and their liberal masters. Cap't JackThey should also be required show up once a week for state militia drill. Spelling again.
Yep, and on the village green as was specifically stated. BTW Gary, have you ever visited where it all began? Lex. Mass. Shouldn’t be all that far I would think. But I’ve never visited your neck of the woods. But if you have any interest in Am. Hst it’s a trip to stand on the spot!
Cap’t Jack
It was an X-acto knife, though. It's not a good killing weapon. If he had used most any other knife, there would have been at least a few deaths.Ok, and how many deaths if he'd had a fully loaded automatic weapon?
I've never read much about it, but it has always struck me that the 2nd amendment is confusing and opaque. It's seems pretty clear that the group who wrote the constitution could, when they chose, be extremely precise and lucid and I've always wondered if the language of the amendment is intentionally vague. Perhaps it was a way to address and yet not address the issue. Early in U.S. history the ruling class was intensely concerned about the possibility of rebellion. Shay's rebellion had just occurred in 1787, yet I was taught the success Revolutionary war was made much more possible due to the citizenry owning fire arms, and that fire arms were nearly essential on the frontier, (for good and bad reasons), Certainly there must have been some conflicting opinions among the signers. Did the founding fathers palm off the issue onto future generations?The Constitution was ratified by people haggling over every phrase and making changes every step of the way get the votes they needed. Many probably said "Take this out," "Take that out," "Put this in'" "Put that in," "Change this" "Change that," or we won't vote for it. It's amazing that the Constitution is as coherent as it is. The state representatives meant something by putting in the phrase about the militia. It probably wasn't what we think it was--certainly not what the NRA thinks it was. We will never know exactly what they meant to say. I doubt they were palming anything off to future generations. The sighners knew what it meant, even if we don't. But we're stuck with it. I doubt they would have written it the way they did if they could have imagined how it would be interpreted today and what kinds of weapons would be available to citizens and that citizens with no connection at all to a militia would be able to arm themselves as if they were small independent armies. I'm sure the would never have written the 2nd amendment as they did if they had a clue about the gun related crimes we would have in the 20th and 21st centuries,including mass killings. They couldn't have imagined it in their wildest nightmares or they would have written restrictions into it, as any intelligent body would have.
I'm a gun owner and a target shooter and I have a perfectly valid proposition to make to all teapartiers and strict constructionist gun owners out there. Conservatives constantly refer to the US Constitution as a document to be literally interpreted as our "Founding Fathers" did in 1787. If we are to honor the thinking of that period (teabaggers often dress in colonial garb during their rallies) I propose that all Americans should be allowed to own as many fire locks and pistoles from the post revolution period as they wish, shipped through the mail, traded at will at gun shows, swap meets and sold to neighbors and friends. Keep the background checks and age limits but absolutely NO registration with the government. These weapons may be used for , hunting, target shooting and personal defense with no permit needed to carry. There are many advantages to be had here, first they're very inexpensive to fire being about a penny a shot, almost impossible to conceal (no crap about John Wilkes Booth, that was a cap and ball derringer and not allowed) and a single shot weapon. Flints are also very cheap. Any citizen who turns in their modern firearm will receive a voucher for a gun of their choice: Tower, Charleville, Committee of Public Safety, or a Pennsylvania Rifle. Washington should sit up and take notice of this compromise. it'll end the deadlock while still keeping the citizens fully armed just as our sainted ancestors were against the hated British. Even Jefferson stated that every now and then we need a rebellion. this could be just what we need to defend ourselves from the hated government and their liberal masters. Cap't JackYes, an excellent idea, Jack. Here's an indication what the founding Fathers meant when they spoke of a militia and the right to bear arms in the 2nd amendment. From the Militia Act of 1792: I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.
Yes, an excellent idea, Jack. Here’s an indication what the founding Fathers meant when they spoke of a militia and the right to bear arms in the 2nd amendment.Good job Lois! Impressive research and very applicable today especially if you're a teaparty constitutional unionist (new group BTW at least on facebook) and I'm not kidding about the proposition. If they want to live by the "book" so to speak then they should own the same weapons. Likewise conservative fundamentalists should stone me to death for apostasy, it's in the book, the inerrant word of god as is the constitution, god inspired and therefore sacred and unchanging, although James Madison added a few amendments! Cap't Jack
It was an X-acto knife, though. It's not a good killing weapon. If he had used most any other knife, there would have been at least a few deaths.Ok, and how many deaths if he'd had a fully loaded automatic weapon? I feel its wholly distracting to compare killing efficiency of guns to knives. China has had much more "successful" axe attacks in the last two years, and three thousand people lost their life with a box cutter to be blunt, not to mention how some of the most dangerous spots have the highest gun ctonrol. More importantly what would happen had someone driven their car over a crowd of people, or even children? Would the same argument still apply? How many tens of thousands of areas in the country are vulnerable to such vehicular attacks? Its much easier to borrow a car then purchase a gun for most people. Argue the founding fathers did not envision any 16 year old could access and operate a high speed two tonne tank known as the family car. The sad truth is no amount of gun control will stop mentally disturbed individuals from slaughtering groups of people with cars, pipe bombs, arson, (or even guns). Pat yourselves on the back about how dumbs the republicans teabaggers is, but you're all ignoring the common denominator behind each of these mass killings: how mental health issues go unrecognised and even shunned in today's society. Thats the top priority, the rest is shameless politics.
I think the real problem here is that people often portray this as an “either/ or” issue as though there is any one solution that is going to make the problem go away. Statements to the effect that “gun control won’t stop killings” may be true but they overlook the fact that the same statement can be applied to any proposed solution. Better mental health care isn;t going to make the problem go away. Arming every citizen isn’t going to make the problem go away. The plain fact is that nothing is going to stop killings like these but there are many things we can do to diminish them. Arguing against a particular recommendation simply because its not the complete solution misses the point and is not productive.
Yes we need to do better with mental health care but that alone will not solve the problem. It is extremely naive to assume that health care professionals can identify all the individuals who may commit a heinous crime and do so without inadvertently labeling many harmless people as dangerous. And what will become of the innocent people with mental problems who now have to deal with a society that has labeled them potentially dangerous? Will that make their mental illness worse? Will mentally ill patients forgo treatment to avoid the stigma of possibly being labelled as dangerous? This isn’t a problem with a simple solution. We are not even close to having a method by which we can tell who will commit a violent crime and who won’t if they don;t already have a history of doing so.
If we want to do a better job of reducing mass killings like this we need to use as many tools as possible. That includes better mental health care but it also includes putting road blocks up so its not easy for people to obtain weapons of mass destruction like guns with 30 round clips. There may be other novel and innovative ways to attack this problem as well but none of them alone will ever solve the problem. We need to use all the tools we have instead of pretending there might be one single answer.
I am a gun rights advocate, who is also sane enough to know all rights come with various regulations and that the government must specify limits to all rights if they are to be maintained in the face of competing rights. There is no absolute right of anything. Founders, knew it and we should too. 2nders should know this, most support capital punishment- the most obvious example of the proscription of an “inalienable right.”
That being said, I think gun advocates generally get the 2nd wrong. The foundational bedrock of individual gun ownership really isn’t the 2nd amendment. It clearly spoke about firearms in relationship to the militia, which can be federalized and commanded at anytime by those that are supposedly held in check buy it. The 2nd is not a “rebel for free card” to be wielded by individuals. It is a balanced approach to share the power of the sword between state and federal sovereignty.
I still believe in an individual right to gun ownership, but the real legal justification for individual ownership is to be found in the common law, and thus is part of criminal code, not Constitutional law. Locke and others in the canon of English common law have long argued that common weapons and firearms are legitimate extensions of the right to self defense in the face of lethal threat. English common law is often very practical. In the case of self defense, it is necessary to be protected in both the right to self defense as well as the practical capacity or ability to protect yourself. Otherwise, self defense is merely a war of might makes right and individuals are at the mercy of whoever is physically dominating over them- or in other words- a tyranny of the brutes. If young, old, weak, women, etc are to have a functioning right to self defense and not just a theoretical one- they may need to have common weapons at their disposal to balance their relationship to the “brutes.” Of course what is a common weapon requires government regulation and scrutiny- or it too can become a tyranny of the “most heavily armed.”
This interpretation of gun rights held sway in American courts all the way until the Heller decision, when by a bare majority of 5-4 changed 200 hundred years of interpretation. Heller (Scalia’s opinion) held that the 2nd did cover individual right to guns outside of militia service. The dissents railed against this new construction. I think the dissent is correct. 2nd protects and regulates collective need and militia service, common law protects and regulates private use.
Either way, at least Scalia held that like other rights, it can be regulated even under the 2nd. In my opinion Heller has really empowered something I think will be seen as blatant politicizing of the SCOTUS in future generations. The discussion of individual gun rights properly belongs to common law, not constitutional law, and that decision muddled the legal framework for political agendas- pure and simple.
When I hear the right complain about judicial activism and revisionism I think about Heller and “In God We Trust” and rewriting the Pledge of Allegiance and the Tea Party movement and all I can think is Shakespeare: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” The folks who favor literal interpretation love to rewrite things to their advantage- Bibles, Constitutions, history, science- you name it.
not to mention how some of the most dangerous spots have the highest gun ctonrol.You need to be careful about making arguments like this one since you are assuming a given cause and effect with no logical reason or data to support that conclusion. It can easily be turned around and interpreted very differently. For example: Is it any surprise that we have enacted the strictest gun controls in areas that are the most dangerous? Its like implying Ice cream Parlors cause hot weather because it always gets warm after they open for the season. You are assuming a given cause and effect relationship ie that gun control should have lead to lower crime rates and didnt when in fact it may simply and more likely be that higher crime rates lead to the enactment of stricter gun control. Whether gun control lead to higher, lower, or unchanged crime rates in the area would at the very least require a before and after analysis but even that would be subject to flaws since we don't know what the natural trend would have been had no intervention been attempted. At any rate, despite the implied conclusion, nothing can be determined from the original statement one way or the other.