School shooting Florida

[bruto]

I would point out, if it is not too blindingly obvious to anyone with more than a couple of brain cells to rub together, that if the "right to bear arms" were limited to citizens, not to mention only native-born citizens, it would require a massive rewriting and reinterpretation of the constitution, including, of course, the second amendment itself, which to some is so sacred that it could never be touched. The Constitution's definition of "the people" is not defined by citizenship, and the legal status of the naturalized has traditionally been the granting of full citizenship. It should also be blindingly obvious to anyone with more than a couple of brain cells to rub together that the founding fathers were aware of the distinction, since in the requirements for the presidency they made that distinction explicit.

I'm not usually one for slippery slope arguments, but if the meaning of "the people" is to be redefined in one place, what is to prevent that redefinition from creeping into others, such as the other civil rights that all legal residents of the United States have always been at least expected to enjoy? The same term is applied in the same way to all civil rights. And if naturalized citizenship is to be redefined as partial citizenship, a whole lot of things will need redefinition and rethinking. It's already a ************* now, with border agents sorting people by the birthplace on their passports, but at least in other places our naturalized Americans are not deprived of their rights.

In terms of Constitutional integrity it would be a whole lot easier to change the second amendment than the whole definition of whom the Constitution applies to, and what a citizen is.

So, perhaps it ought to be enough of an answer to Captain Howdy's request to say why "non citizens" should have the right to bear arms, to say that it's in the Constitution, sir.

 

[MikeG]

What happened in Australia was clearly confiscation. It was compensated but as the guns were becoming illegal it wasn't an optional participation buyback like we sometimes see in the US.

So? Is there a problem with that?

 

[Giz]

So? Is there a problem with that?

I'm just correcting wording there. Saying the Australian ban wasn't confiscation is misleading.

Whether it was good or bad can be debated. Australians seem in the main to be happy with it. What can't be debated is whether it was a voluntary giving up of the weapons (it wasn't).

 

[William Parcher]

Well, sure. Some people talk about all sorts of things. Let me revise.

No one who is to be taken seriously is proposing legislation that would confiscate existing, legally acquired, weapons...

Oh yes they are! There are many of those people out in the world and there are many right here on ISF.

 

[Dave Rogers]

No one who is to be taken seriously is proposing legislation that would confiscate existing, legally acquired, weapons.

I think you've got that the wrong way round; no one who is proposing legislation that would confiscate existing, legally acquired, weapons is to be taken seriously. In certain quarters, in any case.

Dave

 

[crescent]

Oh yes they are! There are many of those people out in the world and there are many right here on ISF.

People, yes. People with clout - not yet.

Brady Center, Brady Campaign, Everytown for Gun Safety, Giffords Law Center, the Democratic Party, none of them support any sort of confiscation. Even the Green Party does not support that.

The newest big player is "Never Again", they are more or less organizing the March for Our Lives protests on March 24. They are still formulating precise policy (having existed for less than a month so far), but at least for now, they don't support any form of confiscation. They might just end up being called March for Our Lives.

I am not aware of any organization in America that supports any sort of confiscation, much less any organization with political clout. At this point, Flat Earth people and Birthers have more political clout than gun confiscation advocates.

 

[William Parcher]

People, yes. People with clout - not yet.

Voters are the clout.

Those kids (future voters) out protesting yesterday? Their real message isn't "no new guns of a specific type". Their message is "no guns".

 

[ponderingturtle]

The school declared a memorial event at 10 AM for the Parkland victims, and had speakers attend. Apparently, some students saw this as another Us v Them thing and came out in their colors. My daughter estimated the counter protestors were about 60 out of maybe 500 in attendance. Just seems odd that students wouldn't put the partisan junk aside during a memorial service. I hope it was due to immaturity and not actual lack of empathy.

You could say the same thing about the president and the republican party, it seems to have a rather profound lack of empathy in american politics right now.

 

[ponderingturtle]

This.

Ignorance is not a virtue.

It is but apparently only from NRA spokespeople. Then ignorance isn't important.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Much of it is false, and the rest makes no sense.

Hunting rifles fire just as fast, and generally are far more powerful than an AR-15.

Yep lever guns and bolt actions are totally useless for hunting always have been, you need at least 30 rounds to bring down anything real from a basic sound shot.

 

[Meadmaker]

What do we do about Senators who say things like this, which demonstrates no knowledge whatsoever of the subject:



Much of it is false, and the rest makes no sense.

Hunting rifles fire just as fast, and generally are far more powerful than an AR-15.

10 round magazines would have changed nothing in any of the mass shootings.A matter of minutes is all it takes to fire hundreds of rounds from almost any firearm, except a muzzle loader.

If you want to ban firearms, just say so.

Stop spouting nonsense and falsehoods, and learn about the subject if you are going to vote on it.

(Emphasis added)

Re: the hilite.

How can you say that? How could it possibly be true? If you slow him down by forcing him to reload more often, it makes no difference? If you force him to carry more weight in order to achieve the same number of shots, it makes no difference? If you create a brief opportunity to escape or even fight back as he reloads, it makes no difference?

Really? Why bother selling a 20 round magazine if it makes no difference?

A matter of seconds is all it takes to get around a corner and away from the shooter. Give the targets a couple of seconds. Maybe he would have only gotten 16 instead of 17. To my way of thinking, that's a pretty big difference.

 

[crescent]

Voters are the clout.

Those kids (future voters) out protesting yesterday? Their real message isn't "no new guns of a specific type". Their message is "no guns".

That's not what I heard. I heard them doing two things:
Memorializing those killed by guns, especially the victims from Stoneman Douglas.
Advocating for change: I heard no calls for confiscation. The few concrete calls were for universal background checks, red-flag/extreme risk restraining orders, bans on sales and manufacture or new assault weapons, and improvements in the handling of mental health awareness and treatment (not limited to gun-related policies). There was general talk of safety, and criticism of guns, but that's not the same as calling for confiscation.

I mean, you might be right - but so far the current crop of new growth is still organizing and formulating policy positions. There were thousands of walkouts yesterday, with thousands of speeches, it would be surprising if at least some of those didn't call for confiscation, but none of the one I heard did.

I expect we'll get a better idea of what the new advocates want on the 24th.

 

[Craig B]

There's the problem with so many of the anti-gun people--kids and adults alike--seem to have. They don't have a good grasp on the issue. If somebody says 'bullett' when they mean 'cartridge,' I'm not going to condemn them. But somebody who wants to ban "assault rifles" or doesn't know the difference between 'automatic' and 'semi-automatic' doesn't get to have an opinion on gun control.

Oh yes they do. Even if they don't know any more than that they're referring to a gun that fires fast, they are entitled to an opinion on whether ownership of these should be controlled or not.

 

[William Parcher]

The message is no guns. There won't be picket signs or spoken words saying "we must confiscate the guns". But later that "no guns" message is going to be about removing the guns. Because mass shootings are not going to stop. Onesies, twosies, threesies shot dead at schools and everywhere (not quite mass shootings) are not going to stop.

They will throw their hands up in frustration and say that tightened regulations here and there is not stopping the carnage. Dick's and Walmart and Kroger and even the State of Florida is not stopping the carnage.

The guns have got to go. It's coming. They would do it right now if they had a magic wand. But they don't. But it's coming.

 

[MikeG]

.......I expect we'll get a better idea of what the new advocates want on the 24th.

What's happening then?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Australia bans some guns because of how they look...

Which is what would happen here.

If we took an AR-15, removed the gas system, and added a handle to the bolt, making it a manually operated bolt action rifle, it would undoubtedly fall under any assault weapons ban simply because it looks like an AR-15.

Maybe there's something in this. Instead of banning them, how about recognising that a young man who wants that gun so he can pose as some powerful badass deadly special forces ninja killer from a movie or video game is a great big alarm bell and warrants a much more thorough check into how well-balanced he is. Any mention of the words "tactical black" should set the alarms jangling.

 

[crescent]

The message is no guns. There won't be picket signs or spoken words saying "we must confiscate the guns". But later that "no guns" message is going to be about removing the guns. Because mass shootings are not going to stop. Onesies, twosies, threesies shot dead at schools and everywhere (not quite mass shootings) are not going to stop.

They will throw their hands up in frustration and say that tightened regulations here and there is not stopping the carnage. Dick's and Walmart and Kroger and even the State of Florida is not stopping the carnage.

The guns have got to go. It's coming. They would do it right now if they had a magic wand. But they don't. But it's coming.

That's a nice crystal ball you've got there, but I am far less certain. There is a whole lot of room between "We really don't like guns and want fewer of them with far tighter regulation of them" and "Let's take them away". The slippery slope fallacy has been used for far too long to prevent meaningful regulation, including many regulations favored by strong majorities of gun owners.

Lots and lots of room for meaningful practical regulation that falls short of confiscation.

What's happening then?

That's the date of the March for Our Lives. Big march in DC, lots of local marches as well. The FB page for the March here in Denver is showing 8.4k as attending and 25k interested. I have no idea how many will actually attend, though. One of the kids from Stoneman-Douglas will be one of the speakers here in Denver.

This is a more formal and organized thing than the school walkouts. The walkouts were mostly organized (as much as they were organized) by the Women's March. The March for Our Lives is a new organization. They are getting a lot of help with the logistics aspects of the marches (toilets, getting proper permits, sound systems for speakers, all that) from people with experience doing the same with the Women's March, but not from the organization itself. They have planned speakers and elected officers (No officers over the age of 26). Being a more planned and organized event, I would expect some of the speakers to present some proposals for action. I guess we'll see.

I am thinking this will be the initial event of a new, youth-focused gun safety organization or movement.

 

[Bob001]

......
Hunting rifles fire just as fast, and generally are far more powerful than an AR-15.

How do you defend this claim? How long does it take to fire the three or four shots that will empty a bolt-action deer rifle, reload it, fire three or four shots again, rinse and repeat until you get to 30? Why are all military weapons and most police sidearms autos or semi-autos with high-capacity magazines?

......
10 round magazines would have changed nothing in any of the mass shootings.

Maybe, maybe not. But the shooters would have had to buy and carry more magazines, and every time they stopped to reload was a chance that victims might have escaped or rushed them, or that they might have jammed the mechanism under stress, etc.

Do you really think there should be no restrictions on civilian possession of any firearms? If you do, you should say so. But it looks to many of us that most legitimate civilian purposes can be fulfilled by revolvers, pump shotguns and bolt-action rifles, with registration of sales and licensing of owners, and if somebody needs a semi-auto, it should be licensed and taxed the way we treat machine guns now.

 

[Nessie]

I suspect much of the talk of banning guns is actually banning guns from the possession of unsuitable people. Even the NRA is against some groups of people from possessing guns.

All sides talk passed each other, refuse to compromise and will not work together.

It is one of the reasons why the USA will never solve the problem.

 

[Nessie]

To have successful gun control you need to make sure those not suitable to have a gun do not have a gun. There are many many people in the USA who are unsuitable to have a gun, but have one, in particular criminals and gangs. Many of them are extremely well armed and will not give up their guns without a fight.

To get those guns would result in a civil war, which would likely cause thousands of deaths, from the criminals to those tasked with getting the guns.

That is another reason why the USA will never solve the problem.