It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

STOP with the COMMON SENSE gun control pleas – just STOP! - falling on deaf ears

page: 6
36
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: toms54


Annoyance is the feeling I get reading your posts.
I'm sorry to hear that.




Regaining a civil right. What exactly do you consider 'appealed in a timely and efficient manner" to mean? A letter to the governor? A two year bureaucratic process? Please tell us.
I believe I answered this in my previous post to you. The effort necessary to appeal an adverse decision regarding the exercise of ones rights, is directly proportional to the evidence being used to deny that right. The specifics would have to be worked out as part of the detailed negotiation process.

An example of what I believe may be useful in determining the fitness of an applicant who has been denied the right to purchase a firearm. If the application is denied because of some minor mark on the applicant's record, like the fact that they take some kind of medication, they should be able to get a release from an appropriate healthcare official indicating their current health status will not have an adverse impact on their possession of a firearm. This is provided as supporting documentation for their application, and if it is provided by an accredited healthcare specialist, it will be used to approve the application. No need to go to court.



As far as "Violent mentally ill are already restricted." goes, I don't know the answer to your demands.
I didn't think they were demands. I was of the opinion that they were just queries. It's a standard tactic in drawing out ones opinions and understanding of the topics under discussion.



I only know the background check law requires states to report involuntary commitments for evaluation in determining a person's fitness. There is already a mental health component to the law. The criminally insane are restricted.
Good. That's what I was looking for. That's my understanding as well. However, as was brought up earlier, failures in properly updating the system have allowed some assailants to pass their background check when it should have been clear that they were not eligible. Seems to me that indicates there are some systemic changes that need to be made to verify the database is always up-to-date with the most recent information.

Also, some mentally ill people may indicate their propensity for violence, yet they don't meet the currently defined criteria for "violently mentally ill." Should the definition be changed to include those people? And if so, who should make that determination, and how should it be reported?



Why don't you Google it if it is so critical for you to know the exact terms? You can post it here.
I don't think that's absolutely necessary at this point. I'm just trying to stimulate some conversation about the subject. Sometimes we all throw out terms that we don't completely know the definition for.

I know that some of the contributors with whom I am debating in this thread have made me think about my perspective by doing just that.

-dex




posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
Those promoting gun ownership would be wise to come to the table for some common sense gun ownership discussions. If you don't, you can only blame yourselves for what happens.


How many trips to that table need to be made?!?



God damm outstanding!



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 04:35 PM
link   
In my view common sense guns laws should be if you are doing a criminal act with a gun you should be locked up for a long time.
If you are a felon caught with a gun you should get 25 years the first time and life if caught again.
A automatic three strikes for criminals that use guns.

You will note the liberals NEVER put in laws like that because they do not believe in putting away criminals for there crimes and all they want is to take away guns from the law abiding.
edit on 4-6-2018 by ANNED because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: toms54

It would replace the 2nd amendment as it stands now.

It'll never happen though. Like I said, any attempt would be derailed as soon as it started because some fools would decide to try and make it more restrictive than the interpretations have already made it. At that point, I go from being a maybe yes to a definite no. I figure most others would feel the same.

So far as interpreting the amendment, that's the whole point. Constitutional interpretation was meant to be limited to conditions wherein one part of the Constitution comes into conflict with another part due to unforeseen circumstances. Instead, we tend to 'interpret' the Constitution when it comes into conflict with what some people want. There is no need to interpret what can simply be read. As it stands right now, I should have legal authority to have a nuke sitting on top of an ICBM in my backyard if I want... something I don't think would be a good idea. The idea behind allowing the people the means to rise up was based on the fact that weapons of that day were not prohibitively expensive as they are now... the cost of an army was primarily in the number of people, something that public outrage could have easily offset.

There should be no interpretation except for those unusual circumstances I mentioned above. Read the damn thing. If a law causes it to be violated, the law is illegal; remove it. If you want to keep the unconstitutional law, you have to change the Constitution. Period. End of paragraph. End of chapter. End of book. Library closed.

Otherwise, we have no basis for law... just something else for idiots to argue about.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

Again, that is not constitutional... just another 'interpretation' taking into account what some loud people want over what the thing actually says.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: DexterRiley


That's a pretty good analogy. You make a good point about starting negotiation from a reasonable position. I become somewhat confrontational myself when someone tells me what I need or not need. That calls for a level of judgement on the part of the accuser that is not theirs to wield.

Thank you. It would be a wonderful thing if others could understand this. Unfortunately, BFFT's photo strip above is pretty much on the spot, only it doesn't show the cake thief physically shoving the cake owner aside to gobble up the remaining crumbs... which is what too many seem to want.


Thinking about that literally turns my stomach...

Unfortunately that is probably the most pragmatic approach to fixing the school shooting problem. We have to turn our schools into armed fortresses

Actually, I think of it as a balance of power thing. We have two factions at work in school shootings: the general public who want their children to attend school in peace, and those who for one reason or another wish to harm our children. They will always be armed, like it or not. What we have done is to disarm everyone else, and expect the lawless to become lawful overnight after we have given them free permission to not do so.

If a teacher with proper training/background checks has a gun in his/her locked desk drawer, what does it hurt? Nothing. It's an inanimate object. What does it help? Maybe nothing, but then again, maybe it makes the decision between one shooter dead or 17 innocent children dead. If I go to school to see my kid over something, what does it detract from my day to wait until my turn and have an armed security guard escorting me? Nothing. It's a minuscule price to pay to ensure the school is safe. If a kid has to pass through a metal detector and have backpacks x-rayed when they go to school, what does that really hurt? It's an inconvenience.

Our schools should be a fortress against outside criminal activity. My home is. I have guns here and I have no issue using them if needed. But I promise you, as a guest in my home, you would not feel like you were walking into a fortified castle. One can be hardened against violence without being hard, if you get my meaning.


I also like an idea that was mentioned earlier by one contributor. Allowing younger teens and possibly older pre-teens to purchase small caliber firearms in their own names. When combined with parental approval, some required education, and possibly testing, this could help these youngsters to gain a real appreciation for the power of a gun. As well help instill in them a sense of responsibility for something with such power. It would take some thinking about the best way to implement this though.

That I can get behind 100%!

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: yuppa

Again, that is not constitutional... just another 'interpretation' taking into account what some loud people want over what the thing actually says.

TheRedneck


you sure? its n enumeration right?



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: DexterRiley

Exactly, I think good compromises like these are a start. How are teenagers getting the guns they use to go on shooting sprees? At least in the latest case, the kid got them from his dad's collection.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

The Constitution says nothing about weapons that are "man portable or in artillery"... all it says is:

A well-regulated militia being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Where are you getting "man portable or in artillery" out of that?

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake


Exactly, I think good compromises like these are a start. How are teenagers getting the guns they use to go on shooting sprees? At least in the latest case, the kid got them from his dad's collection.

That was my thought as well. Though the point has been made that enforcing this may be more intrusive than many would accept.

However, in the SH massacre in 2012 the assailant had access to his mother's collection of more than a dozen firearms. Despite the fact that he had "developmental and mental health problems" that precluded him from purchasing and owning guns.

In another recent shooting, the assailant had acted out some time before his shooting spree and the police confiscated his firearms. They were later returned to his father and entrusted to his care. He then promptly returned them to his son, who used them to murder several people.

I recall there have been several other cases where people who should not have had access to these kinds of weapons were able to get them from their parents, or other adult's collections.

I think if it becomes clear that the parents may be held criminally liable for such heinous mass murders committed by their children, perhaps they will put a bit more effort into securing their firearms. Serious and responsible gun owners should not need this kind of incentive. Unfortunately, the world is full of stupid people; and it frequently becomes necessary for the government to step in and remind people of their responsibilities.

-dex



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 10:17 PM
link   
School system is complete garbage



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Hold parents of these misfits accountable both criminally and financially to the victims....parenting is a lost art.
Expand background checks to include medical history.
Stop glamorizing school shootings all over the media.

This would IMO greatly reduce these bizarre attacks.



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 12:24 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

What type of arms are citizens allowed to have? This is where the Supreme Court has largely failed us. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) the court decided that the Second Amendment protects weapons that are "in common use," while precluding "dangerous and unusual weapons." This is far from clear guidance. All weapons are "dangerous," and any firearm may appear "unusual" to a person who has no experience with guns.

An earlier Supreme Court case provides more sensible guidance on what type of weapons are protected by the Second Amendment. The despised United States v. Miller (1939) is commonly characterized as being the most recondite and obscure of all Second Amendment cases. But Miller constitutes the most useful guide in determining what types of weapons are protected by the Second Amendment. In Miller the Court noted that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," and that the Second Amendment "must be interpreted and applied... to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of this militia.

To be effective, the members of a militia must be well armed. Thus the quintessential weaponry protected by the Second Amendment consists of the arms that would ordinarily be possessed by an individual soldier in an infantry unit -- not weapons designed for defense from criminals or for shooting ducks. This means machine guns, mortars, and hand grenades. It excludes weapons of mass destruction such as large artillery pieces, poison gas, or aircraft. If this interpretation seems extreme, consider that our colonial militia possessed cannon. The Revolutionary War was initiated by the British attempt to seize cannon held by the militia at Concord.


So therein lies the restrictions.



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 02:08 AM
link   
a reply to: yuppa


What type of arms are citizens allowed to have?

According to the US Constitution, a person may have anything that qualifies as an "arm"... oi other words, any weapon whatsoever.

According to the Supreme Court, there are restrictions to that, as you point out.

That's where the difference comes in. I go by the Constitution. Opinions of even the most sage and wise among us are still just that: opinions, which can change over time. The founding document of the government under which the Supreme Court Justices serve does not change except by amendment. The real question thus becomes: do we want government and laws based on a written document that is available for anyone to read, or based on the opinions of a select few individuals in power? I prefer the former; the latter smells a little too much like a dictatorship for my tastes.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 02:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: yuppa


What type of arms are citizens allowed to have?

According to the US Constitution, a person may have anything that qualifies as an "arm"... oi other words, any weapon whatsoever.

According to the Supreme Court, there are restrictions to that, as you point out.

That's where the difference comes in. I go by the Constitution. Opinions of even the most sage and wise among us are still just that: opinions, which can change over time. The founding document of the government under which the Supreme Court Justices serve does not change except by amendment. The real question thus becomes: do we want government and laws based on a written document that is available for anyone to read, or based on the opinions of a select few individuals in power? I prefer the former; the latter smells a little too much like a dictatorship for my tastes.

TheRedneck









I'm not disagreeing with you, I am curious though at what point do we modernize our way of thinking, that document is old now almost 500 years old, how long do we hang on to old ways of thinking and be able to still move forward?



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 06:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

I can tell you a “common sense law” that I am sure you could get behind. But this idea really would only help with domestic gun trafficking and gang violence.
The school shooting thing not so much.

I would agree that there are some gun laws that aren't on the books that would be helpful to have.
But no "common sense gun law" can do anything at all about murders with guns.

I mean, that's already illegal.

Harte



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 06:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: yuppa


What type of arms are citizens allowed to have?

According to the US Constitution, a person may have anything that qualifies as an "arm"... oi other words, any weapon whatsoever.

According to the Supreme Court, there are restrictions to that, as you point out.

That's where the difference comes in. I go by the Constitution. Opinions of even the most sage and wise among us are still just that: opinions, which can change over time. The founding document of the government under which the Supreme Court Justices serve does not change except by amendment. The real question thus becomes: do we want government and laws based on a written document that is available for anyone to read, or based on the opinions of a select few individuals in power? I prefer the former; the latter smells a little too much like a dictatorship for my tastes.

TheRedneck









I'm not disagreeing with you, I am curious though at what point do we modernize our way of thinking, that document is old now almost 500 years old, how long do we hang on to old ways of thinking and be able to still move forward?

There is a built-in fix in the Constitution. It's called the amendment process.

Harte



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Well, you might want to check your date... it's 235 years old. Not close to 500 yet. In fact, the last amendment is just over 26 years old, not exactly ancient.

That point though, is exactly why I would support a reasonable amendment to clarify the 2nd amendment. I just will not, under any circumstances, give up more rights than have already been taken... I will only support constitutionalizing what we already have, to protect what's left.

The Constitution is hard to change for a reason... if the whole country were in agreement on what to change, it would happen. That is simply not the case. You may think removing firearms from society is the solution to school shootings, but I think it will cause more problems than we already have. Based on the power of the NRA, I am not alone. The NRA does not wield lobbying power because they are wealthy; they yield lobbying power because so many people agree with them in principle. That is the problem with complaints about them... those complaints are about a huge segment of the population, even many who are not active members. I, for instance, am not and have never been a member of the NRA, but I am strictly against further gun control.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 08:50 AM
link   
"Common sense gun control"

Theres nothing common sense about limiting access to our ability to protect ourselves from tyranny



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Well i Agree,and was pointing out what THEY would try to use to convict gun owners with.




top topics



 
36
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join