Pray for the people that got shot praying.

[GL97]

I gotta hand it to you guys. Political affiliations, whether Australia had a single mass shooting in the last 20 years, whether France has had any mass shootings, lawyers.... it's amazing how you can deflect and throw shit at the wall -- anything but discuss how a moron got an assault rifle and killed a ton of innocent people.

Such deflection always occurs fron those on the right when there is a mass shooting (i.e. terrorist attack) like this from a deranged white American.

What is so unfortunate is that all this has become so predictable. Angry or deranged white man gets a gun and kills people. First, those on the right try to paint him as a leftist. If that fails, then they talk about how it may be a government conspiracy to take their guns. Also, if someone happened to have a gun and was able to help stop the terrorist, that person is glorified and that person becomes the focus of why guns are good. Gun control? Always too early to talk about it, don't politicize this tragedy (even though those on the right will immediately politicize a radical Muslim terrorist attack), no evidence gun control would have stopped this shooting, mention the false narrative about Chicago, etc.

And this is where we are in America. Innocent people continue to die in schools, churches, at concerts, etc. while the NRA and their lackeys do everything in their power to stop meaningful gun control as they hide behind a contrived interpretation of the Second Amendment.

No doubt there will be another thread like this started again in the future when the next terrorist shooting from a white American happens. And the same back and forth will occur all over again. It is sad, ridiculous, and absolutely crazy.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Such deflection always occurs fron those on the right when there is a mass shooting (i.e. terrorist attack) like this from a deranged white American.

What is so unfortunate is that all this has become so predictable. Angry or deranged white man gets a gun and kills people. First, those on the right try to paint him as a leftist. If that fails, then they talk about how it may be a government conspiracy to take their guns. Also, if someone happened to have a gun and was able to help stop the terrorist, that person is glorified and that person becomes the focus of why guns are good. Gun control? Always too early to talk about it, don't politicize this tragedy (even though those on the right will immediately politicize a radical Muslim terrorist attack), no evidence gun control would have stopped this, mention the false narrative about Chicago, etc.

And this is where we are in America. Innocent people continue to die in schools, churches, at concerts, etc. while the NRA and their lackeys do everything in their power to stop meaningful gun control as they hide behind a contrived interpretation of the Second Amendment.

No doubt there will be another thread like this started again in the future when the next terrorist shooting from a white American happens. And the same back and forth will occur all over again. It is sad, ridiculous, and absolutely crazy.

Would you please state in precise, exact terms what you would call “meaningful gun control.” It would help the discussion if we knew exactly what you are advocating.

 

[GL97]

Would you please state in precise, exact terms what you would call “meaningful gun control.” It would help the discussion if we knew exactly what you are advocating.

Reinstate the assault weapons ban, ban high-capacity magazines, universal background checks for all gun sales, tighten regulations on firearms dealers (require all to have a license). We also should create a national gun registry and place a limitation on the number of guns a person can own. Those who are mentally ill should not be allowed to purchase a gun (follow a procedure similar to what the NY SAFE Act requires). We should penalize those owners who do not report a lost or stolen gun within 24 hours and place stricter safety regulations on gun owners who live with a felon or someone with domestic violence history. All of this would be a good start.

I also think, btw, we need serious mental health reform in this country.

 

[Alpha Poke]

I'm always bewildered by how upset the left gets about loss of life to guns, but not forceps or vacuums.

And I'm pro choice.

 

[GL97]

I'm always bewildered by how upset the left gets about loss of life to guns, but not forceps or vacuums.

sy, here is another common deflection . . . bring up abortion.

btw Poke, I'm personally opposed to abortion so those types of deaths bother me too.

 

[GunsOfFrankEaton]

This was a bad week for those who hate traditional America. First, an angry socialist attacks Rand Paul and breaks five of his ribs, probably trying to kill him. Then this Christian hater goes off his nut down in Texas. People on the left need to learn how to live in a free and open society with some sense of understanding and responsibility.

 

[Alpha Poke]

sy, here is another common deflection . . . bring up abortion.

btw Poke, I'm personally opposed to abortion so those types of deaths bother me too.

If Sys is your sounding board you're deaf to obvious hypocrisy so not surprised you can't track an obvious line of thought.

 

[wyomingosualum]

Such deflection always occurs fron those on the right when there is a mass shooting (i.e. terrorist attack) like this from a deranged white American.

What is so unfortunate is that all this has become so predictable. Angry or deranged white man gets a gun and kills people. First, those on the right try to paint him as a leftist. If that fails, then they talk about how it may be a government conspiracy to take their guns. Also, if someone happened to have a gun and was able to help stop the terrorist, that person is glorified and that person becomes the focus of why guns are good. Gun control? Always too early to talk about it, don't politicize this tragedy (even though those on the right will immediately politicize a radical Muslim terrorist attack), no evidence gun control would have stopped this shooting, mention the false narrative about Chicago, etc.

And this is where we are in America. Innocent people continue to die in schools, churches, at concerts, etc. while the NRA and their lackeys do everything in their power to stop meaningful gun control as they hide behind a contrived interpretation of the Second Amendment.

No doubt there will be another thread like this started again in the future when the next terrorist shooting from a white American happens. And the same back and forth will occur all over again. It is sad, ridiculous, and absolutely crazy.

Interesting that the left is constantly fixated on skin pigmentation when it’s a white suspect. You went out of your way to use the word “white”. As if that has anything to do with anything. Why?

 

[GL97]

Interesting that the left is constantly fixated on skin pigmentation when it’s a white suspect. You went out of your way to use the word “white”. As if that has anything to do with anything. Why?

Just to make the point that these types of depraved actions are not limited to someone from a certain race, a certain religion, a certain political ideology, or a person's citizenship status, etc.

 

[Medic007]

Interesting that the left is constantly fixated on skin pigmentation when it’s a white suspect. You went out of your way to use the word “white”. As if that has anything to do with anything. Why?

But don't you dare call black gang bangers terrorists (even though they actually are).

He's just parroting the lefty talking points. He's exactly like the left wants them, unaware and compliant. Besides, do you really expect better from Clintoon?

 

[GL97]

But don't you dare call black gang bangers terrorists (even though they actually are).

Or white gang bangers?

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/05/19/when-the-gang-bangers-are-white-guys

 

[Ponca Dan]

Reinstate the assault weapons ban, ban high-capacity magazines, universal background checks for all gun sales, tighten regulations on firearms dealers (require all to have a license). We also should create a national gun registry and place a limitation on the number of guns a person can own. Those who are mentally ill should not be allowed to purchase a gun (follow a procedure similar to what the NY SAFE Act requires). We should penalize those owners who do not report a lost or stolen gun within 24 hours and place stricter safety regulations on gun owners who live with a felon or someone with domestic violence history. All of this would be a good start.

I also think, btw, we need serious mental health reform in this country.

Thank you for your reply. I can see that you have given some thought to the subject, and are not subjecting the rest of us to an emotion driven tirade. I would say, however, as detailed as your reply appears to be, it is really a generic prescription. Ban "assault weapons." What do you call an assault weapon? Are there specific brands and models about which you are referring? Universal background checks. What would those background check consist of? Howe deep into an individual's private life would the check go? What would a person have to have done to be denied permission to protect himself with a weapon? What would be the purpose of a national gun registry? What is that supposed to accomplish? A limitation on the number of guns a person is allowed by the (police) state to own. What is that number? And is there a formula for the mix of guns a person is allowed to have? What defines a mentally ill person? And who gets to define it? And is a person who is deemed mentally ill assumed to be innocent until being proven guilty of being mentally ill? What is the standard of proof of mental illness? Penalize gun owners who do not report a lost or stolen gun within 24 hours. Report to whom? The local police, the National Gun Registry Commission? What would be the penalty? And how could it be proven the gun owner knew a gun had been stolen within 24 hours of its being stolen? What if he/she waited 25 hours? Would the penalty apply then? Why 24 hours?
What would be the stricter regulations on a model citizen, someone who has committed no crime, who lives with a felon? Why regulate model citizens in such a manner?Any felony? Or only certain felonies?

You call all of this a "good start." You mean there would be more government intrusion of the 2nd Amendment?

Let me ask you something. We both know your belief that this would be meaningful gun control is a pipe dream, something that will be fought tooth and nail by 2nd Amendment advocates like myself. Your side may get some of it passed, but certainly not all of it. But for the sake of argument let's assume you get your way, and every proposal you have called for is passed with flying colors. You got the full monty. Meaningful gun control has been passed and has become the law of the land. Now suppose gun violence is not halted, barely even reduced. Your policies have not been shown to have had any significant difference in gun violence. In that case would you and your side admit you are wrong, that "meaningful gun control" as you have advocated is a mistake, and would you then advocate its repeal? Or would you say it is a "good start," it just doesn't go far enough, we need to remove even more guns from society, dilute the 2nd Amendment into nothingness, only government officials should be allowed to have guns?

 

[GunsOfFrankEaton]

Thank you for your reply. I can see that you have given some thought to the subject, and are not subjecting the rest of us to an emotion driven tirade. I would say, however, as detailed as your reply appears to be, it is really a generic prescription. Ban "assault weapons." What do you call an assault weapon? Are there specific brands and models about which you are referring? Universal background checks. What would those background check consist of? Howe deep into an individual's private life would the check go? What would a person have to have done to be denied permission to protect himself with a weapon? What would be the purpose of a national gun registry? What is that supposed to accomplish? A limitation on the number of guns a person is allowed by the (police) state to own. What is that number? And is there a formula for the mix of guns a person is allowed to have? What defines a mentally ill person? And who gets to define it? And is a person who is deemed mentally ill assumed to be innocent until being proven guilty of being mentally ill? What is the standard of proof of mental illness? Penalize gun owners who do not report a lost or stolen gun within 24 hours. Report to whom? The local police, the National Gun Registry Commission? What would be the penalty? And how could it be proven the gun owner knew a gun had been stolen within 24 hours of its being stolen? What if he/she waited 25 hours? Would the penalty apply then? Why 24 hours?
What would be the stricter regulations on a model citizen, someone who has committed no crime, who lives with a felon? Why regulate model citizens in such a manner?Any felony? Or only certain felonies?

You call all of this a "good start." You mean there would be more government intrusion of the 2nd Amendment?

Let me ask you something. We both know your belief that this would be meaningful gun control is a pipe dream, something that will be fought tooth and nail by 2nd Amendment advocates like myself. Your side may get some of it passed, but certainly not all of it. But for the sake of argument let's assume you get your way, and every proposal you have called for is passed with flying colors. You got the full monty. Meaningful gun control has been passed and has become the law of the land. Now suppose gun violence is not halted, barely even reduced. Your policies have not been shown to have had any significant difference in gun violence. In that case would you and your side admit you are wrong, that "meaningful gun control" as you have advocated is a mistake, and would you then advocate its repeal? Or would you say it is a "good start," it just doesn't go far enough, we need to remove even more guns from society, dilute the 2nd Amendment into nothingness, only government officials should be allowed to have guns?

Slow clap. Very well communicated.

 

[Inky29]

Honestly, could we even afford to do the Australian plan? Heavens know we've wasted money on other stuff but we have about 15 times the population of Australia and that one little thing cost them about 500 million so we are talking about paying over 7 billion to get what? I really don't care what is used, I'm anti-mass killings and I don't particularly look at the tool used for the mass killing as the problem. I mean U-haul trailers have a pretty bad track record of wracking up large death numbers in mass murder situations, much worse than a gun but I'm not looking at banning all rental vans. Take guns out of the picture and this guy could have killed just as many or more if he would have just waited until they were leaving and drove a van through them. It sucks but true. I'm more interested in what drives folks like this guy and others to pull off mass murders.

 

[Been Jammin]

Thank you for your reply. I can see that you have given some thought to the subject, and are not subjecting the rest of us to an emotion driven tirade. I would say, however, as detailed as your reply appears to be, it is really a generic prescription. Ban "assault weapons." What do you call an assault weapon? Are there specific brands and models about which you are referring? Universal background checks. What would those background check consist of? Howe deep into an individual's private life would the check go? What would a person have to have done to be denied permission to protect himself with a weapon? What would be the purpose of a national gun registry? What is that supposed to accomplish? A limitation on the number of guns a person is allowed by the (police) state to own. What is that number? And is there a formula for the mix of guns a person is allowed to have? What defines a mentally ill person? And who gets to define it? And is a person who is deemed mentally ill assumed to be innocent until being proven guilty of being mentally ill? What is the standard of proof of mental illness? Penalize gun owners who do not report a lost or stolen gun within 24 hours. Report to whom? The local police, the National Gun Registry Commission? What would be the penalty? And how could it be proven the gun owner knew a gun had been stolen within 24 hours of its being stolen? What if he/she waited 25 hours? Would the penalty apply then? Why 24 hours?
What would be the stricter regulations on a model citizen, someone who has committed no crime, who lives with a felon? Why regulate model citizens in such a manner?Any felony? Or only certain felonies?

You call all of this a "good start." You mean there would be more government intrusion of the 2nd Amendment?

Let me ask you something. We both know your belief that this would be meaningful gun control is a pipe dream, something that will be fought tooth and nail by 2nd Amendment advocates like myself. Your side may get some of it passed, but certainly not all of it. But for the sake of argument let's assume you get your way, and every proposal you have called for is passed with flying colors. You got the full monty. Meaningful gun control has been passed and has become the law of the land. Now suppose gun violence is not halted, barely even reduced. Your policies have not been shown to have had any significant difference in gun violence. In that case would you and your side admit you are wrong, that "meaningful gun control" as you have advocated is a mistake, and would you then advocate its repeal? Or would you say it is a "good start," it just doesn't go far enough, we need to remove even more guns from society, dilute the 2nd Amendment into nothingness, only government officials should be allowed to have guns?

You make some very good points. What do you think of the idea of Congress forming a committee to discuss some/all of the ideas proposed by @GL97, as well as your concerns/counterpoints?

GL97, and other like minded individuals can say, "these are the things we need to do". Then, you, and other like minded individuals, can respond with, "wait a sec, that doesn't work because X, Y and Z". Meanwhile, our leaders say, "Now is not the time to discuss gun control", and nothing ever changes and hundreds of innocent people keep getting murdered every year.

It wasn't the time to discuss it after Vegas. It still isn't the time to discuss it. When will it be the time to discuss it? Never? Do we just have to settle for the status quo and hope that we are not one of the unlucky ones? How does that make any kind of sense?

 

[GL97]

I would say, however, as detailed as your reply appears to be, it is really a generic prescription.

I disagree. I gave a generic comment in my first post "meaningful gun control" because I was trying to limit the length of my post and because I assumed most on here know the proposals that exist. You asked for what this meant, and I gave you examples of the type of gun control I was speaking of.

Many of the new questions you pose can be answered by taking the time to (1) research each issue separately and considering individual proposals or (2) consider state bills that have included some of these proposals (which is why I mentioned the NY SAFE Act). Also, some of your questions can be answered by simply applying legal standards already in place (i.e. probable cause, reasonable suspicion, etc.). And finally, the remaining questions you gave have simple answers, such as why regulate model citizens? We regulate model citizens every day. We do so for the common good.

You call all of this a "good start." You mean there would be more government intrusion of the 2nd Amendment?

You should know that I don't accept the individual right interpretation of the Second Amendment as pushed by the NRA and other conservative groups. I agree with the pre-Heller majority interpretation of the Second Amendment, that it establishes an individual right within a collective framework. I don't accept the interpretation that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. As Justice Warren Burger once said, such an idea regarding the Second Amendment is a "fraud on the American people."

So I don't believe gun control laws, either the ones I mentioned or others, are a government intrusion on the Second Amendment.

Let me ask you something. We both know your belief that this would be meaningful gun control is a pipe dream, something that will be fought tooth and nail by 2nd Amendment advocates like myself. Your side may get some of it passed, but certainly not all of it. But for the sake of argument let's assume you get your way, and every proposal you have called for is passed with flying colors. You got the full monty. Meaningful gun control has been passed and has become the law of the land. Now suppose gun violence is not halted, barely even reduced. Your policies have not been shown to have had any significant difference in gun violence. In that case would you and your side admit you are wrong, that "meaningful gun control" as you have advocated is a mistake, and would you then advocate its repeal? Or would you say it is a "good start," it just doesn't go far enough, we need to remove even more guns from society, dilute the 2nd Amendment into nothingness, only government officials should be allowed to have guns?

I would continue to advocate for more gun control.

I have a question for you now. What if, instead of holding so fast to your interpretation of the Second Amendment, instead of fighting tooth and nail against meaningful gun control, instead of consistently watching innocent Americans die as your side champions guns . . . you worked with us to pass gun control and it worked? These shootings became a thing of the past. We could point to success as other nations have. Would you not be glad about this? Would this not be something to celebrate?

Your question assumed more gun control won't work. What if it does work though?

With that said, you know what isn't working? The status quo.

 

[GL97]

You make some very good points. What do you think of the idea of Congress forming a committee to discuss some/all of the ideas proposed by @GL97, as well as your concerns/counterpoints?

I am all for this Been Jammin, but the committee couldn't be made up of ideologues. If it were, it would never work. It would need to be a committee made up of reasonable people who want to work together to arrive at a consensus. People who wouldn't be controlled by the NRA and other groups.

At this point, I would support just about anything in order to get some meaningful reform.

GL97, and other like minded individuals can say, "these are the things we need to do". Then, you, and other like minded individuals, can respond with, "wait a sec, that doesn't work because X, Y and Z". Meanwhile, our leaders say, "Now is not the time to discuss gun control", and nothing ever changes and hundreds of innocent people keep getting murdered every year.

It wasn't the time to discuss it after Vegas. It still isn't the time to discuss it. When will it be the time to discuss it? Never? Do we just have to settle for the status quo and hope that we are not one of the unlucky ones? How does that make any kind of sense?

It doesn't make sense. None of this makes any sense.

After every shooting, we say the same thing. And nothing changes. And then there is another shooting, more innocent people dead and the cycle starts all over again. It is madness.

 

[Medic007]

Or white gang bangers?

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/05/19/when-the-gang-bangers-are-white-guys

Those exist as well, but it isn't white gang bangers killing black folks in the inner cities of Chicago, St. Louis, New Orleans, Baltimore, etc. One look at the demographics and sheer volume of victims is all you need.

Why all the deflection from the gang violence issue? Many more folks die each year from gang violence than do from mass shootings. It seems you lefties only care about the optics for politics. One dude kills 26 in one sitting and you lose your collective minds. Chicago (only one city mind you) loses about 55 per month to gang violence and all you lefties do is call it a false narrative. Weird.

 

[GL97]

Why all the deflection from the gang violence issue?

I am not deflecting at all from gang violence. You are deflecting onto gang violence though, just as you did after the Las Vegas shooting. Common tactic by those on the right, just as sy posted earlier. You even mentioned the right's favorite (and often incorrect) tag-line, "Chicago."

Just because I am discussing gun control doesn't mean I don't also support policies that would address gang violence. There is plenty of discussion on the left about gang violence and other inner-city problems.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Y

I disagree. I gave a generic comment in my first post "meaningful gun control" because I was trying to limit the length of my post and because I assumed most on here know the proposals that exist. You asked for what this meant, and I gave you examples of the type of gun control I was speaking of.

Many of the new questions you pose can be answered by taking the time to (1) research each issue separately and considering individual proposals or (2) consider state bills that have included some of these proposals (which is why I mentioned the NY SAFE Act). Also, some of your questions can be answered by simply applying legal standards already in place (i.e. probable cause, reasonable suspicion, etc.). And finally, the remaining questions you gave have simple answers, such as why regulate model citizens? We regulate model citizens every day. We do so for the common good.



You should know that I don't accept the individual right interpretation of the Second Amendment as pushed by the NRA and other conservative groups. I agree with the pre-Heller majority interpretation of the Second Amendment, that it establishes an individual right within a collective framework. I don't accept the interpretation that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. As Justice Warren Burger once said, such an idea regarding the Second Amendment is a "fraud on the American people."

So I don't believe gun control laws, either the ones I mentioned or others, are a government intrusion on the Second Amendment.



I would continue to advocate for more gun control.

I have a question for you now. What if, instead of holding so fast to your interpretation of the Second Amendment, instead of fighting tooth and nail against meaningful gun control, instead of consistently watching innocent Americans die as your side champions guns . . . you worked with us to pass gun control and it worked? These shootings became a thing of the past. We could point to success as other nations have. Would you not be glad about this? Would this not be something to celebrate?

Your question assumed more gun control won't work. What if it does work though?

With that said, you know what isn't working? The status quo.

You present Warren Burger as your expert. I’ll present the Founding Fathers:

https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers

 

[Medic007]

Reinstate the assault weapons ban

That ban didn't remove any from current ownership. Are you proposing a ban on manufacturing? What about those that already exist?

ban high-capacity magazines

What is "high capacity?" It's very easy to get around the current CA definition.

universal background checks for all gun sales

Agreed, including private seller to private seller. I wouldn't sell a gun to an individual without doing it through an FFL dealer.

tighten regulations on firearms dealers (require all to have a license)

Dealers have to have an FFL.

We also should create a national gun registry

I'm not opposed if two things are also included.

1. Everyone that owns a firearm has to register ownership of that forearm. If someone doesn't own any firearms, they also have to register as owning none. If someone isn't on the registry as owning a firearm and they are found to be in possession of one, they are prosecuted for violation of federal law with mandatory minimum sentencing.

2. The government has proven to be inept at data security and appropriate use. If a data breach of the gun registry occurs or the data is intentionally misused, those responsible will face a minimum of 10 years in prison.

place a limitation on the number of guns a person can own

How many? I'm not opposed to this but syskatine will blow his lid. If the number is set at 3, but he owns more than 30, what does he do with the rest? I'm not in favor of the government spending a dime of taxpayer money on his overzealous gun buying habits.

Those who are mentally ill should not be allowed to purchase a gun

Very vague.

We should penalize those owners who do not report a lost or stolen gun within 24 hours

Report to who? What if you're in Tahiti for a month and come home to missing guns. Is it 24 hours from the point of theft/loss or 24 hours from discovery? Who starts the clock and how is that enforceable?

place stricter safety regulations on gun owners who live with a felon or someone with domestic violence history

Agreed.

Interesting that you didn't mention anything about stricter enforcement of current laws. Current law provides allows for prosecution if I knowingly falsify the background form in an attempt to purchase a firearm after being convicted of a felony. How many of those people get prosecuted?

 

[GL97]

I’ll present the Founding Fathers:

Quotes come within a historical context, not to mention its immediate context. Knowing the context is important or one can twist any quote to mean something it doesn't. This happens often with the founding fathers on numerous issues.

Here is a book I'd recommend to you Ponca Dan. Does a great job of explaing the historical context of the Second Amendment...

Amazon product ASIN B00GKKTYAG

 

[Medic007]

I am not deflecting at all from gang violence. You are deflecting onto gang violence though, just as you did after the Las Vegas shooting. Common tactic by those on the right, just as sy posted earlier. You even mentioned the right's favorite (and often incorrect) tag-line, "Chicago."

Just because I am discussing gun control doesn't mean I don't also support policies that would address gang violence. There is plenty of discussion on the left about gang violence and other inner-city problems.

Nope, not deflecting at all. You lefties lose control when 26 people die but whine like toddlers when anyone points out the statistics of gang violence. It's clear that if you people were intellectually honest, there'd be a constant uproar about the loss of life from gang violence. So why aren't you?

And Chicago is only one city. It's in the news frequently. You trying to act as if you've achieved some gotcha "right wing" moment is amusing though. False Chicago narrative. That implies they don't have a gun violence problem. lol...

 

[Medic007]

Y

You present Warren Burger as your expert. I’ll present the Founding Fathers:

https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers

But what the hell did the guys who wrote the Second Amendment know Ponca Dan? Geez. They were obviously lovers of a large and overbearing central government. Any leftist could tell you that.

 

[GoPokes43]

Quotes come within a historical context, not to mention its immediate context. Knowing the context is important or one can twist any quote to mean something it doesn't. This happens often with the founding fathers on numerous issues.

Here is a book I'd recommend to you Ponca Dan. Does a great job of explaing the historical context of the Second Amendment...

View embedded media

Nothing showing up in your post as to what book you are recommending.

 

[wyomingosualum]

Just to make the point that these types of depraved actions are not limited to someone from a certain race, a certain religion, a certain political ideology, or a person's citizenship status, etc.

Golly, Beav. That’s really swell. Meanwhile, the rest of us will just continue our efforts to exist in a colorblind society.

 

[Medic007]

Nothing showing up in your post as to what book you are recommending.

"The Second Amendment: A Biography" by Michael Waldman. I've read it. Nothing but the usual lefty take on "history."

Here's the review written by longtime buddy of the Clintons, Sean Wilentz:

“Partisan pseudo-histories of gun regulation and the Second Amendment abound. Michael Waldman's excellent book slices through the propaganda with candor as well as scholarship. It advances an authentic and clarifying history that will surprise and enlighten citizens on all sides of the issue. Here is a smart and cogent history that performs a large public service.”

By "public service," he actually means propaganda of the left. It is a fairly entertaining read if you like to read someone try to convince you the founding fathers didn't mean what they meant. It's a great insight into that side of thought.

 

[GL97]

That ban didn't remove any from current ownership. Are you proposing a ban on manufacturing? What about those that already exist?

I would support removing from current ownership and placing a ban on manufacturing.

What is "high capacity?

More than 10 rounds.

Agreed, including private seller to private seller. I wouldn't sell a gun to an individual without doing it through an FFL dealer.

I agree.

Dealers have to have an FFL

All sellers would have to be licensed.

I'm not opposed if two things are also included.

1. Everyone that owns a firearm has to register ownership of that forearm. If someone doesn't own any firearms, they also have to register as owning none. If someone isn't on the registry as owning a firearm and they are found to be in possession of one, they are prosecuted for violation of federal law with mandatory minimum sentencing.

2. The government has proven to be inept at data security and appropriate use. If a data breach of the gun registry occurs or the data is intentionally misused, those responsible will face a minimum of 10 years in prison.

I can agree with all of this except the mandatory minimum sentencing.

How many?

That is open to compromise and a consensus. But we should place a reasonable limitation on how many guns a person can own.

Very vague.

I mentioned a recent new state law as a possible framework.

Interesting that you didn't mention anything about stricter enforcement of current laws.

I support this as well.

 

[GL97]

It's clear that if you people were intellectually honest, there'd be a constant uproar about the loss of life from gang violence.

There is uproar/dicussions and I've given you links that show this. This is not the first time you have raised this issue (you do after every shooting, like clockwork) and every time before, I have provided you links to show how your assumption is incorrect.

 

[GL97]

By "public service," he actually means propaganda of the left. It is a fairly entertaining read if you like to read someone try to convince you the founding fathers didn't mean what they meant. It's a great insight into that side of thought.

The book doesn't attempt to convince anyone that the founding fathers didn't "mean what they meant." I read the book (not just the review quotes on Amazon) and fully believe the founding fathers meant what they said or wrote when they aren't taken out of context.

The book simply gives the historical record. Just because one may disagree with that record doesn't make it propaganda. What is propaganda though is throwing out quotes (some not even the full quote) with no historical context in order to justify a political position.

Again, I encourage everyone to read the book, the historical sources it references, and other similar works that will give one the complete historical record.

 

[Medic007]

I would support removing from current ownership and placing a ban on manufacturing.

How would they be removed from current ownership?

More than 10 rounds.

10 is quite arbitrary. I'm going to assume your knowledge of firearms is limited. Why not 8 or 5? What if someone manufactures their own magazines or modifies magazines? How would that be enforceable? Firearm inspections? Oversized magazine tip hotline?

All sellers would have to be licensed.

Including an individual selling a firearm to another individual using an FFL dealer? The time and money required to get your own FFL for that one sale will just lead to continued untraceable sales. That's why I mentioned individual sale only through an FFL dealer. But even then...

That is open to compromise and a consensus. But we should place a reasonable limitation on how many guns a person can own.

Again, who is this consensus? When one group says 50 and won't budge and the other says 1 and won't budge, how is that handled. What happens to the number of guns owned over that consensus number? There are people like syskatine who have tens of thousands of dollars invested in guns. Do we just take them from them? Isn't that a violation of a Constitutional right? Mandatory buy back? Who sets the value and how is it paid for? Let's say syskatine says his 30 guns are valued at $100 million. Does he get paid $100 million? How do we even know how many guns someone owns to begin with?

I can agree with all of this except the mandatory minimum sentencing.

Why not mandatory sentencing? Should be an easy set of laws to comply with. There will have to be some teeth in the punishment to provide deterrence. The IRS targeting scandal is a perfect example of the need for strict laws and sentencing to punish those who misuse data.

 

[Headhunter]

The elephant in the room is that there are believed to be 300 million guns in the United States alone. It's the wild wild west in Mexico, Central America and South America.

Short of forced confiscation on a scale never before seen in the history of the world these guns are not going away. Illegal guns are as easy to buy as pot.

Reasonable background checks and licensing of gun dealers is fine by me but all that means is lawful, responsible people will have a process to get their firearms.

The rest of the "responsible gun laws" will be meaningless acts that only serve to make gun control people feel good and will do nothing about the gang culture and criminal elements that permeate our society. Until you figure out a way to get rid of gangs and criminals nothing is going to change and comparing the USA to counties in other parts of the world is an apples to oranges comparison. I notice they never compare American gun violence to places in Africa or the Middle East. Nor should they, again apples to oranges situation.

 

[Medic007]

What is propaganda though is throwing out quotes (some not even the full quote) with no historical context in order to justify a political position.

Sorry man, but in the late 1700s, it was assumed that an individual had the means to defend themselves and their families, including owning and using firearms. There was no 911. There weren't patrol cars.

Waldman completely whiffed on the inherent right to self defense and its central theme in the dialogue of the period. That dialogue actually included self defense from the newly formed government, especially one that could stand up an army. He attempts to backdate modern views on the period. While there may certainly be an argument against modern ownership of guns, you can't apply modern knowledge to a period in history as a way to attempt to transform the period dialogue into something it wasn't. The historical record thoroughly debunks the views he espouses in the book.

And yes, trying to reinvent the historical dialogue as a means to promote a political agenda is propoganda.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Quotes come within a historical context, not to mention its immediate context. Knowing the context is important or one can twist any quote to mean something it doesn't. This happens often with the founding fathers on numerous issues.

Here is a book I'd recommend to you Ponca Dan. Does a great job of explaing the historical context of the Second Amendment...

View embedded media

Well we found one thing on which we agree! Quotes come within historical context. The context from the Founders came from their almost total paranoia of an overpowering state. They did everything they could think of to keep that monster locked in a cage, most notably their insistence on each individual being capable of protecting himself, whether that be an individual criminal or a gang of “law enforcers” acting in behalf of the government. As a libertarian I’ll stand with them on that count.

So, to answer your question as directly as I know how: I don’t care if your “meaningful gun control” has the positive effect you hope for. I don’t care if it’s a failure that you then demand even further erosion of my liberty. I don’t care if you confiscate every gun in America to enforce your policy. And if your policy has the exact consequences you hope for, and there’s not another mass shooting ever again, I will still oppose it to my last breath. A disarmed public will be a sitting duck for tyrants. I wouldn’t give us 2 generations before the final vestige of our freedom would be demolished. As should be common knowledge EVERY government policy ALWAYS has unintended consequences. I am not willing to gamble my freedom in such a dangerous manner.

There. I answered your question as precisely as I know how. How about you do me the same courtesy and lay out the SPECIFICS of your gun control policy. What regulations? What punishments? Let’s have some details!

 

[GL97]

How would they be removed from current ownership?

A buyback program. See Australia and others who have done a buyback program for a framework regarding this, which will help answer the other questions you are going to throw out about a buyback program (i.e. setting value, funding, etc.)

10 is quite arbitrary.

Given the case law, it makes sense to set it at 10. Remember, we are operating under the Heller framework right now.

Including an individual selling a firearm to another individual using an FFL dealer?

Again, I support all sellers having to be licensed.

Again, who is this consensus?

The consensus isn't a who, it is a what. It involves a legal understanding as well as compromise. And yes, on some of these issues, there would have to be compromise. From both the right and the left.

 

[Headhunter]

Let use real life examples of what gun ownership means. We have a lake house at Lake Eufaula it's a 15 mile drive into the city of Eufaula plus it not that easy to find unless your very familiar with the roads. McIntosh County generally has two Deputies in vehicles on duty at night for the entire county.

If there was an incident it would take a minimum of 30 minutes for a Deputy to arrive and more realistically 45 to 60 minutes. This is the reality of a large number of Americans in America. Being unarmed is not an option in my mind.

Both my neighbors and I have fired our shotguns into the air when we noticed strangers inspecting other neighbors property at night. The inspections end immediately. I credit my neighbors for protecting our house even though we are not there that often and it would be an easy target.

 

[GL97]

Waldman completely whiffed on the inherent right to self defense and its central theme in the dialogue of the period.

No he didn't. Did you actually read the book because this claim doesn't line up with what is in the book.

That dialogue actually included self defense from the newly formed government

Within the context of a well-regulated militia.

He attempts to backdate modern views on the period.

lol, again, no he doesn't. Here is a direct quote from the first few pages of his book:

"People ask who is right? Did the Second Amendment protect militias or an individual right to gun? The answer: both and neither. It protected the individual right to a gun . . . to fulfill the duty to serve in a militia. To the Framers, even our question would make little sense. To us, today, their answer makes little sense." (pp. XII-XIII).

He goes out of his way through out the book not to backdate modern views on that period. Instead, he attempts to help 21st century Americans understand that period and the the historical context of the Framers. He even spends time discussing how both the right and the left tend to project their political view back upon the Framers!

Anyone who actually read this book would know this.

 

[Medic007]

The elephant in the room is that there are believed to be 300 million guns in the United States alone. It's the wild wild west in Mexico, Central America and South America.

Short of forced confiscation on a scale never before seen in the history of the world these guns are not going away. Illegal guns are as easy to buy as pot.

Reasonable background checks and licensing of gun dealers is fine by me but all that means is lawful, responsible people will have a process to get their firearms.

The rest of the "responsible gun laws" will be meaningless acts that only serve to make gun control people feel good and will do nothing about the gang culture and criminal elements that permeate our society. Until you figure out a way to get rid of gangs and criminals nothing is going to change and comparing the USA to counties in other parts of the world is an apples to oranges comparison. I notice they never compare American gun violence to places in Africa or the Middle East. Nor should they, again apples to oranges situation.

Bravo

 

[GL97]

The context from the Founders came from their almost total paranoia of an overpowering state. They did everything they could think of to keep that monster locked in a cage

True for the most part. But it is also equally important to remember that by the time the Second Amendment was adopted, their view of an overpowering state was balanced with the fact that they were now the government.

The key to understanding the Second Amendment is to understand the Framers conception of militias and the roles militias played during their time (including the role they played in protecting against an overpowering state).

I don’t care if your “meaningful gun control” has the positive effect you hope for...

And if your policy has the exact consequences you hope for, and there’s not another mass shooting ever again, I will still oppose it to my last breath.

I know you don't care. And that is why all of this is so sad. Innocent Americans continue to die while you huff and puff about opposing gun control to your last breath. They are being forced to take their last breath while you rant and rave about the government coming to get your guns.

It is absurdity and heartless.

How about you do me the same courtesy and lay out the SPECIFICS of your gun control policy.

I have. But really, why should I lay out any more specifics for you? You have made it clear that you are going to oppose any gun control to your last breath. So anything I post, you are going to find a problem with and disagree with.

You don't want to change the status quo. You like the status quo. And that is unfortunate.

 

[Medic007]

No he didn't. Did you actually read the book because this claim doesn't line up with what is in the book.

Yes I did and yes it does.

Within the context of a well-regulated militia.

Wrong again. Well regulated didn't mean what you think it meant. And militia is specifically referred to in abundance in the historical record as "the whole of the people." Here's a simple quote for you.

• "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
  — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

There are a bunch of references to the individual being armed. Can you provide any quote that shows the intent was to limit the ownership of arms to some government sanctioned armed force?

Here's another.

• "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
  — Tench Coxe, in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution� under the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian� in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1).

And another.

• "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
  -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

And yet another. Holy shit there's a bunch of these. This stuff even exists in the state constitutions...

• "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
  --Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

Nevermind the English Bill of Rights of 1689 that our own Bill of Rights is based upon. It was the Crown's deviation from the English Bill of Rights that led to the Revolutionary War.

lol, again, no he doesn't. Here is a direct quote from the first few pages of his book:

His book is more than the first few pages. Is that all you read?