Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by dfl, Dec 16, 2012.
So lets make it this hard to own any weapon who's primary purpose is killing people.
Text of the 2nd Amendment:
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 pretty clearly stated. That's why the Supreme Court has shied away from changing it. They can't very well declare it unconstitutional now can they? It doesn't specify what type or for how long or anything else. The founding fathers meant it just as it is.
Of course, it doesn't alter what has happened nor what might in the future. We just need to be more vigilant in our daily lives.
I think if the left stopped promoting and defending violence, that might be a start! atleast thats the whitetrash half of what my brain thinks. i think if the left would stop hiding behind the First Amendment, and stop promoting and defending certain video games which are really only mass killing simulators might help abit as well. one thing in common with all these young mass killers, is that they are and have all been addicted to the most violent of these games. i work for a school district, and we have a few technology teachers that hold meets with kids after hours in our tech labs to form virtual teams and engage in killing games.
I have two questions....What can the Left do to reduce this risk? Is it even possible for the left to admit their part in these events?
Just my white trash 2cents...
It seems to me that if violent video games and movies were really the culprit, then we would see much more of this happening.
There are literally MILLIONS of kids/people of all ages playing these games every day in the U.S. I play them occasionally myself. If the games were really the problem, somehow pushing these kids to commit these acts, then it seems to me that you would see more of these killings happening.
Instead, you are drawing a correlation between something that millions enjoy, and trying to damn that thing because of a few bad people. But you get angry (and rightfully so) when someone suggests that guns should be controlled for everyone because of the choices of a few disturbed individuals.
I don't think guns should be banned, but I think there should be a discussion about whether or not better regulations could help.
I also don't think video games should be banned, but I do believe that the more violent games should not be sold to children, and that any parents letting children play games of this type should have frank discussions with their children about that fact that it is a game, and about the importance of respect for human life.
You saved me alot of typing this is damn near word for word what I was going to say.
I would add that we also need to address the mental health issues...by all the reports I've heard this guy had lots of indicators that he might be troubled.
Also I know they said this guy forced his way in to the school, but he looked like we weighed a buck 25 soaking wet. We might want to look at increasing security in our schools; I mean for christ sake I have to go through an ID check and two combination locks to get to my desk at work...I went to KFC in DC and the person behind the counter was behind bullet proof glass (no lie); maybe we should invest in increased security for our kids.
I found this article to be thoughtful with some good ideas. Equates changing our societal perceptions of firearms with the MADD campaign against drunk driving.
Fine, I should be able to buy a RPG launcher, stinger missile, nuclear weapon or form and train a militia. I should be able to buy any arms.
I think we can both agree that this is a bad idea, and the 2nd amendment does not say the type of arms. It also doesn't specify what arms means, and that whole part of the well regulated militia, what about that part.
I think we can agree that violent fellons should not be allowed to keep and bear arms. Same with violent mentally ill people.
I think we can also agree that the most powerful weapon when this amendment was written took 30 seconds to load.
So there are two ways to interpret it, all or nothing. Either we can as a society limit what type of arms are allowed to be beared, and where those arms can be beared, or we cannot. The supreme court regularly has upheld the former, as firearms are not allowed in most public buildings, furthermore certain kinds of weapons are extremely restricted. (The first amendment has fallen to similar challenges most recently the "bong hits for jesus" case).
What I don't understand is why the NRA is not at the forefront of responsible gun ownership.
“undoubtedly there are limits on the second amendment’s right to bear arms but these must be limitations that were viewed as reasonable at the time the U.S. Constitution was written." -- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
And you don't get too much more conservative than this guy.
Our founding fathers were insightful, but they didn't have a crystal ball. I think they hoped we'd be able to determine what is reasonable and govern ourselves wisely. I'm afraid we might be a huge disappointment to them is this regard.
2nd Amendment zealots love being champions of the constitution in just one area. They never complain about the exceptions to the 1st amendment like the time, place, or manner restrictions. It is so often referred to as a protection from tyranny, it's original concept, but in this day and age it just serves as a protection from taking toys away from grown men. Toys capable of mass murder.
Banning the sale of high capacity magazines and assault weapons means only the bad guys will have them. They tried to ban booze in the '20's and that didn't work. People merely went underground. They have tried to ban drugs but that doesn't deter drug users and sellers from getting and selling them. And arming a few teachers/administrators in a school will not stop mass killings. They have been happening for centuries. I can't imagine some of the people I work with with a gun in their hands.
Education and vigilance is the key and if I were an administrator and had a teacher gathering students together to play violent video games, there would be one less teacher on my staff and it would be a justifiable, for cause firing. All school districts have strict codes of conduct that are to be followed. Promoting violence of any kind would be a violation of these codes and the trust that is placed in a teacher's hands.
By the way, there are laws prohibiting the sale of rocket launchers and automatic weapons in certain places without a proper permit but that fails to stop people from acquiring and using them. The shooter in question used legally obtained and registered weapons. They just weren't his.
I just replaced an old heat pump with a new one. I had to get a "Mechanical Permit". So, the inspector comes out and now says I need to install "Carbon Monoxide" detecters in my home in front of each bedroom. (I guess the new State Law requiring them goes into effect in January.) I have no problem with this, but find it quite interesting, especially for the companies that manufacture them. What a "sweet deal" for them! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
So, I think having a PERMIT for a gunsafe in your home would be a great thing for ALL gun owners. And just think, the money to be made for those private corporations manufacturing those! (Now if we could just get them to pay their fair share of taxes, it might help fund mental illness care!) But, if it saves lives.... Of course, if you think this "infringes" on your gun rights, then you are the guy that doesn't get Building Permits anyway.
People ignore it but requiring a gun safe "permit" or proof of a gun safe before firearm sale would do so much more than any type of ban or legislature on actual manufacturing of magazines or weapons.
Gun safes are a partial solution at best. Gun safes are where you keep the extra guns that are not active to keep them from being stolen. The guns you keep in your night stand, glove compartment, and jacket pocket aren't in the gun safe.