maine

[TheIncredibles!]

Bring back the assault weapons ban. Require more stringent background checks and vetting of people buying guns. Require that people buying guns have had training in how to use and store them properly.

Yes. We have to acknowledge how different our country was when they decided to give us the right to bear arms. I am all for 1700’s style weapons and 1700’s style ammo being allowed but surely we can draw the line at the average Joe owing things our forefathers certainly couldn’t have contemplated… without some restrictions.

 

[TheIncredibles!]

An interesting read. https://medium.com/technology-taxes... armies were equipped,they didn't decide wars.

In 1791 You Couldn’t Use A Gun Without Training

In 1791, loading, aiming, and firing a gun was a complicated process that took about thirty seconds per shot. You simply couldn’t do it effectively without training and practice.

In 1791 you just, plain couldn’t use a gun without being well trained in how to use it properly.

 

[TheIncredibles!]

Constitution are amendable.

ETA - someone beat. me to it.

Women didn’t use to be able to vote. Times change.

We also didn’t have free access to abortions either…oh wait

 

[Moliphino]

Those would be an unconstitutional infringement on the right to bear arms.

There are tons of restrictions on what arms the general public can have. Why do people think guns need to be a free for all?

 

[Party.Of.4-NY>>>FL]

Yes. We have to acknowledge how different our country was when they decided to give us the right to bear arms. I am all for 1700’s style weapons and 1700’s style ammo being allowed but surely we can draw the line at the average Joe owing things our forefathers certainly couldn’t have contemplated… without some restrictions.

But which amendments should this same logic be applied to? Should our freedom of speech be restricted to only the methods available at that time as well? In the 1700s there were very few ways to amplify one’s speech. Today, someone speaks and their voice has the potential to be heard (for better or worse) by billions of people around the world instantly. Would you be okay with the U.S. government restricting speech to only those methods that were available 250 years ago. Should the press be restricted to only printing newspapers and pamphlets?

 

[TheIncredibles!]

But which amendments should this same logic be applied to? Should our freedom of speech be restricted to only the methods available at that time as well? In the 1700s there were very few ways to amplify one’s speech. Today, someone speaks and their voice has the potential to be heard (for better or worse) by billions of people around the world instantly. Would you be okay with the U.S. government restricting speech to only those methods that were available 250 years ago. Should the press be restricted to only printing newspapers and pamphlets?

This is why we modernize as we progress and taken action when and where we need to as time marches on.

 

[gmi3804]

Some people’s bones haven’t evolved into spaceships yet.

 

[EACarlson]

We have a Red Flag law in CO, but it didn't prevent the Club Q shooting last November because the sheriff in the county said he would not enforce the law.

The shooter in Club Q was arrested in 2021 for threatening to kill his grandparents by detonating a bomb, and then he was involved in a standoff with police. After the shooter was arrested in that incident, the sheriff failed to file the paperwork that would trigger the Red Flag law. Instead, they placed him in a "mandatory protection order" (MPO) and confiscated his weapons.

Because the shooter had his weapons confiscated under the MPO they could not pursue the Red Flag law. The suspect's relatives refused to cooperate in the case in which their own grandson threatened to blow them up, so the MPO was dropped.

While the sheriff's department still has the weapons that they confiscated in the 2021 incident, the shooter was able to go out and purchase new weapons because the MPO had been dropped. Too much time elapsed between the July 2021 incident and the November 2022 Club Q shooting so the paperwork from the 2021 incident was no longer valid. The sheriff could have easily followed through with a Red Flag law after the MPO was dropped, but once again, he has stated that he would not enforce the Red Flag law.

I could see this happening in any state that has a large population that sees a Red Flag law in violation of their Second Amendment and law enforcement refusing to follow the law.

BTW, CO is now trying to expand the Red Flag law here so that a Club Q doesn't happen again.

Why did the DA not prosecute the 2021 incident? A person under indictment or convicted of a crime of violence would be ineligible to purchase firearms or legally possess them. Red flag laws are also unconstitutional as currently written. You are depriving someone of a fundamental right without due process.

I think a point of clarification is helpful here. I have seen several thoughts here over the past few days of folks suggesting that those who would like to see SOME gun regulation at the national/federal level are advocating that guns (guns with no modifier of types of guns) should be banned.

I don't think I have ever seen, listened to or read an intelligent discussion by folks who advocate for SOME gun regulation suggest that guns (again, with no modifier of types of guns) be banned, taken away or anything similar. What gun regulation advocates would like to see is a ban on military type weapons that have been the default weapons of choice of mass murderers over the past many years. Weapons capable of killing many people, very quickly, with oftentimes the victims being killed outright, or, passing away from wounds due to the severe internal body destruction. that these weapons inflict.

Also, more effective (or even, in some states, any) background checks. And effective red flag laws.

Nobody is suggesting to ban guns, or take guns away.

spelling​

There is a background check system for any firearm purchased from a federally licensed dealer. Everybody is suggesting banning guns and taking guns away. If the perpetrator of this incident was placed under a two week psych hold, what happened after that? Being involuntarily committed makes them a prohibited person.

As I noted before.

Domestic violence. Not random strangers in a church, school or parking lot.

Still awful of course.

But still a mass shooting event. If you look into what is considered by the american media as a mass shooting, the vast majority of them are gang shootings where multiple people get hit or domestic incidents like the one in Ontario.

Yes. We have to acknowledge how different our country was when they decided to give us the right to bear arms. I am all for 1700’s style weapons and 1700’s style ammo being allowed but surely we can draw the line at the average Joe owing things our forefathers certainly couldn’t have contemplated… without some restrictions.

Full automatic firearms would be legal again? OK. People began working on an automatic firearm in the 14th century.

 

[Moliphino]

But which amendments should this same logic be applied to? Should our freedom of speech be restricted to only the methods available at that time as well? In the 1700s there were very few ways to amplify one’s speech. Today, someone speaks and their voice has the potential to be heard (for better or worse) by billions of people around the world instantly. Would you be okay with the U.S. government restricting speech to only those methods that were available 250 years ago. Should the press be restricted to only printing newspapers and pamphlets?

That's why they made it so we can change the constitution, for one. It's supposed to evolve with time and progress.

 

[monsterkitty]

Why did the DA not prosecute the 2021 incident? A person under indictment or convicted of a crime of violence would be ineligible to purchase firearms or legally possess them. Red flag laws are also unconstitutional as currently written. You are depriving someone of a fundamental right without due process.
There is a background check system for any firearm purchased from a federally licensed dealer. Everybody is suggesting banning guns and taking guns away. If the perpetrator of this incident was placed under a two week psych hold, what happened after that? Being involuntarily committed makes them a prohibited person.

But still a mass shooting event. If you look into what is considered by the american media as a mass shooting, the vast majority of them are gang shootings where multiple people get hit or domestic incidents like the one in Ontario.



Full automatic firearms would be legal again? OK. People began working on an automatic firearm in the 14th century.

The did not prosecute because the grandparents refused to cooperate.

But the 2021 case against the suspect was dropped this July, in part because the suspect’s family was not cooperating, according to District Attorney Michael Allen. With the case ended, the judge also dismissed the MPO, allowing the suspect to once again buy and possess guns, the sheriff’s office said.

There is also strong speculation that charges were dropped due to political pressure on the DA. The grandfather of the shooter was in the California State Assembly at the time. His grandfather is Randy Voepel. You can Google Voepel if you want to learn more about him.

BTW, the question of "was Voepel and his wife the grandparents who were threatened by the shooter" has never been answered.

 

[john7994]

I do find the salad bar approach to strict adherence of the constitution, to protect against broad interpretation and restriction of rights, an interesting argument.

But I must admit, I am more fascinated by the squealing, double-mindedness and contortions playing out when that same constitution also allows for rights of expression as one example (and clearly there are others) - all of a sudden - the constitution should be interpreted to what rights can be restricted - in so far as it keeps the right types of expression on the table …

 

[tx911]

That's why they made it so we can change the constitution, for one. It's supposed to evolve with time and progress.

Right, it can be amended, and there is a process for doing so. Do you think it should be respected as written until it is amended?

 

[CdnCarrie]

Why did the DA not prosecute the 2021 incident? A person under indictment or convicted of a crime of violence would be ineligible to purchase firearms or legally possess them. Red flag laws are also unconstitutional as currently written. You are depriving someone of a fundamental right without due process.
There is a background check system for any firearm purchased from a federally licensed dealer. Everybody is suggesting banning guns and taking guns away. If the perpetrator of this incident was placed under a two week psych hold, what happened after that? Being involuntarily committed makes them a prohibited person.

But still a mass shooting event. If you look into what is considered by the american media as a mass shooting, the vast majority of them are gang shootings where multiple people get hit or domestic incidents like the one in Ontario.



Full automatic firearms would be legal again? OK. People began working on an automatic firearm in the 14th century.

I’m not interested in what media defines it as. I’m heartbroken by the number of Americans getting shot doings things like bowling and getting groceries. Aren’t you!? Isn’t that what counts?

 

[tx911]

I do find the salad bar approach to strict adherence of the constitution, to protect against broad interpretation and restriction of rights, an interesting argument.

But I must admit, I am more fascinated by the squealing, double-mindedness and contortions playing out when that same constitution also allows for rights of expression as one example (and clearly there are others) - all of a sudden - the constitution should be interpreted to what rights can be restricted - in so far as it keeps the right types of expression on the table …

What is the example you are referring to?

 

[AppleDumpling]

Right, it can be amended, and there is a process for doing so. Do you think it should be respected as written until it is amended?

I think the 2nd amendment is unclear due to its confusing language. Some say it is misinterpreted. It is controversial as to whether it applies to individual rights or if the militia clause is the key element.

 

[john7994]

What is the example you are referring to?

How about a Disney related one? According to some, Companies shouldn’t be allowed to express their views as individuals (the Supreme Court upheld that expression of free speech), but nope, it must be more restrictively interpreted! Because, companies need to “stay in their own lanes”.

Another little doozy of an interpretation, what does fomenting of an insurrection really mean, didn’t that just apply to the the Civil War days as some would argue, can’t a guy just exercise his free speech these days others would say - that one is a two-fer.

 

[gmi3804]

What is the example you are referring to?

Here’s one. Short and sweet:

 

[Moliphino]

Right, it can be amended, and there is a process for doing so. Do you think it should be respected as written until it is amended?

As written there is a lot of room for interpretation.
Given the current political climate, you'll never be able to get enough people to agree to change anything.

 

[tx911]

I think the 2nd amendment is unclear due to its confusing language. Some say it is misinterpreted. It is controversial as to whether it applies to individual rights or if the militia clause is the key element.

The militia is formed from the general citizenry. The constitution was written in a time when colonists were extremely fearful of any kind of centralized government whatsoever, and that it would replicate the tyranny of England. The 2nd amendment was included to appease those individuals, and protect the means of armed rebellion if necessary.

I think most who are knowledgeable about the subject agree that the amendment refers to the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms ("the right of the people").

 

[gmi3804]

As written there is a lot of room for interpretation.
Given the current political climate, you'll never be able to get enough people to agree to change anything.

I think part of the problem is that people have too much of an attitude that they have to “win.” No working together towards a common goal.

I took a real estate negotiations class once and as an experiment we were made to play Tic Tac Toe with the person next to us, and the goal was to get three Xs or three Os in a row. Almost every team of two tied. And then we were told that if we really attempted to work together we’d have gotten our three characters in a row in only three total moves. So often we see the opposition as someone to beat, when we both want the same thing in the end, in the case of real estate, to get to to the closing table so all parties are happy. Good negotiators know this; if both sides know it, success is all but guaranteed.