The right to bear arms
Replies
-
Perhaps that post wasn't talking about you then.0
-
Perhaps that post wasn't talking about you then.
What were you referring to then?0 -
The people who said the things I was complaining about, obviously. Read the thread. All the things I complained about are here.0
-
The people who said the things I was complaining about, obviously. Read the thread. All the things I complained about are here.
As your post was immediately after mine, and phrased to sound like it was a response to mine, it wasn't obvious. I did read the thread, and even commented that extremist posts from EITHER side weren't representative of the whole and shouldn't be taken as such.
Reasonable people aren't arguing that there should be no gun control, or that any discussion of improvements to gun control are tantamount to trying to ban legal gun ownership, or that not wanting legal gun control means you're willing to let your family die, or any other such nonsense.
I would fully support stricter regulations of private sale of firearms. I also have no problems with imposing a more thorough and uniformly enforced background check prior to licensing. I'm not convinced banning assault weapons or 30 round clips would solve much, particularly when you look at the statistics surrounding what classes of firearms are most often used in violent crime.
The point I have been trying to make from the beginning though, is that those regulations don't address the problem. After Columbine, there was a huge push against violent imagery in music and video games. There was a huge push behind stopping gamemakers from creating vehicles that future killers would utilize to hone their skills. Did that do anything beyond making the 'crusaders' feel good about themselves because they were making a difference? No, it didn't do a damn thing.
Our countries sore lack of access to effective mental health care, and the stigma surrounding it, is the underlying issue here. Trained psychiatrists in schools should be looking for warning signs. We need to increase public awarness for things to look out for. It should be easy for someone to check themselves in, or for a family to submit someone. Regular checkups should be made more accessible and be a part of basic health care. Treatment options need to be researched, and funding provided. That's hard though, and expensive.
If you want to debate gun control, that's fine, but if you're going to talk about preventing future mass shootings and aren't discussing mental health as priority, you're kidding yourself.0 -
Unfortunately, those who aren't interested in gun regulations are often also not interested in changing mental health care access in this country. 2nd Amendment and no free healthcare are both things Republicans/Conservatives/Libertarians hold dear.
So, mental health falls by the wayside. Or it is fought tooth and nail, budgets gutted.0 -
Unfortunately, those who aren't interested in gun regulations are often also not interested in changing mental health care access in this country. 2nd Amendment and no free healthcare are both things Republicans/Conservatives/Libertarians hold dear.
So, mental health falls by the wayside. Or it is fought tooth and nail, budgets gutted.
That's a fair point, but I don't believe it changes the fact that mental health care needs to be considered a priority when attempting to prevent future mass shootings. Just because something's hard and met with resistance doesn't mean it shouldn't be addressed.0 -
I agree on that point. Comprehensive mental health and treatment is sorely lacking in this country, except for the wealthy. I was just searching for a program for someone this weekend, as a matter of fact. A 45 day in-patient was $30,000. A six month plan was $71,000. Impossible sums for anyone without a lot of money. And the alternatives were placements for the criminally ill, and basically just warehouses for the very dangerous. Not a place anyone would either derive help from, or feel safe at.0
-
I agree on that point. Comprehensive mental health and treatment is sorely lacking in this country, except for the wealthy. I was just searching for a program for someone this weekend, as a matter of fact. A 45 day in-patient was $30,000. A six month plan was $71,000. Impossible sums for anyone without a lot of money. And the alternatives were placements for the criminally ill, and basically just warehouses for the very dangerous. Not a place anyone would either derive help from, or feel safe at.
The need to change this is something we agree on
0 -
Our countries sore lack of access to effective mental health care, and the stigma surrounding it, is the underlying issue here. Trained psychiatrists in schools should be looking for warning signs. We need to increase public awarness for things to look out for. It should be easy for someone to check themselves in, or for a family to submit someone. Regular checkups should be made more accessible and be a part of basic health care. Treatment options need to be researched, and funding provided. That's hard though, and expensive.
If you want to debate gun control, that's fine, but if you're going to talk about preventing future mass shootings and aren't discussing mental health as priority, you're kidding yourself.
There are problems with the mental health systems in more than the U.S., but the suggestion that putting psychiatrists into schools is going to help is extremely optimistic. Any middle school teacher will tell you they know there are kids with mental health problems, but rarely do their parents recognize there's a real problem. In fact, they'll fight tooth and nail to avoid any kind of assessment and even if they've had one done outside of the school, rarely share the information. It might be helpful if there was a campaign to reduce the stigmas associated with mental illness.
I see a lot of discussion about rifles and shotguns in mass shootings, but aren't most of the murders committed with handguns?0 -
There are problems with the mental health systems in more than the U.S., but the suggestion that putting psychiatrists into schools is going to help is extremely optimistic. Any middle school teacher will tell you they know there are kids with mental health problems, but rarely do their parents recognize there's a real problem. In fact, they'll fight tooth and nail to avoid any kind of assessment and even if they've had one done outside of the school, rarely share the information. It might be helpful if there was a campaign to reduce the stigmas associated with mental illness.
I see a lot of discussion about rifles and shotguns in mass shootings, but aren't most of the murders committed with handguns?
Reducing the stigma is very important, I agree.
I also recognize that this might meet with resistance from parents, but I do think it's something that can be overcome. Psychiatric evaluations are something that I think should be mandatory, particularly in young people. If it's uniformly enforced I think it will be more likely accepted. Further establishing a record signalling children that are high risk would help in the future (i.e. requiring further psychiatric evaluation in order to purchase a firearm once they reach adulthood, etc.)
This doesn't address illness as the result of trauma, and from my very limited knowledge in the field I understand that for many schizophrenia often doesn't show symptoms until late teens or older. I think that providing psychiatric evaluations as a component of someone's basic health checkup would go a long way towards assisting with this, as would making treatment something that's covered by all insurance plans.
Won't solve everything and it's certainly not easy, but I think it's a step in the right direction.0 -
Just make the bullets really expensive.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Just make the bullets really expensive.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Besides Chris Rock's explanation...why?0 -
I see a lot of discussion about rifles and shotguns in mass shootings, but aren't most of the murders committed with handguns?
Yes. An overwhelming majority. Which is one reason why any kind of assault weapons ban will effectively do nothing to stem gun violence. The top priority needs to be mental health and preventing those people from purchasing guns. Hell, even the NRA wants to do that - and they want everyone to have guns.0 -
Yes. An overwhelming majority. Which is one reason why any kind of assault weapons ban will effectively do nothing to stem gun violence. The top priority needs to be mental health and preventing those people from purchasing guns. Hell, even the NRA wants to do that - and they want everyone to have guns.
I would entertain stricter regulation of classes of firearms if legislation were first made to fix the current gun control policies we have. Just tacking more laws on top of broken ones isn't going to be beneficial, in my opinion. Also I think mental health should be a primary concern when it comes to gun control, and until I see that I have a hard time supporting other proposals.0 -
and that's just it. people want to SAY that mental health is being looked at regarding this issue, but it really isn't. not really. it is part of the conversation, sure. but ask people what the first thing that needs to happen, and many begin to target the scary guns. because that's the easy answer to come up with -- even if it isn't an effective answer. fixing mental health care? nah. that's too big.0
-
Just wanted to add this for those of you who are not Americans and so appalled by guns. Source is in the image.
Though I have learned that I was a bit, not totally misinformed about my prior post, I stand by my view that anyone who thinks they don't need to have the ability and the firepower to overthrow their government is incredibly naive. Even the US government has used guns against it's citizens. People of Japanese descent were forced into camps here on our own soil, The Nazi's did it in Germany and it started the same way the US is changing now.
By the way, Indiana is legalizing switchblade knives now. A ton of sense that makes...0 -
Just wanted to add this for those of you who are not Americans and so appalled by guns. Source is in the image.
Though I have learned that I was a bit, not totally misinformed about my prior post, I stand by my view that anyone who thinks they don't need to have the ability and the firepower to overthrow their government is incredibly naive. Even the US government has used guns against it's citizens. People of Japanese descent were forced into camps here on our own soil, The Nazi's did it in Germany and it started the same way the US is changing now.
By the way, Indiana is legalizing switchblade knives now. A ton of sense that makes...
Hi Fbmandy. The website was cut off, but I tried to search for the stats and couldn't find what you have posted. I googled it and went on the FBI website.
In any case, I am glad that we are not like countries that settle political differences violently. Thank goodness our system of government allows smooth transitions with tools in place to oust those we have issues without war. Although if the government decides to violently attack it's own citizens individual firearms surely wouldn't stand a chance against fighter jets, drones, tanks, etc.
I don't know if anything the US is doing with laws mimics what was done in Nazi Germany, that's not my memory of the history though. I'll have to research. I am on the side that has no problem with what was proposed. The second amendment says nothing about having the exact same weapons the government has. Thus, there are already restrictions in place. All I see is an adjustment in restrictions. I have heard no one suggesting amending the constitution or altering the second amendment.
But for those who disagree about the amendment issue, the Supreme Court is a good place to settle that.
That was interesting about Indiana. Just one of those outdated laws that don't make sense in current times. This is a good one "It is unlawful to shave in the center of main street".
http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states. Pick a state, lol.0 -
FRIDAY, JAN 11, 2013 10:35 AM PST
The Hitler gun control lie
Gun rights activists who cite the dictator as a reason against gun control have their history dangerously wrong
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/0 -
As posted above, the people who screech about Hitler are just showing their own ignorance on history and well critical thinking.
Do you seriously think that your guns are going to stop the American govt should they decide to initiate a dictatorship? SERIOUSLY?
I'm also laughing at the idea that the Americans put into camps because of the ancestory during World War II is proof that taking guns away is the start of Nazi Germany.
'First they locked away the Japenese Americas. After the war finished they then freed them and later apologized. 70 years later they took away our guns and this was a continuation of interning Japenese Americans'0 -
You can find stats to "prove" almost anything, but the ones I can find, (Statistics Canada and U.S. Department of Justice) show that while homicide rates per 100 000 are pretty close without guns and even with rifles and shotguns, the rate with handguns for 2010 is over 6x higher in the U.S. I'd be interested in hearing people's thoughts on that.
Can't get the chart to copy and as I said before it is from a gun control source, but I checked the original figures on Stats Canada and FBI and U.S. Dep't of Justice.
http://guncontrol.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/moregunsmoredeaths2012.pdf0 -
Let it be said that I am getting a little sick of the whole "thats what Hitler did" argument. Hitler also disbanded unions....does that make conservatives Nazis? He also used toilet paper. So next time you are wiping your rear, think about what an evil person you are.0
-
I agree with some of the gun control regulations being presented including closing the gun show loop hole and a strong background check. Unfortunately every proposed regulation doesn't solve the problem that all the politicians are using as their springboard into getting updated laws. How do you prevent another mass shooting at a school? CT has an assault weapon ban. The bushmaster rifle used was legally purchased by the shooter's mother. He used several 30 round ammo clips which we can all agree was overkill. It can easily be argued that limiting him to 10 round ammo clips would not have made much of a difference in the body count.
There will not be a firearm BAN in the U.S. so guns are something we have to live with. How do we prevent a shooter from making our schools the next headline? As a parent with children in elementary and middle schools I would feel like my schools were safer if there were updates to security and if they had armed security on site during school hours. Nothing they are discussing in Washington would have the same effect as having an armed security guard on site.0 -
As posted above, the people who screech about Hitler are just showing their own ignorance on history and well critical thinking.
Do you seriously think that your guns are going to stop the American govt should they decide to initiate a dictatorship? SERIOUSLY?
I'm also laughing at the idea that the Americans put into camps because of the ancestory during World War II is proof that taking guns away is the start of Nazi Germany.
'First they locked away the Japenese Americas. After the war finished they then freed them and later apologized. 70 years later they took away our guns and this was a continuation of interning Japenese Americans'
You're right, it's a horrible misinterpretation of what actually happened.
Kind of like misinterpreting the U.S. Constitution to make a point, only misinterpreting the constitution is less offensive since the document didn't commit war crimes.0 -
As posted above, the people who screech about Hitler are just showing their own ignorance on history and well critical thinking.
Do you seriously think that your guns are going to stop the American govt should they decide to initiate a dictatorship? SERIOUSLY?
I'm also laughing at the idea that the Americans put into camps because of the ancestory during World War II is proof that taking guns away is the start of Nazi Germany.
'First they locked away the Japenese Americas. After the war finished they then freed them and later apologized. 70 years later they took away our guns and this was a continuation of interning Japenese Americans'
You're right, it's a horrible misinterpretation of what actually happened.
Kind of like misinterpreting the U.S. Constitution to make a point, only misinterpreting the constitution is less offensive since the document didn't commit war crimes.
You know who like to misrepresent things? Hitler did.0 -
You know who like to misrepresent things? Hitler did.
0 -
I read recently that there was strong evidence to support that the 2nd Amendment was in part to make sure slaves stayed in line. Obviously that will be debatable, and I'd need to research further to see how much veracity is in that statement, but this is an interesting position nonetheless.
The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery
Tuesday, 15 January 2013 09:35
By Thom Hartmann, Truthout | News Analysis
The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.
In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.
In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which
armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.
As Dr. Carl T. Bogus wrote for the University of California Law Review in 1998, "The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search 'all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition' and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds."
It's the answer to the question raised by the character played by Leonardo DiCaprio in Django Unchained when he asks, "Why don't they just rise up and kill the whites?" If the movie were real, it would have been a purely rhetorical question, because every southerner of the era knew the simple answer: Well regulated militias kept the slaves in chains.
Sally E. Haden, in her book Slave Patrols: Law and Violence in Virginia and the Carolinas, notes that, "Although eligibility for the Militia seemed all-encompassing, not every middle-aged white male Virginian or Carolinian became a slave patroller." There were exemptions so "men in critical professions" like judges, legislators and students could stay at their work.
Generally, though, she documents how most southern men between ages 18 and 45 - including physicians and ministers - had to serve on slave patrol in the militia at one time or another in their lives.
And slave rebellions were keeping the slave patrols busy.
By the time the Constitution was ratified, hundreds of substantial slave uprisings had occurred across the South. Blacks outnumbered whites in large areas, and the state militias were used to both prevent and to put down slave uprisings. As Dr. Bogus points out, slavery can only exist in the context of a police state, and the enforcement of that police state was the explicit job of the militias.
If the anti-slavery folks in the North had figured out a way to disband - or even move out of the state - those southern militias, the police state of the South would collapse. And, similarly, if the North were to invite into military service the slaves of the South, then they could be emancipated, which would collapse the institution of slavery, and the southern economic and social systems, altogether.
These two possibilities worried southerners like James Monroe, George Mason (who owned over 300 slaves) and the southern Christian evangelical, Patrick Henry (who opposed slavery on principle, but also opposed freeing slaves).
Their main concern was that Article 1, Section 8 of the newly-proposed Constitution, which gave the federal government the power to raise and supervise a militia, could also allow that federal militia to subsume their state militias and change them from slavery-enforcing institutions into something that could even, one day, free the slaves.
This was not an imagined threat. Famously, 12 years earlier, during the lead-up to the Revolutionary War, Lord Dunsmore offered freedom to slaves who could escape and join his forces. "Liberty to Slaves" was stitched onto their jacket pocket flaps. During the War, British General Henry Clinton extended the practice in 1779. And numerous freed slaves served in General Washington's army.
Thus, southern legislators and plantation owners lived not just in fear of their own slaves rebelling, but also in fear that their slaves could be emancipated through military service.
At the ratifying convention in Virginia in 1788, Henry laid it out:
"Let me here call your attention to that part [Article 1, Section 8 of the proposed Constitution] which gives the Congress power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States. . . .
"By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither . . . this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory."
George Mason expressed a similar fear:
"The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless, by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them [under this proposed Constitution] . . . "
Henry then bluntly laid it out:
"If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress . . . . Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia."
And why was that such a concern for Patrick Henry?
"In this state," he said, "there are two hundred and thirty-six thousand blacks, and there are many in several other states. But there are few or none in the Northern States. . . . May Congress not say, that every black man must fight? Did we not see a little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed as to make emancipation general; but acts of Assembly passed that every slave who would go to the army should be free."
Patrick Henry was also convinced that the power over the various state militias given the federal government in the new Constitution could be used to strip the slave states of their slave-patrol militias. He knew the majority attitude in the North opposed slavery, and he worried they'd use the Constitution to free the South's slaves (a process then called "Manumission").
The abolitionists would, he was certain, use that power (and, ironically, this is pretty much what Abraham Lincoln ended up doing):
"[T]hey will search that paper [the Constitution], and see if they have power of manumission," said Henry. "And have they not, sir? Have they not power to provide for the general defence and welfare? May they not think that these call for the abolition of slavery? May they not pronounce all slaves free, and will they not be warranted by that power?
"This is no ambiguous implication or logical deduction. The paper speaks to the point: they have the power in clear, unequivocal terms, and will clearly and certainly exercise it."
He added: "This is a local matter, and I can see no propriety in subjecting it to Congress."
James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution" and a slaveholder himself, basically called Patrick Henry paranoid.
"I was struck with surprise," Madison said, "when I heard him express himself alarmed with respect to the emancipation of slaves. . . . There is no power to warrant it, in that paper [the Constitution]. If there be, I know it not."
But the southern fears wouldn't go away.
Patrick Henry even argued that southerner's "property" (slaves) would be lost under the new Constitution, and the resulting slave uprising would be less than peaceful or tranquil:
"In this situation," Henry said to Madison, "I see a great deal of the property of the people of Virginia in jeopardy, and their peace and tranquility gone."
So Madison, who had (at Jefferson's insistence) already begun to prepare proposed amendments to the Constitution, changed his first draft of one that addressed the militia issue to make sure it was unambiguous that the southern states could maintain their slave patrol militias.
His first draft for what became the Second Amendment had said: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country [emphasis mine]: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
But Henry, Mason and others wanted southern states to preserve their slave-patrol militias independent of the federal government. So Madison changed the word "country" to the word "state," and redrafted the Second Amendment into today's form:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State [emphasis mine], the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Little did Madison realize that one day in the future weapons-manufacturing corporations, newly defined as "persons" by a Supreme Court some have called dysfunctional, would use his slave patrol militia amendment to protect their "right" to manufacture and sell assault weapons used to murder schoolchildren.0 -
No bias in that whatsoever. I'd be more inclined to give it credence if there weren't 3 lines of speculation for every line claiming fact. I'd have to see more proof than that. It's kind of hard to believe that the threat of freeing slaves is the only reason the constitution has a section regarding state militias. It can't possible have anything to do with, oh I don't know, the British.0
-
No bias in that whatsoever. I'd be more inclined to give it credence if there weren't 3 lines of speculation for every line claiming fact. I'd have to see more proof than that. It's kind of hard to believe that the threat of freeing slaves is the only reason the constitution has a section regarding state militias. It can't possible have anything to do with, oh I don't know, the British.
Obviously, and I wrote that in my first statement. I think it is an interesting point of view nonetheless, and one that could be worth further investigation for merit.0 -
Obviously, and I wrote that in my first statement. I think it is an interesting point of view nonetheless, and one that could be worth further investigation for merit.
That's fair I suppose, the tone of the article just grated on me.0
