Hi, I'm a member of the lunatic fringe determined to wreak tyranny upon you. (Hmph—at least Ed Randazzo makes himself clear.) And I'm going to talk about the "tyranny" we would do by regulating guns to the same extent that we regulate automobiles.
I hear Ed Randazzo walks around with a gun. I'm pretty sure Ed Randazzo also drives a car. Not counting inflated infantile ego, I am certain that Ed Randazzo derives more daily utility from his car than from his gun.
To drive his car in South Dakota, Ed Randazzo must submit to a state examination of his skills. Once he has passed that examination, he receives a license to drive. To keep that license, every five years, he must provide the state with a handful of identifying documents. If he uses his vehicle improperly, he can lose his license. He must pay fuel taxes to maintain roads. He must have in his vehicle proof of financial responsibility (i.e., auto insurance) to show that he can pay for any damages that may take place as a result of his negligent use of his car.
In return for this intrusion of the state on his liberty, Randazzo receives enormous utility. He receives individual mobility, without which most Americans (and an even higher proportion of South Dakotans) cannot participate effectively in the economy.
Automobiles secure more practical rights and liberty to American citizens than guns. Yet we make it legally harder for Americans to obtain automobiles than to obtain guns.
I thus propose that we regulate guns to the level that we regulate cars. Every person seeking a gun must submit to a firearms training program (schools can offer that every summer side-by-side with drivers education, if you wish.) Every prospective gun owner must pass a written test and a practical test on the shooting range to demonstrate proficiency in operation of a firearm. Every gun owner must apply for a license and renew that license every five years with proof of identity. Every gun owner must maintain firearm insurance on each weapon purchased to guarantee they can pay for any damages caused by negligent use of his or her weapons. And every gun owner must pay ammunition taxes to pay for the externalities caused by firearms.
These restrictions placed on firearms would not infringe on Second Amendment rights any more than drivers license and insurance requirements infringe on the even more fundamental and practical freedoms to travel and participate in the economy. Car control is not tyranny; neither is gun control.
Every prospective voter must pass a written test and a practical test to demonstrate proficiency in deciding ballot issues. Every voter must apply for a license and renew that license every five years with proof of identity. Every voter must maintain voter insurance on each election purchased to guarantee they can pay for any damages caused by negligent use of his or her vote. And every voter must pay poll taxes to pay for the externalities caused by voting.
Seems reasonable......right?
Cory, the shooter was trained by his mom. So even if teachers and staff were trained, they still could not legally defend themselves and the kids because guns are banned at public schools. Lives would have been saved if the shooter was confronted with armed citizens early on, instead of waiting for the police to show up.
[CAH: Steve, lives would have been saved if the rhetoric of the right did not promote a gun culture that leads a mother to think it wise to let her mentally unstable son handle firearms.]
An interesting proposition... but to what end?
I fail to see how licensing firearms possession will significantly increase safety. If someone steals your firearms and uses them in a crime, why should you be held liable? If someone steals your car and uses it in a bank robbery, should you be held liable for that? What exactly do you mean by "externalities" ?
Why should law-abiding citizens pay a higher price to enjoy a freedom because some bad actors do bad things?
If someone gets liquored up, drives, and kills a family of six on the highway, that person is held liable for their actions. We don't blame Miller or Ford for making the products which contributed to the accident - we blame the person. Heck, people still drive even with revoked licenses. Can you honestly tell me all that rigamarole is going to prevent someone who wants to cause harm from finding a way to do it?
We already require criminal & mental health background checks before purchasing firearms. The only exceptions to that (to my knowledge) are private party transactions and gun shows. ~IF~ gun shows are a major source of firearms which lead to murders, there's a compelling argument to require background checks for those transactions as well.
It seems to me you'd just like to make owning a firearm so prohibitively expensive only the very wealthy can afford to keep them. The gun market is doing a fine job of making firearms too expensive for the common citizen to own one anyway - you'll get your wish.
The following is where my mind goes when you talk about actively requiring significant regulations on what our Bill of Rights enumerates as freedoms:
Would you be so cavalier about state-imposed licensing and regulation of speech? Imagine if we made CNN, Fox News, The Argus, and Madville Times take state-sponsored journalism courses, pay FCC regulation fees, and acquire licenses and libel insurance before they could ever post even a tweet.
Maybe we should reinstate reading exams for people who want to vote? We better make sure our voters can read and understand what they're deliberating...
Maybe we ought to instigate a No-Search & Seizure Tax, where we all get to pay the federal government an annual fee to not search our home for anything illegal. Can't pony up? Guess who's getting a search warrant.
These all seem pretty absurd - and downright heinous to me... however if it's okay to to significantly regulate one freedom, then it's perfectly fine to do it for the others we hold so dear.
I don't want to live in that society, Cory. Moreover, I don't think we need to.
[CAH:Wayne, the restrictions I propose make firearm ownership no more prohibitively expensive than car ownership... and I would wager that right now, more people own cars than guns. As for speech, I would contend that speech is far more necessary to liberty and democracy than firearms.]
Let's also make sure that guns have proper identification numbers (VIN for GIN?) and that owner registrations are annually renewed - at inconvenient cost - just as automobiles are, to ensure a proper chain of possession. And maybe a "gunfax" type report on how/if/when a certain registered firearm was used to inflict harm on another human.
Man. Looking at it like that sounds so utterly unreasonable. It really is an infringement on gun rights.
Amy....what's that going to solve?
Everyone is looking to gun control as the main solution to this. I don't agree. How about knife control; people are killed daily by knives also. Cars also as stated here. I think that one of the solutions is to look at how violence is glorified in this society by movies, video games, TV, etc. This violence can and in many does cases does desensitize us to violence. An example, how upset do you get when you see a movie when people are killed, both good and bad guys, compared to how upset you get when a movie shows an animal being killed.
Don't think that gun control is going to solve this because it won't. There are other deeper issues involved.
None of our rights under the Constitution are absolute. It's time we stopped trying to pretend that they are.
Past time.
Look at the havoc and mayhem that level of self-delusion has wrought upon our society.
Enough is enough.
We need to stop pandering to the ideologically insane and focus on protecting our citizens from harm. Especially our children.
Those pesky guns.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
"None of our rights under the Constitution are absolute."
Not in your fantasy world Bill, because there are no absolutes. Truth is whatever the majority says it is, in other words truth is whatever you can get 51% to say it is. Then the remaining 49% are "ideologically insane". What that is called is tyranny via mob rule.
1. We teach violence with the death penalty.
2. Guns are much more dangerous to human life than a car is. So they need more stringient regulations. Conservatives might not like that language but it is true.
3. All the sympathy and respect in the world will not bring a life back. We have to stop the source and the method. The source is that killing is a solution to our problems. The method is letting phsycos have a gun or even a knife. I know you can have a hayday trying to say that we can not take all knives away from everyone, but then a gun kills much faster than a knife.
4. You NRA guys do not want a discussion on this while we still remember a massacre, but then you do not want a substantive discussion on this anytime.
"None of our rights under the Constitution are absolute."
Good luck with that.
Linda, the children in Connecticutt weren't slaughtered with a knife, and they weren't put to death by video games. They were blown to bits by a semi-automatic rifle designed for combat that can fire up to 100 bulllets without reloading.
It would have been much better if he had been armed with a knofe.
He wouldn't have been able to blast open the locked door to gain illegal entry.
I'm sorry, but you people are trying to defend the indefensible here, in some cases (you Sibby) even blaming the victims, and at best making the perfect the enemy of the good.
It's time to stop the insanity and address this problem rationally. No more bullshit. (Yes, DB, your voting rights argument was 100% bullshit.)
I would take this a step farther and include voting rights. I am so sad about all this.
Okay, DB, lets roll.
Do you have a right to yell fire in a crowded theater?
To you have a right to hate speech?
Do you have a right to have tactical nukes, and rocket launchers in your basement, buy all the dynamite you want, own a machine gun?
Shall I continue through the whole list?
Or just the Bill of Rights?
Or are you prepared to concede the argument:
"None of our rights are absolute."
Period.
Bill, you problem is blaming an object for a problem caused by a human. You think removing guns will remove violence which is completely stupid. I can take 5 minutes and get some diesel fuel and a little fertilizer and do more damage than any gun. A rifle didn't cause this. Bill, you argument is 100% retarded.
Bill, are you afraid of everything under the sun?
Should we regulate toilet bowl cleaner? How about paint thinner? Diesel fuel? Fertilizer? Aluminum foil? Matches? Salt?
Where are you going to stop Bill?
I like your ideas Croy. Something has to be done. The status quo is not the answer. We all have to have a national conversion on this. The NRA should be part of it but they have to realize that compromise is in order
Building fences around our schools (which I've heard) is not the answer. I don' want to live in that type of world,
The problem is guns and the lack of mental health for the people that do these things
DB if you are going to threaten to harm citizens with deisel fuel and fertilizer on a public blog, I am going to report you to the authorities immediately.
Your post is 100% stupid and I demand that you clarify it.
Now.
Report me for what? Stating that a million household items could be used to commit violence on civilians? How dare I point out such things to show how stupid it is to blame an inanimate object. I demand you learn some common sense. You don't even comprehend the legal definition of a threat and you are trying to tell me about constitutional rights.....hahaha. This should be fun.
so DB. Are you saying we shouldn't do anything with guns? We shouldn't include guns in a conversation on how we stop thnings like this from happening?
what's your solution?
Ed Randazzo believes driving a vehicle is a privilege. Ed Randazzo believes bearing arms is a right. Ed Randazzo believes teachers should be capable of reading comprehension and a clear understanding of the Constitution as they train our children. Ed Randazzo believes teaching is not a right but a privilege. Ed Randazzo believes teachers should be regulated (tested, vetted, evaluated) to prevent them from indoctrinating our children with their biased and extreme opinions.
Owen, we don't enforce the laws now so I am now about to make more laws that our gov't overlooks. Take this latest incident, guns weren't the problem, not acknowledging a true mental illness was. We have looked the other way on mental illness, whether it is not providing support to parents, or not being strict enough on those who have it for far too long. I think opening mental illness records up to the ATF so that it can be checked during gun purchases would be a first step, but good luck getting that to change. All they have now is one question that you respond to, and there are no checks because of our individual privacy. Also, a reasonable expectation of security on our firearms should be expected. Living alone, my house is my gun safe. Those who have family members or frequent visitors should be required to take the steps necessary to lock the guns up.
My point is, it doesn't matter what tool is used, people will find a way. And let me tell you, there are much more destructive ways and they can be found in most everyone's home. Banning assault rifles will do nothing, especially when an experienced shooter can put a comparable amount of lead down range with a couple pistols. Most laws you can come up with will only hinder legal owners and won't deter illegal acquisitions of guns.
Owen - here's a real good read, and frankly, i think it pegs the current incident quite well.
http://www.anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/2012/12/thinking-unthinkable.html
Here is an interesting article about what happens when one particular inanimate object is removed from households.
http://www.theworld.org/2012/07/gun-violence-virtually-a-thing-of-the-past-in-japan/
Followed by a list of massacres in Japan since 1938
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Japan
In a society that has never taught Christianity in their schools and play the same video games that we do. Inanimate guns are removed and violence that we experience here almost common place now is in Japan virtually nonexistent.
DB. Yes or no. Are you making the threat, or not. This is no time to be cute
It is so hard for me to even join this discussion as all I can think about is kids being shot . kids 6 years old being mowed down kids that never had a chance to experience life. I mean kids that wear their hearts on their arms. I don't know the answer but at the end of the day somebody is firing the guns as they don't fire them selves. Having said that why do people need assualt rifies? I am not agruing I am just sad and wondering what really can be done.
We can't simply throw our hands in the air and pretend like the problem doesn't exist. It needs to be two-pronged approach...assault-type rifle restrictions and mental health screening. Most of these shooters are still young. Why can't there be a screening procedure in schools for mental health? School athletes have to have physicals, they screen for scoliosis in junior high, they do academic placement tests, etc. Once the stigma is removed, maybe some of these kids can get help before it reaches the boiling point. If we don't actively search for solutions, we are part of the problem, as is Ed Randazzo. I don't want to live in a society where everyone carries a gun. I don't want my grandchildren to go to a school where the principal has a gun under his/her desk. We are better than that and it's time we started showing it.
Cory, in my opinion, this is one of the best posts you've ever made. We can keep our gun rights and, in fact, make ourselves better citizens in the process.
As we struggle to find a way to reduce (if not eliminate) senseless gun violence in America, let's never take our minds off the end goal: To actually reduce (if not eliminate) senseness gun violence in America.
All other outcomes, all other objectives are off the mark.
We have to figure out what will actually work, and then do it.
Suppose all the teachers in that school, as well as the principal, had been carrying concealed weapons?
Would any of them have ended the carnage sooner than it actually ended?
One thing's for sure: America is getting a lot of press about this overseas. The BBC spent quite awhile last night dwelling on this issue ... right up there with Syria.
Nice to be so loved.
bill, pointing out everyday items that can cause harm to civilians is not a crime. There is no threat of violence directed at anyone. I feel it is my job to point out your irrational fear of metal and show you that a piece of steel isn't needed to cause violence.
So, do you need 30 kids shot up to finally have had enough?
Do I hear 40 first graders?
Fifty first graders?
When is it enough?
The only purpose of a handgun or assault weapon is to kill people. They're not for hunting, they're not for sport. When a person buys a handgun or assault weapon it is with the specific purpose to someday use it to shoot a human being. Some people would add "if necessary." Some add "as soon as possible." But both know what they bought it for.
Meanwhile, hearing the 100% anti-abortion crowd (yes, Mr. Sibson, I'm talking about you) defending the murder of 20 children because otherwise they can't have their Glocks proves to me, once more, that all they really are is pro-birth. Once children are born, they can be slaughtered if it just preserves their "right to freedom." Permitting the mass murder of children is not freedom. It's not right. And it's not anyone's right.
I have a difficult time seeing the reason for a 30 round clip for hunting. Makes no sense to me. They should be abolished. I see no reason for assault rifles period in civilian hands. I used to have a 5 round clip for my .308 and my dad and I used it for hunting. He always said that it was 4 shells to many as you do not concentrate as much with the knowledge of having that back up. As usual, he was right.
So tell me sports fans, why do you need 30 round clips or even a 100 round drum, for hunting a deer? Explain that to me if you can. While you are at it, why the bullet proof vests for hunting? It has been a while since I have seen an armed deer. The 2nd Amendment was written for a well regulated militia and the right to have a musket. I guess we have the National Guard made up of our neighbors doing the well regulated militia, so why do we need the assault weapons? If we must arm ourselves, why not a shotgun or a pistol or an actual hunting rifle?
DB, you wrote: 'I can take 5 minutes and get some diesel fuel and a little fertilizer and do more damage than any gun.'
Last chance, is that your intention or is it not?
Yes or no.
All this has reminded me of one of my deceased uncles..actually all of them are deceased now...but in the dirty thirties when food was scarce, he shot 26 pheasants with 25 shells and a single-shot 410 shotgun. He admitted some luck since some of the pheasants died with only one BB in their brain and he somehow managed to hit two with one shot.
The family needed food and hunting was a way to get it. That is not usually the case now.
This country is at war with itself - more people die every 6 months from gun violence than form 25 years of terrist attacks, and all of the death in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars COMBINED - and yet, there is a whole segment of the political populace that is in a constant state of rationalizing and justifying our violent society as representing "freedom". SICK.
I agree DB that menatal health is part of the problem. but the rigfht-wing want to cut programs for mental health. But guns are part of the problem. A BIG part. We have to address the gun issue as well as the mental health problem. Not to include guns is down right stupid. I'm sorry
Jerry a great post and I couldn't agree with you more.
Yeah - you put more than one round into a pelt - it's worthless. You put thrity rounds into a deer - what good is that gonna do for your food supply? More than one shot into a target - NOT a good score - no Olympic medal for you. High capacity rapid fire weapons are for one purpose and one purpose only - killing people.
"in some cases (you Sibby) even blaming the victims"
Total lie, the vicitims deserved 2nd amendment protections and it was denied them. It would be irrational to then extend those violations to the rest of us. Who wants to take firearms away from us men...the feminists. Blame them.
And how do feminsts kill more children than guns everyday...abortion mills.
In regard to the "we dont' enforce the laws now" position - there need to be SEVERE penalties for "operating a weapon without a license/insurance, etc. added to Cory's proposal. Like "significant Jail time and financial ruin" type penalties.
Sibby - your 5 -year-old is packing?
"So, do you need 30 kids shot up to finally have had enough?"
I have had enough, give teachers back their Second Amendment.
Just a comment here on the relative value of gun ownership restrictions. While many here are discussing this from a theoretical standpoint, i.e. if gun ownership restrictions would or would not reduce gun violence, why not look at existing empirical evidence? Gun ownership laws vary from country to country. We can view each of these different ownership laws as an experiments. Here is a pretty good paper taking this exact approach:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
The basic conclusion is that restrictions on gun ownership does not, in fact, reduce violent crime or murder.
While this tragedy is horrible, it's cause was a crazy person. No amount of reasonable safeguards can protect you from crazy.
Lastly, the function of car insurance is based on the idea that accidents are a natural part of everyday use. Gun accidents, by contrast, are not an expected part of everyday use and accordingly not an effective model for insurance. If we want to put together a violence support fund, that could make sense, but it shouldn't be specific to guns. It should just be a social service program. If we all decide that we want that social service program.
"Like "significant Jail time and financial ruin" type penalties."
Spoken like a true communist.
Steve: You haven't provided one plausible solution to this other than your fundamentalist victim-blaming crap of "pray the violence away" and calling people/ideas incredibly loose names.
Why do you come here? Leave this conversation to the grownups who are tired of people like you allowing children and families being used for your fire and brimstone ideology and illogical hatred of a functioning society.
Tony:
re: Mauser study. Anyone that writes in terms of "Liberal government" loses the audience that I'm in. It was easy to find arguments against his "studies".
He's a rep of the National Firearms Association. That's not at all biased, writing for and defending who feeds your family.
"more comprehensive study has shown that crime has actually tended to fall faster in the states without carry laws" isn't even the biggest part of this discussion here, but the first article I came across, of many, that shows Mauser's bias. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/06/23/mauser/
"Back in 1996, Australia imposed a much stricter version of the assault weapons ban after a mass shooting. The Australian version avoided many of the loopholes in the U.S. law: Not only did the country ban all types of semiautomatic rifles and shotguns, but it also spent $500 million buying up nearly 600,000 existing guns from private owners.
As Wonkblog’s Sarah Kliff pointed out, Australia’s law appears to have curbed gun violence. Researchers in the British Medical Journal write that the ban was “followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides.”
http://tinyurl.com/cpjl2d7
How about 60 first graders? Any takers if that is enough?
"You haven't provided one plausible solution to this other than your fundamentalist victim-blaming crap"
AAnother lie, I have said the solution is to give the teachers their Second Amendmetn right to defend themselves and their students. The problem has occurred in a gun-free zone. The problem is gun bans. The solution is the Second Amendment and that is absolutely true.
"Australia imposed a much stricter version of the assault weapons ban after a mass shooting."
Then move to Australia.
Pot never killed anyone and they banned. Cigarettes kill and they have gone from promoting them to taxing them. Guns are designed and made for one purpose alone to bring about death. Millions of us live just fine without them. Twenty kids 6yrs of age and 6 adults were added to the list of the deceased. Screw the 2nd amendment those children were not the problem and their right to pursue life, liberty and happiness were summarily denied. Have you ever tried to save a shooting victim in an ER and then had to clean up, wrap the body and take them to the morgue, well I have.
So why are some worried that we might have regulations that keep kids safe just because they do not like the word regulation.
I happen to think that it is appropriate to have child proof caps on bottles of pills and toilet bowl cleaner. If that keeps my kid or your kid safer is worth the price and the hassle. If you just have a mindset against regulation, then let those people adopt your kids to replace them rather than just acting real carring by thinking it was just sad that this happened. Guaranteeing people no way to protect themself other than carrying a gun is not fair to those who actually see value in being nonviolent. Laws were not meant to only protect violent people.
Right. Victim blaming. They didn't carry (and it doesn't say in the 2nd Amendment everyone SHALL carry, it says their right to carry SHALL NOT be infringed) so it's their fault they were shot and killed.
"Then move to Australia."
Like I said, you hate a functioning society.
If all you have to use for a reason is the constitution, then the constitution can be changed. I am more impressed with rational reasons on how to stop the violence. If your only reason is the constitution, then you are coming up short of reasons.
"Screw the 2nd amendment those children were not the problem and their right to pursue life, liberty and happiness were summarily denied."
Perfect. Sibby, Tony and the fundamentalist RW are so ate up with protecting their own selfish fears they do it at the expense of constitutionally protected rights of everyone else.
"They didn't carry..."
They couldn't even if they wanted to. Do you understand what a gan ban is? The teachers did not have the option of defending themselves. I am not blaming the victims, I am blaming the unconstitutional gun ban laws.
"Like I said, you hate a functioning society."
If you think Australia is it , then move. I will instead work to get America to function in the way intended by those who fought a war with England.
I don't want to live in a world where everyone is armed, for a variety of reasons, from religious to practical to the plain fact that that would only increase the level of violence (see Somalia for an example of an ultimately armed society). Nor should I have to. Nor should our children have to. That is NOT what our Constitution says. What we have right now in America is rapidly growing insanity.
While rifles and shotguns can be used for hunting and varmints, handguns and assault weapons have only one purpose, and that is to kill human beings, and I have yet to hear a single decent argument why such weapons should not be regulated. The Constitution was written in the age of muzzle-loaders; and in the historical Wild West, when you came to town, you had to turn your weapons over to the sheriff. You weren't allowed to run around town armed and dangerous. Why should things be different now, 150 years later, when the firepower is far more deadly?
Finally, if you need to own a handgun or assault weapon to prove you're a man, then you aren't one.
"I have said the solution is to give the teachers their Second Amendmetn right to defend themselves and their students. The problem has occurred in a gun-free zone. The problem is gun bans. The solution is the Second Amendment and that is absolutely true."
So Steve my wife the teacher should carry an assault rifle to class?????
If you are going to ban the use of guns and try to amend the Constitution, you have to also look at the fact that there is more to the issue. I am in complete favor of banning guns, but only military style guns. Assult style, semi-automatic to fully-automatic weapons. It is possible to amend the Constitution to ban all guns but its such a long and hard process that I do not think it will happen. Also, if we are going to ban guns, we have to ban violent video games as well. We must also look at cases of mental illness and treat such cases with a lot more care and depth than what we have been doing in the past.
Steve is being an idiot.
Taunia-
I find it comical that you would lump me in with Steve as a right winger. If you look @ my posts, I'm consistently a social democrat. However, I am an evidence based individual so on social policy issues I try to make my decisions based on data. I can understand your concern about the paper I posted. You don't like the author, that's ok. Here is another that directly compares the US to Canada which may be more to your liking:
http://www.associatedgunclubs.org/legislative/general_interest/Homicide%20&%20Handguns%20USA-Canada%20-%20JHU%20Study.pdf
(I grabbed the article from this site b/c it's otherwise paywalled)
This article is particularly interesting b/c it points out that regardless of the availability of handguns, the assault rate remains the same. However, when handguns aren't available, Canadians simply use other tools to commit their offenses.
If the thesis of gun control is that it will reduce assaults, it is simply not shown in the data. I wish that the data showed otherwise Taunia. I'm not in favor of general gun possession, particularly anything beyond hunting rifles. However, the data just doesn't support my desired action.
"if you need to own a handgun or assault weapon to prove you're a man, then you aren't one."
Thanks for proving that this is just another move by the feminists to attack males.
"So Steve my wife the teacher should carry an assault rifle to class?????"
She can't even if she wanted it to. It was in that gun-ban environment that this took place. Typical irrational logic of the left is to think that since the gun ban did not work, we need to extend the gun bans even further. That way fewer kids will be killed in the future because deer rifles and shotguns are not as efficient in killing humans. Isn't one too many? Two, three, four, five or six? Just because it is 26, all of a sudden the haters of absolute truth (Fleming) and haters of men (Eve) want to ban assault weapons. Totally irrational.
There is no faster way I can think of to get the 2nd amendment repealed than to insist that the obliteration of a room full of 6 year olds is the price we have to pay for him to carry a weapon to indulge his paranoid delusional mystical/religious/political fantasies.
"I'm not in favor of general gun possession, particularly anything beyond hunting rifles."
"I am in complete favor of banning guns, but only military style guns."
The Second Amendment says you have the right to bear arms, but only so you can kill a pheasant for supper?
"There is no faster way I can think of to get the 2nd amendment repealed than to insist that the obliteration of a room full of 6 year olds is the price we have to pay for him to carry a weapon to indulge his paranoid delusional mystical/religious/political fantasies."
That occurred in a room full of 6 years that had already repealed the 2nd Amendment. That is the absolute truth of which a delusional mystical/religious/political New Age Theocrat living in a fantasy world can't seem to understand.
Steve-
What was the rationale behind the second amendment? Were times different then? Is our constitution a living document that changes with the times, or is it divine in nature and unchangeable?
Bill - "Steve is being an idiot."
Pot meet kettle.
Answers to Tony's questions:
A natural right needed to stand up to tyranny. No. The constitution is not a living document, nor is it divine. It was the law of the land, but not no more.
To Eve;
I know lots of people including myself that hunt with a hand gun.
I know lots of people that hunt with AR's....mainly predators like coyotes, but they use them for deer as well.
Also, repealing the 2nd amendment doesn't remove our right to own guns. You would need an amendment explicitly banning guns from citizen ownership. The 2nd amendment merely reaffirmed our natural born rights, not grant the right to us.
Semiautomatics should be banned. Routine psychological testing and routine gun safety classes required for ALL persons that want to buy a gun.
Gun lovers - we gun control people really, really, really want to work with you. We need to find common ground and I don't think the ideas I set forth are unreasonable.
Really? Arm the teachers now? Really? I would homeschool my daughter for sure.
The Gun owners need to set their fear and obsession aside. Stop thinking about yourself and YOUR family. Think of the fear these innocent babies felt. Can you step out of the box?
When crazies are killing babies, the government needs to something about it.
Jenny, for starters, I suggest we use the words "regulated" and "regulation" as opposed to "gun control."
Regulation is allowed for in the Constitution.
In fact many of us consider it to be —if not the whole point of the Amendment at least a main point... a well regulated militia.
Not to regulate weapons (and those who use them) would be grossly irresponsible in my opinion.
DB, while you, Sibby and Randanzzo are clearly a ship of fools headed over a waterfall, your contributions here today have been most helpful in pointing up the validity Cory's post and by extension the weakness of the opposing arguments. So thank you for that.
How do you keep guns out of the hands of the unstable when the overseeing agency will never have access to such records? I'd say the first step is to implement some sort of way for gun dealers to know who is and who isn't safe. Next, enforce the laws on the books. You can't expect the citizens to follow gun laws when you can't even get our leaders to do the same. Holder anyone? The subjective enforcement by the state and federal gov't is atrocious. Attach liabilities and reasonable expectations of securing said firearms, and ramp up the laws on illegally obtained firearms. Laws must be considered immensely before we implement too many, because we all know criminals don't follow the laws.
now I here that some Rep. from Oklahoma wants is going to introduce a bill to train principals and teacnhers in using guns.
This has got to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
And Steve this has nothing to do with feminist or abortion
They could have used funds from 1.2.3.4 for this training of teachers in how to use hand guns. Now we'll have to spend it all over again. I'm just sayin...
Steve, I don't see how arming teachers would make everyone safer. Having multiple weapons in a school strapped to teachers would just make more guns available to kill humans. I'm a high school teacher. Most of my students could get a gun away from me if they so desired. The whole idea of this is just so absurd.
And just as I hit the post button, Kelo referred to Betty Olson's plan to propose legislation "that would allow teachers, administrators and even janitors with concealed weapons permits to bring their guns to school."
As an Educator and a student of History, I believe the Federalist Papers reveal that the 2nd Amendment addresses the threat of a "homegrown" King George. The US Government has killed us with germ warfare testing. That is one example of the potential threat acknowledged by the Founding Fathers (and Mothers). There are many such examples, but to list them could cause digression.
Adolph Hitler would agree with the original poster 100%. Step by step, he used the same arguments found in these posts to pass Laws to disarm the people he intended to rob and slaughter.
Though my sex is not germane, I have proven I will return hostile fire. Were your child in my class, my past indicates I would die pursuing their defense, even without a weapon. How sad, as I would fail, and die in my failure along with the your children. Hope your sensibilities are worth it.
If the answer is disarming ourselves, let us start with the Police. If a Cop can be trained to your satisfaction, so can a Teacher. I see no one criticizing armed Cops in schools, so is it the guns or the persons? The resistance could be that Rapid City Teachers generally do not distinguish themselves and their trade in a way to be respected above the status of babysitter.
What do you call trained and armed babysitters? Dianne Feinstein's bodyguards. She can have that level of safety, but not our kids.
Now shall we discuss how the Governor's refusal to participate in the Exchanges makes our children less safe from the insane?
Cory, JERRY,EVE FISHER, RIGHT ON!!!!!!
DB, when some one is afraid to post there name I am worried they may be hiding from something!!! Shallow post!!
Steve Sibson,2012-12:17-13:07
You are not men,you are little boy's reliving your child hood dreams!!!
So, Steve, how about if a goofed up dude shows up in the Mitchell elementary school and guns down 80 kids, oh say, between ages 5 and 8? Is that enough to raise your ire to say that maybe some controls on guns is an appropriate solution? Or is your minimum number 100 because three digits is better than two?
The nutjob in Newtown had more than sufficient ammo on his person to make that happen, but those damn government employees (first responders) showed up so that he could only kill 20. Damn those activist liberal government employees and their repressive mandates!
I saw this on another blog today referring to your big buddy Ted Nugent. You got his albums in your collection? Isn't his bare chest impressive with his loin cloth? Well, here’s what Big Teddy says about Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton:
“I was in Chicago, I said, ‘Hey Obama, you might wanna suck on one of these you punk.' ... Obama, he's a piece of shit, I told him to suck on my machine gun. Let’s hear it! [crowd cheers] I was in New York, I said, ‘Hey Hillary, you might want to ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless bitch.' ... She might want to suck on my machine gun.”
Then Big Teddy shot off a bunch of fake rounds from his machine guns and howled “Freeeeeeedom!” Big Teddy was out here to campaign for Kristi Noem, who was going to appear with him onstage and then decided that was a stupid idea.
I’m certain that’s what our founding fathers were thinking when they included the 2nd Amendment. They wanted to make sure an assclown like Big Teddy can show off his impressive manhood and invite a male presidential candidate to suck his gun and invite a female presidential candidate to sit on his gun.
I’m certain they intended a goofed up kid in Mitchell or Red Lake or Newtown or Aurora or Seattle or Scottsdale or Virginia Tech or Fort Hood or DeKalb or Salt Lake City or Atlanta or Columbine to walk unfettered into a room or a theater or a school or a clinic or a mall parking lot and start shooting children, women and men to pieces.
It’s your right to carry arms. Big arms with big clips to hold 30 rounds … or more! Cop killer bullets. It has nothing to do with an organized militia, right? Just big studs with big guns and big clips walking around in public. With their small penises. Your heroes, right?
Let’s adjust the bid. How about 150 children? Maybe capping 100 isn’t impressive enough.
Seriously, guns isn’t the problem, but the availability … the glut … of guns is. More importantly, it’s the centuries old gun culture of America that is the root of this ultra-violence that makes shooting innocents the solution of choice too many times.
But if I’m wrong, brother, well, I’m wrong. Nobody died because of it. ‘Cause here in amerika, it’s all about firing a pair of tommyguns in the air filled with fake rounds and howling “Freeeeeeeeeedom!"
Not so long ago, I heard somewhere (probably on NPR) that violence in general, and murders in particular, have gone down in America over the past couple of decades.
But these evil instances, these apparently senseless events, have increased in frequency.
I think I know why.
Has anyone considered the effect of television programming and computer gaming on young men? Violence portrayed in graphic form, even interactive form, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year ... driven into young men's heads with relentless fury, a veritable hurricane of evil rubbish.
It's young men, primarily, who play these computer games and watch these violent television shows. And it's young men, exclusively, who commit these evil acts. Evil indeed, but hardly sensless. In fact, after all this desensitization to the value of human life, thousands upon thousands of hours of it, it's a wonder that tragedies of this sort don't occur more often.
In addition to Cory's suggestions about regulating guns, which make perfect sense to me, it's time, I'm afraid, that the public sector (in other words, we the people) clamp down on the incredible carnage that our kids play out with the help of technology.
Clever, evil little robots, that's what we're creating. It's time to end it.
teachers are paid crap and the right wants to end teachers union and then they want to train them to be the front line defense against some nut with a AK47 assault rifle?
Does anybody else think that this is crazy???
Mr. Reitzel, can you help me understand why ending what I have heard called "continuing contract" (or tenure) is ending unions or has anything to do with what good teachers are paid?
If not having "continuing contract" makes it harder for good teachers to get paid more than I am all for "continuing contract." I am against any union, regardless. I say BAH on unions for mechanics teachers train drivers or government emploeyes. BAH on unions.
I went to a Christmas concert tonight where about 20 1st graders sang. I cried.
Nice try, Corey; well intentioned but it doesn't stand a chance.
Driving is and has always been a privilege - NEVER a right.
The second amendment, conversely, is a fundamental right. The courts recognize a hierarchy of rights with fundamental rights being penultimate rights.
A better argument pits one fundamental right against another - here the fundamental right of a 6 year old for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness verses Jethro's right to bear arms in any manner and place he deems. A parents right of parenthood verses Jethro's right of being an armed bore and threat.
The greatest constitutional questions pit fundamental rights - freedom of speech verses freedom of religion, etc. We'll get nowhere fast trying to equate a privilege such as driving or hunting to a fundamental right. We have to think harder about this.
Republican David Frum continues to surprise. He's thought well about another aspect of the remedy and that it likely is outside of partisan politics. http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/17/opinion/frum-leadership-newtown/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_allpolitics+%28RSS%3A+Politics%29
Let's talk about the words of the Constitution. It says you have a right to keep and bear arms. It does not say you have a right to own guns.
It would be perfectly Constitutional for the government to require all guns to be owned by the manufacturer and licensed to the person who leases a gun, rather than the gun itself. Or to be owned by the government, and licensed to a person. It could then require manufacturers to license guns only to those who meet certain requirements. There could be graded licensing, so that a person could license a gun for hunting only, or for self-defense. There would be requirements for training, but the manufacturer would have to take on the liability.
The right to bear arms was to defend yourself against the government. Not so everyone could imagine killing their neighbor. IN the south the stand your ground laws are so you can shoot first. George Zimmerman approached Trayvon Martin in a way that he knew Trayvon would try to kill him under the stand your ground laws. That way he could shoot a black teen whom he did not like. It gets real crazy when you follow that I can shoot anyone I am scared of idea. That is a much slippery slope than worrying that every gun will be taken away just because most people do not want the mentally ill to carry a gun.
Ed, South Dakota already vets teachers much more rigorously than it vets gun owners.
Tony, help me out on the insurance point you make. The difference you cite between cars and guns is that we don't expect to make everyday use of guns (perhaps all the more reason to require regular training and demonstration of proficiency, so skills don't get rusty and increase danger to others). Most of the time guns sit around in the cabinet causing no harm. Occasionally they come out, and occasionally someone causes damage with them. What makes it unfeasible for gun owners to maintain financial responsibility for that potential harm?
Thanks, Stan. To embrace arming more people, I need to be convinced that more people carrying guns won't lead to more accidents or acts of impulsive violence.
Sami, perhaps we should be thrilled by Betty Olson's bill. If the Legislature trusts us enough to carry weapons, that signals an uptick in respect for our profession, right? ;-)
"When crazies are killing babies, the government needs to something about it."
Right, it is time to shut down Planned Parenthood's abortion mills.
" I'm a high school teacher. Most of my students could get a gun away from me if they so desired."
Yeah, they take guns away from police officers all the time. Sad when the delusional think that the ones who bring the solution to the table are crazy. Fleming does not even know the founders' true meaning of "regulated".
Steve, you can't have this both ways. Your argument on banning weapons has been that it would be ineffective and further, that one's liberty trumps the protection of six year olds.
Now you want to argue for laws that. Restrict the liberty of women's in order to protect zygotes. Which is it?
I like your optimism, Cory! But take my opinion with a grain of salt because according to Mr. Sibson, I'm delusional. :)
Sam, the correlation between Steve Sibson's declaring someone delusional and that person's being correct is strong and significant.
Usual crap from you, Cory. You couldn't refute my statements so you pick a cute little inane statement. Very lame.........but at least you're consistently lame.