Let's discuss gun restriction using logic and reason

originally posted by: ratsinacage
let me ask a very relevant question: what was the ORIGINAL intent of the Founding Fathers regarding the purpose of keeping and bearing ARMS? Was it not to protect against a potential government tyranny? Also of critical importance is the idea of what constitutes "ARMS". I dont see guns mentioned in the original text of the 2nd amendment. Therefore, taking a contextual view of the time period would it not be safe to assume the Framers understood "arms" to refer to any and all martial instruments in existence at that time which would be effectually used against a rogue or unrepresentative government power? If so doesnt the current debate about guns miss pretty much the entire true scope of the issue at heart which is a citizenry capable of protecting itself with weaponry at least as capable as what the government has access to? How many people do you know with tanks, aircraft, smart bombs, drones, missiles, etc?


Folks, sorry to bring you all down but weve lost this one a long long time ago. All we have now is the faint shadow of a symbol of what we used to be.

Very good post, I have done similar before.

And to add to this:

Yes there were semi-auto rifles, machine guns and even rockets around and being used in 1789, so they where aware of these types of things when they wrote it.

Do some research

The Austrians had a magazine feed 22 round semi-auto rifle in1780. Very cool
www.youtube.com...

1st Machine Gun Puckle gun in 1718
en.wikipedia.org...

Rockets have been around for thousands of years.

The Framers knew about these and still worded it as they did. So I have little d aught they meant us to be armed on par with the military. I also think that if they had know about WMDs, they probable would said no one SHOULD HAVE THEM, but I would gladly draw a line at these. The ones that have been made need to be protected to the highest degree.

Lemme break this down for you

There are PLENTY of regulations on the books to effectively control the amount of guns and who gets them. The biggest problem in this whole ENTIRE issue is how AWFUL our government is at enforcing them and controlling ANYTHING. If you want to pass more laws for our government to completely suck at enforcing go ahead, but NOTHING will change. Show me ONE thing our government is actually good at, anything, at all. All I see see is ineptitude and waste at every turn. The background checks suck, guess who's in charge. By all means lets keep putting the most ineffective organization in the world as far as I'm concerned in charge of more and more things.

I will offer an observation that I haven't seen in any of these threads yet:

Before I joined the Marine Corps, I had to get a background check. While in the Marine Corps, I was issued firearms. I was trained in their use, and weapon safety was drilled into the very fabric of my being. My duty was to use these weapons in defense of the US Constitution. Despite the fact that it was my actual job to keep and bear arms, I still had to keep my weapon in an armory. I had to present my ID to check it out of the armory. My fitness for duty was monitored at all times.

So to review, even as trained rifleman, my access to firearms was restricted:
-Background check
-Safety training
-Secure storage of my firearms
-Monitored for mental fitness

Is this unreasonable?

This issue is one I am continually conflicted about. People can easily observe from my posts that I'm about as liberal (or at least what I take the word liberal to mean) as they come. Yet I also believe very strongly in second amendment rights. (And yes, before anyone asks as they always tend to, "Would you feel differently if you lose someone you loved to gun violence?" I actually have lost someone I love to gun violence. It doesn't lessen my advocacy of second amendment rights.)

On the one hand, I support reasonable background checks and barring violent offenders, sex offenders, the criminally insane, etc. I do also think the biggest problem is guns getting into the hands of the severe mentally ill.

On the other hand, I do not support restricting access to guns any further than that, and as a HIPAA advocate, I do not believe in granting the government the right to access mental health records between patient and physician. Other medical records require probable cause and a court order, and the same should be true of mental health. Otherwise, you discriminate against the mentally ill. Mental illness is already stigmatized and discriminated against in other ways as it is, often not perceived in the same way or with the same weight as physical illness - despite the physiological, neurological underpinnings of psychology being increasingly well understood.

Hence, I remain very conflicted. I don't know what the solution is. It's possible that like other freedoms we enjoy, the freedom to keep and bear arms and the freedom against unreasonable search and seizure will simply come at the price of risking gun violence. Maybe that's the best compromise we can strike without curtailing constitutional rights.

Peace.

a reply to: wagnificent

It is for the average civilian.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't exist in a vacuum. Violating the 4th amendment just to exercise the 2nd is an inexcusable violation of the constitution.

originally posted by: wagnificent
I will offer an observation that I haven't seen in any of these threads yet:

Before I joined the Marine Corps, I had to get a background check. While in the Marine Corps, I was issued firearms. I was trained in their use, and weapon safety was drilled into the very fabric of my being. My duty was to use these weapons in defense of the US Constitution. Despite the fact that it was my actual job to keep and bear arms, I still had to keep my weapon in an armory. I had to present my ID to check it out of the armory. My fitness for duty was monitored at all times.

So to review, even as trained rifleman, my access to firearms was restricted:
-Background check
-Safety training
-Secure storage of my firearms
-Monitored for mental fitness

Is this unreasonable?

Already do background checks

Want to require safetry training. Not bad, figure out how to apply it to our local gang bangers and black market.

Secure storage, how do you enforce it? And see point two about criminals and black market

Monitored for mental fitness? Who decides what is deemed mentally fit? And see point two about criminals and mental fitness.

See the mass shooters get the publicity and gets everyone's panties all in a wad. When it happens it does suck. But year over year gang bangers and criminals kill more people than these nut jobs the msm pushes. The basic premise of implementing laws is that the people with guns will follow them. The people responsible for the majority of gun murder won't be follow any laws.

25,000 gun laws on the books and despite the lack of press, the majority problems don't follow current and wouldn't follow the next 25,000 either.

Basically the two stances of those who don't like guns are banning, which won't happen, even if it did happen. And more laws which the majority of problems aren't going to follow. These people aren't great at thinking because they want to go after the people who for the most part aren't the problem. They also, even if they don't want to admit it, don't really have a problem with gun death as long as it stays in the inner cities and not so great areas. They don't get upset about that. Only when it invades their nice little safe havens like schools, etc to they get outraged. Pretty pathetic view but I'm used to it. Basically the poor and minority can shoot all day without a peep. Hit a precious gun free zone, emotions and rage galore.

You have some valid thoughts. This isn't one of them:
Every school should also have at least one teacher, preferably with some sort of firearms knowledge, undergo vigorous training and crisis management training, and after that be given a firearm inside a lockbox, and bullets that he hides in a separate place only be knows about. a reply to: seaswine

If you're going to arm someone, inside a school- you want the armed person searching for a key/combination/Murphy's Law and ammunition when a crisis starts? I wouldn't.
No reason we cannot train, arm and staff learning institutions with responsible people ready at a moment's notice to deal with an armed intruder/s. Period. Heck, we have armed security protecting just about everything else besides our kids.

Owning guns is a cowboy culture + ego-empowerment + weapon-industry bribery + Russian/space/zombie invasion thing. Anyone who pass gun-ownership tests can turn insane temporarily or bipolar and do something stupid. Number of muslims in USA is increasing superfast...think that they just own handguns...how about RPGs...LOL

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

The problem ISN'T guns. It's the shifting mental state of the population. To illustrate, many gun proponents cite the fact that kids used to have guns in the rack in their trucks on school property. The difference now is that another kid wouldn't think twice about breaking into the truck, by whatever means, and stealing the gun to shoot up some guys he's pissed at. We are living in a different time and, for some reason or combination of reasons, the population is going a little nutty. Be it social media, violent video games, latch-key kids or some other influence, something is causing some major mind shift in the way people are willing to behave. THAT is what we should be looking into.

Really well said, BH. Wagnificent and projectvxn are also spot-on.

The discourse seems to be so highly focused on gun restrictions, and I personally believe we should have them, yet mental health issues are poorly explored. How is it unreasonable to perform comprehensive background checks *including* mental health checks, every time? HIPPA questions were raised but IMO your right to medical privacy does not trump your desire to own a gun if you are unsuited to do so. Switzerland maintains a robust gun culture but it is restricted, regulated and so far, successful. Yes they are a country of inclusive, homogenized people but that doesn't mean there isn't something we can't learn from them.

originally posted by: everyonedies
Owning guns is a cowboy culture + ego-empowerment + weapon-industry bribery + Russian/space/zombie invasion thing. Anyone who pass gun-ownership tests can turn insane temporarily or bipolar and do something stupid. Number of muslims in USA is increasing superfast...think that they just own handguns...how about RPGs...LOL

Good luck to them with those rpg's. Hope they are better with those than some of those morons that try building bombs.

I'm a strong proponent of the 2nd amendment.

That said I see no problem with requiring safety and maintenance training, it goes along with "well regulated" in my mind.

Just think how much worse this situation would have been If the young man was not carrying a hand gun.
Im sure we would see alot more crimes like this in a gun free setting.

The report news link basically says 3 bad guys try to scam/rob/mug/hurt 2 good guys.good guys have gun shoot 2 of the 3 bad guys,3 bad guys go to jail.
www.battlecreekenquirer.com...

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: seaswine

I agree but the anti-gun crowd is not reasonable.

They will simply declare as many people as possible "unfit".

Precisely.

It's funny how people who try to wedge the door open with "logic and reason" seem to always jump straight to thoughtcrime.

Though I'm not really sure the OP meant it that way, that's the way it turns out when you start talking about "looking for behavioral red flags"

Yeah. Start that up and see how long it takes for things like conspiracy talk to be a "red flag".

Good intentions don't buy many excuses if you can read a history book.

a reply to: XTexan

Education at school as from starting school that if you see a gun left lying around get some adult to sort it out to basics of handling a gun safely and being able to safely make it safe to the actual using of a firearm all under the teaching of a proper firearms instructor and not some teacher who's done the 3 hour web presentation, intersperse it with the laws on firearms and probably you'll reduce deaths from kids accidentally shooting others and perhaps stop a few of the moms basement dwellers going all postal at their old school.

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: seaswine

I agree but the anti-gun crowd is not reasonable.

They will simply declare as many people as possible "unfit".

If you ever were prescribed "anything" to sleep, anxiety, high blood pressure, pain reliever, whatever they will consider that "mentally unfit".

This.

It's hard for me to budge on gun issues because the opposition isn't moderate, on the anti-gunner side they are allowing the extremes to propose ideas. I'm not opposed to change when it comes to people buying guns because we DO need to weed out crazies, but as inforlurker has stated, the anti-gun crowd is not reasonable. They will uncover / fund / pull out of their asses every possible situation where yanking someone's gun rights could be 'justified'. I personally agree with mental health checks of some sort, however as I have just said, the anti-gunners are going to inch and wiggle in 'bannable' offenses. It might start with people who are bipolar, then after next election it's people who had major depression then after next election it's anyone who might have a case of and outburst of anger . . . .etc. They will inch these in over many years, perhaps even decades, but they will continue to push for it. I won't condone a course of action that will disenfranchise my potential children. There needs to be a solid bi-partisan, pro/against sort of council that requires a 2/3 majority of congress to change or something equally as protected.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Where I went to high school, at least a quarter, maybe more, had rifles and/or shotguns in their cars/trucks. I did.

...and, odd as it may sound, no one ever, and I mean ever, got shot. I never even contemplated shooting anyone, no matter how angry I might be.

So, looked at from that angle, yes, that's an answer. Not a good one perhaps, but not having 'em didn't help those kids at those other schools now, did it?

It should be self-evident, by now, that guns are not the problem. The problem is, as has been stated quite a few thousands times here, and even more elsewhere, the health care system, and society in generals lack of awareness about mental illness.

a reply to: chuck258

It's very hard to compromise when the other group won't. Too true.

a reply to: wagnificent

Actually, given some of the incidents that have taken place on military bases, such as the "workplace violence" at Ft. Hood, I think it is abominable that trained personnel are not trusted at least with side arms.

a reply to: ketsuko

Agreed.

It's unfathomable to me how that sort of thing was allowed to happen.

The problem with anti-gunners is, they have no logic or reason. Thus, there can be no dialog. Why should any sane person, reason or use logic on people so afraid of power tools? Which is all a firearm is. Guns don't do anything wrong. People do.