Report of Oregon college shooting...

[mnrose]

For all we know, all 9 may have agreed that the right to own a firearm is an individual right, but only 5 believed the DC handgun ban violated that individual right. Or some number in between.

If the DC ban covered ALL firearms, and not just a specific type, it could have been a lot different vote.

Actually, we DO know what the rational was. Read the Stevens dissent. It's not what you suggest. Not at all. Stevens (and the other three that joined the dissent) found that the second amendment protects the individual right to bear arms only for certain military purposes and does not limit the authority of legislatures to regulate private, civilian use of firearms. In other words, they didn't complete dismiss the phrase "a well-regulated militia" as the 5 person majority did.

 

[Colleen27]

It's on the Internet, must be true

Pretty sure the Facebook terms of service prohibit critical thinking.

If nothing else, the quality of the images should raise immediate red flags... The version I'm seeing is the exact same crop of the image side by side. Obviously not picture-of-tv quality and with no visible CNN graphics so it didn't come from someone who saw it on TV and thought it looked strange. While I suppose it could be a screen capture of CNN's website it seems unlikely that someone wishing to be taken seriously would crop out any hint of where the photo came from, much less pay such close attention to replicating the cropping of the image. Usually those wishing to call out the media publish the screenshot in full, with all of the shamed outlet's branding intact. And beyond that, what media outlet would crop the picture that way, taking the gun OUT of the image, when the image is so much more emotionally evocative in its original state? If CNN ran the image at all it would be in full, with the shooter proudly displaying his weapon.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Actually, we DO know what the rational was. Read the Stevens dissent. It's not what you suggest. Not at all. Stevens (and the other three that joined the dissent) found that the second amendment protects the individual right to bear arms only for certain military purposes and does not limit the authority of legislatures to regulate private, civilian use of firearms. In other words, they didn't complete dismiss the phrase "a well-regulated militia" as the 5 person majority did.

The militia as outlined by the founders is every able-bodied man. And even if one believes the 2nd amendment is in place specifically for militia purposes, the right to keep & bear arms extends to "the people". And I don't think there is any doubt as to who "the people" is.

Plus, again it's one thing to say the government has the right to "regulate" firearm ownership. It's quite another to suggest they have a right to prohibit.

Edit: look at Breyer's dissent.

 

[TLSnell1981]

Pretty sure the Facebook terms of service prohibit critical thinking.

If nothing else, the quality of the images should raise immediate red flags... The version I'm seeing is the exact same crop of the image side by side. Obviously not picture-of-tv quality and with no visible CNN graphics so it didn't come from someone who saw it on TV and thought it looked strange. While I suppose it could be a screen capture of CNN's website it seems unlikely that someone wishing to be taken seriously would crop out any hint of where the photo came from, much less pay such close attention to replicating the cropping of the image. Usually those wishing to call out the media publish the screenshot in full, with all of the shamed outlet's branding intact. And beyond that, what media outlet would crop the picture that way, taking the gun OUT of the image, when the image is so much more emotionally evocative in its original state? If CNN ran the image at all it would be in full, with the shooter proudly displaying his weapon.

My point...there are many unanswered questions, that are being ignored by reputable news sources. It's difficult to separate fact from fiction.

Lots of info, if you search, but not much reported (accurately).

 

[Christine]

The militia as outlined by the founders is every able-bodied man. And even if one believes the 2nd amendment is in place specifically for militia purposes, the right to keep & bear arms extends to "the people". And I don't think there is any doubt as to who "the people" is.

Plus, again it's one thing to say the government has the right to "regulate" firearm ownership. It's quite another to suggest they have a right to prohibit.

Edit: look at Breyer's dissent.

They are all opinions. We all have a right to them and Stevens' opinion is not wrong, just not the opinion that "won." Whether I like guns or not, I happen to agree with Stevens' dissent. However, he was on the losing side but that doesn't mean he is wrong. Wrong to you. Many people disagree with the legality of abortion. It's legal, but it still doesn't make a person right or wrong with where they stand because it is all based on interpretation of words. The Founding Fathers are dead and we really have no idea what their exact meaning was or how it applies to today's society.

In my own reading of it, it totally hits me that it was intended to be for "men" who joined organized groups to protect the citizenry from government force. Nothing more. But one can split hairs and read anything the way you want it to read. Believe me, I deal in policy everyday that was written even as early as 40 years ago and it's tough and I can "bend" it all sorts of ways.

I think the problem here is everyone feels strongly that their take on the amendment wording is the right one. I don't think it's clear cut at all. But we have to live with the majority of what the courts decided 8 years ago on their further interpretation.

 

[sam_gordon]

My point...there are many unanswered questions, that are being ignored by reputable news sources. It's difficult to separate fact from fiction.

If they're "unanswered", what exactly do you want the media to report?

 

[CPanther95]

But we have to live with the majority of what the courts decided 8 years ago on their further interpretation.

.. and how it has been interpreted for the past 239 years since it has been in force.

 

[TLSnell1981]

If they're "unanswered", what exactly do you want the media to report?

I think, they could confirm or deny a few. Although, the answers might not fit the profile or agenda

 

[sam_gordon]

I think, they could confirm or deny a few. Although, the answers might not fit the profile or agenda

Confirm or deny "unanswered questions"? How exactly does that work?

And you have no idea whether or not the media is trying to get confirmation, or get questions answered. Maybe they're asking the same questions you have, but aren't getting answers from anyone? Why does everything have to be a conspiracy?

 

[Dentam]

Clearly there is no solution. Say no to gun control. Say no to mental health services. Continue to post photos and names of these shooters so they can all get the recognition they crave.

And in the meantime, there was a bomb threat and word of a possible gunman at the community college in my hometown today.

Best of luck to you all as you debate in circles and absolutely nothing changes.

Peace.

 

[sam_gordon]

Clearly there is no solution.

You're wrong. There IS a solution, it's just "unknown" as of yet.

 

[IndyRnRfan]

Where did you see they passed the law in '99? I just read an article by John Howard saying himself "our 1996 reforms"

 

[Dentam]

You're wrong. There IS a solution, it's just "unknown" as of yet.

That was sarcasm. The solution won't be found on a message board, clearly. Enjoy the "discussion" though - I'll be taking my energy elsewhere.

 

[sam_gordon]

The solution won't be found on a message board, clearly.

The problem is some people don't seem to realize that. We all want a "silver bullet" (pardon the term) to fix this solution quickly and easily. The entire situation is too complicated though. I do believe there's a solution out there, but it won't be easy coming up with or implementing.

 

[longboard55]

I guess what bothers me is the there is nothing we can do attitude. How about everyone drop their politcial agenda and figure out how to make guns safer. I could name a dozen things that a legitmate gun owner would not even notice. We had 911 and we made changes, we have an earthquake or a hurricane and we make changes. We were killing too many on the road and we made changes and saved thousands of lives a year. We can always do better.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

They are all opinions. We all have a right to them and Stevens' opinion is not wrong, just not the opinion that "won." Whether I like guns or not, I happen to agree with Stevens' dissent. However, he was on the losing side but that doesn't mean he is wrong. Wrong to you. Many people disagree with the legality of abortion. It's legal, but it still doesn't make a person right or wrong with where they stand because it is all based on interpretation of words. The Founding Fathers are dead and we really have no idea what their exact meaning was or how it applies to today's society.

In my own reading of it, it totally hits me that it was intended to be for "men" who joined organized groups to protect the citizenry from government force. Nothing more. But one can split hairs and read anything the way you want it to read. Believe me, I deal in policy everyday that was written even as early as 40 years ago and it's tough and I can "bend" it all sorts of ways.

I think the problem here is everyone feels strongly that their take on the amendment wording is the right one. I don't think it's clear cut at all. But we have to live with the majority of what the courts decided 8 years ago on their further interpretation.

I went back & read Stevens' dissent, and honestly I was very disappointed. There was very little logic in what he said. He based his dissent on what he assumes the founding fathers must have been thinking. Seriously? How about basing it on what they wrote into law, or maybe read up on what they had to say. Maybe check into the history of the British attempting to confiscate guns leading up to the Revolutionary War & how the founders responded to that. For a Supreme Court judge, it came off like the ramblings of a someone who's never practiced law at all. But, Breyer's dissent made it clear his no was based on the fact that he didn't feel those particular regulations infringed on an individual's right to keep & bear arms. And honestly, he had a valid argument. The government has a clear history of demonstrating limits on WHAT guns you can have, not on IF you can have guns.

At the end of the day, whether you think the 2nd is specifically about militias, or just inclusive of militias, the words "the people" can only be interpreted so many ways. At the very most stringent, it would be all voter-eligible citizens - which in those days would have been all white men.

And think about it logically, had the amendment said, "Because it might rain, the right of the people to keep and bear umbrellas shall not be infringed", who do you think "the people" would be? Only those actively walking about IN the rain? Or anyone who might one day encounter rain?

 

[Gumbo4x4]

I guess what bothers me is the there is nothing we can do attitude. How about everyone drop their politcial agenda and figure out how to make guns safer. I could name a dozen things that a legitmate gun owner would not even notice. We had 911 and we made changes, we have an earthquake or a hurricane and we make changes. We were killing too many on the road and we made changes and saved thousands of lives a year. We can always do better.

Go for it

 

[5kidsmommy]

I guess what bothers me is the there is nothing we can do attitude. How about everyone drop their politcial agenda and figure out how to make guns safer. I could name a dozen things that a legitmate gun owner would not even notice. We had 911 and we made changes, we have an earthquake or a hurricane and we make changes. We were killing too many on the road and we made changes and saved thousands of lives a year. We can always do better.

Part of the problem is most guns used in crimes are older guns, I believe the age of traced weapons is something like 11 years. So while it is sometimes a case of someone buying a gun and using it immediately for a crime that actually isn't how it typically works. So whatever changes to make guns safer that are implemented now to save lives probably wouldn't have an effect for a long time.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

A big part of the problem is societal as well. I asked earlier where the U.S. would fit if we just ignored all gun-related homicides.

Even if we eliminated those & saw zero increase in homicides using other methods, out homicide rate would still be almost double that of Canada & triple the UK.

 

[CPanther95]

Go for it

Yeah, I'd like to see that list also. Making a gun safe is like trying to make a hammer not so hard. A decent quality gun will only be as safe as it's operator.

Most recent safety "improvements" have been horrendous and made the guns far less safe to handle. Ever shoot an LC9? It's got so many well-intentioned safety improvements that operating it isn't natural at all. It's like driving a car where they put the brake pedal on the armrest. Or the nightmare of putting a safety on a revolver - major fail.

You carry in Condition 1, so safeties are a non-factor. If you're not carrying, it should be locked away.