Is it time to talk about guns?

Obviously banning guns is the right thing to do, and should have been done ages back itself. This is done in almost all other countries .

But since this is not being done, one should at least remove all sorts of catalysts that can fuel potentially violent incidents such as violent video games and movies, remove hate-filled literature and social media content that can foster hatred and violence considering them as criminal offenses.

There may be a list of other such catalysts which can be identified by psychologists and sociologists and worked upon.

A healthy ecosystem for mentoring youth can be created with sports clubs or social clubs which will help to channel their energies in proper directions.

This is what I had emphasized in my first post here as well.

Is it time to talk about guns?

 

The 2nd amendment dates from a time when we were a confederation of states, had no standing army, and the standard infantry weapon had a rate of fire of four times a minute and a range of 100 yards. We now command the largest military in the world, garrisoning nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and spending more than the next 10 largest militaries combined. The sole raison d'etre of the 2nd amendment; to maintain a well-regulated militia, has been a moot point for well over 100 years.
More Americans have been shot to death domestically since 1968 than in all American wars combined. Gunfire is now the leading cause of death of our children. If any other country was doing this to us, we'd be at war right now.
It's utterly obscene to try and rationalize this carnage by fetishizing a legislative fossil that should've been repealed when high-button shoes and buggy whips went out of fashion.
The Constitution wasn't carried down Mount Sinai on two stone tablets; we the people wrote it. We've amended it 33 times; it's high time we do so again.

 

This is incorrect.
The right to bear arms is to ensure a citizen their ability to maintain their free state. And not Kansas or Massachusetts, but their free state of existence. So they can defend and preserve it from any and all threats to it.
That's the reason for the 2nd amendment.

 

No; repeal it. Lots of countries do just fine without a constitutional amendment protecting slave patrols.
Historian Uncovers The Racist Roots Of The 2nd Amendment

Slave-patrols and the Second Amendment: How Fears of Abolition empowered the idea of an armed militia | The Milwaukee Independent

https://thereconstructionera.com/the-second-amendment-the-right-to-kill-black-people/

 

We need to distinguish three components of gun woners: (1) the Executive Team and lobbying arm; (2) the regular rank-and -file; and (3) the unaffiliated.

Seriously? We need to distinguish three components of gun owners: (1) the NRA Executive Team and lobbying arm; (2) the regular rank-and -file; and (3) the unaffiliated.gun owners. Category 1, the NRA leaders and lobbyists, aren't themselves into doing mass shootings, just in profiting from promotion of indiscriminate gun sales that they know or should know will cost human lives, . The people have, in the language of the law, "depraved minds, in disregard of human life..These people are sociopaths--a special form of nutjob: evil people who worship the gods of money and power. I feel they're a driving force in 2nd amendment rights and firearm legislation because they use every resource at their disposal to to pay off and/or intimidating politicians. and to block any and all efforts at reasonable gun regulation: raising the legal age of ownership to 21, to background checks, to red flag laws, holding gun manufacturers liable for negligence, etc In the decade since the Sandy Hook massacre of 20 children in 2012, the NRA has shelled out $100m to help elect Republicans supporting its agenda, incuding $30m to help Donald Trump get elected president in 2016.

The regular rank & file gunowners consist of a diverse group of people who are motivated for different, reasons to own guns and support the NRA. Some may do so because of Second Amendment considerations, or to defend themselves and their families, or because they like to hunt. These people aren't mentally ill. They are guilty, perhaps only of the venial sin, of giving support to an evil organization and deserve short terms in purgatory instead of the hell befitting the NRA leaders.

Then there the unaffiliated owners, also encompassing a wide diversity of humanity. Most of these are ordinary folks, clinically normal, whose motives for owning are similar to the NRA rank and file. But there are some--a minority of racists, anti-Semites, white replacement believers, borderline personalities, paranoid schizophrenics, psychopaths, crazy mixed up kids, etc. who are prone to commit mass shootings.

The U. S. has more mass shootings than any other country. There have been 2,654 mass shootings since Sandy Hook in 2012. According to a tally by the non-profit Gun Violence Archive Uvalde was the 213th such incident of 2022 in which four or more people were shot or killed – not including the attacker – in a single incident. Since Uvalde, there have been over 20 other mass shootings. It strikes me as insane to allow this to continue in our country, and the NRA has been the principal agency facilitating it. To defend the indefensible where human lives are concerned seems, in itself, to be sick.

 

Sez who? The NRA? And am I correct you're a Canadian, lecturing us on our rights?

 

The memes are definitely silly. The fact that we're born with the right to keep and bear arms, and that the government shall not infringe on that right, is clearly spelled out in the 2nd amendment.
FACT.

 

You can't just assign anything you'd like to the list of things I've said.
The 2nd amendment ensures the right to keep and bear arms for all citizens.

 

Tishomingo, you're entitled to your opinion, but that's all it is.

 

You are not correct. I'm a responsible and law abiding citizen of the United States.
L.I.N.Y., or Saxtons River, Vermont. Mostly Long Island.

 

Sorry. I confused you with another person who used to post here and had views very much like yours.

If you read the amendment, the language seems expressly to connect the right to "a well regulated militia", and that was how the Supreme Court interpreted it until 2008, when the Heller decision came along. Historically, the new U.S. government had no money to pay for national army, and Jefferson, Hamilton, and Madison feared a national army would bring tyranny. So they opted for state militias--not free lance paramilitary crazies like the Oath Keepers, but well-regulated under state control. Needless to say, we have a standing national army today. In Heller, for the first time, the Supreme Court recognized an individual right to bear arms for such purposes as self-defense, independent of militia service. Even in Heller, Justice Scalia, writing for the Court, noted:
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” So tell that to your NRA!

 

You keep forgetting what's really important in there, and that's maintaining the individual's free state.

 

What exactly do you mean by that? The right to take up arms against the government? What is your legal authority? The Supreme Court has made clear that no right is absolute. Last time I looked, I didn't have the "free state" to drive on whichever side of the road I pleased, to keep my money from the tax collectors, or to cry fire in a crowded theater. Do you think the Supreme Court has made an exception for the Second Amendment?

Oh I see. You're going by the preamble (minus the well regulated militia part).: "being necessary to the security of a free State". Sorry, but it's you who are wrong. It means Kansas or Massachusetts, etc., or the U.S.A. itself-- not "their free state of existence." Where did you get the idea it was talking about states of existence? The NRA? Asserting it doesn't make it so. Cite me one case that supports your quirky interpretation. Your interpretation seems ridiculous and an invitation to anarchy.

 

We clearly disagree and I can live with that. Especially since the way I interpret it is by and large how it's treated.

 

Thanks to craven legislators,NRA intimidation, and dippy self-appointed lay lawyers. We'll see how much "free state of existence" individualism the country can stand.