Wide Spread Availability of Guns is Awful: New Amendment Needed!

[Stuart G]

We need a new Amendment to the Constitution of some sort..

At link is a horrific story about someone shooting a group of people.. Not new situation, but repeated often in the
U.S.A. (almost every day) Passing an Amendment dealing with guns, nationwide, seems to be the only solution...Read the story if you
desire...Proves we need an Amendment to the Constitution to change the Constitution regarding guns & firearms

Warning: proves we need an new amendment for the discussion. Yes, it will be difficult to pass, but it is what is
needed now..

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/05/us/florida-shooting-infant/index.html

[TreasonousBastard]

1. Needed or not, there is far too much opposition. It is difficult to deal with urban...

and rural attitudes toward guns.

[Stuart G]

2. Even if there is "opposition"...A proposal is needed. With a proposal we will get a "discussion".

....Yes, that discussion is needed nation wide..

Also, we will find out that 75 percent are in favor of such an amendment.. It needs to be proposed nation wide.
...The above story happens almost every day somewhere around the country.

[TreasonousBastard]

3. Various things have been proposed, but get knocked down every time....

It just ain't easy. My Senator Gillibrand had to be pretty much pro gun to get into the House in the beginning, but evolved into less gunny attitudes since becoming Senator of the whole state. Note the amount of voting power in downstate NY.

Same with Governor Hochul-- she had to bow to the gun lobbies to get into politics upstate, but now bows to a little more the downstate power.

[onenote]

4. And what is the "proposal" that should start this discussion?

You seem confident that 75 percent of the nation would support an amendment without ever describing what this amendment would say.

[Stuart G]

6. Well written proposal.....somehow limits the reason to purchase a gun..

....I don't know...It must be clear and understandable to all.. Also, something that most would agree on..
.....This is just a proposal...The discussion would be very important.

[onenote]

12. You'd think that if there is gun-related Constitutional Amendment that will get 75 percent support

someone could describe what it would say.

[Demsrule86]

24. We will not pass an amendment. It is simply not possible.

There is discussion but not consensus.

[fescuerescue]

36. 75%? I don't think there is ANYTHING that 75% of the population is in favor of.

[Polybius]

70. Link to the poll that 75% support

I'd love to see it.

[LiberatedUSA]

5. I am sure this court will go alone with that.

And the red states that have passed bills saying they will refuse to follow new gun control laws in the same manner blue states ignore federal drug laws, will be happy to go along with your ideas.

And this new attack on rights with this work around. I am sure this won’t change how both sides approach rights they like or dislike and whether or not they intend in any manner of following the other sides laws.

Or to put it another way: I think we are getting very close to the point where both sides start just flat ignoring the other side’s laws and court opinions. This move in Texas is an extremely dangerous precedent to set in getting around the constitution.

[Stuart G]

7. Will the "proposed amendment" however written..if enacted, save lives?...Think about that one..

...I think it would...Would it?

[MineralMan]

8. Constitutional Amendments Are Almost Impossible to Make Happen

The one you propose would be completely impossible.

Because of that, some other sort of measure needs to be taken. There will not be any such amendment in the foreseeable future. Not happening.

[Dial H For Hero]

10. All you need is 2/3rds of both the House and Senate, followed by approval in 38 out of 50 states.

No way. No how.

[Hoyt]

14. If only gunners would change their attitude about their love for lethal weapons, body armor, etc.

[Dial H For Hero]

15. The vast majority of gun owners aren't "gunners", if I understand your use of that odd term

correctly; Even if every "gunner" were to become a more typical gun owner, getting rid of the 2A would remain a practical impossibility.

[Hoyt]

16. If they are against reasonable gun legislation, "gunners" is pretty mild, Hero.

[Dial H For Hero]

17. What term would you prefer?

And in any case, "reasonable" can be (in this context) rather slippery to define. Is legislation that makes it all but impossible for the average person to own even a single firearm reasonable? The vast majority of the Japanese would say yes. The vast majority of those in the USA would say no.

[Runningdawg]

11. You would be hard pressed to find a single cop in OK who would enforce a gun law or amendment.

[Igel]

13. Less than two years ago my cousin was killed.

Two guys walked into a diner, sat down, started to argue, one pulled out a gun--the other pulled out a gun--and they shot. Missed each other, but 3 bystanders were dead and more were wounded.

They should have had firearms training so they hit their targets. Would have saved people time, money, and grief.


My cousin's mother is a East-Coast city cop and still supports the 2nd amendment.

And so do I--probably not a surprise.

Granted, knives wouldn't have killed bystanders, but the problem was that those two young men decided that *murder* was a reasonable solution to a verbal disagreement, and that the risk of killing other "things" around them wasn't something they needed to be concerned about. Using knives, likely one of them would have died and that still would have a been a death and somebody sent to prison for murder, plus any wounded bystanders. And if the cops had shown up, maybe two deaths. That's not a solution. It's a patch on the gangrenous wound.

Somebody taught those two young men to think of people as objects to be disregarded and life as something to be snuffed out because their iddy-biddy iddle-widdle (utterly depraved) feelings was all broozed. Or their awesome dignity was being disrespected and that somehow murder and mayhem restored their "dignity" and "respect". This isn't a long-standing problem, at least not with this incidence rate. There were things like this--from lynchings to other kinds of extra-judicial "you hurt my honor, die, fool!" revenge killings, both intra- and extra-racial--but they were far less frequent on a per capita basis. The rules concerning behavior and what's appropriate and permitted have changed and they need to be unchanged.

How old South of them, without the rigor of rules concerning dueling. (This was in South Carolina and they were natives to the town where this happened. My cousin wasn't. He was 18 and attending the local college on athletics scholarship, first in his branch of the family to go to college. Died before he turned 19.)

Behavior has a purpose, even if the behavior doesn't achieve that purpose--culture's can be maladapted to current conditions. Behavior is pretty much all learned. Want to change the behavior, change the behavior. It'll reduce gun violence, knife violence, road rage, etc., etc. If the behavior is culturally conditioned, still, change the behavior.

[madville]

18. In that story the suspect had a clean criminal record

And was honorably discharged from the military, on paper there wouldn’t be any reason to deny him a firearm. Don’t know how you’d keep people with clean records from owning firearms.

[Hoyt]

19. Owning a bunch of guns and body armor ought to be grounds for investigation, IMO.

[NickB79]

20. He could have killed them exactly the same with one gun and no armor

"A bunch" isn't a very clear number. My grandfather owns two shotguns, two deer rifles, a squirrel rifle, and an elk rifle. He's a retired lifelong hunter and Teamsters Democrat pushing 80.

It's a rare mass shooting that involves body armor and more than a few guns (you can't carry an arsenal on your back, after all). You can do investigations, but I doubt they'd amount to much, especially if the person hasn't broken any laws. It's not illegal to own several guns.

Of course, if we could pass national red flag laws, family could report him and get his guns away at least temporarily.

[Hoyt]

21. Yeah, but gun-humpers are most likely to be GOPers, racists, rubes, etc.

[Demsrule86]

30. I have owned a gun in the past when I lived out in the middle of nowhere...and it saved my life

in fact. God knows we need better laws but not all Gun owners are righties..some of my Democratic family members hunt for meat and for sport too. I don't care for it myself, but we do anything that you suggest and we will lose multiple elections and put the righties in charge.

[Hoyt]

32. One gun at home is not an issue to me. A bunch of gunz and body armor is someone gearing up

for urban warfare and to "take their country back."

[Dial H For Hero]

34. I own multiple firearms and body armor, and yet I have no plans to attempt an insurrection

or civil war.

How can this be?

[Hoyt]

35. I've heard that from other gunners. Sorry, I don't buy it. Even if you are the most

sanctimonious gunner alive, your support of more gunz in more places directly leads to lots of gun violence.

Recently, you posted something in the Gungeon about some Hero who shot an armed robber. Hell, if gunz weren't so readily available -- because of gunners -- there might not have been the need to shoot someone in the first place.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172210914

[Dial H For Hero]

41. Well, I can certainly understand why you'd be sensitive about robbers being shot and killed.

As for this particular robber, you said just a bit earlier that you didn't have any problem with someone keeping a single gun in their house. Well, given that policy this robber would still have been armed, since all he would have to do is take along his Hoyt-approved handgun.

[Hoyt]

42. Thanks Hero, but maybe if some gunner hadn't sold it to the potential robber or left it in their

auto to be stolen, he wouldn't have had one.

How many of your gunz have you sold for a fistful of cash?

[Dial H For Hero]

52. The shooter was an honorably discharged marine without a criminal history. How would you

prevent such a person from obtaining a firearm, given that you have already given your approval for the average person to keep a gun in their home?

How many of your gunz have you sold for a fistful of cash?

Presuming by "gunz" you mean firearms, I've sold at least a hundred over the course of my lifetime. So what? Buying, selling, and trading is what collectors do.

[Hoyt]

54. So were Timothy McVeigh, Randy Weaver, a bunch of mass shooters, honorably

discharged. That means nothing.

Gun profiteers do seem to support lax gun laws.

[Dial H For Hero]

55. Yet in this very thread you have supported such individuals having the right to possess firearms.

[Hoyt]

56. Hero, I get you profit off gunz, feel the need for body armor, your

user name reflects someone who would likely carry gunz, etc., but where did I say Randy Weaver, etc., should carry a gun.

[Dial H For Hero]

68. My user name is that of a silly 1960's comic book. I've told you this numerous times. Are you

being deliberately obtuse?

I didn't say that you said such individuals should carry a gun. You said that you had no problem with someone having a single gun in their home. Anyone who has such a gun in their home can, despite your disapproval, carry it on them outside of their home, yes?

[Demsrule86]

38. What do you need body armor for?

[Dial H For Hero]

40. I have no particular need for it, I just thought it was cool. I buy lots of things that I think are

cool. I once saw someone selling a police issue tear gas launcher made in the 1930's that was fully functional and which came with a dozen rounds for only $500. I snapped it up. (Perfectly legal, BTW). I have no plans to launch tear gas at anyone, but it's really neat.

I recently saw a Captain America shield for sale in which the back of the shield is lined with kevlar. They assert that it's effectively level 3A, which will stop anything short of armor piercing rifle ammo. It was going for $1500. If it wasn't for the fact that I just bought a ton of stuff for my new apartment, I might have gotten it. After all, I'm into both firearms and comic books.

And why not?

[Demsrule86]

43. I think body armor should be outlawed except for law enforcement and no one needs

a tear gas launcher...if the proud boys had one, they would use it...I have friends who are gun collectors..one is into guns from WWII...that doesn't bother me. He has a permit and is not a danger to anyone.

[Dial H For Hero]

53. I don't, and body armor is legal virtually everywhere in the US.

As for the tear gas launcher, why are you all right with someone owning a WWII M1 Garand, a semiautomatic battle rifle with which one could kill dozens of people in a minute, but not all right with a tear gas launcher, something it would be virtually impossible to kill someone with?

[Hoyt]

57. Lots of deplorable things are legal, Hero.

[Dial H For Hero]

66. Something being deplorable (a rather debatable term in this context) should not, in and of itself,

make something illegal.

[Hoyt]

67. Stick with that, Hero.

[Dial H For Hero]

69. I intend to, given that it makes sense.

[Demsrule86]

37. I had a pistol, rifle and a shotgun.

Pistols are not that accurate. Lucky for the guys trying to break in. I grabbed the shotgun… it bucked and while I think one of them was slightly injured, they ran off. I had a baby upstairs. I truly meant to kill them. But I am glad scaring them off was enough. The rifle and shotgun were for hunting. The handgun was for protection. But I was never that good with it.

[hunter]

50. Good Lord, if I shot every stranger I've ever met in my house...

... or the house I grew up in I'd be a mass murderer.

Especially when my kids were teens. They've always had a very diverse and cosmopolitan population of friends.

My parents are artists. You never knew what sort of people they'd be bringing home.

I do have a knife scar on my arm but that was a different sort of sort social interaction, one I'm not especially proud of.

I've had armed hostile intruders invade my personal space.

Twice it's been the police.

I usually figure if the dogs are good with some stranger it's probably okay. That's how it worked in my parent's house as well.

But I don't trust the husky. He likes everyone.

And then there's Spot who lives under the stairs. I think he eats the worst home invaders but I don't ask.

Personally I don't let anyone I'd care to shoot live in my head.

I'm not mocking your experience, just the idea that guns are any good solution to this problem.

Where I live guns make you a target for break-ins. The bad guys buy their home electronics at Best Buy like everyone else and they don't need your drugs.

[NickB79]

47. Then pass federal red flag laws

Much more effective than trying to investigate tens of millions of Americans.

[Hoyt]

48. Problem is a bunch of gunz, body armor, etc., are a red flag, Nick.

[NickB79]

49. Red flag laws allow concerned family to call police and get a judge's intervention

Instead of trying to use police to randomly investigate tens of millions of Americans, most of which haven't broken any laws, leaving police impotent to act.

How many tens of thousands of extra police do you want to hire, along with billions in new funding?

If you can't get federal red flag laws passed, you don't have a chance in hell of getting those extra officers for anti-gun policing.

[Hoyt]

51. Know what RF laws are, but gun-humpers with body armor are a red flag and they should be surveilled.

[Dial H For Hero]

27. You want to investigate millions of people for owning perfectly legal items?

[Hoyt]

28. Yeah, Hero, surveillance of people attracted to lethal weapons, body armor, etc., for urban warfare.

[Dial H For Hero]

33. Let's say for argument's sake that 10 million people fit your criteria. What exactly do you propose?

Put tails on 10 million people? Monitor their phone calls? Monitor their internet activity?

A judge's reaction to this would be quite entertaining.

"Your Honor, the FBI wishes to put the individual known by the psuedonym of "Dial H For Hero" under surveillance."

"On what basis?"

"He has a bunch of guns."

"Are any of them illegal in any way?"

"Well....no....but he has dozens of them!"

"That's hardly a crime. Anything else?"

"He has body armor."

"Again, not illegal."

"But here's the kicker. He thinks they're all really cool and likes to talk about them on a message board! Excuse my language, but ht fits the profile of a....(hushed tone) gunner."

"is that all?"

"Well, good grief....isn't that enough?"

[Straw Man]

22. You vastly underestimate the complexity of the issue.

[smirkymonkey]

23. What about making this a referendum item on state ballots instead?

Let the voters decide. A majority of voters want some kind of gun control legislation.

Can't we take this out of the hands of politicians and put it to the voters directly? T

he problem is too many politicians are afraid to come out in favor of gun control, but if we left the decision up to the voters we might finally get somewhere with this.

[Demsrule86]

25. Oh sure, we have a 6-3 court who will rule such laws unconstitutional.

[smirkymonkey]

26. So we increase the number of SC justices and let Biden appoint them.

Problem solved. I don't know why we are so damned passive. We need to rip a page from the republican playbook and act as ruthlessly as they do while we still have some power or else we are done and so is democracy. Fuck bipartisanship and fuck playing by the rules. They don't and never will no matter what we do, so we might as well pull out all the stops.

[Demsrule86]

29. We don't have the votes...the math is the math.

[Polybius]

71. There's never going to be more than 9, at least not in the next 75 years

People need to stop getting their hopes up on this.

[Demsrule86]

31. No state can overrule the 2nd amendment...perhaps we could figure out more useful ways to

curb gun violence that might actually work.

[hunter]

39. A few hundred well placed buckets of fake blood might drive the gun fetishists underground.

It certainly made people wary of wearing real fur in Hollywood.

Personally, I don't think anyone with testicles should be allowed to own or handle a gun. We could have castration clinics next door to every gun shop for those men who can't imagine life without guns.

If I was emperor of the earth I'd outlaw lead bullets as well. Gold bullets or plastic. Your choice.

Okay, maybe that's hyperbole, but I will say that social pressure works and the law follows. I don't see people smoking in grocery stores or on airplanes any more.

When I was a kid people would be smoking in the grocery store, flicking cigarette ashes everywhere, and dropping their cigarette butts on the floor. It was disgusting.

Gun fetishes are disgusting.

Most people don't care enough about guns to bother owning one. Once the ball starts rolling change will come quickly. I think the gun fetishists see it coming and that's why they are hoarding.

[Demsrule86]

44. That is not a bad idea...

[fescuerescue]

45. I think many would welcome the conflict.

Who do you think would win?

The guy with the empty bucket, or with the gun who just got hit with the contents?

[hunter]

46. I've beat guys with guns.

You can read that any way you like and it's probably true.

I lived through some rough times in my late teens and early twenties but thankfully never believed in the magic gun fairy.

In my personal experience once the guns come out everything is fubar.

As often as not worse for the believers.

I don't have any complaints about ethical hunting, I've done that, but not in the 21st century and not with my children. Hunting for food is more ethical than the factory farm meat anyone can buy in the grocery store, so long as not too many people are doing it. These days there's too many people.

But the whole guns-as-self-defense cult is bullshit. That's the sort of fairy tale thirteen year old gangster wanabees and bad cops believe in.

The second amendment is bullshit as well, just as the 3/5 person rule was.

[fescuerescue]

59. Why do you think that cops and soldiers use them?

Why don't they just get a bunch of guys built like you to beat the criminals and other soldiers?

Obviously we are getting off on a tangent.

If guns are a non-factor, why are we wringing our hands about them and debating striking one of the bill of rights?

[hunter]

60. I'm not "wringing my hands."

I'm doing everything I can to end the sickness of U.S.A. gun culture.

Mocking gun fetishists is part of that.

Gun fetishes are disgusting.

Yes, I'm perfectly aware of utilitarian purposes of guns but I don't think most cops have the skills or the temperament to use them wisely.

And, yes, the second amendment is bullshit and there are far too many dangerous and pathetic clowns and posers hiding behind it.

As for soldiering, most of my ancestors were pacifists, even those who served in the military.

Personally, I don't let anyone I'd care to shoot live in my head. Life's a lot more pleasant that way.

My views, of course, do not reflect the platforms of the Democratic Party but I do believe most Democrats support regulations that will make it more difficult for dangerous fools to obtain guns.

[fescuerescue]

62. If those dangerous fools do obtain guns

Do you advise that everyone just does what you do? walk up and take them away and then beat them with them?

Just wondering what your roadmap is.

[SYFROYH]

58. So what would your "needed" amendment say?

[onenote]

74. Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer.

[lagomorph777]

61. Much more practical to expand SCROTUS, then accurately interpret the 2nd Amendment.

Gun nuts tend to pretend the first clause of the 2nd Amendmend isn't there. The first clause invalidates most of the bullshit they claim.

[Stuart G]

63. Whatever works the fastest is the best course of action in my opinion...

The crisis is NOW.....i wonder when Biden will take leadership on this issue...

He will, but ...WHEN?

[EX500rider]

64. There is no "1st clause"

They is a reason given for citizens to have firearms.
If the 1st Amendment was worded:
"To ensure a free press, the rights of the people to free speech shall not be infringed"
Would only the press have free speech or would the people?

Also the guys who wrote the Bill of Rights knew what they meant, after it passed where was militia service required to own firearms? Nowhere?

[lagomorph777]

65. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

According to my 3rd grade English teacher, that would be the first clause of a two-clause sentence.

Has every clause of the Constitution been enacted as statues? I don't think so. Does that mean that some clauses are invalidated because they have not yet been tested or legislated? No, obviously not.

[Polybius]

72. The last part is less confusing

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

[EX500rider]

75. However..

... it says the rights of the people not the rights of the militia.
And if they meant firearms for just the militia that's what it would have said.
Plus the Democratic party platform and the Supreme Court both agree it's an individual right.

[lagomorph777]

76. Guns appear to have become a religion for some.

I don't see any point in arguing religion. Have a nice day.

[Polybius]

77. No

We're just referring to the last part ("The right of the people" ), and how it's pretty clear. Please respond. Oh wait...