OT: Highland Park 4th of July Parade Mass Shooting

[edededtut]

Coming off of the COVID crisis and massive debt we have added, when we have to make really hard choices about our finances as a country and getting the most out of our dollars, how much money would you dump into preventing mass shooting deaths? Top google search said we have 277 mass shooting deaths since 2000.
.

There is no way that stat is accurate. The fbi stat has 277 mass shooting incidents between 2000-2018 with 884 deaths and 1500 injuries.

According to wikipedia (who get their stats from gunviolencearchive.org, dont know about their reliability) there have been 308 mass shootings this year already with 387 mass shooting deaths and ~1400 injuries. They do count the shooters too in the deaths number so that skews those numbers probably significantly.

And it seems an incident can make it to that list even if no one dies. I looked at individual incidents on the site and it seems that they count the incidents with at least 4 victims (injured/dead).

But let that number sink in. It’s 11 mass shootings in a week.

I guess it depends on the definition of ”mass shooting” but 277 is definitely not correct casualty number.

[League Circles]

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.

You do make a variety of good points in your post here, but the bolded part at the end is preposterous. A gun can protect you from imminent danger to your life in a way that the police obviously, understandably and unequivocally cannot. Even a militia isn't antiquated. It's a simple matter of fact that full time paid LE officials are stretched thin. The idea of a militia is to help serve as sort of a volunteer, part time police force as needed/available. Only a city dweller in a safe area would not acknowledge and agree with these purposes, even if they don't agree that guns and militias should be allowed. It's like saying that because police exist, the idea of safe houses for kids on their way home from school are antiquated. Because hey, a kid being kidnapped can always jusy call the police and they'll be there in time. You may not agree with their existence which is fine, but don't act like there is something inherently inapplicable about them to modern times.

This is a simple matter of physics and geography. It's not possible for the state to adequately protect individuals from danger. So you have to either give citizens some ability to protect themselves, or conclude that their individual safety is less crucial than projected overall large scale end results of gun crimes.

I may be mistaken, but I believe I read that in Highland Park, the police arrived 5-10 minutes after the shooting started. If I'm correct, we're lucky 50 people weren't killed. This is a wealthy community with a well funded PD, on what should have been a high alert day/event, and that was apparently the response time from what I heard. Look at January 6th at the capital! LE officials are no worse than anyone else and very often make great sacrifices to protect us and I am grateful for that, but it is not at all physically possible for them to protect us adequately.

[Dresden]

The second amendment states the right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia. Which I believe meant a militia organized by the state you lived in. So that too was a governmental institution. Therefore the argument that it was intended as a means for citizens to violently overthrow the govt. doesn't seem legitimate or in line with what the framers intended.

I don't understand why the stipulation that you are only allowed to bear arms "as part of a well regulated militia" has been forgotten by the courts, and by people in general.

[Almost Retired]

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.

Well, since you don't sit on the Supreme Court we will have to live with the 6-3 decision in the Bruen case. Bruen states that individuals have a 2nd Amendment right to take with and use a firearm outside the home in self defense. And if they have the right to carry and use a gun outside the home it goes without argument that the 2nd Amendment right extends inside the home as well. So some restrictions at the margins will be Constitutional. The machine gun restrictions are probably safe. The AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle is more problematic. It is a weapon "of common use" as described in the Bruen and Heller cases. Restrictions on the purchase and ownership of these is not likely going to pass Constitutional "strict review". It is a societal problem. Rural areas have a high percentage of gun ownership. Many rural household possess multiple weapons. There is also wide spread poverty in many rural areas. Yet despite the poverty and the access to multiple weapons the murder rate in these rural communities is a fraction of that seen in urban areas. I wonder why that might be?

[League Circles]

The second amendment states the right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia. Which I believe meant a militia organized by the state you lived in. So that too was a governmental institution. Therefore the argument that it was intended as a means for citizens to violently overthrow the govt. doesn't seem legitimate or in line with what the framers intended.

I don't understand why the stipulation that you are only allowed to bear arms "as part of a well regulated militia" has been forgotten by the courts, and by people in general.

Who in the world argues that the 2nd amendment was intended to enable citizens to violently overthrow the government??????

I agree with your broader point about the militia though. I haven't read the entire federalist papers to know for sure what the intent of the militia language was, but I agree it appears to suggest gun control regulation. Which we have. I, for one, am interested in a somewhat higher level of regulation. Also, I think it's fair to define the militia in modern terms as "those people allowed by law to bear arms". Essentially, the militia is everyone who has a gun legally. I would just like to make that a few less people, with more clear and consistent restrictions on what arms can be owned.

[Almost Retired]

The "Militia Argument" has been considered and has been found to be descriptive preliminary language that does not restrict the right to bear arms in the language after the comma. The Founders had a greater command of the English language than most of our current citizens. Had they intended to limit gun ownership to militia membership they could have and would have specified that in plain language. The America of 1783 was spreading rapidly west, and settlers frequently encountered hostile native Americans (understandably hostile I might add). There were many Founders who did not favor a standing army. The westward pioneers were on their own unless they banded together with other western bound migrants. It would have been unthinkable in that era that each man would not have the right to own weapons for protection. The key to the whole Constitution is that we as human have certain rights that are endowed by our Creator...among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Government doesn't confer these rights to us. They are innate to us from the moment of our birth. The Bill of Rights spells out particular areas where the government cannot negate our fundamental rights. If we have the right to life and liberty then we must as a consequence of this also have the right to protect our own life. Thus the Second Amendment. Our right to bear arms shall not be infringed. And if we did not have this fundamental right then many of our other rights provided for in the Bill of Rights would have also been in jeopardy over the 240 years since the Constitution was written by men much smarter than ourselves.

[MrSparkle]

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.

Well, since you don't sit on the Supreme Court we will have to live with the 6-3 decision in the Bruen case. Bruen states that individuals have a 2nd Amendment right to take with and use a firearm outside the home in self defense. And if they have the right to carry and use a gun outside the home it goes without argument that the 2nd Amendment right extends inside the home as well. So some restrictions at the margins will be Constitutional. The machine gun restrictions are probably safe. The AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle is more problematic. It is a weapon "of common use" as described in the Bruen and Heller cases. Restrictions on the purchase and ownership of these is not likely going to pass Constitutional "strict review". It is a societal problem. Rural areas have a high percentage of gun ownership. Many rural household possess multiple weapons. There is also wide spread poverty in many rural areas. Yet despite the poverty and the access to multiple weapons the murder rate in these rural communities is a fraction of that seen in urban areas. I wonder why that might be?

You're wondering why there's more crime amongst populations of 2M vs. 2K people?

[dougthonus]

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.

What are the guns doing other than violent revolution? Providing silent threats that we may revolt? You think any politicians are considering that the populace is armed when making their votes on topics?

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.

Should rural votes be worth more or not? In this system they are. It's a mathematical formula. Either the rural population has more voting power per person or they don't. You seem to be explicitly saying that they should, but trying to pretend you are saying something else by describing the reasons they should. You can believe in those reasons, and that's fine. However, that still means you think rural votes should be worth more. I don't believe that.

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.

As noted, in our political system that isn't possible, because we aren't deadlocked on this issue. People of the country are overwhelmingly in favor of gun control and regulation, but we aren't all voting on that singular issue and our system doesn't count all votes equally and all people care about issues but we still generally have low voter turnout.

[MrSparkle]

The "Militia Argument" has been considered and has been found to be descriptive preliminary language that does not restrict the right to bear arms in the language after the comma. The Founders had a greater command of the English language than most of our current citizens. Had they intended to limit gun ownership to militia membership they could have and would have specified that in plain language. The America of 1783 was spreading rapidly west, and settlers frequently encountered hostile native Americans (understandably hostile I might add). There were many Founders who did not favor a standing army. The westward pioneers were on their own unless they banded together with other western bound migrants. It would have been unthinkable in that era that each man would not have the right to own weapons for protection. The key to the whole Constitution is that we as human have certain rights that are endowed by our Creator...among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Government doesn't confer these rights to us. They are innate to us from the moment of our birth. The Bill of Rights spells out particular areas where the government cannot negate our fundamental rights. If we have the right to life and liberty then we must as a consequence of this also have the right to protect our own life. Thus the Second Amendment. Our right to bear arms shall not be infringed. And if we did not have this fundamental right then many of our other rights provided for in the Bill of Rights would have also been in jeopardy over the 240 years since the Constitution was written by men much smarter than ourselves.

The kids murdered in Highland Park and Uvalde sure had the right to life, liberty and a pursuit of happiness. By your statement, you suggest that innate from birth they should all been trained to use weapons and all should've been armed to protect themselves, since they have the right to protect their own life. Sounds like a bizarre dystopia. A gun is a tool for killing or threatening to kill someone. Problem is most gun instances are crimes, not self-defense. 2018: 484,800 gun-crimes, 70,040 self-defense. I would classify it as a criminal tool more than a defense tool. That'd be akin to stats showing that people use their cars to commit crimes about 7x as often as driving to work. Tools have different purposes, but they ultimately have one primary purpose in reality, and citizens' guns don't serve the purpose that the NRA seems hell bent on arguing - all empirical evidence suggests as much.

Westward pioneers were traveling beyond US territory, fighting natives on in lawless country. USA wasn't even officially exploring the West until the 1800s. You know that the right to bear arms had everything to do with the revolutionary nature of the founding of America, and it was a particular sticking point to preventing monarch-style oppression in the new country. Made a lot of sense back then.

Still makes sense in some ways, but we all know that this gun debate is about "gun control" not a "gun ban" - common sense updates to laws that were made in a different time period, by smart men who wrote the constitution in a way that was intended to be flexible and updated to modern times by the majority of the population. Currently as I look at USA polling, a majority of the population wants gun control laws for mentally ill, harder permits and licensing, and restricting military grade weapons and assault rifles to the general public.

[WookieOnRitalin]

Wookie you're way too old to be talking about outdated 18th century Political Philosophy like it has any relevance.

It has more wisdom and relevance than most people realize.

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.

If you have a specific claim you wish to make specifically, I would love to engage with it. I happen to believe that a federalist society is a more free society.

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.

What is the "minority" doing that you happen to disagree with specifically? And you are incorrect as the motivations behind the idea of minority vs majority in written into the conversation of the day within the development of our Constitutional system as there was a great fear of large states like Virginia dictating policy to states like Connecticut. There is a reason we have a bicameral legislature and there is a reason why the Senate is the "upper" chamber with the way its representatives are distributed.

You call it luck. I call it foresight.

[League Circles]

Currently as I look at USA polling, a majority of the population wants gun control laws for mentally ill, harder permits and licensing, and restricting military grade weapons and assault rifles to the general public.

This is a perfect example of what can be so frustrating about this issue. None of these aspects of the issue that you list are even vaguely concrete with any true meaning. That's why polls are such absolute horse **** so often. They ask leading questions that people do not take the time to think through. They do not ask specific questions. They ask general questions that are widely open to interpretation and then they take those results and apply them to the interpretation that fits their agenda.

Who is mentally ill?

"Harder permits and licensing" - how many of the respondents you would have much of a clue on how hard or easy the current process is where they live?

What is a military grade weapon? (Hint, an AR-15 is not, so what is?)

"Assault rifles" - what are some of the so-called assault rifles that are currently legal and relatively easy to obtain? (An AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle)

If people want to get anywhere discussing difficult issues they need to be much more precise in language than is the norm.

[IliketheBullsNBearstoo]

The "Militia Argument" has been considered and has been found to be descriptive preliminary language that does not restrict the right to bear arms in the language after the comma. The Founders had a greater command of the English language than most of our current citizens. Had they intended to limit gun ownership to militia membership they could have and would have specified that in plain language. The America of 1783 was spreading rapidly west, and settlers frequently encountered hostile native Americans (understandably hostile I might add). There were many Founders who did not favor a standing army. The westward pioneers were on their own unless they banded together with other western bound migrants. It would have been unthinkable in that era that each man would not have the right to own weapons for protection. The key to the whole Constitution is that we as human have certain rights that are endowed by our Creator...among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Government doesn't confer these rights to us. They are innate to us from the moment of our birth. The Bill of Rights spells out particular areas where the government cannot negate our fundamental rights. If we have the right to life and liberty then we must as a consequence of this also have the right to protect our own life. Thus the Second Amendment. Our right to bear arms shall not be infringed. And if we did not have this fundamental right then many of our other rights provided for in the Bill of Rights would have also been in jeopardy over the 240 years since the Constitution was written by men much smarter than ourselves.

The kids murdered in Highland Park and Uvalde sure had the right to life, liberty and a pursuit of happiness. By your statement, you suggest that innate from birth they should all been trained to use weapons and all should've been armed to protect themselves, since they have the right to protect their own life. Sounds like a bizarre dystopia. A gun is a tool for killing or threatening to kill someone. Problem is most gun instances are crimes, not self-defense. 2018: 484,800 gun-crimes, 70,040 self-defense. I would classify it as a criminal tool more than a defense tool. That'd be akin to stats showing that people use their cars to commit crimes about 7x as often as driving to work. Tools have different purposes, but they ultimately have one primary purpose in reality, and citizens' guns don't serve the purpose that the NRA seems hell bent on arguing - all empirical evidence suggests as much.

Westward pioneers were traveling beyond US territory, fighting natives on in lawless country. USA wasn't even officially exploring the West until the 1800s. You know that the right to bear arms had everything to do with the revolutionary nature of the founding of America, and it was a particular sticking point to preventing monarch-style oppression in the new country. Made a lot of sense back then.

Still makes sense in some ways, but we all know that this gun debate is about "gun control" not a "gun ban" - common sense updates to laws that were made in a different time period, by smart men who wrote the constitution in a way that was intended to be flexible and updated to modern times by the majority of the population. Currently as I look at USA polling, a majority of the population wants gun control laws for mentally ill, harder permits and licensing, and restricting military grade weapons and assault rifles to the general public.

The gun is also a tool for killing for food which if done under regulations isn't criminal. It can also be used as defense of wild animals that might think you are food. And yes it is also a tool to defend your home and family. There is also a very popular hobby of shooting. People like to shoot for sport. It is not a criminal tool. It is only a criminal tool for criminals. And criminals don't follow laws and regulations. Push it all you want criminals will be criminals. They don't follow laws lol.

[WookieOnRitalin]

The "Militia Argument" has been considered and has been found to be descriptive preliminary language that does not restrict the right to bear arms in the language after the comma. The Founders had a greater command of the English language than most of our current citizens. Had they intended to limit gun ownership to militia membership they could have and would have specified that in plain language. The America of 1783 was spreading rapidly west, and settlers frequently encountered hostile native Americans (understandably hostile I might add). There were many Founders who did not favor a standing army. The westward pioneers were on their own unless they banded together with other western bound migrants. It would have been unthinkable in that era that each man would not have the right to own weapons for protection. The key to the whole Constitution is that we as human have certain rights that are endowed by our Creator...among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Government doesn't confer these rights to us. They are innate to us from the moment of our birth. The Bill of Rights spells out particular areas where the government cannot negate our fundamental rights. If we have the right to life and liberty then we must as a consequence of this also have the right to protect our own life. Thus the Second Amendment. Our right to bear arms shall not be infringed. And if we did not have this fundamental right then many of our other rights provided for in the Bill of Rights would have also been in jeopardy over the 240 years since the Constitution was written by men much smarter than ourselves.

The kids murdered in Highland Park and Uvalde sure had the right to life, liberty and a pursuit of happiness. By your statement, you suggest that innate from birth they should all been trained to use weapons and all should've been armed to protect themselves, since they have the right to protect their own life. Sounds like a bizarre dystopia. A gun is a tool for killing or threatening to kill someone. Problem is most gun instances are crimes, not self-defense. 2018: 484,800 gun-crimes, 70,040 self-defense. I would classify it as a criminal tool more than a defense tool. That'd be akin to stats showing that people use their cars to commit crimes about 7x as often as driving to work. Tools have different purposes, but they ultimately have one primary purpose in reality, and citizens' guns don't serve the purpose that the NRA seems hell bent on arguing - all empirical evidence suggests as much.

Westward pioneers were traveling beyond US territory, fighting natives on in lawless country. USA wasn't even officially exploring the West until the 1800s. You know that the right to bear arms had everything to do with the revolutionary nature of the founding of America, and it was a particular sticking point to preventing monarch-style oppression in the new country. Made a lot of sense back then.

Still makes sense in some ways, but we all know that this gun debate is about "gun control" not a "gun ban" - common sense updates to laws that were made in a different time period, by smart men who wrote the constitution in a way that was intended to be flexible and updated to modern times by the majority of the population. Currently as I look at USA polling, a majority of the population wants gun control laws for mentally ill, harder permits and licensing, and restricting military grade weapons and assault rifles to the general public.

Keep in mind that the majority of gun violence is committed by African Americans against....African Americans. A high number of them are young men as well (adding to the "child" statistics which I would call young adult).

So STILL one of the biggest problems with gun violence is that it disproportionately impacts poor, black communities. The problem is not the gun, but rather the cycle of violence within these communities (Read Fist, Stick, Knife, Gun by Geoffery Canada).

As to the bolded statement, I believe you can win a lot of hearts and minds on these issues and I believe state legislatures are catching up to this by passing laws to do so.

But here's a point for consideration. A large majority of the total gun violence is committed in urban centers where they already have pretty high levels of gun control. Again, the issue being that the majority of these homicides are being committed with handguns and not higher capacity weapons.

[superdave]

Such a terrible loss of human life. I am also saddened with the secondary effect that it has on so many I know/love in Chicago- on top of the rise in crime and violence in the city and now suburbs.

May I interject a question that is not currently being addressed by media. I read: Over the course of approximately a year, encompassing parts of 2020 and 2021, Covelli said Crimo had legally purchased five firearms, including two rifles. Asked why he was able to make those purchases following the 2019 incidents, Covelli referred the inquiry to the state police, which handles the Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card system.

My understanding is that by current Illinois state law, a legal purchase of a rifle from someone less than 21 years old requires an adult to co-sign (under the FOID card system). Does this by chance implicate the father, former mayoral candidate and also well like gentleman by all accounts, as the co-signer for the suspect to 'legally' purchases these rifles? I'm missing something here. I always thought Illinois had some of the stricter gun laws in the States.

[WookieOnRitalin]

What are the guns doing other than violent revolution? Providing silent threats that we may revolt? You think any politicians are considering that the populace is armed when making their votes on topics?

They would if there was not a great majority of our elected representative who did not gun rights.

Should rural votes be worth more or not? In this system they are. It's a mathematical formula. Either the rural population has more voting power per person or they don't. You seem to be explicitly saying that they should, but trying to pretend you are saying something else by describing the reasons they should. You can believe in those reasons, and that's fine. However, that still means you think rural votes should be worth more. I don't believe that.

You say "worth" more, I say "protected" from a totalitarian urban majority. It's a question of equalizing power which the founders were smart to do. I do believe in it for a large variety of reasons and it's not because I am some far right conservative. The foundation of the belief is to create a society where autonomy can exist and you cannot do that if you an oppressive power inhibiting a minority with their will.

This is why slavery needed to die. This is why several injustices have been corrected with constitutional amendments. The foundation of our constitution is to protect rights all the way down to the individual. This is why you have a right to do process and a right to face your accusers in court.

Your lack of belief needs to be supported with something superior that also protects the voices of those who do not live in large urban centers. I have not read anything as yet that is convincing on that front.

As noted, in our political system that isn't possible, because we aren't deadlocked on this issue. People of the country are overwhelmingly in favor of gun control and regulation, but we aren't all voting on that singular issue and our system doesn't count all votes equally and all people care about issues but we still generally have low voter turnout.

I fail to see your claim. As a resident of the state of Illinois, have you not had a say in various gun control policies in the state? Of course you do, as do I in the state of Tennessee. The point here is that gun control is a state issue and not a national issue unless you want to create a constitutional amendment of some form banning guns (which will never happen).

As to "sensible gun control" what specific policies do you want to put into place that would prevent certain shootings? Age limit? Sure sounds great. Does it violate the constitution? Might get challenged in court and it would be interested to see how that plays out because the 2nd amendment did not restrict the right to bear arms based on certain ages, but I would bet you would get a good majority of people to agree on 21. But then you realize, oh crap, the majority of mass shootings is committed by people over 21. Damn, that didn't work. What next?

I'm all for more sensible national gun laws, but gun laws that do not address the underlying problem of gun violence are absolutely, 100% bound to fail. Anyone who comes into the conversation who fails to acknowledge that is missing a huge component to the puzzle.

[WookieOnRitalin]

Such a terrible loss of human life. I am also saddened with the secondary effect that it has on so many I know/love in Chicago- on top of the rise in crime and violence in the city and now suburbs.

May I interject a question that is not currently being addressed by media. I read: Over the course of approximately a year, encompassing parts of 2020 and 2021, Covelli said Crimo had legally purchased five firearms, including two rifles. Asked why he was able to make those purchases following the 2019 incidents, Covelli referred the inquiry to the state police, which handles the Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card system.

My understanding is that by current Illinois state law, a legal purchase of a rifle from someone less than 21 years old requires an adult to co-sign (under the FOID card system). Does this by chance implicate the father, former mayoral candidate and also well like gentleman by all accounts, as the co-signer for the suspect to 'legally' purchases these rifles? I'm missing something here. I always thought Illinois had some of the stricter gun laws in the States.

It will be interesting to find out the origin of the weapon. In some cases, the disturbed youth do not purchase these firearms, but rather take them from relatives and use them.

I am not sure of the criminal liability of an adult or parent in the state of Illinois, but I would imagine there is a certain degree of civil liability.

I do know that when arms are transferred between relatives that the transferer is criminally liable for anything the transferee does illegally with that firearm. That was my understanding of the law nationally.

[WookieOnRitalin]

The second amendment states the right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia. Which I believe meant a militia organized by the state you lived in. So that too was a governmental institution. Therefore the argument that it was intended as a means for citizens to violently overthrow the govt. doesn't seem legitimate or in line with what the framers intended.

I don't understand why the stipulation that you are only allowed to bear arms "as part of a well regulated militia" has been forgotten by the courts, and by people in general.

You are incorrect. SCOTUS has ruled on this numerous times and made it clear to protect the right of individuals to bear arms.

So this claim has been debunked previously. The only way to change it is through amendment. You won't get 3/4 of states to vote for it however.

[Dresden]

The "Militia Argument" has been considered and has been found to be descriptive preliminary language that does not restrict the right to bear arms in the language after the comma. The Founders had a greater command of the English language than most of our current citizens. Had they intended to limit gun ownership to militia membership they could have and would have specified that in plain language. The America of 1783 was spreading rapidly west, and settlers frequently encountered hostile native Americans (understandably hostile I might add). There were many Founders who did not favor a standing army. The westward pioneers were on their own unless they banded together with other western bound migrants. It would have been unthinkable in that era that each man would not have the right to own weapons for protection. The key to the whole Constitution is that we as human have certain rights that are endowed by our Creator...among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Government doesn't confer these rights to us. They are innate to us from the moment of our birth. The Bill of Rights spells out particular areas where the government cannot negate our fundamental rights. If we have the right to life and liberty then we must as a consequence of this also have the right to protect our own life. Thus the Second Amendment. Our right to bear arms shall not be infringed. And if we did not have this fundamental right then many of our other rights provided for in the Bill of Rights would have also been in jeopardy over the 240 years since the Constitution was written by men much smarter than ourselves.

The kids murdered in Highland Park and Uvalde sure had the right to life, liberty and a pursuit of happiness. By your statement, you suggest that innate from birth they should all been trained to use weapons and all should've been armed to protect themselves, since they have the right to protect their own life. Sounds like a bizarre dystopia. A gun is a tool for killing or threatening to kill someone. Problem is most gun instances are crimes, not self-defense. 2018: 484,800 gun-crimes, 70,040 self-defense. I would classify it as a criminal tool more than a defense tool. That'd be akin to stats showing that people use their cars to commit crimes about 7x as often as driving to work. Tools have different purposes, but they ultimately have one primary purpose in reality, and citizens' guns don't serve the purpose that the NRA seems hell bent on arguing - all empirical evidence suggests as much.

Westward pioneers were traveling beyond US territory, fighting natives on in lawless country. USA wasn't even officially exploring the West until the 1800s. You know that the right to bear arms had everything to do with the revolutionary nature of the founding of America, and it was a particular sticking point to preventing monarch-style oppression in the new country. Made a lot of sense back then.

Still makes sense in some ways, but we all know that this gun debate is about "gun control" not a "gun ban" - common sense updates to laws that were made in a different time period, by smart men who wrote the constitution in a way that was intended to be flexible and updated to modern times by the majority of the population. Currently as I look at USA polling, a majority of the population wants gun control laws for mentally ill, harder permits and licensing, and restricting military grade weapons and assault rifles to the general public.

That's a perfect reply to some of these arguments based on the 2nd amendment. I think in any question involving rights, courts often have to balance the rights of one group v. the rights of another. By banning a shop owner from only serving white people, they were taking away some of the rights of the shop owner to run his business the way they want to. But they were at the same time upholding the rights of non-white people to be treated equally.

That may not be a perfect analogy, but I hope you get the point. In this current era, why do the rights of people to be armed so outweigh the rights of others to feel reasonably safe in schools, churches, public gatherings, even in their own homes?

Australia was once an unsettle frontier country too, yet after a mass shooting there a few years ago, they drastically changed their gun laws in a matter of weeks, and the people of Australia by and large supported doing so. Are people in Australia any less free now, because they can't so easily own a gun?

[Dresden]

The second amendment states the right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia. Which I believe meant a militia organized by the state you lived in. So that too was a governmental institution. Therefore the argument that it was intended as a means for citizens to violently overthrow the govt. doesn't seem legitimate or in line with what the framers intended.

I don't understand why the stipulation that you are only allowed to bear arms "as part of a well regulated militia" has been forgotten by the courts, and by people in general.

You are incorrect. SCOTUS has ruled on this numerous times and made it clear to protect the right of individuals to bear arms.

So this claim has been debunked previously. The only way to change it is through amendment. You won't get 3/4 of states to vote for it however.

I acknowledge that the courts HAVE ruled this way, I just don't understand WHY they did not take into consideration the stipulation that that right was only given "as part of a well regulated militia".

[Dresden]

What are the guns doing other than violent revolution? Providing silent threats that we may revolt? You think any politicians are considering that the populace is armed when making their votes on topics?

They would if there was not a great majority of our elected representative who did not gun rights.

Should rural votes be worth more or not? In this system they are. It's a mathematical formula. Either the rural population has more voting power per person or they don't. You seem to be explicitly saying that they should, but trying to pretend you are saying something else by describing the reasons they should. You can believe in those reasons, and that's fine. However, that still means you think rural votes should be worth more. I don't believe that.

You say "worth" more, I say "protected" from a totalitarian urban majority. It's a question of equalizing power which the founders were smart to do. I do believe in it for a large variety of reasons and it's not because I am some far right conservative. The foundation of the belief is to create a society where autonomy can exist and you cannot do that if you an oppressive power inhibiting a minority with their will.

This is why slavery needed to die. This is why several injustices have been corrected with constitutional amendments. The foundation of our constitution is to protect rights all the way down to the individual. This is why you have a right to do process and a right to face your accusers in court.

Your lack of belief needs to be supported with something superior that also protects the voices of those who do not live in large urban centers. I have not read anything as yet that is convincing on that front.

As noted, in our political system that isn't possible, because we aren't deadlocked on this issue. People of the country are overwhelmingly in favor of gun control and regulation, but we aren't all voting on that singular issue and our system doesn't count all votes equally and all people care about issues but we still generally have low voter turnout.

I fail to see your claim. As a resident of the state of Illinois, have you not had a say in various gun control policies in the state? Of course you do, as do I in the state of Tennessee. The point here is that gun control is a state issue and not a national issue unless you want to create a constitutional amendment of some form banning guns (which will never happen).

As to "sensible gun control" what specific policies do you want to put into place that would prevent certain shootings? Age limit? Sure sounds great. Does it violate the constitution? Might get challenged in court and it would be interested to see how that plays out because the 2nd amendment did not restrict the right to bear arms based on certain ages, but I would bet you would get a good majority of people to agree on 21. But then you realize, oh crap, the majority of mass shootings is committed by people over 21. Damn, that didn't work. What next?

I'm all for more sensible national gun laws, but gun laws that do not address the underlying problem of gun violence are absolutely, 100% bound to fail. Anyone who comes into the conversation who fails to acknowledge that is missing a huge component to the puzzle.

Yet gun laws have worked remarkably well in many other countries, so the argument that "well this law wouldn't have stopped this" just makes no sense. Gun laws do work, when they are comprehensive and strictly enforced. I would bet statistics show that drunk driving laws work, too, to decrease the number of drunk driving deaths, even though they don't prevent every single one.