The constitutional right to bear arms, means that stupid and irresponsible people have access to arms, and will do what they will.The constitutional right protects everyone's rights, including the stupid and irresponsible.

...I bolded the important part. It is a constitutional RIGHT, your "opinions" mean little in regards to our rights. And as is the case with other rights, there most certainly is some cost associated with any rights. Comparing the US to other countries is more than foolish, you compare us to Japan? Yeah, they have the same culture as the US!? And any other country you wish to compare us to, did they have so many guns already available when they made these laws? that answer is an emphatic NOSIREE. If you had these suggested laws in place say 100-200 years ago, then maybe they would work here, not now, that ship has sailed! Stick with restrictions on the type of guns, stick with more stringent testing, but drop the idea to do away with guns.
And what about the idea to arm specially trained teachers/school staff/possibly retired law officials? When confronted by others with guns, almost every one of these nut jobs then killed themselves or gave up. They are chickens and only prey on the weak and vulnerable, taking guns away leaves them all the more powerful now doesn't it?

tom

And as is the case with other rights, there most certainly is some cost associated with any rights

what are they?
And how do they compare to the costs of the 2nd?
Do you any idea at all?

tom

And what about the idea to arm specially trained teachers/school staff/possibly retired law officials?

Turning schools into armed camps would come with costs...
There is already a substantial budget spent on providing a police presence at schools across the US. Mostly high schools. Putting guns into schools would ultimately also result in accidents, and mistakes, and perhaps lead to people accessing those guns instead of bringing their own...
And both supposed solutions would result in children attempting to learn in an environment that would feel insecure and dangerous. And even then, there is no guarantee that the presence of the guns could stop an incident...
All this does is increase the cost of maintaining the current situation.
In an era of austerity, shouldn't you be looking at tried and true solutions with cost benefits?
If you want to get rid of gun violence you limit guns.
There's a reason that there are metal detectors at airports, court houses and Congress. The presence of guns creates a dangerous environment. So they keep them out of those environments. Same with schools.

Freeman2, I just about blew a gasket with your first 2 sentences. Yes, the guns have changed, as have the press, religion, due process rights etc. Did a Black man in 1787 have due process? No, he did not. What did it take to change that?

Oh yeah, it was an Amendment!

I am all for an Amendment change.

To RickyP:
Wasn't Newtown a "Gun Free Zone"? Wasn't the Aurora movie theater? How well did that help the victims?

freeman2 wrote:First, let's not lump the Second Anendment with rights like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of press, freedom to assemble, due process rights, etc. These rights are hallmarks of a free society...the Second Amendment is not necessarily so

It's a "hallmark" of American society. The Bill of Rights is not a smorgasbord. You don't get two helpings of free speech, a little extra due process, but hold the religion and guns.

What makes you the judge of what is a hallmark of a free society?

Every right had some limitation associated it as it gets applied to the real world (freedom of speech is limited by the fact that you can't yell fire in a movie theater and you can't incite people to revolt; the right to be free from search and seizure without probable cause does not apply to DUI checkpoints or entry into the country,etc.

Oh, I've got a search and seizure example I would love to cite right now, but I'll start another forum some time. It is incredible how the government is curtailing this right in at least two States (MD and CO).

The NY Post, a conservative newspaper says the Second Amendment is outdated. It was originally passed in the 18th Century when a group of milita with some muskets could defeat regular soldiers.

No offense, but how about linking the op-ed and letting us decide what they said and whether or not it's "conservative?"

Again, you want to talk about muskets?

What about telephones, computers, the Internet? None of those were foreseen and therefore none are protected under the Constitution.

Same, er, "logic" being applied.

The one time in our history since the Second Amendment the purpose of the Second Amendment could have come into play, The Civil War , technology had already passed it by. Militia in that war, when called out, had no chance against regular soldiers. The South equipped its soldiers, trained them and made into armies (not militia)

You are saying the 2nd amendment only applies to militia?

If so, then why "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed?"

Why not "those in a militia?" Why not "for said purpose shall not be infringed?"

You act like they had no idea what they were doing when they passed the 2nd Amendment--like they picked the words out of a hat.

Now we are very far removed from the original intent of the Amendment. The main part that we have now, is the right to protect your home. And I don't see how sayin you need guns that shoot hundred rounds in a few minutes to do that.

I would challenge anyone to shoot one hundred rounds in a minute from an AR-15.

Please stop resorting to hyperbole and nonsense.

I also don't think there is a rational distinction to be made between automatic weapons and semi-automatics with large clips--both are too destructive for the average citizen to have.

Have you ever fired an automatic? A semi-automatic?

Do you know that a 9mm pistol is a "semi-automatic?"

What do you know about guns--other than what you've read?

In the 18th Century a musket fired a bullet a minute so no one worry about mass shootings. We live in a different time, with different technology, and so we have to adapt the Second Amendment to changing realities.

No, we would need to "amend" the Second Amendment if there are going to be changes.

I notice bbauska just observed this. What is so hard to understand about it? Neither you, nor Senator Feinstein, nor President Obama can just wave your hand and make guns go away. It's up to "we the people."

How was the "Gun Free Zone" enforced Bbauska?
with metal detectors and armed guards?
There is effective enforcement (air ports, and Congress) and there is ineffective enforcement.
If, in order to eliminate armed people becoming violent, you have to turn the entire US into the Baghdad Green Zone ... that would be a helluva cost wouldn't it? If that's the cost to maintain the 2nd amendment and current gun laws, is your economy up to bearing that burden. Is any economy? (Hell doing it in Baghdad cost the US too much.)

Alternatively, one can shrug and say I guess we'll have to continue to endure the deaths of school children.
That's the other cost. Continued gun deaths at what is an escalating rate ....

Or, one could say, Lets start addressing gun laws that may start to restrict the 2nd amendment right in order to limit the cost to the nation. Even then it will take a generation to see the incidence of gun deaths decrease significantly.

rickyp wrote:Turning schools into armed camps would come with costs...
There is already a substantial budget spent on providing a police presence at schools across the US. Mostly high schools. Putting guns into schools would ultimately also result in accidents, and mistakes, and perhaps lead to people accessing those guns instead of bringing their own...

In prisons, yes. In high schools, maybe. In junior highs, less likely.

In elementary schools? Anyone who can't stop a 6th grader from taking a gun from them probably should be in a rest home.

And, btw, a 6th grader who is trying to take a gun? That kid needs to be in some kind of 24/7 therapy, not grade school.

And both supposed solutions would result in children attempting to learn in an environment that would feel insecure and dangerous. And even then, there is no guarantee that the presence of the guns could stop an incident...

We know that locking doors and limiting access doesn't work.

All this does is increase the cost of maintaining the current situation.
In an era of austerity, shouldn't you be looking at tried and true solutions with cost benefits?
If you want to get rid of gun violence you limit guns.

There was a 10-year ban on assault rifles. Please tell us how much difference it made.

There's a reason that there are metal detectors at airports, court houses and Congress. The presence of guns creates a dangerous environment. So they keep them out of those environments. Same with schools.

Would that have made a difference at Newtown? If so, how?

rickyp wrote:Alternatively, one can shrug and say I guess we'll have to continue to endure the deaths of school children.
That's the other cost. Continued gun deaths at what is an escalating rate ....

How many elementary school kids were gunned down before this incident?

Or, one could say, Lets start addressing gun laws that may start to restrict the 2nd amendment right in order to limit the cost to the nation. Even then it will take a generation to see the incidence of gun deaths decrease significantly.

How about we look at the profiles and think about it rationally?

The amazing thing about liberals is how willing you all are to give up our rights instead of addressing the problems. How many of the past "mass shootings" have been performed by young males with KNOWN psychological problems? What if they received treatment?

Nah, let's suspend the rights of law-abiding and well people.

That's what the Left always does. Some people have a problem, so let's pass a law impacting everyone.

GMTom wrote:

I consider it evil for anyone to talk about the dead as a price we have to pay for freedom as if the ends ever justified the means.

then surely you want to do away with freedom of religion and the right to assemble, the rights of free speech? Those rights most certainly do lead to a few deaths that would otherwise never happen. We most certainly have a price for such freedoms and the ends do justify the means! That statement is pure drivel at it's best!

Can you try explaining that without quite so many logical leaps?

How many people has freedom of religion killed in the USA? How many people has freedom of speech killed in the USA? More, or less, than 30,000 a year?

I don't want to 'do away' with the rights you suggested. And had you actually been READING (sorry for using caps, but it seems to be the way you like to emphasise) my posts, you'd perhaps have not come to the conclusion that I want to remove the right to hold guns. I don't. I am just selective on who qualifies for that right (as other rights are qualified), and what kinds of guns they can hold.

Nice to see you back, but I was hoping you'd have calmed down a bit.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/weapons.cfm

Dept. of Justice data refutes your statement, RickyP.
Alternatively, one can shrug and say I guess we'll have to continue to endure the deaths of school children.
That's the other cost. Continued gun deaths at what is an escalating rate ....

The link above shows a downward trend.

Doctor Fate wrote:There was a 10-year ban on assault rifles. Please tell us how much difference it made.

There was a steep decline in the numbers of deaths from guns after 1994. Most of the decline was in homicide, rather than suicide.

So it looks like it was relatively successful. Not that it was a complete and total ban, or that it wasn't flouted, or that 10 years was a particularly long time to let it bed in.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:There was a 10-year ban on assault rifles. Please tell us how much difference it made.

There was a steep decline in the numbers of deaths from guns after 1994. Most of the decline was in homicide, rather than suicide.

So it looks like it was relatively successful. Not that it was a complete and total ban, or that it wasn't flouted, or that 10 years was a particularly long time to let it bed in.

Source, and does that include after it was repealed/expired?

I posted a link to an article earlier that had figures. Here is it again, as there's been several posts since:

American Gun Deaths to Exceed Traffic Fatalities by 2015

I think it's not hard to find statistics on the internet, should you doubt me.

fate

How many elementary school kids were gunned down before this incident?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sc ... ted_States

fate

How many of the past "mass shootings" have been performed by young males with KNOWN psychological problems? What if they received treatment? Nah, let's suspend the rights of law-abiding and well people

.

Well, that would be an arguement for Universal Health care, since you couldn't force an individual to spend their own money on health care if they don't want to...
and you'd also have to wander into the mess between an individuals right to freedom and the courts declaring them mentally unfit.... and that whole quandry about the inexact science of mental health.
You know, kind of messing around with law that impacts a lot of people. and suspends their rights. You liberal you.

If you also wade through that long list of school shootings you'll discover that most of the shooters were not previously considered dangerous. (He was a quiet guy, who kept to himself....) Which would limit the effectivness of the kind of law enforcement you seem to be considering ...rounding up all the mentally ill people.Because they are such an obvious group....

danivon wrote:I posted a link to an article earlier that had figures. Here is it again, as there's been several posts since:

American Gun Deaths to Exceed Traffic Fatalities by 2015

I think it's not hard to find statistics on the internet, should you doubt me.

From your link:

At the same time, violent crime and murder rates have fallen in the U.S., said Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins University Center for Gun Policy and Research in Baltimore. Homicides may be up this year, though the murder rate from 2006 to 2011 fell 19 percent, to 4.7 for every 100,000 people, Webster said in an e-mail.

It’s unclear whether an increase in gun ownership is linked to more violence, Webster said. Still, the Sandy Hook school killings are “a potential game changer” for gun control laws, he said, and unlike any incident he’s seen in 20 years of studying gun violence.

That article is not a very conclusive one. Note the bold.

It could just as easily be argued it's economic conditions that have caused the changes. Track the deaths to the economy, based on this article, and I think they would run closely together.

rickyp wrote:fate

How many elementary school kids were gunned down before this incident?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sc ... ted_States

Are you daft?

The first incident:

The earliest known United States shooting to happen on school property was the Pontiac's Rebellion school massacre on July 26, 1764, where four Lenape American Indians entered the schoolhouse near present-day Greencastle, Pennsylvania, . . .

Posting a link like that is lazy and, in this case, it makes you look rather foolish.

Second incident:

November 2, 1853: Louisville, Kentucky A student, Matthew Ward, bought a self-cocking pistol in the morning, went to school and killed schoolmaster Mr. Butler for excessively punishing his brother the day before. Even though he shot the schoolmaster point blank in front of his classmates, he was acquitted

Note well: one might presume the "schoolmaster" was not a "school kid," which is what I asked about.

I'm not reading any farther--clearly YOU DID NOT either OR you're incapable of understanding the English language.

fate

How many of the past "mass shootings" have been performed by young males with KNOWN psychological problems? What if they received treatment? Nah, let's suspend the rights of law-abiding and well people

.

Well, that would be an arguement for Universal Health care, since you couldn't force an individual to spend their own money on health care if they don't want to...

No, it has nothing to do with universal healthcare. Thanks for playing.

and you'd also have to wander into the mess between an individuals right to freedom and the courts declaring them mentally unfit.... and that whole quandry about the inexact science of mental health.
You know, kind of messing around with law that impacts a lot of people. and suspends their rights. You liberal you.

It has nothing to do with that.

Of course, you don't know much about these shooters, do you? If so, you'd at least try to make some sense instead of prattling on about socialized medicine--as if it's related to people like the Newton shooter committed. Apparently, his mom was trying to do that.

If you also wade through that long list of school shootings you'll discover that most of the shooters were not previously considered dangerous. (He was a quiet guy, who kept to himself....) Which would limit the effectivness of the kind of law enforcement you seem to be considering ...rounding up all the mentally ill people.Because they are such an obvious group....

Prove it.

The current case.

The Aurora case.

Loughner. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 58,00.html

Most of them had known issues.