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

[shipwreked]

And ways to do help with that situation would be to legalize some of the drugs that are being trafficked and to put into place real immigration policies that people can live with, e.g. making it easier to get work visas, in other words removing the reasons for crossing the border illegally.

Bravo.. I think its dreadfully overdue. We're putting far too many good people in jail, giving them criminal records and empowering drug empires. And what ever happened to that "send me your oppressed" thing? It's not like we're running out of space.

[Todash]

Just my opinion. Doesn't mean I am necessarily correct.

I'm going to have to call you on this: it's a copout. You said something that was demonstrably untrue, then, when called on it, refused to own up to it. To me, when someone uses that response ("Hey, it's just my opinion,") that is the same thing as saying, "You are actually right, but because I don't want to stop believing what I've been believing, I'm going to stuff this demonstrably untrue statement into a box called 'Opinions I Don't Have to Justify' so that I can still have this handy belief for the next time a relevant discussion comes up."

And perhaps before people start tying so-called "gun nuts" to the republican party, here is something interesting to wrap your head around.

• VaTech - Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff, registered democrat.
• Columbine - Both too young to vote but both families were registered democrats and progressive liberals
• Fort Hood - Registered democrat, on Homeland Security advisory task force aimed at advising the Obama transition team.
• Colorado Theater - Registered democrat, staff worker on the Obama campaign, linked to the Occupy San Diego group.
• Connecticut School Shooter - Registered democrat.

Eeeeeeaaasy there, pardner. Nobody here defined "gun nut" as mass murderer. Nobody (except, now, you) has suggested that there is even a relevant political affiliation element to mass shooters. And ... really, what does this have to do with anything?

[Todash]

"proper working order", I would think? Context being written by people recovering from having recently succeded ousting a controlling government.

I do not believe this refers to the national guard. If say some administration decided 4 years is not enough and the constitution and bill of rights thing needs to be done away with, such a regime would be in violation of their vow to protect and sustain this government and they would be in control of the national guard.

Yeah, that (your National Guard reasoning) seems, if not 100% defensible, certainly a viable scenario. I do not disagree with what you say. You may be right about the meaning of "well regulated," as well. I'll have to do some more reading on it. (Wikipedia seems to agree with you, and in general I find that regardless of how people snark about it, Wikipedia is typically a well-researched source.)

Regardless, there IS precedent (common law) for regulating HOW citizens can use guns. For example, regarding concealed weapons:

In Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897), the Court stated that laws regulating concealed arms did not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms and thus were not a violation of the Second Amendment:
The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the "Bill of Rights," were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (Art. I) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.

Note that this court opinion referred expressly to a case regarding concealed weapons; their text, therefore, should not be taken to mean that that is the only reasonable constraint.

[exzel]

Sounds like material for a new thread. However, on this one re gun control laws, have you done much research into the opinions from the law enforcement side of this? I haven't done what I would say is a lot but so far the ones I have read are all in favor of tightening up the laws and adding restrictions to the types of guns and ammunition that are available as a way of promoting the general safety of the public at large and law enforcement officers who are exposed to this much more often than the average citizen.

I’ve done some, but I would be interesting in reading more. I try to keep open to ideas ("try" as the optimum word ) I will do some research on the topic. Need some good reading… SK hasn’t come out with a new novel recently. Waiting on his piece on gun control. Any word yet when and where it will be published?

My head hurts..........there's so much to consider in this debate.

There sure is. And as long as decisions are made with a full debate on the topic, I will abide by the decisions our government officials make. In addition, I fully anticipate sever restrictions to gun laws in the next few years (similar or even harsher to those Governor Cuomo made in NY… anyone wonder why he picked 7 bullets as the maximum allowed? Perhaps because it eliminates probably over 90% of the handguns available ). President Obama is sure to pick several Supreme Court justices over the next four years, and I fully expect once the court is stacked in the liberals favor, the second amendment will again move to the forefront. But that is how our government works. We are a nation of laws and I will comply (resistance is futile ). I just feel compelled to get my viewpoints out now, before decisions are made. Will they make much difference, or sway members of the other side to change their mind? Probably not, but I like employing my constitutional rights, including the First.

[exzel]

I'm going to have to call you on this: it's a copout. You said something that was demonstrably untrue, then, when called on it, refused to own up to it. To me, when someone uses that response ("Hey, it's just my opinion,") that is the same thing as saying, "You are actually right, but because I don't want to stop believing what I've been believing, I'm going to stuff this demonstrably untrue statement into a box called 'Opinions I Don't Have to Justify' so that I can still have this handy belief for the next time a relevant discussion comes up."

Whoa there! Don’t assume I read your post before I made that comment (which I didn’t). Postings lag at times. And besides that, didn’t you write: (Read spoiler contents for my hijacky rationale, or feel free to skip if you don't want to be distracted from the topic at hand.)? Were you just pulling my leg? It’s quite long, and I will read it when time allows. I will also give some reasoning for my assertion… can you wait a little bit?

Ahyhoo… You aren’t prosecutor, judge and jury here at SKMB… unless that is if you're in training to take over for Ms Mod once she retires. Something we don't know about yet?

[hossenpepper]

Well let's all keep in mind the good folks who gave us guns rights and the reasons for them... USA!! USA!! USA!!

[Todash]

Whoa there! Don't assume I read your post before I made that comment (which I didn't). Postings lag at times. And besides that, didn't you write: (Read spoiler contents for my hijacky rationale, or feel free to skip if you don't want to be distracted from the topic at hand.)? Were you just pulling my leg? It's quite long, and I will read it when time allows. I will also give some reasoning for my assertion... can you wait a little bit?

Ahyhoo... You aren't prosecutor, judge and jury here at SKMB... unless that is if you're in training to take over for Ms Mod once she retires. Something we don't know about yet?

LOL ... MAYBE. No, I think that would take WAY too much mental energy. I'm running out of dilithium crystals as it is. But in a debate, it is fair and reasonable to point out when you feel someone is not exactly playing by the rules.

Anyway, I wasn't really referring to my post; I think hossenpepper gave some good counter-examples. Admittedly, he wasn't as wordy as I was ... but really, who is?

[GNTLGNT]

he wasn't as wordy as I was ... but really, who is?

...umm, maybe Spike's little pal here...

[shipwreked]

Note that this court opinion referred expressly to a case regarding concealed weapons; their text, therefore, should not be taken to mean that that is the only reasonable constraint.

I don't have a huge problem with whether or not the lawmakers restrict either concealed or non-concealed weapons, except that if you dare to exercise your lawful right to wear a gun in plain site (no permits needed in the USA outside of so called "gun free zones") then law enforcement will make you wish you never thought of doing such a thing. In my life, I've only seen someone do this once, and it looked so odd it turned my head. Someone was walking out of a Costco with a pistol holstered in plain site wearing a concert t-shirt.

The bottom line is, this is the law of our land. At the risk of sounding a bit callous, a few people's inability to raise their kids properly does not justify congress to start eliminating rights and generating laws that have absolutely nothing to do with kids going postal apart from what tool he decided to use. If that kid walked into that school with a crowbar with the exact same intentions, what would be the probability of a different outcome? One thing is certain, we wouldn't be debating the second amendment right now.

What would we be talking about? I bet we'd be discussing this kid's history of diagnosed mental issues and what psychotrophic drugs his doctors have been pumping into him for who knows how many years, and how this appears to be a common thread between these incidents. Funny how we hear absolutely *nothing* in the news about what drugs this kid had been directed to take.. only that the police could find no evidence of drugs in his system, which implies if he was taking something, he stopped taking them.

[Moderator]

Also a common thread was the ease with which the shooters were able to gain access to guns and ammunition that rapidly killed and/or wounded a large number of victims. No one's right to own a gun is being taken away--just the type of gun and ammunition--and at the risk of my sounding a bit callous, I have very little sympathy with those who are arguing against having restrictions placed on those. Where do we draw the line at how much firepower the average citizen should have to defend themselves? Until fairly recently there had been stricter restrictions so it's not something new. Let's say that there's a demand in the future for even more lethal weapons--just because people want them does that give them the right to have them? At what point does the escalation continue or do we finally say no--you have what you need to defend yourself by still being allowed to own a less powerful weapon. And if something more isn't done about background checks, those who shouldn't have them at all may continue to fall between the cracks and legally have access to weapons. Yes, something needs to be done about mental health issues but that is not going to solve the issue of having access to guns and ammunition that can kill large numbers of people in a very short period of time.