Gun control discussions in the wake of the Newtown, CT deaths

[Moderator]

Personally, I liked Jon Stewart's suggestion about the second amendment by only allowing the types of weapons that were available when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution. Muskets for anyone who wants a gun and even add the bayonet if you want.

[exzel]

Personally, I liked Jon Stewart's suggestion about the second amendment by only allowing the types of weapons that were available when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution. Muskets for anyone who wants a gun and even add the bayonet if you want.

LOL... Sounds good in comedy I guess. But rifled muskets were the AR-15 of the time. Far more accurate than most other guns of the period.

I am always amused by the "founding fathers never could have imagined that” argument, used by the sorts like Stweart in respect to the Second Amendment. Say we applied that same logic to the First Amendment. Would not the only protected speech be that of public, written, or a typeset printing nature? And therefore wouldn't television, radio, internet, phone, ebooks, texting and such other innovations developed through our subsequent history be subject to an arbitrary annual permitting process... where you demonstrate competence and a need before you pay for the privilege to speak?

[Moderator]

At least merely the act of speaking or writing doesn't kill anyone. People armed with guns do and those armed with guns that have the capability to rapidly fire ammunition kill even more in a very short amount of time. Removing those from easy access does not violate the second amendment as it does not ban guns altogether.

[fushingfeef]

Obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere, and is being drawn. After all we don't let private citizens have missles, etc., and those are "arms". So there just needs to be an agreement as to what degree of arms we are allowed--and we're not going to find that specific degree of language anywhere in the constitution. Unless someone out there really thinks private citizens should all be allowed to have missles and weapons of mass destruction, I think we need to stop looking at gun regulation as being solely a constitutional rights issue, and think about what's best for the everyday quality of life for normal citizens who don't see the need to arm themselves to the teeth.

[Moderator]

Obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere, and is being drawn. After all we don't let private citizens have missles, etc., and those are "arms". So there just needs to be an agreement as to what degree of arms we are allowed--and we're not going to find that specific degree of language anywhere in the constitution. Unless someone out there really thinks private citizens should all be allowed to have missles and weapons of mass destruction, I think we need to stop looking at gun regulation as being solely a constitutional rights issue, and think about what's best for the everyday quality of life for normal citizens who don't see the need to arm themselves to the teeth.

Exactly!

[exzel]

At least merely the act of speaking or writing doesn't kill anyone. People armed with guns do and those armed with guns that have the capability to rapidly fire ammunition kill even more in a very short amount of time. Removing those from easy access does not violate the second amendment as it does not ban guns altogether.

Haven’t journalists made incorrect statements and released national security information which have cost lives? And didn’t they use the First Amendment as their defense in doing so, and to continue doing so? How about religion? Haven’t religious wars resulted in millions of deaths? Should we ban the right to worship as one chooses because of it?

As I have noted previously, I would agree with some levels of expanded gun control, but I question the honesty of the debate process when Joe Biden notes the White House was studying what President Obama could do through executive orders… an unconstitutional executive power grab.

[Moderator]

Haven’t journalists made incorrect statements and released national security information which have cost lives? And didn’t they use the First Amendment as their defense in doing so, and to continue doing so? How about religion? Haven’t religious wars resulted in millions of deaths? Should we ban the right to worship as one chooses because of it?

As I have noted previously, I would agree with some levels of expanded gun control, but I question the honesty of the debate process when Joe Biden notes the White House was studying what President Obama could do through executive orders… an unconstitutional executive power grab.

The speech, in and of itself did not cause it to happen. Paraphrasing the gun rights motto, Words don't kill people, people kill people.

[exzel]

Obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere, and is being drawn. After all we don't let private citizens have missles, etc., and those are "arms". So there just needs to be an agreement as to what degree of arms we are allowed--and we're not going to find that specific degree of language anywhere in the constitution. Unless someone out there really thinks private citizens should all be allowed to have missles and weapons of mass destruction, I think we need to stop looking at gun regulation as being solely a constitutional rights issue, and think about what's best for the everyday quality of life for normal citizens who don't see the need to arm themselves to the teeth.

Ask yourself a question. You’re shopping in a mall with your wife and daughters. Thousands of people are around you. Suddenly there’s a bomb blast and shots begin ringing out. Terrorists, or a psychotic 20 year old, have begun killing people... and you, your wife and kids are huddled behind a fountain. You’re all being quiet, but can hear the approaching steps of the gunmen as they shoot the wounded and helpless. Your wife has her arms wrapped around your crying kids… and you can reach out and pick up one of three things:
A) A cell phone
B) A single shot manually loaded pistol
C) A semi-automatic handgun with a 16 round capacity magazine (one of the most common type of current legal handguns, but the type this debate and the gun control advocates are pushing to make illegal… beyond the assault weapons ban).

If you picked A or B, then good for you for sticking to your convictions. But somehow I think if we were all being honest here, it would be C.

I guess what makes me most upset about the issue at hand is the attitude that the second amendment is viewed as a privilege rather than a right, the lack of honesty about what is being considered. and discussion on how many times when guns have saved lives.

[Shasta]

I realize gun control is a very toxic issue right now.

Approximately 62 million American’s own guns. In the past couple of years I can recall 3 people horribly abusing the “Right” we all experience under the second amendment (and I don’t believe the last one was legally allowed to own guns). And it is “RIGHT” under our constitution (an inalienable human right according to our constitution, as essential to the life of liberty as the right to free speech). Also, at the heart of every one of those 3 attacks there appears to have been problematic social and/or psychological issues. Why then not focus on the cause rather than the tool they used to commit the act? Guns are only tools, and it’s how they are used that’s the problem. Yes we keep hearing “all matters” will be taken into consideration about the topic at hand, but let’s be honest… the vast majority of the discussion has only been on gun control. The worst mass killings in US history have involved bombs and fire, but I suppose the actual number of deaths means less than the method of their deaths. Bottom line, the number of killings by guns is miniscule, compared to the number of firearms in the hands of our citizens. Can you say the same for alcohol or automobile deaths?

How many deaths are caused annually by alcohol abuse, by automobiles? Far far more than by guns. Do we demand limiting alcohol to 1%... where you would need vast quantities to get a buzz, or putting limiting devises on cars so they can’t go over 35 MPH? Doing so wouldn’t restrict the ability, or so-called “right,” to purchase alcohol or drive automobiles. Or are we okay with them because trying to find solutions to the issues are "too complex?"


Mark Levin, probably one of the best constitutional lawyers IMO, had an excellent piece on what is really happening (picking out the best sections):



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...s_country.html

Are you being serious here? You can only think of THREE?

You need to read this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...united-states/

And this one. Because I'm guessing when you say three you are only talking about publicized mass shootings.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2325706.html

Oh, and you mentioned car deaths? For the second time I am going to post this little beauty of an article:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1...s-by-2015.html

[Shasta]

C) A semi-automatic handgun with a 16 round capacity magazine (one of the most common type of current legal handguns, but the type this debate and the gun control advocates are pushing to make illegal… beyond the assault weapons ban).

As Marsha has already stated, this would be great in a perfect world but often doesn't work.