Please Change the Intent of the Constitution::::

[Golfingnut]

If there is any truth to The Old Testament and to the existence of Jesus Christ, Then I submit that documents of great importance can and SHOULD be changed to fit the times. Assuming the Framers of the Constitution are no wiser than GOD, Then I submit that GOD sent us a message through Jesus and the NEW Testament to modify man made documents to better assist mans desire for a safer, better and godly existence. The second amendment really is trivial when compared to the modifications from the Old to the New Testament.

[2 Oldcrabs]

I don't think the NRA believes in the Bible. Too many politicans in their pockets.:(

[jimbo2012]

The ? is what was the intent of our forefathers when the 2nd was written, and how do we feel it's intent should be updated in light of of the recent massacre.

Is that about it?

How do feel about the NRA's response to CT?

[Lark7]

Of course, the same thought process could be applied to a bunch of other well-intended documents. And no, I am not a proponent of the NRA.

[Golfingnut]

The ? is what was the intent of our forefathers when the 2nd was written, and how do we feel it's intent should be updated in light of of the recent massacre.

Is that about it?

How do feel about the NRA's response to CT?

I think it is way past time to update the 2nd amendment.

NRA's response to CT was insensitive and foolish nonsense intended only to try to hold on to the blood money they continue to bring in.

[jimbo2012]

I think it is way past time to update the 2nd amendment.

NRA's response to CT was insensitive and foolish nonsense intended only to try to hold on to the blood money they continue to bring in.

:agree:...

But the Nra has sooo much power in Washington it may be impossible to update it.

[DaleMN]

Common sense and intellect doesn't seem to be applicable with the extreme divisiveness present in our country and I'm not sure we will ever be able to overcome that. Neither "side" seems to want to be the first to blink. :(

[Taltarzac725]

Common sense and intellect doesn't seem to be applicable with the extreme divisiveness present in our country and I'm not sure we will ever be able to overcome that. Neither "side" seems to want to be the first to blink. :(

Sir Karl Popper has a lot of good ideas about taking back government when they seem to insist that their authority to do things is based on their false claims of superior knowledge.

Here's a good introduction to his thinking. Sir Karl Popper "Science as Falsification," 1963 (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html)

Karl Popper, the enemy of certainty, part 1: a rejection of empiricism | Liz Williams | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/10/karl-popper-enemy-uncertainty)

Professor Jeremy Shearmur - Audio & Video Lectures | The Great Courses® (http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/professors/professor_detail.aspx?pid=174)

With the Internet, I also believe that almost anyone with a computer and the will to use it can make his or her voice heard especially if that person knows whom to write.

[Cantwaittoarrive]

If there is any truth to The Old Testament and to the existence of Jesus Christ, Then I submit that documents of great importance can and SHOULD be changed to fit the times. Assuming the Framers of the Constitution are no wiser than GOD, Then I submit that GOD sent us a message through Jesus and the NEW Testament to modify man made documents to better assist mans desire for a safer, better and godly existence. The second amendment really is trivial when compared to the modifications from the Old to the New Testament.

I think your barking up the wrong tree. The New Testament didn't change the Old Testament. jesus said "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. Matthew 5:17

Jesus Affirms the Old Testament

[BobnBev]

After giving it a lot of thought, the NRA's saying makes sense, to me, anyways.

"The only thing stopping a bad man with a gun, is a good man with a gun."

Think about it.

[Taltarzac725]

I think your barking up the wrong tree. The New Testament didn't change the Old Testament. jesus said "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. Matthew 5:17

Jesus Affirms the Old Testament

I believe some of these might be add ons into The Bible. You never know what was actually put in The Bible to fit in with the politics of the writers at that time. It is a very interesting book full of many open questions.

The Great Courses offer a lot of very interersting sets of lectures on the various sections of The Bible. http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=6593

[njbchbum]

i think we should keep the 2nd amendment as is and get rid of the nra!

[weeder01]

Ask yourself..... What government, foreign or domestic, would every think for one minute to invade the USA, the State you live in, or your home with the 2nd ammendment in-tact.

[Serenoa]

After giving it a lot of thought, the NRA's saying makes sense, to me, anyways.

"The only thing stopping a bad man with a gun, is a good man with a gun."

Think about it.

I read this somewhere recently: When a child on a playground throws rocks at other children, do we give the other children handfulls of rocks to throw back?

think about it.

[blueash]

The second amendment is not the problem, the interpretation is. That can be said of whatever religion's holy books as well. It wasn't until the Heller case in 2008, that's right 2008, that the constitution had been interpreted as protecting an individual's right to keep and bear arms. Prior to 2008 every supreme court decision had interpreted the second amendment with attention to the "well regulated militia" language. This court by a single vote changed the interpretation. The 5 votes were the usual who claim that courts shouldn't be activist and must respect presidence. Except when they don't like the status quo I guess. The majority attempted to explain their choice to ignore the "well regulated" clause by asserting that the militia consisted of all males in the nation. All that is needed to renew the possibility of vigorous gun control is a single vote on the Supreme Court to switch. For those interested in more information on Heller the wikipedia page explains the context and impact of that case in a balanced way. District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller)
The NRA has since the second half of the 20th century claimed that the 2nd amendment protected individual ownership and had convinced many Americans that this was the history and the law of the land, but it was not true until the Heller case.

[weeder01]

"We" are usually not present when the rock fight starts, so what do the "other children" do? They find rocks to throw back in self defense.

[shcisamax]

Looks like we are headed into: My rock is bigger than your rock. Wonderful.

[Lark7]

Yep, SCOUS interprets the intent of the constitutional framers.

[weeder01]

Didn't say I condone the behavior. Did anyone ever play dodge ball as a kid?

[buggyone]

After giving it a lot of thought, the NRA's saying makes sense, to me, anyways.

"The only thing stopping a bad man with a gun, is a good man with a gun."

Think about it.

How about the view of shooting an unarmed man by a police wannabee with a gun?

[fofd1091]

Think about this "Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading ." --Thomas Jefferson

[rubicon]

Cooler heads prevail. To suggest that the U S Constitution be tempered with is to tempt ""Chavezesque"like leadership to take control.

People get a grip. there are three elements to this debate weapons, the killer and the cultural climate. To suggest weapon control would require confiscation of weapons. If people's reactions to the threat of gun control is any indications then understand that the weapons most talked about have been sold out in central Florida. My guess is that dealing with the remainng two elements would yield greater results. I especially want Hollywood held accountable for their contribution. I also want the media held accountable for the manner in which they portray this mass shooters especially giving them status .

We need to demand self restraint of young people but find their parents have none themselves. Personal disclosure I do not own nor do I want to own a gun. However I do not want our goverment to infringe on my 1st aand 2nd amendments rights

[rubicon]

Ask yourself..... What government, foreign or domestic, would every think for one minute to invade the USA, the State you live in, or your home with the 2nd ammendment in-tact.

In the interest of remaining apolitical might I suggest that you may want to give that opinion more thought.

[wendyquat]

[QUOTE=Serenoa;599478]I read this somewhere recently: When a child on a playground throws rocks at other children, do we give the other children handfulls of rocks to throw back?

think about it.[/QUOT

I'm not trying to be flippant or argumentative but what the heck does this mean? I certainly don't intend to sit by and let "rocks" be thrown at me with no means of self defense! Do so as you may! Keep children out of it. No one is suggesting to give guns to children!

[wendyquat]

In the interest of remaining apolitical might I suggest that you may want to give that opinion more thought.

:agree:

[wendyquat]

:blahblahblah:

Merry Christmas,

[Serenoa]

[QUOTE=Serenoa;599478]I read this somewhere recently: When a child on a playground throws rocks at other children, do we give the other children handfulls of rocks to throw back?

think about it.[/QUOT

I'm not trying to be flippant or argumentative but what the heck does this mean? I certainly don't intend to sit by and let "rocks" be thrown at me with no means of self defense! Do so as you may! Keep children out of it. No one is suggesting to give guns to children!

in simple terms: the answer to this problem is NOT more guns.

[skyguy79]

:blahblahblah:

Merry Christmas,Thanks for reminding people that it's Christmas.

[ilovetv]

Yes, it is Christmas. And we have the freedom to celebrate it because thousands have fought and died for us to have the constitutional rights we have and can exercise freely.

This video testimony in Congress gives a good perspective....especially the last sentence of this survivor of a gun massacre:

2nd Amendment - Dr. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp testimony - YouTube

[Challenger]

Amend the Constitution(2nd amendment) ? Be careful what you wish for. There are always unintended consequences. Prohibition sounded like a good idea, at the time.

[Golfingnut]

Amend the Constitution(2nd amendment) ? Be careful what you wish for. There are always unintended consequences. Prohibition sounded like a good idea, at the time.

No one is saying delete it, just that it needs clarification that the right TO BEAR ARMS does not mean NUCLEAR WAR HEADS nor MILITARY STYLE WEAPONS. Where does it end without clarification to eliminate these high capacity magazines and automatic weapons etc. I have never seen a drunk kill mass amounts of people with a whiskey bottle.

[skyguy79]

Yes, it is Christmas. And we have the freedom to celebrate it because thousands have fought and died for us to have the constitutional rights we have and can exercise freely.

This video testimony in Congress gives a good perspective....especially the last sentence of this survivor of a gun massacre:

2nd Amendment - Dr. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp testimony - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgrIsuO5PLc)Nobody said you didn't have the constitutional right, but why did such a political hot potato have to be brought up on Christmas morning and couldn't wait for another day. Not everyone wants to keep being reminded of this issue over and over on Christmas Day when the title of this thread keep popping up everytime we hit the 'New Posts" button. In light of the forums instructions that says "Please note that political comments or references are not allowed on TOTV and can result in user account restrictions," maybe this discussion, including the political video you've linked, should not be being engaged in at all, but that's for the Admin to determine, not me! I'll just try to move on enjoy what little I have left of Christmas! Peace and goodwill to you all!

[KeepingItReal]

I think your barking up the wrong tree. The New Testament didn't change the Old Testament. Jesus said "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. Matthew 5:17

Jesus Affirms the Old Testament

Well said!

[travelguy]

Yes, Jesus affirms what was already in the old testament. The new testament was written many, many years after Christ, by men who never even knew Jesus. I do not believe that anyone at that time even knew what Jesus 'intended'. It has also been speculated that Jesus did not plan to create a new religion or even consider himself as the long awaited messiah. He may have been a learned rabbi of the period, and nothing more. Food for thought!

[Serenoa]

Think about this "Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading ." --Thomas Jefferson

I thought this sounded a little suspect. Sure enough.....

"First known attribution to Jefferson in print: We have found no attributions of this quotation to Thomas Jefferson in print. It has been attributed to him on various sites on the Internet (particularly discussion boards) since at least 2001.

Comments: This quotation has not been found in the writings of Thomas Jefferson. The language is somewhat uncharacteristic of Jefferson's style. "Stand around" in the sense used here is not an expression that can be found in Jefferson's letters. He almost always wrote "every body" instead of "everybody." And there are no instances of the word "reload" (or variations thereof) referring to firearms in Jefferson's writings. "

- Anna Berkes, 9/17/12

Peace is that brief glorious moment in history...(Quotation) « Thomas Jefferson (http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/peace-brief-glorious-moment-historyquotation)

[ilovetv]

Nobody said you didn't have the constitutional right, but why did such a political hot potato have to be brought up on Christmas morning and couldn't wait for another day. Not everyone wants to keep being reminded of this issue over and over on Christmas Day when the title of this thread keep popping up everytime we hit the 'New Posts" button. In light of the forums instructions that says "Please note that political comments or references are not allowed on TOTV and can result in user account restrictions," maybe this discussion, including the political video you've linked, should not be being engaged in at all, but that's for the Admin to determine, not me! I'll just try to move on enjoy what little I have left of Christmas! Peace and goodwill to you all!

Regarding the statement in bold above, one has the choice to not read the thread again after reading it once and seeing its content.

And as for being "reminded of this issue over and over on Christmas Day when the title of this thread keeps popping up everytime we hit the 'New Posts' button"......' I think many of us have on our minds the 26 families, neighbors, friends, clergy, police etc. in Newtown whose Christmas has been completely devastated by the horrible events at the school. They are the ones whose Christmas has been ruined, and proposals to change the constitution to help them.....well, that's a big question and people have chimed in with their opinions.

[Jim&Fran]

If the other kids had rocks too, the other Bully kids would not throw theirs. If we all had rocks what would you do?

[AJ32162]

No one is saying delete it, just that it needs clarification that the right TO BEAR ARMS does not mean NUCLEAR WAR HEADS nor MILITARY STYLE WEAPONS. Where does it end without clarification to eliminate these high capacity magazines and automatic weapons etc. I have never seen a drunk kill mass amounts of people with a whiskey bottle.

Drunks use automobiles, not whiskey bottles to kill people, and they do it EVERY day.

[Hancle704]

Isn't this becoming political? A no-no on TOTV

[Jim&Fran]

I read this somewhere recently: When a child on a playground throws rocks at other children, do we give the other children handfulls of rocks to throw back?

think about it.. Wow, what great insight. I think you just figured out without realizing it the solution to your rock throwing violence on the playgound.
If the bully with the rock knew in advance that all other 100 children also had rocks, would he then throw his knowing that he would be pelted with 100 in return? Therefore did we just prevent one injured child from having a rock thrown at him or her? Besides, I like your idea of "handfulls of rocks to throw back" Nothing like having more ammo than the bully.
"Rock" solid idea, thanks

[Challenger]

I thought this sounded a little suspect. Sure enough.....

"First known attribution to Jefferson in print: We have found no attributions of this quotation to Thomas Jefferson in print. It has been attributed to him on various sites on the Internet (particularly discussion boards) since at least 2001.

Comments: This quotation has not been found in the writings of Thomas Jefferson. The language is somewhat uncharacteristic of Jefferson's style. "Stand around" in the sense used here is not an expression that can be found in Jefferson's letters. He almost always wrote "every body" instead of "everybody." And there are no instances of the word "reload" (or variations thereof) referring to firearms in Jefferson's writings. "

- Anna Berkes, 9/17/12

Peace is that brief glorious moment in history...(Quotation) « Thomas Jefferson (http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/peace-brief-glorious-moment-historyquotation)

I hate it when people do real research and quote "facts". That could ruin a Forum like this:BigApplause:

[LndLocked]

Drunks use automobiles, not whiskey bottles to kill people, and they do it EVERY day.

Which is a big part of why automobiles and their drivers are highly highly regulated.

The framers were very smart guys but not omnipotent. Their is no way the could have foreseen the technological advancement of guns or the insane gun culture that infests this country. In fact I am sure they would be horrified.

In a different thread on this same subject I read about a "cool gun club" that name I found horrifying.

[AJ32162]

Which is a big part of why automobiles and their drivers are highly highly regulated.

In a different thread on this same subject I read about a "cool gun club" that name I found horrifying.

"Which is a big part of why automobiles and their drivers are highly highly regulated." And yet, the DUIs and alcohol related traffic deaths continue unabated.

I'll take that as a "maybe" on joining the gun club.:D

[wendyquat]

Which is a big part of why automobiles and their drivers are highly highly regulated.

The framers were very smart guys but not omnipotent. Their is no way the could have foreseen the technological advancement of guns or the insane gun culture that infests this country. In fact I am sure they would be horrified.

In a different thread on this same subject I read about a "cool gun club" that name I found horrifying.

No really, it is "cool"! Just a tool for teaching folks to be responsible gun owners. It's horrifying to think that some people own guns with no clue how to use them! We need more "cool gun clubs"! Don't knock it if you have no idea what you are talking about!

[skyguy79]

Regarding the statement in bold above, one has the choice to not read the thread again after reading it once and seeing its content.

And as for being "reminded of this issue over and over on Christmas Day when the title of this thread keeps popping up everytime we hit the 'New Posts' button"......' I think many of us have on our minds the 26 families, neighbors, friends, clergy, police etc. in Newtown whose Christmas has been completely devastated by the horrible events at the school. They are the ones whose Christmas has been ruined, and proposals to change the constitution to help them.....well, that's a big question and people have chimed in with their opinions.Did you read what I said in my post in it's entirety, or did you just selectively read then fill in your own meanings and interpretations?

First of all, I said nothing about "reading the posts," but rather "reading the title" which I can't avoid if I'm to enjoy this forum like you do. I also said nothing about what happened in Newtown, even though I do feel for them and their "Christmas being ruined." But Newtown is not the issue or subject of my comments, nor were they mean't to be. It's the constitutional gun control issue and ONLY that issue I am speaking of, which has been a hot political issue for a long time. I have mixed feeling about that subject, but IMHO I felt that Christmas Day was an inappropriate and inconsiderate time for THAT discussion to commence, and even more because we have been warned about engaging in political comments or referencing!

Now if you want to continue with this, that's your choice. But don't expect me to waste time continuing with it!

[LndLocked]

No really, it is "cool"! Just a tool for teaching folks to be responsible gun owners. It's horrifying to think that some people own guns with no clue how to use them! We need more "cool gun clubs"! Don't knock it if you have no idea what you are talking about!


IMO ... their is absolutely nothing "cool" about guns, nor a club dedicated to them.

[KeepingItReal]

Drunks use automobiles, not whiskey bottles to kill people, and they do it EVERY day.

Agree and here is proof of it which matches the death toll in CT plus many injured in a single accident, yet the drinking and driving continues everyday.
This single accident resulted in the death of 27 people and injured 34 of 67 passengers. The Carrollton KY crash remains the second worst bus crash in U.S. history.*
This drunk driver was going north in the southbound lanes of I-71. Only thing that really changed after a lot of discussion was buses were redesigned and mostly converted to diesel and a flashing light added on top.

Both guns and booze are totally out of control in this country.

Carrollton, Kentucky bus collision - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrollton,_Kentucky_bus_collision)

[LndLocked]

And yet, the DUIs and alcohol related traffic deaths continue unabated.

I'll take that as a "maybe" on joining the gun club.:D

While the number is still sadly to high .. . the number of alcohol related traffic deaths as a percentage per capita has been declining since the late 90's. This is due to increased enforcement, and vehicle safety improvements, public awareness campaigns (all forms of regulations) and public sentiment which drove the increased regulations.

[gamby]

I talked to several Teachers that live in the CT area of that school in fact one was a intern teacher some time ago at Sandy Hook.
All wish they had a gun or at least an armed guard on site; They feel just maybe they could have prevented some deaths by taking out the intruder.
A strict background search and proper training would be mandatory.
I asked one if SHE would be able to jump in to defend and kill if needed and she said , "Without hesitation" Others said the same .
Two Schools there have already put armed guards on full time.

On another note, Black market guns are available now by the many thousands and will not go away with any gun restrictions. Think about that !

OH ! The teacher has retired

[villagerjack]

What is the appropriate response if someone attacks you with rocks?

[villagerjack]

Amend the Constitution(2nd amendment) ? Be careful what you wish for. There are always unintended consequences. Prohibition sounded like a good idea, at the time.
Probably was a good idea....just unenforceable...just like gun control.

[shcisamax]

Hmn. Next the bully shows up with the gun when the rocks don't work. Then all the rock throwers run away. Not literal...more destructive power, whatever that may be. Really this is an absurd exercise.

[billethkid]

if it it being presented that ONE amendment, the 2nd, be changed/updated/modifies/what ever to match what ever is being presented....then there is an error of major proportion and complete unacceptability. Why?

Because to single out one amendent, that some are prgudiced toward or against, simply suggests that all the rest of the constitution is correct, complete, accurate and needs no attention to "suit the times".

And why is it appropriate to also assume that the scrpture being quoted is the correct, accurate, "suitable for the times" document. That is substantially older than the constitution.

The problem of the "current times" and some folks outlook is the inability or refusal to accept enforcing the rules, laws, constitution in effect. The continual trek of special interest groups or lobbying to change what the majority of us have been and are willing to continue to respect are the rules and laws and practices in existence.

The 2nd amendment like global warming and immigration have become nothing more than a political, special interest group FOOTBALL.

How about forgetting the "intent" of our forefathers and just enforcing the law(s) of the land? They seem to have worked for a couple of centuries now....have they not?

btk

[BobnBev]

I read this somewhere recently: When a child on a playground throws rocks at other children, do we give the other children handfulls of rocks to throw back?

think about it.
Nope, the teacher takes the rock thrower aside, and explains it's not nice
or allowed to throw rocks at the other students, and gives him/her a
timeout or whatever.

I guess you think that we should take a shooter aside, and explain that it's
not a nice thing to do, shooting at unarmed people. Is a timeout appropriate
now? Maybe a slap on the wrist and send the perpetrator to bed w/o supper?

[rubicon]

Aug 3, 2010 Man wielding a knife kills three children at a Shandong province kindergarten

Aug 29, 2011 staffer at a shanghai day care center wounds eight children with a knife.

Sept 14, 2011 a man in henan province kills six with an ax, including two young girls.

Dec 14 2012 knife-wielding man injurestwenty three childen outside a primary school in Henan province

Dec 24 accident involving van kills eleven children in Jiangxi province.
(WSJ 12/26/12)

What element needs control weapon, killer, cultural climate?

Suppose all three were addressed would it eliminate these events? If so for how long?

[rubicon]

----

[PJOHNS2654]

Hmn. Next the bully shows up with the gun when the rocks don't work. Then all the rock throwers run away. Not literal...more destructive power, whatever that may be. Really this is an absurd exercise.

We can have two or three Troopers at every Highway Construction Site. Why not one at each school.

[Cantwaittoarrive]

About 5 children a day die from abuse. Many of those at the hand of their own parents, yet parents are not regulated. You don't need a license, you don't need training, the government even encourages parents to have children with tax credits and deductions. This means every 4 days as many little kids die as were killed in the recent shooting. Where is the cry and uproar to have parental control? shouldn't we protect the children by restricting who can be a parent? does a life only count if it's taken by a gun? Lets license and put controls on who can be parent before we think about restricitng guns, we will save far more kids. National Child Abuse Statistics | Childhelp (http://www.childhelp.org/pages/statistics)

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

An old friend of mine who was an ordained minister use to say that the Old Testament and the New were one in the same and that Jesus really didn't change anything of importance.

He would say that the Old Testament was the New Testament concealed and the New Testament was the old testament revealed. Jesus was basically saying that the people of that time had misinterpreted the Old Testament.

You might want to check your history to see what happened to many societies in the past when the government took away the rights of the people to own guns. We do have a problem in this country, but I don't see how taking guns away from law abiding citizens will help the problem.

[Vinny]

Do you mean like they did during WWII when we put all Japanese citizens in camps to stop a few from spying or when we defined water boarding as not a torture method after 9/11? How about we change the part that states all men are created equal so that we can eliminate those most likely to commit such atrocities. You can prevent more deaths over all age groups by eliminating alcohol. I find it hypocritical that most will not give up their drinks but want to take away other's firearms. My owning a gun has no more to so with what happened than your having a drink does with all the deaths caused by DUI. A better argument can be made for owning a gun for defense than having a drink.

You see the problem is that once you start down the slippery slope you suggest is that sooner or later they will come for what you like.

[Patty55]

About 5 children a day die from abuse. Many of those at the hand of their own parents, yet parents are not regulated. You don't need a license, you don't need training, the government even encourages parents to have children with tax credits and deductions. This means every 4 days as many little kids die as were killed in the recent shooting. Where is the cry and uproar to have parental control? shouldn't we protect the children by restricting who can be a parent? does a life only count if it's taken by a gun? Lets license and put controls on who can be parent before we think about restricitng guns, we will save far more kids. National Child Abuse Statistics | Childhelp (http://www.childhelp.org/pages/statistics)

We could also save a lot of children's lives by putting seat belts on school buses.

I hate when special interest groups (the gun people, both pro/con)invade on the heartache of situations like CT to further their own agendas.

[Rags123]

We could also save a lot of children's lives by putting seat belts on school buses.

I hate when special interest groups (the gun people, both pro/con)invade on the heartache of situations like CT to further their own agendas.

I do not believe that the NRA "invaded the heartache" of any situation. Factually, they were criticized for NOT responding to the event !!!

[Bucco]

About 5 children a day die from abuse. Many of those at the hand of their own parents, yet parents are not regulated. You don't need a license, you don't need training, the government even encourages parents to have children with tax credits and deductions. This means every 4 days as many little kids die as were killed in the recent shooting. Where is the cry and uproar to have parental control? shouldn't we protect the children by restricting who can be a parent? does a life only count if it's taken by a gun? Lets license and put controls on who can be parent before we think about restricitng guns, we will save far more kids. National Child Abuse Statistics | Childhelp (http://www.childhelp.org/pages/statistics)

You are on the cusp of the real problem here !!

Recall when children were conceived as a result of an act of love ? Recall when most children were considered a gift from God ? Recall when children were considered a responsibility and THE primary responsibility ?

[Monkei]

Probably was a good idea....just unenforceable...just like gun control.

Gun control is quite enforceable ... Just not it appears in the USA. Countries all over the world have responsible gun control.

[Cantwaittoarrive]

You are on the cusp of the real problem here !!

Recall when children were conceived as a result of an act of love ? Recall when most children were considered a gift from God ? Recall when children were considered a responsibility and THE primary responsibility ?

Yes you get it! It comes down to respect, responsibility and morals. All of which are dead today. No one is responsible for their behavior anymore (the guns are bad, not the people). There's no respect for human life, or anything else for that matter (people will use an event like a shooting to try and further their goals) but totally ignor other more serious events, like child abuse that kill more children's lives. The moral decay of the USA makes everything OK so therefore there is no responsibility, respect and morals. It's a circle that's more like a black hole. The constitution isn't the problem, people are the problem.

[JoeC1947]

We could also save a lot of children's lives by putting seat belts on school buses.

I hate when special interest groups (the gun people, both pro/con)invade on the heartache of situations like CT to further their own agendas.

I agree with seat belts on school buses and don't know what you mean with the second part of your post.

[Serenoa]

Gun control is quite enforceable ... Just not it appears in the USA. Countries all over the world have responsible gun control.


:agree: :agree: :agree: :agree: :agree: :agree: :agree:

.............resulting in a small percentage of the gun related deaths that we have.

[Figmo Bohica]

Gun control is quite enforceable ... Just not it appears in the USA. Countries all over the world have responsible gun control.

Yes, it does work. Just ask those in Cambodia, Russia (USSR), Pre WW II Germany, China and other places where gun control was brought by the government. Oh, that's right, lots of those folks won't be able to answer you, their government killed them.

Now define "responsible" gun control and we may be able to start a discussion. Or did you really mean "people control."

[janmcn]

Yes, it does work. Just ask those in Cambodia, Russia (USSR), Pre WW II Germany, China and other places where gun control was brought by the government. Oh, that's right, lots of those folks won't be able to answer you, their government killed them.

Now define "responsible" gun control and we may be able to start a discussion. Or did you really mean "people control."

And you can also ask those in (gun deaths - 2011) Canada 52, Japan 48, Great Britain 8, Switzerland 21, Germany 42, Sweden 21, Israel 58, UNITED STATES 10,728. Source NRA

[Golfingnut]

Yes, it does work. Just ask those in Cambodia, Russia (USSR), Pre WW II Germany, China and other places where gun control was brought by the government. Oh, that's right, lots of those folks won't be able to answer you, their government killed them.

Now define "responsible" gun control and we may be able to start a discussion. Or did you really mean "people control."

I think Cambodia, Russia (USSR), Pre WW II Germany, China were/are trying to control their people where the US is trying to protect their people.

[Challenger]

Legislation aimed at controlling sales of semi-automatic weapons by dealers , colectors and others is clearly enforceable. It is done in other countries. Such a ban would not in my opinion reduce the gun episodes (to any significant degree) in the lifetime of anyone reading this post. There are many millions of semi automatic weapons already in the hands of both criminals, mentally ill and law abiding citizens and anything short of a major confiscation effort would leave plenty of oppurtunity for those wanting to use them to bad ends. I believe that an effort at confiscation would lead to a silent (or maybe not so silent) revolt. IMO many otherwise law abiding citizens would become law breakers . We need a balanced approach to the many aspects of this problem keeping in mind the non intended consequences of almost any new laws and regulations. I am not advocating that issues related to gun purchase and ownership be exempt from review and modification . Disclosure : I own two semi automatic weapons. No carry permit.

[rubicon]

In 1987 Micheal Ryan Hungerford england killed 16 people inclding his mother and wounded 14 other.

In mach 1996 Micheal hamilton walked into dunblane Scotland primary school killed 16 children their teacher and wounded10 other children Hamilton had a certified firearm.

In June 2010 Derrick bird in cumbria england shot his brother and then and killed 12people and wounded 11 more

In 1996 Martin Bryant at Port Arthur prison site in Tasmanaia killed 35 and wounded 21 WSJ 12/27/12

[LndLocked]

In 1987 Micheal Ryan Hungerford england killed 16 people inclding his mother and wounded 14 other.

In mach 1996 Micheal hamilton walked into dunblane Scotland primary school killed 16 children their teacher and wounded10 other children Hamilton had a certified firearm.

In June 2010 Derrick bird in cumbria england shot his brother and then and killed 12people and wounded 11 more

In 1996 Martin Bryant at Port Arthur prison site in Tasmanaia killed 35 and wounded 21 WSJ 12/27/12

No one is simplistic enough to think that any type of weapons / gun regulations will complete stop these types of tragedies. HOWEVER, all three of these countries have far far less loss of live due to gun violence per capita than the USofA.

[janmcn]

Legislation aimed at controlling sales of semi-automatic weapons by dealers , colectors and others is clearly enforceable. It is done in other countries. Such a ban would not in my opinion reduce the gun episodes (to any significant degree) in the lifetime of anyone reading this post. There are many millions of semi automatic weapons already in the hands of both criminals, mentally ill and law abiding citizens and anything short of a major confiscation effort would leave plenty of oppurtunity for those wanting to use them to bad ends. I believe that an effort at confiscation would lead to a silent (or maybe not so silent) revolt. IMO many otherwise law abiding citizens would become law breakers . We need a balanced approach to the many aspects of this problem keeping in mind the non intended consequences of almost any new laws and regulations. I am not advocating that issues related to gun purchase and ownership be exempt from review and modification . Disclosure : I own two semi automatic weapons. No carry permit.


If just one life is saved by new legislation this year, it will be worth it, especially to that person and their family.

The majority have spoken on this issue, and there will be new laws in the coming year IMO. That's what being a democracy is all about and this is a country that believes in law and order.

[graciegirl]

What happens to a gun when the owner dies?

I think there should be some accountability as to who has them.

All this intensity is so new to me. I have never run into it before moving here. I am a pretty conservative person but this intensity and fear about any discussion of change to gun ownership really seems to frighten people.

What happens if the owner of a gun goes into dementia? Sometimes misplaced anger and hyperirritablity occurs in aging. People lose their drivers licenses when they are deemed unsafe to drive.

[Bucco]

No one is simplistic enough to think that any type of weapons / gun regulations will complete stop these types of tragedies. HOWEVER, all three of these countries have far far less loss of live due to gun violence per capita than the USofA.



And is it your belief that this is because of the guns here, and NOT the type of society we have allowed to be fostered ?

[LndLocked]

And is it your belief that this is because of the guns here, and NOT the type of society we have allowed to be fostered ?

While I am not exactly sure what "type of society" that you mean ..... I believe that their is a direct correlation and symbiotic relationship between pervasive, basically unregulated ownership and the "gun culture" we have developed.

The countries cited in the previous thread are testimony to this. They have always had far, far more stringent gun regulations, their societies are not burdened with a similar culture and enjoy much much less gun violence. Even on a per capita basis (which is the only valid way to make these types of comparisons).

[Golfingnut]

Although I am in favor of more Control and accountability directed at the gun owners, I can see the points of the pro gun folks. I also have doubts that restrictions would make us safer with whatever we would put in place, but I truly believe we must continue to try. I am also happy to see the conversation has stopped spouting the intent of the 2nd Amendment. We must modify, change or delete any Amendment, Law or regulation we have put in place if it is in fact beneficial to the citizens of the United States of America. Saying NO to any laws or saying NO to any guns are both wrong. So, I am continuing to read this thread in the hopes that someone has the answer.
:posting::posting:

[bkcunningham1]

Lndlocked, where the problem comes in with your argument is the phrase people love to use: "shooting deaths." It makes it seem like these are the only types of deaths anyone is concerned with with. It as if people take up their cross and jump on a situation to move their agendas forward without any thought to other real issues like the one Bucco and others are pointing out.


Violent crime trends in the US are down and in 2011 were at the lowest since 1969. Take a look at this and tell me where the US ranks. http://www.genevadeclaration.org/fileadmin/docs/GBAV2/GBAV2011-Ex-summary-ENG.pdf

There are approximately 200 million privately owned firearms in the US. This doesn’t include law enforcement and military weapons.
In 2011, the number of murders in the US were the lowest since 1968.

This is an excellent read if anyone is interested: The Facts about Mass Shootings - John Fund - National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund#)

"Until the Newtown horror, the three worst K–12 school shootings ever had taken place in either Britain or Germany.

"Almost all of the public-policy discussion about Newtown has focused on a debate over the need for more gun control. In reality, gun control in a country that already has 200 million privately owned firearms is likely to do little to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals. We would be better off debating two taboo subjects — the laws that make it difficult to control people with mental illness and the growing body of evidence that 'gun-free' zones, which ban the carrying of firearms by law-abiding individuals, don’t work."

[billethkid]

what I fail to understand is those who are in favor of gun control, against guns, don't have a gun, could care less if they ever see a gun or what ever other group I may have missed.......
why is the fact that we have a more degraded morality than most of us grew up with, we have a lack of respect for the law than most of us grew up with, violence, murder, mayhem and mass killing are promoted in today's entertainment i.e. the movies, television, games, etc, there is a significant lack of discipline in our society and a fear of doing so than any of us grew up with,.......and yet there is little or no discussion of how all the new permissiveness contributes to and promotes a tolerance for violence.

I personally believe it is because when one is against guns for example it is usually about the OTHER GUY and not ones self. In looking at making changes to the permissiveness that condones violence the same folks are involved. And would be affected, therefore there is little or no discussion or demand for change.

My usual example Mothers Against Drunk Drivers.....they have little or nothing to lose or not personally involved with drinking and we all understand the positive impact.

Where are the Mothers Against Driving WHile Using a Cell phone???? Far too many deaths caused by this activity....some would say as much or more than drinking. Why no groundswell to be against such a potentially killing activity? Because now these same mothers are personally involved and are themselves major users of cell phones while driving....hence they are silent on the issue. Very hypocritical behavior.

Bring on what ever makes everybody happy with controls they have no understanding of....there will be no decrease in gun ownership....there will be no change in the violence permissive society.....it will not eliminate the small percentage of wackos (for what ever reason or ills) from accomplishing their need to kill or mass murder.

btk

[janmcn]

It's easier and quicker to pass a High-Capacity Magazines Bill than to reform all of societie's woes, which could take generations to change. If just one life is saved by these new laws, it will be worth it.


High-Capacity Magazines Bill To Be Introduced By Democrats On First Day Of Congressional Session (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/28/high-capacity-magazines-bill_n_2376838.html?1356722014)

[Bucco]

It's easier and quicker to pass a High-Capacity Magazines Bill than to reform all of societie's woes, which could take generations to change. If just one life is saved by these new laws, it will be worth it.


High-Capacity Magazines Bill To Be Introduced By Democrats On First Day Of Congressional Session (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/28/high-capacity-magazines-bill_n_2376838.html?1356722014)

This item was on the WH page beginning in 2009 as a top priority and then pulled from the page with no action.

We have some pretty pressing economic items that MUST be addressed asap. Why would this come before the country's imminent financial collapse ?

[rubicon]

Meanwhile people keep obssessing about gun control in 2009 more than 13000 babies rising each year have been diagnosis with formerly known neonatal abstinence syndrome a withdrawal from opoids taken illegally by mothers . the average cost of care for hospitalization for these babies is
$53,400 usually billed to medicaid. We cannot control the drug problem in this country never had and never will .

After Michael Ryan killed 16 people injured 4 in 1987 he wandered Hungerford england for eight hours heavily armed before anyone with a firearm could come to the rescue.

In 2009 Paul clarke found a bag containing a shotgun brought to the police and was arrested was sentenced to 5 years until a public outcry gain his release.

In November of 2009 Danny Nightingale a former memeber of British special forces was sentenced to 18 months for position of a firearm and ammuntion. Sgt Nightingale glock pistol was a gift by Iraqi forces he had been training.

[BobnBev]

It all reverts back to the 2 parent family, and the work ethic, which is sorely
missing.

In the good ole days, talk back to your Mom, just wait till your father gets home from work.

Cop caught you screwing off, he'd take you home where you would be dealt with accordingly.

etc, etc, etc.

[DaleMN]

And the point is???

[janmcn]

And the point is???

The point is that these violent gun-related deaths are the fault of everything except guns. For example; single parents, drug overdoses, texting while driving, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the imminent financial collapse, talking on cell phones while driving, type of society we have allowed to be fostered, and too many other excuses to remember.

And of course the answer to elimating these violent gun-related deaths is more and bigger and faster guns with no regulations.

That's like saying we should solve the drinking problem by providing more booze with less restrictions, or allow more texting while driving, or allow more cell phone usage while driving. Or it's like discussing lung cancer without being allowed to talk about cigarettes.

[rubicon]

The point is that these violent gun-related deaths are the fault of everything except guns. For example; single parents, drug overdoses, texting while driving, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the imminent financial collapse, talking on cell phones while driving, type of society we have allowed to be fostered, and too many other excuses to remember.

And of course the answer to elimating these violent gun-related deaths is more and bigger and faster guns with no regulations.

That's like saying we should solve the drinking problem by providing more booze with less restrictions, or allow more texting while driving, or allow more cell phone usage while driving. Or it's like discussing lung cancer without being allowed to talk about cigarettes.

janmcn: Every issue you cite here has one common denominator and that is irresponsibility. Its not drugs, its not booze its not cell phones its not financial issues and its not guns. Its the irresponsibility of people in how they handle booze, drugs, finances, cell phones and guns. Prohobition, strict drug laws, strict cell phone laws government regulations on financial companies and gun congrol won't stop irresponsible people from abuse and misuse. Gun conrol is on of those vogue terms that politicians use when they are faced with angry people. It gets them off the hook but it is meaningless.
i

[wendyquat]

Yes, it does work. Just ask those in Cambodia, Russia (USSR), Pre WW II Germany, China and other places where gun control was brought by the government. Oh, that's right, lots of those folks won't be able to answer you, their government killed them.

Now define "responsible" gun control and we may be able to start a discussion. Or did you really mean "people control."


You said it but :agree:

[Skybo]

what I fail to understand is those who are in favor of gun control, against guns, don't have a gun, could care less if they ever see a gun or what ever other group I may have missed.......
why is the fact that we have a more degraded morality than most of us grew up with, we have a lack of respect for the law than most of us grew up with, violence, murder, mayhem and mass killing are promoted in today's entertainment i.e. the movies, television, games, etc, there is a significant lack of discipline in our society and a fear of doing so than any of us grew up with,.......and yet there is little or no discussion of how all the new permissiveness contributes to and promotes a tolerance for violence.

I personally believe it is because when one is against guns for example it is usually about the OTHER GUY and not ones self. In looking at making changes to the permissiveness that condones violence the same folks are involved. And would be affected, therefore there is little or no discussion or demand for change.

My usual example Mothers Against Drunk Drivers.....they have little or nothing to lose or not personally involved with drinking and we all understand the positive impact.

Where are the Mothers Against Driving WHile Using a Cell phone???? Far too many deaths caused by this activity....some would say as much or more than drinking. Why no groundswell to be against such a potentially killing activity? Because now these same mothers are personally involved and are themselves major users of cell phones while driving....hence they are silent on the issue. Very hypocritical behavior.

Bring on what ever makes everybody happy with controls they have no understanding of....there will be no decrease in gun ownership....there will be no change in the violence permissive society.....it will not eliminate the small percentage of wackos (for what ever reason or ills) from accomplishing their need to kill or mass murder.

btk

Yes BTK. You absolutely nailed it.

[buggyone]

Yes BTK. You absolutely nailed it.

I hear what you and some others are saying and it is pretty accurate. I would like to hear what positive solutions you might have to the "lack of respect" to which you attribute most of the woes. How would you enact any changes?

I am not being argumentive but truly would like to hear ideas which would work in a realistic world.

[wendyquat]

I think Cambodia, Russia (USSR), Pre WW II Germany, China were/are trying to control their people where the US is trying to protect their people.

And how can you tell that? That is probably what THEY thought at the time!

[wendyquat]

what I fail to understand is those who are in favor of gun control, against guns, don't have a gun, could care less if they ever see a gun or what ever other group I may have missed.......
why is the fact that we have a more degraded morality than most of us grew up with, we have a lack of respect for the law than most of us grew up with, violence, murder, mayhem and mass killing are promoted in today's entertainment i.e. the movies, television, games, etc, there is a significant lack of discipline in our society and a fear of doing so than any of us grew up with,.......and yet there is little or no discussion of how all the new permissiveness contributes to and promotes a tolerance for violence.

I personally believe it is because when one is against guns for example it is usually about the OTHER GUY and not ones self. In looking at making changes to the permissiveness that condones violence the same folks are involved. And would be affected, therefore there is little or no discussion or demand for change.

My usual example Mothers Against Drunk Drivers.....they have little or nothing to lose or not personally involved with drinking and we all understand the positive impact.

Where are the Mothers Against Driving WHile Using a Cell phone???? Far too many deaths caused by this activity....some would say as much or more than drinking. Why no groundswell to be against such a potentially killing activity? Because now these same mothers are personally involved and are themselves major users of cell phones while driving....hence they are silent on the issue. Very hypocritical behavior.

Bring on what ever makes everybody happy with controls they have no understanding of....there will be no decrease in gun ownership....there will be no change in the violence permissive society.....it will not eliminate the small percentage of wackos (for what ever reason or ills) from accomplishing their need to kill or mass murder.

btk

Well thought out and said and :agree:

[wendyquat]

I hear what you and some others are saying and it is pretty accurate. I would like to hear what positive solutions you might have to the "lack of respect" to which you attribute most of the woes. How would you enact any changes?

I am not being argumentive but truly would like to hear ideas which would work in a realistic world.

Errr, we'll work on this one buggyone, AFTER we work out our unrealistic economy!

[Golfingnut]

And how can you tell that? That is probably what THEY thought at the time!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingnut
I think Cambodia, Russia (USSR), Pre WW II Germany, China were/are trying to control their people where the US is trying to protect their people.

Please notice, I said I THINK. It is in my opinion, that the places mentioned do not enjoy the democratic style government that we have in the United States.

[DaleMN]

The point is that these violent gun-related deaths are the fault of everything except guns. For example; single parents, drug overdoses, texting while driving, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the imminent financial collapse, talking on cell phones while driving, type of society we have allowed to be fostered, and too many other excuses to remember.

And of course the answer to elimating these violent gun-related deaths is more and bigger and faster guns with no regulations.

That's like saying we should solve the drinking problem by providing more booze with less restrictions, or allow more texting while driving, or allow more cell phone usage while driving. Or it's like discussing lung cancer without being allowed to talk about cigarettes.

I could not agree with you more. As I have said before the logic of the NRA and others is mind boggling.

[graciegirl]

I don't think I like the NRA. I am not sure why. I have only recently met people here on TOTV who are almost evangelistically into having guns. I am a conservative person in philosophy and I support everyone's second amendment rights, but when I read people posting about guns and my heart hears other stuff in their posts like meanness and hatred and disdain and arrogance, I just don't like it and don't really like them. AND I don't like the meanness and arrogance in some opposed to them too. That is where all of our troubles lie. Getting mad.

There are many who post here who have guns who are regular nice people but many who are not really nice inside. I sense it in some posts and sometimes feel that some people are really frightened and very not secure without a gun.

There are many areas of the country that need guns to feel safe, but I do not believe that this place is one of them.

But if that changes, so will I.

I try very hard to truly understand everyone's point of view, but I am struggling on this one.

[Golfingnut]

I don't think I like the NRA. I am not sure why. I have only recently met people here on TOTV who are almost evangelistically into having guns. I am a conservative person in philosophy and I support everyone's second amendment rights, but when I read people posting about guns and my heart hears other stuff in their posts like meanness and hatred and disdain and arrogance, I just don't like it and don't really like them. AND I don't like the meanness and arrogance in some opposed to them too. That is where all of our troubles lie. Getting mad.

There are many who post here who have guns who are regular nice people but many who are not really nice inside. I sense it in some posts and sometimes feel that some people are really frightened and very not secure without a gun.

There are many areas of the country that need guns to feel safe, but I do not believe that this place is one of them.

But if that changes, so will I.

I try very hard to truly understand everyone's point of view, but I am struggling on this one.

I have tried over the last 5 or 6 posts to say what you said so elegantly here in this post. I too get the hair on my neck up too easy and I am working hard on that. I will only say about this whole issue is we MUST try to do better to protect all of our citizens. I just cannot except that more or bigger weapons is the only answer.

[buggyone]

Errr, we'll work on this one buggyone, AFTER we work out our unrealistic economy!

The economy of the country is a political and governmental issue which must be dealt with by the Legislative and Executive branches.

The "lack of respect" that was mentioned by some posters is not a governmental issue but is a social issue. It is not something that can be legislated into being. My question was asking precisely how these posters would institute changes (and precisely what the changes would be) that would result in a turning point to bring about "more respect" that may result in a climate where mass shootings would not happen.

[Moderator]

This thread has strayed too far off topic and become too political.

It will be closed, at least temporarily, while admin/mods review it.