Gun violence epidemic

[Gregg]

And "arms" as the Framers knew them couldn't kill scores of people a minute.

I agree with you, but that was not the discussion. I was responding to your "well regulated Militia" comment/defense that was in error.

[Bernie Brewer]

Considering that most gun owners support reasonable regulations, how is that abandoning their base? Unless you're arguing NRA leadership (aka money) is their base. I would agree with you there.

I don’t think “THE” NRA is thier base any more than a Union is a base to the Dems. Memebership of those entities comprises thier respective bases. But it certainly is a big big money lobby that no one reasonable on the GOP side is going to walk away from without something equally big filing the void.

[DMT]

I agree with you, but that was not the discussion. I was responding to your "well regulated Militia" comment/defense that was in error.

Not sure I follow. After re-reading your 1st reply, it sounds like you're arguing the government has no right to regulate guns at all.

[DMT]

“THE” NRA...certainly is a big big money lobby that no one reasonable on the GOP side is going to walk away from without something equally big filing the void.

Exactly.

[baldgriff]

When you have the Feinstein's and Pelosi's of the world stating that we have to get rid of semi-automatic weapons - that is the elimination of about 80% of all guns. That would be everything from the dreaded AR-15 to the Colt 45 revolver. Each when used in the way they are made, fire one bullet per trigger squeeze and are semi-automatic weapons.

The effort to create a class of gun called assault weapon is just plain silly as has been discussed, because the things that make a gun an assault weapon are generally just cosmetic in nature and do nothing to change the rate of fire.

Bump-Stocks should be out - as Ive stated previously - because they artificially increase the rate of fire by not requiring the user to actually pull the trigger.
Magazine Limits - I guess. Are we grandfathering those cartridges produced prior to X date? What is the acceptable limit? If you say 5 - then are all 6 shot revolvers now illegal?

Most of the control measures again come fraught with both a lack of understanding regarding guns or an intentional attempt to sneak things through to then get at most of it.

Personally - if there are concerns about straw man purchases - close whatever loophole there may be. Background checks are reasonable to a degree - now its a matter of what things disqualify someone from "keep and bear" arms.

If the Dems want to discuss actual reform they have to better understand the gun. Standing up and saying this gun should be illegal because it has this and that on it, but the stripped down version is ok - is frankly uninformed and unintelligent.

[B-Fly]

Armed law abiding citizens pose no threat to law abiding citizens.

That said we do have an epidemic of gun violence.

A few points, here.

One, it's impossible to distinguish between law-abiding citizens and non-law-abiding-citizens at the point of sale or transfer without material background checks/waiting periods, and no loopholes.

Two, every citizen is "law abiding" until BANG!!!! they're not. Therefore, it's not really helpful to say that "armed law abiding citizens pose no threat to law abiding citizens" because citizens shift from law-abiding to not when they walk into a church or school or liquor store that first time and shoot someone. I'm not saying that to justify "take away all the guns," but again just to say that "armed law abiding citizens pose no threat" doesn't make sense to me as a position. It leaves open questions whether, say, protected 1st amendment activity like a violent, hateful online screed, or like membership in the KKK, could or should be grounds to deny someone a gun or, even more tricky, confiscation of a weapon or weapons. What about a tip from a classmate or teacher or co-worker that a guy with no criminal record threatened or joked about executing a mass shooting? Given the risk of a previously law-abiding person committing a mass shooting, can there reasonably be restrictions on magazine sizes or weapon types that fall far short of "no gun for you" but at least limit the ability of one person to successfully murder dozens of people in a few minutes?

[Ken]

Again, not claiming you have, but when people ignore the"well- regulated " language of the 2nd Amendment they put themselves in the same frame of argument.

Let me preface this by saying that I'm for more gun regulation, especially after having witnessed some of the Vegas tragedy first hand last year.

That said, when we are having discussions over the second amendment, and we disagree with the interpretation of the amendment, the first place to look is case law.

In 1939 in US vs Miller, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could regulate the sales of guns, specifically sawed off shotguns - specifically because it could not be argued that a sawed off shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". So to your point, the militia was relevant in the interpretation.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/se...7_0174_ZS.html

However, in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller, the court held:

"1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."

In other words, based on current case law, unfortunately, the "current" interpretation is that the use of a militia was the original "purpose" of the amendment, but the connotation to read from the amendment itself implies an individuals right to keep and bear arms regardless of the original purpose.

So unfortunately, those who are ignoring the well-regulated militia portion of the language are actually correct to do so based on how the court interprets the law.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

[Gregg]

A few points, here.

One, it's impossible to distinguish between law-abiding citizens and non-law-abiding-citizens at the point of sale or transfer without material background checks/waiting periods, and no loopholes.

I had to wait 4.5 weeks to get my FOID card in Illinois. Before that I could not even hold a gun at Bass Pro Shop. I could not buy bullets or shotgun shells. I purchased a pistol for my wife's birthday/Christmas present a few weeks ago. I had to fill out a couple of pages of paper work and wait 3 days before I could pick up the gun. I have no problem with it.

When we dig deep into someone who commits mass murder, are they finding red flags or worse in most of the cases? It is not like you or me just snapping and going nuts.

The fact that KKK, gangs, and bolder than ever before criminals exist and threaten law abiding citizens is more of a reason to keep our guns than give them up.

[Teenwolf]

To answer Gregg's question about red flags, there are certainly groups with much higher likelihood of committing murder if they have access to guns. One that I would hope everyone here could agree to limit access would be spousal abusers. Much higher likelihood of killing their partner, and I believe the offense is worthy of stripping them of their gun rights. Agree, disagree? Is there a standard within the grouping of spousal abusers?

I really believe the "mental health" focus is a phony solution with little ability to impact the epidemic. I hate the way it's used as a distraction, by Dems and Republicans.

[baldgriff]

Why out of curiosity do you feel that way about the "mental health" focus. A large majority of the individuals that commit mass shootings have been diagnosed with some sort of illness. I dont believe it is a distraction.

[Judge Jude]

Our country is diseased and the Republican party is preventing any attempts at a cure. Ammosexuals please don't bother quoting the 2nd Amendment unless you're acknowledging the full wording including "well-regulated". He is a great Twitter thread about details of the epidemic.

https://twitter.com/meganranney/stat...438949888?s=19

I assume you are astounded by how many Constitutional law scholars across the political spectrum over the years have found the "well-regulated militia" phrase to be an extraordinarily complex issue. you must be insulted by how stupid they are, not understanding how obvious the answer is, as you do.

[Gregg]

To answer Gregg's question about red flags, there are certainly groups with much higher likelihood of committing murder if they have access to guns. One that I would hope everyone here could agree to limit access would be spousal abusers. Much higher likelihood of killing their partner, and I believe the offense is worthy of stripping them of their gun rights. Agree, disagree? Is there a standard within the grouping of spousal abusers?

I really believe the "mental health" focus is a phony solution with little ability to impact the epidemic. I hate the way it's used as a distraction, by Dems and Republicans.

The hospital shooter last night had his FOID card and conceal and carry. He was legal and passed the conditions. BUT then there is this:

CHICAGO — The 32-year-old gunman responsible for opening fire Monday at a Near South Side hospital had threatened to do the same to the Chicago Fire Academy around five years ago, authorities told the Chicago Tribune. He made those threats after he was fired from the academy following allegations of "aggressive and improper conduct" toward women, the report added.

Juan Lopez had been booted from the academy before finishing his training and had not been assigned to a fire station as either a paramedic or a firefighter, the report stated. Chicago Fire Department spokesman Larry Langford described Lopez as having "issues," the report added.

How do we not find this before he gets his permit? Yet it shows up the day after his crime?

[baldgriff]

How do we not find this before he gets his permit? Yet it shows up the day after his crime?

The idea that the government is or should be keeping some database to catch all of the bad things (in many cases that arent even illegal) that we do is to some degree Orwellian. That said, this is likely a situation where one group of people is not talking to another group of people. Is his being dropped from the academy because of "issues" something that should have been report about 5 years ago? To what degree do we want the government to be making decisions because of these somewhat nebulous allegations. Im NOT condoning what this guy did - just stating that we are certainly using a ton of hindsight to point fingers when we dont really know the entire story.

People are individuals and need to be judged on that individual level. Combining an individual into bunches of people or groups based on their ideologies or other similarities is very dangerous and can cause more problem for the individual that didnt do anything wrong.

[Fresno Bob]

Treat all guns except muzzle loading black powder muskets exactly like cars, license, registration, liability insurance, regular safety checks, get busted for crazy and its like getting a DUI, suspension. Act crazy with your gun, confiscation.

[DMT]

Treat all guns except muzzle loading black powder muskets exactly like cars, license, registration, liability insurance, regular safety checks, get busted for crazy and its like getting a DUI, suspension. Act crazy with your gun, confiscation.

Yep I'd be on board with that.