I guess it's still too soon to talk about stupid gun laws...

[world wide wally]

So, I just better shut up and wait.

[aikoaiko]

1. There is always The Castle or The Gungeon.

Have at it to your heart's content.

The Castle: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1262

The Gungeon: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172

[onehandle]

2. Too late. I've alerted the NRA that you mentioned guns.

SCOTUS is on their way to tell you about the rights of gun corporations.

[Spider Jerusalem]

3. It's always too soon, didn't you know?

You can't mention it at all. How dare you try to exploit a tragedy to further your political agenda? </sarcasm>

[-none]

4. Left wingers mentioning mass shooting means they are dancing on the bodies.

I don't understand conservative's 'logic' at all.
And another thing I don't understand, any laws fixing any loose areas in any weapons law is, is taking Second Amendment civil Rights away from the gunners and taking their gun collection away from them too.

[oldandhappy]

5. Too soon for now and decades too late for the dead.

[krispos42]

6. Nope, let's discuss how this event can lead to better gun laws.

Oh wait... we don't know what kind of gun was used. Or if the shooter was legally allowed to own the gun. Or how the gun was bought. Or if it was stolen. Or the magazine capacity. Or if it could be considered an "assault weapon" in some jurisdictions. Or if there was a procedural failure by law enforcement. Or the motivation of the shooter. Or if the shooter had a concealed carry permit.

But by all means, let's have a reasoned, informed discussion right now.

[Duckhunter935]

7. Ban scary rifles

We can't wait for actual facts. Just do something, even if it does nothing.

[villager]

11. It's this kind of empathy-less snark that just confirms everyone else's opinions of the gun lovers.

Be better than that, Duckhunter.

[Duckhunter935]

17. but unfortunantly it is true

they are used the least and that is what is usually called on to be banned, see AWB.

[villager]

18. Two more women, at least, are dead

Try to spare some thoughts for their families more than for which guns might become slightly harder to get. (Except that they won't)

[Eleanors38]

19. Nearly a whole family slaughtered in Oklahoma. What do you think?

[villager]

22. That, too, is pretty horrific.

But again, your post reveals a lack of empathy, since it was to "score points" rather than discuss.

We are a violent culture. Guns abet that violence. Sometimes, as in Oklahoma, there are awful stabbings, too. The ambient gun culture in Oklahoma did nothing to help this poor family.

Domestic spaces will also be fraught in ways, sadly, that public spaces should not be. Which is also a difference between the two events.

[Eleanors38]

41. Scoring points: The bald, obvious-as-Jupiter modus operandi of many controllers.

Fast. Every time. Right out of the chute, like Jessie Owens. I cannot believe you don't see this.

I note that once again, little is ever said concerning compassion, only the accusation that those who disagree with controller politics of anger are without compassion, and those who agree with gun-controller politics of anger are ipso facto beyond question in regards to compassion.

I reject your personal charge that I lack empathy. But I realize such charges are part of The Narrative™ of gun prohibition politics; the controllers have made this aculture war, you know.

Incidentally, I have expressed compassion for the victims and their families. In both instances of the weapons used. Look for it. (It should be easy in the one OP about the mass murder in Oklahoma.)

[villager]

42. So you show the same level of "compassion" typifying your threads, when guns are used to wipe out

...whole families. Not just knives?

It's that inconsistency that gives rise to the "scoring points" observation.

And as for the projection that it was the "Controllers" (your inevitable name-calling in the midst of your "compassionate" posts?) that made this a culture war, well.

That would be hilarious if it wasn't such a grim-faced mistruth.

[Eleanors38]

43. Again, where is the compassion from controller/banners? Private membership?

And AGAIN:

Right out of the chute with the virulent anger and attacks. Every time.

You should read a little history about gun-control in the pre-Innertube days when the kind of tripe we hear now describing gun-owners was sturm & drung in the editorial pages, commentaries and Newz stories of the once-big dailies and mags, only written by editors, political leaders, academics, etc. Yeah, I guess it was one of those old school free passes to scrawl on the walls of the courthouse crapper. Until the pro-2A movement pulled it.

Yeah, both sides are in on it now. But remember, Villager:

The NRA and other large "gun groups" didn't spring forth from the head of Zeus. Find the cause. In the mirror.

[villager]

47. Three names from E38! Controller! Banner! Prohibitionist!

On top of insinuating the NRA has "just cause."

All while touting compassion!

You're a peach, E38!

[Eleanors38]

53. Sorry, Villager, but I see little from you other than rage and hostility...

Perhaps you have compassion for these (gun) deaths; I won't question that. But you Must insist that your enemies have none. I do not genuflect to those raging with hostility to express my compassion. I think that is a tiresome and corrosive game played here in DU on so many levels, with so many issues.

Have a better day.

[villager]

55. And I just see the usual "climate denial" from you on gun violence

You remain unmoved by actual events, and their implications, as they occur.

Better days for all of us will be kinder ones, with less violence, and more overall compassion from everyone, and for everyone.

[Eleanors38]

26. "Sparing thoughts."Have you done so? Respectfully, I have failed to see your expressions. Please

point me to them. I expressed my thoughts re the mass murder (5) in Oklahoma yesterday, and I so also feel for the families in the Louisiana shootings as well.

[villager]

28. But E38, you aren't in this thread to post about the shattering losses to these families.

You are here to try and "score points" to fend off any discussion of curbs on guns.

[Eleanors38]

36. So, at best you are in here for the same reason? And fast, too. BTW...

what do you think of the Oklahoma Mass Murder yesterday? Any legal suggestions, restrictions, prohibitions?

[villager]

37. What do you think of the mass shootings?

Any legal suggestions, restrictions, prohibitions?

[Eleanors38]

38. Discussed many times in DU. Unlike you, I will answer the questions...

Legal: I support universal background checks and the overhaul of the current NICS. I support not "bargaining away" a firearms charge attendant to a felony in order to get a guilty plea on some charge which likely won't see jail time. I support testing for concealed-carry, Vermont not with standing.

Restrictions: I support concealed carry, but not open-carry. The states have discretion in recognizing one of the other or both; but they cannot deny both. It is a measure of the Democratic Party's unviability in many states that this debate can hardly be broached.

Prohibitions: I'm okay with the current virtual prohibition of full-auto weapons, age limits on who can purchase handguns.

Your turn?

[villager]

40. As already discussed in other threads w/ you, I agree with those as starting points

What overhaul of the current NICS do you support?

Obviously, I'd prohibit a wider array of semi-automatics, magazine capacities, etc. (Though those won't happen for awhile, alas).

I'm also for exploring smart gun technology, and traceable ammo, to make gun crimes less "anonymous," and thus, less the first resort of cowards.

[Eleanors38]

44. These are standard prohibitionist gun proposals. But what of knives?

[villager]

46. Ah, you've added "prohibitionist" to "controller" now.

No thanks.

You can go call someone else names en route to the shooting range.

[Eleanors38]

54. Prohibition is name-calling? In light of the slop-bucket terms used by prohibitionists...

the term sounds almost milquetoast-Christian in its impact.

[Duckhunter935]

52. That's always the problem

"As a starting point" what is your proposed ending point?

[B_Mann]

30. Better than the brainless snark

That so often accompanies such events.

[villager]

31. I agree -- the "brainless snark" of the proliferationists continues apace....

...to their intellectual discredit.

[world wide wally]

8. All we do know is that it is yet ANOTHER mass shooting...

but NOTHING can possibly be done about any of them… right?

By the way… Can any of you "Constitutional experts on the Second Amendment" please explain why they through in those wasted words about "maintaining a well regulated militia"?

[Snobblevitch]

12. Where in the Bill of Rights is the phrase

"..maintaining a well regulated militia"?"

[world wide wally]

13. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people

to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

It's all one sentence

[NutmegYankee]

15. Regulate in that usage means 2 : to bring order, method, or uniformity to <regulate one's habits>

The constitutional Convention that was replacing the articles of confederation was aware that the militia had performed poorly in the war for independence, but they specifically did not want a standing army since that's what Great Britain had used to occupy the colonies. The new nation would have to rely on its citizenry (like Switzerland) to defend its freedom in wars. To do that, a well trained militia who knew how to use weapons was required. Unlike today, that militia brought their own weapons to the fight and the second was intended to secure the right for the people to own weapons, already a holdover from Anglo-Saxon culture based on the Saxon tradition of all men owning weapons. The tradition in much of Europe on the other hand was to not allow the peasantry to own arms.

One other thing to keep in mind when looking at that time period - The Battles of Lexington and Concord were fought specifically because the British were trying to disarm the Militias around Boston.

[Eleanors38]

23. Actually, your pasting in the word "maintaining" addresses your concerns...

Many states were fearful of a standing army; that is, a force which pro forma must be maintained. Militia are not "maintained," but must be called up to even constitute a military force, then "well-regulated" -- show up with a gun suitable for use in the infantry and with the knowledge to operate it. Training goes from there. The RKBA is an individual right as are all the other rights enumerated in the Constitution; the federal government is only expressing its interest in that right so that it may, from time to time, exercise its limited power to call up the militia. Note also that the individual states have powers to call up a militia as they deem fit.

The government(s) don't have the power to condition a right, only to arrest those who do harm to others and their property.

[world wide wally]

33. So, it's a different world now then when that was written I guess.

[Eleanors38]

34. Constitutionally, not really.

Refer to the Rhode Island Constitution, Article I, Sec 20 --

"The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject..."

Same rather archaic sentence structure. I would hate to think anyone's freedom to publish (as opposed to printing) was subject to a politician's notion of "security of freedom," or for that matter, on some on-going definition of a specific technology ("press&quot . But I don't worry. The state in this instance seeks to explain why something is necessary. More importantly, in its "shotgun" approach, the freedom of Press and the freedom to publish stand unconditioned. Incidentally, RI recognizes the RKBA without any language referencing militia. I'm fine with that.

Over all, the rights recognized in the federal constitution are individual. It would be peculiar that one or more rights would be couched in the language of "community rights," or be conditioned in any other way.

[krispos42]

16. not really, no.

Unless you think we can knock firearms technology back to 1830, the hardware to commit a mass shooting will always be available.

After all, you only need a half dozen or so bullets fired to commit a "mass shooting", right?


And I suspect the amendment went through severar revisions with the phrase being a leftover from compromise.

[sarisataka]

29. Correct, there were several revisions

The first proposals:

And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.
Samuel Adams, (February 6, 1788), reported in Charles Hale, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1856), p. 86. This language was proposed in the Massachusetts convention for ratification of the U.S. Constitution to be added to Article I of that document.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
Original text of what was to become the Second Amendment, as brought to the floor to the first session of the first congress of the U.S. House of Representatives.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

From other readings on the adoption of the BoR, it was the religious exemption that was controversial and the cause for revising the wording.

[Renew Deal]

9. At this point, we're still dealing with last weeks story

So you're right on time.

[IcyPeas]

10. bobby jindal just said exactly that on CNN

it's too soon. don't bring politics into it, etc. etc. etc.

he said something else that pissed me off -- he said the people of Louisiana are resilient and will bounce back from this. Yeah? tell that to the victims and families of the victims. fuckwad.

[BainsBane]

14. Yeah, wait until next week's shooting

when it will be too soon again. Funny how that works.

[Eleanors38]

20. How about the one in Oklahoma? Let's talk about that one.

[BainsBane]

21. When was that?

I've lost track. There are so damn many.

[Eleanors38]

24. There is a reason you "lost track." You didn't hear about it.

[BainsBane]

25. Oh, I'm sure there have been some in OK

Everywhere else has them.

[Eleanors38]

27. So what do you think of the Oklahoma mass murder?

[metalbot]

32. America has a gun problem

...but it isn't mass shootings. Mass shootings make up a tiny fraction of our actual gun murder rate. The only reason that mass shootings make the news is that for millions of Americans who are not realistically at risk for being shot with a gun it brings the fear into their own lives.

Our gun problem disproportionately impacts minorities. Our murder rate for Americans as a whole is about 6 in 100,000 compared to a rate of about 2 in 100,000 for most gun-restricted countries. That sounds pretty bad (300% the rate of European countries), and it is, but the real story is much worse. if you are white and don't have a criminal background, your murder rate drops to 3 in 100,000, so about 50% worse than in much of Europe. However, if you are African American, your murder rate shoots up to a staggering 18 in 100,000, which starts to resemble the murder rates of parts of Latin America.

There's a kernel of truth to the notion that "gun grabbers dance on the graves of mass shooting victims", because it's really the only opportunity to put gun violence in front of the American public in a way that resonates. CNN wouldn't give coverage to the "normal" murders of Chicago, because their viewers simply aren't going to relate. It's fundamentally an issue of racism (or white privilege depending on how you want to define it). White Americans don't care at a significant enough level to accept changes to laws that impact them in order to reduce violence on minorities.

And since I'm a gun guy and generally oppose most "sensible" gun control measures suggested here, let me suggest one (as I've done in other threads):

We do background checks for everyone who attempts to purchase a firearm from a dealer, whether that dealer is at Academy, works out of his home, or runs a table at a gun show. These checks are run millions of times each year, and on most years about 70k people are barred from purchasing a firearm. Some of these are false positives (misidentified or simply delays). Let's go with a 90% false positive rate. That means that 7k people who are legally banned from buying firearms committed perjury by lying on a federal form about their eligibility to purchase a firearm. Why aren't we prosecuting any of those people? We prosecute less than 1% of the 7k people who lie on the form, primarily because this is a federal crime, and federal prosecutors are really busy. Before we try new gun laws, why don't we actually start jailing people who are trying to get them illegally?

Heck, if we could get prosecution up to just 50% of the people who do this, I'd happily start talking about other measures to control gun violence.

[Eleanors38]

35. Recently, "mass murder" has evolved into "mass shooting." Even the original definition of

"Mass murder" has gone from four or more deaths in one setting/time (not including the shooter) to Three or more. Now, we have the "mass shooting." Or the "active shooter." I suspect ANY of these definitions will serve as MSM cues to promote local news to national news (MSM has long served as the main "activist" element of the gun control/prohibition outlook). It also allows The Narrative® of gun talk to ignore the true mass murder yesterday in Oklahoma. Very little mention of that one in DU.

[Vinca]

39. If Sandy Hook didn't change things, nothing will.

You live in America, you take your chances of getting shot. End of story. If I was a young person I would seriously consider moving to a saner country.

[Eleanors38]

45. Perhaps we should look at the motivations for mass murders, not at prohibitions...

We have about two mass murders (the LA shooting isn't one) a year by the once-standard FBI definition: 4 or more at one time and setting, not including the killer's death. These definitions have been scrambled to pump up numbers, now, but the 2/yr has been the norm since 1981. The number of homocides in this country has dropped dramatically over the last 20 years, even as the number of firearms in private hands has boomed.

I think gun control has been a wholly misplaced approach to sets of complex problems in which the expected dynamics for change have in fact been the opposite: After Sandy Hook, there was a surge in new gun owners and gun sales and ammunition, most esp. in Connecticut. When this phemenon occurs, it suggests the proposals for social change are missing the mark completely, or have no relevance. It does suggest a desparate state of affairs in a culture war gone bad.

Incidentally, I did not expect the reaction to Sandy Hook (as described) to play out as it did; even I underestimated the power and scope of the pro-2A movement.

[Vinca]

48. You're probably correct, but it's a shame we are so backward when it comes to firearms.

The numbers don't lie. The countries with the most restrictive gun laws have the fewest incidents like this. Sometimes I think the primary cause is the way politicians use fear to wrangle votes. Especially since 9/11. When people are chronically scared out of their wits, of course they think guns are a good idea. That is until little Timmy finds a loaded one in the dresser and blows the new baby away.

[Eleanors38]

50. The Second is a reflection of both our revolutionary beginnings and our deeply-valued autonomy.

There are many who stoke fears and hatreds. And it has been going on for some time. America never tires of its prohibitionist culture wars. Controllers won't admit it, but theirs is a reactionary, religious-based outlook. Prohibition knows few boundaries, and will be fought with all the smash-mouth intensity for as long as it takes to break it down. It is indeed unfortunate that a society based on naturalism and rationalism also has that cloaked figure of morality, holding a torch, still lurking outside the window.

I would point out that childhood (under 15 yoa) deaths by gun accidents has collapsed to sixty-two (62) per yr at last accounting, far, far below other categorized causes of death causes. Yes, fear is used to wrangle a point of view (if not votes).

[world wide wally]

57. Dear E38,

Please do me a favor and start your own pro-gun thread instead of hijacking mine with your constant inane pro gun BS.

Thank you,
OP

[Eleanors38]

58. Dear WW wally,

I was responding to Vinca, not you.

Even in Guns Discussion, if you post on a subject where there is controversy, expect pushback. If you want a one-way, top-down lectern, you can post in CastleBansalot where contrary opinions are immediately -- you guessed it -- banned.

Thank you
DU member

[world wide wally]

59. Here's the thing, E.

I posted the original plus 3 more responses.
You posted 18.
I don"t mind push back, but there is a difference in push back and hijack

Peace

[Eleanors38]

62. That doesn't fly. You dealt with guns, I dealt with guns.

If you want to see amole examples of "hijacking," take a run through the Gungeon where some pro-2A folks post a study, data, etc., and have it immediately turned to "NRA TalkingPoint©," or "all guns ought to be banned," or "law-abiding gun owners until they are not." The study or data be damned.

You post on guns in GD, or in the open-debate Gungeon, expect a response, not an orchestral score.

[NickB79]

49. We do have a few facts so far

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/25/us/lafayette-theater-shooting-john-houser.html?_r=0

It appears he used a handgun to commit the murders. No info yet on whether it was legally purchased through a gun store, through a private sale, or illegally. It does say Louisiana doesn't require a permit to purchase a handgun (though every gun store has to submit a background check to the ATF).

It was a .40-cal semi-auto, and he reloaded at least once, so it may or may not have had a high-capacity magazine.

He at one point applied for a conceal-carry permit, but was denied because of a domestic abuse record against his wife and an arrest for arson. However, it doesn't appear he was ever convicted of any of these charges.

It also appears he had a history of mental illness, having been in and out of mental facilities multiple times.

So, that's about all we have so far to go on.

Based upon the data so far, what changes to our legal system do you wish to discuss?

[PoliticAverse]

56. It appears he had been involuntarily committed to a hospital for mental health reasons,

this would mean his possession of a firearm was in violation of federal law.

[HereSince1628]

60. Maybe. I hadn't heard that so I don't know the details, but

it is possible to get off the NICS even if you've previously been committed. Just as a judge can put your name in the database, a judge can remove it in response to a petition.

Mental wellness isn't a crime and it doesn't always produce a state of mind that cannot be resolved.

[PoliticAverse]

61. Considering this guys history with the legal system I find it hard to believe a judge would do that,

but stranger things have happened.

[Arugula Latte]

51. We need thousands more to die first.

Preferably many children.