Are we ready to do something about guns yet?

[Champuckett]

I believe that the original purposes included all of the above, but the founding fathers were thinking about muskets that held one projectile and took a minute or two to reload.

 

Today, I think that hunting is a valid purpose, but the best guns for hunting are shotguns and rifles, not assault weapons.

 

Self defense also seems valid today, but the preferred guns for that would be shotguns and handguns.

 

Ensuring that the military has arms seems unrelated -- the military could have arms even if the Second Amendment was repealed.

 

Protection against tyranny seems illogical. Even if a group of patriots had assault rifles, they would not stand a chance against tanks or helicopter gunships.

 

I think that we need to move the line on what guns can be owned, and I would start with assault rifles. That said, I agree with those who talk about mental health. As we have seen, a truck can kill a lot of people in a short time, and a bomb can kill more.

 

Humans have evolved as a species where part of our nature is to kill each other. We are to some extent the survivors of tribes who killed off other tribes. Overcoming that is a challenge, both on an individual level and a group level.

Thanks for the response. I learned in school early on that hunting was the primary reason for the 2nd amendment and my views evolved as I got older and learned more. Looking back, I wish schools had had more civics classes where I could have learned more about government and how it operates and what law means, but alas this did not happen. I had to learn a lot on my own following my schooling. I am still learning.

 

I hope more people can respond and we can get more feedback. I'm curious why there is only one response so far given recent events, because everyone says their needs to be more discussion about guns and gun control in this country, which seems entirely true. It's interesting that not many have an opinion on the 2nd amendment or the meaning behind it, at least as far as this tiny thread on this little section of the Internet goes. Maybe people just missed my question or don't care/have time to answer. /shrug

[PseudoSABR]

 

 I'm curious why there is only one response so far given recent events, because everyone says their needs to be more discussion about guns and gun control in this country, which seems entirely true. It's interesting that not many have an opinion on the 2nd amendment or the meaning behind it, at least as far as this tiny thread on this little section of the Internet goes. Maybe people just missed my question or don't care/have time to answer. /shrug

I think it's mostly a relevance issue that people avoid going down the rabbit hole of interpreting the intentions of the diverse writers of the second amendment.  The proposed laws to limit the recent tragedies aren't second amendment issues.  Semi-automatic weapon bans, registrations, back ground checks, even limits on personal arsenals and ammo--such laws have never been invalidated by the court for second amendment reasons.  The second amendment is used a rhetorical rallying cry, but its legal effect on such issues isn't really in play. 

 

The real issue seems to be getting enough consensus/political will to overcome the NRA lobby.  Frankly, a minority of people are setting the country's agenda on this issue.

[USAFChief]

I think it's mostly a relevance issue that people avoid going down the rabbit hole of interpreting the intentions of the diverse writers of the second amendment.  The proposed laws to limit the recent tragedies aren't second amendment issues.  Semi-automatic weapon bans, registrations, back ground checks, even limits on personal arsenals and ammo--such laws have never been invalidated by the court for second amendment reasons.  The second amendment is used a rhetorical rallying cry, but its legal effect on such issues isn't really in play. 

 

The real issue seems to be getting enough consensus/political will to overcome the NRA lobby.  Frankly, a minority of people are setting the country's agenda on this issue.

Concur.

 

Virtually nobody actually even believes in the second amendment. At least not the second amendment the NRA and the gun nuts try to portray.

 

Unless you think a citizen should be able to own working cannons, anti-aircraft missiles, and anti-personnel land mines, you do, in fact, believe that the right of the people to bear arms SHALL be infringed.

 

The only question is where to draw the line, because we already draw lines.

 

Reframe the argument, and take this silly “second smendment” argument away. Start portraying the NRA for what they are. They’re an arms industry lobbyist, not a constitutional rights organization.

[DaveW]

[kab21]

 

Concur.

Virtually nobody actually even believes in the second amendment. At least not the second amendment the NRA and the gun nuts try to portray.

Unless you think a citizen should be able to own working cannons, anti-aircraft missiles, and anti-personnel land mines, you do, in fact, believe that the right of the people to bear arms SHALL be infringed.

The only question is where to draw the line, because we already draw lines.

Reframe the argument, and take this silly “second smendment” argument away. Start portraying the NRA for what they are. They’re an arms industry lobbyist, not a constitutional rights organization.

Should we consider it ironic that the group that is pissed about kneeling during the national anthem is also trying to justify blocking all attempts at gun legislation (background checks, limits on types of guns, etc...) because the 2nd amendment allows them to stand up against tyrannical governments (the USA)?

Never mind the defense (and flag waving) of the Confederacy which actually gave the middle finger to the USA.

[nicksaviking]

So if everyone should be able to have assault rifles because gun deaths are a mental health issue dealing with a lack of self control, shouldn't drugs be legal? The drugs didn't take themselves either.

[drjim]

 

Concur.

Virtually nobody actually even believes in the second amendment. At least not the second amendment the NRA and the gun nuts try to portray.

Unless you think a citizen should be able to own working cannons, anti-aircraft missiles, and anti-personnel land mines, you do, in fact, believe that the right of the people to bear arms SHALL be infringed.

The only question is where to draw the line, because we already draw lines.

Reframe the argument, and take this silly “second smendment” argument away. Start portraying the NRA for what they are. They’re an arms industry lobbyist, not a constitutional rights organization.

 

Strongly concur on the arms industry lobbyist aspect of the NRA.

 

What is interesting about the NRA is not the money, but the threat of a primary challenge. The real way to beat them is to find the gun control issues that will win in an election and make Rs caught in the middle lose general elections if they won't soften their stances.

 

People can complain (rightly) about the NRA, but they are effective advocates for the arms industry. Time to take them on at the ballot box. With the way party demographics are shifting, calls for smart controls can absolutely win.

[Mr. Brooks]

Chief said it for me.

The 2nd amendment isn't an issue, IMO, because I'm not asking to ban all guns.

We already limit what arms people can have, I just think there are more that need to be looked at.

[Mr. Brooks]

So apparently, in a twist of irony, it looks like the company that makes the bump stocks that the LV shooter used 's own insistence that their product doesn't qualify as a firearm (to avoid regulation), is going to potentially allow them to be sued.

 

I think it'll be a successful suit too. There really is no reasonably legitimate use for them aside from the ability to kill multiple people quickly.

[drjim]

So apparently, in a twist of irony, it looks like the company that makes the bump stocks that the LV shooter used 's own insistence that their product doesn't qualify as a firearm (to avoid regulation), is going to potentially allow them to be sued.

 

I think it'll be a successful suit too. There really is no reasonably legitimate use for them aside from the ability to kill multiple people quickly.

If the exemption against lawsuits was ever lifted for gun makers and vendors, that would be the ballgame.

[Squirrel]

We’ll see how far this gets:

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/359381-senate-dems-introduce-bill-to-ban-assault-weapons-bump-stocks

[glunn]

 

We’ll see how far this gets:
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/359381-senate-dems-introduce-bill-to-ban-assault-weapons-bump-stocks

I believe that this proposed legislation is a good step, but even if it passes it will decades to get all of the bump stocks and assault rifles out of circulation.

 

 

[nicksaviking]

 

I believe that this proposed legislation is a good step, but even if it passes it will decades to get all of the bump stocks and assault rifles out of circulation.

 

Well making things better down the road at the expense of today is pretty much what progressiveness is all about. I'm more than willing to pass legislation that will positively impact my kids and my grand kids even if I see little to no benefit today.

 

That statement also applies to my stances on fossil fuels and climate change, healthcare, education reform, job creation to replace obsolete jobs, foreign policy/terrorism and taxation. It's really hard to comprehend how half of the country is consistently fine kicking the can down the road for eternity.

 

 

 

[kab21]

 

Well making things better down the road at the expense of today is pretty much what progressiveness is all about. I'm more than willing to pass legislation that will positively impact my kids and my grand kids even if I see little to no benefit today.

 

That statement also applies to my stances on fossil fuels and climate change, healthcare, education reform, job creation to replace obsolete jobs, foreign policy/terrorism and taxation. It's really hard to comprehend how half of the country is consistently fine kicking the can down the road for eternity.

They aren't kicking the can down road, they are saying that bad stuff happens to people and we can't prevent all of the bad stuff from happening so why bother improving conditions.

[jimmer]

To answer the question: Apparently NOT!

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/house-votes-to-sharply-expand-concealed-carry-gun-rights/ar-BBGkfQ9?li=BBnb7Kz

 

[Mr. Brooks]

To answer the question: Apparently NOT!

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/house-votes-to-sharply-expand-concealed-carry-gun-rights/ar-BBGkfQ9?li=BBnb7Kz

Here I thought conservatives stood for state's rights.

[Mike Sixel]

Here I thought conservatives stood for state's rights.

Hahahahaha. They stand for money. And children, until they are born of course.

[Badsmerf]

Here I thought conservatives stood for state's rights.

Only when it's convenient. In Iowa the state outlawed local increases to minimum wage. Des Moines and Iowa city raised them and the state made a law that forced it back down. Some businesses are still honoring the raise, but it made no sense for them to make a law that allows more corporate welfare.

[Mr. Brooks]

Yeah, I was being sarcastic. State's rights has been a clear hypocrisy from the right for as long as I've been alive.

[Mr. Brooks]

A new poll from CBS News shows that 51% of gun owners believe that mass shootings "are just something society must accept. "

[Badsmerf]

A new poll from CBS News shows that 51% of gun owners believe that mass shootings "are just something society must accept. "

I think part of the problem is many of those people live in rural areas and aren't concerned about someone coming to their little town and shooting it up. Odds are against that in a big way. There is no sense of what is for the greater good, it is a selfish and ignorant mentality. As long as the NRA is able to continually brainwash people with propaganda, there is going to be enormous amount of resistance to any common sense gun legislation. Just wait until 2020 when the democrats do pass something minor, the NRA is going to completely spaz and **** all over themselves. Democrats will lose the majority in the House in 2022 and it will be because of guns and healthcare. I also expect them to fix this stupid tax plan being passed now.

[nicksaviking]

 

A new poll from CBS News shows that 51% of gun owners believe that mass shootings "are just something society must accept. "

 

Honestly, that seems encouraging to me, I would have thought that percentage would be much higher.

 

Seeing as gun owners presumably covers anyone with any kind of gun, that probably means the "strictly hunters" may be able to be won over. Which makes sense seeing as most of the folks I know with guns only have rifles and shotguns used for hunting and most of them seem of sane mind and even temperament.

[drjim]

Honestly, that seems encouraging to me, I would have thought that percentage would be much higher.

 

Seeing as gun owners presumably covers anyone with any kind of gun, that probably means the "strictly hunters" may be able to be won over. Which makes sense seeing as most of the folks I know with guns only have rifles and shotguns used for hunting and most of them seem of sane mind and even temperament.

I agree. 25% of the country need not prevent all legislative/social change. A good twitter thread here:

 

https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/941471159962370048