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.You've missed my point. Claiming that restricting gun access would reduce the occurrence of gun killings is akin to claiming that restricting car access would reduce the occurrence of car killings, or reducing pipe access would reduce pipe bomb killings. All are 'tools' addressing the problem by attacking its symptoms. It assumes someone who is willing to steal a rifle to inflict damage would not use a car for the same goal. It also makes several statistical conclusions that are not supported by the literature. This is not a tool, its a political distraction. Secondly, Im not claiming that identifying individuals at risk of violence is a task for health care professionals. Im stating that its a general failing in our society, that our attitudes in mental health keep people with issues isolated, until the problem is much more serious. Like you said, someone 'labelled' with mental health issues is stigmatized.
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.Exactly Mac, background checks, eliminating multiple round clips, registering firearms, mandatory gun safety classes for new owners, better safety measures for storing weapons, e.g. Gun locks, improved health care for mental patients, neighborhood watch organizations with parameters (watching and reporting, not gun toting), prevention of felons from ever legally owning a firearm, and better control over addictive drugs (an epidemic here as most gun crimes are due to illegal drug sales), will greatly reduce the incidence of gun crimes IMO. As you mentioned, use every measure of prevention, not just one or two. Taken together it will keep guns where they belong, at the range or in the field. I would like to quote the stats on this proposition but there are none yet because it's never been done in this country and probably won't be at least in my lifetime. As a frightening anecdote, a mother whose child attends the first grade with my granddaughter posted on Facebook that she bought her seven year old son an assault rifle for his birthday so that he can take it with him on his four wheeler. Gun owners here are buying them up as fast as dealers are putting them on the shelves and hundreds of rounds of ammunition as well, fearing that the "government" will pass laws preventing sales. Cap't Jack
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. Im not claiming any cause and effect here. Im stating that the literature on gun control reducing violent crime is highly contentious with both sides claiming anomalies as evidence. The assumption on this thread, (and your previous post) is that gun control is (one of several) tools against mass killings.
You’ve missed my point. Claiming that restricting gun access would reduce the occurrence of gun killings is akin to claiming that restricting car access would reduce the occurrence of car killings, or reducing pipe access would reduce pipe bomb killings. All are ‘tools’ addressing the problem by attacking its symptoms. It assumes someone who is willing to steal a rifle to inflict damage would not use a car for the same goal. It also makes several statistical conclusions that are not supported by the literature. This is not a tool, its a political distraction.Please show the statistics that confirm your contention about mass killings by automobile. How many cars in the US have slammed into schools killing 26 people? How many cars have driven into movie theaters killing and wounding 78? Your analogy is a non sequitur. I can kill a human with a flatiron or a rock for that matter. So what? Aside from the occasional deaths by whatever one calls a weapon, it still doesn't add up to killing by rapid fire rifles. there are now over 300 million weapons in this country and many more being made and sold as we speak. The incidence of accidental killing and suicide by gun is up and climbing (see Factcheck.org). Not many people blow themselves up with pipe bombs kill themselves with automobiles. Cap't Jack
Given that 60% of gun deaths are suicides, and three quarters of the remaining homicides involve illegally obtained handguns involving a tiny fraction of the population, then most of your 'preventions' will have absolutely no effect. It should also be mentioned that promoting even further restriction on drugs would *reduce* gun violence is ludicrous, when politicians and citizens everywhere are finally admitting to the failed 'war on drugs'. Nobody would burgle your home to feed their $1 a day crack addiction for example. Stopping the war on drugs would probably have the *LARGEST* single reduction in gun crime of all suggestions proposed so far. You can't promote a wholesale reduction of peoples liberties when you yourself admit "I would like to quote the stats on this proposition but there are none yet because it's never been done in this country ". That's just scary.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.Exactly Mac, background checks, eliminating multiple round clips, registering firearms, mandatory gun safety classes for new owners, better safety measures for storing weapons, e.g. Gun locks, improved health care for mental patients, neighborhood watch organizations with parameters (watching and reporting, not gun toting), prevention of felons from ever legally owning a firearm, and better control over addictive drugs (an epidemic here as most gun crimes are due to illegal drug sales), will greatly reduce the incidence of gun crimes IMO. As you mentioned, use every measure of prevention, not just one or two. Taken together it will keep guns where they belong, at the range or in the field. I would like to quote the stats on this proposition but there are none yet because it's never been done in this country and probably won't be at least in my lifetime. As a frightening anecdote, a mother whose child attends the first grade with my granddaughter posted on Facebook that she bought her seven year old son an assault rifle for his birthday so that he can take it with him on his four wheeler. Gun owners here are buying them up as fast as dealers are putting them on the shelves and hundreds of rounds of ammunition as well, fearing that the "government" will pass laws preventing sales. Cap't Jack
Please show the statistics that confirm your contention about mass killings by automobile. How many cars in the US have slammed into schools killing 26 people? How many cars have driven into movie theaters killing and wounding 78? Your analogy is a non sequitur. I can kill a human with a flatiron or a rock for that matter. So what? Aside from the occasional deaths by whatever one calls a weapon, it still doesn't add up to killing by rapid fire rifles. there are now over 300 million weapons in this country and many more being made and sold as we speak. The incidence of accidental killing and suicide by gun is up and climbing (see Factcheck.org). Not many people blow themselves up with pipe bombs kill themselves with automobiles.The fact that most current mass killings (itself a infinitesimal fraction of all homicides) is done by automatic assault rifle in no way shape or form means that sick individuals couldn't engage in vehicular rampages, or am I missing something? School shootings were also non-existent before the first incident, then a few later, and it became a sad meme. Are you actually suggesting that if and when vehicular rampages become prevalent, sweeping restrictions on car access should be implemented? You're just playing whack-a-mole with underlying societal problems in that case.
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). [/] Right, so why do we have car registration, driver's licenses and traffic laws? Why not just throw up our hands and say "No amount restrictions on automobile ownership and driving rules will stop mentally disturbed individuals from slaughtering people with their cars? So let's just have a free for all. Anybody can own a car and anybody can drive it as recklessly as he pleases. Should we have the same attitude toward bombs, too? why not? No amoint of bomb control is going to stop mentally disturbed individuals from obtaining bombs or making them and slaughtering people with them.[/] Rbarros: 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. Lois: Yes, mental health issues often go unrecognized and more should be done for people with. Mental health problems. But allowing them ease iof access to guns is not going to help them and will endanger many people. You're right about it being shameless politics, but you're wrong about the source of that shamelessness, it's on the side of the anti-gun control lobby.
Given that 60% of gun deaths are suicides, and three quarters of the remaining homicides involve illegally obtained handguns involving a tiny fraction of the population, then most of your ‘preventions’ will have absolutely no effect. It should also be mentioned that promoting even further restriction on drugs would *reduce* gun violence is ludicrous, when politicians and citizens everywhere are finally admitting to the failed ‘war on drugs’. Nobody would burgle your home to feed their $1 a day crack addiction for example. Stopping the war on drugs would probably have the *LARGEST* single reduction in gun crime of all suggestions proposed so far. You can’t promote a wholesale reduction of peoples liberties when you yourself admit “I would like to quote the stats on this proposition but there are none yet because it’s never been done in this country “. That’s just scary.I've already stated that there are no statistics as yet that confirm the efficacy of ALL of the measures taken together and your stat only confirms lethality of available weapons in the US. I'm assuming that your figure was obtained from wiki, and what do you mean by "a tiny fraction"? Of guns obtained illegally? And as the reference to a one dollar daily crack addiction, you seem to have no idea as to the street cost of these drugs (meth, Oxycodone, cocaine, heroin) and their link to gun trafficking leading to violent deaths. I'm not talking about the "war" on drugs linvolving recreational drugs like marajuana but to highly addictive drugs traded for weapons in states with lax laws for later resale, making their way to felons and gangs. And this idea of wholesale reduction of people's liberties is as you mention, ludicrous. No one here, least of all a gun owner is proposing a law to ban your weapons, just limit the number bullets in your clips. And as to gun violence by felons who obtain them illegally see here: http://gunvictimsaction.org/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-illegal-gun-trafficking-arms-criminals-and-youth/ Cap't Jack
The fact that most current mass killings (itself a infinitesimal fraction of all homicides) is done by automatic assault rifle in no way shape or form means that sick individuals couldn’t engage in vehicular rampages, or am I missing something? School shootings were also non-existent before the first incident, then a few later, and it became a sad meme. Are you actually suggesting that if and when vehicular rampages become prevalent, sweeping restrictions on car access should be implemented? You’re just playing whack-a-mole with underlying societal problems in that case.You seem to be missing it all! Once again a non sequitur. Yes, sick individuals COULD use a vehicle to committ mass killings but how many of these have actually occurred? Stats please. And how long ago was that first incident to which you refer? It happened in Manitoba in 1902, hardly a recent meme don't you think? So you're predicting that in the future mental patients MIGHT mow down innocent citizens with a car? It sounds like you're playing strawman. And if I'm playing whack-a-mole I plan to cover every hole. Cap't Jack
It assumes someone who is willing to steal a rifle to inflict damage would not use a car for the same goal.We don't need to make that assumption to come to the conclusion that gun control would be a useful tool. All we need to assume is that some people who would commit mayhem with a gun might choose not to if forced to use another method or additionally that some people who would use an automatic weapon to kill lots of people may be somewhat less efficient if forced to choose a different weapon. Any improvement at all means that gun control has some utility and therefor may have a useful role in controlling violence. I think those are reasonable assumptions and since there is little to lose by trying it does not seem logical to oppose reasonable limitations without good reason. There is probably less evidence that we can reduce these killings with better mental health care and yet you and I are both willing to admit its worth a try.
Secondly, Im not claiming that identifying individuals at risk of violence is a task for health care professionals. Im stating that its a general failing in our society, that our attitudes in mental health keep people with issues isolated, until the problem is much more serious. Like you said, someone 'labelled' with mental health issues is stigmatized.We agree on that point
Its not the gun or knife kills, its the person who intent to kill people. Why they want to kill people? Its because they want to take revenge? or They just out of there mind? One thing they must bear in mind that killing people is a sin. Killing people is a big murder. Killing innocent people is a big NO! NO! We must now have weapon control to avoid such thing like that.
Someone sent me this story:
She walked up, and tied her old mule to the hitch rail. As she stood there, brushing some of the dust from her face and clothes, a young gunslinger stepped out of the saloon with a gun in one hand and a bottle of whiskey in the other.
The young gunslinger looked at the old woman and laughed, asking, “Hey, old woman, have you ever danced?”
The old woman looked up at the gunslinger and said, “No, I never did dance… never really wanted to.”
A crowd had gathered as the gunslinger grinned and said, “Well, you old bag, you’re gonna dance now,” and started shooting at the old woman’s feet. The old woman prospector - not wanting to get her toe blown off, started hopping around. Everybody was laughing. When his last bullet had been fired, the young gunslinger, still laughing, holstered his gun and turned around to go back into the saloon.
The old woman turned to her pack mule, pulled out a double-barreled shotgun, and cocked both hammers. The loud clicks carried clearly through the desert air. The crowd stopped laughing immediately.
The young gunslinger heard the sounds too, and he turned around very slowly. The silence was almost deafening. The crowd watched as the young gunman stared at the old woman and the large gaping holes of those twin gun barrels. The barrels of the shotgun never wavered in the old woman’s hands, as she quietly said, “Son, have you ever licked a mule’s butt?”
The gunslinger swallowed hard and said, “No m’am… but… I’ve always wanted to.”
There are a few lessons for us all here:
1 - never be arrogant.
2 - don’t waste ammunition. especially when a single shot is all that’s needed.
3 - whiskey and testosterone makes you think you’re smarter than you are.
4 - Always, always make sure you know who has the power.
5 - don’t mess with old women; they didn’t get old by being stupid.
Occam
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.Would have to disagree here. That is not strict constructionist interpretation as I understand it. By that standard, the Commerce Clause would only apply to the commerce of the time, and the phrase "the people" would mean only the people alive at the time. And where the Constitution gives the Congress the power to raise an army and a navy would only mean an army and navy using the weapons and ships of the time. And free speech would only apply to things like quills and paper. What conservatives tend to be against is the idea that you "read into" the Constitution and find things that are not there, and disregard those aspects of the Constitution that you don't like. That is dangerous. The Left have a problem with doing this regarding aspects of the Constitution that they don't like, but then railing about when they perceive aspects of it they do like being infringed upon (ex. the Bush administration and things like waterboarding, Guantanomo Bay, etc...). Also, they did have repeating guns back then, just they were rarer.
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!The notion that the Constitution is supposed to be unchanging is a misunderstanding many have. It is very much meant to change. That is one of the very flexible aspects about it that the Founders built into it. But the change is done via the amendment process. It is not supposed to be changeable where you just claim that you can let the government do this or that because you want it to (as some seem to think). A textbook example of this misunderstanding was during the 2008 presidential election, when John McCain was on the show "The View" and said he'd like to appoint strict constructionist justices. Whoopie Goldberg responded (paraphrasing as I may be forgetting her exact quote): "Well...then do I need to worry about becoming a slave?" The crowd applauded and McCain showed his own ignorance of the subject by trying to comfort her on it. What he should have pointed out is that that would be impossible with strict constructionists on the Court, because via the 13th Amendment, read in its literal meaning, slavery is illegal. It's in plain English: Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. I think some have the impression that strict constructionism means interpreting the Constitution as it was originally written and ignoring all the amendments. But by that standard, the First and Second Amendments would have to be ignored then as well!
Exactly Mac, background checks, eliminating multiple round clips, registering firearms, mandatory gun safety classes for new owners, better safety measures for storing weapons, e.g. Gun locks, improved health care for mental patients, neighborhood watch organizations with parameters (watching and reporting, not gun toting), prevention of felons from ever legally owning a firearm, and better control over addictive drugs (an epidemic here as most gun crimes are due to illegal drug sales), will greatly reduce the incidence of gun crimes IMO.A registry infringes on the entire concept of arms as a human right. Also, historically registries have always been used for confiscation purposes and we have seen confiscation happen in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and also people like Dianne Feinstein and Governor Cuomo have talked about it. In addition, we have seen just now with the IRS and the Justice Department how government officials are prone to abusing their power. Universal background checks are fine in principle, but in practice they require the creation of a federal gun registry. Some say that this would not be possible due to the laws in place that make such a registry illegal, but those laws have been hard-fought for by gun rights people and could be repealed in the future at some point. By "multiple round clips," I am assuming you mean what are called "detachable box magazines." Eliminating detachable box magazines would infringe severely on a person's right to self-defense. Regarding limiting magazine size, there is a reason police like standard-capacity magazines in their guns. The hit ratio in shootouts is about 30% and it can take multiple shots to down a person, especially if they are high on a drug of some type, enraged, some combination of both, etc...when shot, the only thing that will stop a person is significant enough blood loss or a significant drop in blood pressure to affect the oxygen going to the brain. Otherwise, the body is usually fully capable of operating long enough for the attacker to kill someone. Police have been killed for this reason. Limiting the magazine size only affects the person protecting themselves, not the shooter. The Virginia Tech shooting was conducted with handguns, one that held ten round magazines and the other fifteen round magazines. The person affected is the person who has their home broken into and then has to make due with the magazine that they have in the gun. They don't have to time to be strapping on a belt with magazine pouches with extra magazines or anything like that. Gun locks are already a common feature included with the purchase of many guns.
As a frightening anecdote, a mother whose child attends the first grade with my granddaughter posted on Facebook that she bought her seven year old son an assault rifle for his birthday so that he can take it with him on his four wheeler. Gun owners here are buying them up as fast as dealers are putting them on the shelves and hundreds of rounds of ammunition as well, fearing that the "government" will pass laws preventing sales.She was wrong. Actual assault rifles are rare and their manufacture for civilians has been outlawed since 1986. What she probably meant was a weapon that just has a scary "assault rifle" appearance is all. How the gun appears is meaningless though. To be an assault rifle, it must have automatic fire capability (i.e. a machine gun). Guns manufactured for the civilian market are all semiautomatic (in layman's terms, one shot for each pull of the trigger) and per regulations of the ATF, must also be made where one cannot easily convert them to be capable of automatic fire.
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 would argue that the language of the Second Amendment is actually very clear, the problem is just a lack of knowledge on its wording by many these days. The Second Amendment reads: "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. The first part that tends to confuse people is the phrase "well-regulated." It did not possess the meaning that the word regulate possesses in modern times. At the time, it meant "well-trained," or "in good working order." A modern usage could be for example, a "well-regulated engine." The word "militia" refers to the general body of citizens. Alexander Hamilton talks about this in Federalist Paper #29, "The Regulation of the Militia," where he talks about how it would be nearly impossible for the militia to be trained up to have the "character of a well-regulated militia:" By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government. It is observed that select corps may be formed, composed of the young and ardent, who may be rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power. What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government, is impossible to be foreseen. But so far from viewing the matter in the same light with those who object to select corps as dangerous, were the Constitution ratified, and were I to deliver my sentiments to a member of the federal legislature from this State on the subject of a militia establishment, I should hold to him, in substance, the following discourse: "The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. In addition, The Random House College Dictionary (1980) and the Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989 gives this as one of the definitions. On the meaning of the word "militia" itself, we can also look to the other areas of the Constitution where the word is used: Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 read as follows: 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; And the 5th Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Note how the militia is spoken of as a pre-existing entity. The phrase "the people" is in reference to an individual right, as the phrase "the people" is used in reference to individual rights everywhere else it is used in the Constitution. It wouldn't have made much sense to randomly use it in reference to a collective right in one area of the Constitution, and also to use it in the second amendment of a list of ten amendments. When the Constitution refers to states rights, it says so explicitly. Regarding the word "arms," essentially that meant the weapons in common usage amongst the citizens that would be used for self-defense and militia duty. Remember, they did have the concept of biological weapons back then, as the practice of tossing plague-infested bodies and so forth over the walls of castles and cities is an ancient practice. But the Founders did not mean one has a right to keep plague in their home (so the Second Amendment does not mean one has a right to a biological, nuclear, or chemical weapon, or a battle tank, grenades, bombs, etc...indiscriminate weapons).
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? Actual automatic fire weapons are extremely rare. They have been regulated since 1934 and the manufacture of them for the civilian market was ended in 1986. You can own ones made pre-1986, but to do so requires a very extensive background check, multiple fingerprintings, plus there's about a six month waiting period, and it will cost you a lot more since such weapons are rarer.
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.The meaning of the phrase "militia" is pretty clear now, as there has been a large amount of scholarship conducted on the issue since the 1970s. Also see my posts above. The NRA's position is pretty spot-on I would 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.The types of weapons available today had been around for quite awhile long before mass shootings started occurring. Widespread use of repeating arms goes all the way back to the 1840s, and by the late 19th century, revolver handguns and lever-action and bolt-action rifles were in wide use (bolt-actions still are). Semiautomatic rifles were invented in the late 1800s, and semiautomatic rifles with detachable box magazines became available to civilians in the first decade of the 20th century. Semiautomatic handguns have been around since the late 19th century as well. 12 gauge pump-action shotguns were invented in 1898. Automatic fire pistols (machine pistols/sub-machine guns) were widely available in the 1920s via the infamous General Thompson sub-machine gun, aka the "Tommy Gun." You could actually buy these in a regular hardware store throughout the 1920s. But mass shootings were extremely rare. Due to the St. Valentine's Day massacre, automatic fire weapons came under heavily regulation in the early 1930s, but even that massacre was of gang members and was all due to the bootlegging wars. Had alcohol never been outlawed in the first place, then the bootlegging wars, and thus that massacre, likely never would have happened. The vast majority of shootings happen with hand guns. The increase in mass shootings today some theorize to be due to a breakdown in the mental health system due to the process of deinstitutionalization that began in the 1960s, as the vast majority of these shootings involve someone who is clearly mentally ill.
Right, so why do we have car registration, driver's licenses and traffic laws? Why not just throw up our hands and say "No amount restrictions on automobile ownership and driving rules will stop mentally disturbed individuals from slaughtering people with their cars? So let's just have a free for all. Anybody can own a car and anybody can drive it as recklessly as he pleases.Cars are not a Constitutionally protected human right that many are very bent on outlawing completely. They are also necessary for society to function. Some would probably like to outlaw them from the masses if they were not required for the function of society. For example, the calls to ban SUVs, or to tax them and/or gasoline to force more people to purchase smaller vehicles. Also, if guns were treated like cars, there would be no background check and a license to operate would be good in all fifty states.
Should we have the same attitude toward bombs, too? why not? No amoint of bomb control is going to stop mentally disturbed individuals from obtaining bombs or making them and slaughtering people with them.Bombs are not arms. Banning them does not infringe on anyone's rights.
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.It wasn't about the states. The militia, being the general population, can be called up by the Congress to repel invasions, suppress insurrections, and so forth. I agree that it isn't a "rebel for free card" though. It doesn't mean one can just take up arms and go overthrow the government because of say something like President Obama's healthcare law. It's more for if the government turns into something equivalent to the Assad regime. the English common law common weapons and firearms are perfectly legitimate extensions of the fundamental right of self-defense.
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."I agree about Locke. Also Sir William Blackstone in his Commentaries. But remember, the Constitution was influenced by people like Locke and the common law.
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.They did not overturn 200 years of interpretation. The Courts never really had addressed the issue until DC v Heller. Also, the Court was 9-0 on whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right. The 5-4 split was just over whether the DC gun law should remain upheld. One could say that the four dissenting justices engaged in a form of judicial activism there.
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.Would have to disagree here. Scalia was adhering to the scholarship regarding the history and meaning of the Second Amendment.
We don't need to make that assumption to come to the conclusion that gun control would be a useful tool. All we need to assume is that some people who would commit mayhem with a gun might choose not to if forced to use another method or additionally that some people who would use an automatic weapon to kill lots of people may be somewhat less efficient if forced to choose a different weapon. Any improvement at all means that gun control has some utility and therefor may have a useful role in controlling violence. I think those are reasonable assumptions and since there is little to lose by trying it does not seem logical to oppose reasonable limitations without good reason.As pointed out in my above posts, automatic weapons are already very controlled and their manufacture since 1986 has been outlawed.
Yes. but it doesn’t take a lot of talent to turn a semi-automatic into an automatic…
We don't need to make that assumption to come to the conclusion that gun control would be a useful tool. All we need to assume is that some people who would commit mayhem with a gun might choose not to if forced to use another method or additionally that some people who would use an automatic weapon to kill lots of people may be somewhat less efficient if forced to choose a different weapon. Any improvement at all means that gun control has some utility and therefor may have a useful role in controlling violence. I think those are reasonable assumptions and since there is little to lose by trying it does not seem logical to oppose reasonable limitations without good reason.As pointed out in my above posts, automatic weapons are already very controlled and their manufacture since 1986 has been outlawed. Why do we have so many automatic weapon mass killings in the US if automatic weapons are outlawed and rare? Why does it seldom happen in countries with strict gun control, including thorough background checks?
Yes. but it doesn't take a lot of talent to turn a semi-automatic into an automatic..My understanding is that it does. All weapons made for sale to civilians in the United States have to be manufactured where they cannot easily be converted into being automatic fire weapons. This is per regulations of the ATF. Any weapon that is easily convertible to being capable of automatic fire is considered under the law as an automatic fire weapon. Otherwise, it takes some serious skill to be able to convert a weapon to automatic fire capability. If not done properly, one can end up with a weapon that will blow up on them. Remember, the cartridges (casing with bullet, propellant (powder), and primer (chemical mixture that upon impact produces heat to ignite the powder)). When the cartridge is in the firing chamber, when the primer is struck and the gun powder ignites, the projectile (bullet) is fired. However, if you ignite the gun powder without the cartridge in the chamber or properly in the chamber, you essentially have a little miniature bomb, and the gun could blow up on you. So converting a gun made to be difficult to convert to automatic fire requires some specialized machining skills and equipment.