Irresponsible gun owners (Page 6)

Perhaps she did keep them locked up. Maybe he just knew where the key was. He wasn't a stranger, he was her son she took shooting. You generally do not keep things locked up from your family members.

How would you enforce "proof" of owning a safe/lock. My gun came with a lock, but I do not keep it on. It is not ready fro use with it. I do not have strangers in my house. If my wife shoots me, I suppose the joke will be on me.

Most hand guns come with some sort of locking device. Perhaps they could make them better. The "finger" safes that is just a push combo works reasonably well to actually be able to use it quickly, but I would tell my family how to get it.

Absolutely we need better mental health access - Reagan helped that go away.

Taken from Pragmatic Progressive:

A. Countries with stricter gun laws have fewer gun deaths than we do. That's just a fact.

And there are contries with stricter gun laws than us that have more gun violence/deaths than us. FACT

B. Countries with just as many guns, but who educate their gun owners, have less gun deaths than we do. Fact.

Perhaps and maybe is your response. Perhaps it would also diminish some of the numbers of stolen guns reaching the streets. The biggest problem this country has in discussing the issue is that, like every other issue, it immediately goes right to the polar extremes leaving no room for finding any kind of a reasonable common ground.

Guns aren't getting banned. There will always be stupid people doing stupid things, and man has never had a problem finding new and creative ways to kill each other. But I do believe, like I think you said, there must be a way to limit access to stupid people and criminals.

Oh, and when I did own guns and rifles they were locked up all the time unless they were in use, and I sure as heck didn't give the kids the combination to the safe. Same thing my dad did when I was growing up.

Sure, it is just as possible the mom was a completely irresponsible gun owner and had been warned that she should keep them out of the hands of her son.

As far as my house... it is very rare it is not occupied. When it isn't, my two dogs are inside. We never have kids over or many guests. I have no problem with my arrangment and the safety of my family and the possibility of it being stolen.

I have a step son and he is violent and I didn't own one when he lived at home for that very reason. Now he is grown and has his own which probably is not a good thing. If I had young kids it would be in a safe, or I just would not own one. But that is my choice.

As far as stolen guns, according to Frontline and the ATF, only 10-15% of guns used in crimes are stolen. The other 90% are legally bought through strawmen or corrupt FFLs. I am certainly encouraged to put an end to that. Obviously, it benefits me. The only real way to do away with the legal route is to have a registry and track guns. I personally am not opposed to that, but many many are and have legitimate resons why. In this day and age, actually entering a civil war would not be done with personal arms, it will be done comendearing military and NG assets. So I do not get too concerned with "needing to overthrow the government" argument.

you keep ignoring the solution I have posted - Japan's legislation

so maybe the answer is another amendment that takes away the 2nd amendment - that would be my preference, but that is not likely.

putting more regulations is.

sorry you don't like that answer but that is the solution

you keep ignoring the solution I have posted - Japan's legislation

so maybe the answer is another amendment that takes away the 2nd amendment - that would be my preference, but that is not likely.

putting more regulations is.

sorry you don't like that answer but that is the solution

What you just did was prove the point that reasonable people can have a reasonable discussion. I'd be happy with getting 10-15% of weapons used in crimes off the street and going from there with rational, sensible solutions.

you keep ignoring the solution I have posted - Japan's legislation

so maybe the answer is another amendment that takes away the 2nd amendment - that would be my preference, but that is not likely.

putting more regulations is.

sorry you don't like that answer but that is the solution

Oh ya, 10-15% is a win. Just stating it isn't the vast majority like many think.

Brian, any sane, reasonable law abiding citizen would most certainly want guns out of the hands of criminals, out of the hands of the mentally unstable, and out of the hands of depressed or potentially violent people. OBVIOUSLY, if that was the case the rest of us having all the guns in the world would not be a problem. Making that happen is where it gets difficult. But most of the restrictions only apply to reasonable, law abiding citizens. It does not mean we do nothing, it just means that passing knee jerk legislation based on emotion and not effectivness is pretty pointless.  It gives everyone a warm fuzzy feeling, but life rolls along.

That applies to most laws. And I couldn't agree more that some stupid knee-jerk law will only make the situation worse. I have very little faith (ok, zero!) in our politicians ability to do anything intelligent. We already have plenty of warm, fuzzy feeling gun laws that don't do a damn thing, obviously.

It's too late for a 'vast majority' solution, like Japan's laws. Plus it goes against our culture and our Constitution. It's not an option. However, there are laws that are safe, effecting, and not unduly onerous. Seat belts are an example. They don't stop all traffic-related deaths, but they have a pretty good impact. And it has no negative effect on the ability to own a car.

So instead of wringing my hands and saying 'stop gun violence' I threw out two ideas about education and safety. Does enforcing gun education have any effect on criminals? Of course not, but if it prevents a few accidental shootings it seems like a way to start chipping away at the problem.

That applies to most laws. And I couldn't agree more that some stupid knee-jerk law will only make the situation worse. I have very little faith (ok, zero!) in our politicians ability to do anything intelligent. We already have plenty of warm, fuzzy feeling gun laws that don't do a damn thing, obviously.

It's too late for a 'vast majority' solution, like Japan's laws. Plus it goes against our culture and our Constitution. It's not an option. However, there are laws that are safe, effecting, and not unduly onerous. Seat belts are an example. They don't stop all traffic-related deaths, but they have a pretty good impact. And it has no negative effect on the ability to own a car.

So instead of wringing my hands and saying 'stop gun violence' I threw out two ideas about education and safety. Does enforcing gun education have any effect on criminals? Of course not, but if it prevents a few accidental shootings it seems like a way to start chipping away at the problem.

I like your ideas Brian.  I've also tried to think of ways to change the laws that could be more effective.  For me personally I wouldn't fathom keeping my guns anywhere but in a safe.  If it isn't on my person it's locked in a safe, period.  My first thought is keeping my kids (and their friends) away from them, with theft as a close secondary concern.  I would feel terrible if one of my guns were out on the street in the hands of some thug so I do all I can to minimize that.

I wonder if there would be any traction to a law that makes it a negligence crime if you have your handgun stolen and it wasn't locked up.  Kind of like if I don't make my kids wear a seat belt and they get injured I can be charged with child abuse or child endangerment.

Also, it's already illegal for someone who has been judged mentally ill to purchase a firearm, but I don't believe NICS has any ability to verify that.  That could be another area to broaden the background checks.

I don't know if these are practical or not, but just thinking out loud.

The point of the second amendment is to have an armed populous to prevent the government from ever becoming tyrannical.  Trying to revoke that right (aside from being impossible) would not be very popular among the citizenry.

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." - Thomas Jefferson

At the time the Constitution was written, the States refused to pass it without the inclusion of the Bill of Rights. At that time, the ability to form a militia was so important that the People insisted on including the words of the Second Amendment. Its full text is, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” 

Throughout the history of our country, up until 2 years ago, the Second Amendment was uniformly interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States to stand for the proposition that the Federal government cannot restrict a citizens right to bear arms. This was a “State” issue under the 10th Amendment. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876); Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) (Second amendment has no effect other than to restrict the powers of the national government). 

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) went further, holding that a law restricting the right to bear an arm that has no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency to a well regulated militia is not unconstitutional. Such a law doesn't violate either the 2nd or 10th amendments.

These decisions left the power to regulate handguns and all weapons in the hands of the States. This power held by the States, by the People of the several States if you prefer, was still the law even after District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). Because Washington, D.C., is a Federal enclave.

But then came, McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 3025 (2010). This case created a brand new fundamental right of all Americans that cannot be regulated by the States or the Feds. Two years ago, the supremes held that the 2nd amendment is applicable to the States through 14th amendment and therefore, Americans have a fundamental Constitutional right to possess handguns that cannot be abridged by the States. Huh? Thus, this is not a right which goes back to the time of the founding, it is one created in the last two years. The decision rests on a plurality--4 justices, Alito, Scalia, Kennedy, and Roberts, held that the 2nd Amendment applies to the States through 14th Amendment, because the right to bear arms is, "fundamental to our nation's scheme of ordered liberty." (This is crap because we made it all the way to 2010 without it being so!!!!!). Justice “silent” Thomas concurred with those 4 in making this the Law of the Land because he could rest his decision on the “privileges and immunities” clause of the Constitution. (This is crap because, well because Thomas was the only justice to think this and it has no precedential effect at all, never mind it makes no sense.) Justice Stevens wrote the dissent which was joined by Breyer, Ginsberg and Sotomayor. 

McDonald, like Citizens United after it, is just plain wrong, and overrules 200 years of cases which had always been consistent. But the greatest argument for overruling this case is that it is inconsistent with the rationale behind the States' insistence on its inclusion in the Bill of Rights. 

Why was the second amendment included in the Bill of Rights? What were our founding father's intentions? What were the intentions of the People that accepted it as a premise for our new society? Was it for personal defense against other citizens? Emphatically, NO. 

The second amendment is about the tyranny of the countries of Europe which denied citizens the right to form militias to fight that tyranny. It is about the use of a country's standing army to suppress the rights of the People. When one reads the Federalist Papers, and one reads orations made by those founding fathers one overarching idea is clear. The point of the second amendment was to allow the People to rise up against a GOVERNMENT that was attempting to use its standing army to suppress the People's freedom. It was meant to allow the People of the States to defend themselves against a Federal standing army. Or to arm the People against foreign invasion. The Federal Government was supposed to be a rather weak authority with limited powers specifically enumerated by the Constitution itself.  Today we have state militias. They are called the State National Guard, and they are controlled by each State itself. Our standing army is indeed controlled by the Federal Government, and unlike many other countries, our Armed Forces are controlled ultimately by civil authority (the President, remember?). Our Federal armed forces have never attempted to take over the civilian government. And if they did, our State Militias would protect us, at least theoretically. We the People of the Several States have ceded our individual right to form up a Militia and allowed our State Governments to hire and train recruits to be professionals. If we faced invasion on our shores, all our armed forces and militia would be there to protect us. Our need to have every person armed to deflect attack has passed. We as a Nation have provided for our defense. Our First Amendment has been able to protect us from internal armed conflict. We as a Nation have been able to mature, to use our words, to prevent what our Founding Fathers most feared. 

Times and things have changed since the time of the founding. Women can vote. People are no longer enslaved. (Legally at least). Growing and using hemp is now illegal. (Please don't ever forget that our Constitution is written on hemp paper!!). As a society, we have decided that we have no individual needs to form militias, we allow our State Governments to provide the protection we need against the Federal Government. But as things stand now pursuant to a single Supreme Court case, no government, State or Federal can abridge the right to own a handgun because of that Court’s, may I be so bold as to say, completely incorrect interpretation of the Second Amendment. 

At a minimum, States must be allowed to enact and enforce the strictest gun control laws their citizens demand. The 10th Amendment demands it. 

If a State can make you purchase alcohol in a State run store, shouldn't we be able to make people purchase handguns in such a place, make you undergo an extensive background check and make you swear that you will only use the weapon to protect the rights of the people against tyranny?

Did the founders envision small, easily concealed handguns that can hold high velocity bullets, that could kill 15 people in mere seconds would be the norm? Did they consider that these weapons would be available at the local drug store? Did they imagine, in their wildest imaginings that a developmentally disabled man could acquire 2 of these handguns, walk into an elementary school and kill small children? Or a movie theater, or a college, or a high school, or on the streets of our cities? 

The answer is no, they didn't consider this, and no, they didn't envision this, and no, that is NOT WHAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS ABOUT.

you keep ignoring the solution I have posted - Japan's legislation

so maybe the answer is another amendment that takes away the 2nd amendment - that would be my preference, but that is not likely.

putting more regulations is.

sorry you don't like that answer but that is the solution

At the time the Constitution was written, the States refused to pass it without the inclusion of the Bill of Rights. At that time, the ability to form a militia was so important that the People insisted on including the words of the Second Amendment. Its full text is, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” 

Throughout the history of our country, up until 2 years ago, the Second Amendment was uniformly interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States to stand for the proposition that the Federal government cannot restrict a citizens right to bear arms. This was a “State” issue under the 10th Amendment. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876); Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) (Second amendment has no effect other than to restrict the powers of the national government). 

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) went further, holding that a law restricting the right to bear an arm that has no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency to a well regulated militia is not unconstitutional. Such a law doesn't violate either the 2nd or 10th amendments.

The Justices ruled that the sawed off shot gun was not a standard weapon in a militia and therefore could be regulated. By the same reasoning, an AR-15 or semi-automatic pistol is most certainly a regularly used weapon in a militia and can't be regulated. Both sides like to use this case to prove their point...

On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice McReynolds, reversed and remanded the District Court decision. The Supreme Court declared no conflict between the NFA and the Second Amendment had been established, writing:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

Describing the constitutional authority under which Congress could call forth state militia, the Court stated, "With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

In dicta, the Court also looked to historical sources to explain the meaning of "militia" as set down by the authors of the Constitution:

"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

These decisions left the power to regulate handguns and all weapons in the hands of the States. This power held by the States, by the People of the several States if you prefer, was still the law even after District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). Because Washington, D.C., is a Federal enclave.

But then came, McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 3025 (2010). This case created a brand new fundamental right of all Americans that cannot be regulated by the States or the Feds. Two years ago, the supremes held that the 2nd amendment is applicable to the States through 14th amendment and therefore, Americans have a fundamental Constitutional right to possess handguns that cannot be abridged by the States. Huh? Thus, this is not a right which goes back to the time of the founding, it is one created in the last two years. The decision rests on a plurality--4 justices, Alito, Scalia, Kennedy, and Roberts, held that the 2nd Amendment applies to the States through 14th Amendment, because the right to bear arms is, "fundamental to our nation's scheme of ordered liberty." (This is crap because we made it all the way to 2010 without it being so!!!!!). Justice “silent” Thomas concurred with those 4 in making this the Law of the Land because he could rest his decision on the “privileges and immunities” clause of the Constitution. (This is crap because, well because Thomas was the only justice to think this and it has no precedential effect at all, never mind it makes no sense.) Justice Stevens wrote the dissent which was joined by Breyer, Ginsberg and Sotomayor. 

McDonald, like Citizens United after it, is just plain wrong, and overrules 200 years of cases which had always been consistent. But the greatest argument for overruling this case is that it is inconsistent with the rationale behind the States' insistence on its inclusion in the Bill of Rights. 

Why was the second amendment included in the Bill of Rights? What were our founding father's intentions? What were the intentions of the People that accepted it as a premise for our new society? Was it for personal defense against other citizens? Emphatically, NO. 

The second amendment is about the tyranny of the countries of Europe which denied citizens the right to form militias to fight that tyranny. It is about the use of a country's standing army to suppress the rights of the People. When one reads the Federalist Papers, and one reads orations made by those founding fathers one overarching idea is clear. The point of the second amendment was to allow the People to rise up against a GOVERNMENT that was attempting to use its standing army to suppress the People's freedom. It was meant to allow the People of the States to defend themselves against a Federal standing army. Or to arm the People against foreign invasion. The Federal Government was supposed to be a rather weak authority with limited powers specifically enumerated by the Constitution itself.  Today we have state militias. They are called the State National Guard, and they are controlled by each State itself. Our standing army is indeed controlled by the Federal Government, and unlike many other countries, our Armed Forces are controlled ultimately by civil authority (the President, remember?). Our Federal armed forces have never attempted to take over the civilian government. And if they did, our State Militias would protect us, at least theoretically. We the People of the Several States have ceded our individual right to form up a Militia and allowed our State Governments to hire and train recruits to be professionals. If we faced invasion on our shores, all our armed forces and militia would be there to protect us. Our need to have every person armed to deflect attack has passed. We as a Nation have provided for our defense. Our First Amendment has been able to protect us from internal armed conflict. We as a Nation have been able to mature, to use our words, to prevent what our Founding Fathers most feared. 

Times and things have changed since the time of the founding. Women can vote. People are no longer enslaved. (Legally at least). Growing and using hemp is now illegal. (Please don't ever forget that our Constitution is written on hemp paper!!). As a society, we have decided that we have no individual needs to form militias, we allow our State Governments to provide the protection we need against the Federal Government. But as things stand now pursuant to a single Supreme Court case, no government, State or Federal can abridge the right to own a handgun because of that Court’s, may I be so bold as to say, completely incorrect interpretation of the Second Amendment. 

At a minimum, States must be allowed to enact and enforce the strictest gun control laws their citizens demand. The 10th Amendment demands it. 

If a State can make you purchase alcohol in a State run store, shouldn't we be able to make people purchase handguns in such a place, make you undergo an extensive background check and make you swear that you will only use the weapon to protect the rights of the people against tyranny?

Did the founders envision small, easily concealed handguns that can hold high velocity bullets, that could kill 15 people in mere seconds would be the norm? Did they consider that these weapons would be available at the local drug store? Did they imagine, in their wildest imaginings that a developmentally disabled man could acquire 2 of these handguns, walk into an elementary school and kill small children? Or a movie theater, or a college, or a high school, or on the streets of our cities? 

The answer is no, they didn't consider this, and no, they didn't envision this, and no, that is NOT WHAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS ABOUT.

and again in Newton, CT:

A monsignor at St. Rose of Lima Roman Catholic Church, which was evacuated during noon Mass on Sunday, said that a man had called the church and said, “I’m coming to kill, I’m coming to kill.”

Msgr. Robert Weiss, who spoke to a reporter from Ora.TV, which is live-streaming from the church, said that a church phone rang and a parishioner picked it up, and the man on the line began spewing threats.

The parishioner said Monsignor Weiss, “you’d better listen to this phone conversation,” and handed him the phone. “He started talking about ‘I’m coming to kill, I’m coming to kill,’” the monsignor said.

The police were summoned, and “The more this man was speaking the more the police were taking seriously,” Monsignor Weiss said. The police fed questions to the parishioner, who was back on the line, to relay to the caller, he said.

At about 12:30, the police arrived at the church and announced that there had been a threat.

“All of a sudden all of the police cars came flying up and one police officer said very disgustedly that it’s probably nothing but some jerk called in and made a threat and we have to evacuate,” said Kim, a parishioner who had been standing outside the church when the police arrived. “So they went in and evacuated it.”

Worshipers came pouring out of the church and state police troopers with rifles and in camouflage and combat helmets entered the church and parish center.

A heavily armored state police vehicle remained in a parking lot near the church Sunday afternoon.

The church will remain closed for the rest of the day, a spokesman for the Diocese of Bridgeport said.

“I’m just sad that these people needed to be at Mass today and that this had to happen,” Monsignor Weiss said. “This is just hard for parents to be able to explain to their children.”