Thoughts after Sandy Hook

[Kulindahr]

I just sent this to Senator Wyden for his consideration:



After several thousand pages worth of reading concerning the Second Amendment, I've come to the conclusion that there is a way past the reactionary NRA faction's obstinacy about what Congress can do concerning gun control. As the Amendment stands, the NRA and Gun Owners of America's most strident interpretation is correct -- but the Amendment does not stand alone. I was reminded of this in principle when perusing the remarks of Justice Souter in his commencement address at Harvard, specifically that no piece of the Constitution may be taken in isolation.

Here is where the key lies:

"The Congress shall have power... To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia,...."
--Art I Sec 8.

It seems plain to me that setting restrictions on what firearms may be carried for common use, i.e. for keeping and bearing, comes under the authority given for "organizing... and disciplining, the militia". This would cover one of the items of current immediate attention, namely the size of magazines for semiautomatic weapons. Under the militia concept in the eighteenth century, arms not considered appropriate for common use were not banned for citizens, but were required to be stored in appointed places for arms for the militia; specifically, they were stored in arsenals under the command of the militia's officers. Congress power certainly extends to defining magazines which contain more than, say, twenty rounds as not appropriate for keeping and bearing for everyday purposes -- and to require those who own such to have them stored at an appropriate facility, under lock and key, for use at that facility (or in competitions).

We have today no arsenals, for the simple reason that since the introduction of the National Guard as an organized militia, our unorganized or common militia has lost the habit of training, and communities since roughly the time of the Civil War have ceased organizing citizens' militias. But we have a somewhat comparable institution, something our forefathers didn't have, in the form of the gun club, shooting club, or shooting range, where facilities generally exist where firearms and/or accessories may be stored under lock and key for the use of their owners at those facilities.

Thus the path to follow would seem to be thus: that Congress, under its authority to organize and discipline the militia, specify that any magazines of more than twenty rounds must be stored at a gun club, shooting club, or shooting range, available to the owner as described above. Congress might also appropriate some funds for zero-interest loans to such organizations to provide storage means if such are lacking.


This would be very hard for LaPierre to fight, because it rests solidly in the militia tradition he supposedly defends.

[loki81]

in the US, at least, talking about repealing the 2nd Amendment instead of regulations seems akin to advocating abstinence-only education instead of condoms.

[bankside]

in the US, at least, talking about repealing the 2nd Amendment instead of regulations seems akin to advocating abstinence-only education instead of condoms.

It was once that way about the 3/5ths rule.


Except getting rid of it wouldn't actually oblige the government to destroy everyone's guns. You could still see some guns used and kept for many purposes. Most countries have nothing equivalent to it, and they have stable legal frameworks that put guns in the hands of people who actually need or use them.

But it would now be a debate about where the proper balance rests, and pro-gun people would be obliged to bring the same kind of facts and analysis that gun-control advocates now do in a vain attempt to advance a reasonable agenda. There would have to be negotiation and compromise, and recognition that both sides have to be called to account.

But because of the language in the Amendment, the gun nuts can just stick their fingers in their ears and say "LALALLALALA 2ND AMENDMENT LALLALALA."

[loki81]

It was once that way about the 3/5ths rule.

not to derail the thread, but I'm not sure I understand the parallel... the three-fifth compromise was an attempt by Northerners to limit the Congressional power of Southerns by not letting them count their slaves fully as part of the population for the purpose of electoral/house seat allocation.

it was never repealed, just superseded by the 14th Amendment. I'm not sure what the comparison to the 2nd Amendment would be... a constitutional amendment to ban bullets? argue against me, but I don't think we'll see an appetite for such sweeping anti-gun measures in this country in my lifetime.

for all the comparisons to slavery and the like, as if the 14th Amendment happened by good will and magic, bear in mind that it took the bloodiest war in US history to resolve that dispute.

even after the Civil War, it took the Reconstruction Acts and Congress repealing Habeas Corpus to suspend the Supreme Court to get it ratified.

[JayHawk]

The Huffington post has a list of all the fatal shootings since Sandy Hook... so here is your list of eight days of death in the US...go to huff post each is a linked story.

[Rolyo85]

And were the freedoms you gave up to achieve that goal worth it? I think not.
I also know, from a lifelong friend whose lived their for 35 years, Oz is already pretty socialist, so it was
probably an easier sell that it would be here in the US wher we still place some value on our freedoms

The freedoms they gave up? Like the freedom to shoot each other. Oh noez!

Do you feel very free? Because I don't feel you're very free.

[HenryReardon]

The freedoms they gave up? Because I don't feel you're very free.

The most important one of all—the freedom to live one's life without government interference.

[Rolyo85]

Empty words. TAXES are government interference. Government interferes, that's why it's there. If you feel that living in a safe environment where mass shootings are a once-a-decade exception, rather than a weekly norm, is government interference, then I welcome it.

- - - Updated - - -

Empty words. TAXES are government interference. Government interferes, that's why it's there. If you feel that living in a safe environment where mass shootings are a once-a-decade exception, rather than a weekly norm, is government interference, then I welcome it.

[Jack Springer]

in the US, at least, talking about repealing the 2nd Amendment instead of regulations seems akin to advocating abstinence-only education instead of condoms.

loki, you're being too sensible man.

[HenryReardon]

. Government interferes, it.

But it isn't supposed to do so. Goverment has only three legitimate functions:

1. Provide a standing army to protect us from without;
2. Provide a police force to protect us from each other;
3. Provide a system of courts so that we may seek peaceful redress with each other.

Period.

It's time we restored one of those original US flags - the ones with the rattlesnake and the logo "Don't Tread on Me"

[Rolyo85]

Yeah, I disagree

[Ben1]

[loki81]

holy fuck that video annoys me... I saw it posted on Facebook like 20 times yesterday but I didn't want to troll people I actually know IRL

what does that even mean? who are they arguing against? even the NRA agrees with their point that a plan is needed, but what does it matter if it's a shitty plan? stfu until you have a suggestion, celebrities.

[bankside]

legalizing gay marriage is largely a state issue that wouldn't require a constitutional amendment... a completely different beast than trying to repeal the 2nd Amendment (and presumably repealing the 4th Amendment if you want cops breaking down doors to get all existing guns off the streets)

we might need that fence on the Mexican border built too. and probably another one up north.

That fence would be to the great benefit of Canada; the gun problem is a one-way problem, for us.

I like the idea of a gun buyback, but the fact remains that there are legions of people who will absolutely not, under no circumstances, surrender their guns. and I'm not sure we've reached the point where we want police breaking down doors and confiscating legally-purchased guns against the owners' will.

for all the comparisons to slavery and the like, as if the 14th Amendment happened by good will and magic, bear in mind that it took the bloodiest war in US history to resolve that dispute.

even after the Civil War, it took the Reconstruction Acts and Congress repealing Habeas Corpus to suspend the Supreme Court to get it ratified.

I really do think the problem on your hands is so debilitating that if it requires all those measures once again, then it would be the lesser evil. There is something wrong with the mentality as to how people should relate to one another in daily live via the gun that is malignant in the same way it is malignant to think of keeping others as human property. It can't coexist in one country in tension with better values. And the death toll from the madness equals a civil-war-death-toll every 10 or 15 years anyway.

If there is a steep price to be paid for a sane future, I don't know what else to say but that watching children die at Newtown must motivate people to escape their delusion and complacency about the right to unnecessary weaponry.

To decide that whatever else the future might hold, it's just fine to be consistent with the principles and policies and constitutional doctrines that people considered okay on December 13, is a bitter snub to the memory of children who should have been sufficiently defended by mere virtue of waking up that morning and going to school under the peaceful sky.

[andysayshi]

And were the freedoms you gave up to achieve that goal worth it? I think not.
I also know, from a lifelong friend whose lived their for 35 years, Oz is already pretty socialist, so it was
probably an easier sell that it would be here in the US wher we still place some value on our freedoms

Haha, oh Henry, you're just like my grumpy old grandpa at Christmas dinner. Hilarious.

Here in Oz we enjoy true universal healthcare, great medical outcomes, great life expectancy (3 years better than the US), the lowest debt to GDP ratio in the OECD, low levels of crime, especially gun crime, rank Number 2 on the UN's "world's happiest country" index, have the world's best city according to many international surveys like this one from CNN Travel, and have four of the World's Most Liveable Cities (Melbourne is No 1) according to the Economist Intelligence Unit's Global Liveability Report..

So comrade, despite your fantasies that we Australians are trapped in a Socialist dictatorship, slaving in the factories for our dear leaders, we're doing just fine, thanks.

[Rolyo85]

Obama responds to petitions:

[HenryReardon]

Haha, oh Henry, you're just like my grumpy old grandpa at Christmas dinner. Hilarious.

Here in Oz we enjoy true universal healthcare, great medical outcomes, great life expectancy (3 years better than the US), the lowest debt to GDP ratio in the OECD, low levels of crime, especially gun crime, rank Number 2 on the UN's "world's happiest country" index, have the world's best city according to many international surveys like this one from CNN Travel, and have four of the World's Most Liveable Cities (Melbourne is No 1) according to the Economist Intelligence Unit's Global Liveability Report..

So comrade, despite your fantasies that we Australians are trapped in a Socialist dictatorship, slaving in the factories for our dear leaders, we're doing just fine, thanks.

Gee, you sound more than a bit defensive tonight. Trouble in paradise? LOL

[andysayshi]

Not at all, Henry. Just keeping the truth on the table.

Right now I'm off to do the last of my Christmas shopping, then I'm heading down to the beach for a swim - it's absolutely perfect weather today. Not the Christmas you northerners are used to, I know, but we love it this way!

Regardless of the mud we sling at one another around here, Henry, may I genuinely wish you and your loved ones a truly wonderful Christmas. Be of good cheer!

[Kulindahr]

But it isn't supposed to do so. Goverment has only three legitimate functions:

1. Provide a standing army to protect us from without;
2. Provide a police force to protect us from each other;
3. Provide a system of courts so that we may seek peaceful redress with each other.

Period.

It's time we restored one of those original US flags - the ones with the rattlesnake and the logo "Don't Tread on Me"

Wow. So much for the claim that conservatives use logic and reason: any thinking person can see that your "three legitimate functions" are only one.

[Kulindahr]

That was one of the lamest things I've ever seen in advocating something. "Demand a plan" -- what does that mean? Martial law would be a plan. Making everyone wear skin-tight clothes would be a plan. Forbidding the publishing of shooters' names would be a plan. Funding a hundred new mental health facilities would be a plan. Drilling everyone in America in martial arts would be a plan.

[HenryReardon]

Wow. So much for the claim that conservatives use logic and reason: any thinking person can see that your "three legitimate functions" are only one.

Three distinctly different functions, none of which could be effectively done by individuals or groups.
If citizens desire anything else (fire protection etc) they have the ability to request it and the obligation to pay for it.

[iwantbig]

i'm not sure of the statistics , how many of your mass shootings are by legal weapons and how many are by illegal weapons ?
if every one in the united states who owned legal fire arms decided they didn't really need them anymore and gave to the government freely to be destroyed without asking for compensation , would it solve your problems ?
How many illegal weapons would still in circulation ?
we had most of our legal weapons taken away about 16 years ago , i don't think it made a difference !

[andysayshi]

That was one of the lamest things I've ever seen in advocating something. "Demand a plan" -- what does that mean? Martial law would be a plan. Making everyone wear skin-tight clothes would be a plan. Forbidding the publishing of shooters' names would be a plan. Funding a hundred new mental health facilities would be a plan. Drilling everyone in America in martial arts would be a plan.

I understand your criticism. But I think this is a "gut reaction" piece, not a substantive statement or recommendation.

Let's be honest: the US has the most reprehensible gun death record in the industrialised world, by a very large margin. I believe it is the right (and perhaps the duty) of US citizens to demand answers, and potential changes. There is nothing unique about the US culture that justifies 30,000 gun deaths per year.

[andysayshi]

we had most of our legal weapons taken away about 16 years ago , i don't think it made a difference !

Actually, it halved the rate of gun-related deaths, and to date has eliminated mass shootings. A massive difference, in fact.

[vulgar_newcomer]

I wonder if Jews living in Germany in the 1930's/40's would agree.

If every Jewish person had a gun in Nazi Germany they wouldn't have out muscled that powerful industrialized military machine from conducting that horrific atrocity, but maybe could have used it on themselves in a more humane way. Where the Jewish people did oppose and fight the Germans with guns, the conflicts were short and the result never favored success. Though I sure would have fought with a weapon had I had one. I can understand the reasoning and agree on the merit.
If a very well trained and supplied US military ever turns on a segment of the US population as Germany did your assault rifle will do you no good, its silly to think it would. This is not 1774, and the militia wasn't how the US won the war with Great Britain. Nor the southern civilians in 1863 who were well armed throughout the region slow Sherman's US Army march and rape of the South

[HenryReardon]

If you really study what was going on in Germany during that era, you'll learn that many Jews regarded themselves as good Germans and didn't believe that anything bad could or would happen to them. Many of them finally woke up after the events of Krystallnacht

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht

There's are reasons why we have the right to own and bear firearms and all of them are valid

[Kulindahr]

If every Jewish person had a gun in Nazi Germany they wouldn't have out muscled that powerful industrialized military machine from conducting that horrific atrocity, but maybe could have used it on themselves in a more humane way. Where the Jewish people did oppose and fight the Germans with guns, the conflicts were short and the result never favored success. Though I sure would have fought with a weapon had I had one. I can understand the reasoning and agree on the merit.
If a very well trained and supplied US military ever turns on a segment of the US population as Germany did your assault rifle will do you no good, its silly to think it would. This is not 1774, and the militia wasn't how the US won the war with Great Britain. Nor the southern civilians in 1863 who were well armed throughout the region slow Sherman's US Army march and rape of the South

Better to go down fighting than to just lie down and submit.

BTW, the militia is in fact how the Americans beat Great Britain: it provided a core who already knew how to use their weapons and had a basic grasp of discipline and tactics. Militia fighting as militia has mixed results, but Washington could turn militia into an army pretty darned fast.

[HenryReardon]

Better to go down fighting than to just lie down and submit.

BTW, the militia is in fact how the Americans beat Great Britain: it provided a core who already knew how to use their weapons and had a basic grasp of discipline and tactics. Militia fighting as militia has mixed results, but Washington could turn militia into an army pretty darned fast.

Yep, starting at Bunker Hill and Concord.

[Kulindahr]

Yep, starting at Bunker Hill and Concord.

I believe Breed's Hill was more important, though Lexington was more or less the trigger.

[Rolyo85]

Better to go down fighting than to just lie down and submit.

BTW, the militia is in fact how the Americans beat Great Britain: it provided a core who already knew how to use their weapons and had a basic grasp of discipline and tactics. Militia fighting as militia has mixed results, but Washington could turn militia into an army pretty darned fast.

Point of fact - many Jews did NOT go down at all. They all would have in your fantasy gun land.

[Kulindahr]

Point of fact - many Jews did NOT go down at all. They all would have in your fantasy gun land.

Sure. That's why Schindler armed the Jews he rescued -- to make sure they died.

[Rolyo85]

That was after. When first Jews were rounded up, they stood NO fighting chance, and their resistance would have resulted in their instant death.

[Ben1]

This discussion is really spooky. Incredible, frightening.
To connect the topic to the Holocaust is outrageous. You will take every argument to keep your weapons. You don´t want to protect the kids, you want to protect your guns. You don´t want a serious debate. Hidebound. Unteachable. Everybody knows, more guns - more violence. The time is over for Cowboys, guys. Take a lesson from Australia. But you don´t want to see that.
I hope you will be happy with your guns - and more dead children, husbands, wives, suns, daughters, friends... Good night and good luck.

[Corny]

Godwin's Law

[Ben1]

That`s true, corny. But they have to google it, our little cowboys.

[Jack Springer]

Godwin's Law

Yep. The discussion usually degrades into Springer Law also.

Springer Law: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of someone being called a racist increases and finally takes over the discussion.


A Blessed Christmas to Everyone.

[Rolyo85]

Playing victim is ever so mature...

Merry Christmas, Happy Hanuka etc.

[Kulindahr]

That was after. When first Jews were rounded up, they stood NO fighting chance, and their resistance would have resulted in their instant death.

As the JFPFO notes, it would have been better to have gone down fighting.

[Kulindahr]

Godwin's Law

Try telling that to the JFPFO.

[Rolyo85]

As the JFPFO notes, it would have been better to have gone down fighting.

And as I noted down, that's bullshit. It was better to not go down at all and go on living. Which many of them managed to do, and wouldn't have if they had resisted. It's a simple fact and I don't see anyone trying to deny it.

[Kulindahr]

And as I noted down, that's bullshit. It was better to not go down at all and go on living. Which many of them managed to do, and wouldn't have if they had resisted. It's a simple fact and I don't see anyone trying to deny it.

"Many"?

Compared to the six million, just how "many" was it?


Besides which, that's not your call to make -- you don't own them. If I'd rather go down taking some enemies with me rather than go to a concentration camp, that's my choice; it's not anyone else's to make for me.

And that's the root of the problem: all this "gun control" talk tends to rest on the proposition that people are property.

[Rolyo85]

"Many"?

Compared to the six million, just how "many" was it?

Besides which, that's not your call to make -- you don't own them. If I'd rather go down taking some enemies with me rather than go to a concentration camp, that's my choice; it's not anyone else's to make for me.

And that's the root of the problem: all this "gun control" talk tends to rest on the proposition that people are property.

Yeah, and all of your talk tends to rest on the proposition that you're a cowboy vigilante superhero and that every sane person should think like you.

[chrisrobin]

^Bump

Would you buy a firearm for this person?

[Linked Image: Removed]

Would you sell a firearm to him? After all, it's just business.

[loki81]

Would you sell a firearm to him? After all, it's just business.

didn't he basically steal the gun he used from his mom?

I'm all aboard the gun control train, but it's foolish to pretend that any of the suggestions that Congress might pass (assault rifle ban, background checks, lower clip capacity) would have prevented this tragedy.

the only thing that may have would be an outright repeal of the 2nd Amendment (and possibly the 4th, since repealing the 2nd is pointless unless we also authorize police to search every home and seizing the millions of guns already out there on the streets)

[TX-Beau]

It's also foolish to think that our gun control laws are ineffective because gun control is ineffective, lobbyists paid a lot of people to make sure our gun laws were ineffective.

Eradicating gun violence is one thing, mitigating the damage is another. The first - while a commendable goal is not possible, the second is only common sense.

[TX-Beau]

Oh and yeah - once again - discussion of the 2cnd amendment is just a red herring - it is ALREADY legal for the Gov (and it already does) to regulate firearms. The ONLY thing in question is the type and amount of regulation.