Las Vegas Shooting

[reinko]

For as much as folks have talked about gun culture in this country, and how important it is to the fabric of this country, anyone astounded that HALF of all guns in this country are owned by just 3% of the population, and that 78% of people own zero guns at all?

http://www.npr.org/2016/09/20/494765559/nearly-half-of-guns-in-u-s-owned-by-3-percent-of-population-study-finds

[mu03eng]

That's not at all how your previous post came off to me so perhaps I misinterpreted.

Yeah, don't get me wrong on this stuff, my whole thing is I want sensible, practical, and enforceable laws that do something. I too want to limit, prevent gun violence and I think there is work to be done in gun control, however if it's not practically useful I don't want to bother with it. Bump stocks fall under "sensible, practical, and enforceable" (especially enforceable) so I'm all for it.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

A few questions for you and others that want more gun control and some who even want total ban.

1) 2008 to 2010 one party controlled all of gov't legislative process and Executive branch.  If this was such a high priority, why was nothing done?  Feels like a fair question.   Incidentally, bump stocks were approved by the Alcohol, Tobacoo and Firearms in 2010. The ATF is part of the Executive branch and in 2010 that was controlled Democrats.

Completely different animal but the GOP currently controls the Senate and House yet they can get healthcare legislation passed.  Back in 2008 to 2010, did it require 60 votes to move forward?  I honestly don't remember.  There can be plenty of reasons why nothing was able to get done even with control. 

[StillAWarrior]

That's a good question, but I think most people say "ban assault rifles" as in not necessarily saying a particular class of guns, but limiting certain items.

For example, rate of fire, power, magazine load capacity.

I know certain guns can "look" like an assault rifle, but in essence be a standard hunting rifle but have a certain modifications to it that make it look more like an assault rifle.

I, for one, can't tell you the difference between an assault rifle and a hunting rifle (from a technical perspective).  But I know when I use the term "assault rifle", I'm inferring towards power, rate of fire, magazine load capacity.  Perhaps that is a particular part of the conversation that needs to be altered a bit.

I think one of the key things about dealing with this issue is addressing the semantics and technical/legal jargon that both sides use that clouds the real issue.  "Assault rifle" as any scary looking gun.  "Fully Automatic" have the very narrow meaning of multiple shots in one trigger pull.  I think what a lot of people want to prevent is having guns available to the general public that can fire huge numbers of rounds quickly.  When people reasonably (IMO) say that they think fully automatic weapons should be illegal, I think it's reasonable to take the position that devices like the bump stock that effectively convert a semi-automatic into the functional equivalent of an automatic should also be illegal.  It's the rate of fire that I would think we want to make illegal (as we did when automatic weapons were made illegal), not the mechanism by which that rate of fire is achieved.

[jsglow]

I'm only sticking a toe in here and let me acknowledge that I'm fully in favor of bump stock restrictions and firearm registration.  I do think a productive conversation and reasonable solutions are possible.  But I thought it helpful to provide everyone with the full and complete text of the 2nd Amendment.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Now some may not like that.  But there's a reason it was the second thing the Founder's wrote down when then codified the rights of citizens in the newly formed United States.  Thank you for reading and considering it carefully.  It will always be a heartfelt challenge to draw any line appropriately given this right, especially when in theory that right could be modified via the amendment process.

Let's continue to seek solutions that further our common goals while we pray for the Las Vegas victims and first responders.  Thanks.

I'm simply going to quote myself given the recent comments.  You are entitled to your opinion. 

[Pakuni]

There are some folks in Afghanistan that would beg to differ.

In all fairness this is the stupidest of discussions simply because it wouldn't happen, but a well armed partisan group within the US could have some chance against the US military, especially assuming that the US military would not be 100% in some sort of coup situation.

Wait ... what? You're comparing the situation in Afghanistan to the United States?
You're smarter than that.

No, a well-armed partisan group would not stand a chance against a highly trained military of 1.4 million full-time members and access to weaponry slightly more powerful than what you can pick up at Cabela's. That's just silly.

[MUBurrow]

The immediate blowback against glow from posters that share my political leanings simply because he posted the actual text of the second amendment is a bad look, team.

[jsglow]

The immediate blowback against glow from posters that share my political leanings simply because he posted the actual text of the second amendment is a bad look, team.

Thanks very much.  Look, it's a tough problem.

[mu03eng]

Wait ... what? You're comparing the situation in Afghanistan to the United States?
You're smarter than that.

No, a well-armed partisan group would not stand a chance against a highly trained military of 1.4 million full-time members and access to weaponry slightly more powerful than what you can pick up at Cabela's. That's just silly.

Again, in this scenario (some sort of US Civil War) the US military would not be at 100% (assuming some "defect" to the partisans) and quite frankly you are making the same mistakes King George III, George W Bush, Sir George Pomeroy Colley, etc have made. I could cite at least a dozen times in history when a bigger, better foe has been defeated or at least held to a stalemate by a smaller, weaker one. One should know their history before they are doomed to repeat it.

*also this isn't an argument for giving citizens a bunch of firepower, more an academic discussion in partisan military engagements*

[Pakuni]

Listen, I'm all for such laws, I'm just saying is it ultimately worth the political fight. I get that's part of what the NRA does, but I just prioritize spending political capital on something that is more pragmatically useful/impactful.

Simple answer: Yes, it's worth the political fight.
I think we all agree that the kind of gun control measures we're talking about here won't prevent, and perhaps not even reduce, mass shootings. But I think we can also agree that if, say, Adam Lanza were armed with a Winchester single-shot or a 9mm pistol, there likely would be several Sandy Hook Elementary school kids still alive today. Or that Stephen Paddock's kill count wouldn't be approaching 60 if he had less powerful weaponry. Or that a few more people might have walked out of a Colorado movie theater alive if James Holmes hadn't had access to an AR-15 or similar firearm.

So, yeah, I think reducing the lethality of these shooting - aka literally saving the lives of fellow Americans enjoying a concert, seeing a movie or sitting in a first-grade classroom - is worth a political fight.
Don't you?

[WarriorInNYC]

I think one of the key things about dealing with this issue is addressing the semantics and technical/leg jargon that both sides use that clouds the real issue.  "Assault rifle" as any scary looking gun.  "Fully Automatic" have the very narrow meaning of multiple shots in one trigger pull.  I think what a lot of people want to prevent is having guns available to the general public that can fire huge numbers of rounds quickly.  When people reasonably (IMO) say that they think fully automatic weapons should be illegal, I think it's reasonable to take the position that devices like the bump stock that effectively convert a semi-automatic into the functional equivalent of an automatic should also be illegal.  It's the rate of fire that I would think we want to make illegal (as we did when automatic weapons were made illegal), not the mechanism by which that rate of fire is achieved.

Yup, that's exactly it. 

A while back, I was having a conversation with someone that was "pro-gun" (I really don't like that particular terminology because I'm not certain its entirely accurate, but I'll use it in this instance).  I mentioned that there was no reason for civilians to have assault rifles, and his immediate response was about how that's ridiculous because some people determine certain guns to be "assault rifles" just based on how they look, etc.

So if it means we need to be slightly more educated on what an assault rifle is vs a standard rifle, and what it is exactly that we are trying to restrict, perhaps it would lead to a much more productive conversation.

[Pakuni]

Again, in this scenario (some sort of US Civil War) the US military would not be at 100% (assuming some "defect" to the partisans) and quite frankly you are making the same mistakes King George III, George W Bush, Sir George Pomeroy Colley, etc have made. I could cite at least a dozen times in history when a bigger, better foe has been defeated or at least held to a stalemate by a smaller, weaker one. One should know their history before they are doomed to repeat it.

*also this isn't an argument for giving citizens a bunch of firepower, more an academic discussion in partisan military engagements*

I guess I'm confused (not terribly uncommon, I suppose).
It sounded to me as if you were suggesting a well-armed citizen militia would stand a chance against the U.S. military. Now your position is that the U.S. military would be fighting itself, or at least a portion of itself?

Every instance you cite above involved an unpopular foreign power using attempting to use small portion of its military force to quell a veteran, homegrown insurgency fighting within its own territory. That's a far, far cry from suggesting the full weight of the U.S. military, fighting on its own shores, couldn't handle an insurgency here.
Apples and oranges.

[GWSwarrior]

What's not surprising is the only MU82 actually read the article that i posted about the 2nd amendment and the case law that either enforces or restricts the right inherent in amendment.

To MU82 i say good job, you at least now whave some historical background.
 
to others:
i'm wondering what your thoughts on Heller and McDonald are, and how do those decisions help to shape your personal views

[GGGG]

I'm only sticking a toe in here and let me acknowledge that I'm fully in favor of bump stock restrictions and firearm registration.  I do think a productive conversation and reasonable solutions are possible.  But I thought it helpful to provide everyone with the full and complete text of the 2nd Amendment.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Now some may not like that.  But there's a reason it was the second thing the Founder's wrote down when then codified the rights of citizens in the newly formed United States.  Thank you for reading and considering it carefully.  It will always be a heartfelt challenge to draw any line appropriately given this right, especially when in theory that right could be modified via the amendment process.

Let's continue to seek solutions that further our common goals while we pray for the Las Vegas victims and first responders.  Thanks.

There are limitations placed on the Bill of Rights all the time.  Freedom of speech isn't unlimited.  Freedom of assembly isn't unlimited. 

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Chicago police investigating report gunman rented a room at Chicago hotel overlooking Lollapalooza but never showed up.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...vegas-gunman-lollapalooza-20171005-story.html

[Pakuni]

What's not surprising is the only MU82 actually read the article that i posted about the 2nd amendment and the case law that either enforces or restricts the right inherent in amendment.

To MU82 i say good job, you at least now whave some historical background.
 
to others:
i'm wondering what your thoughts on Heller and McDonald are, and how do those decisions help to shape your personal views

I confess I didn't read your link, but I'm already familiar with Heller and McDonald. I don't believe either contradict my view that the Second Amendment does not prohibit any restrictions on arms. In fact, we know this to be true because we already have several arms restrictions in place that have been ruled lawful. Like, for example, the average person can't legally buy a cruise missile.
Rather, the court (by the narrowest of margins, for what that's worth) found that those particular restrictions imposed by those particular cities, went too far.

What's your take on Friedman v. Highland Park?

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Glow-

Just a note on the Bill of Rights.  The Articles of the Constitution came first.  The Bill of Rights was added after the initial version and during the ratification process.  So the 2nd amendment is not actually the second thing the founders wrote down.  Common mistake.

[GWSwarrior]

I confess I didn't read your link, but I'm already familiar with Heller and McDonald. I don't believe either contradict my view that the Second Amendment does not prohibit any restrictions on arms. In fact, we know this to be true because we already have several arms restrictions in place that have been ruled lawful. Like, for example, the average person can't legally buy a cruise missile.
Rather, the court (by the narrowest of margins, for what that's worth) found that those particular restrictions imposed by those particular cities, went too far.

What's your take on Friedman v. Highland Park?

in regards to Friedman, I believe  the Constitution allows the government to prohibit law-abiding, responsible citizens from protecting themselves, their families, and their homes with a class of constitutionally protected “arms” which includes the AR-15 and also that the Constitution allows the government to prohibit law-abiding citizens from owning large capacity ammunition magazines.

[jsglow]

There are limitations placed on the Bill of Rights all the time.  Freedom of speech isn't unlimited.  Freedom of assembly isn't unlimited.

Of course.  But the presumption is always toward 'more' rather than 'less' and in the 'citizens hands' not the 'government's'. 

Take freedom of speech for example.  As much as we all despise what the Nazis have to say, they do have the right to get a lawful permit, hold a rally, and say what they want.  I'd argue that's good even though I disagree with what they say.  Free society always has a cost.  But as Americans, we've decided that the cost of freedom has to be measured against the threat of totalitarianism in the hands of an elite.

Our Founders wrote a series of documents that err strongly on one side of that debate. And it's worked pretty darn well for almost 250 years.  So we should always be careful when considering the costs related to a reduction in freedom when compared with some well meaning restriction.  That principle surely applies in the discussion at hand.

[jficke13]

[...]

What's your take on Friedman v. Highland Park?

I think it's too bad the SCOTUS denied cert. It would be nice to have the highest court in the land provide clear guidance on issues like this so that armchair legal scholars like mois (or any of the goons who try to write laws) don't have to do so much guessing whether a proposed regulation is permissible under 2A.

[jsglow]

Glow-

Just a note on the Bill of Rights.  The Articles of the Constitution came first.  The Bill of Rights was added after the initial version and during the ratification process.  So the 2nd amendment is not actually the second thing the founders wrote down.  Common mistake.

Not trying to be a historian.  'Second thing they wrote down in the Bill of Rights.'  (Second as opposed to 9th.) 

By the way, I saw all that stuff again this summer at the National Archives.  It is simply amazing and humbling to me to see what our forefathers did in 6 pages (Declaration, Constitution, Bill of Rights).  Greatest and most concise written work in human history.  We're a Blessed people for their incredible wisdom.

[GGGG]

Of course.  But the presumption is always toward 'more' rather than 'less' and in the 'citizens hands' not the 'government's'. 

Take freedom of speech for example.  As much as we all despise what the Nazis have to say, they do have the right to get a lawful permit, hold a rally, and say what they want.  I'd argue that's good even though I disagree with what they say.  Free society always has a cost.  But as Americans, we've decided that the cost of freedom has to be measured against the threat of totalitarianism in the hands of an elite.

Our Founders wrote a series of documents that err strongly on one side of that debate. And it's worked pretty darn well for almost 250 years.  So we should always be careful when considering the costs related to a reduction in freedom when compared with some well meaning restriction.  That principle surely applies in the discussion at hand.

I don't disagree with you at all.  I just think that line can be reasonably drawn by smart people.

[jsglow]

I don't disagree with you at all.  I just think that line can be reasonably drawn by smart people.

Let's hope that with God's guidance they can do that now.

[Lighthouse 84]

Did 44 ever say why he's a fan of bump stocks or did he try to keep that quiet?

I don't know about anyone else, but I had to reread JB's post.  I thought he was making an innuendo about 4never.....

In answer to the question though, I haven't seen 44's response to why his ATF approved bump stocks.  It's convenient now for some to bring up the banning after Vegas, though it should have/could have been brought up during 44's term. 

I'm all for the second amendment.  I'll never own a gun personally but respect another's right to own firearms.  But hopefully both sides can agree that bump stocks should be made illegal and also hopefully both sides can have some meaningful dialogue on banning assault rifles.  There is truly no purpose in owning one except for the purpose of killing people.

[Benny B]

Which well-regulated militia did Stephen Paddock belong to? Or Adam Lanza? Seung-Hui Cho? Omar Mateen? George Hennard? James Holmes? Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold?

Please explain how allowing any random, untrained and unmonitored civilian to possess a weapon which serves no purpose beyond mass killing further the interests of a "well-regulated militia?"

Pakuni, you obviously understand the background on the 3rd and 4th Amendment.  Heck, you're probably one of the only people here who actually know what the 3rd and 4th Amendments say.

Consider this: the 3rd A talks about soldiers not busting into private homes, 4th A talks about people being secure in their homes, 5th A talks about private property not being taken for gov't use; in other words, you have three Amendments that basically address the same concept.  Wouldn't it be easier to to just say something along the lines of "the gov't may not inhibit an individual's enjoyment of their property" instead of spreading it across several amendments?  Everything was hand-written back then, and the framers weren't bossing scribes around to do their writing for them; so the authors would not likely have repeated similar concepts multiple times if there wasn't a reason for it.  But the conceptual and logical overlap among them is painfully obvious to anyone with an IQ exceeding that of a cucumber, i.e. they are not isolated, individual thoughts... the amendments are complementary to one another.

That being said, it is not plausible to think that the 2nd Amendment was complementary to the aforementioned similarities of 3, 4, and 5?  In other words, in a world at a time when the reality ingrained into many was that the government or soldiers/militiamen had the right to bust into someone's house in the middle of the night and commandeer it for themselves, perhaps the authors realized that even though we have these "rules" in the 3rd, 4th and 5th barring such, that it may not preclude some of these para-military types not directly working under gov't orders (militiamen) from going rogue.  This was a new country, laws varied between states, and a war had just ended where private citizens did have their homes and property seized, if only temporarily, by both American and British soldiers and militiamen.  As it holds true today, it held true back then.... old habits die hard, and the authors perhaps needed to include something of an "incentive" for these militiamen to not break the laws.  What better incentive than introducing the likelihood that the next house where William Robert and Bubbaford decided to squat in the name of the "US Militia" would have a homeowner with his own musket.

Militias are difficult to regulate.  The authors knew that.  Hell, we have a hell of time today even regulating our own soldiers.  To that end, the 2nd Amendment may very well have been intended as a regulation against violation of the 3rd, 4th and 5th amendments.

In other words, the 2nd Amendment doesn't give the people the right to bear arms in case they join (or are a part of) a militia... it's to protect citizens against the militia.