The only gun control solution

[44 AMP]

A point to consider, we have had set, legal standards for things since the founding of the nation (and before) and one of the good things about the concept of liberty is the fact that until you cross the legal line, you have done no wrong and are the same as every other law abiding citizen in the country.

Sure, 20/20 hindsight shows several times when people who went on to commit evil were "known" to the authorities, but had not done enough to cross the set lines, which is different from having crossed the legal line and the system failing to be aware of it.

It's not yet the law that one can deny constitutional rights to someone who is creepy, or scary, or weird, or just ...too different.

and I don't think it should be.

Time after time after time after time, we're seeing murder and mass murder done by people who had passed every check, and gave no outward indicators of evil intent gong on killing sprees. This is along with individuals who had been indentified as troubled, but not troubled enough to have action taken.

It's almost enough to consider demonic possession as a possibilty.

Whatever the actual cause, there's seldom anything concrete enough to take action to prevent these modern day kamikazes, out to deal death then kill themselves.

Of course we all want to prevent it, but until mind reading becomes valid in court, we can't even find the airfields these kamikazes are taking off from, let alone bomb them to prevent them taking off.

SO, what's left? What did the navy do in WWII? Fighter patrols and AA guns on ships. Not 100% effective but it was something and did stop many.

SO, what's to be done about the "fighter patrols" being defunded or even ordered not to engage, and our AA guns are being banned (if they can get the votes)...

Doing things like that means you can't stop the ones you can identify, and we can't identify them as enemy until they take off...

No, its not a good analogy, but what else fits even that closely??

Not the media reporting or the current administration's agenda, so far, that's for sure.

[Mainah]

Since the person IS the real problem, does anyone have a suggestion how to identify a potential criminal before a violent act occurs?

We've tried that, not many people realize how popular the concept of eugenics was in the United States just 100 years ago. IMO it's scarier than gun control.

[101combatvet]

Originally Posted by Mainah

We've tried that, not many people realize how popular the concept of eugenics was in the United States just 100 years ago. IMO it's scarier than gun control.

About 29% of the US population has some kind of mental illness from mild to severe. Just look at some of the garbage that comes out of our elected official's mouths for proof. Seriously, some of these people are insane.

[s3779m]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

There is another solution, besides executing "gun criminals" or total banning of firearms, but it is also unacceptable to the public in general.

That "solution" would be a simple complete "hands off" by the legal system of the people who SHOOT BACK!

It would be messy, it would be, for a time, bloody, and yes many innocent people would suffer (but aren't they suffering today??)

But consider this, that over time, if it were allowed (let alone encouraged) bad guys would learn that if they went out shooting people for fun or profit, someone would shoot them. Not try and arrest them, just shoot them dead. Maybe shoot them in the back, or from cover, or...?? Maybe multiple someones would shoot them....

And THEN call the police to "police up the body"...

It would be bad, nd the streets would run with blood...for a time
AFTER that, I think we'd see a lot less of gun violence or any other kind.

Can't do it today, but it did work in the past, and there's even evidence it would work today, if we, as a people, were willing to pay the cost.

Consider that the majority of the killers are not willing or interested in doing their killing where people are armed and could shoot back. (death seeking jihadiists are a different matter)

After Florida passed its "shall issue" carry permit laws, there was an interesting change in the crime rate. Crimes against Florida residents decreased, crimes against tourists went up. Seems the bad guys were watching people's license plates and could be sure that out of state plates meant the people were unlikely to be armed, while Florida plates meant they couldn't be sure...

These people, overwhelmingly target people they believe cannot defend themselves. If we change that, we change everything.

I agree with what you are saying for the most part. A couple of exceptions, gang wars. For the most part, they are left alone to continue shooting each other up now. If caught, prison seems to just be a temporary stoppage to be continued after a short pause. This is also an area when people talk of gun control, this group never seems to be a part of the discussion, as in how do we get the illegal guns out of the gangs. Another exception is the person who is committing suicide by police, or the mass shooter who plans on killing himself before capture. I would enjoy seeing the politician who speaks out standing up for the rights of the law abiding citizens, the rights to protect themselves and others. We can get there, starts at the ballot box. One think for sure, robbery and personal assaults would go way down. A law abiding citizen would be more likely to be free to walk where they wanted.

[cdoc42]

" I would enjoy seeing the politician who speaks out standing up for the rights of the law abiding citizens, the rights to protect themselves and others. We can get there, starts at the ballot box. One think for sure, robbery and personal assaults would go way down. A law abiding citizen would be more likely to be free to walk where they wanted."

That certainly strikes a cord of agreement with me, s3779m. The major media have completely flipped the concept of who is the victim vs the perpetrator.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by s3779m

I would enjoy seeing the politician who speaks out standing up for the rights of the law abiding citizens, the rights to protect themselves and others. We can get there, starts at the ballot box.

There has been a very definite shift away from respect for the 2A in recent years, and that applies to politicians of both parties.

In 1982, the 97th Congress became interested in the Bill of Rights, and they established a joint subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary to study the issue. One of the products of this subcommittee was a report on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The subcommittee was headed by Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R) and Representative Dennis DeConcini (D). Each of those gentlemen wrote a preface to the report. From Hatch's preface:

This is not to imply that courts have totally ignored the impact of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. No fewer than twenty-one decisions by the courts of our states have recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms, and a majority of these have not only recognized the right but invalidated laws or regulations which abridged it. Yet in all too many instances, courts or commentators have sought, for reasons only tangentially related to constitutional history, to construe this right out of existence. They argue that the Second Amendment's words "right of the people" mean "a right of the state" — apparently overlooking the impact of those same words when used in the First and Fourth Amendments. The "right of the people" to assemble or to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is not contested as an individual guarantee. Still they ignore consistency and claim that the right to "bear arms" relates only to military uses. This not only violates a consistent constitutional reading of "right of the people" but also ignores that the second amendment protects a right to "keep" arms. These commentators contend instead that the amendment's preamble regarding the necessity of a "well regulated militia... to a free state" means that the right to keep and bear arms applies only to a National Guard. Such a reading fails to note that the Framers used the term "militia" to relate to every citizen capable of bearing arms, and that Congress has established the present National Guard under its power to raise armies, expressly stating that it was not doing so under its power to organize and arm the militia.
. . .
When I became chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, I hoped that I would be able to assist in the protection of the constitutional rights of American citizens, rights which have too often been eroded in the belief that government could be relied upon for quick solutions to difficult problems. Both as an American citizen and as a United States Senator I repudiate this view. I likewise repudiate the approach of those who believe to solve American problems you simply become something other than American. To my mind, the uniqueness of our free institutions, the fact that an American citizen can boast freedoms unknown in any other land, is all the more reason to resist any erosion of our individual rights. When our ancestors forged a land "conceived in liberty", they did so with musket and rifle. When they reacted to attempts to dissolve their free institutions, and established their identity as a free nation, they did so as a nation of armed freemen. When they sought to record forever a guarantee of their rights, they devoted one full amendment out of ten to nothing but the protection of their right to keep and bear arms against government interference. Under my chairmanship the Subcommittee on the Constitution will concern itself with a proper recognition of, and respect for, this right most valued by free men.

I respectfully submit that it would be difficult to find even a Republican senator today who would say or write something this clear.

DeConcini, a Democrat, was far more "nuanced" in his preface. Yet even he recognized the history of the 2A:

The right to bear arms is a tradition with deep roots in American society. Thomas Jefferson proposed that "no free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms, " and Samuel Adams called for an amendment banning any law "to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. " The Constitution of the State of Arizona, for example, recognizes the "right of an individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State. "

The report then goes into a detailed discussion of the right to keep and bear arms, starting with Alfred the Great in 872 A.D. The report includes a number of statements submitted by outside parties, including the NRA, but from the actual body of the report we find the following statements:

The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms therefore, is a right of the individual citizen to privately posses and carry in a peaceful manner firearms and similar arms. Such an "individual rights" interpretation is in full accord with the history of the right to keep and bear arms, as previously discussed. It is moreover in accord with contemporaneous statements and formulations of the right by such founders of this nation as Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams, and accurately reflects the majority of the proposals which led up to the Bill of Rights itself. A number of state constitutions, adopted prior to or contemporaneously with the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights, similarly provided for a right of the people to keep and bear arms.
. . .
Finally, the individual rights interpretation gives full meaning to the words chosen by the first Congress to reflect the right to keep and bear arms. The framers of the Bill of Rights consistently used the words "right of the people" to reflect individual rights — as when these words were used to recognize the "right of the people" to peaceably assemble, and the "right of the people" against unreasonable searches and seizures. They distinguished between the rights of the people and of the state in the Tenth Amendment.
. . .
That the National Guard is not the "Militia" referred to in the second amendment is even clearer today. Congress has organized the National Guard under its power to "raise and support armies" and not its power to "Provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia".
. . .
The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.

Over the years since I first learned of this document, I have seen it posted on government web sites, then disappear from the government's web sites, then reappear somewhere else, then be reposted again in yet another location. The last link I had to it was not to a government web site but to The Constitution Society -- as of today, that link no longer leads to a copy of the report. If you can find a copy, I strongly urge you to download it and make a back-up, because it is apparent (to me) that "the usual suspects" do not want us to be aware that a joint committee of the Congress issued a formal report affirming the individual right nature of the 2A twenty-plus years before Heller. Yet this report was produced by a subcommittee of the Congress and should be available to us as a public record.

I can't imagine a bi-partisan, bi-cameral committee of the Congress writing this report today.

Update: I found a working link -- but not at the gubmint: https://constitution.org/1-Activism/mil/rkba82.pdf

This link is to the full version, with the attachments and all the references. Get it while you can.

FWIW, this link to the Constitution Society takes you to a page full of links to articles discussing the Constitution, Bill of Rights, the 2A, and issues relating thereto such as the Militia. These should be required reading for all of us:
https://constitution.org/1-Education/cs_defen.htm

[Aguila Blanca]

^^^ I forgot to mention: Guess who was a member of the subcommittee that produced this report ...

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware

[Pistoler0]

Aguila, you are such a wealth of erudite knowledge on these 2A constitutional matters, what an interesting post to read!

[Pistoler0]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

<<Posted by Pistoler0: But if with the AR they kill 17 and with the lever action they kill 10, why not ban the lever action too? >>

This is entirely the wrong way to look at it, and assumes that the correct response to murder is to ban the tool used (the anti gunner's point) and all that's left is to decide what the acceptable body count will be.

One is too many, but banning lawful ownership and use of things we have a natural and constitutionally protected right to own due to the misuse of same by criminal individuals is simply the wrong answer.

44Amp that is the point that I was trying to make in the previous posts.

That if the AR is so lethal and with it a deranged user could kill say 20 people, and thus they'd want to ban it, then they would also want to ban the lever action, which would kill a few less, say 17. Then they'd also have to consider the repeating shot gun which could kill 8, and they would ban it too. And a bolt action with a magazine can probably kill 5 in a go, so wouldn't they have to ban it too?

Where is the line at which you stop banning things?

Yes, banning the tool is not the solution, I agree with you.

[44 AMP]

We made what, looking back on it, now appears to have been a large error, and that was expecting the gun banners to recognize and accept logic when it was pointed out to them. They do not.

They want to ban "A" and we point out that "A" is essentially the same as "B" and "C", which they say they are ok with. We expected them to say "oh, alright, we'll forget about banning "A"....

They didn't do that. They just decided that since we say they're the same thing, then "B" nd "C" need to be added to their want to ban list.

They won't be happy until they get what they think they want, and if they ever do get it, they won't be happy then, either.

All we really want is to be left alone, and that doesn't make them happy, either.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by Pistoler0

Where is the line at which you stop banning things?

Yes, banning the tool is not the solution, I agree with you.

When they can not repudiate the foundational worldview which spawns the actions, can not because it is their own worldview, they are left no choice but to ban the implement.

"Normal" people have empathy and compassion which cause them to reject the stone-cold, purely logical conclusions which are the inevitable consequence of the worldview, yet the "broken" tiny minority have no such impetus.

You can't prevent "access" to the conclusion, so you must attempt to prevent access to the tools used to carry out the conclusion.

Futile? Yes, but what choice do they have?

[Aguila Blanca]

Aguila, you are such a wealth of erudite knowledge on these 2A constitutional matters, what an interesting post to read!

Wait 'til you read the report.

While you're downloading, see if you can also download a copy of the 2004 Department of Justice report:
https://www.justice.gov/sites/defaul...v028-p0126.pdf

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by Brian Pfleuger

You can't prevent "access" to the conclusion, so you must attempt to prevent access to the tools used to carry out the conclusion.

Futile? Yes, but what choice do they have?

How about the choice (and right) for people to be armed so they can defend themselves?

[Pistoler0]

Originally Posted by ATN082268

How about the choice (and right) for people to be armed so they can defend themselves?

Yes, but unless we are vigilant, this is not guaranteed.

Mexico, for instance, has a "right to keep and bear arms" in Article 10 of its constitution. Yet with reforms it was later construed to apply only within the home, and later it was deemed not to apply to "military weapons". They classified ALL weapons as military weapons, and only 22lr is allowed there now (with permits). Original Article 10 (1857):

"Article 10: Every man has the right to keep and to carry arms for his security and legitimate defense. The law will indicate which arms are prohibited and the penalty for those who would carry them."

Mexico's right to bear arms and gun regulation

Mexico has a very similar history to that of the USA, and in this case we can truly say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. But in the current push for limiting 2A rights, it is US who is imitating them! A quote from that Wikipedia article:


"Contemporary Mexican society experiences gun homicide at a higher rate than many other nations,[14] despite strict gun laws. Firearms have played a significant role in the History of Mexico, and the country was founded with a strong presence and adhesion to arms, though Mexico has a long history of passing gun restriction laws. Mexican Golden Age films often depicted the protagonists and antagonists as gun-slinging cowboys and charros [..].

It was through the means of armed combat that Mexico achieved its independence from Spain. From then on, the course of history was marked by several armed conflicts, including the American (1846–48) and French (1861–67) conflicts, as well as indigenous struggles due to the several forms of government that ruled over Mexican territory, culminating with the Mexican Revolution (1910–20) and the Cristero War (1926–29).

By the 1960s, the government modified Article 10 of the Constitution and enacted the Federal Law of Firearms and Explosives, limiting gun ownership to small-caliber handguns, heavily restricting the right to carry outside the homeplace and ending a cultural attachment to firearms by shutting down gun stores, outlawing the private sale of firearms, and closing down public shooting facilities. "

My point: having the 2A is not enough. If we are not constantly vigilant, and educate other people about it, our rights will be little by little taken away despite the 2A

[44 AMP]

The law will indicate which arms are prohibited and the penalty for those who would carry them."

I find this to be quite dissimilar to our 2nd Amendment's "shall not be infringed".

The statement in Mexican law essentially authorizes their government to determine what, if any, arms are legal, while the "shall not be infringed" in US law is a prohibition on the government from doing that.

I think that is a big difference.

True, the US has not been 100% successful in keeping to "shall not be infringed" but that is a different matter than having the lawful authority to "infringe" to any amount they wish, that the Mexican govt has.

[Pistoler0]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

True, the US has not been 100% successful in keeping to "shall not be infringed" but that is a different matter than having the lawful authority to "infringe" to any amount they wish, that the Mexican govt has.

Agreed, but you can look at it from the other way: despite our 2A's "shall not be infringed" the National Firearms Act (1934) (still in effect) and the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994) (expired) did exactly that: infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.

So apparently our constitutional guarantee is worth even less than the Mexican since at least our neighbors reserved a right for their government to prohibit certain arms (although not all of them which is what they did!) and so this country tramples on its right even more blatantly than our neighbor does.

I think that if we do not stay vigilant, the 2A guarantees will be stripped away one bit at a time.

[Pistoler0]

Originally Posted by cdoc42

As I see it, there are only two possibilities that will result in a reduction in deaths caused by guns.

1) Total confiscation and the abolition of ownership of any gun.

2) The use of the death penalty in cases of any type of criminal use of a gun.
This includes brandishing a gun in the course of a crime, so injury or death of another human being is not the ultimate criterion.


So-does anyone want to opine?

I have two "gun control" solutions to add to your first two, which I think would be more effective:

3) Make firearms training part of the required curriculum in junior-high and in high school. (after all, isn't "sex ed" mandatory? )
4) "constitutional carry" for the whole of the US

[Aguila Blanca]

I find this to be quite dissimilar to our 2nd Amendment's "shall not be infringed".

The statement in Mexican law essentially authorizes their government to determine what, if any, arms are legal, while the "shall not be infringed" in US law is a prohibition on the government from doing that.

I think that is a big difference.

I agree. That's not just a "big" difference. That's H-U-G-E

[natman]

Originally Posted by Pistoler0

I have two "gun control" solutions to add to your first two, which I think would be more effective:

3) Make firearms training part of the required curriculum in junior-high and in high school. (after all, isn't "sex ed" mandatory? )
4) "constitutional carry" for the whole of the US

The lack of firearms training at the proper age is a large factor in the improper use of guns.

I remember when a police officer came to my elementary school and held a gun safety lecture.

Nowadays in California there is mandatory sex education in middle school, because the kids are going to have to deal with the issue and it's best if they are informed beforehand.

There is mandatory drug education in middle school, because the kids are going to have to deal with the issue and it's best if they are informed beforehand.

Try to hold an Eddie the Eagle gun safety demonstration at school and the parents would riot, because guns are evil, evil, evil and apparently having the kids remain ignorant is the best policy.

I guess they figure the kids will never have to deal with it.

[Skans]

Here's my opinion:

1. Repeal the Hughes Amendment
2. Make silencers non-gun items, like barrels and trigger systems
3. Repeal the '89 Import ban
4. Pass a law that preempts state imposed assault weapons bans making them illegal.
5. Offer de-commissioned military pistols, rifles, other arms to citizens as an option to be part of their tax refund.

This is what I call a "pro-gun" agenda and pro-gun laws. And, that is what I want.

[44 AMP]

The people suggesting education about firearms have a point, that solution only affects accidental shootings. and those are not the huge problem they are made out to be, swimming pools and Dr mistakes cause more deaths than gun accidents these days.

Our problem, and the one pushing the current gun control drive are DELIBERATE SHOOTINGS. Not people shot because someone didn't know enough about the gun to be safe, but people who do know how to operate the gun and CHOOSE to shoot other people.

The problem is NOT that there are guns, or how "easy" they are to obtain, but how "easily" people decide to shoot other people.

"Assault weapons" (as defined by the anti's) have been on the civilian market for over half a century, semi autos have been on the market for well over a century. And they were more easily available back then than they are today (no FFL dealers, no background checks, no waiting periods, just pay the man and take your gun home.

SO what is different today? Besides more restrictions than we used to have, shootings (and killings) are going UP. Not because guns are more available (they are less so), not because guns are more "deadly" today (they aren't), I think its because more and more people simply don't give a snit about anything other than their own desires, don't fear the consequences and in many cases actively seek death as the culmination of their shooting rampage.

Throughout history there is one fact all those who protect others agree on, the attacker who is prepared or even seeking to give their own life during the attack is the most difficult to stop or prevent.

The only real solution won't come through gun control of any kind, it can only come through changing the attitudes of people.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Throughout history there is one fact all those who protect others agree on, the attacker who is prepared or even seeking to give their own life during the attack is the most difficult to stop or prevent.

The best thing you can do is allow people to arm themselves so they can defend themselves.

[Pistoler0]

I think that we should always remember to bring up the fact that "antis" focus on gun violence and killings, when what should matter is violence and killings in general (no matter the means).

Here is a list of country rankings by # of intentional homicides per 100,000 people:
Homicide's per 100,000 people, world rankings

Also
Wikipedia list of countries by intentional homicide rate

The US ranks below Mexico, Russia and Greenland, which have much tougher gun control laws.

Curiously, Puerto Rico is much more violent than the rest of the USA.

And the Americas in general seem to be more violent than the rest of the world.

Most European and other rich OECD countries (such as Japan and Australia) rank lower than the US, but keep in mind that they also have considerably much older populations. Typically younger societies have more violent crime, and maybe this is one reason why the American continent (North and South) is more violent?
Wikipedia: List of countries by median age

So maybe the only gun control solution is no solution, just let the population age.

[ss1/G8RFAN]

You can't make the world 100% safe. Moms still once in a while kill their kids, which underscores, that people kill people regardless the reason or the tools if any are used.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by ss1/G8RFAN

Moms still once in a while kill their kids, which underscores, that people kill people regardless the reason or the tools if any are used.

True enough. From the stories I can remember, it seems the preferred method for mothers to kill their kids is drowning -- either in the bathtub, or driving the car into a lake or river.