Las Vegas mass shooting

[Danny Bateman]

A militia was necessary at the beginning of this country because we could not regularly depend on the military. They were too small, ill trained, and too scattered to provide a well coordinated defense. Thus you needed the general population to be armed in support of the nation's defense.

The modern day organized miltia is basically defined as the National Guard. This talk of an unorganized militia over throwing a tyrant is just silly. Anybody who has control of our military will have control of this nation. We aren't stopping drones, tanks, planes, helicopters, howitzers, and APCs with Bushmasterss and HKs. This isn't Hollywood's Red Dawn.

If we want to defend this country against tyranny then stop electing tyrants. Our votes are more powerful against the government than any rifle.

Indeed. A far better way to avoid that outcome would be a knowledgeable, free electorate who don't put people into place who would take us in that direction.

Unfortunately, both the knowledgeable & the free descriptors are ones we sorely need to work on in the U.S.

 

[Danny Bateman]

Hey, I agree that it's extremely unlikely to happen, but it's not something that can be ruled out. Too risky to do so.

In my opinion, the best argument in support of the status quo regarding the 2A, is that I believe it's one of our greatest forms of national security. One that is becoming more and more unique to the U.S.

The other side to that coin that is unique to the U.S. is our annual firearm-related fatalities.

Of course, the vast majority of these are suicides. This speaks to the need to have a more robust mental healthcare system in our country so people don't feel driven to use their firearms to end their lives. But of course, we get no action there. We've survived almost a year's worth of attempts to drastically WEAKEN mental healthcare on the party of Trump & the GOP, as well as active attempts to weaken the ACA so it looks like they were telling the truth with their "it's a failure/it's imploding" nonsense. Mass shootings occur here, we get empty words about reforming mental health in our country from faces of the GOP like Paul Ryan, and then they follow it up with... nothing. They pay lip service to the idea of improving things, but have absolutely no intention of actually doing it once they're sure no one is paying attention anymore.

My point is simply that I feel there's no reason we should stand idly by and do NOTHING with outlier gun violence rates like that. There's got to be a way to bridge the gap between competing interests so that we keep most all of our guns & we can have a safer, healthier society. I appreciate your point about national security (you're right that our gun culture is largely unique to us) & I hope I've made a decent one as well.

As an aside, here's a graph I found that extremely interesting. Look at these two phenomena. And then think about how easily Americans are cowed into surrendering civil freedoms & forking more power over to the federal government to be "safe" from one, and how they dig their feet in & stubbornly refuse attempts to address the other. The gulf between the two is nothing short of amazing.

 

[B.B. Hemingway]

I think it becomes hard to surrender this particular civil freedom because 99.9999% of gun owners are responsible with them.

 

[B.B. Hemingway]

On a personal level, I own guns. I'm nowhere near into guns as much as a lot of people I know. And I 'won't' give up my guns. Won't do it. Now imagine the real enthusiastic ones. What's their response gonna be?

 

[Dbqgolfer]

I understand what you're saying, but to me what you're deciding is that it's not ok for us as a country to use democracy to limit guns, but it's ok if corporations or the wealthy do that. What you're arguing to that we shouldn't use the democratic process to resolve our societal problems. (Yes, I know that's not what you're trying to say, but what I'm saying is that's the practical reality of your argument.)

It's called living in a Constitutional Republic.  We can, should, and do use the democratic process to resolve societal problems.  We just can't use the democratic process to infringe upon Constitutional Rights, while trying to resolve societal problems.

 

[Danny Bateman]

It's called living in a Constitutional Republic.  We can, should, and do use the democratic process to resolve societal problems.  We just can't use the democratic process to infringe upon Constitutional Rights, while trying to resolve societal problems.

We've changed the Constitution many times. Perhaps someday there will be an amendment that amounts to gun control by way of changes to the 2A. We've already seen it with 21st amendment, which repealed the 18th. 

But who knows. We haven't had a Constitutional amendment in 25 years, and there haven't been any major ones in even longer...

 

[Danny Bateman]

On a personal level, I own guns. I'm nowhere near into guns as much as a lot of people I know. And I 'won't' give up my guns. Won't do it. Now imagine the real enthusiastic ones. What's their response gonna be?

No one is asking you to give up your guns. I don't know why people are so wont to think that that is what will be asked of them whenever gun control is discussed. 

But I refuse to believe there is no middle ground between banning guns outright and doing nothing (or expanding gun availability). I don't know why this conversation so frequently occurs in absolutes.

 

[B.B. Hemingway]

No one is asking you to give up your guns. I don't know why people are so wont to think that that is what will be asked of them whenever gun control is discussed. 

But I refuse to believe there is no middle ground between banning guns outright and doing nothing (or expanding gun availability). I don't know why this conversation so frequently occurs in absolutes.

 Oh, I think there would be plenty of support for a total gun ban, but those who would support it know there's no chance of that. Personally, I'd be okay with some additional regulations. More towards who and how you get them, not so much on which guns you can or can't have. As an example, I have a few automatic weapons. I wouldn't be interested in any regulation that would attempt t take those from me.

 

[Dbqgolfer]

We've changed the Constitution many times. Perhaps someday there will be an amendment that amounts to gun control by way of changes to the 2A. We've already seen it with 21st amendment, which repealed the 18th. 

But who knows. We haven't had a Constitutional amendment in 25 years, and there haven't been any major ones in even longer...

And if there is, so be it. That's how our system of gov't works.

 

[RedDenver]

And if there is, so be it. That's how our system of gov't works.

That's pretty much on par with my opinion as well. If we want to have a Constitutional right changed, then it either needs to be by laws and interpretations by the courts or by Constitutional Amendment.

 

[Landlord]

As an example, I have a few automatic weapons. 

Why?

 

[B.B. Hemingway]

Why?

Exhibition. Hobby. Investment. Not very many things hold value like guns.

But mainly it's something I enjoy.

 

[B.B. Hemingway]

There is an interesting parallel of hypocrisy between the GOP and  the Democrats responses to gun control, and the travel ban. With gun control, the GOP pleads the case for civil rights, and individual freedoms. Completely ignoring the cries for public safety from the Democrats. When Trump's travel ban was introduced, Democrats pleaded the case of human rights/Immigration traditions, while ignoring the possible threat of public safety via terrorist attacks.... I find it interesting at what point (or when) each party decides public safety is paramount. Hypocrisy for all.

 

[Landlord]

Exhibition. Hobby. Investment. Not very many things hold value like guns.

But mainly it's something I enjoy.

Do you think it's inaccurate to say that you're unwilling to sacrifice something that you think is cool/fun but not any kind of a necessity in order to save lives?

As far as the supposed hypocrisy of Democrats ignoring safety threats with terrorism, that's not actually a thing. Our vetting process is incredibly thorough and effective, to the tune of 99.9% effectiveness. There's no threat being ignored.

On one side, you have our President making unconstitutional decisions that deny basic American freedoms, because of no legitimate reason. On the other you have legislators saying, "We do not want to get rid of any freedoms, but there is a legitimate problem in our country that could be helped by some reform over legal loopholes and better information/vetting for people who want to exercise that right."

 

[Danny Bateman]

There is an interesting parallel of hypocrisy between the GOP and  the Democrats responses to gun control, and the travel ban. With gun control, the GOP pleads the case for civil rights, and individual freedoms. Completely ignoring the cries for public safety from the Democrats. When Trump's travel ban was introduced, Democrats pleaded the case of human rights/Immigration traditions, while ignoring the possible threat of public safety via terrorist attacks.... I find it interesting at one point (or when) each party decides public safety is Paramount. Hypocrisy for all.

Except that the argument that the travel ban actually makes us safer falls apart with a stiff breeze.

I think the stronger argument to make is that it's entirely within the president's authority to unilaterally make immigration decisions. Even then, that interpretation of immigration matters is based on some really old decisions and some circles feel it could benefit from a new judicial review.

I reject Trump's ban because I don't think it actually makes any of us safer and it punishes good people who've done nothing wrong and would otherwise benefit the U.S.