@jjstraka34 There are always ways to get ahold of just about anything, legal or not. I want to be able to protect myself/family from the person who illegally purchased a gun specifically to go on a killing spree. The alternative is to have police EVERYWHERE to prevent shootings from happening, which 1. is unfeasible and 2. Law Enforcement is responsible for its own share of killings and atrocities.
the problem (as I see it) isn't even that I might want a gun. The problem with gun control is that there is no way that all of the guns can/will get taken off the street. So then gun control only prevents people who are likely to obey the law from owning them. Those that actually are okay with breaking the laws can and will continue to get them.
The infrastructure for weapons manufacture and distribution is so baked into our society that ripping it out at the roots would cause all manner of chaos, cost jobs, decrease tax revenue..... And still not solve or even noticeably reduce the problem.
Quite a lot of those who clamor for gun control are merely scared (largely by sensationalism in the media or by what the government wants the people to be) and don't want to think it through. It is yet another distraction for the masses. "Let em fight it out and hope that they don't look too closely at what is really going on."
And yet Australia had guns and the government was able to take them out of circulation. They decided that enough was enough with the mass shootings.
How can you live in such a tyrannical state?!
Serious note though, yes, criminal networks, like drug dealers and gangs will have channels of obtaining fire arms, however, it will be much harder for them to come by, and add more charges during arrests when caught.
Average person who loses his senses during a road rage incident, or a lone mentally unstable person looking to do harm, will not. This is what you'll prevent.
So the US attorney who among other things was investigating Fox News sexual harassment cases and who was personally told by Trump he would be kept on was fired.
Instead they are going to put a guy who represents Roger Ailes in as a replacement.
One thing that constantly gets missed when conservatives talk about gun violence still being high in States or cities with more strict laws is this: we don't have any borders between States. Chicago can easily have effective gun laws, but it doesn't make a lick of difference if you can go to Indiana for a few hours and stock up at a gun show. On the other hand, Hawaii, which also has liberal laws on guns, doesn't have this problem at all. Because you can't just hop over to Arizona and get firearms. State and city gun laws are doomed to fail because there is no place in the country that isn't just a few hours from a location that has totally lax laws.
Australia is a terrible comparison for a whole host of reasons. MUCH smaller population. Much lower population density per land. No land based neighbors of any kind (thus a much easier to control entry point). There are many more reasons and I could go on all day. The point is that it isn't apples to apples. It isn't even apples to another fruit.
Even if you could get past the special interest groups in the US to approve such legislation, getting guns away from collectors or from the wealthy who use them as protection/defense would be a MONUMENTAL task. It would involve a whole new arm of the government just to get rid of the ones we have. And another arm just to watchdog the first arm and make sure that someone wasn't stockpiling the weapons or selling them on the black market. Then yet more people to ensure that guns didn't come in from Canada or Mexico (and no, Trump's wall would not do the job).
Then there would be the loss of jobs and revenue for sellers. Loss of jobs for the gun makers. Loss of jobs for the gun distributors. Then you would have to heavily police (even more so than is done today) the guns that the Military have.
And even after all of that, there would still be the incredibly HUGE assortment of illegal weapons. Crime rate would most certainly skyrocket in the short term, both from criminals and from those who didn't want to give up their guns. The number of people in prison would skyrocket as well.
Could it be done? Not in any sort of meaningful short term. And the cost involved would be astronomical in manpower and tax dollars not to mention lives. All so that the crooks could have an advantage.
Plus, Trump would never allow it. He is after all part of the rich elite who would not want to give up his protection/advantage.
I certainly don't think it will be done tomorrow with Trump as president. But it's something that should happen someday for the good of society. It's what we should be aiming for, not removing regulations to make it easier for the mentally ill to buy guns. We should to be moving society forward.
I certainly don't think it will be done tomorrow with Trump as president. But it's something that should happen someday for the good of society. It's what we should be aiming for, not removing regulations to make it easier for the mentally ill to buy guns. We should to be moving society forward.
The founding Fathers of the United States would strongly disagree with you.
I certainly don't think it will be done tomorrow with Trump as president. But it's something that should happen someday for the good of society. It's what we should be aiming for, not removing regulations to make it easier for the mentally ill to buy guns. We should to be moving society forward.
The founding Fathers of the United States would strongly disagree with you.
I personally think it's pretty clear they didn't intend for there to be a individual right to own firearms, and that it was in fact referring to actual militias, because that's what was necessary at the time. They also had muskets, which take about a half a minute to reload. This is actually one of the problems with "original intent". Relying on a document that was written over 250 years ago before indoor plumbing and electricity presents some pretty serious problems no matter how well thought out it was. America engages in self-mythology of being the greatest experiment in the history of government, but the fact is, no great power since the fall of the Roman Empire has lasted more than 300 years, and we are creeping dangerously close to that number, and also dangerously close to pushing the Constitution to the breaking point with the Great Orange One in power.
The intent of a 'Well-regulated' Militia, and for the people to have 'the right to keep and bear arms' was essentially an expectation that either the state, or people in the state to always have a weapon themselves and to be trained as a lesser-form of an army that can come from the populace so they can combat threats instantly.
In fact one would say that we have the 'keep and bear arms' largely down pat, but we are failing hard on the 'training'.
The intent of a 'Well-regulated' Militia, and for the people to have 'the right to keep and bear arms' was essentially an expectation that either the state, or people in the state to always have a weapon themselves and to be trained as a lesser-form of an army that can come from the populace so they can combat threats instantly.
In fact one would say that we have the 'keep and bear arms' largely down pat, but we are failing hard on the 'training'.
And if that is what we're supposed to be doing then why do we have a professional permanent army?
America should only be protected by militias that are ready to protect the homeland and then go back to work on the farm once harvest season starts. That's what the type of thing the founding fathers were talking about.
They wasn't a permanent standing military. Think of the saving we'd have if we reverted to that these days. We can privatize our defense so that our citizens are our militia. Letting the military stand down and mobilize from local militias isn't practical in 2017.
A militia is basically civilians that organize into a fighting force when the need arises and go back to civilian life quickly when whatever their doing is finished.
In history there are these reasons for it: 1.During a war, the actual army may be depleted of manpower and need civilians quickly so having civilians at least moderately trained in weaponry made them useful from the get-go, and easier to train up for more advanced stuff.
2. Ability to retaliate against in-grown threats quickly.
3. Keep Governments, foreign or home, from thinking twice in trying anything funny with a population all trained enough to retaliate with death.
We currently live in an extended period of peace-time, and as always happens, society questions the need for so much 'military', 'police' and firearms and whether it would be better to use that on things like education etc.
Of course when conflict emerges, everyone is suddenly really enthusiastic about investing in the military, police and firearms.
Rather then thinking in absolute terms, i tend to think what we just need to decide on is a good balance, i think we need all of this stuff to some degree.
@semiticgod - I was referring to the right to bear arms. The rest is what people attach because they think it will strengthen their cause. I whole heartedly agree that someone who has proven themselves a threat to themselves or others should not have access to firearms or other means of doing harm. I do not agree that anyone with a mental illness falls into that category. Nor do I think that you can test people every other week to make sure that they haven't gone insane between the time they purchased the firearm and now. it just isn't tenable. And I do not believe that the VAST majority of gun violence incidents are attributable to someone with a pre-diagnosed mental illness the way people want to paint it.
@jjstraka34 - I have heard that interpretation of the constitution. You are entitled to believe that if you wish. I prefer the constitution as written, not as redefined by those looking to support their own agendas.
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.
What is the reason the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd amendment? @jjstraka34 says it was the need for a militia. The 2nd amendment itself also says it was the need for a militia.
jjstraka34's argument isn't "redefining" the meaning of the Constitution. It's literally just the first 13 words of the text.
And it's worth pointing out that jjstraka34, whose posts are nearly always left-wing, is not the only one to make this claim. @vanatos, whose posts are nearly always right-wing, made the exact same claim.
Indeed by laser focusing on "the right to bear arms" and ignoring the context and additional text of a regulated militia you are misinterpreting the Constitution.
It is the 'right to keep and bear arms'. The idea was the civilians would have weapons themselves and organize themselves into groups to combat threats, this arose from historical incident where the colonists of America rejected British rule.
The expectation in America, from History, was that civilians would be self-sufficient in their own weaponry, and not need a military to supply them.
It was also more local level, it wasn't envisioned as a national thing, but for States to ensure their own freedom.
The idea of America was that States were loosely self-Governing with a small national Government overseeing various necessary national matters, this is why in America the notion of 'small Government' is much more discussed heatedly then say Europe.
I still can't believe that Armon Bundy and those yahoos were able to hold out in a federal facility and all the law enforcement were like "hmm ok." and did nothing for what seemed like months. Then people go to North Dakota and protest the pipeline and they get ate by dogs, frozen water showers, sound weapons, police brutality, etc. So maybe those DAPL protestors should have been armed it worked for Bundy. Or why not Black Lives Matters - do the Armon Bundy. Wouldn't that work? We need to find out what the hell's going on here.
The Bundy folks were merely an inconvenience; the DAPL protesters have been standing in the way of people and corporations making money, hence the more pronounced reaction.
I'll point out that though I THINK the meaning of the Second Amendment refers to militias primarily, I am not naive about the subject. No one is ever going to do anything about guns in this country. It just isn't going to happen. We aren't serious about it, we don't think it's a priority. The NRA is too powerful with the Republicans, and (contrary to popular belief) most Democrats have no desire to take on this issue (aside from the mildest of background checks, and even those seem to be a non-starter), because they know they will get steamrolled. It's never a good time to talk about guns in this country. If you do it in the wake of a mass shooting, the right says you are "politicizing a tragedy". And outside of those week long wall to wall news cycles, no one really gives a shit. We're stuck with what we have. Like I said before, if 19 dead 6-year old kids don't move the debate, nothing ever will.
Much like abortion, the individual right to bear arms is a relatively recent Supreme Court precedent. So both sides of the aisle have won a clear victory. However, abortion rights are in WAY more trouble than gun rights are. By leaps and bounds. We had eight years of right-wing pundits warning about Obama coming for the guns (much like Clinton before him). In the end, not a single gun went anywhere. Nothing happened. And anyone with any sense of the lay of the land politically could have told anyone who asked that with 100% certainty.
It's never a good time to talk about guns in this country. If you do it in the wake of a mass shooting, the right says you are "politicizing a tragedy".
"politicizing a tragedy" does the right think that is something at all like during a speech bringing out the widow of a Navy Seal that died after a botched raid that you just ordered casually over dinner and didn't bother supervising? The raid which lead to the death of the Seal and bystanders including women and children?
I'm sure they were outraged, just outraged at politicizing a tragedy there. Didn't you hear them chastise the President for "politicizing a tragedy"?
It's interesting to compare the impact of something like the Dunblane mass shooting in the UK, which resulted in severe restrictions on handgun ownership. Police possession of, and training in the use of, firearms is also controversial. One argument for this is that firearms reduce the level of trust between actors, which can negatively impact on the ability of police to perform public order duties which are not related to violence. (Japan, another island nation, is similar in some respects.) Firearm regulations would therefore seem to be a reflection of other factors such as social cohesion and trust in local authorities.
It's interesting to compare the impact of something like the Dunblane mass shooting in the UK, which resulted in severe restrictions on handgun ownership. Police possession of, and training in the use of, firearms is also controversial. One argument for this is that firearms reduce the level of trust between actors, which can negatively impact on the ability of police to perform public order duties which are not related to violence. (Japan, another island nation, is similar in some respects.) Firearm regulations would therefore seem to be a reflection of other factors such as social cohesion and trust in local authorities.
Those are reasonable arguments that won't really happen in the USA the current Republican one party state has no interest in discussing anything like that. They'll just ignore it because they can.
"Like I said before, if 19 dead 6-year old kids don't move the debate, nothing ever will."
Well guns are clearly banned from schools, no exception. I can't imagine how that possibly happened.
From what I understand, Adam Lanza's mother was a bit of a gun nut, and her son was crazy. Which would be why passing a law making it easier for mentally ill people to purchase weapons will inevitably lead to more such incidents. But maybe that's what Republicans want. After all, the new health care bill takes a sledgehammer to the current mental health coverage protections in the ACA. Thousands more people no longer getting proper treatment for mental illness and all of them having easier access to weapons. Then, when the next shooting hits (especially if it's a Muslim) they can do what they do best: whip up the country into a paranoid fear. That might be the sum total of the first 3 months of the Trump Presidency. Less health care and more guns for the mentally ill. Solid public policy all around. Thank god we didn't elect that crazy witch Hillary.
From what I understand, Adam Lanza's mother was a bit of a gun nut, and her son was crazy. Which would be why passing a law making it easier for mentally ill people to purchase weapons will inevitably lead to more such incidents. But maybe that's what Republicans want. After all, the new health care bill takes a sledgehammer to the current mental health coverage protections in the ACA. Thousands more people no longer getting proper treatment for mental illness and all of them having easier access to weapons. Then, when the next shooting hits (especially if it's a Muslim) they can do what they do best: whip up the country into a paranoid fear. That might be the sum total of the first 3 months of the Trump Presidency. Less health care and more guns for the mentally ill. Solid public policy all around. Thank god we didn't elect that crazy witch Hillary.
Topped off by tax cuts to the wealthy and reduced entitlements to the poor (HUD and Medicaid targeted for cuts and Medicare in the crosshairs too). The cherry on top is the deregulation of protections for water and the environment by businesses so we'll see more Flints while we're at it.
@jjstraka34was citing the original intent of the Constitution, based on the original text of the Constitution.
the actual quote from the constitution is as follows:
"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."
While the statement starts off mentioning Militia, the rest of the statement doesn't limit to JUST the militia.
Given the times and the fact that outside of Cities, having guns and firearms was essential to life at that time. And given that there was a HIGH chance that England was likely to not like the annexing of the colonies from their rule, the concept that the constitution would intentionally deprive normal citizens of the right to own and maintain arms is ludicrous.
You are interpreting the constitution based on your modern values. I don't fault you for that, but you are still interpreting.
Comments
Serious note though, yes, criminal networks, like drug dealers and gangs will have channels of obtaining fire arms, however, it will be much harder for them to come by, and add more charges during arrests when caught.
Average person who loses his senses during a road rage incident, or a lone mentally unstable person looking to do harm, will not. This is what you'll prevent.
Instead they are going to put a guy who represents Roger Ailes in as a replacement.
http://reverbpress.com/politics/youre-fired-trump-sacks-u-s-attorney-probing-fox-news-hiding-sexual-harassment-lawsuits/
Its population density, size, and homogenous nature also makes it very easy logistically and culturally.
And i know Australia intimately.
Even if you could get past the special interest groups in the US to approve such legislation, getting guns away from collectors or from the wealthy who use them as protection/defense would be a MONUMENTAL task. It would involve a whole new arm of the government just to get rid of the ones we have. And another arm just to watchdog the first arm and make sure that someone wasn't stockpiling the weapons or selling them on the black market. Then yet more people to ensure that guns didn't come in from Canada or Mexico (and no, Trump's wall would not do the job).
Then there would be the loss of jobs and revenue for sellers. Loss of jobs for the gun makers. Loss of jobs for the gun distributors. Then you would have to heavily police (even more so than is done today) the guns that the Military have.
And even after all of that, there would still be the incredibly HUGE assortment of illegal weapons. Crime rate would most certainly skyrocket in the short term, both from criminals and from those who didn't want to give up their guns. The number of people in prison would skyrocket as well.
Could it be done? Not in any sort of meaningful short term. And the cost involved would be astronomical in manpower and tax dollars not to mention lives. All so that the crooks could have an advantage.
Plus, Trump would never allow it. He is after all part of the rich elite who would not want to give up his protection/advantage.
On an unrelated note, congratulations on your 5,000th post!
In fact one would say that we have the 'keep and bear arms' largely down pat, but we are failing hard on the 'training'.
America should only be protected by militias that are ready to protect the homeland and then go back to work on the farm once harvest season starts. That's what the type of thing the founding fathers were talking about.
They wasn't a permanent standing military. Think of the saving we'd have if we reverted to that these days. We can privatize our defense so that our citizens are our militia. Letting the military stand down and mobilize from local militias isn't practical in 2017.
In history there are these reasons for it:
1.During a war, the actual army may be depleted of manpower and need civilians quickly so having civilians at least moderately trained in weaponry made them useful from the get-go, and easier to train up for more advanced stuff.
2. Ability to retaliate against in-grown threats quickly.
3. Keep Governments, foreign or home, from thinking twice in trying anything funny with a population all trained enough to retaliate with death.
We currently live in an extended period of peace-time, and as always happens, society questions the need for so much 'military', 'police' and firearms and whether it would be better to use that on things like education etc.
Of course when conflict emerges, everyone is suddenly really enthusiastic about investing in the military, police and firearms.
Rather then thinking in absolute terms, i tend to think what we just need to decide on is a good balance, i think we need all of this stuff to some degree.
@jjstraka34 - I have heard that interpretation of the constitution. You are entitled to believe that if you wish. I prefer the constitution as written, not as redefined by those looking to support their own agendas.
jjstraka34's argument isn't "redefining" the meaning of the Constitution. It's literally just the first 13 words of the text.
And it's worth pointing out that jjstraka34, whose posts are nearly always left-wing, is not the only one to make this claim. @vanatos, whose posts are nearly always right-wing, made the exact same claim.
The idea was the civilians would have weapons themselves and organize themselves into groups to combat threats, this arose from historical incident where the colonists of America rejected British rule.
The expectation in America, from History, was that civilians would be self-sufficient in their own weaponry, and not need a military to supply them.
It was also more local level, it wasn't envisioned as a national thing, but for States to ensure their own freedom.
The idea of America was that States were loosely self-Governing with a small national Government overseeing various necessary national matters, this is why in America the notion of 'small Government' is much more discussed heatedly then say Europe.
Much like abortion, the individual right to bear arms is a relatively recent Supreme Court precedent. So both sides of the aisle have won a clear victory. However, abortion rights are in WAY more trouble than gun rights are. By leaps and bounds. We had eight years of right-wing pundits warning about Obama coming for the guns (much like Clinton before him). In the end, not a single gun went anywhere. Nothing happened. And anyone with any sense of the lay of the land politically could have told anyone who asked that with 100% certainty.
I'm sure they were outraged, just outraged at politicizing a tragedy there. Didn't you hear them chastise the President for "politicizing a tragedy"?
Well guns are clearly banned from schools, no exception. I can't imagine how that possibly happened.
"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."
While the statement starts off mentioning Militia, the rest of the statement doesn't limit to JUST the militia.
Given the times and the fact that outside of Cities, having guns and firearms was essential to life at that time. And given that there was a HIGH chance that England was likely to not like the annexing of the colonies from their rule, the concept that the constitution would intentionally deprive normal citizens of the right to own and maintain arms is ludicrous.
You are interpreting the constitution based on your modern values. I don't fault you for that, but you are still interpreting.
"The rights of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"
It seems clear cut to me.