I’ve been for the 2nd Amendment my whole life. Until last night.

From a PR point of view, I think leveraging the mass killings to put pressure on policymakers is the most effective thing you can do. Watch the Republicans squirm after every mass shooting. They say 'this isn't the time to talk about gun control' because they know there is no argument they can make about civil liberties or protecting freedom that will have any resonance after 60 people were spectacularly murdered. You can say you force them to dig in when they get embarrassed like that, and that might be true. But, look at the gun control debate the rest of the time -- there are organizations lobbying for it as their fulltime jobs, but no pressure on Congress to do anything, no one sharing articles on Facebook a million times about the 35 gun deaths per day. It's after a mass shooting that the spotlight is on. Those Congressmen can't flip, fine. But the more pressure you put at the times you want pressure, the more it is a campaign issue. It changes the fortunes and the platforms of candidates for elected office as the pressure to do something mounts. Now of course, there are still organizations that push on the issue every day of the year, as well as the ones that push back. But remaining silent after something horrific like this is, to be Machiavellian about it, a squandered opportunity to get change.

 

Well that's true, there's no logical argument you can make to counter an emotional argument especially when those emotions are raw. No matter how right you are, it won't matter to the emotional person. Playing off of raw emotion is how we got the Patriot Act.

 

Except that Timothy McVeigh killed 119 people using a bomb before any of those massacres you listed above happened and in response we enacted several regulations regarding access to ammonium nitrate fertilizers and other things. People have been using bombs and making a bomb isn't easy. For all of the terror that the Tsarnaev brothers caused they only killed three people with two bombs. They killed two more using guns.

Guns don't kill people but they make it a lot easier to kill people.

Perhaps we should regulate ammunition.

I will agree with you though that we have a lot of guns around and it will be nearly impossible to do away them. This is largely going to take a cultual change and unfortunately it's likely going to take a lot more killings accross the economic and social spectrum before that type of change will happen. That doesn't mean that common sense regulations shouldn't be enacted. While yes most proposals won't stop all murders committed with firearms but that is like saying that most drunk driving laws haven't done away with drunk driving. No one though says that we shouldn't have regulations on drinking and driving.

You're right we're going to have guns and killings by guns for a long time. If a background check can keep one deranged person from going on a mass shooting or magazine limits slow down the ability to kill many that will be worth it.

 

Didn't meant to say abolish but you got to revise, update and make smaller adjustments according to era.... in order to regulate today's situation.

As you said before with half automatics or automatics, they should be attainable only to those in military, pros not civilians who happen to be good shooters.

Not for every life situation....... rifles for hunters, smaller guns for the household. One step at a time.

You got to be willing to negotiate as a politician.

You can be killed with or without fire weapon, as terrorists in Europe and elsewhere have shown.

Folks at the festival said they had weapons but were too slow or those were too far to reach, and scared that police/sheriffs would fire at them.

 

They have added regulations and that's why the regulations on fully automatic weapons have led to there only being 3 instances of a legally obtained fully automatic weapon used in a crime since 1935.

I would agree that they need to make a further change in order to classify the bump stock that effectively make a semi-automatic rifle into a fully automatic rifle as a class 3 accessory, but the calls to shred the 2nd amendment are just ridiculous.

 

I think the way you regulate hand guns is that you require training and licensing of hand gun owners, initial training of two days and then 3-4 hours of training once a year and license renewal every 4 years, something like that. You get caught with a hand gun and you're not licensed then you to go jail for 5-10 years. While the AR15 attacks get all the attention because of their sudden impact, it's really the hand gun violence that is the major problem.

 

Again... the 2nd amendment was originally meant to allow Americans to form militias to protect themselves if THE RED COATS invaded.

I’m sort of done with trying to argue with gun nuts in love with the GOP’s love of the NRA and guns for everyone. We obviously have a problem and it’s in the hands of the people who own the gun problem. What actual solutions do you have? Nothing ... more guns... okay the blood is on your hands if you, the gun enthusiast, takes no responsibility yourself to come up with solutions to the obvious problem we have.

 

Great post. I just don't understand why we regulate with registration something clearly dangerous like a car, and even obliquely dangerous, like sudafed, but fail to regulate something that was designed to kill things. It's incredibly stupid.

Imagine an America where we didn't regulate driving cars, at all. No training, no licensing. Anyone can hop in a car with keys even if they've never learned which pedal does what. If you think Houston driving is bad now...

 

Your argument runs counter to what the 2nd amendment says and what the SCOTUS has ruled....so maybe you should be done trying to make that argument.

 

To be fair...the Supreme Court has ruled all sorts of things that it has later judged differently. It once ruled that separate but equal passed constitutional muster. It's not locked in forever.

 

The difference of course being that there is no constitutional amendment prohibiting the government from infringing on your right to own or drive a car.

Would you support similar regulations when it comes to voting? Should voters have to take courses to show competence? Should they have to be licensed? I'm pretty sure you'd argue against those kinds of things.

 

The difference here is that we're not talking about something that is just a law, we're talking about something that is a guaranteed right that is in the bill of rights. Of course that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be regulated, but that's not really what the radicals are calling for.

 

The gun nut argument is that people who are law abiding aren't the ones committing these crimes but the distinction between law abiding and a criminal can change in instant as soon as someone decides to commit the act. Anyway, when you train with people you get to pick up on what type of person they are and if they seem a little off in the head. The training is as valuable in teaching people safety and the law as it is learning about the students.

I think a lot of you would be surprised to know that to get a CHL in Texas all you need to score is a 70% on your shooting test. Basically a blind person could score 70% on these tests. It's awful.

 

You only have to hit 50% with your rifle to make it through basic....during my cycle, only 4 of us hit over 90%

 

[Educational Post]
The quote above is incorrect. I urge you, right this minute, to develop a burning desire to learn about American history. As a man of great intellect and curiosity, I find great pleasure in reading the works of similarly brilliant minds. James Madison was one such mind -- an intellectual peer. By reading the Federalist Papers, written by Madison, Al Hamilton, and John Jay, you get a window into the persuasive arguments made in support of ratifying the Constitution. You also get a window into how the framers of the Constitution thought about key issues surrounding governance, and then worked to provide for them hundreds of years in advance. Madison's concern in Federalist #46 was to form a barrier against an overly ambitious federal government. An armed populace is that barrier.

At the core of government power is the use of force. That force must be checked by an equal force held by the people. This enables a free society and keeps the government working for us and not the other way around. In my opinion, the 2nd Amendment is one of 3-4 key reasons why America is the best place to live on earth. Rule of law, property rights, safe living conditions -- all of these things require a balance of power between government and people. Without these things, economic development is not possible -- look at places in Sub-Sahara Africa as examples. The 2nd Amendment helps lay the groundwork for effective government, working for the people, which in turn, provides a set of rules for our society to then prosper and live freely.


GOOD DAY

 

People drive two ton death trap vehicles on the road but we don't ban automobiles when a crazy person blows through a crowd of protesters with their car

The automatic weapons argument is flawed also because dudes on the streets can put mods on guns to make them automatic

I just don't agree with nerfing the world of guns because I couple people die but we turn a blind eye when we are dropping drone strikes on random civilians is other countries

People crack me up when they are this quick to be ready to give up their rights. I hate to be the douche who says people are like sheep but they are

Between two of my dad's gun safes there are probably over 50 guns including multiple AR15s but haven't been touched in years. We just know if **** ever pops off or the government comes knocking on the door we are going down swinging. Other than that we might use a rifle once a year for hunting but that's it

 

Good reminder. We know the Democrats' approach to addressing our gun violence problem is more regulation on what you're allowed to own, where you are allowed to carry, who gets to buy, etc. But they aren't the ones in power. Republicans, please go execute on whatever plan it is you have to address the problem. I'm not sure what the proposed Republican solution is, but please just go do it and let's try something. I've heard something about addressing mental illness as a solution to the big mass murders. Okay, I don't have a ton of confidence in that approach, but please go do it and let's see. If you've got something else, go do that too. If the solution is to make sure more people are carrying more guns in more places, well I think that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard of, but go ahead. I hear a lot of "no, that won't work" from Republicans but not a lot of "this is what we're going to do."

 

Your logic is the inherent problem. You want to put pressure on law makers but law makers are not going to do anything about it because they want to remain in office. This is the fact, not wishful thinking. Just look at healthcare.

This is the point im trying to make. You need to appeal to those who value the 2nd amendment. Of course this is what makes the NRA so powerful. The problem with using mass shootings is the NRA and 2nd amendment activist automatically go into defensive mode. And rightfully so. They understand the gun culture. Its the anti-gun crowd who puts them on defense when they go to the extreme measures such as completely banning guns. Or limiting ammo. Like a criminal is going to obey that law. Or banning scary assault rifles.

As I said, I am pretty moderate on gun control. If we could just magically make all the guns in the world vanish, I would be for it. But I dont live in fantasy land. Most people in my circle own guns. I can tell you that every time mass shootings happen, they get very very defensive to the point where you can't reason with them. However when they are not guarded and you start discussing real issues about gun control, they are much much more open. You talk about little Johnny picking up irresponsible daddy's pistol and accidentally shooting his sister dead. You talk about the cousin who just killed himself. You talk about the gang violence and their easy access to illegal weapons. You ask them how they would fix these problems. Making them feel like they are evil for being responsible solves nothing.

Most people Ive talked to know very little about bump stock attachments ... mainly because they have no desire to own one. They will be banned because the NRA will not support it. Nor will most reasonable gun owners. They understand they are dangerous.

Contrary to Hillary Clinton rambling on about banning silencers. Gun owners know how stupid this is. Hardly anyone owns silences. They are rarely used. Most gun owners are not going to use them. And they do not completely silence the sound as portrayed in the movie. They are still loud. Its not that people are against banning them, its just a stupid thing to harp on at this time.

 

We actually restrict individuals from driving cars. The elderly, the mentally disabled. You have to pass a test just to have a chance at driving.

You don't have to pass anything to buy a gun.

You will go out with a wimper when that hell fire missile hits your house.All those guns will be useless. Ask David Koresh how much of a shot he had against the U.S. government.

 

The constitution was written over 200 years ago. Gun technology has changed dramatically in the last 200+ years... and imagine what weapons will look like 200 years from now.