How many have concealed carry permit to carry a gun ?

[TCJatko]

Because, the reality is that peoples' behavior is the core issue, no argument there. But, the NRA opposes any legislative measures designed to reduce risk from peoples' behaviors where guns are concerned. And as IT mentioned, the NRA has made it difficult or impossible to attain the data needed to build insights on those behaviors which could lead to identifying effective but minimal controls.

The NRA's school shooting solution is a perfect example. They are explicitly saying that some of those folks with the right to bear arms are going attack your school so you should prepare for that. Never mind that those wacky arms bearers are enabled by the NRA; that is not their problem and they take no responsibility for their own culpability. Reducing the abilities of those attackers to have access to weapons will reduce the risks of those attacks taking place. Identifying those at high risk of becoming the attacker and having a legal means of preventative intervention would also help.

The NRA hangs its hat on the 2nd Amendment simply because they have no other effective or ethical arguments. That is why the NRA fights tooth and nail on the 2nd A. The 2nd A. is antiquated, taken over by events. Mass shootings with a muzzle loader likely never entered the Founder's minds because it is not possible. The Founders could not have foreseen other factors in our society such as a large subculture of violence, or minds altered by the stew of chemicals present in the environment and our food, or purposely ingested recreation-ally.

The rationale for the 2nd A., that people need to preserve the ability to defend themselves from tyranny of the government, has rarely if ever been realized, certainly not successfully, in our history. The 2nd A. rationale has become a fantasy that in the current age of weaponry and conflict capabilities, your deer rifle or hand gun is going to defend you. You will need a lot more than that. The constant, daily realized gun deaths due to violence, crime, mental instability, etc., are unintended consequences serving a fantasy. Those unintended consequences could be lessened without impairing the right and ability to defend against tyranny.

I used to think you a reasonable and thoughtful individual. This post ends that delusion.

 

[KiotiKowboy]

You provided zero intelligent answers. Good job!

And, given your liberal challenges, you would say such a thing. No surprise here.

 

[IslandTractor]

BZZZZZZZZZZZT ... Wrong! School shootings are heart breaking. Drive-by shootings are tragedies as well. Acts of violence, firearms or not, destroy lives. We ALL would like to see these events reduced. Punishing the innocent, threatening our freedom and liberty, putting the next generation at enhanced risk of tyranny - acting like scared little girls - is NOT acceptable at ANY cost.

Talk about drinking Kool Aid: "enhanced risk of tyranny"??? What have you been smoking while manning your local black helicopter watch station?

Do you see any "tyranny" in Canada or England or Norway or Denmark? When was the last time an armed militia saved us from the federal government we elected?

The Wingnut mantra that guns save us from tyranny is poppycock. Base your arguments on reality and US history.

 

[KiotiKowboy]

Talk about drinking Kool Aid: "enhanced risk of tyranny"??? What have you been smoking while manning your local black helicopter watch station?

Do you see any "tyranny" in Canada or England or Norway or Denmark? When was the last time an armed militia saved us from the federal government we elected?

The Wingnut mantra that guns save us from tyranny is poppycock. Base your arguments on reality and US history.

IT, I guess you need to define "tyranny" - as in, how much government control do you find acceptable? And, if you are suggesting any of those nations - or ours - is immune, you are clearly in denial of reality.

Citizens are NOT just to be taking a free ride in the community wagon. They have a DUTY to protect what they were given by the sacrifice of our founders. If you have a lock on your door - you recognize there "might" be a risk to your safety. If you see no contradiction between that position and the one you have expressed here on firearms ... well ... that should be turning on some lightbulbs for you.

 

[dave1949]

You have failed to connect gun rights and the criminal behavior at all, plus you pass judgement that the second amendment intimating it is not necessary to remain free, I disagree. Negotiating away rights to bear arms or letting government "infringe" on those rights, are not going to be tolerated by the American people for ANY reason. I believe it's the sole reason we have survived as a republic. Let me push your liberal button, I believe if you want to stop this type of violence, I would criminalize atheists, and require Christian church attendance. Lack of a religious base being identified as cause. Let's just tramp a different right, it maybe more beneficial. At least separation of church and state isn't in the constitution. HS.

I connected gun rights with people who represent a risk of violent behavior; those who may resort to using guns in violent acts. I have just as much right to be free of the actions of those people as I do to own a gun. There is an entire body of law based on the Constitution that attempts to ensure that. The NRA does not support including risk assessment in the gun ownership equation, as if that is some magical area that we dare not consider--while risk assessment is very extensively used to good effect in just about every other facet of our lives, including the 1st A.

'" ... intimating it is not necessary to remain free ..." ??? I said or implied no such thing. What I said was it will take more than your personal weapons to defend yourself from government tyranny and it is a fantasy to think otherwise. In other words, I don't believe the 2nd A. will deliver on the stated purpose for its existence. When has it? Therefore, in my opinion you are protecting a weak or ineffective concept at the cost of many thousands of gun deaths. There is room for improvement on all fronts there.

The 2nd A. rationale is leaned heavily upon and propagandized by the NRA as if its existence were the only possible means of over-throwing a tyrannical government. I don't believe the history of uprisings supports this premise. It may well be the least possible means. Resistance groups obtain their needed weapons by theft with force, through supportive allies, and through the governments own arsenal via defectors to their cause.

NRA supporters are also wont to extend the 2nd A. rationale to include extra-constitutional reasons, i.e., self-protection from violence in general. That is not consistent with a literal and strict reading of the 2nd A. I have nothing against the ability to protect oneself with a gun if necessary, but narrow, literal interpretations of some parts, and wide-open interpretations of others mixed together are self-serving. It just isn't intellectually honest.

 

[IslandTractor]

IT, I guess you need to define "tyranny" - as in, how much government control do you find acceptable? And, if you are suggesting any of those nations - or ours - is immune, you are clearly in denial of reality. Citizens are NOT just to be taking a free ride in the community wagon. They have a DUTY to protect what they were given by the sacrifice of our founders. If you have a lock on your door - you recognize there "might" be a risk to your safety. If you see no contradiction between that position and the one you have expressed here on firearms ... well ... that should be turning on some lightbulbs for you.

I don't make up definitions. I use words as they are defined in a standard dictionary. Communication is just a tad difficult if we make up our own personal definitions.

Tyranny is cruel and oppressive government or rule. I find it ludicrous to use that term to describe a government that is elected and abides by the people's vote when said government also respects the rights of the minority that did not support it in the election. If the US was a tyranny, do you seriously think you could say the things you do about POTUS? At what time in our history were citizens deprived of their rights and freedoms as understood by the contemporary SCOTUS?

You radical right wingers love to rant about how the government is doing illegal things but we have a government that respects the Supreme Court and that is the body that determines what is Constitutional and what isn't. Glenn (my mind is gone) Beck and Rush are entitled to their opinions but as idiots they rarely get it right. WingNut blogs are not sources of real news or reasonable legal opinions.

You have indicated that you feel your personal understanding of the constitution trumps that of the US courts. To me, that is the seed of tyranny right there. You essentially reject the rule of law and democratic rule that this country was based on. You, and your ilk, not the Feds, are the real risk of tyranny in this country.

 

[KiotiKowboy]

NRA supporters are also wont to extend the 2nd A. rationale to include extra-constitutional reasons, i.e., self-protection from violence in general. That is not consistent with a literal and strict reading of the 2nd A. I have nothing against the ability to protect oneself with a gun if necessary, but narrow, literal interpretations of some parts, and wide-open interpretations of others mixed together are self-serving. It just isn't intellectually honest.

On THIS point, we agree!

Our founders, without doubt, believed citizens had this right. They did not draft the 2nd Amendment to address that particular right. Pertaining to both personal protection rights and citizen obligation rights - no amendment was actually necessary. As stated, the 2nd Amendment is simply a reiteration. Point being, although personal reasons are not addressed in the amendment - that right does exist.

I wish more people were unafraid to simply state - The primary reason for the 2nd Amendment is to assist the people in resisting/overthrowing their own government.

 

[KiotiKowboy]

You radical right wingers love to rant about how the government is doing illegal things but we have a government that respects the Supreme Court and that is the body that determines what is Constitutional and what isn't.

Respects the Supreme Court? Are you trying to be funny?

Presidents routinely pick court nominees who are most likely to represent their own personal views. Perhaps this is unavoidable.

The Supreme Court has a history of decisions that fly in the face of both logic and our history. I give you Obamacare and the Commerce Clause as two prime examples. The court is not infallible and is not beyond corruption.

Frankly, I think I might prefer seeing citizens called, as they are for jury duty, to serve terms in Congress and on the Supreme Court.

You have indicated that you feel your personal understanding of the constitution trumps that of the US courts. To me, that is the seed of tyranny right there.

I guess you missed the part about Of the people - By the people - For the people.

 

[dave1949]

On THIS point, we agree!

Our founders, without doubt, believed citizens had this right. They did not draft the 2nd Amendment to address that particular right. Pertaining to both personal protection rights and citizen obligation rights - no amendment was actually necessary. As stated, the 2nd Amendment is simply a reiteration. Point being, although personal reasons are not addressed in the amendment - that right does exist.

I wish more people were unafraid to simply state - The primary reason for the 2nd Amendment is to assist the people in resisting/overthrowing their own government.

Well then, we are making progress. Too many people, encouraged in their thinking by the NRA to no small extent, have tangled up the 2nd A. with their need for personal protection. They are not the same thing--no matter how much the NRA would like people to think so.

Addressing the need for personal protection and preserving freedom from tyranny are different threats from widely divergent sources that require different approaches IMO. As I said, I don't believe the 2nd A. is going to be very effective in some battle against tyranny. The nature of that tyranny, the likelihood of that becoming a gun battle, and who would be on what side is a topic for another thread perhaps.

 

[houstonscott]

Well then, we are making progress. Too many people, encouraged in their thinking by the NRA to no small extent, have tangled up the 2nd A. with their need for personal protection. They are not the same thing--no matter how much the NRA would like people to think so. Addressing the need for personal protection and preserving freedom from tyranny are different threats from widely divergent sources that require different approaches IMO. As I said, I don't believe the 2nd A. is going to be very effective in some battle against tyranny. The nature of that tyranny, the likelihood of that becoming a gun battle, and who would be on what side is a topic for another thread perhaps.

Wait till they announce the Ferguson decision. You'll see some reason for needing weapons. 10-80-10. My bet is you are more heavy armed the Kiotikowboy. HS