Gun Control

[knapplc]

Remember when 20 little kids got shot and the nation was outraged? We still have guns everywhere. It's been four years. There have been nearly 1,000 mass shootings since Sandy Hook, with over 1,135 people dead and nearly 4,000 more wounded.

This shooting won't change anything. The pro-gun crowd just gets further & further entrenched in their mania. They won't budge until every man, woman and child in this country knows someone who's been shot in gun violence.

Even then it's iffy, because they'll just push for more guns, for everyone, everywhere.

Why even have this conversation? No amount of bloodshed will convince the pro-gun people.

 

[Saunders]

Remember when 20 little kids got shot and the nation was outraged? We still have guns everywhere. It's been four years. There have been nearly 1,000 mass shootings since Sandy Hook, with over 1,135 people dead and nearly 4,000 more wounded.

This shooting won't change anything. The pro-gun crowd just gets further & further entrenched in their mania. They won't budge until every man, woman and child in this country knows someone who's been shot in gun violence.

Even then it's iffy, because they'll just push for more guns, for everyone, everywhere.

Why even have this conversation? No amount of bloodshed will convince the pro-gun people.

This type of attitude doesn't help. Going around and demonizing anyone who owns a gun and blaming them for what happened isn't right. It's not NRA members (as much as I despise what they've become) going around committing these atrocities. In fact most of those "mass shooitngs" you cite were gang/drug related crimes. Over 99.99% gun owners haven't done a thing wrong, yet it's their fault? It's no different than blaming anyone who drinks a beer for all the DUI deaths commited every year.

This kind of thinking is how we got the Patriot Act.

 

[zoogs]

Washington Post: NRA money helped reshape gun law

For more than three decades, the NRA has sponsored legal seminars, funded legal research and encouraged law review articles that advocate an individual’s right to possess guns, according to the organization’s reports. The result has been a profound shift in legal thinking on the Second Amendment. And the issue of individual gun-possession rights, once almost entirely ignored, has moved into the center of constitutional debate and study.

“I think this was one of the most successful attempts to change the law and to change a legal paradigm in history,” said Carl T. Bogus, a professor at Roger Williams University School of Law in Rhode Island and the editor of “The Second Amendment in Law and History,” a collection of essays that challenges the interpretation of the individual right. “They were thinking strategically. I don’t think the NRA funds scholarship out of academic interest. I think the NRA funds something because it has a political objective.”

NYTimes: What Liberals Can Learn From the NRA

Consider what the N.R.A. has accomplished. Just a few decades ago, even loyal conservatives rejected the idea that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to bear arms, as opposed to the states’ prerogative to raise militias. In 1990, the retired Supreme Court chief justice Warren Burger, a Nixon nominee, dismissed the idea as a “fraud.” ...

The N.R.A. first focused on the states, lobbying to change state constitutions and laws to protect the right to possess and carry guns. The organization realized that most gun laws were enacted by states, not the federal government, and that it could win substantial victories there ...

The N.R.A. also enlisted the academy. Beginning in the 1980s, it offered grants and prizes designed to encourage scholarship that buttressed its view of the Second Amendment. With N.R.A. assistance, legal scholars transformed the academic understanding of the Second Amendment...

Right or wrong, for better or for worse, the NRA played the long game and won with decades of effort in shaping legal scholarship.

It's the NRA's world. We're all just living in it.

 

[Saunders]

Consider what the N.R.A. has accomplished. Just a few decades ago, even loyal conservatives rejected the idea that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to bear arms, as opposed to the states’ prerogative to raise militias.

Not really. From the outset, it was understood to be an individual right, like all the others. Example from one of the earlier drafts

That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free State.

New York Convention, June 26, 1788

https://www.archives.gov/legislative/resources/bill-of-rights/CCBR_IIB.pdf

 

[zoogs]

I really don't think the consensus that existed before recently can be erased. You can argue that it was a mistaken consensus, and in a world where the NRA has expended such enormous effort to shape mainstream legal opinion, that would probably be music to their ears. You can argue that the NRA acted not out of self interest, but out of genuine academic advocacy -- righting a great wrong. (Certainly, many sea changes in American history have righted past wrongs...)

But I don't think you can argue about the consensus state of the question prior to the NRA's heavy, sustained involvement of recent decades.

 

[Saunders]

I really don't think the consensus that existed before recently can be erased. You can argue that it was a mistaken consensus, and in a world where the NRA has expended such enormous effort to shape mainstream legal opinion, that would probably be music to their ears. You can argue that the NRA acted not out of self interest, but out of genuine academic advocacy -- righting a great wrong.

But I don't think you can argue about the consensus state of the question prior to the NRA's heavy, sustained involvement of recent decades.

Eh, IDK about the consensus. For instance, the real push towards gun control began in the 1800's after the civil way in an attempt to curtail the freedoms of freed slaves.

While settled parts of the South were in great fear of armed blacks, concerns about Indian attack often forced relaxation of these rules on the frontier. The 1798 Kentucky Comprehensive Act allowed slaves and free blacks on frontier plantations "to keep and use guns, powder, shot, and weapons, offensive and defensive."(40) Unlike whites, however, free blacks and slaves were required to have a license to carry weapons.(41)

Blacks needed to carry arms for self-defense not only against criminal attacks that any person, white or black, might worry about, but they also needed arms for protection against the additional hazard of being kidnapped and sold into slavery.(42) A number of states, including Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, passed laws specifically to prohibit kidnapping of free blacks. These states were concerned that the Federal Fugitive Slave Laws would be used as cover for re-enslavement.(43)

The end of slavery in 1865 did not eliminate the problems of racist gun control laws. The various Black Codes adopted after the Civil War required blacks to obtain a license before carrying or possessing firearms or bowie knives. These Codes are sufficiently well-known that any reasonably complete history of the Reconstruction period mentions them. These restrictive gun laws played a part in provoking Republican efforts to get the Fourteenth Amendment passed.(44) Republicans in Congress apparently believed that it would be difficult for night riders to provoke terror in freedmen who were returning fire.

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/cramer/racist_roots.htm

I'm not really arguing for the NRA here. I'm not a fan of what they've become. There certainly are crazies there, just as there are in the anti-gun crowd. But like I said above, I absolutely think there are measures we can take in regards to violence, poverty, and gun crime. But demonzing millions upon millions of law abiding gun owners who have never done anything wrong, and saying that it's their fault won't solve a thing, and only further.

 

[zoogs]

Right. I think more so than guns themselves being the problem, it's the state of things politically. Or, the problem is the problem

The point was just about the history of the 2nd amendment -- its primacy in the national conversation, the battle lines drawn around it, and the present consolidation of interpretations -- those things were created, and the change was born out of organized effort. Sometimes these efforts are noble...

What do you mean when you say you're not a fan of what they've become, by the way? I'm not so familiar with how they've changed over the years, myself.

 

[Bigred_inSD]

This was the second worst shooting, don't forget wounded knee.

2. I want a nuke, I need it to protect myself from the government and the 2nd amendment allows it.

3 Bush funded and started ISIS.

4. So many hot takes coming soon.

5. Trump using this event to pat himself on the back is pathetic.

6. I haven't noticed as many people as I expected to be upset by this, are we just used to it? Or because gays were killed?

7. Thankfully he was brown or this would just be another "mentally ill " white kid

 

[Hedley Lamarr]

Im more interested in this act being committed in a gun free zone. Seems to be a very common theme

 

[HuskerNation1]

Remember when 20 little kids got shot and the nation was outraged? We still have guns everywhere. It's been four years. There have been nearly 1,000 mass shootings since Sandy Hook, with over 1,135 people dead and nearly 4,000 more wounded.

This shooting won't change anything. The pro-gun crowd just gets further & further entrenched in their mania. They won't budge until every man, woman and child in this country knows someone who's been shot in gun violence.

Even then it's iffy, because they'll just push for more guns, for everyone, everywhere.

Why even have this conversation? No amount of bloodshed will convince the pro-gun people.

This type of attitude doesn't help. Going around and demonizing anyone who owns a gun and blaming them for what happened isn't right. It's not NRA members (as much as I despise what they've become) going around committing these atrocities. In fact most of those "mass shooitngs" you cite were gang/drug related crimes. Over 99.99% gun owners haven't done a thing wrong, yet it's their fault? It's no different than blaming anyone who drinks a beer for all the DUI deaths commited every year.

This kind of thinking is how we got the Patriot Act.

You are right Saunders. The immediate reaction is to blame guns and the 2nd amendment as we saw with Obama's reaction after the Oregon shooting in which he came out within 3 hours prior to many families knowing if their loved one was killed, and openly admitted he was politicizing the tragedy. If we want to live in a closed society then perhaps we may see less of this. The rise of these types of shootings is a result of many factors, including broken homes and more kids living without good parents, the rise of violent movies, television, video games, etc..., the rise of the internet age and social media where people can get attention for acts like these.

 

[Saunders]

Right. I think more so than guns themselves being the problem, it's the state of things politically. Or, the problem is the problem

The point was just about the history of the 2nd amendment -- its primacy in the national conversation, the battle lines drawn around it, and the present consolidation of interpretations -- those things were created, and the change was born out of organized effort. Sometimes these efforts are noble...

What do you mean when you say you're not a fan of what they've become, by the way? I'm not so familiar with how they've changed over the years, myself.

The tl;dr version is that the NRA was founded to teach marksmanship and gun safety. However the political side (the NRA-ILA) has grown since the 70's and turned it into trash. The gun range related stuff (like their instruction courses) are still top notch, but the overall group has been tainted.

Here's a decent look at it: http://www.alternet.org/suprising-unknown-history-nra

 

[Scratchtown]

Consider what the N.R.A. has accomplished. Just a few decades ago, even loyal conservatives rejected the idea that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to bear arms, as opposed to the states’ prerogative to raise militias.

Not really. From the outset, it was understood to be an individual right, like all the others. Example from one of the earlier drafts

That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free State.

New York Convention, June 26, 1788

https://www.archives.gov/legislative/resources/bill-of-rights/CCBR_IIB.pdf

CAPABLE.

I think that anyone should be able to own a gun, but, need to go through a psych eval. One that digs into the childhood of people, one that could expose triggers to snap.

 

[NM11046]

Remember when 20 little kids got shot and the nation was outraged? We still have guns everywhere. It's been four years. There have been nearly 1,000 mass shootings since Sandy Hook, with over 1,135 people dead and nearly 4,000 more wounded.

This shooting won't change anything. The pro-gun crowd just gets further & further entrenched in their mania. They won't budge until every man, woman and child in this country knows someone who's been shot in gun violence.

Even then it's iffy, because they'll just push for more guns, for everyone, everywhere.

Why even have this conversation? No amount of bloodshed will convince the pro-gun people.

This type of attitude doesn't help. Going around and demonizing anyone who owns a gun and blaming them for what happened isn't right. It's not NRA members (as much as I despise what they've become) going around committing these atrocities. In fact most of those "mass shooitngs" you cite were gang/drug related crimes. Over 99.99% gun owners haven't done a thing wrong, yet it's their fault? It's no different than blaming anyone who drinks a beer for all the DUI deaths commited every year.

This kind of thinking is how we got the Patriot Act.

You are right Saunders. The immediate reaction is to blame guns and the 2nd amendment as we saw with Obama's reaction after the Oregon shooting in which he came out within 3 hours prior to many families knowing if their loved one was killed, and openly admitted he was politicizing the tragedy. If we want to live in a closed society then perhaps we may see less of this. The rise of these types of shootings is a result of many factors, including broken homes and more kids living without good parents, the rise of violent movies, television, video games, etc..., the rise of the internet age and social media where people can get attention for acts like these.

The content of any of his comments after these shootings (isn't that heartbreaking that we have to differentiate WHICH one of the mass shootings he commented after) is always heavy on recognizing families and loved ones and the country as we work through tragedy. I highly doubt any one of the impacted family members today had a problem with President Obama coming out strongly against guns after their loved ones were murdered by one (or more). You may have taken political issue with it, but I'm confident that parents and families do not.

I happen to have ties to Sandy Hook and I speak confidently when I say that the people directly impacted in that tragedy had no doubt where the Presidents comments came from and they were grateful that he acknowledged our country's obvious gun control issues openly. To not acknowledge that there is a pattern and that we can not continue to be ok with these news stories continuing to occur routinely is asinine.

I can't/won't even begin to reply to your placing blame on broken homes, lack of good parenting and etc being the cause of the obscene rise in gun deaths ....

 

[Saunders]

Remember when 20 little kids got shot and the nation was outraged? We still have guns everywhere. It's been four years. There have been nearly 1,000 mass shootings since Sandy Hook, with over 1,135 people dead and nearly 4,000 more wounded.

This shooting won't change anything. The pro-gun crowd just gets further & further entrenched in their mania. They won't budge until every man, woman and child in this country knows someone who's been shot in gun violence.

Even then it's iffy, because they'll just push for more guns, for everyone, everywhere.

Why even have this conversation? No amount of bloodshed will convince the pro-gun people.

This type of attitude doesn't help. Going around and demonizing anyone who owns a gun and blaming them for what happened isn't right. It's not NRA members (as much as I despise what they've become) going around committing these atrocities. In fact most of those "mass shooitngs" you cite were gang/drug related crimes. Over 99.99% gun owners haven't done a thing wrong, yet it's their fault? It's no different than blaming anyone who drinks a beer for all the DUI deaths commited every year.

This kind of thinking is how we got the Patriot Act.

You are right Saunders. The immediate reaction is to blame guns and the 2nd amendment as we saw with Obama's reaction after the Oregon shooting in which he came out within 3 hours prior to many families knowing if their loved one was killed, and openly admitted he was politicizing the tragedy. If we want to live in a closed society then perhaps we may see less of this. The rise of these types of shootings is a result of many factors, including broken homes and more kids living without good parents, the rise of violent movies, television, video games, etc..., the rise of the internet age and social media where people can get attention for acts like these.

The content of any of his comments after these shootings (isn't that heartbreaking that we have to differentiate WHICH one of the mass shootings he commented after) is always heavy on recognizing families and loved ones and the country as we work through tragedy. I highly doubt any one of the impacted family members today had a problem with President Obama coming out strongly against guns after their loved ones were murdered by one (or more). You may have taken political issue with it, but I'm confident that parents and families do not.

I happen to have ties to Sandy Hook and I speak confidently when I say that the people directly impacted in that tragedy had no doubt where the Presidents comments came from and they were grateful that he acknowledged our countries obvious gun control issues openly. To not acknowledge that there is a pattern and that we can not continue to be ok with these news stories continuing to occur routinely is asinine.

I can not even begin to reply to your placing blame on broken homes, lack of good parenting and etc being the cause of the obscene rise in gun deaths ....

Agree with what you wrote, except for the last line, because it's not true.

We’ve had a massive decline in gun violence in the United States. Here’s why.

Premeditated mass shootings in public places are happening more often, some researchers say, plunging towns and cities into grief and riveting the attention of a horrified nation. In general, though, fewer Americans are dying as a result of gun violence — a shift that began about two decades ago.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/

 

[Danny Bateman]

how many people died in car accidents or in smoking related illness in the same time span? no call for banning cars or cigs?

This has come up often. I think nobody has explained it better than the President himself.

Although as the headline mentions, it will no doubt be ignored.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/06/03/obama_gun_control_is_not_that_different_than_driving_safety_video.html

Cars were designed for transportation. Cigs are marketed to... look cool, I guess? I don't endorse the use of harmful substances, but they're available over the counter and people are free to get them whenever they want.

Guns are different. Guns were designed specifically to kill.

Good video, by the way. If it comes out later that this guy was online looking at ISIS stuff, it's not Obama's fault he had access to guns. It's the NRA's insistence everything is an assault on the 2nd amendment.