02-17-2017, 02:53 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-17-2017, 02:53 PM by TeacherinExile.
Edit Reason: Add comment
)
(02-17-2017, 12:47 PM)"TeacherinExile Wrote:And here are the sad, grim statistics (not to be confused with "alternative facts") from a study published online Feb. 1 in The American Journal of Medicine.(02-17-2017, 07:27 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:(02-16-2017, 03:32 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: We have paid an increasingly bitter and bloody price for the Second Amendment. When I learned of the massacre of small children at Sandy Hook, I cried. Wept for the innocent children, their parents, indeed for the country. And when Congress--which the NRA pretty much owns lock, stock, and barrel--couldn't even summon the moral courage to pass a simple gun control measure in response, well, I knew that we were through the looking glass as a society. If our Founding Fathers were alive today to survey the aftermath of any of the venues where mass shootings have taken place, I can't help but feel they would shake their heads in Prufrockian dismay, and say, "This is not what we meant at all."
Yes, you can quite sincerely project your personal values on the Founding Fathers. Have you done any real reading on their times? In their day, massacres were generally natives coming out of the woods for a hit and run raid. There were no police forces. There wasn't much in the way of a standing army, certainly nothing that could respond to a massacre in a timely fashion. Yep, aggressors with guns are a problem. Unfortunately, what is often required is more aggressors with guns, armed, trained, and willing to take that elevator to the top of the tower, sooner rather than later. The Founding Fathers did what they could given the culture as it was to make sure the law abiding were in a position to do just that.
What law would you pass that would have changed Sandy Hook? The perpetrator was mentally unstable. One approach that might have made a difference would have been tight screening by psychologists of everyone with access to weapons. The goal would be to prove lack of mental competence to the degree required to strip a constitutional right? Are you aware of the legal standards required to do that? Can you guess how many psychologists would have to be screening people to stop a potential Sandy Hook?
If this isn't your approach, what is? It is one thing to state emotional distress at the status quo. Lots of people, including myself, are unhappy with the status quo. It is another thing to have a proposal that might actually help and might possibly be passed.
Bob,
With all due respect, did you read my entire post? I mentioned only one solution: confiscation. Which I'm not proposing, by the way. That will never happen. It would be violently contested, logistically impossible and, of course, unconstitutional, given the recent liberal interpretation of the Second Amendment by SCOTUS. We are trapped in a positive feedback loop: the answer to mass shootings--from the NRA, especially--is more guns. Any perceived threat to gun ownership leads to a huge spike in sales of legally permissible weapons, including the most lethal category of all--assault rifles. Have you checked out the pattern of sales leading up to the presidential election, when existing and prospective gun owners rushed to buy, fearing new gun control measures under a Hillary Clinton administration? The same held true during Obama's time in office.
"The black helicopters are coming for our guns!" What ridiculous tripe.
And, yes, having taken a Constitutional Law course as an undergrad, I'm familiar with the historical context that gave rise to the Second Amendment. Does that same raison d'être still apply to the times in which we now live? Since the enshrinement of the Second Amendment as a bill of right, 226 years have passed. Even some signatories of our Constitution realized upon its ratification that it might some day become an anachronism. In their infinite wisdom they foresaw the day when the great legal document that they had created, and with not a little contention, would quite simply outlive its usefulness. Given the unrelenting polarization in our country around a whole range of issues, including this one, I honestly believe that only a second Constitutional convention can break the ideological impasse, a remote possibility that I can no longer dismiss out of hand.
As wedge issues go, I can't think of a more moot issue than gun control. To me, it's literally a waste of breath to even discuss. As we used to say in Texas, that horse left the barn long, long ago...
"How U.S. gun deaths compare to other countries"
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gun-...countries/