Common Sense Gun Control

[Winterborn]

They are a good start. Could also add Elvis, (that hip shaking thing was scandalous).

I am not as excited to open up a constitutional convention. Mainly due to the fact who is going to be representatives and the fact there will be massive pressure (i.e. bribes) offered to influence their votes/thoughts.

And who is going to go to said constituional

That's all fair and valid but on the flip said - we're happy being governed by a document written by people who have not had to face our modern challenges?

And Elvis is certainly a problem. That hip shaking rock n roller.

I think it is written very well for the modern times myself. If you want something more prescriptive, get Congress to pass it. Seems to be more a failure of voters holding elected people responsible for their actions than a problem with the constitution. Voters are lazy, which leads to a lazy Congress doing whatever they want. And the cycle repeats.

If voters actually cared (and more people cared to vote) many of these so called problems would get looked at. But then it is easier to complain and point fingers at the other side rather than getting out and voicing ones opinion and working for change. I have said this before that our elected leaders are a reflection of the people who vote them in.

The topic of amending the Constitution to "fix" things isn't going to work any better than now as whatever it is amended to, is going to be set by the same people who run Congress now. It is a people problem first and foremost and more laws or amendments is going to do nothing for situations like this as it is the people that have to change first. If people want a feel good thing to happen they should go pet a puppy or kitten, as the feel good feeling will last as long and do just as much in the long run.

[Ibanez]

It’s pretty simple. Once again, you have a kid who wasn’t living with or raised by his parents. Absent parent households account for somewhere north of 90% of these shooters…..it ain’t rocket science.

But remember: promotion or celebration of the nuclear family concept is now considered “racist”.

The other primary issue? Access to massive amounts of information and the ability to envelope oneself in an information “bubble” that magnifies, confirms and justifies one’s “hatred”.

Wasn't he living with his mother?

And agree - the nuclear family concept isn't racist. Stability in the family is what's important - even if it means Timmy has 2 mothers or 2 fathers. Plenty of "nuclear" families out there screwing up kids.

[Ibanez]

That's all fair and valid but on the flip said - we're happy being governed by a document written by people who have not had to face our modern challenges?

And Elvis is certainly a problem. That hip shaking rock n roller.

I think it is written very well for the modern times myself. If you want something more prescriptive, get Congress to pass it. Seems to be more a failure of voters holding elected people responsible for their actions than a problem with the constitution. Voters are lazy, which leads to a lazy Congress doing whatever they want. And the cycle repeats.

If voters actually cared (and more people cared to vote) many of these so called problems would get looked at. But then it is easier to complain and point fingers at the other side rather than getting out and voicing ones opinion and working for change. I have said this before that our elected leaders are a reflection of the people who vote them in.

The topic of amending the Constitution to "fix" things isn't going to work any better than now as whatever it is amended to, is going to be set by the same people who run Congress now. It is a people problem first and foremost and more laws or amendments is going to do nothing for situations like this as it is the people that have to change first. If people want a feel good thing to happen they should go pet a puppy or kitten, as the feel good feeling will last as long and do just as much in the long run.

I realize I'm extremely jaded but I don't believe there's any real desire on either side to solve the hard issues. That goes for guns, Social Security, budgets, etc...

I think amending the Constitution to reflect modern challenges works. Sometimes we get it wrong (Prohibition) but sometimes we get it right (13th amendment).We've been doing it since 1795 (94?) with the 11th amendment, roughly 4years after the Constitution was ratified.

Sometimes we're very late on ratifying them, the 27th Amendment was first ratified by some states in the 1790s and not completely ratified until the 1990s.

[AZGrizFan]

It’s pretty simple. Once again, you have a kid who wasn’t living with or raised by his parents. Absent parent households account for somewhere north of 90% of these shooters…..it ain’t rocket science.

But remember: promotion or celebration of the nuclear family concept is now considered “racist”.

The other primary issue? Access to massive amounts of information and the ability to envelope oneself in an information “bubble” that magnifies, confirms and justifies one’s “hatred”.

Wasn't he living with his mother?

And agree - the nuclear family concept isn't racist. Stability in the family is what's important - even if it means Timmy has 2 mothers or 2 fathers. Plenty of "nuclear" families out there screwing up kids.

Yes, but about 90% of shooters come from broken homes, no father figure, etc., etc. That is a verifiable fact. Nuclear families may be screwing up kids in other ways, but very few of them turn out to be mass murderers.

[HI54UNI]

Why don't the Dems talk about this? Is this less bad than the school shooting?

1 Killed, 31 Others — Including 13-Year-Old — Wounded by Gunfire in Chicago Over the Weekend
Published May 23, 2022 • Updated on May 23, 2022 at 6:42 am

At least one person was killed and 31 others were wounded — including a 13-year-old and two 16-year-olds — in shootings over the weekend in Chicago.

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/1 ... d/2839494/

208 people shot and killed in Chicago so far in 2022.

https://graphics.suntimes.com/homicides/

Spoiler: show

Hint - neither party gives a shit no matter where or what it is. Keeps everyone distracted and helps the pols get re-elected because they care or something.

[Ibanez]

Wasn't he living with his mother?

And agree - the nuclear family concept isn't racist. Stability in the family is what's important - even if it means Timmy has 2 mothers or 2 fathers. Plenty of "nuclear" families out there screwing up kids.

Yes, but about 90% of shooters come from broken homes, no father figure, etc., etc. That is a verifiable fact. Nuclear families may be screwing up kids in other ways, but very few of them turn out to be mass murderers.

And that's understandable. I'm not really arguing with you on that point. I only have 1 child and I know first hand how much she needs her mother. And we're a stable family (well, within in reason. )

[Ibanez]

Why don't the Dems talk about this? Is this less bad than the school shooting?

1 Killed, 31 Others — Including 13-Year-Old — Wounded by Gunfire in Chicago Over the Weekend
Published May 23, 2022 • Updated on May 23, 2022 at 6:42 am

At least one person was killed and 31 others were wounded — including a 13-year-old and two 16-year-olds — in shootings over the weekend in Chicago.

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/1 ... d/2839494/

208 people shot and killed in Chicago so far in 2022.

https://graphics.suntimes.com/homicides/

Spoiler: show

Hint - neither party gives a shit no matter where or what it is. Keeps everyone distracted and helps the pols get re-elected because they care or something.

They don't care. Gun violence, regardless of venue, is a problem.

[BDKJMU]

But abortion is still cool though right?

Abortion is an abomination but should be legal. What's your point?

You stated:

Regardless, nobody has the right to infringe the Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness of another individual

His point was abortion does infringe on the above.

[BDKJMU]

Not required in the 25 states that allow for Constitutional Carry.

https://www.sled.sc.gov/cwp.html You need it in SC, and 1 example is enough. It's not absolute.

As AZ stated, carrying concealed isn't a Constitutional right.

[Winterborn]

I realize I'm extremely jaded but I don't believe there's any real desire on either side to solve the hard issues. That goes for guns, Social Security, budgets, etc...

I think amending the Constitution to reflect modern challenges works. Sometimes we get it wrong (Prohibition) but sometimes we get it right (13th amendment).We've been doing it since 1795 (94?) with the 11th amendment, roughly 4years after the Constitution was ratified.

Sometimes we're very late on ratifying them, the 27th Amendment was first ratified by some states in the 1790s and not completely ratified until the 1990s.

I am just as jaded. The thing is that they know they do not have to do anything as voters don't hold them accountable. That fault lies with us as the voters.

I all for starting the process for a Constitutional amendment, just do not think there is enough consensus to actually push one through.

Older article but still has pretty good information on how many Constitutional Amendments:

Since 1999, in fact, 134 separate balanced-budget amendments have been formally introduced in either the House or Senate, making it the single most popular subject of amendment proposals over that timespan, according to our analysis of legislative data from the Library of Congress. Just in the current Congress, there are 18 separate balanced-budget proposals, out of a total of 64 proposed amendments to the Constitution.

Congress came closest to sending a balanced-budget amendment to the states for ratification in the mid-1990s. In January 1995, the House approved such an amendment 300-132, but an amended version failed twice in the Senate, first in March 1995 (65-35) and again in June 1996 (64-35).

The U.S. Constitution is famously difficult to amend: It takes a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, then ratification by three-quarters of the states. Although Congress can also call a convention to propose amendments upon application by two-thirds of the states, that threshold has never been reached and there are many unanswered questions about how such a convention might work in practice. Of the roughly 12,000 amendments proposed since the Constitutional Convention, only 33 have gone to the states for ratification, and just 27 have made it all the way into the Constitution. (In contrast, India adopted its constitution nearly 69 years ago and it’s already been amended 101 times.)

Since 1999, members of Congress have introduced 747 proposed constitutional amendments, or an average of nearly 75 per two-year term. They have covered dozens of topics, from lengthening House terms (from two to four years) to prohibiting any future attempt to replace the U.S. dollar with a hypothetical global currency. But not one has become part of the Constitution, or even come close. In fact, the last time a proposed amendment gained the necessary two-thirds support in both the House and Senate was 1978, when a measure giving District of Columbia residents voting representation in Congress was sent to the states for ratification. Only 16 states had ratified it when the seven-year time limit expired.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... -anywhere/

[Ibanez]

I realize I'm extremely jaded but I don't believe there's any real desire on either side to solve the hard issues. That goes for guns, Social Security, budgets, etc...

I think amending the Constitution to reflect modern challenges works. Sometimes we get it wrong (Prohibition) but sometimes we get it right (13th amendment).We've been doing it since 1795 (94?) with the 11th amendment, roughly 4years after the Constitution was ratified.

Sometimes we're very late on ratifying them, the 27th Amendment was first ratified by some states in the 1790s and not completely ratified until the 1990s.

I am just as jaded. The thing is that they know they do not have to do anything as voters don't hold them accountable. That fault lies with us as the voters.

I all for starting the process for a Constitutional amendment, just do not think there is enough consensus to actually push one through.

Older article but still has pretty good information on how many Constitutional Amendments:

Since 1999, in fact, 134 separate balanced-budget amendments have been formally introduced in either the House or Senate, making it the single most popular subject of amendment proposals over that timespan, according to our analysis of legislative data from the Library of Congress. Just in the current Congress, there are 18 separate balanced-budget proposals, out of a total of 64 proposed amendments to the Constitution.

Congress came closest to sending a balanced-budget amendment to the states for ratification in the mid-1990s. In January 1995, the House approved such an amendment 300-132, but an amended version failed twice in the Senate, first in March 1995 (65-35) and again in June 1996 (64-35).

The U.S. Constitution is famously difficult to amend: It takes a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, then ratification by three-quarters of the states. Although Congress can also call a convention to propose amendments upon application by two-thirds of the states, that threshold has never been reached and there are many unanswered questions about how such a convention might work in practice. Of the roughly 12,000 amendments proposed since the Constitutional Convention, only 33 have gone to the states for ratification, and just 27 have made it all the way into the Constitution. (In contrast, India adopted its constitution nearly 69 years ago and it’s already been amended 101 times.)

Since 1999, members of Congress have introduced 747 proposed constitutional amendments, or an average of nearly 75 per two-year term. They have covered dozens of topics, from lengthening House terms (from two to four years) to prohibiting any future attempt to replace the U.S. dollar with a hypothetical global currency. But not one has become part of the Constitution, or even come close. In fact, the last time a proposed amendment gained the necessary two-thirds support in both the House and Senate was 1978, when a measure giving District of Columbia residents voting representation in Congress was sent to the states for ratification. Only 16 states had ratified it when the seven-year time limit expired.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... -anywhere/

Good stuff, WB. It SHOULD be a difficult process. Amending the Constitution isn't something to take lightly.

[UNI88]

https://www.sled.sc.gov/cwp.html You need it in SC, and 1 example is enough. It's not absolute.

As AZ stated, carrying concealed isn't a Constitutional right.

"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."

Is it an infringement to limit the definition of "arms"?

If semi-automatics are ok, why not full automatics? If full automatics are ok, why not bazookas, RPGs, etc.? If you can draw a line, where should it be drawn and how do you justify it?

[Gil Dobie]

As AZ stated, carrying concealed isn't a Constitutional right.

"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."

Is it an infringement to limit the definition of "arms"?

If semi-automatics are ok, why not full automatics? If full automatics are ok, why not bazookas, RPGs, etc.? If you can draw a line, where should it be drawn and how do you justify it?

After 9/11we secured the cockpit. Let's spend the money to really secure the schools.

[Ibanez]

"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."

Is it an infringement to limit the definition of "arms"?

If semi-automatics are ok, why not full automatics? If full automatics are ok, why not bazookas, RPGs, etc.? If you can draw a line, where should it be drawn and how do you justify it?

After 9/11we secured the cockpit. Let's spend the money to really secure the schools.

Nah, let them continue to fend for themselves. Active Shooter Drills work, there's no need to resolve the actual problem.

[HI54UNI]

"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."

Is it an infringement to limit the definition of "arms"?

If semi-automatics are ok, why not full automatics? If full automatics are ok, why not bazookas, RPGs, etc.? If you can draw a line, where should it be drawn and how do you justify it?

After 9/11we secured the cockpit. Let's spend the money to really secure the schools.

The money we just wasted on Ukraine would have given about $400k to every public school building in the country. Congress passed that in a matter of days. Would have been even quicker if Rand Paul hadn't thrown up a roadblock. They don't care about our kids. Just have to protect their grift.

[Ibanez]

After 9/11we secured the cockpit. Let's spend the money to really secure the schools.

The money we just wasted on Ukraine would have given about $400k to every public school building in the country. Congress passed that in a matter of days. Would have been even quicker if Rand Paul hadn't thrown up a roadblock. They don't care about our kids. Just have to protect their grift.

Well, yeah. What else do we expect those 535 leeches in DC to do? Legislate? It's all about the grift from the day they're sworn in.

[Gil Dobie]

The money we just wasted on Ukraine would have given about $400k to every public school building in the country. Congress passed that in a matter of days. Would have been even quicker if Rand Paul hadn't thrown up a roadblock. They don't care about our kids. Just have to protect their grift.

Well, yeah. What else do we expect those 535 leeches in DC to do? Legislate? It's all about the grift from the day they're sworn in.

You won't find much common sense among the group in DC.

[AZGrizFan]

After 9/11we secured the cockpit. Let's spend the money to really secure the schools.

Nah, let them continue to fend for themselves. Active Shooter Drills work, there's no need to resolve the actual problem.

Why not do both? Or multiple?

Secure the schools
Active shooter drills
$40Billion from Ukraine for armed SRO’s at every school
Mental health awareness and help
Enforce actual laws on the books

We secure sporting arenas FFS, but we’re afraid to secure schools “because they’re not PRISONS!!”.

What a lame fucking excuse to allow kids to die.

Gun Free Zones ====>>> KILLING ZONES.

[BDKJMU]

No, those victims did nothing wrong either….but I don’t see anybody on the left wailing in the streets over the 600,000 children that are aborted every year. Because THAT is all about “choice”, somehow. THOSE kids didn’t get a choice either, much like the kids in Uvalde yesterday.

And “gun reform” (such a nice, polite way to put it) doesn’t solve THE PROBLEM. Y’all want to keep attacking the symptom and not the problem. Guns, and the 2A are NOT the enemy. They are not the issue. They are merely the mechanism by which the evil is delivered. Could be a car driven through a crowd, could be a dirty bomb, could be you lock them all inside and set the school on fire, could be a shitload of other ways…the evil STILL exists. Guns or no guns.

And there’s 10,000 laws already on the books that didn’t stop this shooting. Exactly what solution or “common sense gun reform” changes would you be advocating?

I don't see Republicans wailing over children being gunned down during 2nd period. Does the GOP not care if children are safe in school? Or people aren't safe doing their Sunday grocery shopping? They want to ban Harry Potter books and The DaVinci Code b/c they hurt their sensibilities but to make it more difficult for a mentally ill person to legally gain access to a lethal weapon is a bridge too far. Words hurt more than bullets.

I'm not sure who the "y'all" is b/c i've said many times here the symptom is societal. You're kidding yourself if you don't believe access to guns has any correlation to gun violence.

And nobody is saying evil still won't exist, that's a stupid line to make.

I din’t think so. What conk has said they want the mentally ill to be able to buy guns? Its the conks who are saying this is a mental health issue, not a gun problem..

[Ibanez]

Nah, let them continue to fend for themselves. Active Shooter Drills work, there's no need to resolve the actual problem.

Why not do both? Or multiple?

Secure the schools
Active shooter drills
$40Billion from Ukraine for armed SRO’s at every school
Mental health awareness and help
Enforce actual laws on the books

We secure sporting arenas FFS, but we’re afraid to secure schools “because they’re not PRISONS!!”.

What a lame fucking excuse to allow kids to die.

Gun Free Zones ====>>> KILLING ZONES.

I’d be down with that. Make it next to impossible with anyone with a history of abuse, prior gun violence, domestic violence, mental health issues to legally obtain a weapon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

It’s pretty simple. Once again, you have a kid who wasn’t living with or raised by his parents. Absent parent households account for somewhere north of 90% of these shooters…..it ain’t rocket science.

But remember: promotion or celebration of the nuclear family concept is now considered “racist”.

The other primary issue? Access to massive amounts of information and the ability to envelope oneself in an information “bubble” that magnifies, confirms and justifies one’s “hatred”.

I believe that’s true. The Buffalo shooter was one of those exceptions, though. I was surprised to last week both parents were civil engineers, I don’t believe divorced, apparently upper middle class..
https://nypost.com/2022/05/15/fbi-inter ... estigators.

[AZGrizFan]

I don't see Republicans wailing over children being gunned down during 2nd period. Does the GOP not care if children are safe in school? Or people aren't safe doing their Sunday grocery shopping? They want to ban Harry Potter books and The DaVinci Code b/c they hurt their sensibilities but to make it more difficult for a mentally ill person to legally gain access to a lethal weapon is a bridge too far. Words hurt more than bullets.

I'm not sure who the "y'all" is b/c i've said many times here the symptom is societal. You're kidding yourself if you don't believe access to guns has any correlation to gun violence.

And nobody is saying evil still won't exist, that's a stupid line to make.

I din’t think so. What conk has said they want the mentally ill to be able to buy guns? Its the conks who are saying this is a mental health issue, not a gun problem..

It’s the conks who want to secure schools.
It’s the conks who say treat the PROBLEM (mental health)

And Mark, access to guns is more difficult now than it was 40 years ago. Background checks didn’t exist. Guns were left in open display cases. NOBODY was checked. Literally anyone could walk into a sporting goods store and buy one.

[Ibanez]

It’s pretty simple. Once again, you have a kid who wasn’t living with or raised by his parents. Absent parent households account for somewhere north of 90% of these shooters…..it ain’t rocket science.

But remember: promotion or celebration of the nuclear family concept is now considered “racist”.

The other primary issue? Access to massive amounts of information and the ability to envelope oneself in an information “bubble” that magnifies, confirms and justifies one’s “hatred”.

I believe that’s true. The Buffalo shooter was one of those exceptions, though. I was surprised to last week both parents were civil engineers, I don’t believe divorced, apparently upper middle class..
https://nypost.com/2022/05/15/fbi-inter ... estigators.

I think, at the time, the Columbine shooters came from 2-parent homes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

It’s pretty simple. Once again, you have a kid who wasn’t living with or raised by his parents. Absent parent households account for somewhere north of 90% of these shooters…..it ain’t rocket science.

But remember: promotion or celebration of the nuclear family concept is now considered “racist”.

The other primary issue? Access to massive amounts of information and the ability to envelope oneself in an information “bubble” that magnifies, confirms and justifies one’s “hatred”.

Wasn't he living with his mother?

And agree - the nuclear family concept isn't racist. Stability in the family is what's important - even if it means Timmy has 2 mothers or 2 fathers. Plenty of "nuclear" families out there screwing up kids.

No, reportedly with his grandmother at the time.
Read his mom and dad both had rap sheets. I beleive the father’s is much longer. His mom (39) allegedly has drug issues..

[BDKJMU]

I think it is written very well for the modern times myself. If you want something more prescriptive, get Congress to pass it. Seems to be more a failure of voters holding elected people responsible for their actions than a problem with the constitution. Voters are lazy, which leads to a lazy Congress doing whatever they want. And the cycle repeats.

If voters actually cared (and more people cared to vote) many of these so called problems would get looked at. But then it is easier to complain and point fingers at the other side rather than getting out and voicing ones opinion and working for change. I have said this before that our elected leaders are a reflection of the people who vote them in.

The topic of amending the Constitution to "fix" things isn't going to work any better than now as whatever it is amended to, is going to be set by the same people who run Congress now. It is a people problem first and foremost and more laws or amendments is going to do nothing for situations like this as it is the people that have to change first. If people want a feel good thing to happen they should go pet a puppy or kitten, as the feel good feeling will last as long and do just as much in the long run.

I realize I'm extremely jaded but I don't believe there's any real desire on either side to solve the hard issues. That goes for guns, Social Security, budgets, etc...

I think amending the Constitution to reflect modern challenges works. Sometimes we get it wrong (Prohibition) but sometimes we get it right (13th amendment).We've been doing it since 1795 (94?) with the 11th amendment, roughly 4years after the Constitution was ratified.

Sometimes we're very late on ratifying them, the 27th Amendment was first ratified by some states in the 1790s and not completely ratified until the 1990s.

I get what you’re saying, but I say we’be been amending it since 1791..

1787 written
1788 ratified
1789 in effect
1791 began amending (1st 10 amendments).