More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

5 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

So then is it your contention that it’s better to increase the carnage to shorten that 40 years, or to try to mitigate it? 
Kind of like the COVID debate; is it better to isolate (giving up “rights” in exchange for lives) or just let ‘er rip? The current calculation is that (in the US), masking and distancing and vaccines likely preserved over a million lives.

And I think there’s something to Joe’s contention that the R’s want to rule, not govern. 

Wendy P. 

Well, my contention is that the 'do something, do ANYTHING to make me feel safe' proposals will have:

A - no real effect on the 'carnage'.

B - a serious effect on the political makeup of the US, and not a good one.

Masking & lockdowns are a lot different.

They work. 

There's an argument that if the mask mandates had been actually enforced, the deaths would have been a lot lower.

The 'anti' idiots like to cite the stats that lifting mandates had little effect on infections or deaths (which is true). They ignore the fact that the mandates were not enforced very well, and when lifted, the people who had been following them kept on wearing them. Actual usage rates were very similar, mandated or not.

One thought (neither new nor original to me):

Enforce the current laws. 

All guns purchased through a FFL dealer require passing a background check. Those in favor of expanded checks often cite how many people are denied a purchase because they fail the check.

Intentionally falsifying the paperwork is a felony. I get that some are honest mistakes, but I can't believe its more than just a few.

How many of those are prosecuted? 

It's kind of a 'trick question' because the answer is "virtually none".

If the guy who ended up doing the killing in Aurora had been sought out, arrested and prosecuted for falsifying his paperwork and being a felon in possession of a gun as soon as the Illinois Law Enforcement Community found out about it, the shooting never would have happened.
 

[winsor 186]

3 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Again. You keep knocking other people's shit while providing none of your own. Perhaps you and Jakee should get together and form a team for playing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kick_the_can

We simply need more laws.  All that needs to happen is for someone intent on violence to obey ONE of them and their plans are thus thwarted.

Once guns are made as illegal and unavailable as, say, cocaine and heroin, the problem will simply disappear.

Violence is entirely due to the influence of firearms on people who are otherwise decent, peaceful and law abiding citizens.  Given the chance, everyone will voluntarily disarm since that will result in a peaceful utopia.

The solution is simple and easy.

 

[winsor 186]

46 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Masking & lockdowns are a lot different.

They work. 

There's an argument that if the mask mandates had been actually enforced, the deaths would have been a lot lower.

The 'anti' idiots like to cite the stats that lifting mandates had little effect on infections or deaths (which is true). They ignore the fact that the mandates were not enforced very well, and when lifted, the people who had been following them.
 

Sweden.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

6 minutes ago, winsor said:

We simply need more laws.  All that needs to happen is for someone intent on violence to obey ONE of them and their plans are thus thwarted.

Once guns are made as illegal and unavailable as, say, cocaine and heroin, the problem will simply disappear.

Violence is entirely due to the influence of firearms on people who are otherwise decent, peaceful and law abiding citizens.  Given the chance, everyone will voluntarily disarm since that will result in a peaceful utopia.

The solution is simple and easy.

 

Pretty much we're just fucked as a matter of geography just as we are with our weather problems. 

[gowlerk 1,903]

1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

When have I said I'm not willing to give up any rights? (honest question)

In the post I copied and pasted from. Two posts above and quoted below. Just this morning.

 

2 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

I'm willing to listen to ideas. I'm just not willing to support ones that:

1 - Cost money.
2 - Infringe on rights.
3 - Accomplish nothing.

 

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

1 minute ago, gowlerk said:

In the post I copied and pasted from. Two posts above and quoted below. Just this morning.

 

 

Fair enough.

My point was that giving up rights while accomplishing nothing is foolish.

I didn't mean it as 'never giving up any rights ever', although I can see how you took it to mean that.

I feel the same way about spending money on it.

I'm willing to see my tax dollars spent, but not if it doesn't accomplish anything.

[jakee 1,254]

4 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Again. You keep knocking other people's shit while providing none of your own. Perhaps you and Jakee should get together and form a team for playing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kick_the_can

Lol, the irony of you of all people saying that will keep me chuckling quite nicely this afternoon!

[Phil1111 908]

4 hours ago, gowlerk said:

And you keep floating ideas that come down to nibbling around the edges that are better than nothing, but not much better ...

Digesting this meal is going to start with nibbling at the edges. You may be right about the constitution. The next couple USSC rulings on gun may make that more relevant.

Instituting every idea that BIGUN has suggested would likely be a couple big bites of the steak. Leaving most of this Texas sized meal yet to be finished.

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

5 hours ago, wmw999 said:

The thing about Bigun’s approach is that it treats the opponents with respect; they may still not vote for it, but they won’t come out with massive “ban responsibility” campaigns.

I recently had a second-degree acquaintance (I.e. friend of a friend) shoot himself; he tried for his head, but got his jaw instead, needing extensive reconstructive surgery. The thing is he was bedridden with Parkinson’s and dementia. Why on fucking earth did he have access to a gun? It’s heartbreaking, and it’s hugely expensive to his family and the taxpayers.

Wendy P. 

Hi Wendy,

Re:  he was bedridden with Parkinson’s and dementia.

If you ever get to that point, you might just change your mind.

I am a full supporter of Death with Dignity.

Jerry Baumchen

 

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

4 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Yes that is the truth at this point in time. You are not willing ..... "2 - Infringe on rights" yourself. So just go ahead and vent all you want. You and Keith have the same posistion you just want to debate the fine details. You are not willing to give up any rights. That is why I say the problem will need to become large enough for that to become the minority opinion. And given the passion involved I don't mean a narrow minority, it will have to be about 60 to 40 and of course in enough of the small states as well. My guess is at least another 40 years of slowly growing anger before enough becomes enough. Or until the elites who influence the SCOTUS can persuade them to "re-interpret" the constitution.

Hi Ken,

Re:  That is why I say the problem will need to become large enough for that to become the minority opinion.

I am of the belief that if a substantial amendment to the 2nd were put to a popular vote, it would pass.  I believe that the majority of the American people want things changed.

The problem is the US House; those Reps know that they keep their seats because, somewhat, of their support of gun rights.

IMO the GOP does not give a shit about the American people, they only want the power and to get re-elected. *

Re:  My guess is at least another 40 years of slowly growing anger before enough becomes enough.

I absolutely agree.  It will not happen in my lifetime.  I only can hope no grandchild of mine is killed while I am still alive.

Jerry Baumchen

* I am with wolfriverjoe, I will not vote for a GOP candidate at any level.

[wmw999 2,116]

I agree with that. It's just that doing it with a gun, and then having your wife make sure they do everything to save you, isn't the way to go.

Wendy P.

[Phil1111 908]

8 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Wendy,

Re:  he was bedridden with Parkinson’s and dementia.

If you ever get to that point, you might just change your mind.

I am a full supporter of Death with Dignity.

Jerry Baumchen

 

Re; Death with Dignity.I agree and Oregon is a leader in this respect. When dementia or Alzheimer's is involved AFAIK only families can make the end of life decisions.

Wendy is right no guns around dementia or Alzheimer's people.

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

2 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

I agree with that. It's just that doing it with a gun, and then having your wife make sure they do everything to save you, isn't the way to go.

Wendy P.

Hi Wendy,

Read this:  Opinion: Oregon needs to discuss ‘Death with Dignity’ – and dementia - oregonlive.com

Jerry Baumchen

[SkyDekker 1,121]

4 hours ago, winsor said:

Sweden.

Where they would have had 75% fewer deaths with a lockdown.....

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0249732

[gowlerk 1,903]

2 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

I am of the belief that if a substantial amendment to the 2nd were put to a popular vote, it would pass.  I believe that the majority of the American people want things changed.

It would also need to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. That is where the ERA went to die.

[BIGUN 1,050]

22 hours ago, gowlerk said:

And....your plan is likely unconstitutional anyway. You refuse to even admit that the problem has a root cause. And that while very difficult it can be fixed. The constitution has an amending formula for a reason. 

So, what I hear you saying is your only starting point is to modify the 2nd?

[gowlerk 1,903]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

So, what I hear you saying is your only starting point is to modify the 2nd?

I can’t really see how anything else could be effective. Your ideas can’t pass unless my understanding of the way the constitution is interpreted is wrong. And even then they would not do the job. Even with the constitution changed it would still take a long time for new rules to be agreed to and implemented. I appreciate that you have reluctantly come around to your new position that rules are needed. But you still feel strongly that the 2nd is even more important. These are not compatible views. 

So to answer your question, yes. Quit wasting time and start working on the long slow process of fixing the root of the problem. 

 

 

[GeorgiaDon 340]

What about putting more weight on the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd, which currently seems to be completely ignored?  For example owning military style weapons could automatically enroll a person in the state national guard, with a requirement for one weekend a month in training or service.  If an owner was obviously unhinged their superior officers could limit their access to weapons, or authorize military police to examine their social media posts for evidence of planning criminal activity.

It would be politically extremely challenging to get this enacted, but maybe not quite as impossible as repealing or drastically modifying the 2nd.  After all the language is already there, it would "just" be a matter of interpreting the meaning.

[gowlerk 1,903]

37 minutes ago, GeorgiaDon said:

What about putting more weight on the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd, which currently seems to be completely ignored? 

Sure, but only the SCOTUS can do that. No other body has the power to interpret the constitution in a legally binding way. The 2nd Amendment has very few words and is fairly clear except for this one sentence only provides a tiny amount of wiggle room. Likely the only way the Court will change the interpretation is in response to enormous public pressure. By that I mean an large and popular effort to amend the constitution. So yes, the nearly impossible task of actually getting that done may be bypassed but only if there is a strong demand for it. That is why people like Keith and Joe and Joe, and Wendy, and Tim and so many others  need to start demanding an amendment. It probably won't happen but it may force the change you are asking about. And this argument that people will feel threatened by the possibility and buy even more weapons needs to be ignored. So freaking what? You already have far more guns than people in your nation. no one can shoot more than one at once, at least not effectively.

[Stumpy 256]

8 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

 no one can shoot more than one at once, at least not effectively.

What do you mean? I saw this documentary 

 

[airdvr 197]

On 3/30/2023 at 7:38 PM, billvon said:

It's worked in other countries.  It might take longer here - so best get started.

In Uvalde they had an armed guard assigned to the school.  He drove right by the shooter and chased a teacher instead.  And the entire Uvalde police force showed up to stop him after he entered the school.  And they couldn't.

Pretty good evidence that "just use an armed guard" and "just add more armed guards" doesn't work.

Never said it was a perfect plan.  But you can't say 100% that one incident predicts the outcome.

The police force couldn't stop him because he was already inside.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

3 hours ago, GeorgiaDon said:

What about putting more weight on the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd, which currently seems to be completely ignored?...

  ...  After all the language is already there, it would "just" be a matter of interpreting the meaning.

The problem with that idea is how the people who wrote it meant those words (there's a lot of notes and background material, including earlier drafts of the 2nd).

"Well regulated" meant, at the time, 'properly equipped and working'. Not 'subject to rules and regulations'.

And "militia" meant 'every able bodied man aged 17-60'. 

The word 'people', as in 'right of the people' would indicate that they meant it applied to...

The people. 
I have always found it rather interesting that 'people' means just that in all the other amendments that have it, but not in the 2nd.

As it sits now, the MacDonald decision established that 'people' means just that. 
It would require a new SC ruling to overturn that, and given the makeup of the court, I don't really see that happening any time soon.

1 hour ago, airdvr said:

Never said it was a perfect plan.  But you can't say 100% that one incident predicts the outcome.

The police force couldn't stop him because he was already inside.

The cops DIDN'T stop him. Not that they COULDN'T. 

The police knew exactly where he was, there were kids on the phone with 911 as he was shooting.
The cops were equipped and supposedly trained to deal with an 'active shooter' situation.

They stood outside and did NOTHING

They were fucking cowards.

[billvon 2,384]

5 hours ago, airdvr said:

But you can't say 100% that one incident predicts the outcome.

Right.  But it 100% says that having enough guns is not any sort of a guarantee that you can stop a shooter, and that "just add guns" won't work.

Quote

The police force couldn't stop him because he was already inside.

The police force couldn't stop him because they were afraid of his big gun.  This came off the body camera of one of the cops.  Not because they couldn't reach him.  And the second and third officers reached him two minutes after he opened fire.  He fired for a total of four minutes - so if they had taken swift action they could have saved roughly half the lives he took.

And the first armed officer passed him while he was still OUTSIDE and pursued a teacher instead.  So no, getting cops there sooner wouldn't have guaranteed a better outcome either.

[BIGUN 1,050]

6 hours ago, gowlerk said:

That is why people like Keith and Joe and Joe, and Wendy, and Tim and so many others  need to start demanding an amendment. It probably won't happen

Yo have to ask yourself why both Democrats and Republicans agree on not bending the Bill of Rights. It should be as difficult to bend those as it is to bend the law of gravity. You will not be invited to US Constitution Day festivities. 

6 hours ago, gowlerk said:

And this argument that people will feel threatened by the possibility and buy even more weapons needs to be ignored. So freaking what? 

It's happened. It's human nature. Keep in mind that most of the country is geographically red. 

[wmw999 2,116]

10 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

It's happened. It's human nature. Keep in mind that most of the country is geographically red. 

But most of the people are blue. Balancing that is always going to make people unhappy. We know our votes count for less. No, we don't like that.

Wendy P.