I enjoy hearing those words..."Gun Control"

[johnelmore]

Clearly, the United States is not Europe or like any of the so called "advanced countries". There are many issues which are unique to the USA. Heart disease and problem eating is one such problem that seems unique to the USA. Drug addiction is another one of those problems. None of the unique issues the USA faces can be solved with bans. They tried that with alcohol and it made the issue much worse creating organized crime.

One thing to always remember. The USA is not Europe and it has as much chance of becoming Europe as South Carolina is to becoming New York. The solutions they worked out in New York will not work in South Carolina. In fact, with dangerous killers on the loose in New York I would rather have my firearms. Those solutions they worked out in NY are actually problems if those 2 killers come knocking.

 

[rickyrick]

Problem is... Most see the "bad guy with a gun" got the gun from "a good guy with a gun"

Others notice that pro gun sticker on your car window; then you drive like a jerk.


You argue your case with silly cliches that insult their intelligence like "a gun is a tool"

You shoot road signs full if holes.

You leave wilderness shooting areas full of trash.

The list goes on,

Most smokers thought the same thing as gun owners. I'm sitting in a dark corner of my yard now, enjoying fine tobacco out of a fine heirloom pipe like an outcast.

Any law for the perceived good of the people can be passed. Politics have become clever marketing Schemes now. If they want to restrict guns bad enough, they will.
Now billionaire philanthropists and corporations are influencing state law where they can.

Gun owners and pro gun people do a poor job at marketing their views.
Regularly shoots themselves in the foot.

 

[Snyper]

Mass shootings are not unique to the US, but we have many more than any other industrialized country, no matter how we choose to measure.

Yeah, let's ignore Mexico and Brazil when we talk about violent crimes.

Mexico Mass Shootings Kill 23 in One Day
www.banderasnews.com/1002/nr-massshootings.htm
Ciudad Juarez, Mexico – At least 23 people were killed in separate mass shootings in northern Mexico as the country continued to reel from drug-related violence.

Twelve Dead After Gunman Opens Fire at Brazil …
www.foxnews.com/.../04/07/reportedly-killed-gunman-opens-brazil-school
Apr 07, 2011 · Shooting Rampage at Brazilian Elementary School. At least 13 people are dead after a gunman opens fire at a Brazilian elementary school in Rio de Janeiro.

Brazil killing spree leaves 12 dead, sparks suspicion over ...
www.cnn.com/2014/01/15/world/americas/brazil-killing-spree/index.html
Jan 15, 2014 · Sao Paulo, Brazil (CNN)-- A five-hour killing rampage in Brazil's southeastern city of Campinas that left 12 people dead is being investigated amid …

 

[johnwilliamson062]

One thing we need to change is the use of the term "mass killings." It is defined in a way that manipulates the statistics. Several shooters have been stopped by armed citizen intervention before criteria for "mass killing" was met. A fair number of shootings that are not really related to this issue qualify simply because the number of people killed. Things that happen solely within a family or during a drug deal. We need a term like "rampage shootings." There are quite a few instances where three or more people are killed that are not really related to what has most people so concerned and most counties aren't going to track such events.

 

[Koda94]

We're having them on a constant basis, and the "a good guy with a gun" line isn't convincing the majority of people.

thats because the good guy with the gun has been regulated, infringed and stigmatized upon to the point where you cant even talk about being a gun owner let alone admit to carrying without being branded a gun nut. Good guys do stop crime all the time and the media ignores it and the masses dismiss it as lucky or an example ofa rare exception....

 

[Koda94]

and for what its worth Americas having them (shootings) more frequently has nothing to do with our 2A and yet we continue to put the blame on guns and not adress the real solutions....

 

[Pond James Pond]

I think there needs to be a serious rethink of tactics.

A mass-shooting, as horrible as it may be, is a golden goose to the media. It sells. The public lap up the morbid details for the same reasons they stop and gawk at a road traffic accidents. Then politicians jump on the band wagon as do lobby groups.

We've seen that such a single event has the power to change not only State law but also possible Federal law. All that influence is in the hands of the next nutter to decide that today is the day he wants what Andy Warhol promised...

The fact is, right now you guys are outside that loop: I haven't read anything that says that pro gun-ownership advocates have anywhere near the same voice in the Media. Until that is addressed, you can only really sit and watch. And hope.
Certainly there are members here that admirably promote responsible gun ownership and that works wonders on an individual level but at State level it does very little...

I've said this before and it seemingly went unnoticed but here is my "PR" offensive!

As mass-shootings dominate the front pages due to their financial significance to the outlet, it stands to reason that well invested money in air-time should also work for the likes of the NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation (name correct?).

Rather than paying $$$ for full-page membership drives in gun magazines, pay for 30-min documentary slots on the sorts of channels that anti-gunners watch. Way too much preaching to the converted going on, IMHO (on both sides of this fence).

I don't mean cheesy, unconvincingly-acted infomercial types, I mean well-produced documentaries with interviews of actual people who have survived because of private firearm ownership.

It doesn't even need to always be a case of shooting bad guys. Stories of how a young mother avoided violence in a carpark thanks to drawing a gun, and the would-be mugger's quick change of heart. Cases where someone was protected by a neighbour or passerby who was armed. Simply the case of "A firearm meant that I am now alive and unscathed".

You also need to show what real home-invasions, muggings, attacks, carjackings happen: actual footage to show people how very fast it happens and how very violent it can be, not hammy, sanitised, cliche re-enactments. How phoning the police is not always possible and how some nasty people don't want to be talked out of it because they enjoy it!

They also need to show how much skill is needed to shoot a handgun properly. They need to show that it is easier for a lightly built person to shoot an AR more easily than a double barrel 12G, and more accurate than shooting a handgun.

The production needs to emphasise the 4 rules and common sense practices like gun safes where children are around etc. And actual numbers that reflect the numbers of people who have successfully protected themselves or others. My guess is that they will outnumber mass-shooting victims by some margin.

Very importantly it should acknowledge that mass-shootings are a problem in the US and have to be taken seriously. Pointing out that such things can occur elsewhere does NOTHING for your cause: it is like saying that Estonia need to nothing about its appalling driving standards, just because Latvia and Lithuania have worse levels....
However, the point needs to be underlined that in simply restricting one of the means by which they can occur rather than their causes, there would have been victims in the place of survivors amongst the people they have interviewed.

Above all they should not produce it in such a way that makes you lot, smile and think "Exactly what I've been saying". This would not be for you, reaffirming your views.

They'd need to produce it in a way that makes people who are undecided, or even against, stop and think "I did not know that!" or "I'd never thought of it in that way". Wives should say to their husbands and husbands to their wives "I think I'd like us to get a gun, honey".

We all know how powerful first-hand testimony can be. Well, then, let's give some first hand testimony of our own. The lives of those who are only still here because of a gun being at hand are surely just as valuable and worthy of protection as those of the innocent victims of one person's act of insanity.

The fact is that less than a decade ago I was one of those passive "anti-gunners".

I wasn't about to protest about it, but if I heard an interview with a Murican telling me about packing day and night, 2A, RKBA and how "nobody's gonna take away ma guhns", I'd roll my eyes.

I may still, depending how it is all said, but I am now very much pro.
I now own guns: unthinkable where I was a decade ago.
I now carry (although not always): totally illegal in my life a decade ago.

I now recognise that all walks of life own. That gun owners are generally nice people, smart people, responsible people (and generally so too are anti-gun people). I recognise that owning a gun takes responsibility and has made me more aware due to that responsibility. I can appreciate the new level of self-determination it affords me, not being wholly dependent on outside powers for my family's well-being, even if I'd rather leave it all to those outside powers if ever I had problems.

All this happened because I opened up to the other side of the story. You can shout and scream all the arguments you like, but if the other party is not open to listening, it's pointless. Open them to the possibility of a different perspective and people will at least listen, not just hear.

I believe the approach I described above could do just that.

Here endeth the sermon!
Take it or leave it...

 

[rightside]

One of the biggest problems, as I see it, was the liberal push in'86? to make sure the people in mental institutions had their rights protected. They were being denied their freedom. So Reagan caved to the libs and signed legislation which basically opened the doors to the institutions and allowed those poor people whose rights had been violated, back on the streets. "Here's some pills, and off you go!" It is very difficult to have someone incarcerated for mental illness.Is it any wonder we have mentally ill people on the streets instead of in hospitals where they belong. Now the libs want to blame access to guns as the problem. JMO

 

[Skans]

I do not welcome any debate on the right to bear arms. As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing to debate. The Constitution guaranties me the right to own arms, as in armament - whatever kind and manner was available in 1770's, is available in the 2000's or will be available in 2100's (if I'm still alive).

The bottom line: The "government", which is just made up of nothing but people, are no better stewards of armament ownership than "citizens", who are also nothing but people. It's a stupid debate.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The Constitution can be changed. It's application is subject to interpretation.

That's why the debate continues.

Pond - good analysis. Many times the conversation is to the choir as that makes for easier fund raising.

I've found and some studies suggest that most of the country feel that:

1. People have the right to guns for self-defense and sport (but sport is not relevant for the rights debate)

2. They want to keep guns from criminals and dangerously mental ill people and thus accept reasonable restrictions (the current phrase). Certain military style weapons are not seen by some people as reasonable.

The problem is to make a case for what the choir sees as the gun rights paradigm. Some pro-gun folks can be tone deaf.

 

[Pond James Pond]

I do not welcome any debate on the right to bear arms. As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing to debate. The Constitution guaranties me the right to own arms, as in armament - whatever kind and manner was available in 1770's, is available in the 2000's or will be available in 2100's (if I'm still alive).

The bottom line: The "government", which is just made up of nothing but people, are no better stewards of armament ownership than "citizens", who are also nothing but people. It's a stupid debate.

That is a risky position to adopt.
Like it or not, the debate is happening. With or without you.

What the constitution guarantees you and what you actually have are already quite different, based on what people are saying on here, so if you want that to change, you have to engage!

Just my 2€¢

Pond - good analysis.

Thank you!!
But might it ever happen?....

 

[Skans]

That is a risky position to adopt.

It's my position; my starting place. This is the core of what I what I believe the Constitution says and what I believe those who wrote it intended it to mean.

I can still debate the finer points and likely will. However, I am steadfast in my thinking that restrictions on gun ownership for citizens and legal aliens who are non-felons are silly, short sighted, and outright stupid for anyone to advocate for or even desire.

 

[rickyrick]

The constituon is merely a speed bump for our government executives, legislators and judiciary.

To assume that the constitition will protect your rights on its own is a silly and risky endeavor for sure.

 

[Pond James Pond]

However, I am steadfast in my thinking that restrictions on gun ownership for citizens and legal aliens who are non-felons are silly, short sighted, and outright stupid for anyone to advocate for or even desire.

That is fine, but that does not mean you must boycott debate on the matter. For me it means that one should engage in it with even more gusto for you view it as a matter of principle, not just a matter of practice.

Engaging in any debate does not mean that you acquiesce to it or somehow validate that opposing argument, just that you believe in your side of it.

Ultimately, it's your call, but it just seems like your side needs all the help it can get.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

What the original authors of the Constitution put down on paper contained many things unacceptable now. Most of us would agree with some of the changes made by amendment and SCOTUS.

The problem is whether the 2nd can be seen by the populace as unacceptable in the current Heller, McDonald court view. A new court or the constitutional process can make the RKBA just go bye-bye.

Liquor went away and is now back. Marriage, flag burning - all subject to debate.

Have 200 terrorists buy ARs legally in big box gun stores and then shoot up 200 kindergartens on one day - think the 2nd would survive in its present interpretation? Or would reasonable restrictions wipe those guns from legal possession?

 

[bungiex88]

It doesn't matter what we the people think but whoever had the most money of certain lobbiest at the time something was brought up. As we the people don't really have a say in much past the local level. The highest official normal peoples votes actually count would be sheriff any thing after that I don't even attempt because I know them voting booths are an illusion.

 

[Pond James Pond]

The problem is whether the 2nd can be seen by the populace as unacceptable in the current Heller, McDonald court view. A new court or the constitutional process can make the RKBA just go bye-bye.

Am I right in my earlier interpretation that the kinship with the Second Amendment can be broadly seen as running alone State lines?

I mean could one say that certain States will broadly support it in its purest interpretation, whilst others are more in favour of a modernised, emasculated interpretation?

I ask this because as I wonder if ever there came a point when SCOTUS did, say, try to abolish/heavily modify the 2A, would it not be protected by some State constitutions (or does Federal law trump that?)?

And from there would be imaginable that there might be a sort of Constitutional schism within the US over this issue?
To an outsider it almost seems divisive enough...

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

NE states - NY, CT, MA are dominated by antigun population centers.

Move out the urban areas and they are not gun haters but the large cities control the legislature.

Note that in the current escapee crisis people in the rural areas speak to getting their guns ready.

Similarly, in the West - CA has the same problem as does OR, WA and CO.

Large urban areas tend to dominate antigun legislative actions. TX has spots of that in the big cities but the overall state outweighs them.

So it's really eastern/west coast urban vs. the rest of their state.

 

[johnelmore]

The truly scary thing is if 200 kindergartens were shot up in one day more than just the right to arms would be at question. Im guessing surveillance, habeaus corpus, etc. would all be huge issues. Look at what two guys with homemade bombs made from pots did in Boston. It caused a major lockdown and suspension of rights in the city. 200 terrorists would cause a great Constitutional crisis on a large scale.

Im confident that if 200 terrorists invaded a major city I believe someone would argue strongly for the right to arms. You cant have the police and national guard right at your house, school, or business all the time. At some point you have to trust the citizens with arms if in fact there was even a remote chance of a major attack. My observation is if thd police are not right there its too late. Even if they are there they can be overpowered.

I am confident there will be a large event with multiple terrorists one day. However, the argument will not be to restrict arms, but how can we all carry arms. I bet in every church in SC there is someone carrying right now. Thats the only way to truly harden a target.

 

[44 AMP]

I wonder if ever there came a point when SCOTUS did, say, try to abolish/heavily modify the 2A,

While some might think otherwise, the Supreme Court does NOT have the authority to repeal/modify the US Constitution.

That is beyond their legal ability. It takes a constitutional amendment to modify/repeal any portion of the Constitution, including its amendments.

The precedent is quite clear, and while I'm not a legal scholar, I think its plain enough to anyone. Look at Prohibition.

The Supreme Court has the responsibility to judge laws against the Constitution, they do NOT have the right to judge the Constitution, itself. They cannot, for instance rule any amendment "unconstitutional" since it is part of the Constitution, itself. Prohibition (an amendment) took another Constitutional amendment to repeal it. The Supreme Court could not repeal Prohibition, nor can it repeal the 2nd Amendment. ONLY a Constitutional amendment can do that. (or a complete constitutional convention, where EVERYTHING is up for grabs).

Likewise, Congress cannot simply pass a law and repeal part of the Constitution. SO, on that matter, rest easy.

HOWEVER, what the Supreme Court CAN do is not strike down (or simply refuse to hear cases) that violate the Constitution. A lack of enforcement will have the same practical effect, but leave the wording of the 2nd intact.

The court can, at any time reverse any of its previous rulings. Just as they did with rulings on slavery. Today, we have Heller, and other cases, and a silm majority ruling stating we have an individual right, independent of the militia.

A future, 'more enlightened" court could change that.

Our Constitution was intended to be a "living document" in the sense that there is an amendment process written into it.

It was not intended to be a living document in the sense that it's language is open to constant re-interpretation dependent on current social climates.

And this is where we have a problem. Some folks think what was written then means whatever they say it means, today. Some of us think it means what it meant when it was written.

IF you want to change the meaning of certain things in the Constitution, go right ahead, and USE the amendment process (which is what it was made for).

If you want to change it by a court's definition (or worse, by the popular media definitions), you are in the wrong, in my not so humble opinion.

I did like your idea of a well done TV show, used to show the TRUTH, (which includes our side), but there is a large problem with that, aside from just affording to make it. And that is getting any major media to actually AIR it.

Free advertising to any and all anti-gun causes is routinely provided, under the mantle of "news".

Pro gun messages have been refused, not just free press, but refused PAID airtime. They are big on so called "fairness" when its their side of an issue is being stifled, but won't even accept our money to let us tell the other side.

Its not just a double standard, it is outright bigotry, but I'd be willing to bet you would be labeled a "racist" if you try to point that out...

(and yes, I know "racist" had NOTHING to do with it, but they will find a way to play that card, and stick you with the most "hated" of labels, if they possibly can).