Teen Gunman Kills 5

[appalling]

Some people have the right to say stupid things that prove they are ignorant.
Some people have the right to believe myths are true.
Some people have the right to buy and hold onto guns that are later used to kill their families.

Whoopee. The right doesn't mean you're always correct in asserting it.

[ehcks]

I'm not sure if even a single post besides the first is actually serious, and I'm started to get concerned about that trend in these threads.

Are we desensitizing ourselves that quickly, or is my Poe detector failing and set too high?

[thaiboxerken]

Dead kids are just the price of a free, gun owning society.

[NWO Sentryman]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

You think the Constitution should be changed to restrict guns? I don't think so. The reason is because the Constitution says we can have guns.

Anyway, the reasons the 2nd amendment has not been repealed are as follows:

1. It sets an extremely bad precedent that anything in the Bill of Rights is up for amending. I mean, I could argue that the 5th Amendment is out of date (Double Jeopardy, especially after the OJ case) or that the 4th (mandating warrants) does not allow the US to deal with crime more effectively.
2. Frankly, Gun crime (along with violent crime as a whole) has decreased significantly in the past 15 years (thanks to the removal of lead from the environment). If the second amendment wasn't repealed during the 80s/90s or in the 20s/30s (when gun crime was at its peak), why repeal it now?

[Monketey Ghost]

Originally Posted by appalling

Some people have the right to say stupid things that prove they are ignorant.
Some people have the right to believe myths are true.
Some people have the right to buy and hold onto guns that are later used to kill their families.

Whoopee. The right doesn't mean you're always correct in asserting it.

Some people have the right to say stupid things that prove they are ignorant.
Some people have the right to believe myths are true.
Some people have the right to buy and drive cars that are later used to kill families.

Whoopee. The right doesn't mean you're always correct in asserting it.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by BStrong

The Bill of Rights recognized in the 2nd Amendment and the Supreme Court has ruled in Heller that an individual citizen of the republic not in the prohibited class has a right to own a firearm in common use for self defense, period

Well, maybe not "period", as that "period" implies that somehow such a right could not be much more severely limited than it is now.

In Heller, and affirmed by McDonald, the court ruled that an absolute ban on handguns violated the second amendment. They didn't rule whether a much more selective ban, or increased regulations of who could own handguns, would be constitutional.

[DavidJames]

Originally Posted by Lowpro

Kids choke on all kinds of things and we develop the Heimlich maneuver to clear their airway.

I'm sure there is a gun that could do a much better job.

[appalling]

Originally Posted by Monketey Ghost

Some people have the right to say stupid things that prove they are ignorant.
Some people have the right to believe myths are true.
Some people have the right to buy and drive cars that are later used to kill families.

Whoopee. The right doesn't mean you're always correct in asserting it.

I'm still good with this. I don't think everyone's correct every time they support the car industry the way it is, despite it being perfectly legal.

Constantly pointing to the bare legality of an activity is what I'm critiquing here.

[DavidJames]

Originally Posted by appalling

Some people have the right to say stupid things that prove they are ignorant.
Some people have the right to believe myths are true.
Some people have the right to buy and hold onto guns that are later used to kill their families.

Whoopee. The right doesn't mean you're always correct in asserting it.

Originally Posted by Monketey Ghost

Some people have the right to say stupid things that prove they are ignorant.
Some people have the right to believe myths are true.
Some people have the right to buy and drive cars that are later used to kill families.

Whoopee. The right doesn't mean you're always correct in asserting it.

Exactly why the NRA doesn't want IQ or other measures of intelligence used as a means test for guns.

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by geni

Surely under the first amendment they are precisely equal.

Wait... 1st Amendment? I thought we only had the second!

[Monketey Ghost]

What bare legality is that?

[DavidJames]

duplicate - sorry

[Lowpro]

Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman

Anyway, the reasons the 2nd amendment has not been repealed are as follows:

1. It sets an extremely bad precedent that anything in the Bill of Rights is up for amending. I mean, I could argue that the 5th Amendment is out of date (Double Jeopardy, especially after the OJ case) or that the 4th (mandating warrants) does not allow the US to deal with crime more effectively.
2. Frankly, Gun crime (along with violent crime as a whole) has decreased significantly in the past 15 years (thanks to the removal of lead from the environment). If the second amendment wasn't repealed during the 80s/90s or in the 20s/30s (when gun crime was at its peak), why repeal it now?

The second amendment was never designed to promote or inhibit gun violence which is part of the problem. Emergent from gun ownership is gun violence however attempts to address gun violence cannot include arms restriction even though arms restriction reduces gun violence. The Bill of Rights serves specific purposes (however they're sometimes vague which is why bearing arms is independent from "for the purposes of maintaining a well regulated militia").

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Dead kids are just the price of a free, gun owning society.

And, of a free non-gun owning society apparently - Norway per ex.

[Lowpro]

Originally Posted by DavidJames

I'm sure there is a gun that could do a much better job.

The last tracheotomy you'll ever need.

[appalling]

Originally Posted by Monketey Ghost

What bare legality is that?

I was responding to the previous comments where an opinion that guns shouldn't be used was followed by a statement that they were not legally prohibited from use, as if that was an argument.

Just the bare fact that it is legal to do so, doesn't make it a good idea.

[Monketey Ghost]

Originally Posted by appalling

I was responding to the previous comments where an opinion that guns shouldn't be used was followed by a statement that they were not legally prohibited from use, as if that was an argument.

Just the bare fact that it is legal to do so, doesn't make it a good idea.

Can't argue with that.

[appalling]

Originally Posted by fuelair

And, of a free non-gun owning society apparently - Norway per ex.

This is false.

Norway is certainly a gun-owning society.

Edit:

The gun laws are stricter, if that is what you meant, and gun crimes are also a lot lower. But there are plenty of guns owned in Norway.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by Lowpro

I know that. If the only defense to owning a gun is that it's your right by the Constitution and that prevents the discussion on the obvious problem of guns and the insane amount of violence that comes from them then we're going to be stuck with the same problem.

Man, I know some old time cops that would be right with you...about 5th Amendment rights.

I know some folks that would also toss the 1st Amendment.

All using your exact logic - "the result isn't what it should be, so **** the BoR."

I'll take the Constitution, the BoR and the rule of law over the situationally expedient denial of rights.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Well, maybe not "period", as that "period" implies that somehow such a right could not be much more severely limited than it is now.

In Heller, and affirmed by McDonald, the court ruled that an absolute ban on handguns violated the second amendment. They didn't rule whether a much more selective ban, or increased regulations of who could own handguns, would be constitutional.

Heller wasn'tn soley about handguns - the exact term that was used was firearms "in common use" as the base line, not specifying type or method of operation (non-NFA weapons and devices).

Heller did state that there could be limits on a range of activites involved with firearms, such as the carrying of a firearm, restrictions on carrying in sensitive places, the prohibited class of individuals, etc, and I'd assert that background checks and licenses to carry would pass muster under the current interpretation, but a bunch of what has been proposed on this forum and elsewhere wouldn't fly anywhere post Heller and McDonald.

[appalling]

Originally Posted by BStrong

I'll take the Constitution, the BoR and the rule of law over the situationally expedient denial of rights.

The "The results aren't what they should be, but it's legal." argument somehow seems equivalent.

[Bob Klase]

Originally Posted by appalling

The "The results aren't what they should be, but it's legal." argument somehow seems equivalent.

Which is a good argument for doing away with laws and just letting the government and its agents arrest and convict you based on what 'seems' right.

[Lowpro]

Originally Posted by BStrong

Man, I know some old time cops that would be right with you...about 5th Amendment rights.

I know some folks that would also toss the 1st Amendment.

All using your exact logic - "the result isn't what it should be, so **** the BoR."

I'll take the Constitution, the BoR and the rule of law over the situationally expedient denial of rights.

Hey I'd love to be able to square the right to own a gun with the ability to effectively reduce gun violence. A lot of countries have been able to do it. The problem is that the Second Amendment has no discrimination of arms and later laws like Heller and McDonald have effectively made neither state nor federal lawmakers able to do that. The second amendment's purpose was never designed with the proper foresight to deter the violence from said arms and sadly also blocks any attempts to do so. We can't even take a better model of gun control from other countries and apply it because the second amendment won't allow it EVEN THOUGH it was never designed to block it either.

I know you like your rights, but this one really sucks dude. You have to know that. Somewhere in the back of your mind you have to actually know this.

[appalling]

Quote:

Which is a good argument for doing away with laws and just letting the government and its agents arrest and convict you based on what 'seems' right.

Hardly.

Laws can be changed within the rule of law, and often are.

[appalling]

As has been stated here earlier, Heller explicitly states that guns can be regulated. By laws and everything.

They can't be blanket prohibited, but they can be regulated.

[Puppycow]

OK, this is somewhat ironic:

The perp in this case was homeschooled.

New Mexico homeschooled teen Nehemiah Griego accused of murdering family constantly wore camo: neighbors

Because in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, a blogger at Tea Party Nation said that homeschooling your kids is "safer".

Quote:

Homeschool. Take away the power of the radicals in the classrooms. Makes your kids safer, too.

ETA: also, who gives their kids names like Nehemiah, Zephania and Jael?

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by Bob Klase

Which is a good argument for doing away with laws and just letting the government and its agents arrest and convict you based on what 'seems' right.

Lots of people would agree, and I wonder how many folks in favor of flushing the Second away would react when someone proposed eliminating the Fifth on the basis that it restricts LE in apprehending and convicting bad actors.

At one point in time, I'm sure that many people would have applauded the arrest and convistion of rockers that made statements in their music contrary to the beliefs of the listener - see: Pussy Riot. I know guys who asserted that America started going down the tubes when The Beatles came ashore.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

The best time to talk gun control is when no one is shot in the USA for a week.

There is in average more than 1 murder by gun every ~61 minutes (8760 hours in a year ~8500 gun murder 12500 murder in total last year).

Maybe you could try the "we will discuss gun control as soon as we have a few hours without gun death)" gambit .

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Well, maybe not "period", as that "period" implies that somehow such a right could not be much more severely limited than it is now.

In Heller, and affirmed by McDonald, the court ruled that an absolute ban on handguns violated the second amendment. They didn't rule whether a much more selective ban, or increased regulations of who could own handguns, would be constitutional.

In fact, they could mandate that only the weapon available at the time of the constitution writing are allowed. Flintlock and similar rifle and gun.

fair is fair.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

...
ETA: also, who gives their kids names like Nehemiah, Zephania and Jael?

Religious nutjobs who homeschool?

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

In fact, they could mandate that only the weapon available at the time of the constitution writing are allowed. Flintlock and similar rifle and gun.

fair is fair.

No, actually, that is covered by a decision and Stare Decisis pertains.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

In fact, they could mandate that only the weapon available at the time of the constitution writing are allowed. Flintlock and similar rifle and gun.

fair is fair.

That would not have passed muster with the court that wrote Heller, or any court following that precedent.

On the other hand, the assault weapon ban of 1994 would easily pass, as would everything I've seen proposed by serious politicians lately.

Some people on the forums might have made proposals that wouldn't pass (like only allowing flintlocks), but you could restrict firearms pretty significantly and still be well within the limits of Heller.

The most important thing that Heller did was to establish that the 2nd amendment really did apply to individuals, and not merely to individuals who were performing some sort of military service at the time. Heller firmly established that people have a right to own guns for the purpose of defending themselves. The blanket ban on handguns went too far in restricting that right, according to the court majority.

[Lowpro]

Originally Posted by BStrong

Lots of people would agree, and I wonder how many folks in favor of flushing the Second away would react when someone proposed eliminating the Fifth on the basis that it restricts LE in apprehending and convicting bad actors.

At one point in time, I'm sure that many people would have applauded the arrest and convistion of rockers that made statements in their music contrary to the beliefs of the listener - see: Pussy Riot. I know guys who asserted that America started going down the tubes when The Beatles came ashore.

Ah the slippery slope argument meant to drive fear into the discussion and pretty much nuke any argument, it's cute. You're going to have to understand that your second amendment rights and gun violence are fatally related. How would you reduce gun violence without restrictions to arms? Rather than keep letting you sit in your echo chamber ignoring a problem, can you actually participate in discussion? You're a gun owner ( I assume but I may be wrong) and probably a trustworthy one. How would you make sure everyone like you can be trusted to own and carry a firearm and at the same time reduce gun violence and fatalities. Guns will kill far easier and with far less risk to the shooter than almost all other armaments and the ones that are less riskier than that are much harder to access (for the obvious of reasons; reasons which logic should extend to guns but oooooh that second amendment).

And that's just for killing people. I don't even know the numbers on gun use in robberies and assaults (basically guns used but didn't kill) and rape etc etc. Because again guns make it far less risky to the user. They really REALLY don't belong in anyone's hands ever (personal opinion but I think they should all be melted down into something useful like a pair of pliers or something). If all you have to say to the issue of gun violence is "second amendment biatch!" then you would have to address gun violence in a way that doesn't infringe on the second amendment. What have you got champ? Or at least let me try to allow you a rubric by which to answer (you are absolutely allowed and encouraged to add something else but please for the love of God just participate in the discussion rather than cross your arms blaring bumper sticker quotes):

How could state and federal policy intervene to prevent accidental gun deaths/injury? I would like to think that requirements for all gun registration per individual gun owner and also a registered gun safe that bolts to the floor and is inspected twice a year by an agency (either state or federal) and no purchase of a gun can be made until it's verified that the owner is registered and has a registered safe. I would think that this may reinforce a habit of keeping a gun in the safe. That's my idea how would you address the original question?

How can state and federal policy intervene to prevent intentional death/injury by a firearm? This will absolutely go back to violence because guns are just the tool of a violent actor we can all agree. I personally think guns make it easier and more preferable to committing violence. An actor will benefit more from gun use than from most all other weapons.

How can state and federal policy ensure that gun owners have their skin in this game. Guns are insanely dangerous and allowing people to have them on the honors system should also mean that any gun owner needs to make sure that they themselves minimize the dangers from them. If a gun owner's gun is stolen how responsible should they be to that gun? If a gun owner lives in a house with a criminal can that gun owner still own his personal gun even though he's in an environment WITH a criminal? If that gun owner ignores that who can pick up his or her slack?

How can state and federal policy ensure that gun sellers (private owners and businesses) communicate their sales and buyers so that tracking can be effective? The Tiarht amendment is a POS that breaks down any communication infrastructure possible and also relaxes responsibilities of a gun seller. I'm sure we are all in agreement that anyone with a criminal record should not own a gun (even though they too may require self protection because their environment probably is riskier) so every seller needs to perform a background check. But the Tiarht amendment prevents agencies from getting retailers to actually check and report their inventory. Also what about gun show loopholes?
An easter egg. If you're seeing this that means you're quoting this whole block and hopefully actually addressing this whole block. I hope you do. I hope you don't cherry pick a bit and hit-and-run

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

No, actually, that is covered by a decision and Stare Decisis pertains.

Drat, then maybe drug all water supply with diazepam ? If you can#t touch gun , try to get the problem at the source : the people .

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

That would not have passed muster with the court that wrote Heller, or any court following that precedent.

On the other hand, the assault weapon ban of 1994 would easily pass, as would everything I've seen proposed by serious politicians lately.

Some people on the forums might have made proposals that wouldn't pass (like only allowing flintlocks), but you could restrict firearms pretty significantly and still be well within the limits of Heller.

The most important thing that Heller did was to establish that the 2nd amendment really did apply to individuals, and not merely to individuals who were performing some sort of military service at the time. Heller firmly established that people have a right to own guns for the purpose of defending themselves. The blanket ban on handguns went too far in restricting that right, according to the court majority.

Sounds to me you are well screwed and at an dead end. You better hope that murder rate drop further because there seems to be no constitutional and lawful solution whatsoever.

[Lowpro]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

Drat, then maybe drug all water supply with diazepam ? If you can#t touch gun , try to get the problem at the source : the people .

Well addressing social determinants of violence would actually be an effective method you know. It may not require brainwashing or drugging but eliminating/reducing whatever environmental factors that amplify violence.

But I have no idea how to actually do that. The crazies that make the news are probably in the minority of gun violence (their body count may be higher but I would have to imagine that gun violence trends with all other violence types). How do you prevent someone from acting on violent impulses especially when we have guns which are so damned effective at killing.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by Lowpro

Ah the slippery slope argument meant to drive fear into the discussion and pretty much nuke any argument, it's cute. You're going to have to understand that your second amendment rights and gun violence are fatally related. How would you reduce gun violence without restrictions to arms? Rather than keep letting you sit in your echo chamber ignoring a problem, can you actually participate in discussion? You're a gun owner ( I assume but I may be wrong) and probably a trustworthy one. How would you make sure everyone like you can be trusted to own and carry a firearm and at the same time reduce gun violence and fatalities. Guns will kill far easier and with far less risk to the shooter than almost all other armaments and the ones that are less riskier than that are much harder to access (for the obvious of reasons; reasons which logic should extend to guns but oooooh that second amendment).

And that's just for killing people. I don't even know the numbers on gun use in robberies and assaults (basically guns used but didn't kill) and rape etc etc. Because again guns make it far less risky to the user. They really REALLY don't belong in anyone's hands ever (personal opinion but I think they should all be melted down into something useful like a pair of pliers or something). If all you have to say to the issue of gun violence is "second amendment biatch!" then you would have to address gun violence in a way that doesn't infringe on the second amendment. What have you got champ? Or at least let me try to allow you a rubric by which to answer (you are absolutely allowed and encouraged to add something else but please for the love of God just participate in the discussion rather than cross your arms blaring bumper sticker quotes):

How could state and federal policy intervene to prevent accidental gun deaths/injury? I would like to think that requirements for all gun registration per individual gun owner and also a registered gun safe that bolts to the floor and is inspected twice a year by an agency (either state or federal) and no purchase of a gun can be made until it's verified that the owner is registered and has a registered safe. I would think that this may reinforce a habit of keeping a gun in the safe. That's my idea how would you address the original question?

How can state and federal policy intervene to prevent intentional death/injury by a firearm? This will absolutely go back to violence because guns are just the tool of a violent actor we can all agree. I personally think guns make it easier and more preferable to committing violence. An actor will benefit more from gun use than from most all other weapons.

How can state and federal policy ensure that gun owners have their skin in this game. Guns are insanely dangerous and allowing people to have them on the honors system should also mean that any gun owner needs to make sure that they themselves minimize the dangers from them. If a gun owner's gun is stolen how responsible should they be to that gun? If a gun owner lives in a house with a criminal can that gun owner still own his personal gun even though he's in an environment WITH a criminal? If that gun owner ignores that who can pick up his or her slack?

How can state and federal policy ensure that gun sellers (private owners and businesses) communicate their sales and buyers so that tracking can be effective? The Tiarht amendment is a POS that breaks down any communication infrastructure possible and also relaxes responsibilities of a gun seller. I'm sure we are all in agreement that anyone with a criminal record should not own a gun (even though they too may require self protection because their environment probably is riskier) so every seller needs to perform a background check. But the Tiarht amendment prevents agencies from getting retailers to actually check and report their inventory. Also what about gun show loopholes?
An easter egg. If you're seeing this that means you're quoting this whole block and hopefully actually addressing this whole block. I hope you do. I hope you don't cherry pick a bit and hit-and-run

This is what I posted 18 Dec. on this forum:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...9&postcount=25

From my pov based on my training and experience, if I were put in charge of revamping firearms laws across the board this is what I'd do - warning - there will something guaranteed to piss off everyone.

Federal control over the states - no no-control states, no over controlled states.

Draconian penalities for criminal or negligent misuse or storage of a firearm, including mandatory minimum sentence enhancments for use of a firearm in crime that would be completely seperate from the sentence in the underlying indictment, with no concurrent sentence and no probation/parole option for the court - Example - possession of a firearm during the course of a robbery that doesn't imvolve injury to the victim, lets say 10 years on the firearm charge, to be served in full before 1 day credit on the robbery charge. You get the idea.

Safe storage accross the board - you can purchase a basic steel key entry storage cabinent that will keep kids or honest people out for under $200.00, Undividual pistol safes can be purchased for $100.00 or less.

Safe storage laws not to be intended to require firearms under lock and key when the owner is in residence - the law would be intended to provide security against theft primarily, not as a restriction prohibiting defensive use.

All firearms sales of title 1 firearms subject to NICS instant background check.

All sales must be conducted through an FFL dealer (allowed to charge a modest fee) and subject to the NICS check as above.

Any theft of a firearm must be reported asap - if the owner is in Italy for a month and comes back to find he/she has been robbed, the first call better be to the local agency.

Shall issue carry permits available in every state, subject to training and live fire range qualification every six months - I'd suggest a minimum classroom component of 32 hrs. (an abbreviated version of Police Officer Standards and Training) and the live fire test should be comprehensive. If you want to carry, you have to measure up.

No magazine capacity restrictions - it's a complete waste of effort.

Any semi-auto version of a design originally manufactured as a selective fire or full auto weapon would be subject to NFA registration in a seperate category, not subject to the $200.00 transfer tax or CLEO sign-off. The purchaser would be subject to the NICS instant check only, but would be required to provide a Certificate of Eligibility with photo and prints - this would be transmitted electroniclly to ATF for inclusion in the NFTR (National Firearms Transfer Record) No additional restrictions in any state on this class of firearm beyond the above stated. As part othe above, ATF would have to get their **** fully together wrt the NFTR - it's a shambles now and has been so for the last 30 or so years, don't get me started.

All of the above must be stored in actual safes or vaults. The buyer can bring in a pic of his setup, and sign a statement under threat of prosecution for perjury and a loss of firearms rights for a minimum of let's say, 5 years if his/her semi-auto military type firearms are stolen from home, and there is evidence that the firearms were not securly stored - if a bad actor can remove the whole safe, and the evidence supports that, no charges against the firearm owner

NFA weapons and devices -

Rescind the section of the Firearms Owners Protection Act prohibiting the manufacture of new machine guns - since 1934, there has been ONE crime known to have been commited with prosecution resulting in conviction from possession of a registered MG, and I'm ashamed to admit that it was a LEO who commited the crime. Registered weapons and devices have not been and are not a problem. With the buy in point where it is, even assuming a drop in price for the lower end of the price scale, anybody willing to go through the whole process and a 5 figure investment isn't likely to act out in any criminal fashion.

Oh yeah, carry permit fees, CoE licenses etc, have to be reasonably related to the costs to administer, no $10,000.00 permit fees...

Fire away, I know I'm going to get it from both sides.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

In fact, they could mandate that only the weapon available at the time of the constitution writing are allowed. Flintlock and similar rifle and gun.

fair is fair.

So, the First Amendment would only apply to printed newspapers, and not TV, Radio, or the internet. Fair is fair, right?

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

Sounds to me you are well screwed and at an dead end. You better hope that murder rate drop further because there seems to be no constitutional and lawful solution whatsoever.

Sort of.

If "solution" means getting guns out of the hands of citizens, or even put under lock and key at all times, then no. There's no lawful solution. The constitution grants the right to keep and bear arms. The court, in Heller, interpreted that to mean that an individual has the right to keep firearms available and ready to use for self defense. That right can be limited and regulated, but it can't be ignored.

Handguns are the most commonly used, and most effective, firearms for self defense. They are also the most often used in crimes, and the weapons responsible for most accidental shootings. The Supreme Court has said they can't be banned, and a law requiring trigger locks at all times would be unconstitutional.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Wait... 1st Amendment? I thought we only had the second!

The same people are after the 1st Amendment too, since they realized that groups of people could pool their money together and use it to convey thoughts of which the liberals don't approve.