Largest mass shooting in American history

[Sue U]

America doesn't have a gun problem; it has several gun problems. Start here:



Different policies are needed to manage the different gun problems we have. But all the problems start with too many guns too readily available.

No other industrialized country in the world makes gun ownership a constitutional right. No western democracy was ever saved from tyranny by an armed civilian population. I have challenged all of you to articulate some rational policy justification for enshrining gun ownership as a constitutional right and, as a result, prohibiting the gun control legislation that has proven effective in other countries. So far, nothing. What is your excuse now?

[Lord Jim]

I have challenged all of you to articulate some rational policy justification for enshrining gun ownership as a constitutional right...So far, nothing

I'm pretty sure I answered this before, (I think the problem is less that it hasn't been answered and more that you don't like the answer ) but I'll do so again.

I agree that as a counter weight to government action, gun ownership is meaningless. As I've pointed out before, no matter how many semi-automatic weapons you have, and how many 1000s of rounds of ammunition you have, with battalions, helicopters, planes, tanks, and hell fire missiles, when it comes to a throw-down with the government, you're always going to be out gunned...

Badly out gunned...

If the government wants to get you, you're going to get got...

The reason it is appropriate for the personal right to keep and bear arms to be enshrined in the constitution is because every person should have a basic right to defend themselves, their homes and their families against unlawful and potentially deadly attack by other private citizens, (ie "bad guys")

I believe that right to be sufficiently fundamental to be deserving of constitutional protection.

There. Now you have been given an answer. You may not like the answer, you may not find it to be a persuasive answer, (in fact I'm certain you don't) but just because you don't like an answer doesn't mean it's not an answer.

Also, I'm not much impressed with the "other countries" argument. We have many rights enshrined in our constitution that are protected in other countries only by statute, and the protections are not as strong. (Free speech for example) Should we eliminate those constitutional protections as well, just because "other countries" don't have them?

[Sue U]

The reason it is appropriate for the personal right to keep and bear to be enshrined in the constitution is because every person should have a basic right to defend themselves, their homes and their families against unlawful and potentially deadly attack by other private citizens, (ie "bad guys")

I believe that right to be sufficiently fundamental to be deserving of constitutional protection.

Every human has a fundamental right to self-defense regardless of any enumerated constitutional right, and by the way the U.S. Constitution says nothing about a right to self-defense in the Second Amendment (or anywhere else).

What you neglected to say is that you think every person should have a right to defend him/herself with guns. But what makes guns the sacrosanct means for self defense? And even if that were the case, then how many and what kind of guns are enough for self-defense? Moreover, what would be the justification be for semiautomatic weapons? And is there no constitutional right to bear arms for hunting? How would you make any kind of distinction at the sales level?

Edited to add: To be clear here, there is nothing about a right to self defense that guarantees a right to gun ownership. You do not lose any right to self defense by making gun ownership a licensed privilege rather than a constitutional right.

Also, I'm not much impressed with the "other countries" argument. We have many rights enshrined in our constitution that are protected in other countries only by statute, and the protections are not as strong. (Free speech for example) Should we eliminate those constitutional protections as well, just because "other countries" don't have them?

So far, I haven't seen where anyone has used free speech to murder a nightclub full of people. When you have a problem, it is only sensible to look and see whether anyone else might have some workable ideas to address it.

[Lord Jim]

What you neglected to say is that you think every person should have a right to defend him/herself with guns. But what makes guns the sacrosanct means for self defense?

Two reasons...

First, that's what the Bad Guys are likely to be carrying, (if they throw away their guns and start using crossbows or bastard swords, maybe we can revisit this...Afterall, the Constitution says "arms" not "guns")

Second, (and more importantly) a firearm, (gun or rifle) is a reasonable and appropriate weapon for a person to have in this context. It can neutralize the threat of a home invader from a distance, (reducing the likelihood of the person using the weapon or an unarmed family member being harmed) and it does not require great physical strength or the need to engage and physically over-power the attacker (like a knife or a baseball bat would)

A firearm as the means for acceptable self-defense is just commonsense, considering all the factors involved.

Moreover, what would be the justification be for semiautomatic weapons?

You won't get any argument from me on that. I said a long time ago that I would support an assault weapons ban. (And also a limit on magazine sizes, and universal background checks. I could also be persuaded to support a"no fly/no buy" proposal, IF one is crafted that provides an expeditious means for a person to have due process to appeal being on the list.)

As I've said before, while I am strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, no Constitutional right is absolute. Not one of them; all of them are subject to some regulation and limits. The right to keep and bear arms is no exception.

is there no constitutional right to bear arms for hunting?

In the modern context, this is a very secondary consideration compared to self-defense...

While at the time the Constitution was adopted, a "right to hunt" was essential for many people as a matter of survival, obviously in contemporary America, (unless you're living like Ted Kaczynski) this is no longer the case. Hunting is not a survival matter; it is a recreation activity. I've got nothing against hunters or hunting, but I don't see a recreational activity, in and of itself, worthy of being enshrined as a constitutional right.

There are two reasons I have become very reluctant to get involved in these gun control discussions...(I successfully avoided getting involved in this one for a long time...)

First, we have flogged this deceased filly into a fine mist. There is no topic that we have talked about here more than gun control, (nothing else is even close; it's rare that we don't have an active thread going on about it) and every single argument that can be made, on both sides. has been made, and made and made and made and made, and made and made and made and made, and made and made and made and made, and made and made and made...

These discussions have become nothing but an endlessly repetitive kabuki dance, an existential rhetorical merry-go-round, with each participant going to his or her respective corner and being about as predictable as a cold cloudy summer morning in San Francisco...

Frankly, the absolute 100% predictability of both the content that will be contained and what positions people will take, at this point have made these non-discussions tedious and boring to me...

The second reason is that because of the particular position I hold, "Yes, I am a firm supporter of the Second Amendment, and yes I firmly believe it conveys an individual right to keep and bear arms, but I also believe that like all other Constitutional rights it is not absolute, and there can be restrictions implemented that would be Constitutional"

Anytime I participate in one of these threads, I can count on being hammered by both sides...

Getting hammered by both sides in an endlessly repetitive discussion holds little appeal for me...

[Crackpot]

The necessity of hunting varies greatly by the region you live in.

[Burning Petard]

Yes this necessity certainly does vary by region. Lots of people with money just established that it is necessary to play hockey in Las Vegas.

Currently, my hunting with a gun is limited to shooting squirrels with a water gun.

I deeply appreciate the long post by LJ about beating this dead horse into a fine mist. Most of the discussion here and elsewhere in the marketplace of ideas is way too scripted and predictable to provoke any change of position.

(((((snailgate))))

[Lord Jim]

There is one thing I have discovered about gun control debates (not just here but in general) that both sides do agree on...

The importance of being self-righteous and claiming a monopoly to the moral high-ground...

They're definitely on the same page on that one...

[Scooter]

7 things straight people aren’t understanding about Orlando

[Scooter]

[Big RR]

7 things straight people aren’t understanding about Orlando

Interesting post Scooter--thanks.

[Burning Petard]

More news on 'a good guy with a gun' front.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/florida-man- ... 45182.html

snailgate

[liberty]

Home made spud gun that fires home made bombs or repeating fire home made spud gun that repeatedly fires home made bombs. Naa, Can’t be done; no one with a little mechanical ability, with a home shop and plenty of time could ever build such a thing.

[Scooter]

Someone's been at the stumphole whiskey again.

[Lord Jim]

I thought that maybe SG's link went to something about spud guns...

But no...

I'm not quite following where you were coming from or going to with that lib....

[Scooter]

In his typically illiterate fashion, he is trying to say that any attempt to ban high powered weaponry would be circumvented by people improvising their own.

[rubato]

I thought he was just being a flamethrower.


yrs,
rubato

[oldr_n_wsr]

In his typically illiterate fashion, he is trying to say that any attempt to ban high powered weaponry would be circumvented by people improvising their own.

Yeah, like using box trucks.
Or pressure cookers.
Or fertilizer and diesel fuel.

[Guinevere]

Well fuck it then, lets just throw up our hands and cede this country to ISIS, because there isn't anything we could possibly do to protect ourselves AND reduce gun violence at the same time.

[Scooter]

How many Americans have been killed by any of those in the past two or three years?

And remind me again how many have been killed with guns?

[oldr_n_wsr]

Yes, more are killed by guns. But if they were not available, I think the sick ones would turn to other means like box trucks....