ANOTHER School Shooting - 5 Dead

[Chrislit18]

I think that I understand what youre trying to say SortaSavageLike [sorry, I dont know your name ]...
The fact is that society has gone downhill in the last century basically. People in general have become more and more disturbed, and its like there is nothing that can be done over it. There was less 'gang/street' violence back then too. the 1920s is my new chapter for AP history, and most people just carried guns for protection...mostly of the comunists who were coming to america, and threatening the government. People did not just buy guns to have them, or for any other reason except for protection, and to hunt for food [in the extreme rural areas].

I do believe that in this day and age the right to bear arms should be taken out of the constitution. In the army and other national servises is one thing, but average people should not be allowed guns. And I agree 100% with what you said strandinthewind, people should be punished for giving away guns without federal consent. especially if the person they are giving the gun to is known to be mentally unstable, or doesnt have a gun liecnce.

USA needs gun control. plain and simple.

[michelle2677]

Originally Posted by David

Ledge Poll: How many of you, if legally allowed to do so, would pack heat in your daily lives?

i'm sorry, but this just cracked me up coming from you

anyway, my brother carries a gun. I had no idea he had a permit to carry a concealed weapon, but he does. I, personally, probably never would. IF i ever decided to own a gun, it would be kept close to my bed, or left in my car. I wouldn't ever feel the need to just carry it around with me. coincidentally, my car and home are the only 2 places i've ever felt threatened, so that might be why

re: the shooting, it's such a tragedy. and even more so, that this is happening more often. bless the families who have lost loved ones

[SuzeQuze]

I sleep with a hammer under my pillow. TMI?

[michelle2677]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

I sleep with a hammer under my pillow. TMI?

not at all. i'm going to start sleeping with my pepper spray. not because of the school shootings, just other things going on.

[Sarah]

word. gun in the house, sometimes the car. i carry a pretty nice knife most of the time... not necessarily as a weapon; it's a handy tool. But any time I find myself in a slightly iffy situation, it's a bit of a relief. i haven't had spray for a long time... but it is a good idea. probably a better idea than a knife, but hey. whatever.

[rubytuesday]

Originally Posted by shackin'up

Aweful. Double aweful if people are going to carry guns to prevent it? Well, I'll keep my mouth shut further.

I know what you mean

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

I sleep with a hammer under my pillow. TMI?

Can we please leave your sex life out of this

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Chrislit18

. . . I do believe that in this day and age the right to bear arms should be taken out of the constitution . . .

Grammatically, it is not in the Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...s_Constitution

The NRA and other crazies need for it to be in the Const. so that it is harder for the Federal Government to control the sale of arms. The same thing applies with abortion. If it is not a Const. right (the right to privacy is judicial law - http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...ofprivacy.html ) - the governments can regulate and/or ban it.

[David]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Grammatically, it is not in the Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...s_Constitution

It's a bit of a puzzle, that 2nd Amendment. Come, let us parse together.

The construction is what's called a nominative absolute. Using modern punctuation styles, you would write it like this:

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

It's this type of sentence:

"Michelle being a sheltie lover, Paula decided to ask her to babysit her own dog."

Absolute phrases can have different purposes & different effects. Usually context helps you pin down the intent. Sometimes the absolute explains a single cause or condition, & it could be rewritten with "because":

1. "Michelle being a sheltie lover, Paula decided to ask her to babysit her own dog." (Paula asked Michelle for her help ONLY because she's a sheltie lover.)

2. "Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed." (The right to bear arms shall not be infringed ONLY because a militia is necessary.)

But sometimes the absolute construction leaves open the possibility of other reasons. It suggests an attendant condition rather than -- or in addition to -- a cause.

"Michelle being a sheltie lover, Paula decided to ask her to babysit her own dog." (Paula asked Michelle for her help primarily because Michelle is a sheltie lover, but also because she had a few days free to dogsit & she's reliable.)

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed for several reasons, among them -- perhaps the most important reason, perhaps not -- the necessity of a militia.

Example in Malory (with construction inverted): "There came into his halle, he syttynge in his throne ryal." Here the absolute is merely an attendant condition, not a cause. Example in Shakespeare: "I should not seek an absent argument / Of my revenge, thou [being] present." Again, merely an attendant condition--one of many (unstated but implied) reasons.

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by michelle2677

not at all. i'm going to start sleeping with my pepper spray. not because of the school shootings, just other things going on.

I need to get some of that since I think disabling is a better way to go, I just don't have an FID card.

[skcin]

I wouldn't carry a gun. Just not comfortable. Not sure if I want everyone else carrying one either, but I suppose the people who I REALLY don't want carrying a gun could easily get one illegally. So I don't know how I feel about gun control & the right to bear arms.

It's come out that Steven (the shooter) had a history of mental illness, but friends & fam thought he had it under control. They think he suddenly stopped taking his meds. The guns & ammo were obtained legally, background check came out OK. Perhaps his mental illness history either wasn't considered severe enough , or didn't count since he was in a treatment facility as a juvenile.

[Mad4stevie]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Grammatically, it is not in the Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...s_Constitution

The NRA and other crazies need for it to be in the Const. so that it is harder for the Federal Government to control the sale of arms. The same thing applies with abortion. If it is not a Const. right (the right to privacy is judicial law - http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...ofprivacy.html ) - the governments can regulate and/or ban it.

Well, I guess we will find out exactly how "the right to bear arms" is to be interpreted when the Supreme Court takes this issue on during this court term. I wouldn't say it isn't IN the Constitution . . . we don't know that yet, quite frankly, until the S.C. examines it:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/qp/07-00290qp.pdf

As you have indicated, there are constitutional rights not specifically stated in the Constitution, like the "right to privacy". However, I think the language of the 2nd Amendment and its possible interpretation is different than the penumbra "right to privacy".

[strandinthewind]

^^^

The Second Amendment reads:

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.

I think any correct reading of the Second Amendment must conclude with the right bear arms exists solely in the context of a well regulated militia and certainly within the context of a securing a free state. Otherwise, why would those phrases be in that sentence, particularly the phrase "well regulated," which suggests government control. The Framers were very careful with their language, which is why, inter alia, the word "God" appears nowhere in the U.S. Const. Remember, until the Constitution was drafted, there was no Federal Army as we know that term today. The states provided this entity, and still do to some degree today via the National Guard system. Moreover, the states and citizens were somewhat fearful of the Federal Govt. having too much power - oh to see their eyes widen while beholding today's beast

Interestingly, the NRA has the Second Amendment (minus the militia clause) engraved on its headquarters building in Washington - to me, that speaks volumes and is regretable.

In the end, even if the Court interprets the Second Amendment as granting an absolute right outside the context of a well organized militia, the benefits of preventing the potential risk from some crazy person buying a machine gun from the local drug store by making them wait a week while a background check is performed seemingly outweighs any Constitutional right to buy that gun on the spot. As a example in another context, you have the right to free speech actually in the Const., but and understandably, you cannot scream fire in a crowded theater because people could get hurt. Thus, the Court wisely and correctly limited free speech in that context. Similarly, because we now know that people will use guns to go on killing sprees and our youth are dying as a result, some regulation seems to be in order. And, enforcing the current laws would go a long way in preventing these horrid sprees.

Here is a pretty good site on this issue

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...w/beararms.htm

In the end, I realize that not all guns can be banned. So, regulations and the enforcement thereof seemingly is the only way to try and protect ourselves.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Mad4stevie

. . . As you have indicated, there are constitutional rights not specifically stated in the Constitution . . . .

That the Court creates these rights out of thin air is somewhat scary to me. In other words and thankfully, most of the cases seem to err on the side if creating some right that allows people to live in a freer manner. But, get enough Scalia's on the Court and that same "good thing" could turn against the currect line of thought.

Of course, the root of all this bruhaha is, once again, the far religious right, which cannot abide anyone not adhereing to their public, but likely not private, canonical life. Marriage is a good example. Why is it so important for the U.S. Govt. to sanction (with benefits and rights) any kind of marriage to the misfortune of those forms of marriages outside the traditional religious form? What would it hurt to delete marriage from any and all laws and instead allow people to determine what, where, and how, there property rights are determined when they die or while they are alive? The answer to me is so apparent that no harm will come -- but even mildly religious people seem to think God will be angered if the state does not sanction, for the most part, a rather incorrect form of Christianity. Sanctioning one religion over another or forcing someone to believe in a religion or denying someone benefits because they have a different or no religion flies in the face of most of the Bill of Rights, to wit:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

In the end, the religious busy bodies so concerned with the manner in which other people conduct their private, "sinful" lives should follow Jesus Himself's teaching about concentrating on your own sins and leaving God to do the judging. That concept is way too hard for the far religious right, despite Christ Himself setting it forth

[Stew_Matthews]

I think Paula has identified the issue that concerns me and that is the way in which the licencing checks are carried out. I applied for a licence in Illinois and the approval took 10 days. The Chicago Police then spent 48 hours doing their bit. To me it was more like a credit check, in fact it took me longer to get a US driving licence and bank account than it did to get a gun licence. Maybe there is a lot going on behind the scenes but the process needs to thorough and considered to ensure that those carrying handguns are responsible.

My other concern is that I don’t see a robust process to review whether an individual should still carry a handgun. It feels like – here you go, you can have a gun for five years. I think there needs to be a better review process and more explicit criteria about the circumstances when a gun licence should be revoked.