How much are we willing to give up?

[AlexanderA]

I know of almost no cases where school or mass shooters legally acquired the guns used. I am sure that there is at least one time it happened so will not say it has never happened.

On the contrary. Almost all of them legally acquired their guns. Pollard, Cruz, etc. -- all legally acquired.

 

[Walkalong]

Which is irrelevant.

 

[AlexanderA]

With all due respect, you haven't exactly come across as for gun owners any more than ole gbw has.

You can't be serious. I'm 100% for gun rights. But I'm not going to stick my head in the sand and deny the truth. I'm way too old for that (73 this week).

 

[AlexanderA]

Which is irrelevant.

Correcting factual errors is always relevant.

 

[The White Tiger]

I don't believe that any of US where there back then, but if that's all the flexibility WE are capable of? WE THE PEOPLE might have let down our fore-fathers? This was supposed to be an evolving experiment, capable of change based on the needs of the Common Man. So if we want to accept the Solutions to the Tyranny of the far past as OUR course of action in the future, how far are Y'all willing to go to desecrate our Grandchildren's Freedoms in order that they once again bear the yolk of oppression?

Is thier future more important to OUR unwillingness to change, than those that come after US?

This is a poor attempt to obfuscate, but the Bill of RIGHTS were never intended to be "evolved" - they enumerate the 10 MINIMUM INALIENABLE Human RIGHTS. The Constitution does NOT give us these RIGHTS, it only ACKNOWLEDGES our RIGHTS. It was further described that the RIGHTS come from "natures God"...a lot of debate over the years as to why a bunch of Deists might have included that line...but its actually quite clear from a legal standpoint: whatever RIGHTS a superior being bestows on His creation, the subordinate being does not have the legal authority to undermine/change.

Besides, what part of "shall not be infringed..." do you NOT get? RECENT SCOTUS decisions have only reinforced that FACT. Heller v Washington DC (2008) found that individuals have a right to possess and carry firearms, then in McDonald v Chicago (2010) they decided the 2nd Amendment is explicitly written for individuals in cases where state & federal governments seek to regulate individual ownership of any gun (i.e., the 2nd Amendment was meant to limit government, NOT individuals[/I]) and Caetano v Massachusetts (2016) reiterated the earlier rulings listed above - and ADDED that "the Second Amendment extends to ALL instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that its protection is "not limited to only those weapons useful in warfare."

There is no "living document" clause. That's a bastardized concept and argument. It's only a living document in the sense that changes are ONLY ALLLOWED to happen in a PROSCRIBED process - detailed in the Constitution. It was SPECIFICALLY designed NOT to be changed by "case law" creep...which is the preference of RIGHTS DENIERS. It was never intended for a temporary majority to make radical changes to in a cut-n-paste manner in any 4 or 8 year period. We do not accept the leftist interpretation of a "living document" that can be changed by a congressional vote - neither to ADD extra hands & feet onto the LIVING being of the US Constitution, nor REMOVE entire enumerated RIGHTS that it merely RECOGNIZES.

The reality is this - RIGHTS DENIERS mobilize every time someone takes up a gun to do evil - after a school shooting (usually by a left-wing nut on prozac) - yet they're eerily SILENT on the murder rate CAUSED by gun bans in Chicago, New York, Washington DC, and Los Angeles.

I've listened to arguments rolled out to capitalize on EVERY similar school shooting for 20 years - and THE ONLY thing that hasn't been tried is to ADD guns to the equation. Let ANY teacher that holds a conceal carry license, like the beloved Parkland football coach who was gunned-down by the murderer when he threw himself in front of children that were not his own - while FOUR government protectors in the role of Broward Sheriff Officers were either COWERING under a stairway (TRAINED resource officer), or behind their vehicles (THREE Broward Sheriff's Deputies).

What YOU propose is FANTASY (use pressure and emotion to make the case to eventually ban ALL guns, after every such crisis) and has NOT WORKED in the more than 20 years I've been watching this.

The ONLY thing you want is ALL guns to be removed from society - a comical, farcical, absurdity - and you won't let ANY crisis go to waste to get it.

There is ZERO "common sense" about THAT strategy - just ask the disarmed VICTIMS of Chicago, New York, Washington DC, and Los Angeles - that is the true desire of ABSOLUTE RAVING MORON anti-gunners.

THE ONLY "Common Sense" approach I'm willing to consider is: ARM THE TEACHERS WHO WANT TO BE ARMED - AND ARE ALREADY LICENSED TO CONCEAL CARRY...

Give our kids the same level of expectation for security that they would receive at a Police Station or a Bass Pro Shop..(there's a reason no one constantly rings there hands over the most recent "Police Station Shooting" or Bass Pro Shop Shooting"...its because even craven murderers know the odds of taking on someone equally armed and capable of shooting back)!

THAT'S called American "Common Sense" ...

 

[Walkalong]

You can't be serious. I'm 100% for gun rights.

Well I am serious. 100% is 100%.

 

[Walkalong]

Correcting factual errors is always relevant.

OK, you corrected a fact. That fact is still irrelevant to the argument.

 

[The White Tiger]

On the contrary. Almost all of them legally acquired their guns. Pollard, Cruz, etc. -- all legally acquired.

This is a forced perspective.

Each time a school sooting occurs - a preconceived solution restricting the purchase or acquisition of guns - is rolled out. The move to make 21 the new minimum age to purchase a gun is specious. You clearly have not been paying attention. The murderer purchased this while of sane mind. He then set-about threatening his roommate with a pistol, he scared his neighbors so badly that they called the police 39 times, and the two concerned citizens CALLED THE FBI AND GAVE THEM HORRIFIC STATEMENTS ABOUT THIS KIDS INTENTIONS!!!???

A background check won't weed-out that level of government incompetency (but allowing conceal carry licensed teachers to carry at school - would).

Guns, the legal age you can acquire them, the caliber, whether a rifle was used or a handgun....ARE NOT THE PROBLEM IN ANY SCHOOL SHOOTING! The problem is that THERE AREN'T ENOUGH GUNS AT THE RIGHT PLACES IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

If you're truly in your 70's, then you probably remember back when schools allowed kids to bring rifles to school because teachers taught marksmanship AT SCHOOL! Not a SINGLE mass shooting EVER happened when you were in school...WHY SHOULD THIS GENERATION BE LEFT UNPROTECTED?

Let trained, conceal carry licensed teachers carry on-campus - and the problem of school shooting will be SOLVED.

We'll shoot these sick, monstrous, murdering, bastards - right where they stand - DENY them body count - and add the component of being brutally murdered DURING an attack - and you eliminate the likelihood of any further school shootings. Killers tend to be cowards - it's why they pick unarmed victims.

 

[AlexanderA]

Heller v Washington DC (2008), then in McDonald v Chicago (2010) they decided the 2nd Amendment is explicitly written for individuals in cases where state & federal governments seek to regulate individual ownership of any gun

The Heller case specifically does not say that. Otherwise the NFA would be unconstitutional. (Which would be fine by me, but that's not the state of the law.)

 

[AlexanderA]

If you're truly in your 70's, then you probably remember back when schools allowed kids to bring rifles to school because teachers taught marksmanship AT SCHOOL! Not a SINGLE mass shooting EVER happened when you were in school...WHY SHOULD THIS GENERATION BE LEFT UNPROTECTED?

The first mass shooting that I can remember (I was actually there) was the Whitman Tower incident at the University of Texas in 1966. But I wasn't really a kid then. (First semester of law school.)

 

[hso]

I believe that it was illegal (not lawful) for anyone to carry a firearm regardless of capacity or type onto a gun free school zone.

Not quite correct. Eight states have provisions for carry on school grounds by staff'/teachers.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/24/us/armed-teachers-states-trnd/index.html

 

[hdwhit]

M118LR wrote:
So far we have been legislated out of our right's to machine guns,...

Well, the Supreme Court agreed that such restriction was constitutional.

The Constitution does not say what you think or might happen to believe it say. It says what the nine old men and women in Washington say it says.

You may not agree with their rulings.

You may not like their rulings.

But, the Constitution provided for a Supreme Court with the power to say what the document actually means and they have spoken on the issue of machine guns. You can accept it or else you can decide to make yourself an outlaw.

 

[Kaybee]

There's a reason active shooters don't go to gun ranges to shoot them up.

 

[The White Tiger]

The Heller case specifically does not say that. Otherwise the NFA would be unconstitutional. (Which would be fine by me, but that's not the state of the law.)

Thanks for reminding me to add the specifics to Heller. I've updated it, and in Heller the court specifically finds that the 2nd amendment is for individuals - not collectives of individuals.

...and the point remains: NOTHING in Heller (2008), McDonald (2010), nor Caetano (2016) allows for ANY changes to the 2nd Amendment. It's no different than what it was originally written/intended. It has NOT "evolved", it is NOT INTENDED to be "evolved."

DESPITE the original intent, anti-gunners have tried to use "case law" creep, to obfuscate, deny these INALIENABLE RIGHTS. These cases PROVE that regardless of the resources that have gone into defining strict interpretation - legal citizens KEEP having to defend our God-given RIGHTS in the country where they were expressly defined.

Somehow, the argument ONLY fits the tool in the case of guns - not in the CAUSE of people feeling unsafe - only the RESULT of a lone wolf attack. Gun-grabbers leap to judgement. We don't hear calls to BAN CIGARETTES, even though we have factual proof they cause certain forms of cancer. No one tries to BAN CARS/BAN ALCOHOL due to too many people being killed by drunk drivers - and you don't have ANY forsworn RIGHTS to cigarettes, automobile operation, nor alcohol consumption. ...but for some reason folks want to BAN GUNS because bad guys use guns to kill good guys WITHOUT guns.

Its time to stop focusing on missing content, and start focusing on missing logic.

Allow ANY teacher with a Conceal Carry license who wants to, to carry at work.

The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.

Please don't leave our children's lives to INEPT Broward Sheriff's Office who allowed the murderer to kill children as they cowered behind their cruisers and under the stairs at the school (as noted here: https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/politics/parkland-school-shooting-broward-deputies/index.html ). Their dereliction of duty forced the Coral Gables Police to be the first to enter the school, even though the 3 cruisers/deputies from the BSO had arrived on the scene, but stayed outside.

I want the same level of protection at a school that our politicians enjoy in the legislature. Guns surrounding those we love, to keep away the evil men would do to others.

 

[The White Tiger]

The first mass shooting that I can remember (I was actually there) was the Whitman Tower incident at the University of Texas in 1966. But I wasn't really a kid then. (First semester of law school.)

Yes, and as I recall...they blamed the shooter that day...not the access to the scoped, bolt action, hunting rifle, he used to kill college kids...right?

 

[The White Tiger]

Well, the Supreme Court agreed that such restriction was constitutional.

The Constitution does not say what you think or might happen to believe it say. It says what the nine old men and women in Washington say it says.

You may not agree with their rulings.

You may not like their rulings.

But, the Constitution provided for a Supreme Court with the power to say what the document actually means and they have spoken on the issue of machine guns. You can accept it or else you can decide to make yourself an outlaw.

No, actually. The Constitution was intended to be the law of the land. The court was NEVER intended to interpret the US Constitution. It was written in plain language (for the time), and is only 6 pages long.

The last page, The Bill if RIGHTS, lists the restrictions placed on GOVERNMENT, by the people. Those 10 items were NEVER to be changed.

You don't actually need a degree in Constitutional Law - it was written in such a way that any common man could understand HIS RIGHTS - and the LIMITATIONS their government had placed upon IT (NOT as has become the modern trend - letting the government define the limitations they will place on INDIVIDUALS.

I agree that it has become something other than what it was intended - but WE THE PEOPLE let that happen through the creep of "case law"...

 

[Wisco]

No, actually. The Constitution was intended to be the law of the land. The court was NEVER intended to interpret the US Constitution. It was written in plain language (for the time), and is only 6 pages long.

Are you kidding?

Article III
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party

 

[Guitarmike]

Think that the FBI will get more authority to intrude into your home if your a registered firearm owner?

Me as a commoner, I would think that having an armed officer at the school should have been enough, but it wasn't. I would hope that the FBI would have taken the warnings a bit more serious, but it's easy to see things in hindsight. I believe that it's already against the law to have a firearm in/on a school zone, so laws didn't do much to protect.

This should have been the easiest tragedy to avoid, Laws are already written against it, the FBI knew about it, the School had an armed Officer assigned, every thing was in place. But in the final analysis, it's the "Good Guy" with the gun taking action that is the only actual deterrent. If that doesn't happen, how are schools/churches and all the other NO GUN ZONES going to be defensed?

I understand that We The People have had our fill of getting our 2A rights attacked, and I'm not to keen on giving our supposed protecting agencies more invasive powers within my home, but WE need to improve something to keep the children safe don't WE?

If there is no good guy with a gun willing or able to defend against evil, either get more good guys with a gun or kiss your rear good bye. If you want to really improve something, get to the root cause of why this kid did this so we can begin to understand how to prevent it. Get to the root cause of the FBI`s apparent incompetence. Get to the root cause of the local law enforcement`s apparent incompetence.
Any infringement on the second ammendment will do nothing to prevent this from happening again. Cocaine and herion are illegal yet readily available in any city in America, if there is a demand someone will find a supply regardless of any laws we make.

 

[George P]

To expand on this....

How they have succeeded and we have failed in negotiations is this.

0 = no gun control
100 = total ban on everything


They say 100 and we give up 10 in order to not give up 100. Only giving up 10 is way better than giving up 100. Riiiiiight?

That's Negotiations 101.


Next year, they say 100 again. We give up 10 because 10 is way better than giving up 100. Riiiiight?

NO.. WRONG!

We've failed by allowing 10 to be the new 0 and negotiating from there so now we have given up 20 in actuality.

Thats Negotiations 102. Our side has failed Negotiating 102



Rinse and repeat until we have a just but a small fraction of what we once had and then stupidly start OFFERING another 10 because we know they want 100.

Our side has continued to fail Negotiating 102 repeatedly.

Called "Death By a Thousand Cuts"

 

[George P]

The only way the beast will be placated is when all firearms are banned. That is the goal, nothing less. Neville Chamberlain tried to placate the beast and we all know how that worked out. The left in this country are the true fascists, not conservatives.

More like Nazi Socialists.

 

[2ifbyC]

I know exactly where I was when Robert Kennedy got shot. I recently posted an ad on this forum of guns that could be purchased by mail order in the early sixties. Since 1968, I have seen a continual erosion of the RKBA under the guise of safety. I cannot predict the future but if gun control continues on its current trajectory, the term armed citizen will become an oxymoron.

 

[George P]

You DO realize that ISIS is advocating the use of running down folks with cars and trucks in Europe. right ? Why do you suppose that is ?

Did you also realize that the Las Vegas shooter had 50 lbs of Tannerite in his car ? My guess was to blow up the car in some part of a getaway plan. I'm just bringing this up to show that killers are creative and will find ways to get other alternative means of destruction.

Timothy McVeigh

I do agree with you on one thing tho, IT IS OUR PROBLEM.

Just that the response should not be any further gun bans.

IMHO The failures in Parkland were (in order of importance):

1. Nikolas Cruz
2. Sherrif Scott Israel and his deputies.
3. The FBI
4. The Florida mental health counselors that examined Cruz
5. The School district for having a single deputy on-site for 3000 students.

The response from us should directly address THESE issues FIRST (addressing the above 1-5 points in order):

1. Enhance NICS so that individuals requiring mental treatment do not pass NICS
2. Replace Sheriff Israel.
3. Enact local and federal programs to require mental health restrictions to be entered into NICS and that the FBI runs it's tips through NICS
4. Retrain (if necessary) and empower mental health officials to issue restraining orders with 4th amendment protections. These are entered in NICS.
5. Ensure all schools have at least one professional security officer per 1000 students.

In addition, I strongly support CCW universally and the dismantling of 'gun free' zones in schools and elsewhere.

and IMHO our response should include a national CCW reciprocity law.

Who decides if you have mental issues? Maybe an anti-gun doctor?

 

[George P]

If you only want to try to deal with the means then we only end up finding a different means used after this tool is restricted. Instead we should be looking at countries with similar percentages of households with similar firearms (Canada, Switzerland, Finland/Norway) and ask what makes their RATES (gross numbers are misleading) of murders and mass shootings and school mass shootings so different. If 25% to 35% of households (or 45% in Switzerland) in the US, Canada, Finland, Norway and Switzerland have access to similar semiauto rifles why does the US have a much higher rate? What is it that makes those countries so much safer? It isn't that they don't have access to magazine fed semiauto firearms.

Those countries population demographics are a lot more homogeneous than ours. They also have more family-oriented societal values.

 

[Guitarmike]

In this forum I keep reading lots of strained and strange logic attempting to prove the unprovable: That mass shootings have nothing to do with guns.

Total nonsense. The killer-cretins use guns, large capacity detachable magazine semi-auto guns, nearly 100% of the time. The problem has a lot of causes, and one of them is the guns. No logic, no matter how convoluted, will change that. Way too many dead and mangled kids at the hands of incompetent dimwits simply because in the end, when the dimwits decide to go, massive, simple, lethal firepower is available to them. I’ve believed this since long before Sandy Hook.

Too many on this forum keep hiding their heads in the sand, pretending it isn’t our problem. It is.

Of course nothing will stop everything. That’s no reason not to try. And I do worry about the slippery slope – it’s the only logic that actually works. But I’ll risk that, and I’ll go pretty far:

No one under age 21 allowed to own firearms. Under 21 in possession must be accompanied by responsible card holding adult over 21, for target shooting, plinking, hunting. No exceptions. Why? Same reason Avis won't rent them a car, and insurance companies charge them 3x what they do the rest of us - they do stupid stuff way out of proportion to their numbers. Unfair to some? Yes. Old enough to die for your country but not allowed firearms unsupervised? Yes.

Universal registration / background checks. Firearms owners would have to have a firearms ownership card. The card must be issued after a background check and training, not to exceed 8 hours including range training. No renewal needed. No firearms without a valid card. No transfer to anyone who didn’t have a valid card. All transfers recorded centrally. Felony and possibly some misdemeanors would result denial or temporary or permanent revocation of your card (and your guns). BTW, if the gov’t ever outlaws all guns, a central registry will be the least of our worries.

No detachable magazine semi-auto firearms, except pistols where the magazine is contained in the butt.

No magazine capacity (internal or external) over 10 cartridges. All existing mags to be surrendered or permanently modified to a 10 round limit. Exception for .22 rimfire tubular fixed magazine rifles.

No bump stocks or similar.

Then end. We've done our part, and should go no further. After these concessions, if the problem remains it becomes a social issue.


All this sounds terrible but it isn’t – we’ll actually give up a little, but not much. We’ll still be able to shoot, hunt, play, compete, and defend ourselves. If you can’t defend yourself with 10 (+1), you better hire guards.

Which part of ‘shall not…’ don’t I understand? The part that says I have to pretend that children shot dead have nothing to do with guns. And the part that says we gun owners have no duty admit the obvious, nor to act.

What about bombs, knives, clubs, cars, etc. etc.? What about them? Deal with them when they become the weapons part of the problem. For now they are very rarely used. Why? Because the guns now available are so much cheaper and/or easier, and far more efficient.

NRA member for over 30 years, and I’m staying with them. I don’t agree with everything, obviously.

I’ve many more guns than most of you, yes, including ARs. I love to shoot, I have my own range. I quit counting reloaded cartridges at 220,000 rounds.

We have to help.

(I don't think arming teachers is such a great idea. I don't oppose it in theory, but I suspect the main effect would be a lot of misplaced ccw guns lying around the nations schools. Continuous CCW is a pita, as many of you know.)

The bill of rights is the government acknowledging our rights, not granting them. These rights are given to all people and shall not be infringed by the government.
The actions of government employees in the school shooting are proof positive that the government is not going to protect you. Common sense should tell you we do not need to further restrict our ability to defend ourselves and our kids. We need to do the opposite, we need to be able to protect ourselves anywhere we are.

 

[danez71]

OK, you corrected a fact. That fact is still irrelevant to the argument.

I'm not so sure he bought it legally.

Question 11F (or is it E?)


None of us can say for sure if it was technically legal or not.