Goodness sakes…I did that MANY posts ago. This is called the reductio ad absurdum, right?
The Buffalo killer was placed on 36 hour hold for making threats on a school, then let go. A few months ago a UCLA student was randomly stabbed to death in the store where she worked. The mentally ill transient had been in and out of custody for years, basically a career criminal. We’ve had people pushed in front of trains. More insane and violent people need to be kept institutionalized.
10 Likes
I realize one thing: there are CLEAR limits to the Second Amendment.
Where would you propose to draw the line?
Without that, shall we let it be unfettered so that any individual can have the unfettered right to bear “arms”, including WMD? Is that what you’re saying?
No I’m saying that in the Supreme Court Heller decision they specifically stated
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited . [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
3 Likes
Ok, guess I missed it…. some things are worth repeating.
I would propose that only law abiding citizens own firearms. Unfortunately criminals by their nature don’t follow the laws.
I would also propose other limitations regarding mental health, obvious threats, etc.
As for limiting civilian gun ownership. I see nothing wrong with law abiding gun owners having pistols, shotguns and even AR 15s.
2 Likes
My compromise:
Keep the 2nd Amendment, but make manufacture and possession of ammunition a multi-year federal offense. By year 2, death rate will drop to near nothing, by year 3 people will cash in on buy-back offers and use the money for a better/productive causes.
Problem are those who purchased their gun without concrete or even remote intent - but seized the easy-available opportunity years later once some “occasion” arose.
2 Likes
The second amendment has been so misinterpreted and abused by the NRA and the right wing over the last 40 years when this all started to play out. Which is why the NRA headquarters conveniently leaves out half the text of the 2nd amendment.
Heller is a recent decision that overturned an earlier decision that was written 30+ years earlier after automatic and semi-automatic weapons first started to make it into homes. It was the work of 30 years of NRA lobbying.
The supreme court didn’t even rule that the 2nd amendment guaranteed an individual’s right to own a gun until Heller in 2008.
4 Likes
I’d rather not stop one third of the population from enjoying a lawful pastime just because an extremely small sunset of the population chooses to commit a crime. I’d much rather focus on punishing those individuals that harm others.
What’s to stop a person that wants to do harm from using something other than a firearm?
2 Likes
I think that’s an issue that divides us: the technology of weapons has advanced so greatly, that the US fed and state governments HAVE to regulate based on the type of weapon. My references to nuclear arms and WMD were solely to make this absurdist point.
For anyone who doubts the Second Amendment has serious restrictions already built-in by the plain wording of the Second Amendment and the judiciary’s interpretation of this provision until the Heller decision, take a look at this from former Chief Justice Warren Burger in 1991. Please note his words very carefully, and please let me know if you want to argue this any further on this most horrific of days:
And we will have MANY more horrific days until this insanity is stopped. I am not referring to people, I am referring explicitly to the insanity of essentially unfettered gun ownership in many US states that many politicians are allowing to continue. Period. End of my discussion.
6 Likes
My ability to run, duck, block,… and the fact that by the time they are “done” with me the good-old-fashioned way, at least everyone else had a chance to “scramble”.
Besides bad actors already have all the other options now - so we take away the one that ACTUALLY occurs en-masse. We can eliminate 80% - 90% as demonstrated elsewhere in the world, which offer its citizens (at minimum) as much personal freedom:
The U.S. gun death rate was 10.6 per 100,000 people in 2016, the most recent year in the study, which used a somewhat different methodology from the CDC. That was far higher than in countries such as Canada (2.1 per 100,000) and Australia (1.0), as well as European nations such as France (2.7), Germany (0.9) and Spain (0.6).
6 Likes
Again, we won’t stop all crime, that’s not going to happen, but one, two, few, several, mass murders, etc. would be good no?
Also, criminals have used or tried to use bombs, and some bomb-making materials do throw red flags to retailers. But bombs take time and know-how, which makes them less likely. Let’s try to stop the crimes that happen most often (gun-related crimes).
5 Likes
Particularly those that involve mass murders of little children in their classrooms.
ETA: the tally is 19 kids murdered today in their classrooms.
3 Likes
Yeah, they always forget the words “militia” but more importantly they forget the words “well regulated”. Instead, every lunatic and his cousin have an arsenal big enough to, well siege a fortress or a small city.
And I love it when they deflect with, they could always use a car or a bomb or very large pebble! But you know what, they aren’t using those things, they are using - say it with me folks - GUNS!
I love how Kelly Ann made ridiculous “what about isms” such a mainstay.
8 Likes
I hear you.
That didn’t deter Timothy McVeigh, the 2017 NYC truck attacker or the 911 hijackers though.
I understand the desire to take away firearms from law abiding citizens. I just don’t agree with it.
6 Likes
And we have new FAA laws/rules, hardened cockpit doors and airport detection devices, because of 911 (2001). And I’m still taking my shoes off, due to Richard Reid, the shoe bomber.
And we got new federal laws after McVeigh’s crime (1995).
First, these crimes are pretty rare right? And we have new laws because of those crimes. Any new laws for the 27 school shootings (if CNN is right) so this year alone?
6 Likes
So you’re ok with allowing “law-abiding citizens” the constitutionally protected right to have truck bombs or to use airplanes as weapons? Surely, that’s not what you mean?
1 Like
I was responding to the fact that absent firearms, those that choose to do harm can find other ways.
Blowing people up is illegal. Running people over is illegal. Hijacking airplanes is illegal. Homicide is illegal. None of those is constitutionally protected like gun ownership.
1 Like
My question relates to the meaning of the limits on “the right to bear arms.” Where exactly is the limit?
1 Like
Hence the deadly results of gun ownership, year after year, school after school, child after child.
4 Likes