***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (2 Viewers)

[greenroom]

I love how when something tragic occurs the first thing people do is demand you give up your constitutionall protected rights. Apparently our lovely education system hasn't done a very good job of explaining the importance and legal significance of constitutional rights.

Because of 9/11 we all have much less rights to privacy. Id prefer we dont do this again. The 2nd amendment says "not to be infringed". Seems pretty clear.

Yep thats it. We should live in the 1700's. By the way, I think my slave ran away to your house, could you return him? Additionally, infringing has nothing to do with regulating. We already took away the rights to machine guns, would that be infringing on our rights? Additionally, we have the oldest working Constitution. And some of us might be of the belief that if you aren't moving forward, you are moving backwards. Do people think the US Constitution is perfect? A document drafted in 1787 can effectively determine our rights in the 21st C. in the age of the internet?

http://www.nytimes.c...-the-world.html

Perhaps that sheds some light. While the US Constitution may arguably be the most influential document ever, citing it doesn't and shouldn't just end all discussion.

Of course your response is full of strawmen arguing against things i didnt say. Tell you guys what, when you want to calm down and have a rational discussion, send me a pm.

So another words you have nothing. And instead of admitting that you were wrong or have no idea on how to answer a good question , you are going to take your football away from the other kids. The question are valid, to bad you cannot answer them in an adult way.

 

[TwinTurbo]

We should be like England, they got it right.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ews/1440764.stm

http://www.dailymail...-89-decade.html

Tommy, one of your articles is from 2009. The other is from 2001. I've already linked England's 2012 statistics here. They have a third or less of our murders and something like 1/100 of our firearm homicides.Yes. They're getting it right. Or at least more right than we are.

They may be getting it right, but I dont think they are getting it right simply because they banned guns. Their gun crime was already way lower. They banned guns and gun crimes still spiked for several years after.Gun crime has decreased since the spike, but it has also decreased in the US during that same time frame. Isn't it logical to think that there are other factors contributing to the decrease rather than a ban from many many years prior?

We should be examining what England was doing before the ban, not after.

This is true. The UK already had much lower gun crime compared to the US. And yet their gun crimes spiked in the years following the 1997 ban until recently when the numbers started to decrease. The rate of gun related homicides in the US has also sharply declined during that time. But despite the UK gun ban in response to the Dunblane shootings, there was still another mass shooting in Cumbria in 2010 carried out by a lone gunman. The availability of guns also remained strong despite the ban along with serious gun violence problems related to gangs and organized crime. So maybe they are getting some things right, but it illustrates the fact that gun control is not crime control. This is also not the UK where there is general consensus and support for the gun ban and little debate about it. This is America where there is nearly a 1:1 ratio of guns to people. Americans own around half the guns on earth, and around one third of American households own at least one gun. Even if you banned certain types of guns or all new firearms for that matter, there is no way to even put a dent in the existing supply without creating a political firestorm and enforcement would be extremely challenging given the vast number of guns already in possession. These weapons will not simply disappear with new legislation.

I currently do not own any guns, but I hope we don't experience another knee jerk reaction to a senseless tragedy similar to 9/11 where people willingly give up their constitutional rights in return for a false sense of security. If you are one of those people that gladly takes their shoes off at airport security because you think it makes you safer, then you'll probably be one of the people that gladly gives up the right to own a firearm too. But the reality is that this is a multivariate problem that cannot be solved simply with stricter gun control laws. There are many factors in play and hopefully this will spur meaningful debate and actions taken leading to effective measures that will actually mitigate the risk of future mass shootings.

 

[Novice2]

We should be like England, they got it right.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ews/1440764.stm

http://www.dailymail...-89-decade.html

Tommy, one of your articles is from 2009. The other is from 2001. I've already linked England's 2012 statistics here. They have a third or less of our murders and something like 1/100 of our firearm homicides.Yes. They're getting it right. Or at least more right than we are.

They may be getting it right, but I dont think they are getting it right simply because they banned guns. Their gun crime was already way lower. They banned guns and gun crimes still spiked for several years after.Gun crime has decreased since the spike, but it has also decreased in the US during that same time frame. Isn't it logical to think that there are other factors contributing to the decrease rather than a ban from many many years prior?

We should be examining what England was doing before the ban, not after.

This is true. The UK already had much lower gun crime compared to the US. And yet their gun crimes spiked in the years following the 1997 ban until recently when the numbers started to decrease. The rate of gun related homicides in the US has also sharply declined during that time. But despite the UK gun ban in response to the Dunblane shootings, there was still another mass shooting in Cumbria in 2010 carried out by a lone gunman. The availability of guns also remained strong despite the ban along with serious gun violence problems related to gangs and organized crime. So maybe they are getting some things right, but it illustrates the fact that gun control is not crime control. This is also not the UK where there is general consensus and support for the gun ban and little debate about it. This is America where there is nearly a 1:1 ratio of guns to people. Americans own around half the guns on earth, and around one third of American households own at least one gun. Even if you banned certain types of guns or all new firearms for that matter, there is no way to even put a dent in the existing supply without creating a political firestorm and enforcement would be extremely challenging given the vast number of guns already in possession. These weapons will not simply disappear with new legislation.

I currently do not own any guns, but I hope we don't experience another knee jerk reaction to a senseless tragedy similar to 9/11 where people willingly give up their constitutional rights in return for a false sense of security. If you are one of those people that gladly takes their shoes off at airport security because you think it makes you safer, then you'll probably be one of the people that gladly gives up the right to own a firearm too. But the reality is that this is a multivariate problem that cannot be solved simply with stricter gun control laws. There are many factors in play and hopefully this will spur meaningful debate and actions taken leading to effective measures that will actually mitigate the risk of future mass shootings.

You can hope in one hand and #### in the other and see what gets filled first. The reaction to this massacre tells you what the reaction to the next one will be.

 

[Soonerman]

I love how when something tragic occurs the first thing people do is demand you give up your constitutionall protected rights. Apparently our lovely education system hasn't done a very good job of explaining the importance and legal significance of constitutional rights.Because of 9/11 we all have much less rights to privacy. Id prefer we dont do this again. The 2nd amendment says "not to be infringed". Seems pretty clear.

Yep thats it. We should live in the 1700's. By the way, I think my slave ran away to your house, could you return him? Additionally, infringing has nothing to do with regulating. We already took away the rights to machine guns, would that be infringing on our rights? Additionally, we have the oldest working Constitution. And some of us might be of the belief that if you aren't moving forward, you are moving backwards. Do people think the US Constitution is perfect? A document drafted in 1787 can effectively determine our rights in the 21st C. in the age of the internet? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/us/we-the-people-loses-appeal-with-people-around-the-world.htmlPerhaps that sheds some light. While the US Constitution may arguably be the most influential document ever, citing it doesn't and shouldn't just end all discussion.

Of course your response is full of strawmen arguing against things i didnt say. Tell you guys what, when you want to calm down and have a rational discussion, send me a pm.

Well my first joke was just to dismiss the Constitution as infallible. I guess you could call it a straw man argument but when you act as if the Constitution is the end all, be all, I think it is fairly relevant. I am fairly calm. I thought my answer was well reasoned and thought out. You presented an argument about how our Constitutional rights are paramount to any and everything. The first argument, as Proninja reiterated, is that infringed does not equal regulation. We can see this as the US has regulated guns before making assault rifles illegal. Additionally, the first amendment, which says the government can't "abridge the freedom of speech," has since regulated some speech as not being able to use obscenities. My other point was that hiding behind the Constitution might be a bit outdated. I think Thomas Jefferson said that Constitutions should last for 19 years before they become outdated. This will probably be an incendiary comment to some who hold the Constitution supreme to all but when other countries are no longer using our government/legal system as the basis for their systems, I think we must look at ourselves in the mirror and ask why.

We already have a way to make changes to the constitution. It's called the amendment process (or we could hold a constitutional convention).So much for the "constitution is outdated" argument.

 

[Glass Joe]

We should be like England, they got it right.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ews/1440764.stm

http://www.dailymail...-89-decade.html

Tommy, one of your articles is from 2009. The other is from 2001. I've already linked England's 2012 statistics here. They have a third or less of our murders and something like 1/100 of our firearm homicides.Yes. They're getting it right. Or at least more right than we are.

They may be getting it right, but I dont think they are getting it right simply because they banned guns. Their gun crime was already way lower. They banned guns and gun crimes still spiked for several years after.Gun crime has decreased since the spike, but it has also decreased in the US during that same time frame. Isn't it logical to think that there are other factors contributing to the decrease rather than a ban from many many years prior?

We should be examining what England was doing before the ban, not after.

This is true. The UK already had much lower gun crime compared to the US. And yet their gun crimes spiked in the years following the 1997 ban until recently when the numbers started to decrease. The rate of gun related homicides in the US has also sharply declined during that time. But despite the UK gun ban in response to the Dunblane shootings, there was still another mass shooting in Cumbria in 2010 carried out by a lone gunman. The availability of guns also remained strong despite the ban along with serious gun violence problems related to gangs and organized crime. So maybe they are getting some things right, but it illustrates the fact that gun control is not crime control. This is also not the UK where there is general consensus and support for the gun ban and little debate about it. This is America where there is nearly a 1:1 ratio of guns to people. Americans own around half the guns on earth, and around one third of American households own at least one gun. Even if you banned certain types of guns or all new firearms for that matter, there is no way to even put a dent in the existing supply without creating a political firestorm and enforcement would be extremely challenging given the vast number of guns already in possession. These weapons will not simply disappear with new legislation.

I currently do not own any guns, but I hope we don't experience another knee jerk reaction to a senseless tragedy similar to 9/11 where people willingly give up their constitutional rights in return for a false sense of security. If you are one of those people that gladly takes their shoes off at airport security because you think it makes you safer, then you'll probably be one of the people that gladly gives up the right to own a firearm too. But the reality is that this is a multivariate problem that cannot be solved simply with stricter gun control laws. There are many factors in play and hopefully this will spur meaningful debate and actions taken leading to effective measures that will actually mitigate the risk of future mass shootings.

What IS clear though is that "meaningful debate and actions taken" will never result in any significant tightening of restrictions to weapons. You and the gun lobby will never allow it. You'll focus on everything but gun restrictions. Maybe we'll move forward on dealing with mental health issues, though I doubt that too - it's too complex and definitely costly.Those children died in vain. And the NRA has blood on its hands.

 

[Novice2]

We should be like England, they got it right.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ews/1440764.stm

http://www.dailymail...-89-decade.html

Tommy, one of your articles is from 2009. The other is from 2001. I've already linked England's 2012 statistics here. They have a third or less of our murders and something like 1/100 of our firearm homicides.Yes. They're getting it right. Or at least more right than we are.

They may be getting it right, but I dont think they are getting it right simply because they banned guns. Their gun crime was already way lower. They banned guns and gun crimes still spiked for several years after.Gun crime has decreased since the spike, but it has also decreased in the US during that same time frame. Isn't it logical to think that there are other factors contributing to the decrease rather than a ban from many many years prior?

We should be examining what England was doing before the ban, not after.

This is true. The UK already had much lower gun crime compared to the US. And yet their gun crimes spiked in the years following the 1997 ban until recently when the numbers started to decrease. The rate of gun related homicides in the US has also sharply declined during that time. But despite the UK gun ban in response to the Dunblane shootings, there was still another mass shooting in Cumbria in 2010 carried out by a lone gunman. The availability of guns also remained strong despite the ban along with serious gun violence problems related to gangs and organized crime. So maybe they are getting some things right, but it illustrates the fact that gun control is not crime control. This is also not the UK where there is general consensus and support for the gun ban and little debate about it. This is America where there is nearly a 1:1 ratio of guns to people. Americans own around half the guns on earth, and around one third of American households own at least one gun. Even if you banned certain types of guns or all new firearms for that matter, there is no way to even put a dent in the existing supply without creating a political firestorm and enforcement would be extremely challenging given the vast number of guns already in possession. These weapons will not simply disappear with new legislation.

I currently do not own any guns, but I hope we don't experience another knee jerk reaction to a senseless tragedy similar to 9/11 where people willingly give up their constitutional rights in return for a false sense of security. If you are one of those people that gladly takes their shoes off at airport security because you think it makes you safer, then you'll probably be one of the people that gladly gives up the right to own a firearm too. But the reality is that this is a multivariate problem that cannot be solved simply with stricter gun control laws. There are many factors in play and hopefully this will spur meaningful debate and actions taken leading to effective measures that will actually mitigate the risk of future mass shootings.

. And the NRA has blood on its hands.

No they don't. Blaming the NRA just continues the its always someone else's fault mentality so prevalent today.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

We should be like England, they got it right.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ews/1440764.stm

http://www.dailymail...-89-decade.html

Tommy, one of your articles is from 2009. The other is from 2001. I've already linked England's 2012 statistics here. They have a third or less of our murders and something like 1/100 of our firearm homicides.Yes. They're getting it right. Or at least more right than we are.

They may be getting it right, but I dont think they are getting it right simply because they banned guns. Their gun crime was already way lower. They banned guns and gun crimes still spiked for several years after.Gun crime has decreased since the spike, but it has also decreased in the US during that same time frame. Isn't it logical to think that there are other factors contributing to the decrease rather than a ban from many many years prior?

We should be examining what England was doing before the ban, not after.

This is true. The UK already had much lower gun crime compared to the US. And yet their gun crimes spiked in the years following the 1997 ban until recently when the numbers started to decrease. The rate of gun related homicides in the US has also sharply declined during that time. But despite the UK gun ban in response to the Dunblane shootings, there was still another mass shooting in Cumbria in 2010 carried out by a lone gunman. The availability of guns also remained strong despite the ban along with serious gun violence problems related to gangs and organized crime. So maybe they are getting some things right, but it illustrates the fact that gun control is not crime control. This is also not the UK where there is general consensus and support for the gun ban and little debate about it. This is America where there is nearly a 1:1 ratio of guns to people. Americans own around half the guns on earth, and around one third of American households own at least one gun. Even if you banned certain types of guns or all new firearms for that matter, there is no way to even put a dent in the existing supply without creating a political firestorm and enforcement would be extremely challenging given the vast number of guns already in possession. These weapons will not simply disappear with new legislation.

I currently do not own any guns, but I hope we don't experience another knee jerk reaction to a senseless tragedy similar to 9/11 where people willingly give up their constitutional rights in return for a false sense of security. If you are one of those people that gladly takes their shoes off at airport security because you think it makes you safer, then you'll probably be one of the people that gladly gives up the right to own a firearm too. But the reality is that this is a multivariate problem that cannot be solved simply with stricter gun control laws. There are many factors in play and hopefully this will spur meaningful debate and actions taken leading to effective measures that will actually mitigate the risk of future mass shootings.

. And the NRA has blood on its hands.

No they don't. Blaming the NRA just continues the its always someone else's fault mentality so prevalent today.

Here is a totally cringeworthy link.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I love how when something tragic occurs the first thing people do is demand you give up your constitutionally protected rights.

I can't think of any constitutionally-protected rights that are absolute. For example, more or less everybody agrees that the government can place restrictions on certain types of speech, which is why laws against slander and libel and false advertising and the like are generally okay. If we're talking about banning guns or placing so many restrictions on gun ownership that it becomes practically impossible to acquire one for home defense, then yeah, I agree that that's unconstitutional. But if instead we're discussing relatively simple restrictions like background checks, restrictions on high-capacity magazines, and maybe even registration requirements, I think those probably ought to survive constitutional scrutiny.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I love how when something tragic occurs the first thing people do is demand you give up your constitutionally protected rights. Apparently our lovely education system hasn't done a very good job of explaining the importance and legal significance of constitutional rights.

Because of 9/11 we all have much less rights to privacy. Id prefer we dont do this again. The 2nd amendment says "not to be infringed". Seems pretty clear.

Yep thats it. We should live in the 1700's. By the way, I think my slave ran away to your house, could you return him? Additionally, infringing has nothing to do with regulating. We already took away the rights to machine guns, would that be infringing on our rights? Additionally, we have the oldest working Constitution. And some of us might be of the belief that if you aren't moving forward, you are moving backwards. Do people think the US Constitution is perfect? A document drafted in 1787 can effectively determine our rights in the 21st C. in the age of the internet?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/us/we-the-people-loses-appeal-with-people-around-the-world.html

Perhaps that sheds some light. While the US Constitution may arguably be the most influential document ever, citing it doesn't and shouldn't just end all discussion.

Actually it does and should. If a particular piece of legislation is unconstitutional, that's it. There's no point in debating it any further. That's what a constitution is for, after all.

 

[parasaurolophus]

We should be like England, they got it right.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ews/1440764.stm

http://www.dailymail...-89-decade.html

Tommy, one of your articles is from 2009. The other is from 2001. I've already linked England's 2012 statistics here. They have a third or less of our murders and something like 1/100 of our firearm homicides.Yes. They're getting it right. Or at least more right than we are.

They may be getting it right, but I dont think they are getting it right simply because they banned guns. Their gun crime was already way lower. They banned guns and gun crimes still spiked for several years after.Gun crime has decreased since the spike, but it has also decreased in the US during that same time frame. Isn't it logical to think that there are other factors contributing to the decrease rather than a ban from many many years prior?

We should be examining what England was doing before the ban, not after.

This is true. The UK already had much lower gun crime compared to the US. And yet their gun crimes spiked in the years following the 1997 ban until recently when the numbers started to decrease. The rate of gun related homicides in the US has also sharply declined during that time. But despite the UK gun ban in response to the Dunblane shootings, there was still another mass shooting in Cumbria in 2010 carried out by a lone gunman. The availability of guns also remained strong despite the ban along with serious gun violence problems related to gangs and organized crime. So maybe they are getting some things right, but it illustrates the fact that gun control is not crime control. This is also not the UK where there is general consensus and support for the gun ban and little debate about it. This is America where there is nearly a 1:1 ratio of guns to people. Americans own around half the guns on earth, and around one third of American households own at least one gun. Even if you banned certain types of guns or all new firearms for that matter, there is no way to even put a dent in the existing supply without creating a political firestorm and enforcement would be extremely challenging given the vast number of guns already in possession. These weapons will not simply disappear with new legislation.

I currently do not own any guns, but I hope we don't experience another knee jerk reaction to a senseless tragedy similar to 9/11 where people willingly give up their constitutional rights in return for a false sense of security. If you are one of those people that gladly takes their shoes off at airport security because you think it makes you safer, then you'll probably be one of the people that gladly gives up the right to own a firearm too. But the reality is that this is a multivariate problem that cannot be solved simply with stricter gun control laws. There are many factors in play and hopefully this will spur meaningful debate and actions taken leading to effective measures that will actually mitigate the risk of future mass shootings.

. And the NRA has blood on its hands.

No they don't. Blaming the NRA just continues the its always someone else's fault mentality so prevalent today.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I love how when something tragic occurs the first thing people do is demand you give up your constitutionally protected rights. Apparently our lovely education system hasn't done a very good job of explaining the importance and legal significance of constitutional rights.Because of 9/11 we all have much less rights to privacy. Id prefer we dont do this again. The 2nd amendment says "not to be infringed". Seems pretty clear.

Yep thats it. We should live in the 1700's. By the way, I think my slave ran away to your house, could you return him? Additionally, infringing has nothing to do with regulating. We already took away the rights to machine guns, would that be infringing on our rights? Additionally, we have the oldest working Constitution. And some of us might be of the belief that if you aren't moving forward, you are moving backwards. Do people think the US Constitution is perfect? A document drafted in 1787 can effectively determine our rights in the 21st C. in the age of the internet? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/us/we-the-people-loses-appeal-with-people-around-the-world.htmlPerhaps that sheds some light. While the US Constitution may arguably be the most influential document ever, citing it doesn't and shouldn't just end all discussion.

I hope the "The constitution is old so lets disregard it when we want to" movement never gains any momentum.

 

[[icon]]

If we're talking about banning guns or placing so many restrictions on gun ownership that it becomes practically impossible to acquire one for home defense, then yeah, I agree that that's unconstitutional. But if instead we're discussing relatively simple restrictions like background checks, restrictions on high-capacity magazines, and maybe even registration requirements, I think those probably ought to survive constitutional scrutiny.

I am quite a firm supporter of the 2nd amendment but I more than willing to budge on stuff that WILL help like tougher background checks, limiting high capacity magazines, and even mandating a firearms safety/training course to purchase certain types of guns. I DON'T beleive that AR bans are the right course of action, and a complete ban of guns is absurd and will never happen so anyone bringing that to the table is immediately discredited.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I love how when something tragic occurs the first thing people do is demand you give up your constitutionally protected rights. Apparently our lovely education system hasn't done a very good job of explaining the importance and legal significance of constitutional rights.

Because of 9/11 we all have much less rights to privacy. Id prefer we dont do this again. The 2nd amendment says "not to be infringed". Seems pretty clear.

Yep thats it. We should live in the 1700's. By the way, I think my slave ran away to your house, could you return him? Additionally, infringing has nothing to do with regulating. We already took away the rights to machine guns, would that be infringing on our rights? Additionally, we have the oldest working Constitution. And some of us might be of the belief that if you aren't moving forward, you are moving backwards. Do people think the US Constitution is perfect? A document drafted in 1787 can effectively determine our rights in the 21st C. in the age of the internet?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/us/we-the-people-loses-appeal-with-people-around-the-world.html

Perhaps that sheds some light. While the US Constitution may arguably be the most influential document ever, citing it doesn't and shouldn't just end all discussion.

Actually it does and should. If a particular piece of legislation is unconstitutional, that's it. There's no point in debating it any further. That's what a constitution is for, after all.

There's a frequent tendency in FFA discussions to conflate the concepts of "good policy" and "constitutionality." They're completely different concepts and the fact that a particular law is or isn't constitutional has no bearing on whether it's a good law.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

What about Australia? I don't know about their affinity for guns, but their population is not dense, and they have enacted very effective gun control laws.

Well, I've never been to Australia and I don't know anything about their history of gun culture other than what I just read this morning in this article on slate.com. But that article leads me to believe Australians didn't love their guns nearly to the degree that Americans do. There's this quote:

The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.

90%! I'd be surprised if we could top 50% support for similar laws here.

Only 54% of Americans think our gun laws should be more restrictive than they are now.There are responses to more specific gun control questions in the survey -- only 27% of people support a complete ban on handguns. It doesn't seem possible to do here what Australia has done there.

 

[timschochet]

Some overnight nationwide polling I saw on TV last night showed the following: 54% in favor of more gun control in general, 53% in favor of banning assault weapons, 59% in favor of reducing magazine capacity. Two things struck me about these polls:

1. There were very few undecided as compared to most issues. This is one of those rare issues in which almost everyone has an opinion (the only other one I can think of is abortion.)

2. In terms of enacting public policy, the polls may not matter too much, because I get the feeling they are "soft"- meaning that the minority of Americans who oppose these ideas are still far more engaged than the majority who support them: more organized, more willing to vote and contribute monies based on their opposition to these issues. This has been largely true in the past, though there's an assumption in the news media that everything has changed since Friday morning. I remain skeptical of that: will people in favor of more gun control still be this intent a month or two months from now when specific legislation is being discussed? Guess we'll find out.

 

[ATC1]

"Gun violence since 1968 has killed more Americans than all the wars in all of U.S. history combined."

Link

I just can't understand how one can rationalize the solution to your horrible gun violence problem....is more guns. Even your average 3rd grader is taught that when something is not safe, is a problem, is scary or unhealthy, the best thing to do is avoid it.

Yet, we now have wahoos saying teachers should be armed.

Is it really about the outdated 2nd amendment? I just can't believe the forefathers had this horrible situation in mind as something gun enthusiasts should hitch their wagon to when arguing "pro-gun"

But then again, I don't live in a gun culture society, so I can't speak to it. What I can speak of is how you're being viewed by the outside.

As this great article says..."America seems to be the place the whole world thinks of when apparently ordinary people use guns for grotesque acts of violence."

2nd LInk

I have a lot of respect for the fortitude of American culture. One aspect of it I saw was after 9/11. As a Canadian, I was impressed with the good acts I read of, the kindness and strength of character particularly of New Yorkers. I must say, I was impressed.

Americans will have to dig deep here. Can you critically look at your own Constitution and ask yourself that hard question, that maybe as the country has changed, perhaps it too needs revision? Or has it become too sacred, to sacrileges to even consider? This is what I think your greatest challenge is.

But I don't think it will happen. The greatest gift Obama and you all could give your children is a society more free of violence. Do you think if you ask a 7 year old if they would prefer a world without guns, or a world where they are allowed to carry guns they would even hesitate to answer properly?

I just don't understand some of you.

You made a lot of sense until this part.

I think you get the jist of my point though no? Kids innately will answer what they know is right and wrong, good and harmful. Regardless....

I'd give all my guns if there were no violence. I'd give it up if I knew I could avoid such areas, but I can not. All I can do is prepare myself just in case. Think differently of me now? I would love to have a government that cares for it's mentally ill. I would love for the government to realize guns are not going to disappear, and offer free self defense classes and safety classes to everyone interested in being informed. You don't need to be frightened of guns in the right hands.

 

[ATC1]

I'll grant that but let’s key our eye on the target. It's the guy pulling the trigger. We are all just burying our heads in the sand if we believe making guns harder to get is going to solve this problem. These people will continue to find ways to get guns if they are determined enough. We need to get to the root of the problem and focus on the mental health in this country. I’m sure there were warning signs from this guy. It seems there always are, yet they are tragically ignored.

Another strawman. Nobody is saying that getting rid of guns will, "solve the problem." People are saying that it might make the problem better. It might not matter in these arguments terms if it was 20 kids killed that day or 2, but it matters to someone.You will always have crazies. The question is how big of a weapon are you going to make it easy for them to get.

It matters to me. As a parent I felt like I was kicked in the nuts when I first heard what happened. I am heartbroken for those people. I want to see something done too. I just don't want to see a knee jerk reaction from gun control advocates that try to take this too far. I also don't want to see what I and many others perceive to be the real issue here of mental illness brushed aside.

Why is everyone so terrified of the gun control advocates "taking this too far"? What are you afraid of? Obama quartering marines in your living room? Making you watch liberal TV programs?? I don't get the paranoia and terror over this "going too far."To me, the scarier end of the spectrum of "going too far" is crazies with bushmasters slaughtering women and children mercilessly. What am I missing?

Of the bold and the italicized, which one would be better for society if it were controlled?

 

[timschochet]

So how long will the NRA remain silent? No Facebook message. No public statement. No interviews, despite every network begging them to appear. This has gotta be a first.

 

[Soonerman]

I love how when something tragic occurs the first thing people do is demand you give up your constitutionally protected rights. Apparently our lovely education system hasn't done a very good job of explaining the importance and legal significance of constitutional rights.

Because of 9/11 we all have much less rights to privacy. Id prefer we dont do this again. The 2nd amendment says "not to be infringed". Seems pretty clear.

Yep thats it. We should live in the 1700's. By the way, I think my slave ran away to your house, could you return him? Additionally, infringing has nothing to do with regulating. We already took away the rights to machine guns, would that be infringing on our rights? Additionally, we have the oldest working Constitution. And some of us might be of the belief that if you aren't moving forward, you are moving backwards. Do people think the US Constitution is perfect? A document drafted in 1787 can effectively determine our rights in the 21st C. in the age of the internet?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/us/we-the-people-loses-appeal-with-people-around-the-world.html

Perhaps that sheds some light. While the US Constitution may arguably be the most influential document ever, citing it doesn't and shouldn't just end all discussion.

Actually it does and should. If a particular piece of legislation is unconstitutional, that's it. There's no point in debating it any further. That's what a constitution is for, after all.

There's a frequent tendency in FFA discussions to conflate the concepts of "good policy" and "constitutionality." They're completely different concepts and the fact that a particular law is or isn't constitutional has no bearing on whether it's a good law.

If it's unconstitutional, it can't be a law.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I love how when something tragic occurs the first thing people do is demand you give up your constitutionally protected rights. Apparently our lovely education system hasn't done a very good job of explaining the importance and legal significance of constitutional rights.

Because of 9/11 we all have much less rights to privacy. Id prefer we dont do this again. The 2nd amendment says "not to be infringed". Seems pretty clear.

Yep thats it. We should live in the 1700's. By the way, I think my slave ran away to your house, could you return him? Additionally, infringing has nothing to do with regulating. We already took away the rights to machine guns, would that be infringing on our rights? Additionally, we have the oldest working Constitution. And some of us might be of the belief that if you aren't moving forward, you are moving backwards. Do people think the US Constitution is perfect? A document drafted in 1787 can effectively determine our rights in the 21st C. in the age of the internet?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/us/we-the-people-loses-appeal-with-people-around-the-world.html

Perhaps that sheds some light. While the US Constitution may arguably be the most influential document ever, citing it doesn't and shouldn't just end all discussion.

Actually it does and should. If a particular piece of legislation is unconstitutional, that's it. There's no point in debating it any further. That's what a constitution is for, after all.

There's a frequent tendency in FFA discussions to conflate the concepts of "good policy" and "constitutionality." They're completely different concepts and the fact that a particular law is or isn't constitutional has no bearing on whether it's a good law.

If it's unconstitutional, it can't be a law.

I think fatguy and sporthenry are talking about two different things. The impression I get from fatguy is that he's saying that it's still okay to debate a policy proposal on a message board even if we all know it's unconstitutional and will never be law. sporthenry seems to be saying that we should just ignore the constitution and enact laws that violate it if we feel the urge to do so.

 

[Soonerman]

I love how when something tragic occurs the first thing people do is demand you give up your constitutionally protected rights. Apparently our lovely education system hasn't done a very good job of explaining the importance and legal significance of constitutional rights.

Because of 9/11 we all have much less rights to privacy. Id prefer we dont do this again. The 2nd amendment says "not to be infringed". Seems pretty clear.

Yep thats it. We should live in the 1700's. By the way, I think my slave ran away to your house, could you return him? Additionally, infringing has nothing to do with regulating. We already took away the rights to machine guns, would that be infringing on our rights? Additionally, we have the oldest working Constitution. And some of us might be of the belief that if you aren't moving forward, you are moving backwards. Do people think the US Constitution is perfect? A document drafted in 1787 can effectively determine our rights in the 21st C. in the age of the internet?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/us/we-the-people-loses-appeal-with-people-around-the-world.html

Perhaps that sheds some light. While the US Constitution may arguably be the most influential document ever, citing it doesn't and shouldn't just end all discussion.

Actually it does and should. If a particular piece of legislation is unconstitutional, that's it. There's no point in debating it any further. That's what a constitution is for, after all.

There's a frequent tendency in FFA discussions to conflate the concepts of "good policy" and "constitutionality." They're completely different concepts and the fact that a particular law is or isn't constitutional has no bearing on whether it's a good law.

If it's unconstitutional, it can't be a law.

I think fatguy and sporthenry are talking about two different things. The impression I get from fatguy is that he's saying that it's still okay to debate a policy proposal on a message board even if we all know it's unconstitutional and will never be law. sporthenry seems to be saying that we should just ignore the constitution and enact laws that violate it if we feel the urge to do so.

Maybe so, but talking about "good laws" that aren't constitutional seems like a big waste of time.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

There's a frequent tendency in FFA discussions to conflate the concepts of "good policy" and "constitutionality." They're completely different concepts and the fact that a particular law is or isn't constitutional has no bearing on whether it's a good law.

If it's unconstitutional, it can't be a law.

Not necessarily. We can theoretically change the constitution. And states can enact laws that would be unconstitutional for the federal government to enact due to lack of constitutional authority.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I love how when something tragic occurs the first thing people do is demand you give up your constitutionally protected rights. Apparently our lovely education system hasn't done a very good job of explaining the importance and legal significance of constitutional rights.

Because of 9/11 we all have much less rights to privacy. Id prefer we dont do this again. The 2nd amendment says "not to be infringed". Seems pretty clear.

Yep thats it. We should live in the 1700's. By the way, I think my slave ran away to your house, could you return him? Additionally, infringing has nothing to do with regulating. We already took away the rights to machine guns, would that be infringing on our rights? Additionally, we have the oldest working Constitution. And some of us might be of the belief that if you aren't moving forward, you are moving backwards. Do people think the US Constitution is perfect? A document drafted in 1787 can effectively determine our rights in the 21st C. in the age of the internet?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/us/we-the-people-loses-appeal-with-people-around-the-world.html

Perhaps that sheds some light. While the US Constitution may arguably be the most influential document ever, citing it doesn't and shouldn't just end all discussion.

Actually it does and should. If a particular piece of legislation is unconstitutional, that's it. There's no point in debating it any further. That's what a constitution is for, after all.

There's a frequent tendency in FFA discussions to conflate the concepts of "good policy" and "constitutionality." They're completely different concepts and the fact that a particular law is or isn't constitutional has no bearing on whether it's a good law.

If it's unconstitutional, it can't be a law.

If it is both (a) good policy, and (b) unconstitutional (and I'd really appreciate people showing their work on that one), then one pretty obvious conclusion to draw is that we should introduce a proposal to amend the Constitution, possibly to explicitly define the boundaries of the Second Amendment right so that we aren't forced to accept Constitutional restraints that produce absurd results.

 

[[icon]]

Could someone get me up to speed here? Despite the typical "I want to stop all gun violence and bring peace to earth" crap, what exactly is being proposed in here in the way of actual Gun control?

Are most folks proposing an assault rifle ban, or a ban on guns as a whole? Or is it the usual FFA "Mass murders are unacceptable but I don't have a actual stance on how to fix it" thing?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

If it's unconstitutional, it can't be a law.

Not necessarily. We can theoretically change the constitution. And states can enact laws that would be unconstitutional for the federal government to enact due to lack of constitutional authority.

That doesn't negate the premise that unconstitutional laws can't be laws.

 

[moleculo]

can anyone post a link to the ***OFFICIAL MENTAL HEALTH DEBATE*** thread?

 

[Todd Andrews]

Could someone get me up to speed here? Despite the typical "I want to stop all gun violence and bring peace to earth" crap, what exactly is being proposed in here in the way of actual Gun control? Are most folks proposing an assault rifle ban, or a ban on guns as a whole? Or is it the usual FFA "Mass murders are unacceptable but I don't have a actual stance on how to fix it" thing?

Huge 2d Amendment rights person here, and owned a gun almost my whole adult life. But I think magazine capacity restrictions and an assault weapon ban on the federal level with serious enforcement and penalties is a good start. I also think closing the gunshow loophole and seriously cracking down on the semi to full auto modifications is important. And I would be fine on the state level with licensing/registration/training, etc. We need to do something and those are some very east places to start. No one is taking my 357 and no one needs a semi or automatic assault type weapon for home defense.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

And of course, the other argument, which I understand infuriates self-professed strict constructionists, is that constitutional interpretation should not allow absurd or immoral results. The most common example for this argument is Brown v. Topeka Board of Education. It is far from self-evident from the text and history of the 14th Amendment that "separate is inherently unequal." As a proposition of law, that statement is unsupported. The Supreme Court pretty much made it up out of whole-cloth. Yet I've literally never met anyone who disagreed with the Court's decision in Brown. I've met those who think it's a poorly reasoned opinion, but I've never met anyone who thinks it should have come out the other way. Even Robert Bork engages in extreme feats of mental gymnastics to defend the decision.

 

[timschochet]

Could someone get me up to speed here? Despite the typical "I want to stop all gun violence and bring peace to earth" crap, what exactly is being proposed in here in the way of actual Gun control? Are most folks proposing an assault rifle ban, or a ban on guns as a whole? Or is it the usual FFA "Mass murders are unacceptable but I don't have a actual stance on how to fix it" thing?

Diane Feinstein is going to introduce a bill which revives the AWB, limits magazine capacity, and ends the private sales loophole. I lean against the first, and very much support 2 and 3. The NRA strongly opposes all 3. As far as the bill itself, it will go nowhere unless some Republicans choose to support it. Right now that is not forthcoming. Given the current makeup of Congress, I would be very surprised if anything of substance occurred.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Maybe so, but talking about "good laws" that aren't constitutional seems like a big waste of time.

I love it when somebody says that discussing a particular subject in the FFA is a "waste of time." What exactly do you think is going on in here?

 

[Henry Ford]

Maybe so, but talking about "good laws" that aren't constitutional seems like a big waste of time.

I love it when somebody says that discussing a particular subject in the FFA is a "waste of time." What exactly do you think is going on in here?

If we spend time discussing all that crap you want to talk about, we'll never get the real work done.

 

[Soonerman]

There's a frequent tendency in FFA discussions to conflate the concepts of "good policy" and "constitutionality." They're completely different concepts and the fact that a particular law is or isn't constitutional has no bearing on whether it's a good law.

If it's unconstitutional, it can't be a law.

Not necessarily. We can theoretically change the constitution. And states can enact laws that would be unconstitutional for the federal government to enact due to lack of constitutional authority.

Well, if you amend the constitution, it wouldn't be unconstitutional. That's kind of my point.On point two, I don't believe that states can enact laws that violate the second amendment.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

There's a frequent tendency in FFA discussions to conflate the concepts of "good policy" and "constitutionality." They're completely different concepts and the fact that a particular law is or isn't constitutional has no bearing on whether it's a good law.

If it's unconstitutional, it can't be a law.

Not necessarily. We can theoretically change the constitution. And states can enact laws that would be unconstitutional for the federal government to enact due to lack of constitutional authority.

Well, if you amend the constitution, it wouldn't be unconstitutional. That's kind of my point.On point two, I don't believe that states can enact laws that violate the second amendment.

Yeah, point two was a general point that is probably inapplicable to this particular discussion. Sometimes when we're discussing other stuff like tax policy or education policy or health care or whatever, somebody will object that it would be unconstitutional for the government to pass such a law because of the lack of an enumerated power in the constitution.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Before we get to a complete solution, can we implement something to start?

How about metal, lockable doors so at the very least wackos can't get into classrooms? Or maybe door jamb tasers?

 

[[icon]]

Would an assault rifle ban fix the problem?

• According to Roth and Koper(Roth), (Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994, May 1996), "assault weapons are estimated to be involved in 1 to 7 percent of gun homicides". This is compared to about 80% for handguns.

• In "Appendix A" Roth et. al found, "contrary to our expectations, only 2 -- 3.8 percent - of the 52 mass murders we gleaned from the Nexis search [from Jan. 1992 through May 1996] unambiguously involved assault weapons. This is about the same percentage as for other murders... media accounts lend some tenuous support to the notion that assault weapons are more deadly than other weapons in mass murder events, as measured by victims per incident. However in Footnote 61 Roth states: "If, for instance, the substituted long guns were .22 caliber, rimfire (i.e., low velocity) rifles (and in addition did not accept large-capacity magazines), then a substitution effect [as a result of the assault weapons ban] would be less likely to have demonstrably negative consequences. If, on the other hand, offenders substituted shotguns for assault weapons, there could be negative consequences for gun violence mortality. "

• Gary Kleck, in Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control (Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York 1997), summarizes the findings of forty-seven such studies, indicating that less than 2% of crime guns were assault weapons (the median was about 1.8%). According to Bureau of Justice Statistics, (Criminal Victimization in the United States, 1993, May 1996) offenders were armed with a firearm in 10% of all violent crimes. That would mean less than .20% (one-fifth of one percent or 1 in 500) of violent crime offenders used an assault weapon (1.8% X 10% = .18%).

• Study of Assault Rifle Ban in New Jersey: "According to the Deputy Chief Joseph Constance of the Trenton New Jersey Police Department, in 1989, there was not a single murder involving any rifle, much less a "semiautomatic assault rifle," in the State of New Jersey. No person in New Jersey was killed with an "assault weapon" in 1988. Nevertheless, in 1990 the New Jersey legislature enacted an "assault weapon" ban that included low-power .22 rifles, and even BB guns. Based on the legislature's broad definition of "assault weapons," in 1991, such guns were used in five of 410 murders in New Jersey; in forty-seven of 22,728 armed robberies; and in twenty-three of 23,720 aggravated assaults committed in New Jersey."

Willl removing legitimate sources of the weapons fix the problem?

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

• a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%

• a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%

• family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

Side Note: During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and only 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun.

The Myth that people are easily and frequently converting AR's to full auto

"Now, in my 12 years within the unit, considering the enormous amount of firearms that we have taken into custody, and that's over fifty-thousand, I would say, and these inlcuded ones from the hardcore gangs, and from the drug dealers, our unit has never, ever, had one AK-47 converted, one Ruger Mini-14 converted, an H&K 91, 93 never converted, an AR-180 never converted. So this media blitz of many of these assault weapons, or supposedly military style weapons are being converted to full automatic is not true. Why? Because these military style assault weapons of today are not easily and readily convertible without extensive knowledge of modifications to the weapon and/or substitution of available parts. "

- LAPD Detective Jimmy Trahin, testifying before the California State Assembly

 

[ATC1]

To me, the scarier end of the spectrum of "going too far" is crazies with bushmasters slaughtering women and children mercilessly. What am I missing?

Of the bold and the italicized, which one would be better for society if it were controlled?

Is there a reason that you don't think we can't, or shouldn't, do both?And there's a reason that no matter what you do on mental health, there's still some common sense things you can do on gun restrictions such as limiting magazine capacity, that tends to make these slaughters less likely. See the Saletan article from Slate.

This was meant for Otis. The "I am Adam's Mother" thread where we discuss mental health issues is 2 pages while the gun control debate is 40. I don't see Otis in that thread to find a solution to both. I'm all for common sense things and that is to try to keep any type of gun semi-auto, revolver, hunting rifle, AR, single action pistols etc. out of the wrong hands.

 

[Henry Ford]

There's a frequent tendency in FFA discussions to conflate the concepts of "good policy" and "constitutionality." They're completely different concepts and the fact that a particular law is or isn't constitutional has no bearing on whether it's a good law.

If it's unconstitutional, it can't be a law.

Not necessarily. We can theoretically change the constitution. And states can enact laws that would be unconstitutional for the federal government to enact due to lack of constitutional authority.

Well, if you amend the constitution, it wouldn't be unconstitutional. That's kind of my point.On point two, I don't believe that states can enact laws that violate the second amendment.

Yeah, I'm a little confused about what was meant by that. States aren't going to be able to do anything that violates the Bill of Rights any more than the Feds are.

 

[ATC1]

can anyone post a link to the ***OFFICIAL MENTAL HEALTH DEBATE*** thread?

 

[Henry Ford]

On point two, I don't believe that states can enact laws that violate the second amendment.

Someone (Ramsey?) mentioned tha the 2nd Amendment has never been incorporated to apply to the states. If that's true, they can. Or at least they can now. I'd be a little bit surprised by that since Chicago and D.C. have both had gun restrictions struck down on 2nd Amendment grounds, but it's possible.Broadly speaking, the US Constitution only restricts what the federal government can do. Unless there's some other operator such as 14th Amendment incorporation, it doesn't apply to states.

It's not true.

 

[[icon]]

How about metal, lockable doors so at the very least wackos can't get into classrooms?

I think this is a great idea. Relatively inexpensive solution that enables schools to "Lock down" in the event of something like Connecticut in the future. This would severely limit casualties going forward.

 

[Soonerman]

On point two, I don't believe that states can enact laws that violate the second amendment.

Someone (Ramsey?) mentioned tha the 2nd Amendment has never been incorporated to apply to the states. If that's true, they can. Or at least they can now. I'd be a little bit surprised by that since Chicago and D.C. have both had gun restrictions struck down on 2nd Amendment grounds, but it's possible.Broadly speaking, the US Constitution only restricts what the federal government can do. Unless there's some other operator such as 14th Amendment incorporation, it doesn't apply to states.

McDonald vs Chicago

 

[ATC1]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/man-attempts-to-open-fire-on-crowd-at-movie-theater-armed-off-duty-sheriffs-deputy-drops-him-with-one-bullet/

With one shot, an off-duty sheriff’s deputy took down a gunman who attempted to opened fire at a crowded movie theater lobby during a late night showing of “The Hobbit” in San Antonio, WOAI reports.Police say a gunman, identified as Jesus Manuel Garcia, chased patrons from the nearby China Garden Restaurant into the lobby of the Santikos Mayan 14 movie theater at around 9 p.m. on Sunday. Garcia, an employee of the restaurant, reportedly walked in the establishment looking for a woman.When the woman, also reportedly a restaurant employee, wasn’t there, Garcia pulled out a gun and attempted to open fire in the restaurant but his weapon jammed.“It started at the restaurant and then went into the parking lot and then into the movie theater,” Deputy Lou Antu told 1200 WOAI news.The commotion sent horrified restaurant patrons into the movie theater lobby, but the gunman followed. He again attempted to open fire, and this time his gun didn’t jam. Garcia reportedly shot one man in the chest before Antu says an off-duty sheriff’s deputy working security the theater shot him once, dropping him to the floor.Bexar County sheriff’s Sgt. Lisa Castellano reportedly chased the gunman toward the back of the theater. The 13-year department veteran cornered him after he ran into a men’s restroom and shot him before taking his gun.“The officer involved, she took the appropriate action to try to keep everyone safe in the movie theater,” Antu added.Due to the off-duty deputy’s bravery, the gunman was not able to make it into the theater where he could have potentially taken many lives.The gunman and the man he shot remain hospitalized, according to WOAI.Police say a recent breakup set off the man’s shooting spree on Sunday, MySanAntonio.com reports. Jesus Manuel Garcia, 19, an employee at a China Garden restaurant next to the Santikos Mayan Palace 14 theater, apparently became upset Sunday night after his girlfriend broke up with him. He lashed out by sending her a message saying he planned to go to the restaurant and “shoot somebody,” said Bexar County sheriff’s Sgt. Raymond Pollard. Pollard said the woman called to warn restaurant employees, but by the time she saw his message, Garcia was already outside the China Garden firing a Glock 23 at the front door about 9:25 p.m.If Garcia survives his attempt at mass murder, officials say he will likely face a charge of attempted capital murder as he allegedly shot at the San Antonia police car on Southwest Military Drive as he ran from the restaurant and into the theater.

A couple of things I find interesting. The off duty deputy was a woman. Really interested to see if this movie theater was a gun-free-zone.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

How about metal, lockable doors so at the very least wackos can't get into classrooms?

I think this is a great idea. Relatively inexpensive solution that enables schools to "Lock down" in the event of something like Connecticut in the future. This would severely limit casualties going forward.

Dumbest idea ever.

You really are a jerk, you know that?

 

[ATC1]

How about metal, lockable doors so at the very least wackos can't get into classrooms?

I think this is a great idea. Relatively inexpensive solution that enables schools to "Lock down" in the event of something like Connecticut in the future. This would severely limit casualties going forward.

Dumbest idea ever.

I'll have to agree the VTech shooter locked himself in the building. Lowers the response time.

 

[timschochet]

How about metal, lockable doors so at the very least wackos can't get into classrooms?

I think this is a great idea. Relatively inexpensive solution that enables schools to "Lock down" in the event of something like Connecticut in the future. This would severely limit casualties going forward.

Not sure the fire Marshall would approve.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

There's a frequent tendency in FFA discussions to conflate the concepts of "good policy" and "constitutionality." They're completely different concepts and the fact that a particular law is or isn't constitutional has no bearing on whether it's a good law.

If it's unconstitutional, it can't be a law.

Not necessarily. We can theoretically change the constitution. And states can enact laws that would be unconstitutional for the federal government to enact due to lack of constitutional authority.

Well, if you amend the constitution, it wouldn't be unconstitutional. That's kind of my point.On point two, I don't believe that states can enact laws that violate the second amendment.

Yeah, point two was a general point that is probably inapplicable to this particular discussion. Sometimes when we're discussing other stuff like tax policy or education policy or health care or whatever, somebody will object that it would be unconstitutional for the government to pass such a law because of the lack of an enumerated power in the constitution.

As a matter of clearly established law, the Second Amendment has not been incorporated against the State in all circuits. So there's a non-trivial argument that they can enact laws that the Federal government cannot. Obviously, I think the states will lose that one eventually, but until the Supreme Court weighs in, we shouldn't assume anything.

 

[[icon]]

Would an assault rifle ban fix the problem?

• According to Roth and Koper(Roth), (Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994, May 1996), "assault weapons are estimated to be involved in 1 to 7 percent of gun homicides". This is compared to about 80% for handguns.

You probably conclude from this that we shouldn't ban assault rifles. I conclude from this that we should, or at least allow states the freedom to, ban handguns.

Okay... and do you think an handgun ban would be effective? What is the effect of disarming the populace? One need only look at the fact that the vast majority of mass shootings take place in Gun Free Zones. Gun Free Zones = Helpless Victim Zones. That is why shooters choose them... target rich environments with no chance to defend themselves. Now we want to turn entire states into "Gun Free Zones"? IF you could flip some magic button that would make all the handguns disappear then sure.. let's do it. The problem is that's not grounded in reality. The whole "Outlaw guns will ensure only the outlaws have guns" is a cliche', but it's true. You will never get rid of all guns. The vast majority of guns used in violent crime are illegally procured. Look at the war on drugs... prohibition...etc. Americans don't like to have stuff taken away from them so it simply does NOT work.

So I honestly simply have to chuckle a bit when someone says "Let's get rid of guns".... because it's, frankly, foolish.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

How about metal, lockable doors so at the very least wackos can't get into classrooms?

I think this is a great idea. Relatively inexpensive solution that enables schools to "Lock down" in the event of something like Connecticut in the future. This would severely limit casualties going forward.

Dumbest idea ever.

I'll have to agree the VTech shooter locked himself in the building. Lowers the response time.

All the more reason to prevent a guy from entering a classroom.Or did you geniuses think I only meant the front door?

 

[Henry Ford]

There's a frequent tendency in FFA discussions to conflate the concepts of "good policy" and "constitutionality." They're completely different concepts and the fact that a particular law is or isn't constitutional has no bearing on whether it's a good law.

If it's unconstitutional, it can't be a law.

Not necessarily. We can theoretically change the constitution. And states can enact laws that would be unconstitutional for the federal government to enact due to lack of constitutional authority.

Well, if you amend the constitution, it wouldn't be unconstitutional. That's kind of my point.On point two, I don't believe that states can enact laws that violate the second amendment.

Yeah, point two was a general point that is probably inapplicable to this particular discussion. Sometimes when we're discussing other stuff like tax policy or education policy or health care or whatever, somebody will object that it would be unconstitutional for the government to pass such a law because of the lack of an enumerated power in the constitution.

As a matter of clearly established law, the Second Amendment has not been incorporated against the State in all circuits. So there's a non-trivial argument that they can enact laws that the Federal government cannot. Obviously, I think the states will lose that one eventually, but until the Supreme Court weighs in, we shouldn't assume anything.

It was incorporated against the States by the Supreme Court. That pretty much covers all the circuits.

 

[Mr. Chumley]

I'm curious. What do you guys believe is the effect of more gun laws on the second amendment? No effect, a slight erosion, complete nullification? What would you like to see done with the second amendment?