Originally Posted by B Butler

During the Jim Crow era, the entire Bill of Rights was nullified for the sake of keeping negroes in their place.

This is why I always remind people that the "Gun Control" movement started in the 60s because white people were scared of the Black Panthers encouraging African-Americans to buy handguns for self-defense.

Originally Posted by the bouncer

i can't speak to the specifics of the gun debate, so i'll let your discussion of those weapons stand.

but you have to acknowledge that with regard to the second amendment, the founding fathers had no clue that people would be arming themselves to quite this extent. plus, they had just gotten out of a revolution and were really conscious of the people's need to protect themselves against armed occupation.

we may have to consider the possibility that we'll have to do something constitutionally about the matter.

Well, when crafting the First Amendment, I doubt that the Framers imagined it might cover gay pornography, or graphic pornography more generally. Those who crafted the 14th Amendment much later probably didn't imagine that the Supreme Court would not only find a right to privacy there but find, in that right, the right to abort a fetus.

Rights have unintended consequences.

I don't know what the Framers would think about gay porn, abortion, or the degree to which people arm themselves today, and if I am being completely honest, I don't really care. I'm not some kind of Framers Fundamentalist. Ultimately, what the Framers might think is irrelevant. They thoughtfully left us paths to amending the Constitution. If enough people want the Constitution amended, then it'll be amended. With respect to the private ownership of firearms, I'm not seeing that happening in the near future.

Originally Posted by the bouncer

question, though -- about this idea of killers doing it for notoriety -- since so many of these guys kill themselves afterwards, how do they get to see their names in the paper or their mugshots on tv? couldn't there be some other motivation?

Sure. There could be some other motivation. However, thanks to evidence left behind by various murderers, we know that they are well aware of the coverage given to such killings and, in many cases, seek to shape how they will be seen in death. The Columbine killers got pissed when another school shooting made the news while they were planning their own--they felt that they'd be seen as copycats. There are frequent references in their writings to the stir that the massacre they were planning would cause. They even left instructions about who and what to blame. The Virginia Tech shooter put together a package for NBC news in an attempt to shape how he would be viewed after the shootings, which he knew would lead to his death. Those aren't the only two examples of such behavior, but they're among the most dramatic.

Why bother? Why do such killers worry about how they'll be seen after their deaths? Why do they try to shape coverage, either by destroying evidence or putting together packages for investigators or the media? They know that they'll be dead, after all.

The obvious answer is that they know that their killings will become media events, and they seek to shape how they (and their crimes) will be seen by others.

If you have a theory about other motives, though, I'd love to hear it.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

People use vehicles a lot more than they use firearms, unless they are going to shooting ranges or hunting grounds every day, in which case they are not endangering people there. Millions of people use cars every day, some for many miles. The risk of getting into an accident when you drive is something like 0.01%.

So? The frequency of use doesn't change the simple fact that you are 3 to 4 times more likely to die from a vehicle than you are from a firearm.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes. It would help. Many more would die from cars without the regulation. Do you think drunk driving should be allowed? That accounts for half the fatalities.

And yet all of that regulation doesn't stop drunks from driving.

The rest is conjecture.

The 2nd ammendment certainly does, as impedement is a form of infringement.

Here's a link to people's opinions on gun control over time.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/re...ndgun-ban.aspx
As of 2011, it looks like Millennials are fairly opposed to expanding gun control legislation, and a desire to even reinstate the assault weapons sales ban has dropped. Overall, the majority wants to keep gun laws like they are, without an assault weapons ban, without an assault weapons ban. Looks like gun control be an unpopular platform for anyone to undertake.

Giant wall of text time! (Um...sorry? )

Originally Posted by Semo '75

Why do you keep lying? Do you think that people can't scroll up to read what has just been said a few minutes ago?

Originally Posted by Carl Jung's protege Marie von Franz

Introverted Intuitives are sometimes so completely unaware of outer facts that their reports about things have to be treated with the greatest care, for though they do not lie consciously, they can tell the most appalling stories, simply because they do not notice what is right under their noses.

It's painful to me as a Ti-Ne (introverted thinker with auxiliary extraverted intuition) to watch an Ni-Fe (introverted intuitive with auxiliary extraverted feeling) inadvertently make himself look foolish because he's so unaware of the facts. It makes me want to help him by informing him of the facts, because to me, it looks like he's unnecessarily underselling himself. Ni-Fes truly are very good at predicting the future. When one fails to get the most basic facts straight, he encourages people to dismiss him entirely, including his genuine strengths. That's a shame.

The thing is, most of the time, Ni-Fes don't listen to Ti-Nes. It's just...somehow not possible for the Ti-Ne to speak in a way that the Ni-Fe will hear him. At least, according to Socionics.

What Ts need to understand about Ni-Fes is, they aren't good at evaluating "facts" or things that someone claims are facts. We Ts just instinctively -- we don't even need to do it consciously -- check everything for logical coherence and internal consistency, so we're very good at recognizing when a "fact" someone's providing is true and when it's not. We don't realize some people are actually very bad at this.

Well-developed Ni-Fes know they are bad at this, so they don't believe -- from a T's POV they "blindly reject" -- "facts" presented to them by others. (It seems like "blind rejection" to us because we keep expecting them to instinctively evaluate the way we do...but remember, they *can't*.)

To the extent that they accept facts at all, they do so by choosing the facts provided by what they judge to be trustworthy sources. They actually are pretty good at judging people, so this usually works pretty well for them.

However...it makes it very frustrating when you as a T can see the Ni-Fe's "trustworthy source" has gotten something wrong, but the Ni-Fe does not consider *you* a trustworthy source, and therefore rejects your claims out of hand. You keep wanting them to just *evaluate* what you're saying -- just *evaluate* it like a "normal person" (like a T) and they'll *see* you're correct! -- but they can't.

In this discussion, the facts are that the difference between semi-automatic and fully automatic isn't hair-splitting, it's actually important for understanding the situation. People can disagree on whether the benefits of semi-automatics are worth the cost, but to do so credibly, they need to know what they're talking about.

(Yes, I know -- Eric tests as an INTP. However, the MBTI doesn't agree all that well with Jungian personality theory, and I don't use it. I use Jungian personality theory -- and according to Jungian personality theory, he's a very blatant Ni-Fe.)

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It's fine to learn more about guns. But it doesn't change the issue at all. It doesn't matter if there are different kinds of assault, rapid-fire weapons. No-one needs to have any of them. My point did not change at all. It is people who are confusing the issue by talking about different kinds of these weapons that are doing the "obstruction."

The problem here is that we can all agree that automatic weapons are "assault, rapid-fire weapons," but there is genuine disagreement on whether semi-automatic weapons are.

Ignoring the distinction between the two, or dismissing it as unimportant, is deeply insulting to those who genuinely see a great difference, and is a hindrance to discussion.

People who not only see a great difference, but who are so familiar with the distinction that they consider it obvious, are those now accusing you of lacking common sense.

Originally Posted by B Butler

I proposed a true individual right to bear weapons suitable for self defense and hunting, single shot per trigger pull, magazines limited in size to something in the 6 to 10 shot range, TBD. It would have to be made a constitutional amendment to truly stick, as the founding fathers wanted a militia (all male citizens of military age) armed with military grade weapons. (Duh.) I think it plausible that such an arrangement might pass.

Anyone care to comment?

Hmm...

Generally speaking I don't have strong feelings on gun control. However, I am capable of reading and understanding the Constitution (and other writings by the founding fathers).

I agree with you that the founding fathers' solution is obsolete. I hate thinking about this fact, because it scares me, especially since we have no alternative solution in place. I would much rather believe that as long as our 2nd Amendment rights are protected, we're fine...

But factually speaking, that solution truly is obsolete given modern weapons of mass destruction.

It's for these reasons that I would VEHEMENTLY oppose your suggested amendment.

Because it gets rid of the founding fathers' -- now-inadequate but still -- solution without implementing any new solution.

Yes, our old solution is obsolete. That means we need a new solution. Hands off the !@#$% ***Bill of Rights*** until you can actually improve it, rather than just !@#$% deleting part of it.

Guns, I don't feel strongly about. When it comes to my nation's founding principles, I do feel strongly.

(Especially since, as a Ti-Ne, I instinctively tend to go for a philosophical, "reasoning from first principles" approach.)

Jared Diamond points out in Collapse that societies sometimes do have to change their deeply held values to survive. I'll keep that in mind...but right now, I don't see any reason to believe the problem the founding fathers saw is somehow obsolete just because their solution is.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Not to be disrespectful but I think the article, "So you think you know about the second amendment" that I posted, is more factual than those who do not have a degree in the law.

Appeal to Authority from you of all people? :jawdrop:

But anyway, the "hundred years of interpretation" the article references are those hundred years of the "Jim Crow interpretation" that B Butler was talking about.

Originally Posted by Odin

This is why I always remind people that the "Gun Control" movement started in the 60s because white people were scared of the Black Panthers encouraging African-Americans to buy handguns for self-defense.

Related.

I'm referring to the jpg at the beginning. But the article makes some good points too:

Originally Posted by terrierman

As suspender-wearing, commie-loving Joe Bageant notes in /Deer Hunting with Jesus/:

"Most liberal antigun advocates do not get off the city bus after working the second shift. Nor do they duck and dodge from street light to street light at 1 a.m. while dragging their laundry to the Doozy Duds, where they sit, usually alone, for an hour or so, fluorescently lit up behind the big plate-glass window like so much fresh meat on display, garnished with a promising purse or wallet, before they make the corner-to-corner run for home with their now-fragrant laundered waitress or fast-food uniforms. Barack Obama never did it. Hillary Clinton never did it. Most of white middle-class America doesn't do it either. The on-the-ground value of the Second Amendment completely escapes them."

To which I can only add that Rudy Giuliani never rode the City Bus at midnight either. Neither did Mitt Romney. Or Sarah Brady. And all of them are Republicans.

The point here is that the gun issue is not about Democrats vs. Republicans, or liberals vs. conservatives, or even rural residents vs. urban residents.

It's about something deeper and more important than that: it’s about empathy and respect and tolerance.

It’s about recognizing that not everyone goes to nine-to-five jobs in air conditioned offices while commuting down safe suburban streets.

It’s about recognizing that not everyone can afford to have an ADT alarm system installed in their house.

And, most important of all, it’s about not living in fear of the fact that people who look different from you, who think different from you, and who pray different from you, may have rights too.

And not just First Amendment Rights, but Second Amendment rights too, including the right to protect their house and home from invasion and robbery.

...which was exactly your point, wasn't it, Odin?

(BTW, Odin, have you read Joe Bageant yet? I continue to think that you'd like his writing, or at least find it interesting.)

I must say I really respect Eric's willingness to do "sissy" things like openly liking Justin Bieber. (As for me, I sew and crochet.) I hope Eric will go a step further and reactivate the empathy that was crushed in him during the overly-science-worshiping High.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

I don't know what the Framers would think about gay porn, abortion, or the degree to which people arm themselves today, and if I am being completely honest, I don't really care. I'm not some kind of Framers Fundamentalist. Ultimately, what the Framers might think is irrelevant.

You are clearly more sensible than me.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

Why bother? Why do such killers worry about how they'll be seen after their deaths? Why do they try to shape coverage, either by destroying evidence or putting together packages for investigators or the media? They know that they'll be dead, after all.

The obvious answer is that they know that their killings will become media events, and they seek to shape how they (and their crimes) will be seen by others.

On that note, here's an article by one of the authors of the IIRC largest study of spree shootings:

Many of these young men are trying to cast themselves as stars of a movie that ends in a blaze of suicidal gunfire and notoriety. Our research on earlier shootings showed the attack is on a school because that is the center stage in a small town, where the young men can rivet the entire community.

When it comes to spree shootings, I don't feel strongly about gun control because I don't believe gun control solves the real problem. The real problem isn't people who snap being able to implement their plans, the real problem is people snapping in the first place. (See article above for the research on why they do.)

But then I'm a psychologist, one who's at times been accused of being a "bleeding heart" -- so I *would* say that, right?

Originally Posted by B Butler

As an exercise, one might assume that the other guy on the far side of the values chasm thinks he has a life style equally set in bedrock reality as yours, and thinks with as good a reason as you that you are the ditzy reality deprive crazy. Assume this is true, then think about what it would take to role play such a personality in an ad-lib play.

I must admit I find inability to accurately interpret the Constitution as written...unnerving. And inimical to putting myself in the other guy's shoes.

Just call me Meathead.

:sigh:

Originally Posted by Ted '79

In this discussion, the facts are that the difference between semi-automatic and fully automatic isn't hair-splitting, it's actually important for understanding the situation. People can disagree on whether the benefits of semi-automatics are worth the cost, but to do so credibly, they need to know what they're talking about.

What everybody is talking about (not just me) is that these are all dangerous weapons and need to be taken off the streets. What is frustrating is there are so many yahoo gun nuts here. I would think there would be more intelligence.

(Yes, I know -- Eric tests as an INTP. However, the MBTI doesn't agree all that well with Jungian personality theory, and I don't use it. I use Jungian personality theory -- and according to Jungian personality theory, he's a very blatant Ni-Fe.)

No, you're wrong, and there are no tests for it. I am INTP too. It's just that you get too emotional ("frustrating") and can't face up to the facts. The problem of course being that I am not being "listened to." So I guess that IS a problem for us Ti-Nes

Ignoring the distinction between the two, or dismissing it as unimportant, is deeply insulting to those who genuinely see a great difference, and is a hindrance to discussion.

People who not only see a great difference, but who are so familiar with the distinction that they consider it obvious, are those now accusing you of lacking common sense.

What is common sense is to see that gun laws are not unconstitutional, but are necessary.

Guns, I don't feel strongly about. When it comes to my nation's founding principles, I do feel strongly.

The 2nd Amendment is not a founding principle. The constitution is open to amendments, and THAT IS a founding principle.

I must say I really respect Eric's willingness to do "sissy" things like openly liking Justin Bieber. (As for me, I sew and crochet.) I hope Eric will go a step further and reactivate the empathy that was crushed in him during the overly-science-worshiping High.

The problem for you is that I DID develop more empathy during the Awakening, which is why I feel the pain of the families in Newtown and elsewhere. why don't you?

When it comes to spree shootings, I don't feel strongly about gun control because I don't believe gun control solves the real problem. The real problem isn't people who snap being able to implement their plans, the real problem is people snapping in the first place. (See article above for the research on why they do.)

But then I'm a psychologist, one who's at times been accused of being a "bleeding heart" -- so I *would* say that, right?

Bleeding is right, anyway, if you are making excuses for gun obsession and fear and the resulting bloodletting.

I must admit I find inability to accurately interpret the Constitution as written...unnerving. And inimical to putting myself in the other guy's shoes.

Just call me Meathead.

:sigh:

Archie, uh Ted, Meathead was an enthusiastic backer of gun control and other liberal and progressive causes. And he still is.

You seem to have a rigid constructionist view. I disagree with you, as I did with the late Robert Bork, and the unfortunately not-so-late Antonin Scalia. The bozos.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

So? The frequency of use doesn't change the simple fact that you are 3 to 4 times more likely to die from a vehicle than you are from a firearm.

It makes the fact totally irrelevant, that's all. Not much I guess.

And yet all of that regulation doesn't stop drunks from driving.

It stops quite a few. Regulations work.

You should write that on the blackboard 300 times.

Originally Posted by B Butler

A lot of people around here seem utterly unable or uninterested in working out such an exercise.

I think I know what fear and obsession are.

Originally Posted by Kepi

The 2nd amendment certainly does, as impediment is a form of infringement.

Well you will be proven wrong. The Supreme Court has already validated gun control at the same time it recently threw out a ban and upheld an individual right to bear arms. So it's your word against an already-reactionary court.

Just because we can do something, doesn't mean we should; you said. But we should. There is no comparison, if we're talking about "values." Guns have no value or purpose; no-one needs to have one. I'm not proposing a total ban; too hard to enforce now, and that would probably take an amendment. But this is an argument over what is more important; that some people should have some guns, or that some people should have their lives. Saving lives is vastly more valuable than some hobbyists being able to shoot at a range, or some hunters being able to knock off some game, or some fearful homeowner not being able to conceive of better ways of defense. There's just no reason for anyone to cry foul, especially since what's being proposed now still allows qualified hobbyists, hunters and homeowners to keep reasonable guns anyway. And yet people here prefer to split hairs and defend the yahoos.

Originally Posted by Ted '79

Generally speaking I don't have strong feelings on gun control. However, I am capable of reading and understanding the Constitution (and other writings by the founding fathers).

I agree with you that the founding fathers' solution is obsolete. I hate thinking about this fact, because it scares me, especially since we have no alternative solution in place. I would much rather believe that as long as our 2nd Amendment rights are protected, we're fine...

But factually speaking, that solution truly is obsolete given modern weapons of mass destruction.

It's for these reasons that I would VEHEMENTLY oppose your suggested amendment.

I would like to propose an amendment that is an alternative solution. I can easily believe that what I've proposed thus far is insufficient, that more should to be done. Still, what more would you do? Make it an explicit individual right to keep and bear hunting and self defense weapons? An acknowledgement that one does not need huge magazines or multiple shots per trigger pull for hunting or self defense? It could not possibly be that simple? What else? A requirement for safe storage for weapons and ammunition? A requirement for some degree of training? An acknowledgement that felons, the insane and similar individuals might be denied the right?

Originally Posted by Ted '79

I must admit I find inability to accurately interpret the Constitution as written...unnerving. And inimical to putting myself in the other guy's shoes.

Just call me Meathead.

:sigh:

There is a certain sort of wisdom one gets from the founding fathers, even if some of it may well be obsolete. There is another entirely different sort of wisdom that can be found in Archie Bunker. Nice video. Good belly laugh stuff, funny because it is true. It's a clear parody and illustration of values lock. It reminds me all to much of the sort of 'conversation' we engage in here.

Originally Posted by B Butler

He's moving that way pretty quick. If you exercise your free speech rights in such a way to criticize his opinion, you seem to be violating his right to never be criticized. He also can't see demand side Keynesian economics or the government helping those in need other than through the prism of race.

But he has a way to go before he gets quite as blatant as JPT. I wouldn't recommend that you demand such people think. Kinda futile.

I haven't heard much from the citizen militias recently either. I'm sort of assuming they are still out there, but they don't seem to be getting as much press.

Let's see, you believe in Keynesian economics but you also admit that we're to deep in debt for it to work now. Gee, I've been telling you that for seven years now. Keynesian has surface value (It sounds reasonable and makes sense) but that's it because in reality there's always a crisis of some sort either here or abroad that justifies more spending and a political party who uses government spending and further expansions of government spending to attract and solidify its existance. What's the point of believing in something that we both agree is no longer feasible?

Bob, if the 4T had sound, would conservatives be able to speak here based on the activities and the tactics that you see going on here. Who taught the leftwingers manners and respect? It obviously wasn't the same group of nasty old folks who taught them to us. I'm not JPT or HC, I'm not going to waste my time trying to act civil, trying to act diplomatic or trying to act respectful to a bunch of uncivil, undiplomatic and disrespectful LW posters. I actually view myself as being more blatant than JPT. I don't carry a heavy boomer chip on my shoulder. Generationally speaking, the liberals all the same to me. BTW, you've even said yourself that for some reason Keynesian trickle up works better for darker skin tones. Also, I associate change in demographics with darker tone influx and rising darker skin tone numbers.

Originally Posted by Ted '79

Giant wall of text time! (Um...sorry? )





It's painful to me as a Ti-Ne (introverted thinker with auxiliary extraverted intuition) to watch an Ni-Fe (introverted intuitive with auxiliary extraverted feeling) inadvertently make himself look foolish because he's so unaware of the facts. It makes me want to help him by informing him of the facts, because to me, it looks like he's unnecessarily underselling himself. Ni-Fes truly are very good at predicting the future. When one fails to get the most basic facts straight, he encourages people to dismiss him entirely, including his genuine strengths. That's a shame.

The thing is, most of the time, Ni-Fes don't listen to Ti-Nes. It's just...somehow not possible for the Ti-Ne to speak in a way that the Ni-Fe will hear him. At least, according to Socionics.

What Ts need to understand about Ni-Fes is, they aren't good at evaluating "facts" or things that someone claims are facts. We Ts just instinctively -- we don't even need to do it consciously -- check everything for logical coherence and internal consistency, so we're very good at recognizing when a "fact" someone's providing is true and when it's not. We don't realize some people are actually very bad at this.

Well-developed Ni-Fes know they are bad at this, so they don't believe -- from a T's POV they "blindly reject" -- "facts" presented to them by others. (It seems like "blind rejection" to us because we keep expecting them to instinctively evaluate the way we do...but remember, they *can't*.)

To the extent that they accept facts at all, they do so by choosing the facts provided by what they judge to be trustworthy sources. They actually are pretty good at judging people, so this usually works pretty well for them.

However...it makes it very frustrating when you as a T can see the Ni-Fe's "trustworthy source" has gotten something wrong, but the Ni-Fe does not consider *you* a trustworthy source, and therefore rejects your claims out of hand. You keep wanting them to just *evaluate* what you're saying -- just *evaluate* it like a "normal person" (like a T) and they'll *see* you're correct! -- but they can't.

In this discussion, the facts are that the difference between semi-automatic and fully automatic isn't hair-splitting, it's actually important for understanding the situation. People can disagree on whether the benefits of semi-automatics are worth the cost, but to do so credibly, they need to know what they're talking about.

(Yes, I know -- Eric tests as an INTP. However, the MBTI doesn't agree all that well with Jungian personality theory, and I don't use it. I use Jungian personality theory -- and according to Jungian personality theory, he's a very blatant Ni-Fe.)

Ah, another fan of Marie von Franz!

I've been saying Eric is an INFJ for a while now.

Oh, and I love Joe Bageant's book Deer-Hunting With Jesus.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Well you will be proven wrong. The Supreme Court has already validated gun control at the same time it recently threw out a ban and upheld an individual right to bear arms. So it's your word against an already-reactionary court.

Just because we can do something, doesn't mean we should; you said. But we should. There is no comparison, if we're talking about "values." Guns have no value or purpose; no-one needs to have one. I'm not proposing a total ban; too hard to enforce now, and that would probably take an amendment. But this is an argument over what is more important; that some people should have some guns, or that some people should have their lives. Saving lives is vastly more valuable than some hobbyists being able to shoot at a range, or some hunters being able to knock off some game, or some fearful homeowner not being able to conceive of better ways of defense. There's just no reason for anyone to cry foul, especially since what's being proposed now still allows qualified hobbyists, hunters and homeowners to keep reasonable guns anyway. And yet people here prefer to split hairs and defend the yahoos.

A yahoo murdered his mother in her sleep with her gun, stold her guns, loaded her clips with her ammo, trashed his computer and went back to his grade school to experience and get a feel of what its like to be the king of the world, so to speak. Which yahoo's are being defended, the yahoo's who have been demoted to secondary concerns who are actually doing the brunt of the mass killings, the shallow minded liberal yahoo's who instinctively blame the guns for killing people and directly associate gun owners with murderes, the liberal yahoo's who are affraid of guns in general or the liberal yahoo's who affraid of assault rifles (semi-automatic weapons) being used against them or turned on them and used in similiar ways by yahoo's (RW militia members and Joe blow civilians)who they think are the nuts.

Originally Posted by Odin

This is why I always remind people that the "Gun Control" movement started in the 60s because white people were scared of the Black Panthers encouraging African-Americans to buy handguns for self-defense.

No, the modern gun control movement started then, and was instigated by and later became a reactoin to the Black Panthers. Prior to that, gun control laws werre common throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.

Here's an article that's pushing gun control, but it has a lot of background too.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

Well, when crafting the First Amendment, I doubt that the Framers imagined it might cover gay pornography, or graphic pornography more generally. Those who crafted the 14th Amendment much later probably didn't imagine that the Supreme Court would not only find a right to privacy there but find, in that right, the right to abort a fetus.

Rights have unintended consequences.

I don't know what the Framers would think about gay porn, abortion, or the degree to which people arm themselves today, and if I am being completely honest, I don't really care. I'm not some kind of Framers Fundamentalist. Ultimately, what the Framers might think is irrelevant. They thoughtfully left us paths to amending the Constitution. If enough people want the Constitution amended, then it'll be amended. With respect to the private ownership of firearms, I'm not seeing that happening in the near future...

H-m-m-m. not so much on the amending thing. Our Constitution is notoriously hard to change. We haven't even enshrined the equality of the sexes. If we can't get that done, when the majority are the excluded parties, then why assume there can be any change on the arming of Americans ... unless we have a bloody, disorganized rebellion of course.

Anything that takes a super majority to accomplish will necessariliy be rare.

Originally Posted by Kepi

The 2nd Amendment certainly does, as impedement is a form of infringement.

Here's a link to people's opinions on gun control over time.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/re...ndgun-ban.aspx
As of 2011, it looks like Millennials are fairly opposed to expanding gun control legislation, and a desire to even reinstate the assault weapons sales ban has dropped. Overall, the majority wants to keep gun laws like they are, without an assault weapons ban, without an assault weapons ban. Looks like gun control be an unpopular platform for anyone to undertake.

After 40+ years of pro-gun advocacy balanced by little counter-advocacy, I'm not surprised. Try running that poll again now. Polls tend to be biased toward interested parties, if there is no issue engaging hoi polloi. I think we finally crossed that boundary.

Originally Posted by B Butler

I would like to propose an amendment that is an alternative solution. I can easily believe that what I've proposed thus far is insufficient, that more should to be done. Still, what more would you do? Make it an explicit individual right to keep and bear hunting and self defense weapons? An acknowledgement that one does not need huge magazines or multiple shots per trigger pull for hunting or self defense? It could not possibly be that simple? What else? A requirement for safe storage for weapons and ammunition? A requirement for some degree of training? An acknowledgement that felons, the insane and similar individuals might be denied the right?

Here's an easy amendment that is just as easily enforced, given adequate time to do it. Require that all gun owners and purchasers of firearms, ammunition and reload materials be licensed. This will eliminate all miscreants and the mentally ill. In addition, the license must expire on some prescirbed basis (every five years perhaps), and include a bio-validator (iris scan, fingerprints or similar). This second factor will be required to validate the licensee. Next, firearms will be titled and title must pass with the firearm. Third, harm due to misuse of the firearm will be the respsonibility of the title holder.

Easy peasy.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

A yahoo murdered his mother in her sleep with her gun, stold her guns, loaded her clips with her ammo, trashed his computer and went back to his grade school to experience and get a feel of what its like to be the king of the world, so to speak. Which yahoo's are being defended, the yahoo's who have been demoted to secondary concerns who are actually doing the brunt of the mass killings, the shallow minded liberal yahoo's who instinctively blame the guns for killing people and directly associate gun owners with murderes, the liberal yahoo's who are affraid of guns in general or the liberal yahoo's who affraid of assault rifles (semi-automatic weapons) being used against them or turned on them and used in similiar ways by yahoo's (RW militia members and Joe blow civilians)who they think are the nuts.

Now run this scenario without the guns and ammo. Oh yeah, he took a bunch of cutlery from the knife drawer and ... feel free to take it from here. Show us how this leaves 27 dead.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Now run this scenario without the guns and ammo.

So.. pipe bombs are better?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

H-m-m-m. not so much on the amending thing. Our Constitution is notoriously hard to change. We haven't even enshrined the equality of the sexes. If we can't get that done, when the majority are the excluded parties, then why assume there can be any change on the arming of Americans ... unless we have a bloody, disorganized rebellion of course.

Anything that takes a super majority to accomplish will necessariliy be rare.

The rules for amending the Constitution are clear, and it has been amended many times over the course of our nation's history. If enough people want the Constitution amended, it will be amended. The fact that it's relatively rare is a feature, not a bug. The problem, from the point of view offered by your position, is that not enough people want to amend the Constitution with respect to firearms. It's a non-starter. That's something that you should admit, instead of pretending that it's impossible, which it's not.

To point to the long and troubled history of the ERA as proof that the Constitution cannot be amended is plain silly. There are reasons that plenty of people who supported the ERA in theory had problems with it in practice: fears that women would no longer enjoy special status when it came to alimony and child custody, recognition that women would be eligible for the draft, and the realization that many laws that protected or favored women specifically would be render unconstitutional. It also misses the fact that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and Title IX of the Education Amendments have been chugging along just fine for close to fifty and forty years, respectively.

Ultimately, I stand by what I originally wrote: If enough people want to amend the Constitution, it will be amended.

@ Marx&Lennon

Those polls cover Columbine, they cover Tech... You don't even see a mild boost in the polls. I think with this issue, the hoi polloi couldn't be more obvious as to it's interests and what we are seeing is noise from special interests who have an agenda. It's been this way since Columbine, and honestly I'm more afraid of someone taking away my copy of Doom than I am my Remmington.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

As I've said before, if the Democrats turn brown and the Republicans stay white then race relations will deteriorate and move backwards. Democrats talk smart but they continue do stupid (vulgarity deleted -- pbrower2a). It's pretty hard to draw from wealth that doesn't exist in your world anymore. You live in Michigrim, you should understand that statement. If you don't, vote the way vote, talk the way you talk and watch as things get even worse.

You miss the point. Suburbia originated as an escape from the urban reality of crowding, congestion, environmental degradation, deteriorating apartments, machine-boss government, and high costs of infrastructure. It was a cheap place to live with copious floorspace and a lawn for the nuclear family with a garage for the car. Houses were built to last a lifetime. But the lifetimes of the GI parents who moved to the suburbs soon after World War II are over and the first wave of Boomers are reaching retirement age. The suburban bungalows have often approached the end of their desirability, and the 'hidden' infrastructure of sewers has deteriorated. Inner-ring suburbs now have heavy traffic and inadequate streets, decaying schools, and all in all the same sort of conditions characteristic of urban life. Suburbanites used to think that local politics means little, and they are finding out otherwise. Such may be more obvious in Greater Detroit or St. Louis (where cities just outside the city limits became suburbs soon after WWII than in Greater Los Angeles (about 1960) or such cities as Atlanta and Dallas. Barack Obama knows this well, and like all successful politicians appearing from seemingly nowhere he knows how to use demographic trends to his political advantage.

Don't try to make it a 'racial' issue. Much unlike Bill Clinton President Obama just does not know how to develop contacts in rural America. His political style depends heavily upon upon appealing to big crowds more easily assembled in core cities and their suburbs. Barack Obama has been losing the rural white vote because of his collection of political strengths and weaknesses. If John Edwards had kept his personal life clean and had a lively campaign capable of winning the Presidency he would have won the Presidency in 2008 with a different array of states.

"Race relations" are better than they have ever been. Hate groups may have been getting louder and more violent because they are shrinking to "dead end" types... but hate crimes based on race and religion have become less frequent; interracial marriage (including black-white, once the most troublesome category) is becoming more common. Cities with white majorities can vote for black mayors. Virginia voted in a black man as Governor, and it has a positive image of that Governor. South Carolina is about to name a black man as a conservative Republican to the US Senate -- and if he is a clear improvement to the crazy James DeMint I will be delighted. (Please -- do not let him act as a token!) South Carolina has been a snake-pit of state politics, including a Governor who went "hiking on the Appalachian Trail" and found himself in Buenos Aires.

Could it be that middle-class blacks, Hispanics, and Asians are more astute about politics than are rural white people? Could it be that those well-educated minorities know enough to distrust conservative bromides that at best are 'code words' and at worst are linguistic fraud that the villainous leadership of the Oceania of George Orwell's nightmare 1984? People who have earned a stake in the system and consider themselves vulnerable to racist populism don't align themselves with economic elitists who sponsor racist populism in the name of 'tradition' with the usual words of racism shorn off.

I have noticed that although poor blacks, Hispanics, and Asians respect the educated middle class of their own ethnic groups -- poor whites show little solidarity with any part of the educated white middle class. Go figure.

Originally Posted by Kepi

@ Marx&Lennon

Those polls cover Columbine, they cover Tech... You don't even see a mild boost in the polls. I think with this issue, the hoi polloi couldn't be more obvious as to it's interests and what we are seeing is noise from special interests who have an agenda. It's been this way since Columbine, and honestly I'm more afraid of someone taking away my copy of Doom than I am my Remmington.

The Only "special interests" there could be here, are the gun companies who want to continue putting out the most dangerous product there is on the market, without government regulation.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

So.. pipe bombs are better?

No.. Killing 27 people in a school classroom with cutlery would be better.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

The rules for amending the Constitution are clear, and it has been amended many times over the course of our nation's history. If enough people want the Constitution amended, it will be amended. The fact that it's relatively rare is a feature, not a bug. The problem, from the point of view offered by your position, is that not enough people want to amend the Constitution with respect to firearms. It's a non-starter. That's something that you should admit, instead of pretending that it's impossible, which it's not.

Right thought, wrong tense. It was a feature, now it's a bug. Why? Because today, we live in a rapidly changing world. The Constitution is the last remaining vestage of the Agricultural Age. No existing governement but ours follows rules established before the steam engine. We like to pretend that this is a good thing, but ask yourself: would you live in a house built lin 1789 that still has no runing water, electricity or sewage?

Of the 27 amendments, 10 launched imediately and three derived directly from the bloodiest war in our history. Of the remainin 14, almost all either favored the powerful or patched holes in the document. Only the 18th (Prohibition), the 19th (Women's Sufferage), the 21st (ending Prohibition), the 24th (ending Poll Taxes) and the the 26th (Sufferage at 18) can be considered "of, by and for the people". That's 5 in over 220 years.

Originally Posted by Semo ...

To point to the long and troubled history of the ERA as proof that the Constitution cannot be amended is plain silly. There are reasons that plenty of people who supported the ERA in theory had problems with it in practice: fears that women would no longer enjoy special status when it came to alimony and child custody, recognition that women would be eligible for the draft, and the realization that many laws that protected or favored women specifically would be render unconstitutional. It also misses the fact that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and Title IX of the Education Amendments have been chugging along just fine for close to fifty and forty years, respectively.

Hogwash! This is the same "high-minded" blather that was prevalent at the time, and the ones pushing it were not the women ... except for the few like Phyllis Shafley who were talking one game and living another. I think cynical is too kind a word for a highly paid lawyer, pressing a cause that paid her well, and one who whined that workng women might not be able to be home to tend to the children.

I also fail to see how Title IX might have been quashed. It coulds have been considered a remedy to past pratices, much like the Civil Rights and Voting Rights laws reference their own Constitutional mandates.

Originally Posted by Semo ...

Ultimately, I stand by what I originally wrote: If enough people want to amend the Constitution, it will be amended.

Amending has the same challenges that California has on raising taxes. Note how close to total bankruptcy that state had to go, just to muster enough votes to raise enough revenue to survive.