Can we please just admit that maybe gun control is a good idea finally?

Again, I said "traditional interpretation." In that interpretation the reference to a militia is an explanation, not a conditional clause. It's the equivalent to wording along the lines of "Congress can't restrict gun ownership." If that is your view then the Second Amendment makes the question irrelevant - you don't need a reason to own such a gun. In other words, the Second Amendment itself is the answer to the question of need.

As an aside, one thing I find interesting about the current gun control debate is how few states have moved to do anything. Yes, New York passed some restrictions and others are talking about it, but there doesn't seem to be much real movement on the issue on the whole. And states have a lot more flexibility on gun control then the feds do. For example, Washington State has a democratic governor and a traditionally democratically controlled House (though the Senate is marginally Republican controlled at the moment), and the legislature is in session, but I haven't heard a thing about any changes in state gun laws.

The constitution is a document of certain laws that, for whatever historical reason, it was decided/politically possible to make harder to get rid of than a regular law.

It doesn't, in itself, provide a modern rationale for why that law should continue to exist. The amendments themselves are a mixed bag, some are big, important human rights type enshrining in law things, others are boringly wonkish and technical, and one of them is for the prohibition of alcohol (which then subsequently has to be repealed by a later one which you would have thought was example enough as to why amendments are not immutable).

The idea that these things are sacred items that can just be intoned, as if the intoning was itself sufficient, strikes me as almost as ridiculous as having a vestigal monarchy.

And there are few things quite as ridiculous as that.

Wayne LaPierre says background check laws are stupid because criminals will ignore the law.

LOL.

Weren't there some stats earlier about how many crimes were committed with legally-procured weapons?

There were. And yet, those aren't needed because lawbreakers, by virtue of their definition, break the law. Many drugs are illegal, and yet many people still do those drugs. I will get behind the NRAs push to remove gun control laws when the NRA supports legalization of drugs.

Uh no. Heslin was testifying and the shouters were in the audience, it was not their turn to speak according to general rules of civil order and fucking decorum.
I don't know Slate's definition of "heckling" is but shouting at a person who has the floor is pretty much the definition. You go to a comedy show and answer Seinfeld with "Airlines need to cut corners in a competitive market in order to be financially viable!" you're not gonna get a hand shake and "Most Special Boy" award.

The NRA's argument is basically that we shouldn't have laws because criminals will break them anyways. Why have a law requiring a driver's license if criminals will just drive without one, etc etc.

It's a shit argument because it ignores the purpose of laws at all. And in this case blatantly ignores what it's targeting: gun resales with no verification that the buyer can purchase or own the item in question.

But raise your hand if you expected the NRA to actually support reasonable controls on gun ownership. Nobody? Okay then! Seriously, reasonable gun owners are NRA members in the US due to insurance and range restrictions that basically require a membership. Not loyalty.

I think it's important to highlight the degree to which this tragedy is representative of the exact world folks like Wayne LaPierre and those who carry water for him are working to create. The intersection of maximal firearm ownership, aggressive stoking of the worst paranoid impulses in the public, and laws designed to limit a firearm owner's responsibility to de-escalate confrontations are almost always going to lead to incidents like this.

Insofar as there's a "cultural problem" (which problem, of course, is just a fiction designed to steer discussion away from the actual problem of people getting shot) it's the degree to which gun owners feel empowered to use their weapons at the drop of a hat.

The update was why I posted the link.

In the context of answering a grieving father of a murdered child, shouting "2nd Amendment!" marks the respondents as callow, if one is feeling generous, and as assholes if one isn't.

Regardless, its pretty clear as Sarkus noted, that even in deeply blue states the appetite/courage for actually doing something meaningful does not exist. I suspect a tightening of background checks and possibly a closing of the gun show loophole is as much as can be hoped for. In the meantime, gun advocates will have to endure emotional testimony from grieving family members and the rare massacre survivor.

Sadly for for these brave and small dicked defenders against an imaginary tyranny, their policies will continue to manufacture grieving family members even as weapon and ammunition technologies make survivors an even rarer anomaly.

"2nd Amendment!" "2nd Amendment!"

This is basically asking the same question as to why you'd need a high-capacity magazine. Just because you have a right to do something doesn't mean it's always a good idea to exercise that right to its fullest. In a polite society, we've generally accepted that it's Not Okay (even if it's technically legal) to run around screaming obscenities at each other all day long. Because no one needs to do that to protect the right to free speech.

Does it suppress the First Amendment to ask rabid gun owners to SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT GUN SEIZURE since any idiot knows that's not going to happen

FWIW, alot of people argue that there are reasons for the comma's in the second amendment. And it is not saying that a "well regulated militia" has the right to bear arms, but that the "people" have that right, completely exclusive to the idea of any sort of militia.

I think the NRA and gun owners biggest fear is that this is just phase 1, or step 1 of a ongoing agenda to procedurally reduce the gun rights in the nation. Most people aren't crazy enough to think that the current debate is going to be about seizure of weapons. But when Biden himself comes out and says that the current AWB propositions aren't really going to solve much of anything, it gets people wondering what really is the purpose, point, and end game here.

And I thought the general consensus of this thread was that an AWB wasn't going to prevent these mass shootings, and probably wouldn't have prevented what occurring at Sandy Hook from happening (talking about if he had no access to a military "style" rifle, not that he had a grandfathered weapon), so the only realistic thing that could prevent these mass shootings and all of the gun murder in the U.S. was eventual removal of the guns from our nation?

Okay.

There's a brand-spanking-new mass shooting in Phoenix.

How long before we acknowledge the REAL cause of this, which is that Obama is threatening to take people's guns so they are rushing to get their mass shootings done????

No children were shot, won't be a national conversation.

(Ever feel like the cynical part of you should be wrong more often than it actually is?)

Okay, how about this one?

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...obamas-inauguration-shot-dead-in-chicago?lite

Well that's part of the problem, isn't it? The things that will likely work (licenses, mandatory classes) are a part of a longer game (arguably) and sadly, seem "too soft." And I would argue with you about what people think. I guarantee you a not-insignificant percentage of people think the government is going to try to seize weaponry. In fairness the talk of this panel to seize guns from "substantive threats" could be fueling it, but I am willing to bet a lot of people don't even know about that panel.

Furthermore, wondering about the endgame is certainly important but also potentially self-defeating if it is predicated on flawed logic or poor guesswork. Because what we're saying is, a lobby as powerful as the NRA is, with the ability to suppress the initiation of actual research on gun violence much less merely suppressing the results is not powerful enough to stop the government from wholesale gun seizure, which in itself would constitute the most egregious defiance of the Constitution since I don't know, ever? And is logistically borderline impossible, to boot. So if you're going to take to the Faceboo^H^H^H^Hstreets and rage about it, you just look like an uninformed tool who by default is saying no measure of gun control will be acceptable.

The general consensus of this thread is that all weapons need to be removed from the public hands? Not remotely. The only consensus I have seen so far is that the loose restrictions on gun control in the US has set up an extremely untenable situation for how and where we can go to help prevent gun violence and whereas AWBs and similar initiatives may be worthless, people blaming video games are extra worthless.

A lot of people argue that the earth is 6000 years old. They're wrong, too.

The comma is there because the first clause is a nominative absolute, which modifies the rest of the sentence.
Here's another example of a nominative absolute sentence: "We'll meet on Friday, weather permitting." Would you argue that we'll meet on Friday, completely exclusive to any weather?

Only a grammatical ignoramus would argue that the nominative absolute has no bearing on the rest of the sentence.

The feel good bullshit (bans on weapon looks, cops in schools) are basically the public opinion bill being used to attach actual reforms to (universal background checks, gun show loophole, hopefully a registration and tracking system for resales)

It's just how shit gets done. Mass murders of children get people up in arms that something must change, and the icon of it is the military looking rifle we all see in movies. The actual problem isn't premeditated mass murder as much as the constant drum of small scale killings and the difficulty in prosecuting the shit that enables it, like being able to bypass a background check by the most transparent straw purchasing imaginable.

So any and all efforts at even the mildest and sanest of gun regulation leads to total confiscation of guns, while at the same time completely useless?

Sure there isn't maybe some middle ground there? Naahhhh, your right.

"2nd Amendment!" "2nd Amendment!"

Correct. In addition, I'd like someone to explain to me exactly what the first two clauses mean if the last clause is an independent, complete thought. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" and . . .?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" . . . what?

Nope, not at all. Further back in the thread I have mentioned that I am pretty much fully in favor of all of the proponents of Obama's EO propositions. These are just the ones I remember off the top of my head.
Further enforcing the laws? Yes.
Closing the gun show loophole and private sale loophole, enforcing background checks and proper gun transfers of firearms? Yes
Allowing schools to spend money towards security? Absolutely
National firearms safety? Yes!
School resource officers? Yes
Pushes towards more mental health? Yes


But I'm not too keen on things I don't see as being at all effective (my opinion), and just seem like blissfully ignorant shots in the dark at a much more prominent problem in gun violence.
Banning guns that account for a minuscule amount of the murders in the U.S. because they look scary? No
Banning aspects of guns that moreso make them look scary than really affect their capabilities (for better or worse)? No
Banning high capacity magazines because of the rare outliers that happen to use them in crime? No

More than anything, it's a Rights thing for me, not as much a gun thing for me. I want to hang on to every single right we have in this great nation.

I agree with you that we should skip to the point and ban handguns. Let's go ahead and not grandfather any in, either.

Meanwhile, in Chicago, we're tackling the problem of school shootings head on: by acclimatising kids to the sound of gunfire. By marching through the corridoors firing blanks.

As ever, US gun policy satirises itself.

How about the alternative: banning all detachable magazines, reduce spree shooters to hand feeding or stripper clips in order to put a damper on ability to constantly have the weapon in battery?

No? Didn't think so.

Wat.

Of all the non-solutions to a problem... this is probably right up there with "arm everyone."

Chicago also to set shit on fire during fire drills and hire creepy 40 year old men to pose as pedophiles offering free candy

lol wow, yeah I would worry that fake firearms going off would just give the kids nightmares or make them paranoid. Especially the younger ones, I imagine it wouldn't have much of a negative effect on high schoolers, but even then some people may develop anxiety issues related to loud noises like sirens and alarms going off all the time, or fake gun shots of course....

I'd imagine some of the inner city kids in bad neighborhoods in Chicago are already well accustomed the sound of gunfire...

How is a shooter drill any different than a fire drill?

I think in the case of deadly object the "whys" should outweigh the "why nots"
Why: Because you can
Why not: more people will die

Only one dead kid? You'll have to do better than that.

Note the date on that article. I think the Onion writers are witches.

You don't light a controllable fire in the school during a fire drill.

The drill is to get people acclimated to the act of finding a safe place to be. The indicator if it not being a drill is, you know, the gunfire.

I'd think the issue with shooter drills involving actual shooting would be to make kids think shooting is a drill. Much the way that the fire alarm going off makes people think "oh god, the system is being tested/broken again" not "HOLY SHIT OUT NOW"

And the indicator that it is a drill?
The fire procedure, real or a drill, is triggered by the fire alarm. There is no "shooter alarm".

Also, thanks to proper drills kids don't fear a fire like they do things they have no experience with. The last thing they need during a real emergency is some kids freezing up and trying to decide whether the alarm going off is a Shooter A Flat that says hide in the classroom, or a Fire B Sharp that says run out in the hall.

You have truly earned your forum title of Herpus Derpus.

I still think Canada does it better -- mandatory gun safety course and background check (criminal, mental, etc.) when you apply for your gun license. There's no waiting period or background checks at the point of sale since it was already done before hand. You just need to make sure the purchaser has a valid license.

There needs to be!

I predict less than 24 hours until conservative whackjobs post YouTube videos proclaiming this a "false flag" operation, and less than 7 days until some of the same write articles and videos asking whether, perhaps, Obama himself fired the fatal bullet, personally. "I'm just asking the question! Is it possible?"

Isn't that what gun fire is?

Only insomuch as the sound of a fire burning is a fire alarm. No, a shooter alarm needs to be some sort of siren, and the school should have lights that flash, a different color than the fire alarm.