OT: Highland Park 4th of July Parade Mass Shooting

[Chicago-Bull-E]

Any of the silly semantics that comes after the idea of banning all guns is such a waste of breath. It’s a right wing talking point to muddy waters. The Democrats have been so worthless on this as well, and now it’s being brought to attention that one of the reasons Democrats are so worthless in power is because they use these arguments as fundraising opportunities.

Where do we draw the line on what to ban? All of them, problem solved. Next question.

What is a good prison sentence for this? 10 years, problem solved, next question. Public funding can be spent on prisons, easy.

How will I defend myself from the person that doesn’t look like me down the street? Well, more funding would need to go to police and mental health. Conservatives will like that one, everyone is happy there.

All guns should be banned. And you know what, lots of people will be mad. They’ll tell “don’t take muh guns.” And there will be outbreaks. And that’s ok.

People make the mistake of saying a gun ban won’t immediately ban all guns, so we can’t do that. And the point isn’t that all guns will be out of the country within a week of a gun ban. Or a year. Or even a decade.

But after 20/30 years of a gun ban, a good portion of the generation that loved them will be dead. And the young generation that are hiding in their classrooms right now? They’ll be able to live a happy, and much safer life. That’s the point.

10 years in prison for what? For anyone who doesn't come hand their gun in?

"Public funding can be spent on prisons, easy"

Easy? LOL, we can't even pay for like 40% of our federal spending as-is. There is no money. That's why we need to balance priorities.

How exactly would more police funding help protect you from someone who wants to kill you? You could double or triple police budgets and they still couldn't protect you. It's not possible. It could increase the number of people caught, but mass shooters generally want to get caught anyways.

"The young generation hiding in their classrooms"

Ummm, virtually all of these killers are in that young generation.

There's no reason to think the hundreds of millions of guns in circulation would ever be removed from society with measly 10 year prison sentences. If there were, we should expect that drugs would have already been eradicated. Criminals wipe their ass with 10 year prison sentences.

I’m happy to go higher than 10 years. But a disagreement on a time table shouldn’t preclude actual change. Again, this is a distraction point. Let’s do 10 years starting tomorrow. And if it’s too lenient, we can adjust after. Deal?

Money? Look at how much money the US has spent on the Ukraine war. There is money. You know what people love more than their guns? Money. A buyback program would change a lot, very quickly.

And yes, more money towards police department will help immensely.

Lastly, if someone has a gun and wants to kill me, they’ll likely do it. Me having a gun isn’t going to help much on someone that has the upper hand, element of surprise, and is willing to pull first.

[League Circles]

I reference western countries because nearly all are on the spectrum of republic to direct democracy. Draconian laws and enforcement aren’t an option to the degree they are in, say, China or Saudi Arabia (though I think there are select examples of the US falling down in this respect).

I’m not interested in parsing prison sentences. That’s not the discussion. Weapons of ‘mass death’ versus ‘moderate death’ is also something for the technocrats to work out. What’s very clear is that AR-15-style rifles have no place in civilian hands. If we can’t agree on that much, there isn’t much else to discuss.

I don't see what's inherently draconian about punishing someone for 50 years for something that is already punished for, say, 10 years (drug or gun violations). It sounds like you are saying that what would actually be effective is too harsh for you to stomach. Which I totally respect. But should be identified if that is in fact the case. Because they're can truly be a massive massive difference in incentives between prison sentences like that. A lot of people would risk doing something if the punishment was 10 years in prison that would not risk doing the same thing if the punishment was life in prison. For me legal punishments are primarily for the purpose of deterrence, not punishment.

The problem is that "AR-15 style rifles" is an incredibly vague and arbitrary description, usually offered by mass media for clicks and people who know nothing about guns. That's why people ask questions like I do such as what exact attributes of an AR-15 style rifle are the attributes that we are trying to regulate against? It's an honest question. It could be bullet capacity or it could be modularity or it could just be sensationalism. Sadly, it's trivial to kill a lot of people if that's what you want to do, whether it's with an "AR-15", a (more powerful than an AR-15) hunting rifle, a common handgun, or driving a van through a crowd of people on the sidewalk.

I really want to stress that I am not throwing my hands up and saying oh there's nothing that can be done we just have to accept this. I'm just saying that the devil is in the details and we need to be very specific about what we are trying to do, about what our expectations are, and about what trade-offs we are willing to accept. I don't see a lot of that in the public discourse on the issue of gun control and violence.

Drugs: no, it’s not about what I can “stomach.” I believe it’s immoral to throw someone in prison for smoking a joint on the street or succumbing to addiction. Most of the West agrees, and will of the people is increasingly reflected in our laws.

Guns: AR-15s, specifically, are the most popular guns in mass shootings by far, so let’s start there. As to broadening the ban, there’s no shortage of firearms experts to consult with policymakers on which models and modifications are most dangerous. The layman doesn’t need to know the ins and outs of gun specs any more than they do tort law or ICD-11 codes. This isn’t a real obstacle, it’s just a talking point from the gun lobby.

I agree it's immoral to throw someone in jail for smoking a joint or succumbing to addiction. We can't stomach that, so we don't do it. But IF WE DID, the problem would almost entirely go away. Do you think it's common or incredibly rare for Saudis or people from similar countries to go to jail for drugs? I'm not going to bother researching cause Im pretty confident in my guess that it's extremely rare because the very harsh penalties are incredibly effective at deterrence. Again, I'm not advocating this per se, just establishing that it might be what's needed to solve deeply embedded, culutrally destructive practices of drug abuse and gun violence. And fwiw, herb isn't a "drug" in the way I was using the term. I mean toxic substances. But again, I'm not advocating that anyways. If you threw all dealers in jail for life here and made a very public awareness campaign that the law would take effect in like 2 years, I bet drug use and activity would reduce 99% by the time the law took effect. My point here is that we can't solve all of our problems in the desired way. You say penalties are for technocrats to figure out? So you'd be fine with, say, a $5 fine for selling a handgun behind closed doors to an 18 year old? The penalties are the entire issue. Speeding is illegal yet everyone does it because the penalties are a joke. Now I'M NOT saying that we should have an incredibly harsh society. In fact I've always leaned more towards drug legalization than this other extreme I'm talking about. BUT, I do think that if you want something to actually change, It often means that you have to go much further than you would ideally like to to make sure it ends.

As for the gun details, again, THAT'S THE ENTIRE ISSUE. The issue isn't whether or not "AR-15s" should be available or not. The questions are, what bullet capacity should be allowed? For which calibers? What degree of concealability should be allowed? What rates of repeating fire should be allowed?

These aren't minor details to be handled by the "experts". These are the entire core of the debate and should easily be able to be engaged with by anyone interested in actually discussing the issues.

EVERYONE agrees in regulation of arms. EVERYONE agrees in punishments for violating regulations. The ENTIRE debate is which levels of regulation and punishment are the best balance. I'm willing yo compromise quite a bit in the interest of reaching national peace (of mind) and stability on the issue, but punting on the specifics to so called experts and lawmakers is just not having the conversation. Just to be clear, I'm not criticizing you or anyone else who doesn't want to get too deep into the details. That's 100% fair. Just know that it means you don't really want to engage on the issue. It's just "do something". We're trying to figure out, and ideally have more than 50% of society, agree on what the "something" precisely is.

[WookieOnRitalin]

An armed citizenry guarantees better actions by the State.

This is a common thought, but I don't think this is true at all. What laws or treatments do you think are better because citizens are armed? Do you think your lawmakers go "well damn, Wookie's got a gun, better make laws that favor him?" and if they did, it'd be a big fricken problem that we catered to a gun toting population vs general population.

In the theory that maybe if things get bad enough the populace could overthrow the government is there, but this is such an edge case towards what is really happening.

It's a fair question, but you also have to consider, what type of actions would require a citizen to take arms against a central power?

Once explored, then you have your answer. The last time it happened was 160 years ago. Considering the volatility today, I can see something similar happening if there is an increase in the regional divide. The difference between now and then is that the country is far more developed and transcontinental.

This is why I support the Electoral College as an example. It limits the controlling power of higher populated states from dictating policy at people in less populous states especially limiting the power of those who centralize in urban areas. The wants and desires of urban dwellers are not the same as those who choose not to live in those centers. Thus, it is only right to find a system that helps curtail their ability to apply systemic tyranny on others.

Consensus can be built, but it must be built nationally and NOT by popular vote. The 2/3, 3/4 method is a just one and should be lauded for its intelligent design. If achieved, the minority will need to submit to the authority of the consensus.

Win hearts and minds. It's fairly simple.

[madvillian]

This country has a sick obsession with weapons capable of blowing a child's head off and inflicting mass casualties. Quite the "well regulated" militia indeed. Something has to change.

[Chicago-Bull-E]

But after 20/30 years of a gun ban, a good portion of the generation that loved them will be dead. And the young generation that are hiding in their classrooms right now? They’ll be able to live a happy, and much safer life. That’s the point.

And that is what any centralized power would prefer.

The implicit trust in the "good" actions of the Federal government is beyond me. What have they done to earn such blind faith?

An armed citizenry guarantees better actions by the State. This is what the founders intended and by God was it insightful. They conceived of a future where citizens would be in the exact same position they were in 1776. Knowing that a group of collected, intelligent people would choose to take up arms against a centralized entity that did not consider their representation led to an unthinkable action among that group. They knew that the central entity was abusing its power (from their perspective) and thus required a dramatic action and had they not had arms of their own, they would have failed in the attempt.

So they conceived and believed that the situation could happen again. Here. Considering how well they knew history, better than most High School graduates today, the motivations were clear that the abuse of power upon a citizenry was one of the most common abuses in any society so a deterrent and right of a human is the right to defend their autonomy even against a central power.

This is caked into the American spirit and if we do not understand that as a people, then we are so distant from the values that founded this country, I would argue that we are not really Americans.

This problem is simple. You want the guns, you're gonna have to create an amendment to get the guns. The only way you're going to accomplish that outside of an amendment is to revolt or violate the Constitution (thus breaking the law).

I do not personally own a firearm, but I will defend anyone's right to do so. It is just in cause and I hope it remains that way.

This argument amazes me. You like the idea of placing power over the well being of your family into the hands of the shooter yesterday over a centralized government.

Being ok that mentality deranged individuals can kill you instantly is never something I’m cool with. They can anywhere, and at anytime. And there are a lot more questionable citizens than there are government officials.

The founding fathers lived in an era so far removed from what society today looks like, I’d question anything that references what they wanted. It’s completely silly.

[dougthonus]

It's a fair question, but you also have to consider, what type of actions would require a citizen to take arms against a central power?

Once explored, then you have your answer. The last time it happened was 160 years ago. Considering the volatility today, I can see something similar happening if there is an increase in the regional divide. The difference between now and then is that the country is far more developed and transcontinental.

If the same thing happened today, I find it almost impossible to believe that the resulting government formed would be beneficial to society. There is a pretty wide gap between a colonizing force trying to control you from across the sea and wanting independence and trying to overthrow an existing government. Name all the places you want to live right now that have had violent revolutions in the past 30 years. Probably zero names on that list.

This is why I support the Electoral College as an example. It limits the controlling power of higher populated states from dictating policy at people in less populous states especially limiting the power of those who centralize in urban areas. The wants and desires of urban dwellers are not the same as those who choose not to live in those centers. Thus, it is only right to find a system that helps curtail their ability to apply systemic tyranny on others.

Consensus can be built, but it must be built nationally and NOT by popular vote. The 2/3, 3/4 method is a just one and should be lauded for its intelligent design. If achieved, the minority will need to submit to the authority of the consensus.

Win hearts and minds. It's fairly simple.

I'm not sure it is relevant to me anyway. People don't know what they are voting for and have no real easy meaningful way to put checks on politicians anyway, nor do our politicians generally work in the best interest of society frequently.

Making rural votes count more than urban votes seems like a crap system all together to be quite honest. Oh, you decided to live on the firm, so your vote is 1.3 votes? Seems pretty awful.

[AshyLarrysDiaper]

^ Is it useful for voters to know about magazine capacity and the like? Sure. More education is always a positive. Is it a necessary precursor to policy? Absolutely not. Experts consult with policymakers, policymakers come up with draft bills or regs or ballot initiatives or administrative actions, and then advocates write plain-language primers for the electorate.

There is no scenario where the public is going to arrive at a consensus about gun specs on its own. That isn’t how policy works. It’s like saying we can’t move forward with healthcare policy until we all understand risk corridors. This is just a burden that gun advocates introduce to freeze debate.

[WookieOnRitalin]

I think quoting the second amendment is sort of pointless when deciding what you should do today. The idea that the constitution isn't perfect and times would change is baked into the constitution.

Gun laws absolutely could be one of those things. We got slavery and equal rights for women wrong for an awfully long time in the constitution. We shouldn't be using the beliefs of 200 years ago as rationalization for today, we should rationalize whether gun ownership provides value or harm to society as a whole today.

The process is simple. 2/3; 3/4. If something is considered wrong and people want to change it, they can, but you have to build consensus.

Liberals message is they want to take the guns. SCOTUS has said on numerous occasions you cannot do that.

Thus, your standstill. The only way you're going to do it is to convince people that the right to defend your life and liberty with armaments does not exist. I think that is a losing argument and I would not teach my children otherwise.

Reducing violence means building better citizens and making the central point of values within culture around those things that create more positive outcomes. I do not understand why this is a hard concept for people to understand. Millions upon millions of gun owners are not going on shooting sprees in this country. Responsible gun ownership exists. To deny that it does not is pure ignorance.

[League Circles]

I’m happy to go higher than 10 years. But a disagreement on a time table shouldn’t preclude actual change. Again, this is a distraction point. Let’s do 10 years starting tomorrow. And if it’s too lenient, we can adjust after. Deal?

The change IS whatever revised penalties (and associated illegal actions) are enacted! It's not a distraction, it's the ENTIRE issue. You can ban all guns in the US tomorrow, and if the penalties are $100 tickets, virtually nothing will change. There is no meaningful discussion of criminal legislation without equally discussing the acts that should be illegal and the punishments for those acts. You haven't even specified exactly which violation the 10 years would be for, but what in the world do you mean by "if it's too lentient"? What does that mean? You haven't established any goals or expectations. Are you trying to reduce random mass shootings to zero? All gun violence? All violence? Or reduce by 80%? This is why so many people are frustratingly hesitant to give an inch to gun control advocates. It's because they don't trust them to stop at a better balance between freedom and safety. Because often there is no acknowledgment that there even is such a trade-off among gun control advocates and therefore it's difficult to imagine them stopping until a completely utopian ideal of zero gun deaths is reached.

Money? Look at how much money the US has spent on the Ukraine war. There is money. You know what people love more than their guns? Money. A buyback program would change a lot, very quickly.

And yes, more money towards police department will help immensely.

Lastly, if someone has a gun and wants to kill me, they’ll likely do it. Me having a gun isn’t going to help much on someone that has the upper hand, element of surprise, and is willing to pull first.

I don't know what to tell you about money. If you have to borrow it it is not money that you have. It is money that you are borrowing from totalitarian anti-human rights states such as China and from the tremendously wealthy people in this world. That's how we keep the sham of our federal government going. We obligate our unborn children to massive debt and pretend that we are spending our own money but it is a sickening manipulation of reality. It's about 40% of our federal expenditures and the reason it is done is because most politicians don't understand reality and those that do do not trust the public to understand reality. The reality being that we simply cannot afford anywhere near what we commit to.. We don't have any of the money we are sending to Ukraine either we are just borrowing it from China who may even team up with Russia at some point SMFH.

[TheStig]

But after 20/30 years of a gun ban, a good portion of the generation that loved them will be dead. And the young generation that are hiding in their classrooms right now? They’ll be able to live a happy, and much safer life. That’s the point.

And that is what any centralized power would prefer.

The implicit trust in the "good" actions of the Federal government is beyond me. What have they done to earn such blind faith?

An armed citizenry guarantees better actions by the State. This is what the founders intended and by God was it insightful. They conceived of a future where citizens would be in the exact same position they were in 1776. Knowing that a group of collected, intelligent people would choose to take up arms against a centralized entity that did not consider their representation led to an unthinkable action among that group. They knew that the central entity was abusing its power (from their perspective) and thus required a dramatic action and had they not had arms of their own, they would have failed in the attempt.

So they conceived and believed that the situation could happen again. Here. Considering how well they knew history, better than most High School graduates today, the motivations were clear that the abuse of power upon a citizenry was one of the most common abuses in any society so a deterrent and right of a human is the right to defend their autonomy even against a central power.

This is caked into the American spirit and if we do not understand that as a people, then we are so distant from the values that founded this country, I would argue that we are not really Americans.

This problem is simple. You want the guns, you're gonna have to create an amendment to get the guns. The only way you're going to accomplish that outside of an amendment is to revolt or violate the Constitution (thus breaking the law).

I do not personally own a firearm, but I will defend anyone's right to do so. It is just in cause and I hope it remains that way.

This argument amazes me. You like the idea of placing power over the well being of your family into the hands of the shooter yesterday over a centralized government.

Being ok that mentality deranged individuals can kill you instantly is never something I’m cool with. They can anywhere, and at anytime. And there are a lot more questionable citizens than there are government officials.

The founding fathers lived in an era so far removed from what society today looks like, I’d question anything that references what they wanted. It’s completely silly.[/quote]
Much of the laws in place in this country are common law based that preceede the founding fathers. Yet we still employ them today and appreciate them.

[dougthonus]

The process is simple. 2/3; 3/4. If something is considered wrong and people want to change it, they can, but you have to build consensus.

Liberals message is they want to take the guns. SCOTUS has said on numerous occasions you cannot do that.

Thus, your standstill. The only way you're going to do it is to convince people that the right to defend your life and liberty with armaments does not exist. I think that is a losing argument and I would not teach my children otherwise.

Reducing violence means building better citizens and making the central point of values within culture around those things that create more positive outcomes. I do not understand why this is a hard concept for people to understand. Millions upon millions of gun owners are not going on shooting sprees in this country. Responsible gun ownership exists. To deny that it does not is pure ignorance.

You could poll Americans now, and I think a huge number of gun reforms would pass 2/3rds consensus. Our political system doesn't do a good job of translating that into legislators that vote in policies people want. People vote people in on a bundle of issues and if they care strongly about one issue have to accept a platform that they may not agree with very large swaths of.

This is even using the assumption that people even understand what they are voting for at all, which is also often untrue, and assuming you actually get people to vote for politicians in a way which is equal to the needs of the country which is also often untrue.

[Almost Retired]

The recent Bruen case before the Supreme Court puts a pretty high burden on the ability of States to pass widespread gun control measures. Any gun "of common use" is going to be protected. That includes the AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle. States have the choice to try to pass legislation to see how far they can go before their law is unconstitutional under Bruen. The only other alternative is to try to get a Constitutional Amendment passed which abrogates the Second Amendment. Which I would say is next to impossible. But it's not the fault of the inanimate object. I own 3 inanimate objects called guns in my home. I've never committed a single illegal act with any of them. In my area of Texas I would bet that 80% of the households own at least one firearm. No gun control measure is ever going to make the majority of them give up their guns. I know that I wouldn't turn mine in. I'd place them in large PVC pipes sealed at the ends and bury them before I'd submit to any such laws. The Federal Government could not prosecute the approximately 77.5 Million gun owners nor incarcerate them for non compliance. So we have no choice but to attack the problem at the societal level in terms of mental health vigilance in our schools, review of social media if guns are brandished, and other steps. But gun confiscation is never going to be accomplished as long as our Constitution is in effect. And I'm thankful for that. I have a right to protect my life and liberty which were endowed upon me by my Creator.

[League Circles]

^ Is it useful for voters to know about magazine capacity and the like? Sure. More education is always a positive. Is it a necessary precursor to policy? Absolutely not. Experts consult with policymakers, policymakers come up with draft bills or regs or ballot initiatives or administrative actions, and then advocates write plain-language primers for the electorate.

There is no scenario where the public is going to arrive at a consensus about gun specs on its own. That isn’t how policy works. It’s like saying we can’t move forward with healthcare policy until we all understand risk corridors. This is just a burden that gun advocates introduce to freeze debate.

Might as well just advocate a general law against immoral behavior. And then punt it to experts to decide what that is. There is no expertise of note needed to consider and discuss and advocate things like bullet capacity. It is not an issue of expertise. Yes a little bit of knowledge is very helpful but it is certainly not an issue of expertise being needed.

I'm not saying every voter needs to know these things. Every voter has their own prerogative on what to learn about and what to care about. What I'm saying is that there is actually no content to any discussion that does not include these details. Otherwise it's just vague emotional ranting no offense to you or anyone else. Laws are specific. There's no law that will ever be written that is called the "better gun control law" or the "we did something law". Actually I could imagine that absurdity now that I think about it.

[WookieOnRitalin]

If the same thing happened today, I find it almost impossible to believe that the resulting government formed would be beneficial to society. There is a pretty wide gap between a colonizing force trying to control you from across the sea and wanting independence and trying to overthrow an existing government. Name all the places you want to live right now that have had violent revolutions in the past 30 years. Probably zero names on that list.

I'm not sure it is relevant to me anyway. People don't know what they are voting for and have no real easy meaningful way to put checks on politicians anyway, nor do our politicians generally work in the best interest of society frequently.

Making rural votes count more than urban votes seems like a crap system all together to be quite honest. Oh, you decided to live on the firm, so your vote is 1.3 votes? Seems pretty awful.

I must go, but I will continue this discussion later this evening.

Part 1:
That's just not how history works. How did you extrapolate that I would want to be a part of violent revolution? Of course I wouldn't. Nobody does. But that's not the same as saying I do not have a right to defend myself against the government. The righteousness of the cause is ultimately written by the victors. If the British had succeeded in squashing the rebellion, then this would not be a conversation, or made more interesting had Lee captured Gettysburg.

Part 2:
It's not. In fact, urban centers have a great ability to influence control on a great majority of public policy (see Rome). It also teaches potential candidates to earn the votes of states. People who own opposing positions do not believe in a federalist society. I prefer a political system that protects the ability of people in local communities to run their communities as they best see fit. Often, the people who oppose these ideas are leftists and marxists. They want to erode regional autonomy to create a totalitarian centralized structure that dictates policy for all citizens in all places. It may work on a small scale, but the US is far too big and diverse for that kind of philosophy.


In general, we want to ignore the fact that the problem is the deadlock. Leftists and progressives cannot create more radical changes to our governmental structures without creating consensus around their positions.

It's laziness and the country does not and will not have it. Why is this so difficult to realize?

The question is, HOW DO YOU BREAK THE DEADLOCK?

You have to win hearts and minds. No one on the left is pretending to try anymore and it is made conservatives dig their heels in more.

[AshyLarrysDiaper]

^ Is it useful for voters to know about magazine capacity and the like? Sure. More education is always a positive. Is it a necessary precursor to policy? Absolutely not. Experts consult with policymakers, policymakers come up with draft bills or regs or ballot initiatives or administrative actions, and then advocates write plain-language primers for the electorate.

There is no scenario where the public is going to arrive at a consensus about gun specs on its own. That isn’t how policy works. It’s like saying we can’t move forward with healthcare policy until we all understand risk corridors. This is just a burden that gun advocates introduce to freeze debate.

Might as well just advocate a general law against immoral behavior. And then punt it to experts to decide what that is. There is no expertise of note needed to consider and discuss and advocate things like bullet capacity. It is not an issue of expertise. Yes a little bit of knowledge is very helpful but it is certainly not an issue of expertise being needed.

I'm not saying every voter needs to know these things. Every voter has their own prerogative on what to learn about and what to care about. What I'm saying is that there is actually no content to any discussion that does not include these details. Otherwise it's just vague emotional ranting no offense to you or anyone else. Laws are specific. There's no law that will ever be written that is called the "better gun control law" or the "we did something law". Actually I could imagine that absurdity now that I think about it.

Ok man you have a good one!

[madvillian]

Wookie you're way too old to be talking about outdated 18th century Political Philosophy like it has any relevance. I mean, come on. That **** sounds great in some silly undergrad paper on the balance of power laid out in the Rights of Man or the Federalist papers, here in 2022 American it has nothing to do with reality.

The reality is we have a country is being effectively run by a 30% or so minority on "controversial" issues like gun control, abortion and such. That's not some great foresight by the Founding Fathers' on "minority rights" -- that's just an accident that happened with de-industrialization and the moving of people to the coasts and urban centers.

[IliketheBullsNBearstoo]

Guns: AR-15s, specifically, are the most popular guns in mass shootings by far, so let’s start there. As to broadening the ban, there’s no shortage of firearms experts to consult with policymakers on which models and modifications are most dangerous. The layman doesn’t need to know the ins and outs of gun specs any more than they do tort law or ICD-11 codes. This isn’t a real obstacle, it’s just a talking point from the gun lobby.

Fact: Majority of gun deaths are caused by handguns.

If you want to save lives, you're going to have to ban handguns. That will never happen,

The equivalent of a rifle in the Continental army is what a citizen should have been able to legal purchase and own.

The equivalent of a US Army rifle is what a citizen should have the the ability to purchase and own today.

It's one of the major points of the 2nd amendment. I support background checks, licenses, and training. I honestly believe you would get an overwhelming amount of support from gun owners and people who support the 2nd amendment.

Personally, I’m in favor of banning handguns too. Failing that, however, I’ll settle for banning the guns that my 6–year-old’s does drills to prepare for.

What? Take the guns? Like just take all guns(impossible)? Make it illegal to own a gun? So do you think someone who is willing to do something illegal like shoot someone won't just obtain a gun and illegally own one? Just ban assault rifles? Oh you mean semi-automatic rifles that are dressed to look like military rifles? Well then what about the hunting rifles that can kill many people with. So people can't hunt or shoot anymore? I mean lets pass a law that just makes it illegal to kill someone with anything that way we just cover all our bases. Oh wait, they aren't following laws. A law for something that someone wants to use to break the law. Let that sink in for a second. Guns were created already and aren't going anywhere.

Oh it will be more difficult to obtain a gun if they are banned? Are you kidding, they will be sold at every street corner purchased by people who don't follow laws.

You essentially will be taking the guns out of the law abiding citizens hands while the bad guys who don't follow laws, remember, are just taking whatever they want. I can sleep better at night knowing I am able to protect my home and family in the case where the bad guys, who believe it or not don't follow the laws some people want to put in place from having these firearms, are out raping and pillaging whatever they want because they know all the law abiding citizens are only carrying a bat or a kitchen knife at home. You think crime theft for example, the smash and grab at stores and the porch pirates are getting bad, wait until they have the power to just come in your home with no fear. You think the cops are going to come save you? They'll show up after its too late.

We are seeing a growing number of shootings yes, it has become a trend. Its turned into a damn trend for a lot of people that are in a place where they don't care about their own lives anymore and want to take some other people down with them. This started with bad parenting years ago and its just getting worse. I mean I'm just guessing of course but there's a lot of bad parents out there and its getting worse. Only thing I can think is there are just a lot of not only mentally ill but just people that don't respect other lives. Its not going to magically get better from some law. Family values and respecting others is a dying trend unfortunately. These people, criminals who don't care, they'll be starting the trend of just coming and taking whatever they want from you. Because they can. Why aren't they doing it right now? Well some are but its not trending yet. It won't until they see they can get away with it. It will be the trend just like your retail smash and grabbers. Am I being extreme with these examples? Yeah but you have to prepare for the worst. And there is nothing worse than not being able to protect my family.

I don't know what the resolution is. If there are gun laws that someone can come up with that actually will do some good I am all for it. But saying get rid of guns isn't it. Thats just some easy shortsighted thing to say. All I can do is pass on to my little ones the importance of respecting others lives and just love them as much as I can.

[League Circles]

The question is, HOW DO YOU BREAK THE DEADLOCK?

You have to win hearts and minds. No one on the left is pretending to try anymore and it is made conservatives dig their heels in more.

Exactly. IMO this goes for the right as well as the left, but specifically on this issue, as you note, there is virtually no attempt to win hearts and minds. For example, you very frequently hear the left/gun control advocates say things like "no one should ever need measure X to protect themselves". Very, very rarely do you see someone say "I know protecting yourself is critical and you have a great point there, so we're going to have to figure out how policy Z can protect your ability to do WHAT I KNOW IS IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO DO, and still improve public safety.

SMH. Instead, on most issues, the "right" and "left" mostly just yell at each other that they're wrong and dumb about everything. IMO, the reality is that "both sides" are mostly correct about everything they say and value, but completely ignore and dimiss the other half of legitimate interests, acting like they don't exist. As a result, no hearts and minds are really ever won, and gridlock is sustained. There are so many relatively obvious compromise solutions to many of our political issues, but almost everyone is afraid of giving the other side an inch on anything. It's laughably childish and is incredibly prevalent across our entire society. I think most people are more concerned with victories of ideology than with progress towards peace and prosperity.

[League Circles]

Wookie you're way too old to be talking about outdated 18th century Political Philosophy like it has any relevance. I mean, come on. That **** sounds great in some silly undergrad paper on the balance of power laid out in the Rights of Man or the Federalist papers, here in 2022 American it has nothing to do with reality.

The reality is we have a country is being effectively run by a 30% or so minority on "controversial" issues like gun control, abortion and such. That's not some great foresight by the Founding Fathers' on "minority rights" -- that's just an accident that happened with de-industrialization and the moving of people to the coasts and urban centers.

Regardless of the wisdom or lack thereof of the founders, the Constitution is the law of the land. Without it, all we have really is the chaos of the short term will of democratic (small d) power. I can understand why some people would prefer living in a democracy to a Republic but from my perspective it's important to protect the society over time from the tyranny of the society of the present as a general philosophy. Rural citizens may appear to have more sway than urban ones, but there is a logical reason for that. They are the stewards of land, of future population centers. This is a union of states, not of people living in those states. For anyone that has a big problem with that I would suggest just reimagining your state as constituting what you believe should be your country. For better or for worse that is how we were established.

[MrSparkle]

But after 20/30 years of a gun ban, a good portion of the generation that loved them will be dead. And the young generation that are hiding in their classrooms right now? They’ll be able to live a happy, and much safer life. That’s the point.

And that is what any centralized power would prefer.

The implicit trust in the "good" actions of the Federal government is beyond me. What have they done to earn such blind faith?

An armed citizenry guarantees better actions by the State. This is what the founders intended and by God was it insightful. They conceived of a future where citizens would be in the exact same position they were in 1776. Knowing that a group of collected, intelligent people would choose to take up arms against a centralized entity that did not consider their representation led to an unthinkable action among that group. They knew that the central entity was abusing its power (from their perspective) and thus required a dramatic action and had they not had arms of their own, they would have failed in the attempt.

So they conceived and believed that the situation could happen again. Here. Considering how well they knew history, better than most High School graduates today, the motivations were clear that the abuse of power upon a citizenry was one of the most common abuses in any society so a deterrent and right of a human is the right to defend their autonomy even against a central power.

This is caked into the American spirit and if we do not understand that as a people, then we are so distant from the values that founded this country, I would argue that we are not really Americans.

This problem is simple. You want the guns, you're gonna have to create an amendment to get the guns. The only way you're going to accomplish that outside of an amendment is to revolt or violate the Constitution (thus breaking the law).

I do not personally own a firearm, but I will defend anyone's right to do so. It is just in cause and I hope it remains that way.

This argument amazes me. You like the idea of placing power over the well being of your family into the hands of the shooter yesterday over a centralized government.

Being ok that mentality deranged individuals can kill you instantly is never something I’m cool with. They can anywhere, and at anytime. And there are a lot more questionable citizens than there are government officials.

The founding fathers lived in an era so far removed from what society today looks like, I’d question anything that references what they wanted. It’s completely silly.

Strict constitutionalists talk the rhetoric, but they don't dress the part. It's not fair IMO.



The Constitution was a list of ideals open to interpretation and debate. Nothing written was absolute.

The thing that's baffling to me is that the 1st amendment and article 6 quite absolutely state an independence between state-politics and religion, yet the "religious freedom" interpretation contradicts this by flipping the argument that you should be free to practice any religion, with you should be free to instill your religious beliefs on the entire population, which is a word salad cluster. But I digress.

The complication with the 2nd amendment is its interpretations can be vast, but it's a principle, not a green light for mentally ill 22yos to buy assault weapons.

The NYPD wasn't even established until 1845. There was no official order for local protective services, they were community watchmen, gangs and militias. But of course, none of those back-woods organizations serve a practical purpose today (other than cause trouble at protests and rallies). Now we have massive police forces in every municipality in the country. The reason the police is so big and needs military training today is because of guns and cars- two technologies that radically developed in the 1900s and made it overbearing to control a trouble maker.

The idea of an organized militia is completely antiquated by the police. The idea of bearing arms is antiquated by the police. Also antiquated by nuclear, missile, drone and biological weapons technology.