so people didn't get my post about guns

[backwoodsbob]

guys...we don't need a ban on assault weopens...we need a ban on handguns.

I tried to have a discussion but too many people are too fucking argumentative

We don't need an assault woepen ban...we need a handgun ban...GET IT!!!

A HANDGUN BAN

GODDAMNIT A HANDGUN BAN

WE NEED A HANDGUN BAN!!!!

WE Need TO MELT ALL HANDGUNS!!!

Get it?

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. You do know the coroner extracted .223 from the victims

Now I might be wrong, but the Bushmaster is the one chambered for the .223, while the Sig Sauer, and the other are chambered for 9mm, 40 or 45. They really have not gone into that much detail.

My source...the Coroner, but maybe he was wrong too.

[backwoodsbob]

2. yeah and you know

95% of all gun violence is from handguns?

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. And your point

We need strict regulations.

Now I am an originalist when it comes to you owning an infantry weapon. You want to...make sure you report for drill once a month...that's what they meant Bob.

[catnhatnh]

3. Sorry Bob...

But we got your post. You said to ask you anything and then abandoned the thread when asked which gun you used you shoot your nephew's dog. Some of us still want to know.


Edit for spelling

[catnhatnh]

8. Sure Bob...

because gunners tell me the weapons are for hunting, sports, or self-defense and I don't see any of these covered in the incident. There was no immediate threat and there is humane euthanasia available. But then there is also pissed off revenge and that is a lot of what is being discussed on the board today.

[catnhatnh]

16. It tells me all I needed to know. N/T

[abelenkpe]

13. You killed a dog!?

Wtf?

[pipoman]

4. Just as soon

as you can get a constitutional amendment ratified, you'll get your wish. Until then, maybe refund mental health services and a system for involuntary commitment of people who are believed to be a threat to self or others would take much less time...just while we wait for your amendment to go through.

[bongbong]

9. Fantasy land

> involuntary commitment of people who are believed to be a threat to self or others would take much less time

Oh, yeah, that's realistic. It's a mental health issue, not a gun control issue. Sure.....

Who's gonna lock up the loner who has 20 guns and is ready to snap. He doesn't talk to anybody, in fact, nobody even knows the strange guy who lives in that house down the block. What are you gonna do, lock up everybody who might be mentally ill? Now multiply and mutate that scenario by thousands/millions and you have the current USA.

I love how complete fantasies like that are "more reasonable" than stricter gun control to Delicate Flowers.

[pipoman]

12. Until the 1980's and Raygun

there was funding for mental health services. There was civil process for involuntary commitment. Family and various other people could petition for commitment. Raygun's defunding of mental health services closed state mental facilities and now unless you can pay for commitment or the person commits a criminal act they cannot get care.

It is more possible than a constitutional amendment FFS...not that either are going to happen.

Why is it that people with your view can't post in a civil manner?

[bongbong]

19. sheesh

> Why is it that people with your view can't post in a civil manner?

Oh, you don't like it when an obvious fantasy is pointed out?

Who is going to "find" all the people who aren't clearly insane - but are troubled enough to go on a rampage?

Who is going to "find" the people who put on a good front and appear completely normal - like so many of the shooters in the past have?

Who is going to "find" the people who really are quite sane, but have an anger issue, and something makes them snap?

Multiply those things by thousands/hundreds of thousands of individuals.

This whole attempt to divert gun control into a fantasy about mental illness treatment is an obvious, obvious, obvious attempt by the NRA to change the subject. And it's a mega-fantasy, much more so than an amendment or more strict gun control. Sorry you were offended; but pointing out"realistic solutions" that are obvious fantasies, and attempts to divert, are a pet peeve of mine.

[Mojorabbit]

41. I agree with you. I was a nurse back in that time frame.

There are little in the way of resources anymore.

[pipoman]

43. Real change would be legalization of recreational MJ,

taxing it at the federal level, and committing the revenue to mental healthcare and addiction services for anyone who needs it...I believe it would reduce many criminal problems we now have and probably reduce the amount of suicides..not holding my breath..

[FSogol]

44. Absolutely correct on blaming Reagan on de-funding mental health services.

This is why people aren't getting help.

[pipoman]

49. I remember Democrats at the time

saying that the doors of the asylums opening would result in carnage, homelessness, and suffering...all have proven true. If Raygun can defund with the stroke of a pen, why can't Obama re-fund in the same way?

[Major Nikon]

11. Actually it would be as simple as replacing one of the judges

It wouldn't take an amendment to ban handguns.

Scalia is 76 and portly. He may not last 4 more years. The effort could actually start now and he may not be around if and when the subject makes it to SCOTUS.

[pipoman]

17. Go read the Heller

dissenting papers...no, even the dissenters wouldn't allow that. Once precedent is set, as it has, it won't change for a lifetime at least. If it were as easy as all that Roe v. Wade would have been gone years ago..

[Major Nikon]

21. I did

Heller only applies to DC. McDonald v. Chicago is more relevant to everywhere else. You seem to think SCOTUS decisions can't be overturned "for a lifetime at least" and that's just not true. There is nothing constitutionally that prevents them from being overturned the next day.

[pipoman]

25. They just never are..

Heller dissent acknowledged that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, as opposed to a collective right. That being so, there will be no handgun ban...probably ever, certainly not for a very long time.

[Major Nikon]

28. It's not unprecedented

SCOTUS completely reversed Bowers v. Hardwick just 17 years later.

Whether there is or isn't a handgun ban depends more on public opinion than precedent. If there is enough public support, it will happen and it won't require an amendment. Individual right vs collective right does not mean certain types of weapons can't or won't be banned in the near future and even those opinions could change.

[pipoman]

32. Constitutional interpretation

will never allow it. There is no way to interpret the 2nd amendment, from a realistic standpoint any other way than how it has been interpreted regardless of public opinion. The standard set by SCOTUS of "in common use for lawful purposes" will be the standard for many lifetimes. Public opinion certainly could drive a constitutional amendment, but given the last 20 years of public driven gun policy, public opinion will not sway to that degree for many, many years, IMHO.

Over the years there have been many polls right here in GD, there has never been a poll here which even came close to supporting any change to the 2nd.

[Major Nikon]

33. Depends on if you subscribe to Scalia or Souter/Breyer/Ginsburg/Stevens school of thought

Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.

Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

...

“To keep and bear Arms”

...

the “right to keep and bear arms” protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html

Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Ginsburg join, dissenting.

...

The second independent reason is that the protection the Amendment provides is not absolute. The Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves. Thus, irrespective of what those interests are—whether they do or do not include an independent interest in self-defense—the majority’s view cannot be correct unless it can show that the District’s regulation is unreasonable or inappropriate in Second Amendment terms. This the majority cannot do.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD1.html

[byeya]

35. You've got that right. Former Justice Stevens did all but come right out and say this

in his article on the Citizens United decision.

[DanTex]

34. Why do all gun fanatics live in a fantasy world?

Yes, the dissenters will allow it. Did you actually read the dissents? There were two dissents, both signed by all 4 non-right-wing justices. The first one (Stevens) stated clearly that the second amendment is about militias and not self-defense. The second one (Breyer) stated clearly that even if the second amendment did protect gun ownership not connected to militia service, a handgun ban would still fall under the category of reasonable constitutional restriction for the sake of public safety.

The problem is not the constitution, it is the right-wing supreme court.

[pipoman]

37. The problem is reading comprehension

and ignorance of history and the law by wishful thinkers.

[Major Nikon]

7. Not a bad idea

Most intentional homicides are committed with handguns.

That's not to say there aren't valid reasons for getting rid of other types, but the sensible approach seems to be to start there.

[Hoyt]

10. Both. Although I do think handguns are a bigger threat to public.

[abelenkpe]

14. I'm cool with banning both

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. What do you have against a 150 year old technology?

We have had multi shot handguns for a very long time, why are they now suddenly a problem that requires a constitutional level remedy?

What is the root of the recent problems? What do SA revolvers have to do with it?

[bongbong]

20. Too much mental illness

The specific mental illness that makes a person want to own a gun.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. Is there a diagnostic code for that?

Seriously, handguns have been with us for a very long time. Why is there a problem with them recently and not previously?

[MNBrewer]

22. It's being used to kill large numbers of people.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

27. What has changed to cause that to happen now?

Modern style handguns have been with us since before the Civil War.

[MNBrewer]

30. Maybe this is the straw that broke the camel's back

and we're tired of letting gun nuts run rampent.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

31. That may well be true

But the reality is that the handguns have not markedly changed since WWII are suddenly the root of all violence for the OP...that just doesn't parse. What are the root causes of the violence and why do we think bans will address it?

[MNBrewer]

38. Mustard gas hasn't changed markedly since WWI

Yet we ban it. We warn those who have it not to use it OR ELSE. We work to eliminate the stockpiles that exist. Handguns are no different from chemical weapons. They're designed for one purpose, killing humans.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

39. Mustard gas has never been in general use by civilians, though it is easy to make

Last edited Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:36 PM - Edit history (1)

What has changed that would make SA revolvers now so evil they must be banned? We have only had them for 150 years

[MNBrewer]

42. You keep coming back to that inane question

What has changed is that 1 too many people have been killed by them.

[Egalitarian Thug]

23. Because we don't want to look at the source of the problem. Because ranting about a simplistic

remedy to the immediate symptom is as cathartic as it is unlikely.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

48. Just some thoughts

The simple method of problem solving:
Step 1. Analysis: Discover that among the attributes of the instance of the problem at hand is a characteristic which you hate.
Step 2. Thesis: Advocate the worldwide elimination of the offending characteristic.
Step 3. Publication: Evidence your disdain for anyone who disagrees with you and question their motives.

BTW, love your sig line quote.

[Egalitarian Thug]

54. Thanks. My real worry is that the outrage of the moment will instigate actions that will destroy

the gains the Democratic Party has made. Make another AWB the centerpiece of political action this year and nothing else will happen and the President will have a republican Senate & veto-proof House in 2014.

Meanwhile, we will still live in a profoundly sick society that worships violence and entertainment and doesn't pay attention to anything else.

[DanTex]

47. What does the age of the technology have to do with anything?

Handguns are used to kill most of the 10,000 people who die from gun homicides. I don't see how the fact that they were invented a long time ago makes the slightest difference.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

50. Because until recently they were not considered a massive problem

and then have been with us for 150 years. What changed?

[DanTex]

51. What has changed in the last 150 years? Is that really your question?

I'm not sure what you mean by "until recently". Gun violence has been a serious problem for decades. It's not like it just started a few years ago...

[catnhatnh]

24. Well Bob, not to be "too fucking argumentative"

But as pointed out above the news today confirmed that at least 7 of the children were shot with the Bushmaster between 3-11 times each. Further in the post you stated your gun of choice for killing pets was a 12ga. shotgun. Both of these are to the best of my knowledge NOT handguns...So let's cut to the chase here-it's time for real restrictions on every firearm in the country with mandatory severe sanctions for any violation.

[Democratopia]

29. Banning guns isn't going to happen.

And the reason why it isn't going to happen is the same reason why USA is such a violent nation.

We need to change the political system if we are going to change attitudes to violence.

[byeya]

36. Most of out Presidents who have been shot have been with a handgun.

[Berserker]

40. Good luck bob

have one for me.

[Chorophyll]

45. Having glanced through this thread,

and read the hidden comments,

Jeezus Feck, what does it take to get banned from this progressive web site anymore?

[Marrah_G]

46. The only thing on Friday the handgun ban maybe would have stopped was the suicide

Everyone else he killed was murdered with an assault rifle.

[Moral Compass]

52. Assault Rifles

You seem to be willfully ignoring the fact that a .223 caliber semi-automatic Bushmaster rifle was used to kill all the victims.

I can understand carrying a handgun for protection. But who carries an assault rifle for protection? Indeed, who needs an assault rifle other than a soldier?

I've yet to meet a hunter that hunts with a semi-automatic.

Guns are designed for one thing...to kill.

At some point, we have to have a discussion that recognizes this simple fact. Then we need to proceed from there. This isn't about personal rights. The 2nd amendment wasn't written with the idea of us all walking around armed at all times. This isn't what a "...well regulated militia..." means.

Note the word "regulated". That means that there should be regulations.

We have the right, as a nation and as a society, to regulate weaponry.

Here is the text of the 2nd amendment in case anyone doesn't remember:

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

[former-republican]

53. "That's stupid" handguns aren't that scary looking

We have to go after the scary looking guns.