School Shooting in Tennessee (6 killed incl. 3 children) (2 Viewers)

[Tapxe]

I guess this is where i get hung up.

"bear arms" - it was written in 1776. 200 years have passed and the arms spoken of on that day are not the same. So how do we reconcile wording from 200 plus years ago into todays standards? Or do we?

I guess starting at "bear arms" and what that truly meant THEN vs NOW. As i understand it, many state that it was so the fledgling US didnt have to have a "Standing army"

Well we have one. A very large and capable one.

So why does that not get taken into consideration when interpreting the 2nd Amendment?

I ran across this trying to figure out if guns are more or less accessible today than in colonial times. Not really what I was looking for, but it seems they are likely more expensive now than then.

Anyway...

Materiality of a Rifle Gun: Gunsmithing at Colonial Williamsburg

When Colonial Williamsburg gunsmith Richard “Sully” Sullivan instructed us to feel the weight of his completed work by holding an unloaded rifle as if to shoot, my classmate leaned the butt into he…

sites.udel.edu

Beginning in 1684, the militia statute required all freemen to own and train with a gun so that they would be properly outfitted and practiced should the need for a militia arise. As a result, gun ownership for white households was mandatory in many territories. Additionally, guns served as an important hunting tool that helped to secure meat, in addition to providing protection if communities were attacked by Native Americans. Thus, in the back country where raids were more common and merchant-sold food was hard to come by, most families had at least one firearm; in urban areas their presence would be more limited.

Makes sense and is reasonable, but yeah times have massively changed.

If there was a way to allow citizens in an area to vote to suspend 2A in certain areas, I think cities and rural areas would be well served. That way, folks could live where the laws suited them best.

Pretty sure that was a guiding principle of the country at one point. Perhaps too much is federal now.

 

[efil4stnias]

I ran across this trying to figure out if guns are more or less accessible today than in colonial times. Not really what I was looking for, but it seems they are likely more expensive now than then.

Anyway...

Materiality of a Rifle Gun: Gunsmithing at Colonial Williamsburg

When Colonial Williamsburg gunsmith Richard “Sully” Sullivan instructed us to feel the weight of his completed work by holding an unloaded rifle as if to shoot, my classmate leaned the butt into he…

sites.udel.edu

Makes sense and is reasonable, but yeah times have massively changed.

If there was a way to allow citizens in an area to vote to suspend 2A in certain areas, I think cities and rural areas would be well served. That way, folks could live where the laws suited them best.

Pretty sure that was a guiding principle of the country at one point. Perhaps too much is federal now.

accessible and way deadlier in a much shorter span of time.

Thats my hang up. The founding fathers and designers of the Bill of Rights/Constitution couldnt see that 230 years into the future, we would have arms that carry an ability to fire off 30 rounds in 10 seconds.

So when putting together the wording, it was based on the time/environment then and meant to be for some period of time in the future. But i cant imagine they meant ALL TYPES OF armament.

 

[superchuck500]

I suspect you are right.

Is there no possible interpretation where insurance could be interpreted as 'regulation' which is mentioned in the amendment?

I guess this is where i get hung up.

"bear arms" - it was written in 1776. 200 years have passed and the arms spoken of on that day are not the same. So how do we reconcile wording from 200 plus years ago into todays standards? Or do we?

I guess starting at "bear arms" and what that truly meant THEN vs NOW. As i understand it, many state that it was so the fledgling US didnt have to have a "Standing army"

Well we have one. A very large and capable one.

So why does that not get taken into consideration when interpreting the 2nd Amendment?

They’re good questions - and the place we all have to start on the answers is the Heller decision. The Court concluded that “well-regulated” applied to militias and served a purpose but that the right (it’s indeed a right - the second one listed in the 10 rights prescribed by the Bill of Rights) is independent of whether the person is in a militia.

As to the passage of time, I think there’s only so much we can depart from the language of the amendment and remain within its intent.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

But there are definitely areas where we can regulate the gun issue within the scrutiny required. With proper design and balances for abuse and relief, we can implement greater controls on gun sales, waiting periods, red-flag laws, military and high-capacity weapons, etc. There just isn’t a willingness by enough lawmakers to be bold and make a difference - and a lot of that is genuine because their constituents don’t want it. We have to want this to change and be willing to stop accepting these slippery slope, straw man arguments that any well designed gun measure is just a Trojan horse for greater future controls.

 

[rail]

Nothing much to contribute to the thread other than feelings. I'm hurting today, man. I've somehow let my kids go to school today.

I somehow hope I can stop thinking about these parents and how they went to a designated gathering spot to wait. And wait and wait, and how their lives have been absolutely destroyed.

And I'm on edge. I feel anxiety and fear. It seems to get a little worse every time these happen. This will last a couple of days.

Again, not much to contribute other than feelings. Hope you're all doing okay.

 

[saint_drago]

I just wanted to point out what an excellent job those brave first responders did in this situation. I watched the videos and that was incredible. I salute those brave individuals.

You never want something like this to happen but if it does you want men and women like that trying to save your children.

 

[efil4stnias]

They’re good questions - and the place we all have to start on the answers is the Heller decision. The Court concluded that “well-regulated” applied to militias and served a purpose but that the right (it’s indeed a right - the second one listed in the 10 rights prescribed by the Bill of Rights) is independent of whether the person is in a militia.

As to the passage of time, I think there’s only so much we can depart from the language of the amendment and remain within its intent.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

But there are definitely areas where we can regulate the gun issue within the scrutiny required. With proper design and balances for abuse and relief, we can implement greater controls on gun sales, waiting periods, red-flag laws, military and high-capacity weapons, etc. There just isn’t a willingness by enough lawmakers to be bold and make a difference - and a lot of that is genuine because their constituents don’t want it. We have to want this to change and be willing to stop accepting these slippery slope, straw man arguments that any well designed gun measure is just a Trojan horse for greater future controls.

so the COurt determined that "well regulated" applied to miltias ( aka military ) and not individuals.

From your link ( and kinda talking about what we are discussing now )

"The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. "

"specifically designed" is Scalias wording...not the 2nd Amendment wording. And thats where i split off. You have given gun mfgs the ability to "amend" the mfg of a weapon, down to the firing pin, that if "specifically not designed for military use" then "arms" applies in totality.

I simply cannot agree with that. Whereas the basis for all the "assault style' weapons are based on platforms like military grade arms. Simply changing one mechanical part or aesthetic design, can render the weapon "non military"

ugh. we got a ways to go on this subject in this country.

 

[brandon8283]

Agreed... What it will take is to torpedo binary thinking on this in the election cycles by the public (Stop voting for the various tools in the "Ban all guns crowd" and in the "No Laws for Guns at all crowd")... As long as we allow them to turn these tragedies into only divisionary food for human like ostriches... we get nowhere.

I think on a practical level, you’re right. In order to get anything done, we will have to utilize less effective means for gun control to placate the anti gun control crowd.

However, if this is your philosophy, you also have to accept the blood on your hands the less effective means brings in the name of pragmatism.

You’re arguing for the snake to bite you fewer times, but you’re still in favor of the snake continuing to bite.

 

[WhoDatPhan78]

I asked ChatGPT what we could do that would not be found unconstitutional based on the Heller ruling. The only bad one on the list IMO is more gun free zones.

The 2008 Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller clarified the interpretation of the Second Amendment, affirming an individual's right to keep and bear arms for self-defense purposes. However, the ruling also acknowledged that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and is subject to certain regulations. Some gun safety measures that could be considered constitutional based on the Heller ruling include:

1. Background checks: The Heller decision does not preclude the implementation of background checks for prospective gun buyers. These checks can help prevent firearms from falling into the hands of individuals with a history of violent crime, domestic abuse, or severe mental illness.
2. Gun storage requirements: States and localities may require gun owners to securely store their firearms when not in use, especially if children or other unauthorized individuals could access them. These requirements can help reduce the risk of accidental discharges or unauthorized use of firearms.
3. Age restrictions: Heller does not prevent the establishment of minimum age requirements for gun ownership or possession. Age restrictions could be implemented to ensure that individuals under a certain age cannot legally purchase or possess firearms.
4. Concealed carry permits: The Heller ruling does not prevent states from regulating the carrying of concealed firearms. States may require individuals to obtain a permit before they can carry a concealed weapon, often involving a background check, training, and demonstration of proficiency in firearms handling.
5. Restrictions on certain types of firearms: Although the Heller decision focuses on an individual's right to possess handguns for self-defense, it does not preclude the regulation of certain types of firearms. For example, states may be able to place restrictions on the sale and possession of fully automatic weapons or military-style assault rifles, as long as the regulations do not infringe on the core right to possess firearms for self-defense.
6. Gun-free zones: States and localities may be able to establish designated gun-free zones, such as schools or government buildings, where firearms are prohibited. These restrictions must be carefully crafted to ensure that they do not infringe on an individual's right to self-defense.
7. Waiting periods: The Heller ruling does not prevent the implementation of waiting periods for gun purchases. Waiting periods can provide a "cooling-off" period for potential buyers and allow time for a thorough background check.
8. Firearm registration: While the Heller decision does not explicitly address firearm registration, it may be possible to implement a registration system that does not impose an undue burden on an individual's right to possess firearms for self-defense.

 

[Taurus]

Man, reading the profile of the shooter really hits hard. I've run into a few like that over the last couple of years. And leaving aside whether the parents were supportive or not... i can tell you from personal experience getting mental health help is so freaking hard.

First of all, we have good insurance, but trying to get a decent therapist on an insurance plan is impossible -- usually they are about 100 miles or so away, and they might take you over teleconference, which generally sucks. But most of the time they aren't on an insurance plan -- so you are paying out of pocket. The cheap ones are like $145 for 45 minutes, and while in crisis you meet 2 to 3 times a week for several weeks. But it doesn't stop there, because finding a good therapist is hard -- we're on our 7th one now... and the expensive ones are like $300 an hour. But that's only part of the equation, because therapy helps with long term coping strategies and walking through things, but it does not help the immediate pressing pain being pumped out by the lack of seratonin in your brain (or whatever), so you need to find a psychiatrist. Fortunately, in a major metro area, finding a good one on plan is doable... but do you think they actually know what the patient needs? Of course not... they have general data points about what usually works for a person displaying similar symptoms. So you need to cycle through a number of drugs and drug combinations until you hit upon something that actually stabilizes the patient. Until that happens you have to do constant monitoring because some of them make the patient more suicidal and sometimes homicidal. And what inevitably happens is you get a suicide attempt - which then means a trip to the emergency room where you wait for 5 hours to be seen (if you're lucky enough to only have the patient swallow a bunch of pills -- otherwise, if there's an open wound they'll see you immediately).. then after they treat the immediate issue, you wait in the emergency room until a bed is freed up in a long term inpatient psychiatric facility -- this can take several days, while you're waiting in the emergency room with little possibility of real sleep... anyone want to take a guess what that costs, even with insurance? Then there's the cost of the inpatient facility...

And all the while, you're not entirely sure how "real" this is.... is this a "real" psychiatric episode or is it a temper tantrum? You could assess that the probability of a successful suicide attempt is very low -- and when faced with tens and tens of thousands of dollars of bills, decide eff it.... it's too hard.

It ridiculous.

I have no idea how much of that was germane to the shooter here, but I can say without a doubt that our mental health care system sucks.

All of this. All of this and ten times on Sunday.

There has GOT to be a better way. That third-to-last paragraph especially. Is it a tantrum? No way to know for sure, but you're going to be out thousands no matter what. Do you let it go to TENS of thousands? Can you live with yourself if you say "No" and come home to find your child dead? If you can, you're a freaking monster. So you go into HUGE debt, which sure's hell is going to help the old home life, eh? Nothing like being completely broke to make Mom and Dad into supportive, attentive caregivers right?

I hate this system SO much.

 

[WhoDatPhan78]

Year	Estimated Firearms (in millions)	Population (in millions)	Firearms per 100 People
1960	54.6	180.67	30.22
1970	111.5	205.05	54.38
1980	180.5	227.23	79.43
1990	240.8	249.62	96.47
2000	297.5	281.42	105.71
2010	360.7	308.74	116.82
2021*	400-600 (estimated)	331.0	120.85-181.27

Also from ChatGPT. This is the guns to people ratio for the US.

It's definitely more than just a gun problem, but look at this chart. We absolutely have a huge gun problem.

 

[Bayouboy]

You’re arguing for the snake to bite you fewer times, but you’re still in favor of the snake continuing to bite.

That's probably best case scenario at this time, in this country.

 

[Brandon13]

I think on a practical level, you’re right. In order to get anything done, we will have to utilize less effective means for gun control to placate the anti gun control crowd.

However, if this is your philosophy, you also have to accept the blood on your hands the less effective means brings in the name of pragmatism.

You’re arguing for the snake to bite you fewer times, but you’re still in favor of the snake continuing to bite.

The blood will continue to be spilt in the meantime regardless though. If there aren't viable alternatives other than to get one's own hands dirty in it in the hopes of accomplishing something, anything that might help in lessening the frequency and severity of these things.. then I think that's the option you're left with.

 

[Dallas_Saint73]

Year	Estimated Firearms (in millions)	Population (in millions)	Firearms per 100 People
1960	54.6	180.67	30.22
1970	111.5	205.05	54.38
1980	180.5	227.23	79.43
1990	240.8	249.62	96.47
2000	297.5	281.42	105.71
2010	360.7	308.74	116.82
2021*	400-600 (estimated)	331.0	120.85-181.27

Also from ChatGPT. This is the guns to people ratio for the US.

It's definitely more than just a gun problem, but look at this chart. We absolutely have a huge gun problem.

And that's likely numbers based off of legal firearms sales. I bet that number is easily inflated with illegally acquired guns.

 

[faceman]

When I've used it here it could probably be used interchangeably with the term "moderate." In that, I think moderate ideas or proposals are ones that would be supported by a strong majority of the population.

Moderates have determined every election. We've done it every election e been alive. If you can't stick the middle
finger at the middle finger at both parties for extremist views, you need to reaxamine your political philosophy.


One thing I've always hated was hearing " this issue was voted down party lines" screw that bs. Be a man or woman
and talk to the person you disagree with. Gun violence in school is a serious issue. Mental illness is the top of the
list. Let us all find an answer.

 

[WhoDatPhan78]

And that's likely numbers based off of legal firearms sales. I bet that number is easily inflated with illegally acquired guns.

Plus if you take into account that 22% of the population is under 18, it get's even worse. Then account for the fact that about half of households have a gun at all, and 1/3 of those households only own one gun.

80% of the guns in the US are probably owned by less than 20% of the population.