Latest School Shooting

[longboard55]

Are you trying to tell us that the Las Vegas shooter......broke the law and brought guns in the room



the point you missed is that was never the policy before, we have made a lot of changes, women must use clear bags at football games, Disney spends a fortune on screening, all kinds of things, but nothing from the gun owners, they refuse to help, and we are done with them and their excuses

 

[Hikergirl]

Yes, it is.

If one wants to argue the original intent, that is certainly up for debate. But, as written, the Amendment clearly establishes the right to keep and bear arms belongs to “the people”. And unless you think the phrase “the people” is ambiguous, I don’t see how this is so difficult.

Apparently only in the 2nd is "the people" put in to question.
If you read the other 8 in the BoR and can figure out what the Founders meant, and why they were written, then one should be able to so for the 2nd. Unless you are the type who thinks the Constitution is just a "bit of paper". Then I can understand why your comprehension skills are lacking.

 

[longboard55]

Exactly..............
Law abiding firearms owners in the U.S. have between 350,000,000 and 600,000,000 firearms, depending on who's statistics you prefer, and at least a couple of trillion rounds of ammunition.
If they were as murderous, bloodthirsty, and dangerous as some people claim, I believe that everyone would be well aware of it.
Once again I'll say;
"It's not the objects."
"It's the people."

And let's get rid of those tsa guys at the airport because millions of people fly and most do not hijack planes

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

1) the 2nd half is the only part that matters because it defines a right, and it assigns that right to a specific group (namely, the people). Again, one could argue that the militia is “a reason” or even “the reason” for the amendment. But, at the end of the day, there can be no denying that the right belongs to “the people”. That’s not an interpretation. It’s basic reading comprehension.

Taking only parts of something is Taking it Out of Context, and changing the meaning. And the Supreme Court under republican Justice Scalia has interpreted this as meaning NOT ALL WEAPONS.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Taking only parts of something is Taking it Out of Context, and changing the meaning. And the Supreme Court under republican Justice Scalia has interpreted this as meaning NOT ALL WEAPONS.

It’s completely within context, and the Supreme Court has also ruled the right applies to “the people”.

I have never disputed the fact that right may be limited. But, that’s honestly a different subject than “who” has the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

For the changes there is alot of debate on the lines but sometimes I think we need to just start with the things most agree on and then go from there. Trying to fix everything at once is making everyone do nothing.

1) Anyone convicted of a violent crime should not be able to legally own a gun. This means can't register it and can't buy them.
2) Make a national database of violent crimes so that they can't buy guns in other states either.
3) National registration for each gun owned every.... I don't know how often lets go with 2 years, the cost should actually just be what it costs to maintain this database and the people that collect the forms none of that adding cost as a tax bull.
4) Require gun owners to carry a card with their registration information whenever they are carrying their gun.
5) Require all guns to be kept locked when not in use.
6) Just in case it isn't already make it illegal to give or sell a gun to someone on the list that can't have them. This one legitimately does infringe a bit... because now you have to be really careful about private gun sales (you better know that person your selling to since if they are on the list you commited a crime too) this might mean private gun sales almost have to go through a service which is annoying but I think this is the only one on the list that should affect legal gun owners beyond a bit of paperwork.

Some people have already touched on a few points. I will say my state recently passed a law where they can step in and do the paper and leg work on domestic violence offenders in regards to owning a gun (as that is not legal) at the state level rather than at the federal level in order to alleviate that from the plate.

As far as a national registration. The U.S. has a unique system. We have the Federal government and then we have State governments. We set it up so that the control the Federal government has on the State government is limited..on purpose. There are of course things mandated by the Federal government but the Federal government does not have absolute control on things just by being the Federal government. What you are suggesting is against my state's law as we do not need to register firearms and we don't need a permit to conceal and carry either (which is written into our State's Constitution; conceal and carry is allowed for those 21 and up) though that does mean that other states that have chosen to do not have to reciprocate the no permit/license aspect as well as the no training required aspect..and no it's not as easy nor as simple as saying "well just mandate it at the Federal level". That point also leads into your #4 point.

I don't say this to be contrary. I do say this because people do often fail to keep in mind how we are set up as a government. It doesn't mean the Federal government can't attempt to force states to do this and that but it does mean states can refuse, sue, sign into their constiution xyz, etc and that goes for a multitude of other things such as legal age for drinking (which states will lose Federal aid for highway funding), REAL ID compliance (which means their citizens will need passports to travel after X date), etc.

 

[tex1989]

What really needs to happen to move to a solution for the current situation is a clear definition of the issue. We have people with ton's of solutions, but without a clear definition of the problem they are meaningless.

Full disclosure, I am a gun owner, I am a sixth generation Texan, and I am not a member of the NRA. Don't agree with them on a lot of issues. I am fiscally conservation while socially more liberal. I say these things to clearly define myself to try and avoid some one accusing me of being something I am not.

I live about 18 miles from Santa Fe High school and know people in the community.

The guns used according to all reports were a 12 gauge pump shotgun, and a .38 revolver. For those unfamiliar with guns the shotgun required for it to be cycled after each shot (slide pulled back and new shell put into the chamber to fire) and the .38 is like what most would think of is like a six shooter from cowboy movies. Six shells in the gun and after each round is fired the cylinder turns to put the next round into firing position. No assault weapons, not even semi automatic weapons. While the .38 is a handgun and more regulated the shotgun is not nearly as regulated and most often used for bird hunting (duck, goose, dove) and you vary the shell by what you are shooting. Typically they hold two in the magazine and one in the chamber because federal game laws require that when hunting federally controlled migratory birds that a hunter have no more than three shots before reloading. A plug can be removed from the magazine to allow an additional two rounds be fired before reloading bringing the capacity to five rounds.

I mention all this because this incident does not fall into the line of the weapon being the reason for the number of deaths. It just shows that a bad person with bad intent can lead to devastating results regardless of the tools. So this forces us to ask how do we change things? Someone mentioned gun registration, laws banning the sale of weapons to people with criminal backgrounds, gun owners locking up their guns. Well believe it or not those laws exist but obviously don't work. Others say that we should be more restrictive on background checks, do more investigation of mental conditions, financial stability, is the person a domestic abuser, etc. Well that could work but this is also where those with a more liberal bend take exception. They would ask, as would those more conservative would ask as well, "how much of our freedom must we sacrifice for saftey?" Parkland students made their dislike of clear backpacks, and metal detectors very evident and claimed constitutional rights of privacy when asked to commit to these things in the name of saftey.

So the biggest issue to be answered as we head down the road to solving the problem is what amount of freedom do we forgo to avoid these incidents? I will note as others have that guns have been here all along and the laws were not as stringent as they are today when I attended high school all those years ago. We had kids with guns on a gun rack in their trucks in the parking lot of my high school and we did not see these incidents. Why? Society has changed kids are way to serious and do not value life the way prior generations did. Teen suicide rates are up, bullying is increasing, overall our youth are just to overwhelmed by life.

The answer if we ever get there is going to be on multiple levels, tighter background checks, mental health awareness, increased security at schools, more parental involvement, and a huge societal shift that says fixing these issues start at home. Without that acknowledgement we will never come up with the fix.

 

[Domo]

How is "militia" a qualifier?

It says "militia"

 

[kamik86]

1) violent criminals are already prohibited from purchasing a firearm.
2) a person cannot purchase a firearm in a different state from their own.
3) I don’t support a database.
4) why?
5) how would this be enforced, will inspections occur?
6) it is illegal to knowingly sells firearm to a prohibited person, the problem is identifying that person. As it currently stands I can’t even check the NICS database. I’ve only sold 2 firearms but I personally require a drivers license, that they show a current pistol permit, and sign a bill of sale.

1 - Really? Ok maybe we are just bad at enforcing it.
2 - Really didn't think that was true.
3 - The database was just one of criminals not gun owners. If you commit certain crimes in a state they take away your car licence. I know some people that have had that happen in one state moved across the border and have a licence, because the states don't talk to each other. So I wanted beating someone in MA to stop them from owning a gun in NY (or any other states).
4 - like the licence but so you know it is registered and thus legally yours that was all
5 - No actually meant that one for cases like the kids taking their parents gun. More so you have to explain how someone else got your weapon if they use it.
6 - What is the NICS database? I put this one here to stop someone that can't own a gun from getting their friend to buy one and give it to them and have the friend have no liability. This one I admit has consquences for others but some of the ones above don't work well without it. Just like how you can't buy alcohol under 21 but I don't know any highschooler that can't figure out how to get beer.

 

[kamik86]

Some people have already touched on a few points. I will say my state recently passed a law where they can step in and do the paper and leg work on domestic violence offenders in regards to owning a gun (as that is not legal) at the state level rather than at the federal level in order to alleviate that from the plate.

As far as a national registration. The U.S. has a unique system. We have the Federal government and then we have State governments. We set it up so that the control the Federal government has on the State government is limited..on purpose. There are of course things mandated by the Federal government but the Federal government does not have absolute control on things just by being the Federal government. What you are suggesting is against my state's law as we do not need to register firearms and we don't need a permit to conceal and carry either (which is written into our State's Constitution; conceal and carry is allowed for those 21 and up) though that does mean that other states that have chosen to do not have to reciprocate the no permit/license aspect as well as the no training required aspect..and no it's not as easy nor as simple as saying "well just mandate it at the Federal level". That point also leads into your #4 point.

I don't say this to be contrary. I do say this because people do often fail to keep in mind how we are set up as a government. It doesn't mean the Federal government can't attempt to force states to do this and that but it does mean states can refuse, sue, sign into their constiution xyz, etc and that goes for a multitude of other things such as legal age for drinking (which states will lose Federal aid for highway funding), REAL ID compliance (which means their citizens will need passports to travel after X date), etc.

I do realize this. There are many many issues I want the federal government to stay out of. However this is one that I understand the federal government needing to step in on because none of the measures I have seen will help at all if other states don't have time too.

It is illegal to buy fireworks in my state. Every 4th of July lots of fireworks are set off at parties. NY and VT don't ban them. The border is 20 min away.

I think having to register your gun is a reasonable measure that should exist across the US. Which then means you can know when someone commits a crime if they own any that now need to be turned over.

 

[rajak73]

but nothing from the gun owners, they refuse to help, and we are done with them and their excuses

But you are just not listening, there have been a lot from gun owners, most all of us would like better background checks, mental health, etc. But tell me what banning bump stocks and scary looking assault style rifles would have done to prevent the Santa Fe shooting? Bring some reasonable things and most gun owners will listen.

1 - Really? Ok maybe we are just bad at enforcing it.

Felons are prohibited from owning guns, any kind.

 

[rajak73]

2 - Really didn't think that was true.

I can buy a gun from out of state, but, it has to be sent to a licensed gun dealer where I have to fill out the background check form.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I do realize this. There are many many issues I want the federal government to stay out of. However this is one that I understand the federal government needing to step in on because none of the measures I have seen will help at all if other states don't have time too.

On that point..what I can say is other people as a generality feel differently than you do. One one hand you don't want the federal governement to step in on certain things and on others you're ok with it. That is simply in a nutshell the exact same feeling some people do have. Just like on the thread someone created about pondering the question of requiring permits to have children. Now don't mistake me saying this as to me no one should budge on anything but I am saying this because these threads tend to become us vs them mentalities and realistically some of it boils down to people not wanting too much governmental control-where people differ is their lines in the sand on that point.

It is illegal to buy fireworks in my state. Every 4th of July lots of fireworks are set off at parties. NY and VT don't ban them. The border is 20 min away.

I mean that's neither here nor there really. Are you saying the Federal government should ban fireworks for personal usage? I'll be honest you're still going to have some states that see no issue with fireworks and thus make it legal in their state. It would probably end up like marijuana where it is illegal at a Federal level and legal at the state level for certain states. And on that note the Federal government really has been keeping their business mostly out of it enforcement wise. I don't believe they would be knocking down someone's door in CO if they purchased it for personal usage (of course unless they suspect they are a large dealer).

I think having to register your gun is a reasonable measure that should exist across the US. Which then means you can know when someone commits a crime if they own any that now need to be turned over.

I can understand that viewpoint as it does look appealing on one level but on that note as it currently stands that does significantly infringe on certain citizen's rights whose states do not require this. And I don't say that lightly. I tend to not get too far into the infringing viewpoint side but that is one that does. You may again however have it where some states rebuke that requirement.

I will say on that level there would be a high monetary cost associated with it not only with having a software system but the continual upkeeps to that and the manpower to enforce it. Making a database like that nationally would do nothing if you didn't have the monies to enforce it. That does make me wonder if it would end up being like marijuana again only I do think they might make more effort there but I don't know how much effort they would put into the millions of people who currently own guns and those in the future much less grandfathering in clauses that one might reasonably assume there would be.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

I do realize this. There are many many issues I want the federal government to stay out of. However this is one that I understand the federal government needing to step in on because none of the measures I have seen will help at all if other states don't have time too.

It is illegal to buy fireworks in my state. Every 4th of July lots of fireworks are set off at parties. NY and VT don't ban them. The border is 20 min away.

I think having to register your gun is a reasonable measure that should exist across the US. Which then means you can know when someone commits a crime if they own any that now need to be turned over.

Registration is pretty much a hard line in the sand for gun owners. Every confiscation that has taken place in other countries has been facilitated by registration.

There are a lot of places 2nd Amendment supporters would be willing to compromise, but this is not one of them.

 

[longboard55]

What really needs to happen to move to a solution for the current situation is a clear definition of the issue. We have people with ton's of solutions, but without a clear definition of the problem they are meaningless.

Full disclosure, I am a gun owner, I am a sixth generation Texan, and I am not a member of the NRA. Don't agree with them on a lot of issues. I am fiscally conservation while socially more liberal. I say these things to clearly define myself to try and avoid some one accusing me of being something I am not.

I live about 18 miles from Santa Fe High school and know people in the community.

The guns used according to all reports were a 12 gauge pump shotgun, and a .38 revolver. For those unfamiliar with guns the shotgun required for it to be cycled after each shot (slide pulled back and new shell put into the chamber to fire) and the .38 is like what most would think of is like a six shooter from cowboy movies. Six shells in the gun and after each round is fired the cylinder turns to put the next round into firing position. No assault weapons, not even semi automatic weapons. While the .38 is a handgun and more regulated the shotgun is not nearly as regulated and most often used for bird hunting (duck, goose, dove) and you vary the shell by what you are shooting. Typically they hold two in the magazine and one in the chamber because federal game laws require that when hunting federally controlled migratory birds that a hunter have no more than three shots before reloading. A plug can be removed from the magazine to allow an additional two rounds be fired before reloading bringing the capacity to five rounds.

I mention all this because this incident does not fall into the line of the weapon being the reason for the number of deaths. It just shows that a bad person with bad intent can lead to devastating results regardless of the tools. So this forces us to ask how do we change things? Someone mentioned gun registration, laws banning the sale of weapons to people with criminal backgrounds, gun owners locking up their guns. Well believe it or not those laws exist but obviously don't work. Others say that we should be more restrictive on background checks, do more investigation of mental conditions, financial stability, is the person a domestic abuser, etc. Well that could work but this is also where those with a more liberal bend take exception. They would ask, as would those more conservative would ask as well, "how much of our freedom must we sacrifice for saftey?" Parkland students made their dislike of clear backpacks, and metal detectors very evident and claimed constitutional rights of privacy when asked to commit to these things in the name of saftey.

So the biggest issue to be answered as we head down the road to solving the problem is what amount of freedom do we forgo to avoid these incidents? I will note as others have that guns have been here all along and the laws were not as stringent as they are today when I attended high school all those years ago. We had kids with guns on a gun rack in their trucks in the parking lot of my high school and we did not see these incidents. Why? Society has changed kids are way to serious and do not value life the way prior generations did. Teen suicide rates are up, bullying is increasing, overall our youth are just to overwhelmed by life.

The answer if we ever get there is going to be on multiple levels, tighter background checks, mental health awareness, increased security at schools, more parental involvement, and a huge societal shift that says fixing these issues start at home. Without that acknowledgement we will never come up with the fix.

you had bird rifles in the good old days, not military rifles. So if it is ok to expose my child to nude greek statues in the local museum I guess its ok to let them watch stormy daniels videos.

 

[UncleMike101]

I can buy a gun from out of state, but, it has to be sent to a licensed gun dealer where I have to fill out the background check form.

That applies to handgun purchases.
Under Federal Law a State may allow out of State direct sales of long guns to residents of other States but the sale must take place at the FFL holders registered place of business and comply with the Federal background check laws and all laws of both the State of the transfer and the State of residence of the purchaser.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

you had bird rifles in the good old days, not military rifles. So if it is ok to expose my child to nude greek statues in the local museum I guess its ok to let them watch stormy daniels videos.

False. Full automatics were available at any corner Sears up until 1934. Semi autos have been readily available for more than 100 years. In fact, the most popular handgun in the US today is the model 1911 - named for the year it debuted.

Moreover, you are missing the point, which is the fact a bird gun and a 19th century style revolver were the weapons of choice in this most recent spree.

 

[tex1989]

you had bird rifles in the good old days, not military rifles. So if it is ok to expose my child to nude greek statues in the local museum I guess its ok to let them watch stormy daniels videos.

Not really sure where you are going with this but I did not anywhere in my post refer to any sort of military rifle. Further I neither gave any opinion of whether any one weapon or type of weapon should be limited, or banned. If you want to let your child watch Stormy Daniels videos I suppose that is your business but you would then probably fall into a category of the type of parenting I think we as a society needs to avoid.

What I said indirectly was even if there was a complete and total ban of the weapons you say exist today that according to you did not exist in the "good old days" the damage done in Santa Fe would have still been done because he used firearms that have been in circulation since the 1890's and before.

You want to paint me into your view of what gun nuts are and I won't let you. Till I comment one way or another on the weapons you are referring to you have no idea what my opinion of them is.

 

[UncleMike101]

you had bird rifles in the good old days, not military rifles. So if it is ok to expose my child to nude greek statues in the local museum I guess its ok to let them watch stormy daniels videos.

Virtually all firearm types started out as Military arms.
To this day the Military still issues pump shotgun models which can be legally purchased by the General Public, Sniper rifles which anyone with sufficient cash on hand can purchase, and handguns found in nearly every firearms store in the country.
As far as what one allows their minor children to watch I'll defer to the multitude of State laws concerning juvenile delinquency which make it a felony to expose children to pornography.

 

[longboard55]

Show me one parent who gave their kid an military type weapon. Guns are no longer about hunting, guns are marketed as killing machines. This was not my decision