A Conversation about guns

does the second amendment limit the right to keep and bear arms to mentally sane/law abiding citizens? (0.00 / 0) [delete comment] IP Address: 98.81.0.69 (4.00 / 1)

If not, what do we do about the fundamental law of the land that makes massacres OK?  That's what we're dealing with, people - the law cannot prohibit mass murder before it happens, it can only punish it after it happens.

Because we can't possibly interfere with the right of some psycho to kill a bunch of people, can we?

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
- John Adams

---

by: herding old cats @ Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 04:17:44 AM UTC

HOC (0.00 / 0)

I understand your outrage and share it. But to play Devil's Advocate, is the problem the lunatics or the instrument they use?

Not that many years ago, two lunatics used fertilizer and diesel fuel to construct a bomb they used to blow up the Murrah building in Oklahoma City. Do we ban the sell and possession of fertlizer and diesel fuel?

On 9/11 lunatics used three airliners to kill thousands. Do we ban all airliners and/or all airplanes?

On the other hand how do we identify the lunatics. You might think those who have been diagnosed and treated for mental illness would be easy. But are we violating their right to privacy by making their records accessible? Are we treating them unfairly if they have been "cured"

What about the others. Do we require every citizen to undergo psychriatic evals every five years before they can acquire anything that might be used to kill a large numbers of others? 

There does not seem to be any easy answers

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke

---

by: Old Prosecutor @ Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 21:01:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's kind of funny (4.00 / 1)

Several years ago, on an AOL comics board forum that I frequented, there were discussions that wound up running (just a bit) off-topic but I clearly remember talking about "assault weapons" and there was one poster who challenged me to define "assault weapons."  He was one of those extremists who didn't seem to have any problem with private ownership of ANY type of firearm.  Here you are trying to explain a difference between "semi-automatic" and "assault" weapons. 

As to the Colorado shootings, yes, the guy had the AR-15 but there was NO reason on Earth for ANY private citizen to possess such a weapon and if the fucking NRA hadn't stuck their lobbying interests into the matter back in 2004, the guy wouldn't have had one.  The AR-15 was one of the specifically named weapons in the Federal Assault Weapons ban that was allowed to expire under the Dubya Administration and its GOP-controlled Congress.  So, can you please explain how the Feds defined the AR-15 as an "assault weapon" for purposes of the Ban, but you're here suggesting it's "just" a semi-automatic weapon that's completely different from an "assault weapon?" 

I'm sorry.  NO ONE needs a weapon that can fire multiple rounds without reloading unless they plan on killing a lot of people. 

And contrary to your stance, I've never heard anyone who's ever suggested a COMPLETE AND TOTAL ban on ALL guns (names, please).  Unfortunately, I *have* heard the NRA's holding the completely opposite stance of allowing all guns as well as moronic politicians who believe that people should be allowed to carry concealed weapons everywhere.  Some jackass Congressman (I think it was Gohmert) actually felt that the shootings wouldn't have taken place if everyone else had been armed.  THAT is the kind of insane extremist shit that needs to be stopped. 

And thanks to that right-wing bunch of lunatics on the Supreme Court, the very wording of the Second Amendment has been altered to a meaning that the Founding Fathers (usually the folks the SC conservatives say are their guides) did NOT intend.  And the Founding Fathers certainly never expected the kind of "arms" that we have now.

---

by: BamaRainbow @ Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 07:02:47 AM UTC

No thanks for being caricature of gun control proponents (4.00 / 2)

---

by: profindagump @ Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 12:47:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Perhaps you should read my post again (0.00 / 0)

You claim that "you're (yours truly) here suggesting its (an AR-15) "just" a semi-automatic weapon that's completely different from an "assault weapon?"

What I actually said was:

      An assault rifle (such as the AR-15 used by the Colorado shooter) is a different animal.

What part of the above sentence did you misread to twist what I actually said to what you claim?

Further you make my point when you say - I'm sorry.  NO ONE needs a weapon that can fire multiple rounds without reloading unless they plan on killing a lot of people. You just included every gun that fires more than one shot, including not just semi-autos but virtually every other type of gun. Sounds like an absolute ban to me or close enough to it for government work.

As a lawyer, the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it does. No Supreme Court (even those not consisting of a right wing lunatic majority) since the adoption of the Constitution has ever interpreted the 2nd Amendment the way you want.

Last, I love this statement of yours - And the Founding Fathers certainly never expected the kind of "arms" that we have now.

Lets take that statement further. Trains didn't exist when the constitution was written so ban those suckers - planes and autos - gotta go. Electricity  - gone.

You see the reason the US Constitution is not as long as the Alabama Constitution is because Courts apply it to things that did not exist when it was written.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke

---

by: Old Prosecutor @ Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 20:20:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Frustrating discussions abound (4.00 / 3)

I recently decided to drop out of a conversation on Facebook partially about gun control, and I concur with the sentiment that "maybe we first need to have a discussion about what we are discussing".  Besides the obvious issues of what guns and what kinds of controls are being suggested or rejected, here is one of my peeves from these far-ranging conversations.

One of the arguments made by gun proponents is that we are safer if more people are armed.  Similarly, opponents claim we are safer if fewer people are armed.  This is a reasonable debate to have, but note that it is not at all the same thing as arguing about controlling access to guns.

It does not necessarily follow that easier access to guns means more lots people will have guns.  Perhaps lots of people really have no interest in owning guns.  Similarly, restrictions on gun access doesn't mean lots fewer people will have guns.  It's easy to get a driver license, most people have them, but the license is strictly regulated and requires demonstration of training.

I find it intensely frustrating when the argument about controlling access to guns seems to turn into arguments about armed society.  I support the general right to own guns, but I would hope that most people would, like me, prefer not to have any guns.  I cannot easily make that point amid arguments in favor of having guns, rather than being able to have guns.  Silly things like "an armed society is a polite society" or "only bad people have anything to fear from good people with guns".  (Personally, I'm far more afraid of "good people (including myself) with guns" than I am of criminals, but again, that's a different issue, not gun regulation.)

Apparently, not only should I support free access to guns, I should want to have a gun myself, and I should be happy that lots of people have guns.  No, thank you.  I support homosexual people getting married to each other, but I don't want to enter into a homosexual marriage.  I support people being free to smoke pot, but I don't want to smoke pot.  I support people having the right to do lots of things that I don't personally have any interest in doing or cannot do, some of which I don't think anybody should be doing.  We can have a discussion of rights to do X without having to agree that doing X is a good thing that should be encouraged.

---

by: Smedley @ Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 15:39:49 PM UTC

I don't actually want to take your guns (4.00 / 2)

And thank you for at least beginning to explain gun terminology.  An agreed upon vocabulary is essential to any meaningful discussion.

What I would like is regulation of firearms so that weapons with more killing capacity (the ones that fire many, many rounds in a short time, 'cop-killer' ammo, etc.) are not available to every Tom, Dick and Harriet who can plunk down the cash.  Can we require more training, more screening, a history of responsible ownership of more ordinary weapons, perhaps?  

Yeah, I know I'm probably not using the right terms.  Feel free to correct that, but just as you have to pass a higher standard to operate an 18 wheeler on the highway (which is more deadly in unskilled or unstable hands than my VW) you ought to have to pass a higher standard to buy a weapon that supplies the wherewithal to shoot 60 or 70 people in a couple of minutes or less.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 17:48:17 PM UTC

Assault rifles (0.00 / 0)

I saw in a post above, a question as to what an assault rifle is (as compared to a hunting rifle).. Here is one man's opinion as to the characteristics:

It was designed as a military rifle -  Important because military rifles are designed to kill human beings, not game animals. Also important because since WW II all military rifles are designed to fire fully automatic. As a result, even civilian versions can be converted to fire fully automatic.

It fires an intermediate round - that is a round not as large as a hunting rifle but larger than a pistol round. Important because full sized rifles (like the 30-06 and 308) can not be controlled in rapid fire.

It has a high cyclic rate (rounds per minute) - all semiautos take a certain amount of time to reload and fire the next round. Most hunting weapons will fire a round every 1-2 seconds. Assault rifles will fire 10 or more rounds per second.

High capacity magazines - Assault rifles hold magazines (or clips as some call them) with 20-30 rounds. Many will take drum magazines holding 50+ rounds. A high rate of fire doesnothing if you have to relaod every few shots.

My suggestion would be to treat Assault rifles just like fully automatic guns. Require a special license and fully investigate every one who applies for one.

 

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke

---

by: Old Prosecutor @ Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 20:40:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Okay, stand by to be amazed: I AGREE WITH OP! (4.00 / 2)

The thing about the AR-15 is that it is sold as a semi-automatic, but may rather easily be converted to that 600 round-per-minute slaughtering machine that OP referenced. There is plenty of room under the Second Amendment for reasonable regulation.  Most of my years in law enforcement, I carried two sidearms, both Colt auto-loading pistols, one .45 and one .32. They gave me multiple rounds and quick loading, which is why I chose them over revolvers. In addition, the .45 will stop anything short of a grizzly bear, which is a good thing. So, semi-automatic weapons shoiuld not be banned, but perhaps regulated so that they cannot suddenly become fully automatic. And body armor, oversized magazines and the like are not protected under the Second Amendment and should certainly be in restricted circulation.

Only after the last tree has been cut down. Only after the last fish has been caught. Only after the last river has been poisoned. Only then will you realize that money cannot be eaten. Cree Nation Tribal Prophecy

---

by: piggieheart @ Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 19:02:27 PM UTC

I am amazed (0.00 / 0)

We agree again. PH we have got to stop doing this or people will start to wonder about both of us. The point I was trying to make is that many pro gun control folks use semi-auto when they mean (I think) assault rifles. But the fact that they continue to use the term semi-automatic even after having the difference explained, means they lose a lot of gun owners who might otherwise be willing to discuss reasonable controls. 

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke

---

by: Old Prosecutor @ Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 20:44:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I applaud Old Prosecutor (0.00 / 0)

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge...."      Hosea 4:6

---

by: driq @ Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 19:59:56 PM UTC

Pargraphs (4.00 / 1)

Just hit the Enter key twice.

 

 

---

by: Doggone @ Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 21:31:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Polarized on, uh, one side (4.00 / 1)

I'm sympathetic to the idea that our political discourse is arrested by the constant clash of polar extreme positions. But, I must say, I can't remember the last time I heard someone advocate a complete ban on private ownership of guns.  Several times TODAY i've encountered the notion that ANY new regulation of ANY firearm will getl inevitably lead to cops busting down the doors of law-abiding citizens' homes to confiscate their guns.  This is a clash between an unwillingness to consider any new gun control laws vs. a cry to consider that private citizens probably shouldn't be allowed to buy certain types of guns and/or types or quantities of ammunition.

---

by: subclone @ Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 21:18:21 PM UTC

I don't think it is polarized just on one side (0.00 / 0)

I have seen just on this post, the assertion that the 2nd Amendment should not be read to permit the private ownership of guns. Well, what is that position advanced for except in support of a total ban?

As I argue, there needs to be two concessions (1) that some type of clearly defined firearms can be more tightly regulated and (2) that the right of private ownership of all other guns is not in question.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke

---

by: Old Prosecutor @ Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 21:55:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Right" means everybody can own a gun, no exceptions (4.00 / 1)

I have seen just on this post, the assertion that the 2nd Amendment should not be read to permit the private ownership of guns. Well, what is that position advanced for except in support of a total ban?

I can answer that.  If people have a right to guns, some argue that therefore all people have a right to guns, and there is no way to deny anybody a gun.  If guns are a normal product, like for instance cars, then lots of people can own and operate guns/cars, and some people (say, those with suspended licenses or those without training) can be denied ownership or use of guns/cars.  That's quite definitely not a total ban.

Now, perhaps all reasonable people do not interpret the 2nd Amendment to mean that every single citizen, save perhaps convicted felons who lose a lot of citizenship rights, must be allowed to own and use a gun.  But some people do seem to push that viewpoint.  One way to disagree with it is to assert that guns are not being given special status regarding private ownership.

---

by: Smedley @ Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 03:02:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'd just like to say (4.00 / 1)

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge...."      Hosea 4:6

---

by: driq @ Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 11:00:11 AM UTC

Guns are not the problem (0.00 / 0)

It is short sighted to blame guns of any kind for these events. Blame the people who commit the acts. If there were no guns then they could use several   alternate methods which could be worse than guns. Personally I think that everyone who are not banned should carry a firearm and be trained with it.

---

by: Blue_Sky @ Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 00:46:12 AM UTC

Guns are part of the problem. (4.00 / 1)

The shooter could have killed some but not as many as he did had he not had an automatic rifle. We are lucky his gun misfired if I have that on correct information.

As an aside, I cannot fathom why people would take babies and small children to the midnight movie. Surely, it can benefit the children in any manner. 

---

by: Sundog @ Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 01:56:27 AM UTC