So you think you know the 2nd Amendment

[ApatheticNoMore]

As you point out they had money and by all indications the parents were attentive. But if you are looking for things that have changed over the years, the way we treat the mentally ill is one of them. If you are willing to infringe the Constitutional rights of people who have done nothing wrong and not indicated any inclination to do wrong, should you not also look at the rights of those who do show risk factors?

Um because they have also DONE nothing wrong! Prior to the shootings what had this guy done, and after the shootings if they don't kill themselves, well there's a place for these types of people and it's not a mental asylum, it's called prison. So yea if there are previous crimes it's one thing, but did this guy have any? So are we going to start locking up people for being weird? Losing one's freedom that way is much worse than having to give up guns it seems to me.

And if not, then maybe you are admitting that this is the price for living in a free society?

That basicallly is always instinctively the position I take on these types of things. Only it's a very minority position, and I'm not sure almost anyone understands or sympathisizes with it, so basically it has no political constituency, and there will always be a push to do something (and not just long term things like build a better social safety net and a more humane society and so on - but immediate things). And compared to many of the proposals, including many that target the mentally ill, gun laws are much preferable. But then I'm not particularly attached to guns, and look at what overall society we are creating, and whether I see at as even remotely desirable.

[CathyA]

Well, to be clear, it isn't gun owners and non-gun owners. There are many gun owners like me who are for sensible solutions.

A lot of gun owners are being manipulated by the NRA and other representatives of the armament manufacturing interests.

Storyteller, I should have said "some" gun owners..........like a couple on this forum.

[Yossarian]

Um because they have also DONE nothing wrong!

But that's the rub across the board isn't, no one has, yet we are here talking about restricting their rights. I'd be curious to see if there were more aggressive intervention strategies short of incarceration that could be used for high risk individuals. It's an interesting balance, widespread modest restrictions on low risk people versus more invasive restrictions on higher risk people. And I say higher only in the relative sense, since these events are rare among even the higher risk pool. But as a matter of effectiveness the widespread restrictions are likely to do nothing whereas the more tailored approach may be more effective (anything is more than nothing)

[peggy]

But that's the rub across the board isn't, no one has, yet we are here talking about restricting their rights. I'd be curious to see if there were more aggressive intervention strategies short of incarceration that could be used for high risk individuals. It's an interesting balance, widespread modest restrictions on low risk people versus more invasive restrictions on higher risk people. And I say higher only in the relative sense, since these events are rare among even the higher risk pool. But as a matter of effectiveness the widespread restrictions are likely to do nothing whereas the more tailored approach may be more effective (anything is more than nothing)

Restricting rights. That's what i keep hearing...restricting rights. Kind of a straw man, or redirect. But, if you want to talk the constitution, let's talk the constitution.
First of all, who said owning every weapon of death every created is a right? If you want to keep with the strict meaning of the constitution, then let's do that. Let's look at the weaponry available at the time the second amendment was written and go with that. Muskets? Cannons maybe? Sure. Arm yourself with a musket. You have that right AS WRITTEN BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS. They only knew muskets, and not owning time machines, had muskets in mind when they wrote that. So, gather unto yourself all the muskets you want, and form your militia. Let us stick, absolutely, to the TRUE MEANING of the writers of the constitution.
These weren't magic men. They didn't have crystal balls. if you profess to be a strict constitutionalists, then you must know that it was written according to the times. When the founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment, What weaponry did they have in mind? What weapon did they think of? I say let's stick with that.

[bae]

Do you propose similar limits on the First Amendment? Freedom of the press and speech would be quite different if so.

At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, private ownership of cannon, and naval vessels armed with them (the strategic weaponry of the day, capable of reducing a harbor city to rubble...) was allowed, and relied upon. I do not think there would have been much of a concern over ownership of semi-automatic rifles, the design of which are over 100 years old and not exactly "modern" technology at this point.

[Alan]

Restricting rights. That's what i keep hearing...restricting rights. Kind of a straw man, or redirect. But, if you want to talk the constitution, let's talk the constitution.
First of all, who said owning every weapon of death every created is a right? If you want to keep with the strict meaning of the constitution, then let's do that. Let's look at the weaponry available at the time the second amendment was written and go with that. Muskets? Cannons maybe? Sure. Arm yourself with a musket. You have that right AS WRITTEN BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS. They only knew muskets, and not owning time machines, had muskets in mind when they wrote that. So, gather unto yourself all the muskets you want, and form your militia. Let us stick, absolutely, to the TRUE MEANING of the writers of the constitution.
These weren't magic men. They didn't have crystal balls. if you profess to be a strict constitutionalists, then you must know that it was written according to the times. When the founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment, What weaponry did they have in mind? What weapon did they think of? I say let's stick with that.

I would suggest that your focus on the type of weapon is the real straw man. The Second Amendment's declaration of the right to bear arms is an affirmation of the right to defense and resistance. If our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness mean anything at all, it follows that we have an intrinsic right to self protection against those who would challenge those rights.

To me, that is the meaning of the Second Amendment.

[redfox]

I would suggest that your focus on the type of weapon is the real straw man. The Second Amendment's declaration of the right to bear arms is an affirmation of the right to defense and resistance. If our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness mean anything at all, it follows that we have an intrinsic right to self protection against those who would challenge those rights.

To me, that is the meaning of the Second Amendment.

I gotta admit, the concept of "the real straw man" is pretty funny. I disagree about the type of weapon being irrelevant, but see how you would come to the conclusion you do. Actually, your stance brings into focus one of the main reasons to revisit the 2nd for me. If legal interpretations are that it covers all weapons with no exceptions,incuding the heinous assault ones, as well as whatever future horrific weaons we may invent & produce, that adds more weight for me to changing or abolishing the 2nd.

PS... If anyone would have a canon, Bae, you'd be the guy! Bet you'd have made it yourself, too...

[bae]

Redfox - I disagree that "the assault ones" are "heinous" - that is a conclusion simply unsupported by facts. The evidence rather suggests quite the opposite - the bulk of what you term "assault weapons" are used responsibly by their owners, for legitimate purposes. The "assault weapon" meme is an attack on fashion and culture.

I will note that the top-selling rifles in America the past few years have been AR-15 platforms, and for some quite specific technical reasons that have not much to do with the fact they are black and look "scary".

[freein05]

Alan you are forgetting the well regulated militia part that is in the same sentence. There was no standing army to protect the colonies so they had to use state militias. These were made up of armed citizens who could be called on to protect the colonies.

[freein05]

One of the young children shoot in Sandy Hook was shoot 16 times! If that isn't a heinous crime I don't know what is. A little child shoot 16 times with an assault weapon shooting a 223 caliber bullet. The bullets coming out of the weapons barrel as fast as the shooter could pull the trigger. I think he 100 round magazines. Again these shooters must be stopped if that means putting restricting on the 2nd amendment rights so be it. The 2nd amendment rights people along with the NRA have brought it on themselves. I would also say that if the writers of the 2nd amendment could see how it would be used today to protect assault weapons owners it would have been written differently.