Shooting at Elementary School (est 27 dead)

[Garrdor]

Agreed.

Times like these, it's a bad idea to have single-track minds with single-track beliefs. Doesn't help anybody.

2nd Amendment is a double edged sword. Public gets access to firearms. They use them for recreation and delusions of home security. That's fine, whatever. The initial intent for the amendment is a lot different than it's current application. Gun-toting militias here in the US are under constant scrutiny and surveillance, despite their obvious right to maintain and operate.

The original idea was for the general population to have a means to protect itself from threats, foreign or domestic. It's past that point now. The idea that people are going to rise up-in-arms and slay their oppressor is pretty far-fetched. Corporate america has done a fantastic job of getting people to hold protest signs instead.

[Harlowe]

Don't worry, the Tea Party has answers....

http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/ ... share_post

If people are serious about stopping this sort of thing they will take a number of steps:

Homeschool. Take away the power of the radicals in the classrooms. Makes your kids safer, too.

Back Right to Work legislation for the public sector. Teacher’s unions have helped cement much of this in place. As long as we have group think in the classrooms we will never see the end of this. […]

Work to devolve power back to the parents, the local officials, and the communities. A society that is top-down will inevitably lead to alienation of the sort we have seen here. This young man was twenty years old, and his actions were neither spurious nor random. As an FBI profiler said on television last night, he undoubtedly felt powerless and sought to remedy that. Why does a twenty year old feel powerless? He could leave his mother’s home at any time at his age. He feels powerless because he has lived in an over-bureaucratized society, one run ultimately from a far-away central location. […]

Restrict the sex in movies, television, on the internet. There is a reason why young people commit these sorts of crimes, and sex plays no small part. Their passions are eternally inflamed, and they wander the Earth with no outlet for their overstimulated glands. […]

Support the creation of local organizations to act as “neighborhood watch” for schools. Had George Zimmerman been at the front door instead of some mechanical card reader those children would still be alive. Perhaps it’s time we start asking for volunteers to protect our children. It will require security checks, but isn’t that worth it? This dovetails with the union problem; the unions will fight this measure tooth-and-nail.

[Alluveal]

Oh my. (in George Takei voice)

[Garrdor]

Gorgeous Takei

[Embar Angylwrath]

Regulate the bullets, not the guns. Guns don't kill people. Bullets do.

Not a word about regulating ammunition in the 2nd Amendment...

[Partha]

The problem is the fervor of the 2nd Amendment crowd covers for bad gun owners and bad gun dealers. This lady bought guns for her son (who likely would have failed a background check and/or Sheriff's Office approval to own), didn't lock them up, didn't keep them out of the hands of her disturbed son. She was not a responsible gun owner, and should never have had the opportunity to buy guns, let alone military-style knockoff rifles.

As far as fixes, I'd like to see a federal registry of guns with ownership information. I'd also like to see people who own firearms have to carry insurance on guns they own.

[Tarfang_Trubasher]

As far as fixes, I'd like to see a federal registry of guns with ownership information. I'd also like to see people who own firearms have to carry insurance on guns they own.

Some interesting (and positive) dialog could be had with those two ideas...

As a gun owner, I'd have no problem with either if properly implemented. Much like health/life insurance, I'd have to get a mental "physical" to prove I'm capable. The registry could increase accountability for the use and storage of firearms. Getting the mainstream party people to accept those alterations as compromise though....

But, the dialog would have to put some exacting language to prevent overstep. Whatever cannot be easily defined would have to fall into "reasonable" verbiage.

-TF

[Kulaf]

The first step imo is a return of federal and state funding for mental health institutions. It is one of the things I hated from the spending cuts that occured under Reagan. We need to give the parents of some of these troubled teens some alternatives to waiting for the call that they son/daughter has gone off the deep end and killed people.

[Embar Angylwrath]

The first step imo is a return of federal and state funding for mental health institutions. It is one of the things I hated from the spending cuts that occured under Reagan. We need to give the parents of some of these troubled teens some alternatives to waiting for the call that they son/daughter has gone off the deep end and killed people.

Theses types of incidents happen so infrequently that you can't make that kind of inference. They happened before Reagan as well.

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

[Kulaf]

The first step imo is a return of federal and state funding for mental health institutions. It is one of the things I hated from the spending cuts that occured under Reagan. We need to give the parents of some of these troubled teens some alternatives to waiting for the call that they son/daughter has gone off the deep end and killed people.

Theses types of incidents happen so infrequently that you can't make that kind of inference. They happened before Reagan as well.

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

I really don't care. The simple fact is that the funding needs to be restored regardless. If in addition to helping others it offers a solution for a parent facing this issue......money will spent.

[Partha]

The first step imo is a return of federal and state funding for mental health institutions. It is one of the things I hated from the spending cuts that occured under Reagan. We need to give the parents of some of these troubled teens some alternatives to waiting for the call that they son/daughter has gone off the deep end and killed people.

Theses types of incidents happen so infrequently that you can't make that kind of inference. They happened before Reagan as well.

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

I really don't care. The simple fact is that the funding needs to be restored regardless. If in addition to helping others it offers a solution for a parent facing this issue......money will spent.

Just don't raise taxes!

/Grover

[Xican]

You know what bothers me about the "2nd amendment defense"? This is a 200 year old document that is still treated as gospel. I find it difficult to believe that in 200 years society hasn't evolved to the point that this is still a relevant amendment. I just don't buy into it. Laws are not timeless. Society, technology, etc. are constantly evolving and changing and we can't blindly cling to anything like that, without re-evaluating it's purpose and how efficiently it serves the people.

[Embar Angylwrath]

You know what bothers me about the "2nd amendment defense"? This is a 200 year old document that is still treated as gospel. I find it difficult to believe that in 200 years society hasn't evolved to the point that this is still a relevant amendment. I just don't buy into it. Laws are not timeless. Society, technology, etc. are constantly evolving and changing and we can't blindly cling to anything like that, without re-evaluating it's purpose and how efficiently it serves the people.

Then repeal/modify the Amendment. We have mechanisms in place for that. The 21st Amendement repealed the 18th Amendment (prohibition). That's the mechanism for modifying the Constitution if you want to make it more time relevant.

[Embar Angylwrath]

The first step imo is a return of federal and state funding for mental health institutions. It is one of the things I hated from the spending cuts that occured under Reagan. We need to give the parents of some of these troubled teens some alternatives to waiting for the call that they son/daughter has gone off the deep end and killed people.

Theses types of incidents happen so infrequently that you can't make that kind of inference. They happened before Reagan as well.

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

I really don't care. The simple fact is that the funding needs to be restored regardless. If in addition to helping others it offers a solution for a parent facing this issue......money will spent.

Oh, ok. For a minute I thought you were trying to use this incident like so many others are to advance an agenda that really is only tangential, but not relevant, to the shooting.

[Arathena]

You know what bothers me about the "2nd amendment defense"? This is a 200 year old document that is still treated as gospel. I find it difficult to believe that in 200 years society hasn't evolved to the point that this is still a relevant amendment. I just don't buy into it. Laws are not timeless. Society, technology, etc. are constantly evolving and changing and we can't blindly cling to anything like that, without re-evaluating it's purpose and how efficiently it serves the people.

We are quite well able to place restrictions on the 2nd Amendment. Even Scalia admits that.

The Amendments and their relevant rights are heavily affected by government interest. The rights that we possess are not all-inclusive; when a clear need arises, it is possible and legal to place restrictions on our rights. Classically, it is not legal to shout fire in a crowded room - unless there is a fire. This is a restriction on your free speech. It is not legal to own a shotgun of barrel length underneath 18" without liscence from the BATF; this is a non-contested restriction on your right to bear arms.

But whatever is done, it will almost assuredly have to pass strict scrutiny. It will have to serve a clear societal and governmental interest, it will have to be appear to be tailored to that interest, and it will have to be the lightest restriction that does achieve the interest.

A law that is tailored to mitigating the lethality of mass shooting events can be considered under those lights - you're going to be wanting to debate high-capacity magazine bans (including removal measures for existing ones), ammuntion power limitations, etc.

[Ddrak]

The 2nd amendment in its modern meaning has only really existed since the civil war. Prior to that, it was well understood to have a tight link between the weapons and the militias.

That's all fine - the constitution has to be reframed within modern society and that's the role of the USSC. They've recently made a statement on the amendment, so the system is working as intended.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

The answer really isn't in gun restriction. As Ara pointed out, and I mentioned earlier, addressing the issue lie with regulating ammunition. Without ammo, a gun is just a club. The 2nd amendment is silent on ammunition because back then, a shooter made his own out of black powder, a wad and a lead ball.

High capacity mags loaded with teflon coated ammo was never contemplated by the founders, and its fair game for regulation. That's the simplest way to restrict the ability for nutcases to use guns to commit mass murder.

That said, nutcases will always find a way to commit mass murder with or without guns. It's pretty damned easy to make a homemade flamethrower. Imagine what that would have done. It's also pretty easy to make an IED. One of those tossed in a classroom would have had the same effect as shooting the place up... lots of fatalities.

My point is regulate guns all you want, regulate ammunition all you want, it won't stop crazies from goin off the deep end and causing major havoc. A determined nutjob will find a way to accomplish his goal with whatever tools he can find.

[Harlowe]

You could say the same for anything, but things that are dangerous, need rules for owning and operating. We have them for operating machinary, vehicles etc. There is no rationalization for not having rational rules for gun ownership/operation as well.

Go after the ammunition, go after assault weapons, remove the gun show loopholes...there are quite a few constructive changes that don't involve banning guns what so ever.

This isn't about just removing all crazies from the equation, it's about being responsible and with regards to guns, as a country, we are clearly not.

[Rsak]

but things that are dangerous, need rules for owning and operating.

You don't NEED rules. Instead you WANT the rules and as a society we form the social contract that there will be rules. It is simply a false imperative.

However you have to be very careful because we specifically enshrined there are rights that need to be protected from the government. Not by the government, but from the government. They went so far as to state that even if it was not specifically listed it does not deny or disparage the rights.

So claiming that just because 200 years has past and society might have changed doesn't modify these rights. The Supreme Court has the challenge of applying the laws to the new circumstances that develop, but they are not the arbiter of change. That burden falls on Congress via Amendments to the Constitution. They set the bar high on purpose, but this way there is an actual want from the super majority to modify the social contract between the government and the people. Regardless of my personal opinion on the topic if we want to change the 2nd amendment we have the avenues to do so.

The argument that ammunition is fair game is just not accurate either. You cannot support the weapon without ammunition whether it was traditionally self made or purchased is irrelevant. This is defeating the purpose of the law through semantics. The only compelling argument you can really try to use without a huge opinion shift is whether a weapon is standard for use in U.S. civilian militias (U.S. vs. Miller 1939) and even that is a weak argument because it was not a definitive ruling on the 2nd amendment as well as lacked even a defense presence at the case hearing. It would be even more difficult because due to the technology and militias of the modern area you can make a compelling argument on sniper rifles, shotguns, RPGs, and fully automatic weapons.

[Embar Angylwrath]

You could say the same for anything, but things that are dangerous, need rules for owning and operating. We have them for operating machinary, vehicles etc. There is no rationalization for not having rational rules for gun ownership/operation as well.

Go after the ammunition, go after assault weapons, remove the gun show loopholes...there are quite a few constructive changes that don't involve banning guns what so ever.

This isn't about just removing all crazies from the equation, it's about being responsible and with regards to guns, as a country, we are clearly not.

We do have rules for gun ownership Harlowe. Certain people are restricted from gun ownership.

I'd be interested to read your thoughts about why "we clearly are not" responsible, as a country, on gun ownership. I might remind you that Norway has some pretty narrow gun control laws, much more restricitve than the US, but it didn't stop nutcase Anders Breivik's massacre of students at a camp. Fatalities in number close to our own.

Ironically, guess what made Breivik more lethal? High capacity ammo mags, sold in the US.

Our gun control laws are fine. Our ammunition laws aren't.