What can we do about the shootings?

[po18guy]

Alcohol is not specifically named in the constitution. The framers had just thrown off the yoke of imperial power. It seems that we are ready to place it back on.

Aside from the Church fathers, does anyone teach the founding fathers?

They who can give up essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. "

Yeah, it was that guy who invented electricity, right?

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

I think the groundwork has been being laid for about a century to put that yoke on. And no, nobody teaches the founding fathers, the constitution or really any civics at all. Part of that groundwork. Wish they’d go fly a kite in a thunderstorm instead.

 

[Lea101]

if we can’t trust someone who’s never committed any crime, are we really sure that if people are wary of them that it isn’t that they are committing assault in some way? I’m thinking that assault is posing a credible threat to the bodily harm of an innocent person. So before a judge and or jury, what’s our conclusion—is this person trustworthy with a gun, or not? If not, better get used to confinement, until you can convince us that you’re now trustworthy.

This is the part I’m wary about.

Because then are we going to keep people in prison for life? If someone on social media says he wishes he could kill all (insert group of people)? People who show radical views (isis apologists for example). Seems reasonable to prevent weapons from getting into their hands.

The line of logic: if we can’t trust you with a gun, we can’t trust you at all seems logical.

I’m just not really sure if it’s, practically speaking, worthwhile to implement. Especially when people who have yet to commit a violent crime (eg school shooters) are in such a position.

Also what about this part?

I was talking about American citizens owning their own weapons. Not governments.

Should American citizens own grenades/explosive devices/etc? In their homes, not the government, lol.

 

[Nihilo]

…Aside from the Church fathers, does anyone teach the founding fathers?

They who can give up essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. "

The problem with the framers generally is that they were all slaveowners or slavery approvers or at least slavery condoners, and that defies their classical liberalism and plainly so. Many of them mentioned this dissonance in their writings, they were aware of it, they talked about it.

So because of that it seems like people take everything they ever said with a grain of salt. And it was out of expediency that northern states grudgingly agreed to unite with slave states. And then finally President Lincoln the greatest classical liberal hero who ever lived settled that score, and the Republicans imposed federal Reconstruction on the South for a good 12 years, and during that time there was peace and safety, especially for poc, especially in contrast to what was in store for poc after Reconstruction ceased.

 

[po18guy]

As to what we can do about the shootings, the answer is nothing but pray. They are in the past, no matter how many times the media bombards us with images and horrified faces.

1. We can pay less attention to the media. They are essentially programming us how and what to think. No thanks!
2. We can pray more, before our Lord when possible.
3. Situational awareness. If a situation looks bad, it probably is. If you have time, get out of there.
4. For those so inclined, we can dress for the weather. We don’t change the weather, we dress for it.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

People who show radical views (isis apologists for example).

We have an island resort for those kinds of people. Letting them wander free even if they can’t legally buy a gun is a terrible idea. They use pressure cookers, vans of peace, planes, grenades, illegal guns, knives, IED’s that aren’t pressure cookers, you name it.

 

[Lea101]

As to what we can do about the shootings, the answer is nothing but pray.

To be quite honest, I’m pretty sure God would want us to throw in some good works here and there wouldn’t he?

Emphasis on mental health, good parenting, mentoring programs etc may be a good first step at reaching out to troubled boys.

 

[po18guy]

Must agree. Lack of dads/good role models has lead to boys being essentially raised by wolves. An ounce of prevention is worth tons of cure.

 

[Larry1700]

If all the “guns and ammo” were taken away, folks with evil intent would still find a way to perform their horrific acts. The 1995 Oklahoma City bombing killed 168 people, without using a single gun.

Assuming I carried, which I plan to do someday, I would at least have a fighting chance against a gunman.

 

[phil3]

Not so simple. Producing a few thousand bullets is not the same as manufacturing millions. Heroin and meth are very simple products. Manufacturing ammo in huge quantities is a different matter. It cannot be accomplished in an empty barn. And transporting them would be impossible, due to the fact that ammo would be detected by the simplest metal detectors.

It in fact would be just as easy as in a barn. You simply have no idea just how easy it would be to reload brass casing.

 

[phil3]

How long would it take to use them?

Since one can reload a base casing dozen of time and then start making their own, forever is a correct answer.

 

[phil3]

Just because the facts insult you doing mean it is insulting. There are thousands of people in the usa that have the equipment in their garage to manufacture guns. If you made gun owenrship or the owning of ammo illegal the very next day many of those people would start making ammo and guns out of their garage.

 

[Economist]

That being the case, I believe a person could even set up in his garage to make low production quantities of ammunition…and an intrepid person could definitely set up for medium to high production in a barn.

You did not take the distribution into account How to “move” millions of cartridges from the manufacturer to the consumer? The alcohol production during the Prohibition was a small scale production.

Your metal detector proposition would require so many people working for the government that no one would have time for private endeavors.

No, it would not. Bottlenecks can be identified and monitored.

 

[Nikolaite]

Economist:

Not so simple. Producing a few thousand bullets is not the same as manufacturing millions. Heroin and meth are very simple products. Manufacturing ammo in huge quantities is a different matter. It cannot be accomplished in an empty barn. And transporting them would be impossible, due to the fact that ammo would be detected by the simplest metal detectors.

It in fact would be just as easy as in a barn. You simply have no idea just how easy it would be to reload brass casing.

Reloading does make the consideration of controlling ammo even more untenable. Especially when you have some military outfits selling crates of spent brass to scrappers who sell it to reloaders.

 

[tafan2]

OK. fwiw here are excerpts from the Supreme Court’s Caetano decision:

That case was an affirmation of the District Columbia vs Heller, which held the following:

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’ s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

So prohibiting certain types of weapons is certainly allowed. One can argue if assault rifles are “in common use”, but regardless laws “imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms” are valid.
I will also say, that the Supreme Court is interpreting the constitution, not “fundamental human rights” which is what we were discussing.

Well we just disagree philosophically wrt this whole paragraph. If I believed the same philosophy that you believe, then I’d agree with the whole thing, but we disagree philosophically, so the whole thing is in dispute.

Yes we do.

The right to bear arms is a fundamental human right, and so it cannot be regulated based on anything, and to do so constitutes infringing the right to self defense, and it is the defense of rights that is the best means of maintaining order in societ

So you believe that all current restrictions on gun ownership and carrying guns are a violation of fundamental human rights? We should be able to own fully automatic weapons, we should not need a license for concealed carry, any type of ammo should be allowed? Churches, government buildings, airports, airline flights, schools: all of them cannot ban one carrying a gun?

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

No, it would not. Bottlenecks can be identified and monitored.

Like they do for drugs crossing the border and produced in the US? Really effective. Plus, these people are already armed and they already have ammo. And they will have plenty of warning before any passing of any amendment or law. I’m still flabbergasted you think 100 million armed people would sit quietly by while this was being done to them. It’s a fantasy, my dude, and a bloody one at that.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

So you believe that all current restrictions on gun ownership and carrying guns are a violation of fundamental human rights? We should be able to own fully automatic weapons, we should not need a license for concealed carry, any type of ammo should be allowed? Churches, government buildings, airports, airline flights, schools: all of them cannot ban one carrying a gun?

He’s been quite clear that he sees there being no right to any restriction on ownership. Is it blowing your mind so much that you need him to keep repeating it? Why do you keep asking him the same question?

His answer will be that any private property owner may refuse admittance to said property to anyone for any condition. I won’t speak to his answer for government buildings. That’s a toss up although I think he said restrictions were permitted at least for courts.

 

[tafan2]

He’s been quite clear that he sees there being no right to any restriction on ownership. Is it blowing your mind so much that you need him to keep repeating it? Why do you keep asking him the same question?

Fair enough, but it is an extreme position, I am wondering how far he actually goes. He states the his philosophical answer (and you must admit he was not clear for quite some time), but is he actually consistent on that view? I think it is fair. I had already thought of your complaint, and had decided this would be my last inquiry.

His answer will be that any private property owner may refuse admittance to said property to anyone for any condition. I won’t speak to his answer for government buildings. That’s a toss up although I think he said restrictions were permitted at least for courts.

Yes, they are permitted by the courts, but that does not answer if he believes theses restrictions are violations of his fundamental rights.

 

[PetraG]

I hope so. I used to support keeping the second amendment but applying restrictions. Reading the posts on threads like this has convinced me that the second amendment should be repealed.

I don’t think you’re alone. I don’t think the NRA gets that, but I don’t think you’re alone.
There are more and more guns owned by a smaller and smaller fraction of the population which is getting more and more scared of those who do own guns, even though most are very responsible.
It would be too bad to lose the right to bear arms due to wanting the right to be free of limits past all rational boundaries. If the right is seen as having almost no boundary, I do think it will eventually be lost, because the situation is just too intolerable to most of the voters.

I don’t see it happening in the next 15 years or so, though. It will take a bit longer than that.

 

[PetraG]

It in fact would be just as easy as in a barn. You simply have no idea just how easy it would be to reload brass casing.

The other thing is that there are so many people already set up to load their own ammunition, and I don’t even mean the survivalists around Grants Pass, Oregon, who are literally set up to dig in for Armageddon. Gun enthusiasts are very enthusiastic and have developed an identity and a deep sense of principle on this subject. They would find ways, or literally die trying. When they say “you’ll have to pry the gun out my cold dead hands,” a lot of them mean that very literally.

The question becomes this: How do we prevent mass shootings by a very small number of disturbed individuals without turning 20% or more of the population into principled criminals? I think that repealing the 2nd Amendment would go really badly, if the goal is to take away most guns, let alone all ability to keep or load ammunition. I think taking away guns that have high capacity could go somewhat better, but I don’t know how you do it with the millions of that kind of gun that are out there.

We’re a nation awash in firearms, including high capacity rifles. They are being used on crowds of people by a very small number of shooters with either no hope or no rational sense of perspective, a tiny number of people who aren’t very different from the rest of our high number of depressed or disenfranchised-feeling people, such that advance identification would be very difficult. While the shootings are “rare” in an absolute sense, they are taking place often enough that the population is feeling scared of being ambushed by such a shooter. Every time there is talk of outlawing high capacity rifles, nothing comes of it except that the sales of such weapons show a noticeable spike!!

There isn’t really an easy way to “fix” that. This is the situation I mean:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)