Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
chipc3

Texaxs Shooting Prompts Change to Gun Law Discussion

Recommended Posts

Yesterday, an 18 year old, who legally purchased two AR-15 rifles from the same legally authorized dealer three days apart, shot and killed a number of students and teachers in a Texas classroom. It's a heart breaking situation and nothing anyone could say or do can change that (although politicians will try). Steve Kerr came out with an impassioned plea to change the gun laws after the shooting.  

I dislike guns. I want to put that out first so you know which side of the argument I should fall. However, I own a gun.  I purchased it after the Defund the Police Movement began and I feared for my, and my family's, safety. It is a pistol, not an assault weapon. I don't understand the need for assault weapons - much less multiple assault weapons - for civilians. 

Still, I worry about over-reaction to these situations with calls for broad-based reforms such as Steve Kerr's. The 2nd amendment says this:
 

Quote

 “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.”

The language was actually almost identical to what was written in many state constitutions already. A well-regulated militia in those days is comparable to state national guards today.  I don't believe that "a well-regulated militia" means individuals should carry assault weapons in case of foreign or domestic assault. The states, which were far less organized in the past and might call on citizens to take up arms against aggressors in the past, have a well-regulated militia force today unless the states themselves chose to disband them (I believe currently that only 23 states have an active militia/state national guard currently including Tennessee). Since the 2nd amendment states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed for use in a well-regulated militia and states give arms to members of their militias, doesn't that negate the impact of the 2nd amendment? 

So, if a State has chosen to disband their state-run militia, or will arm militia combatants, could that mean those states could infringe on citizens rights to bear arms and put a stop to the ease in which people can acquire assault weapons? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, chipc3 said:

The language was actually almost identical to what was written in many state constitutions already. A well-regulated militia in those days is comparable to state national guards today.  I don't believe that "a well-regulated militia" means individuals should carry assault weapons in case of foreign or domestic assault. The states, which were far less organized in the past and might call on citizens to take up arms against aggressors in the past, have a well-regulated militia force today unless the states themselves chose to disband them (I believe currently that only 23 states have an active militia/state national guard currently including Tennessee). Since the 2nd amendment states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed for use in a well-regulated militia and states give arms to members of their militias, doesn't that negate the impact of the 2nd amendment? 

So, if a State has chosen to disband their state-run militia, or will arm militia combatants, could that mean those states could infringe on citizens rights to bear arms and put a stop to the ease in which people can acquire assault weapons? 

 

This is an excellent point that I have made several times in the past. I don't believe the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to have everyday average citizens load up on guns and assault rifles and now buy body armor or as one guy on FB told me that "every citizen should have the right to have the same equipment as the military".....why? People in this country live in fear with high levels of anxiety and many are clinically ill. They may be high functioning and going to a job and/or be married but they are still clinically ill and prone to irrational thoughts if they have a weapon.

As far as guns go, I own a couple of pistols, but I am in no way a gun nut. I barely even shoot them. I think the extremists crazies on both sides throw out fearmongering tactics and rhetoric to scare the public (quite honestly, like your defund the police scare), create chaos and then they try to get re-elected while they do nothing.This country has devolved into a very interesting case study on how fear affects human behavior and the best way to do nothing and keep getting re-elected.

With that being said, I think there are some things that we can do to at least reduce some of these mass shootings from happening so often. i think there is smart legislation that could be put in place:

  1. Ban all lobbying-I don't think people understand how much Big Pharma, Big Tech, Big Tobacco, Big Ag, the Sugar lobby, the meat lobby, the dairy lobby, the NRA and others affect our day to day lives in a negative manner. This is all lobbyists lining the pockets of these legislators to do things to benefit them but what can harm the general public as a whole. The NRA has one political party by the proverbial testicles and hanging them over a fire and have been for 4 decades.
  2. Restore/fund mental health institutions to help those who need help- I don't want to get political here so I won't name names but I will say there was a guy who was governor of California and subsequently the president of the country from 1981-1989. He defunded mental health institutions/hospitals in California and once he became president did the same thing on a federal level across all 50 states and DC. This was a catastrophe and led to an avalanche of homelessness and mentally ill people flooding our prison systems which in turn led to the boom/explosion of private prisons that use federal money (my and your tax dollars) to imprison people while they make profits. It's despicable. We need to invest in mental health services and institutions in this country. I don't care if we have to train and hire 5-10x the mental health professionals as we have now, this country is sick to the core.But Big Pharma would love to have you addicted to anti-anxiety, anti-depression, high blood pressure and ADHD medications.
  3. Implement term limits on the local, county, state and federal levels for executive, legislative and judicial positions regardless of if they are elected or appointed. Far too many old cronies hang around accepting money to block progress and keep this country in chaos
  4. Universal background checks- There have been so many polls/studies which basically say 90% of Americans support universal background checks and that includes like 70% of gun owners. It's agnostic to political party. This should be an easy layup yet politicians won't do it (because their NRA handlers won't allow them)
  5. Common sense gun control-No, the government is not coming to take your guns (btw, who is the gov't in that scenario?) There are tons of loopholes in state laws and inconsistencies in laws state by state, just close those loopholes and be consistent across all states. That's all It won't affect you or your guns or how many guns you have as long as you are legal gun holder. It's simple.

I would say a ban on assault rifles because they serve no purpose other than some yahoo going out there playing GI Joe on a Saturday morning shooting at tires or some nut job who wants to kill multiple people in a short period of time. I have shot a couple of them before and to me, they serve no purpose. The problem is the horse is out of the stable. Legislation in the 90s dramatically impacted crimes/deaths affiliated with those types of weapons and mass shootings decreased, the lifting of the ban in the 2000s led to a dramatic increase of crimes/deaths associated with those rifles and mass shootings increased again. That's all I'm saying on this matter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was partially the Defund the Police scare and mostly that people were shot to death about a block away in a car-jacking situation. Honestly, I can't wait to move away from Memphis but I have to wait a few more years to do that even part-time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope your title is correct because this was horror. It will make you sick if you think about it for too long.

The Senate might make small changes like improving background checks, but no big changes until this issue makes blockers lose some races.

And that ain't happening. This court is gonna go hog wild on corp.money=free.speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/25/2022 at 10:40 PM, tangogriz said:

I hope your title is correct because this was horror. It will make you sick if you think about it for too long.

The Senate might make small changes like improving background checks, but no big changes until this issue makes blockers lose some races.

And that ain't happening. This court is gonna go hog wild on corp.money=free.speech.

What do you consider "big changes?" Congress can't unilaterally change the constitution after all. It would take 2/3rds of the states to ratify a change in the bill of rights as well as a majority in congress. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, chipc3 said:

What do you consider "big changes?" Congress can't unilaterally change the constitution after all. It would take 2/3rds of the states to ratify a change in the bill of rights as well as a majority in congress. 

The amendment is probably intentionally vague. You talked about the meaning of "militia" to the founders at a time when we had no standing army.

Wing-nuts ignore the "Militia" part entirely. So obviously they have no interest in "a well-regulated Militia" because they need the military weapons to destroy "the security of a free state." They believe that phrase gives them the right to seize control from elected officials. They just tried it.

So I guess the meaning of the amendment is in the eye of the beholder.

Question: Why would that amendment stop Congress from passing laws on issues like you and ODK discussed?

and other "big changes":

background checks
unregulated sales
military assault weapons
high capacity magazines
ghost guns
3d printed guns
bump fires
silencers

Answers:

Because corporations, like the gun lobby, control the SCOTUS.

That, and wing-nut propaganda:

One of President Bill Clinton's accomplishments was a ban on assault weapons. I'll bet a third of the people in Arkansas, his home state, believe that Bill and Hillary probably ordered the murder of over 100 people.

And poison for profit like QAnon, election lies and unresticted gun sales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/25/2022 at 10:55 AM, chipc3 said:
Quote

 “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.”

 

More and more we are made aware of the lies told to us about this horror. Latest is that the door was not propped open, as cops claimed that video showed. And now it appears that the top cop has lawyered up.

The biggest and boldest lie is most repeated, "we need good guys with guns to stop the bad guys with guns."

The only reason that good guy cops didn't breach the doors and/or windows of that classroom is fear of the bad guy's military assault weapons.

If you voted Republican, would this issue be enough to make you vote for someone who favored reasonable restictions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, tangogriz said:

More and more we are made aware of the lies told to us about this horror. Latest is that the door was not propped open, as cops claimed that video showed. And now it appears that the top cop has lawyered up.

The biggest and boldest lie is most repeated, "we need good guys with guns to stop the bad guys with guns."

The only reason that good guy cops didn't breach the doors and/or windows of that classroom is fear of the bad guy's military assault weapons.

If you voted Republican, would this issue be enough to make you vote for someone who favored reasonable restictions?

I'm not a Republican but I am a fiscal conservative (social liberal so no party represents my beliefs). I doubt gun laws will change my opinion on who to vote for as a stand alone position. It is something I would take into consideration but not a game changer by itself but don't listen to me. I routinely bounce back and forth between parties by voting the least undesirable candidate regardless of political affiliation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



×