Honor the 2A by keeping people stocked with single shot bolt action rifles. Restrict real weapons of terror to the professionals who are fully trained, vetted, and capable. I gave a bit more detail on those musing here.
This subject warrants serious discussion, but i'm not sure this is the place for it with all the non-sense slogans being hurled around.
That said, in all seriousness, how much do we value due process under the law? Are we ready to accept depriving an individual of their constitutional rights when they haven't broken the law, because that's what we would have had to do to stop this guy before he killed. What other constitutional rights are we ready to suspend without due process? Who will make that decision on who's competent for which rights?
David Katz was a danger to himself and others, mentally troubled and antisocial from what I've read, but no court or judge ever ruled so to legally suspend his right to own a gun. I wish he hadn't been able to buy those two pistols, but I'm not sure how to stop someone who hasn't broken the law or had that constitutional right suspended.
How many other individuals in society aren't stable enough to handle the responsibility of gun ownership, voting, having a child, driving a car, or publishing their thoughts for mass consumption? How do we identify them, prove it and get their rights suspended before they commit a crime? We have legal procedures in place for doing so, but not before something has already gone wrong or a crime has been committed.
Or just vote to get rid of the 2A.
Because we've never had mental health issues with our military members. And, again, that whole constitution thing gets in the way. How about we just require a term of federal service before you can vote. Sure would keep the slackers from voting, wouldn't it? What's more potentially dangerous than a vote?Actually, I could see belonging to the state run militia a great motivator for gun ownership. It would have to be less stringent than full time fed military, but nonetheless part of gun ownership. I would certainly accept a state tax increase to fund it within reason. Maybe we can tackle our seditary lifestyle health problems and reduce overall healthcare costs simultaneously, while maintaining a responsible gun ownership program.
Just imagine how hard the oligarchy will fight against this also, people organizing to create state militias that could fight back against tyrannic federal overreach.
I'm certainly more tired of hearing about people with mental health issues accessing guns and murdering others over inane reasons.
Since, as you say, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the individual right to own firearms rather than the collective right, I would say your proposal is unconstitutional. Sway the Supreme Court or gather enough voter support to amend the Constitution, that's all you need to do. But stop calling your plan rational or constitutional because you favor it. That's not enough to make it law.In 1939 the SCOTUS ruled in United States v. Miller that certain weapons (short barreled shotguns were the focus) did not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" and therefor was not protected by the 2nd Amendment. That ruling is still in effect. This ruling represents the idea of gun ownership as a 'collective' right as opposed to the 'individual' right. The individual right has only recently been considered to be the correct interpretation only coming to prominence in 1986 with the passing of the Firearm Owners Protection Act, and every ruling by SCOTUS has held the collective right as the proper interpretation up until 2008.
That would be the point. It is entirely reasonable to decide that the constitution only allows the ownership of firearms in the context of a well regulated militia and it not a blanked right for anyone to own and bear guns at any time. We are already curtailing this supposed freedom on all sorts of grounds not spelled out in the Constitution, so why not curtail it on one specifically set out in the Constitution? This is the collective right argument.
Yes, only allowing the ownership and bearing of firearms in the context of a well regulated militia would go a long way to making sure that only people with a reasonable amount of training and oversight owns firearms. The idea that we could not get them from the hands of criminals is a stawman argument. How did England do it? Do you believe that English criminals are just so polite that they willingly turned over their guns when the UK banned them?
Ban the private sale and ownership of guns except under specific situations and the number of guns out there will start to diminish with time. The fact that we can't solve the entire problem in one fell swoop does not mean that we can't solve the problem at all. We work towards a solution with slow deliberation, and make corrections as needed.
Every solution is going to involve removing guns from people that we decide has no reason to have them. We have already agreed on that when we decided that some people should not have guns, and some guns almost no one should have. We are only really quibbling on who we should allow to have what guns. What is the real difference between removing a person's firearms because we find them to be mentally unfit and deciding that not being in the military makes one unfit? Both are subjective and mostly arbitrary judgments on who should be allowed to own a firearm.
There is nothing unconstitutional about the solution I presented. It is in the 2nd amendment. It is just how we interpret it. What is the constitutional reason for now allowing free access to military grade weapons or nuclear weapons? It is the collective right that makes that possible. It is hard to imagine how not allowing heavy machine guns to be sold at the corner store fits in with the idea of it being an individual right that you seem to be promoting.
Because we've never had mental health issues with our military members. And, again, that whole constitution thing gets in the way. How about we just require a term of federal service before you can vote. Sure would keep the slackers from voting, wouldn't it? What's more potentially dangerous than a vote?
All you have to do is get the American people to vote for it. Good luck. And you'd want to ban bolt action rifles the day after someone uses one to shoot up a school.Honor the 2A by keeping people stocked with single shot bolt action rifles. Restrict real weapons of terror to the professionals who are fully trained, vetted, and capable. I gave a bit more detail on those musing here.
Ah, this is the crux of the problem. How do we force folks to be responsible in a free society, prior to them breaking an actual law so we can legally and constitutionally take action to restrict their rights?Im certainly open to ideas on how to take citizen responsibility seriously.
Since, as you say, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the individual right to own firearms rather than the collective right, I would say your proposal is unconstitutional. Sway the Supreme Court or gather enough voter support to amend the Constitution, that's all you need to do. But stop calling your plan rational or constitutional because you favor it. That's not enough to make it law.
Ah, this is the crux of the problem. How do we force folks to be responsible in a free society, prior to them breaking an actual law so we can legally and constitutionally take action to restrict their rights?
It's illegal to commit murder, but folks still do it. How do you stop them before the act if we don't know they are about to kill? This is essentially what gun control activists are expecting is possible. And, IMHO, with unconstitutional proposals that will violate individual's due process under the law. You can't punish someone if no crime has been committed.
Or are you willing to give up the idea of due process, and suffer when others seek to similarly restrict constitutional rights YOU enjoy without due process? It's not like the Trump administration is looking to subvert due process in their attempts to censor the free speech of journalists, or are they? If you can do it for the greater good in one case, why not the other?
That is exactly what I am trying to do. I believe we need a new ruling by SCOTUS that affirms the collective right as opposed to the individual right, and I'm working towards that goal. I'm pretty sure we will get it in the not too distant future. There is only so many mass murders the American people will stand before we decide to do something about it. We are nearing a critical mass on this subject. Because lets face it, this is a problem that is getting worse and none of the solutions the conservatives that currently hold sway have suggested will do anything at all to help. So, the killing will continue, and they will continue to escalate, and eventually we will have had enough.
How many people smoke, drink or do drugs even though then KNOW it will eventually kill them? Remember "...COLD, DEAD HANDS!!!" I'm not so sure things are going to change the way you think they are. And if it did, do you really think it will stop the killing? What will you propose when someone takes an illegal gun and shoots up a school?That is exactly what I am trying to do. I believe we need a new ruling by SCOTUS that affirms the collective right as opposed to the individual right, and I'm working towards that goal. I'm pretty sure we will get it in the not too distant future. There is only so many mass murders the American people will stand before we decide to do something about it. We are nearing a critical mass on this subject. Because lets face it, this is a problem that is getting worse and none of the solutions the conservatives that currently hold sway have suggested will do anything at all to help. So, the killing will continue, and they will continue to escalate, and eventually we will have had enough.
I've listed my ideas before, many times, and stated I don't think there is a quick fix that is guaranteed to stop folks before they commit the crime. That doesn't mean I'm obligated to support solutions I believe are unconstitutional or plain just won't work.Do you only have questions, because you currently favor the interpretation, or would you line to provide your own ideas?
We've had this very discussion before.
And I would like to point out I only jumped into this conversation after all the flippant comments trying to make political hay out of the deaths of the innocent. I understand we're not changing hearts and minds with any of these arguments. But I can't stand when I, as a member of the law abiding gun owning population, am effectively blamed for the actions of a mad manlet who couldn't get over losing a video game without killing people. Maybe, just maybe, he was the problem and not the gun. And no new law or ban will quickly fix the problem.Do you only have questions, because you currently favor the interpretation, or would you line to provide your own ideas?
We've had this very discussion before.
How many people smoke, drink or do drugs even though then KNOW it will eventually kill them?
How about we just make murder illegal, that will stop them when there is a law against it! Oh, yeah, it's already illegal. Well, making guns illegal will mean nobody will have one...sure.
I agree with you that your plan is a good one that could work, except for the will of the people.
Shit, if you could get them to give up chewing tobacco you would save far more lives.
I've listed my ideas before, many times, and stated I don't think there is a quick fix that is guaranteed to stop folks before they commit the crime. That doesn't mean I'm obligated to support solutions I believe are unconstitutional or plain just won't work.
We need to be better, more responsible as a people. Most of us are, and trusting those folks with a gun is harmless. It's the tiny few sick/evil/criminal individuals among us who would use guns criminally who are the problem. I don't trust these folks with a spork, let alone a gun. But I'm not willing to give up my rights to own a gun because they are a problem. Especially since I've seen no plan that will effectively disarm them. Only suggestions that will effectively disarm the law-abiding without doing much to solve the real problem.
And after we ban guns, what's next? Knives? Pointed sticks? I understand those items are a lot less deadly than guns, but to what lengths are you going to treat society like a bunch of children, and exert over-reaching (IMHO) control to try and achieve a tiny bit more perceived safety?
And I would like to point out I only jumped into this conversation after all the flippant comments trying to make political hay out of the deaths of the innocent. I understand we're not changing hearts and minds with any of these arguments. But I can't stand when I, as a member of the law abiding gun owning population, am effectively blamed for the actions of a mad manlet who couldn't get over losing a video game without killing people. Maybe, just maybe, he was the problem and not the gun. And no new law or ban will quickly fix the problem.
You really didn't think this analogy out very well. How about we make murder legal since we have been completely unable to stop all murders. This is your argument. Since we can't stop all gun violence we might as well not try at all.
.
That was part of the argument as to why we allowed drinking again. Its also a big argument for legalizing drugs.
if we legalize murder that would also include vigilantes.
I sometimes wonder if we'd actually see a decrease in murder over a long enough time period.
The big arguments against prohibition, both types, is that the prohibition created a violent black market that is far worse for society than the substances we are banning. It is a pure cost/benefit analysis. I have considered if banning guns would create a black market that would create more violence than what we currently experience, but I don't think that is likely since there is already a gun black market. If it turns out to be true then I would agree that it was a failed experiment and look at different ways of regulating it.
I don't think so. It would become a common tool used in business and politics. It is easy to kill someone with little danger to oneself.
Honor the 2A by keeping people stocked with single shot bolt action rifles. Restrict real weapons of terror to the professionals who are fully trained, vetted, and capable. I gave a bit more detail on those musing here.
What legal thing are you referring to that has a black market? I'm having a hard time coming up with somethingLegal things have black markets. When you make them hard-line illegal what ends up happening is those unregulated black markets grow and it gets really bad. So saying that we already have them would make you miss what would end up happening.
If you want examples of what happens when you ban something, look at places where they have un-banned things.
What legal thing are you referring to that has a black market? I'm having a hard time coming up with something
And why are we talking about "assault weapons" when this idiot used a pistol?
Buying cars is legal. Do you think there is a black market for cars?
There is also Black markets for sex even in countries where prostitution is legal.
Opioids are legal, yet there is a huge black market for that right now
Need more?