S/O Gun control

[ChocolateReignRemix]

They live in a world, such as the United States, where 1 in 4 girls are sexually assaulted by age 18 and odds are 1 in 6 for boys.

 

Heigh Ho specifically referenced latchkey kids being stalked/raped by what she implied to be strangers.  That scenario is extremely rare and the vast, vast majority of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by family and those close to the child.

 

There is no place in the United States where the stranger rape of children is a common occurrence.

[TechWife]

I think smart guns that had biometric triggers would help immensely. Legal gun owners could shoot their own guns, but no one else could use them. Hacking into someone else's gun would probably be a thing, but it would slow a lot down anyway.

 

This is an interesting idea. Do you know if such a thing already exists? I know biometric identifiers do, but do the triggers already exist? 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I think smart guns that had biometric triggers would help immensely. Legal gun owners could shoot their own guns, but no one else could use them. Hacking into someone else's gun would probably be a thing, but it would slow a lot down anyway.

 

As the technology develops that is a likely solution and would at least hamper the stolen gun market, and would likely help even with the straw man purchase market.  I am less certain about the straw man purchases as it may depend on how easy it is to reset the lock, but I could see it being a positive step.

[TechWife]

 

Finally, unless the competency legislation was passed via state legislation, the monitoring and enforcement would have to be enforced by the federal government, as local and state authorities can not be compelled to enforce federal gun laws (Printz v. United States).

 

This is not an issue. Have you ever heard of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms? 

"ATF is a law enforcement agency in the United States’ Department of Justice that protects our communities from violent criminals, criminal organizations, the illegal use and trafficking of firearms, the illegal use and storage of explosives, acts of arson and bombings, acts of terrorism, and the illegal diversion of alcohol and tobacco products. We partner with communities, industries, law enforcement, and public safety agencies to safeguard the public we serve through information sharing, training, research and use of technology."

 

​The federal government already has the authority to deal with the illegal use and trafficking of firearms.  If the federal government puts regulations in place and they are not followed, the person who sells or possesses a gun without the proper permits is engaging in the illegal use and trafficking of firearms. 

[Stacia]

What is the purpose of a gun?

 

My answer would be 'to shoot'. 'To kill'. I really can't think of other reasons guns are in existence. Are there other reasons? (Again, I'm sincerely asking.)

 

I'm partly asking this because cars are being brought up as killing people too. Sure, it happens. Pretty often too. But, a car's primary purpose is to transport you from one place to another in a quicker manner than you could walk (or ride/use a horse). The primary purpose & intent of a car is not to kill.

 

So, I'm wondering... is the real, primary purpose of a gun, any gun, to kill?

 

If that is not why guns exist, then what is the primary purpose?

 

(And, if the purpose is to kill -- whether that be animals you hunt for food or the home invader you foresee coming into your house -- I think that kind of power, the power of life & death, does need to be regulated. States that do have the death penalty regulate how it is administered, etc.... Having an item where the primary purpose is to kill should also be regulated & more so than it is currently regulated.)

[ChocolateReignRemix]

This is not an issue. Have you ever heard of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms? 

"ATF is a law enforcement agency in the United States’ Department of Justice that protects our communities from violent criminals, criminal organizations, the illegal use and trafficking of firearms, the illegal use and storage of explosives, acts of arson and bombings, acts of terrorism, and the illegal diversion of alcohol and tobacco products. We partner with communities, industries, law enforcement, and public safety agencies to safeguard the public we serve through information sharing, training, research and use of technology."

 

​The federal government already has the authority to deal with the illegal use and trafficking of firearms.  If the federal government puts regulations in place and they are not followed, the person who sells or possesses a gun without the proper permits is engaging in the illegal use and trafficking of firearms. 

 

It is an issue and there is a reason the Printz decision went through the courts.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

What is the purpose of a gun?

 

My answer would be 'to shoot'. 'To kill'. I really can't think of other reasons guns are in existence. Are there other reasons? (Again, I'm sincerely asking.)

 

I'm partly asking this because cars are being brought up as killing people too. Sure, it happens. Pretty often too. But, a car's primary purpose is to transport you from one place to another in a quicker manner than you could walk. The primary purpose & intent of a car is not to kill.

 

So, I'm wondering... is the real, primary purpose of a gun, any gun, to kill?

 

If that is not why guns exist, then what is the primary purpose?

 

(And, if the purpose is to kill -- whether that be animals you hunt for food or the home invader you foresee coming into your house -- I think that kind of power, the power of life & death, does need to be regulated. States that do have the death penalty regulate how it is administered, etc.... Having an item where the primary purpose is to kill should also be regulated & more so than it is currently regulated.)

 

I don't think there is any question (for most anyway) that guns should be regulated.  The debate is to what degree, and how much regulation is constitutional.

 

[TechWife]

You can't require a primary care physician perform mental competency exams if they choose not to do so.

 

 

 

I believe this is true for private practice physicians. However, is that also true for physicians employed by the government? That might be an option - to have federally employed physicians to carry out the exams. Yes, expensive.  However, I am looking for a way forward, a way around the roadblocks. I don't think it's valid to say that something won't work because it isn't being done now or because it couldn't be done within the current context. That is what change is about - it's active. 

[TechWife]

It is an issue and there is a reason the Printz decision went through the courts.

 

The Prinz decision was about the state enforcing a federal regulation, was it not? With what I am proposing, the federal government would be enforcing the federal regulation through the ATF, a bureau that already exists to enforce laws regarding firearms. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I believe this is true for private practice physicians. However, is that also true for physicians employed by the government? That might be an option - to have federally employed physicians to carry out the exams. Yes, expensive.  However, I am looking for a way forward, a way around the roadblocks. I don't think it's valid to say that something won't work because it isn't being done now or because it couldn't be done within the current context. That is what change is about - it's active. 

 

Solutions have to be workable and make sense.  Exactly who may "federally employed" physicians do you think exist and how do you think they are distributed?  This is where concepts like undue burden come into play.

[TranquilMind]

Please read what I have actually written.

She quoted you exactly.  You said what you said. 

[TechWife]

Those are all quick checks, not thorough evaluations. Most of the time insurance won't even cover them because they aren't full physicals and only take a few minutes to complete. Is that really the type of doctor evaluation people are pushing for here? If it's just one more CYA formality for doctors to sign, how would it be effective?

 

Personally, our doctors won't fill out forms of any kind for us unless we have a current physical (no more than one year old). These physicals are not cursory examinations, they are very thorough. 

 

In answer to your question, though, no, I don't think that a cursory exam is what people want in this scenario. The intention is to change things from how they happen now, though. We don't need to continue seeing a minimal exam as meeting the standard of care. So, let's change that. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The Prinz decision was about the state enforcing a federal regulation, was it not? With what I am proposing, the federal government would be enforcing the federal regulation through the ATF, a bureau that already exists to enforce laws regarding firearms. 

 

Correct, and the issue when the background checks were put into place was that the ATF was not capable of handling a nationwide system.  What you are proposing is a large system (tracking competency, training, and enforcement of the same) would require a massive bureaucracy run strictly from the federal government.  And going back to undue burden, it would have to be managed in a way to not impede upon those wishing to exercise their rights.

[TechWife]

Solutions have to be workable and make sense.  Exactly who may "federally employed" physicians do you think exist and how do you think they are distributed?  This is where concepts like undue burden come into play.

 

Yes, they do. I have no idea how many "federally employed" physicians exist, where they are or even if there is such a thing. However, there are a lot of jobs that didn't exist before that exist now. The way things are now should not prevent us from seeing the way things could be at some point in the future if action were taken. 

[Stacia]

I don't think there is any question (for most anyway) that guns should be regulated.  The debate is to what degree, and how much regulation is constitutional.

 

But from where I sit, it feels like guns are largely unregulated in our country. (That is my opinion. That is what it looks like to me.) And, imo, the current laws, lobbying, & popular opinion seem to skew heavily toward it remaining highly unregulated (vs. more strictly regulated, access limited to certain types of weapons, etc...). I mean, ultimately, when there are publicized shootings that galvanize the masses on both sides, usually very little changes (law-wise), lots of people give lip-service to the issue (again, from both sides), & gun/ammo sales skyrocket. Who wins? The manufacturers gain a lot of profit & there are even more guns & ammo out among the populace.

 

Considering the purpose of having a gun is to kill (?), it gives a person the power of life & death. Some states don't even have that power. But, we let individuals have it, we are seemingly ok with loopholes in the system (unregulated gun sales between private individuals, for example), & we have the strongest lobby in our country pushing for the side of even less regulation & more access to guns.

 

I have a problem with that.

[TechWife]

Correct, and the issue when the background checks were put into place was that the ATF was not capable of handling a nationwide system.  What you are proposing is a large system (tracking competency, training, and enforcement of the same) would require a massive bureaucracy run strictly from the federal government.  And going back to undue burden, it would have to be managed in a way to not impede upon those wishing to exercise their rights.

 

All of this is workable if the people want it to happen, right down to making sure there isn't an undue burden. It requires time and money. It requires action. 

[Murphy101]

Heigh Ho specifically referenced latchkey kids being stalked/raped by what she implied to be strangers. That scenario is extremely rare and the vast, vast majority of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by family and those close to the child.

 

There is no place in the United States where the stranger rape of children is a common occurrence.

I didn't say there was either. Stranger or not, those numbers are still those numbers.

 

I agree the odds are in favor regardless, that a kid will NOT be sexually assaulted.

 

And yet 1 in 4 are.

 

I don't live as though my kids will be one of the four. Because I play the odds staying in our favor.

 

I'm just pointing out that not everyone wants to play those odds. Same as even though the chances of our kids being killed in a mass a school shooting are lower than for them being sexually assaulted, many here live and want action as though this is an immenient threat in their lives.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

But from where I sit, it feels like guns are largely unregulated in our country. (That is my opinion. That is what it looks like to me.) And, imo, the current laws, lobbying, & popular opinion seem to skew heavily toward it remaining highly unregulated (vs. more strictly regulated, access limited to certain types of weapons, etc...). I mean, ultimately, when there are publicized shootings that galvanize the masses on both sides, usually very little changes (law-wise), lots of people give lip-service to the issue (again, from both sides), & gun/ammo sales skyrocket. Who wins? The manufacturers gain a lot of profit & there are even more guns & ammo out among the populace.

 

Considering the purpose of having a gun is to kill (?), it gives a person the power of life & death. Some states don't even have that power. But, we let individuals have it, we are seemingly ok with loopholes in the system (unregulated gun sales between private individuals, for example), & we have the strongest lobby in our country pushing for the side of even less regulation & more access to guns.

 

I have a problem with that.

 

It depends on where you live and what you think regulation means.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Yes, they do. I have no idea how many "federally employed" physicians exist, where they are or even if there is such a thing. However, there are a lot of jobs that didn't exist before that exist now. The way things are now should not prevent us from seeing the way things could be at some point in the future if action were taken. 

 

But if you want a legislative change made, those questions have to be answered.  Dream land scenarios won't get us anywhere.

 

As Pam in CT has pointed out, Connecticut did manage to get new gun control laws passed but they did so by using actual workable regulations as a starting point.

[Stacia]

It depends on where you live and what you think regulation means.

 

Well, according to this list, Death by gun: top 20 states with highest rates, my state is in the top 20. (This list is a couple years old.) And, it's a state with some of the fewest restrictions on gun ownership.

 

So, easy access to gun ownership here. Lots of gun deaths here too.

 

Correlated?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Well, according to this list, Death by gun: top 20 states with highest rates, my state is in the top 20. (This list is a couple years old.) And, it's a state with some of the fewest restrictions on gun ownership.

 

So, easy access to gun ownership here. Lots of gun deaths here too.

 

Correlated?

 

Probably beyond correlation into causation.  But it would be false to say there are no regulations in your state.  It would be more accurate to say there may not be enough.

[TechWife]

If you aren't aware of where concepts like undue burden come from then there really is no point in us continuing this conversation.

Let me see if I can help you understand what I am getting at. Again, this is an ongoing conversation. 

 

You said: 

 

 

 

When the government is setting the requirement, the undue burden principle applies. 

 

 

I said: 

"Um, who says? is this the case law you keep referring to? if so, then guess what? It's time for a change. What about the undue burden unnecessary deaths place on citizens? "

 

You responded with the first quote in my response. Your response leads me to think that you misunderstood me, so, instead of shutting down our conversation, let me reword. 

 

Where has it been determined that the federal government setting a requirement constitutes an undue burden? Is this something that has been determined in the case law you have referred to? 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Let me see if I can help you understand what I am getting at. Again, this is an ongoing conversation. 

 

You said: 

 

 

 

I said: 

"Um, who says? is this the case law you keep referring to? if so, then guess what? It's time for a change. What about the undue burden unnecessary deaths place on citizens? "

 

You responded with the first quote in my response. Your response leads me to think that you misunderstood me, so, instead of shutting down our conversation, let me reword. 

 

Where has it been determined that the federal government setting a requirement constitutes an undue burden? Is this something that has been determined in the case law you have referred to? 

 

Yes. 

 

[Stacia]

Probably beyond correlation into causation.  But it would be false to say there are no regulations in your state.  It would be more accurate to say there may not be enough.

 

I didn't say there was no regulation. I said there was little regulation. My state has some of the least-restrictive gun laws in the nation.

 

Imo, there is not enough regulation. Not nearly enough regulation. Not just in my state, but in all states.

 

[livetoread]

This is an interesting idea. Do you know if such a thing already exists? I know biometric identifiers do, but do the triggers already exist?

Yes, they do, though I don't think they are widely available yet. Lots of other trigger guards are though, and the NRA is opposed to any mandating of them. I have no doubt they will oppose the biometric ones too.

[TechWife]

But if you want a legislative change made, those questions have to be answered.  Dream land scenarios won't get us anywhere.

 

 

 

Yes, which is why I am carrying on a conversation about this. If we don't talk about ideas, we won't get anywhere. If we don't exchange ideas, we won't find answers. One person cannot come up with all of the solutions. Instead of just saying that my ideas won't work with the way things are currently, think about what action needs to be taken to make them work or propose alternate solutions. As I have said before, I am brainstorming. What you call a "dreamland" scenario, I call a starting point. If we don't put ideas on the table, we will never find something we can take action on. Most solutions are not ironed out within a single conversation with only one person proposing the solution.  If we don't shoot for the moon, we will miss the stars. 

 

Complex situations and complex solutions for them require a lot of effort, determination and compromise. You are looking at all the ways ideas won't work, I am looking for ways that they might be made to work, even if it requires a change in attitude, action, costs money, whatever. I don't think we know enough to remove any legitimate idea from the table simply because there are obstacles that have to be overcome to implement them. The ideas I and others have proposed have not been fully vetted. I know that. That doesn't mean they are any less valuable. If we don't proceed to continue to consider various scenarios in how different ideas might play out over the long term, we will never get to a point where we can take action. 

 

Honestly, from where I sit all of your objections can be boiled down to "We've never done it that way before;" "People won't like it;" "It will cost money;" "It might not work;" and "It might be hard." From my perspective, none of these things is a legitimate hinderance to looking for a solution, to exchanging ideas and moving forward to develop and implement a solution, however imperfect it might be. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Yes, which is why I am carrying on a conversation about this. If we don't talk about ideas, we won't get anywhere. If we don't exchange ideas, we won't find answers. One person cannot come up with all of the solutions. Instead of just saying that my ideas won't work with the way things are currently, think about what action needs to be taken to make them work or propose alternate solutions. As I have said before, I am brainstorming. What you call a "dreamland" scenario, I call a starting point. If we don't put ideas on the table, we will never find something we can take action on. Most solutions are not ironed out within a single conversation with only one person proposing the solution.  If we don't shoot for the moon, we will miss the stars. 

 

Complex situations and complex solutions for them require a lot of effort, determination and compromise. You are looking at all the ways ideas won't work, I am looking for ways that they might be made to work, even if it requires a change in attitude, action, costs money, whatever. I don't think we know enough to remove any legitimate idea from the table simply because there are obstacles that have to be overcome to implement them. The ideas I and others have proposed have not been fully vetted. I know that. That doesn't mean they are any less valuable. If we don't proceed to continue to consider various scenarios in how different ideas might play out over the long term, we will never get to a point where we can take action. 

 

Honestly, from where I sit all of your objections can be boiled down to "We've never done it that way before;" "People won't like it;" "It will cost money;" "It might not work;" and "It might be hard." From my perspective, none of these things is a legitimate hinderance to looking for a solution, to exchanging ideas and moving forward to develop and implement a solution, however imperfect it might be. 

 

I suggest you reread much of what I wrote, as my objections stem mainly from "that isn't constitutional." 

 

[TechWife]

Yes. 

 

 

OK, so if the government adding a requirement has been determined to be an undue burden, please tell me what your source for that conclusion is. From where I sit, the government puts requirements on us every single day, even on us accessing our basic rights. So, what is the law or the court case that has decided this?  Please substantiate your claim. I would like to add this information to my knowledge bank. 

[TechWife]

I suggest you reread much of what I wrote, as my objections stem mainly from "that isn't constitutional." 

 

 

I have stated many times that the laws and the constitution can both be changed. You seem to object to that very idea, nevertheless, the potential is there. "That isn't constitutional" is "We've never done it that way before." 

[TechWife]

Yes, they do, though I don't think they are widely available yet. Lots of other trigger guards are though, and the NRA is opposed to any mandating of them. I have no doubt they will oppose the biometric ones too.

 

Unfortunately, I think you're right. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I have stated many times that the laws and the constitution can both be changed. You seem to object to that very idea, nevertheless, the potential is there. "That isn't constitutional" is "We've never done it that way before." 

 

Considering getting consensus on very limited reforms has been close to impossible in recent years, I think it doesn't make a lot of sense to base new reforms around amending the constitution.  And passing laws that won't make it past court challenges is a waste of time.

 

So no, at this time, the potential is not there.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

OK, so if the government adding a requirement has been determined to be an undue burden, please tell me what your source for that conclusion is. From where I sit, the government puts requirements on us every single day, even on us accessing our basic rights. So, what is the law or the court case that has decided this?  Please substantiate your claim. I would like to add this information to my knowledge bank. 

 

I don't have time today to teach an online constitutional law course.  If you are legitimately interested I would suggest doing your own research.

[TechWife]

What is the purpose of a gun?

 

My answer would be 'to shoot'. 'To kill'. I really can't think of other reasons guns are in existence. Are there other reasons? (Again, I'm sincerely asking.)

 

I'm partly asking this because cars are being brought up as killing people too. Sure, it happens. Pretty often too. But, a car's primary purpose is to transport you from one place to another in a quicker manner than you could walk (or ride/use a horse). The primary purpose & intent of a car is not to kill.

 

So, I'm wondering... is the real, primary purpose of a gun, any gun, to kill?

 

If that is not why guns exist, then what is the primary purpose?

 

(And, if the purpose is to kill -- whether that be animals you hunt for food or the home invader you foresee coming into your house -- I think that kind of power, the power of life & death, does need to be regulated. States that do have the death penalty regulate how it is administered, etc.... Having an item where the primary purpose is to kill should also be regulated & more so than it is currently regulated.)

 

 

I don't think there is any question (for most anyway) that guns should be regulated.  The debate is to what degree, and how much regulation is constitutional.

 

 

You didn't answer her question. 

[TechWife]

I don't have time today to teach an online constitutional law course.  If you are legitimately interested I would suggest doing your own research.

 

I have done my own research. I haven't found anything. I am not the one who made the claim, so I don't need to substantiate it. If you don't care to substantiate your claim, then it is your claim that is in question, not my knowledge of constitutional law. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

You didn't answer her question. 

 

I didn't say I did?

 

I didn't answer it because my answer doesn't really matter.  It is well established that we can and do regulate guns.  The debate is regarding to what degree we can do so.

 

[TechWife]

Considering getting consensus on very limited reforms has been close to impossible in recent years, I think it doesn't make a lot of sense to base new reforms around amending the constitution.  And passing laws that won't make it past court challenges is a waste of time.

 

So no, at this time, the potential is not there.

 

 

So, you have no hope that a consensus can be reached? Then why are you taking part in the conversation? 

 

I'm sorry that you don't see the potential in the way that our government is set up. I think it's pretty amazing. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I have done my own research. I haven't found anything. I am not the one who made the claim, so I don't need to substantiate it. If you don't care to substantiate your claim, then it is your claim that is in question, not my knowledge of constitutional law. 

 

There isn't one link I can provide you.  If you think I am making up the undue burden standard then I really can't help you, as it has been applied in numerous USSC cases. 

[TechWife]

I didn't say I did?

 

I didn't answer it because my answer doesn't really matter.  It is well established that we can and do regulate guns.  The debate is regarding to what degree we can do so.

 

 

On the contrary, if you aren't willing to say what the purpose of a gun is, then what facts do you use to base your conclusions regarding the degree to which we can regulate them? 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

So, you have no hope that a consensus can be reached? Then why are you taking part in the conversation? 

 

I'm sorry that you don't see the potential in the way that our government is set up. I think it's pretty amazing. 

 

lol I have no idea how you drew that conclusion.  Close to impossible /= impossible.

 

I do think that at this time we are unlikely to see any substantial gun control regulations get anywhere in Congress.  Just the reality of our current political climate.

 

I do think there are reforms that can succeed at the state level, and by doing so a winning strategy for getting stronger national regulations may be developed.  Over time we may see a shift in Congress that allows for actually passing those regulations.

[TechWife]

There isn't one link I can provide you.  If you think I am making up the undue burden standard then I really can't help you, as it has been applied in numerous USSC cases. 

 

I don't think you are making up the undue burden standard. I understand what undue burden is. 

 

I think your statement that when the government regulates something makes the regulation an undue burden is inaccurate. If that were to be accurate, than any law, regardless of whether or not it pertains to a right (as undue burden is applied to many different scenarios) would be an undue burden because they are all government created and government enforced. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

On the contrary, if you aren't willing to say what the purpose of a gun is, then what facts do you use to base your conclusions regarding the degree to which we can regulate them? 

 

That doesn't even make sense and I have no idea what point you think you are making.

 

One could argue the purpose of a gun is to kill.  Someone else may argue the purpose is to fire a lead projectile at a high rate of speed, and that the intent of the person firing is separate from the purpose of the gun.

 

I personally would say that because a gun can be deadly instrument that we have a societal interest in setting certain regulations for the good of society. 

[TechWife]

 Close to impossible /= impossible.

 

...

 

I do think there are reforms that can succeed at the state level, and by doing so a winning strategy for getting stronger national regulations may be developed.  Over time we may see a shift in Congress that allows for actually passing those regulations.

 

I didn't say that it did. Please don't put words in  my mouth. At this time I feel like you are really engaging in a "tit for tat" conversation with me, and I have no desire to do that, so I will not continue. 

 

However, if you are willing to expound on the reforms that you think can succeed at a state level, I'd love to read those ideas and possibly engage in a conversation about them. 

[Joanne]

 

You know, I am not sure why, but I found this response to be unkind. I was trying to engage with your comments with honest questions. I apologize for misrepresenting what you think. I'm open to hearing clarification instead of what was (IMO) unwarranted chastising.

 

The response was to your question of why I thought that the use of guns for recreation and hunting was not ok, normal, or healthy. But I had not actually said it wasn't. I said that gun culture is such that the US *starts* the discussion with a gun-friendly, gun-accepting, gun-expecting premise. THAT is gun culture.

 

I did not assert that it was unhealthy. But I sure wish we could have the discussion in a way that does not assume guns are ok in those (and other) circumstances but allows us to question everything.

 

My words were short, and I am sorry that was unkind.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I don't think you are making up the undue burden standard. I understand what undue burden is. 

 

I think your statement that when the government regulates something makes the regulation an undue burden is inaccurate. If that were to be accurate, than any law, regardless of whether or not it pertains to a right (as undue burden is applied to many different scenarios) would be an undue burden because they are all government created and government enforced. 

 

I don't believe you do know what the undue burden standard is as applied by the USSC and I can't make sense of the bolded.  I also have never said anywhere in this thread that all regulations are undue burden.  I have said that laws aimed at regulating rights cannot create an undue burden or they will be found to be unconstitutional.

Hint: the undue burden standard applies to fundamental rights.

[Slojo]

I do think that while it is piecemeal, and slow, there is a greater chance of success in looking to reform gin control laws at the state level than there is nationally. 

 

 

 

 

For any regulation to be effective at all, it would have to be enforced on a federal level, and not just a city, county, or state level.  If you can just drive a bit to get around a regulation, it's useless.

 

I also think that mental illness should be part of the background and verification criteria.  I agree with requiring guns to be removed when there is a mentally ill person in the home.  That might even prevent a fair bit of suicides.    Is it sad that *some* mentally ill might do just fine with a gun, but won't be allowed to own one?  Sure.  Sorry.    History has shown that mental illness plus firearms can have horrendous consequences. 

 

Yes, I know not all mentally ill seek treatment, blah, blah, but it's a start.  Doing something to start is better than doing nothing.

 

I think that it may be a both/and scenario. More and more states begin to have enough of their populations demand to see some meaningful reform, and at some point there is a tipping point -- and action happens on the federal level. I think the federal level is by far going to be the most effective, for similar reasons why I think city-wide bans are less effective if those cities are surrounded by a sea of low regulation states/regions. Federal action might come through legislative action (unlikely), something initiated by the executive branch (an executive order -- though good luck with that as the other side is likely to cry foul against ANY executive order, and I'm not sure what that would or could be anyway), or the courts -- like marriage equality (yes, I know the issues are very different). 

 

I would be opposed to this.

 

One, it's a right. We do not need a Drs slip to access our rights. Nor do we need the good opinion of others to do so. Removing that right if we commit a crime worthy of such action by the state is acceptable though.

 

Two, doctors have enough work without being given more paperwork to fill out. Not to mention the health system does not need further burdened. Their job is medicine. Leave them to it and leave law enforcement to enforcing laws and legislatures to making laws that police can manage.

 

My mom has never been in an accident, and certainly has not been convicted of vehicular homicide or wreckless driving, but because she has not been seizure-free within the medically informed time frame, she cannot legally drive (and does not). There are reasons/ways the medical profession can be called upon for the purposes of public safety. Seems like it could apply to this issue.

 

See, if I'm interpreting it as a right to participate in a militia, that doesn't mean every single person has a right to a gun with no stipulations. It says regulated, and this would be one of the regulations. Makes sense to me. 

 

Also, everyone does have a right to life, and the right to a gun is currently depriving some of their right to life. we have to make some changes to balance that out. 

 

REGULATED - that word should be bolded, highlighted, put in all caps, with spotlights shown directly on it.  Could we maybe move to a discussion of "regulated" and what might make sense in a modernized context?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Serious question - if the Constitution is stopping your from making sensible decisions around gun control, in order to save lives of your fellow citizens, isn't the Constitution a problem ? Instead of being an accepted road block to reform, shouldn't it be amended ?

 

(Yes, I know, not going to happen. But how free/unfree does veneration of the Constitution actually make you ?)

 

The Constitution wasn't intended to be a suicide document.  But you answered your own question.  It has to be amended and if there isn't the will to do so, then we have to work with it as is.

 

Overall I do prefer that we cannot change it easily.

[Carol in Cal.]

Serious question - if the Constitution is stopping your from making sensible decisions around gun control, in order to save lives of your fellow citizens, isn't the Constitution a problem ? Instead of being an accepted road block to reform, shouldn't it be amended ?

 

(Yes, I know, not going to happen. But how free/unfree does veneration of the Constitution actually make you ?)

 

Do pro-control posters here think determined leadership, from either side, could make a difference ?

 

Are rates of street crime, especially against women, actually higher in the US than other places ? Is the perception of being unsafe connected to base rates of crime ? 

Serious question back:  What is the downside risk to banning or requiring registration of all guns?  That is the possibility that people consider when they think about constitutional amendments.  And what some of them probably remember is that the opening battle of our Revolutionary War was fought because the British were marching to find and confiscate a cache of guns scrabbled together.  This is a story that is immortalized in the patriotic poem "The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere", and that is known to every schoolchild in this country.  In the backs of our heads we know that we would have been subject to ongoing tyranny if it weren't for such caches and the classic 'Minute Men' who had one hand on their plows and the other holding their rifles, to be able to switch between self-defense of their land and their agrarian vocations at a minute's notice.  

 

This is our heritage, and we don't abandon it lightly.

[TechWife]

Serious question - if the Constitution is stopping your from making sensible decisions around gun control, in order to save lives of your fellow citizens, isn't the Constitution a problem ? Instead of being an accepted road block to reform, shouldn't it be amended ?

 

(Yes, I know, not going to happen. But how free/unfree does veneration of the Constitution actually make you ?)

 

 

 

I think you're onto something. But, idealist that I am, I do think that if people were to determine that the only way to fix the root of the problem would be to amend the constitution, than it would happen. I also don't think it's necessary, though.

 

Here's an idea: What if a consensus were reached, laws were enacted and no one challenged them on a constitutional basis because they determined that they were good laws? I am not proposing removing the ability to challenge them, just what would happen if people decided not to? This is the most unrealistic idea I've come up with yet. 

[Carol in Cal.]

And regarding street crime, the feel of 'clear and present danger' for crime against women is much higher here than in Japan or Germany or French Polynesia.  My sense is that it is higher here than in most first world countries, and that it has gotten a lot worse in the last couple of decades.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I think that it may be a both/and scenario. More and more states begin to have enough of their populations demand to see some meaningful reform, and at some point there is a tipping point -- and action happens on the federal level. I think the federal level is by far going to be the most effective, for similar reasons why I think city-wide bans are less effective if those cities are surrounded by a sea of low regulation states/regions. Federal action might come through legislative action (unlikely), something initiated by the executive branch (an executive order -- though good luck with that as the other side is likely to cry foul against ANY executive order, and I'm not sure what that would or could be anyway), or the courts -- like marriage equality (yes, I know the issues are very different). 

 

I think the work will have to start at the state level and move to the national level.  And the change will have to come via legislation.  The courts cannot toughen gun control laws (the bigger concern is some facing challenges could be struck down) and executive orders are limited in what they can do.

 

Wins at the state level can help diminish the NRA lobbying power little by little and well written regulations which go into place and show that responsible, law abiding citizens are not adversely affected in the ways the tinfoil hat/black helicopter clowns seem to fear.