Last February, Trump signed a bill making it easier for people with mental illness to buy guns

[Curious George]

Owning something more than a tank is more involved, but doable in very special cases (a manufacturer).

I agree that we should take measures to prevent such shootings.

I think everyone agrees that we should take measures to prevent such shootings. People just disagree on what measures are reasonable.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think everyone agrees that we should take measures to prevent such shootings.

Sometimes the obvious must be clearly stated.
(Because the obvious isn't always so obvious,
especially in heated discussion.)

Note to indict anyone here, but think of how many
times we've seen on RF some poster say......
"You've been silent about ____________!"
(Insert obvious belief in the blank space.)

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Are you referring to you hypothetical scenario with no Constitution,
or under current law?

Current laws and the constitution do not define what is right, moral, or what is best for the American People.
They only define the law.

Discussions should be around what would be the best solution in the long term, not the minutiae of the law.
when the answers are know, both the laws and constitution can be amended.

Prior to WW2 the British firearms laws were similar to the American position today. Indeed a British officer was then expected to supply his own personal side arm and sword. Firearms were widespread and freely available. Today a majority of our people would have no idea how to obtain one, or who is legally able to do so.
The pre WW2 civilian stock pile of weapons was very easily and quickly removed from circulation.

 

[Revoltingest]

Current laws and the constitution do not define what is right, moral, or what is best for the American People.
They only define the law.

Agreed, but this legal environment is a very important consideration.

Discussions should be around what would be the best solution in the long term, not the minutiae of the law.
when the answers are know, both the laws and constitution can be amended.

I don't consider the 2nd Amendment to be so insignificant.
Its origins & existence matter to a great many of us.

Prior to WW2 the British firearms laws were similar to the American position today. Indeed a British officer was then expected to supply his own personal side arm and sword. Firearms were widespread and freely available. Today a majority of our people would have no idea how to obtain one, or who is legally able to do so.
The pre WW2 civilian stock pile of weapons was very easily and quickly removed from circulation.

Did you have a fundamental right to arms at the time?

 

[Curious George]

Sometimes the obvious must be clearly stated.
(Because the obvious isn't always so obvious,
especially in heated discussion.)

Note to indict anyone here, but think of how many
times we've seen on RF some poster say......
"You've been silent about ____________!"
(Insert obvious belief in the blank space.)

Well then consider my post just stating the obvious, lest anyone think just Revoltingest wants to stop these shootings.

 

[Curious George]

Current laws and the constitution do not define what is right, moral, or what is best for the American People.
They only define the law.

Discussions should be around what would be the best solution in the long term, not the minutiae of the law.
when the answers are know, both the laws and constitution can be amended.

Prior to WW2 the British firearms laws were similar to the American position today. Indeed a British officer was then expected to supply his own personal side arm and sword. Firearms were widespread and freely available. Today a majority of our people would have no idea how to obtain one, or who is legally able to do so.
The pre WW2 civilian stock pile of weapons was very easily and quickly removed from circulation.

I agree wholeheartedly. We should ask ourselves whether it is good or bad to have a government that limits fundamental rights such as self defense without a compelling reason and then limiting only narrowly tailored to that reason as not to exceed that reasoning that justifies limits on fundamental rights.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Agreed, but this legal environment is a very important consideration.

I don't consider the 2nd Amendment to be so insignificant.
Its origins & existence matter to a great many of us.

Did you have a fundamental right to arms at the time?

Where do you think the idea for your right to bear arms came from? It was a right British citizens were accustomed to having, and your Constitution embraced many of our common law rights. Though why it was only an amendment is unclear. It is probably because it was so normal, and a fundamental freedom, at the time he constitution was written, that it was simply missed out.

However the UK has move on a great deal since the 1770's

 

[Revoltingest]

Where do you think the idea for your right to bear arms came from? It was a right British citizens were accustomed to having, and your Constitution embraced many of our common law rights. Though why it was only an amendment is unclear. It is probably because it was so normal, and a fundamental freedom, at the time he constitution was written, that it was simply missed out.

However the UK has move on a great deal since the 1770's

We might move on too...some day.
Was your right only under common law?

 

[Twilight Hue]

States that allow felons to own firearms
Even violent felons may petition to have their firearms rights restored in states like Ohio, Minnesota and Virginia. Some states, including Georgia and Nebraska, award scores of pardons every year that specifically confer gun privileges.

I wasn't aware of that. I know in New York if your a felon you can never own a gun in New York state again. Maybe it's time that aspect became universal.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

We might move on too...some day.
Was your right only under common law?

Common law enshrines all our basic rights, it goes back so far, no one knows when some became instituted.
It is why we do not need a constitution. so "Only" in this case is not the right word.

Many new laws are thrown out in the courts because they run foul of common law rights.

British common law is also the basis of American common law.

 

[suncowiam]

Well I am having a hard time understanding what your question is here. Should we arm every citizen? No, I believe I gave the criteria and certainly not every citizen would fit that criteria.

Are you asking what the difference is between nuclear bombs and guns? Well a myriad of differences exist. How basic or detailed do you want me to go?

Why does the constitution stop at legal gun ownership? It does so because it was created during the revolutionary war.

What correlation does gun ownership have to do with stopping a corrupted government in modern times?

Gun ownership relating to the protection against a corrupted government is farce in modern times. What worked in the revolutionary war is grossly outdated for today. If that was the case, countries like North Korea would stick to their guns as opposed to developing nuclear weapons.

IMO, the second amendment is now hurting us more than it is supposedly protecting us. IMO, the greater good is to limit gun ownership to those that can commit to the safety of themselves and others. IMO, the cost of gun ownership has to be much much higher so that we can enforce these safety measures. It is way to cheap in many aspects for various individuals to obtain a gun and effectively massacre people.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Where do you think the idea for your right to bear arms came from? It was a right British citizens were accustomed to having, and your Constitution embraced many of our common law rights. Though why it was only an amendment is unclear. It is probably because it was so normal, and a fundamental freedom, at the time he constitution was written, that it was simply missed out.

However the UK has move on a great deal since the 1770's

An armed citizen what's supposed to be a deterrent for a rogue government. While we have been progressive and governments have been far more mindful in how they treat their citizens, it doesn't mean that the government cant still turn on its people at some point in the future.

A lot of people including myself feel if you give up firearms, you essentially give away an aspect of freedom that's harder to gain easier to lose. I'd hate to see that freedom become provisional.

I do think something needs to be done, outright blanket bans as such are not the answer at all.

I probably go for making gun ownership illegal for people who are younger than a certain age. Maybe make a requirement in order to own a gun you have to be 30 years old or over to ensure that the mind has matured enough to be responsible to own and handle one properly.

 

[Revoltingest]

Common law enshrines all our basic rights, it goes back so far, no one knows when some became instituted.
It is why we do not need a constitution. so "Only" in this case is not the right word.

Many new laws are thrown out in the courts because they run foul of common law rights.

British common law is also the basis of American common law.

I'm familiar with much of what you say.
But I plan to find out more.
By what process was your right to possess guns reduced?

 

[Revoltingest]

An armed citizen what's supposed to be a deterrent for a rogue government. While we have been progressive and governments have been far more mindful in how they treat their citizens, it doesn't mean that the government cant still turn on its people at some point in the future.

A lot of people including myself feel if you give up firearms, you essentially give away an aspect of freedom set have been harder to gain. I'd hate to see that freedom become provisional.

I do think something needs to be done, without right blanket bans in such are not the answer at all.

I probably go for making gun ownership illegal for people who are younger than a certain age. Maybe make a requirement in order to own a gun you have to be 30 years old or over to ensure that the mind has matured enough to be responsible to own and handle one properly.

Equal protection would scuttle your plan.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Equal protection would scuttle your plan.

DARN! You replied before I could edit it right. I pressed submit too soon! "0D

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Why does the constitution stop at legal gun ownership? It does so because it was created during the revolutionary war.

What correlation does gun ownership have to do with stopping a corrupted government in modern times?

Gun ownership relating to the protection against a corrupted government is farce in modern times. What worked in the revolutionary war is grossly outdated for today. If that was the case, countries like North Korea would stick to their guns as opposed to developing nuclear weapons.

IMO, the second amendment is now hurting us more than it is supposedly protecting us. IMO, the greater good is to limit gun ownership to those that can commit to the safety of themselves and others. IMO, the cost of gun ownership has to be much much higher so that we can enforce these safety measures. It is way to cheap in many aspects for various individuals to obtain a gun and effectively massacre people.

Gun ownership is not expensive anywhere, even in the UK if you have a licence you can buy a 7+1 pump action shot gun for around £150 to £700 In most domestic and crowd situations, I would be more scared of someone with a shot gun than a semi auto rifle. It is hard to miss with a shot gun and makes far more mess.

 

[suncowiam]

Gun ownership is not expensive anywhere, even in the UK if you have a licence you can buy a 7+1 pump action shot gun for around £150 to £700 In most domestic and crowd situations, I would be more scared of someone with a shot gun than a semi auto rifle. It is hard to miss with a shot gun and makes far more mess.

When I say costs, I actually mean many other factors than simply money.

Call it restrictions, if you will...

 

[suncowiam]

Owning something more than a tank is more involved, but doable in very special cases (a manufacturer).

I agree that we should take measures to prevent such shootings.

As it's been mentioned, I'm sure no one wants to see a massacre. It's how we would prevent it is the major difference.

I was trying to understand what measures you would implement to prevent a shooting if the constitution wasn't involved...

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I'm familiar with much of what you say.
But I plan to find out more.
By what process was your right to possess guns reduced?

Can't remember, but it has been a staged process to get where we are today.
In the late 1700's my family raised and armed its own regiment in northern Ireland.
The government disbanded such regiments in the 1800's.

Mostly such laws are parliamentary bills. if anyone is brave enough to defy the law and is prosecuted, provided they can take it as far as the supreme court, they may or may not win their case. That law then become either established or thrown out.
laws on gun control have never been thrown out.

At the present time Appeals can go the the European court of Justice. But they have never thrown out a gun law either.

Unlike your supreme court ours is totally non political (they are even banned from voting in elections) nor can they join political parties. None of our courts have a political element to them.

Interestingly all supreme court Judges are law lords and can sit in the house of lords on the cross (non political benches) They used to sit and hear appeals there. Only recently have they move out into a purpose built supreme court building. (But they can still sit in the lords.)

 

[Revoltingest]

As it's been mentioned, I'm sure no one wants to see a massacre. It's how we would prevent it is the major difference.

I was trying to understand what measures you would implement to prevent a shooting if the constitution wasn't involved...

That's a broad & complicated thing.
Easy stuff we can do now....
- Improved mental health services
- Secure storage requirements
- More comprehensive training requirements which escalate depending upon the type of gun & concealed carry
- Improved security, particularly for places which ban weapons
- Allowing willing & trained teachers to carry
- Better safety training for cops
- Better threat assessment & information handling by government
- Prosecution of cops who abuse the citizenry
- Liability insurance required for gun ownership
- Things I'll think of later