Yes, there were more children killed in school shootings this year than on-duty police.

[Clizby Wampuscat]

All government powers are ripe for abuse.
Continual vigilance is absolutely necessary.
But red flag laws could help reduce the carnage,
& thereby avert the gun grabbers gutting the 2nd
Amendment.

I am not against red flag laws. I just want them to be well defined. I don't see anyone that can institute these laws talking about the specifics. That worries me.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm frustrated that the good policies that Democrats put forth to help reform problems do not get republican support. This is not the fault of Democrats, it is the fault of republicans whose vision for America is more authoritarian and less justice. From gun access to police reform to social investment, Republicans don't want it. Unless citizens stop voting for politicians who have a toxic vision for America what we have today is as good as it's going to be, and likely worse.

Always the other side, eh. I blame both.
Sure, they have their differences in abusing civilians.
But is Biden backing down on his ramping up civil
forfeiture abuse? No....he's silent, which is tacit
approval of the hideous status quo. Even in
states run by Democrats, cops get to keep most
of what they take from people, even if not convicted
of a crime. Essentially, armed robbery by cops is legal.

The courts have been packed by conservatives, and they seem more interested in some idealistic and unrealistic vision for the USA than being a stable and regulated society. I say regulated to include police, where citizens rights (not just gun rights) actually mean something.

I doubt much will be changed in the USA until bad things happen to more and more people, from the money you have in your pocket for a car you're buying that gets confiscated to more kids being murdered in their class rooms. Our system needs to emphasize responsibility. If you aren't a responsible citizen, your rights get limited, and that means cops, too. You're a bad cop, you lose your job.

We need bad things to happen to politically powerful
Dems & Pubs. Then things might rapidly change.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am not against red flag laws. I just want them to be well defined. I don't see anyone that can institute these laws talking about the specifics. That worries me.

We should always be wary when giving
government any new powers over us.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Given that people need to demonstrate they are responsible citizens they should make sure they understand what that means. I see many conservatives talk about rights, but almost nothing about the responsibility those rights require of a citizen. There's no right to be irresponsible. And too many people are treating rights as something they don't have to respect or account for. Rights are a relationship between the individual and the society they are part of. The "it's all about me" attitude is more and more a problem.

Do you disagree that rights require a person understand themselves and their place in a society, and that it is a responsibility?

How does this answer my question about what is the criteria for removing gun rights to a person?

Well the repeal of the 2nd Amendment would do it. It's one sentence. And the first part states that the right exists for well regulated militias for the security of the state. Trying to carve out a right that has to cut up a sentence to accomplish that is very questionable.

Sure, good luck with that. I was asking specifically about red flag laws.

]The conservatives do. Scalia's Heller opinion made a new right by breaking the 2nd amendment into two pieces, and ignoring the first part of it. This is why we need to be careful who we elect, and who gets nominated. This whole originalist interpretation is very weak to my mind. We live in 2022, not 1789. Different world, different weapons.

It did not make a new right. It acknowledged we always had the right to own a gun.

Why is no one talking about why people pick up a gun to kill others? That is the real issue. If we can solve that then we don't need to restrict gun ownership.

 

[tytlyf]

Why is no one talking about why people pick up a gun to kill others? That is the real issue. If we can solve that then we don't need to restrict gun ownership.

You'll never be able to solve that. Evil people and their ways have been around for thousands of years. That's not going to change.
What you don't do is give evil people easy access to firearms.
Firearms embolden the evil and give them the confidence/courage to do evil things.

The 2A intent was to make the people of the nation be the army, in place of a standing army.
Since there is a standing army today, one could argue that the 2A is irrelevant.
The 2A shouldn't mean every person should easily be able to own any firearms of their choice.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Well, given that there are 60 million school children and 325,000 policemen, you are definitely much safer as a school child.

Being a policemen will make you 180 times more likely to be shot and killed.

That's technically true, but consider that 325,000 policefolk are specifically put into situations where gun dangers are most likely to happen. It makes sense that policefolk would be killed more often.

The 60 million schoolchildren aren't specifically put into situations where gun dangers are most likely to happen. So the numbers, while favorable to schoolchildren percentage wise, is still shocking.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

You'll never be able to solve that. Evil people and their ways have been around for thousands of years. That's not going to change.
What you don't do is give evil people easy access to firearms.
Firearms embolden the evil and give them the confidence/courage to do evil things.

How do you do that? There are over 400 million guns in the US. There will be guns available for a long time after any new laws are instituted.

The 2A intent was to make the people of the nation be the army, in place of a standing army.
Since there is a standing army today, one could argue that the 2A is irrelevant.
The 2A shouldn't mean every person should easily be able to own any firearms of their choice.

Ok, then you need to amend the constitution or get the supreme court to reverse its decision.

 

[tytlyf]

How do you do that? There are over 400 million guns in the US. There will be guns available for a long time after any new laws are instituted.

Gun buyback program would be a start.

Ok, then you need to amend the constitution or get the supreme court to reverse its decision.

Felons have lost their 2A rights. An amendment isn't required.

People need to realize that weapons manufacturers have a lot of power in DC. They're trying to protect profits by doing nothing on common sense gun laws.
The only reason Republicans are against changing laws is to protect these corporations.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Gun buyback program would be a start.

I am ok with that, as long as it is voluntary.

Felons have lost their 2A rights. An amendment isn't required.

You do for the other things that you listed.

People need to realize that weapons manufacturers have a lot of power in DC. They're trying to protect profits by doing nothing on common sense gun laws.
The only reason Republicans are against changing laws is to protect these corporations.

Give me evidence that this is the only reason republicans are against some gun laws.

 

[tytlyf]

Give me evidence that this is the only reason republicans are against some gun laws.

It's the Republican party. Their policies are corporate driven. That's the whole purpose of the NRA.
It's the same reason the Republican party denies climate science. Corporate driven.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

It's the Republican party. Their policies are corporate driven. That's the whole purpose of the NRA.
It's the same reason the Republican party denies climate science. Corporate driven.

There is no evidence here only claims. This was your claim:

The only reason Republicans are against changing laws is to protect these corporations.

Where is your evidence for it?

 

[Revoltingest]

We ain't got no badges evidence.
We don't need no badges evidence.
I don't have to show you any stinking badges evidence.

For those unfamiliar with The Treasure Of The Sierra Madre...

 

[tytlyf]

There is no evidence here only claims. This was your claim:

Where is your evidence for it?

Evidence that Republicans are against any laws that restrict the purchase of firearms?
Aren't their own words enough?

 

[esmith]

Evidence that Republicans are against any laws that restrict the purchase of firearms?
Aren't their own words enough?

Wouldn't that be in favor of the citizens....oh I forgot you needle is stuck.

 

[tytlyf]

Wouldn't that be in favor of the citizens....oh I forgot you needle is stuck.

Votes and profits. That's all they care about.

 

[tytlyf]

Where is your evidence for it?

The amount of money these corporations give to Republicans.
Why else would weapons manufacturers donate so much money to Republicans?

Gun Rights vs Gun Control

 

[F1fan]

How does this answer my question about what is the criteria for removing gun rights to a person?

I'm not sure there is any state that allows a felon to own a gun. rights are lost when a person shows criminal behavior. As far as confiscation of guns from people who exhibit threatening behavior, this is an authority any community can employ for public safety. Public safety is one major purpose of our governments. Our societies function better when we feel safe. If a person acts in a way that threatens others then the authorities can act to protect the community. Are you having a problem with this authority and action by the community? Remember, assault includes threats of harm against another person, and most levels of assault are felonies.

Are you a sovereign citizen, or agree with that set of ideas?

It did not make a new right. It acknowledged we always had the right to own a gun.

Don't forget the "well regulated militia" part of the basis for that right. Did you deliberately ignore that part of the 2nd amendment? Scalia did. And he's gotten a lot of criticism for it. For one, he claims to be an originalist yet he ignored the first half of the sentence of the 2nd amendment completely. He made a new right by interpreting the sentence in a way that ignores the "well regulated militia" part. And of course the right wing has a gun fetish, and they applaud this opinion.

Oddly Scalia also said that gun rights can be limited. So that leaves wiggle room for legislation to limit who gets guns and what types.

Why is no one talking about why people pick up a gun to kill others? That is the real issue. If we can solve that then we don't need to restrict gun ownership.

There has been quite a bit claiming mental illness. But data suggests the mentally ill tend to take their own lives more than kill others. I suggest a major reason is part cultural and part just a lack of emphasis on education, mental health, and maturity. The USA is more and more a nation of feral citizens who have less and less emotional intelligence. Yet the right wing wants more guns in the hands of these immature people as if the consequences will be more safety and security. The opposite is happening with more teachers, mothers, and children afraid to be in schools.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Evidence that Republicans are against any laws that restrict the purchase of firearms?
Aren't their own words enough?

No, evidence of this claim:

The only reason Republicans are against changing laws is to protect these corporations.

If you listen to what they say this is not the only reason they are against some gun laws. They are not against all laws either. Most republicans are for background checks, violent convicted criminals should not get guns etc.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

The amount of money these corporations give to Republicans.
Why else would weapons manufacturers donate so much money to Republicans?

Gun Rights vs Gun Control

Because some dems want to take away gun rights, they have openly said this. Republicans want to keep gun rights. It's pretty simple. But the idea that republicans only want to thwart laws because of this is demonstrably wrong. Plenty of republicans are for gun restrictions. Heck, Trump even banned bumpstocks. They have other reason for opposing gun confiscation or other gun control laws.

Tens of millions flows into dems politicians from pro abortion lobbyists. That does not mean that all dems are pro choice only because of this money.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I'm not sure there is any state that allows a felon to own a gun rights are lost when a person shows criminal behavior.

Where are you getting this from? I have said felons should not own guns.

As far as confiscation of guns from people who exhibit threatening behavior, this is an authority any community can employ for public safety. Public safety is one major purpose of our governments. Our societies function better when we feel safe. If a person acts in a way that threatens others then the authorities can act to protect the community. Are you having a problem with this authority and action by the community? Remember, assault includes threats of harm against another person, and most levels of assault are felonies.

I have no problem with this idea. I have a problem that no one has defined how this will be done. It has a high potential for abuse.

Are you a sovereign citizen, or agree with that set of ideas?

I am not a sovereign citizen. I just want a system that is just ad fair if we are talking about taking away gun rights.

Don't forget the "well regulated militia" part of the basis for that right. Did you deliberately ignore that part of the 2nd amendment? Scalia did. And he's gotten a lot of criticism for it. For one, he claims to be an originalist yet he ignored the first half of the sentence of the 2nd amendment completely. He made a new right by interpreting the sentence in a way that ignores the "well regulated militia" part. And of course the right wing has a gun fetish, and they applaud this opinion.

Oddly Scalia also said that gun rights can be limited. So that leaves wiggle room for legislation to limit who gets guns and what types.

Ok. Think what you want but if you want to deny gun rights to individuals you need a new amendment or a new supreme court ruling.

There has been quite a bit claiming mental illness. But data suggests the mentally ill tend to take their own lives more than kill others. I suggest a major reason is part cultural and part just a lack of emphasis on education, mental health, and maturity. The USA is more and more a nation of feral citizens who have less and less emotional intelligence. Yet the right wing wants more guns in the hands of these immature people as if the consequences will be more safety and security. The opposite is happening with more teachers, mothers, and children afraid to be in schools.

Young men are having issues in this country. They are being left behind academically and emotionally and no one seems to care. There are organizations supporting every race, gender, sexual orientation except white males. White males are told they are the problem and are not being invested in. Do you think this could be a factor?

The men America left behind

And of course the right wing has a gun fetish, and they applaud this opinion.

Do you really care about solving the issue? If you do you need to change the minds of others. Do you think this type of rhetoric is helpful for your cause?