The gun laws the House Democrats proposed would not have stopped Micah Xavier Johnson

[bluestateguy]

he had no criminal record, was not part of any terrorist organization and was not on the Do-Not-Fly list (which is riddled with errors, btw).

[morningfog]

1. Your point? Do you oppose those measures?

We have to start somewhere. Hopefully we can get guns out of the hands of people like him as well.

[Igel]

10. I think the point's obvious.

This is the logic we see:

This Micah guy killed people. He used a gun.

That he could do this is further reason for certain measures currently at issue in Congress.

Except that there's no connection apart from the emotional in this. It's claiming an unrelated event to increase emotion, and having people falsely infer (or flat-out falsely implying) that they are related. It's manipulative, setting unrelated emotion against what should be rationalist policy. If the rational policy stands on its own, then fine. If it doesn't, using Dallas as justification is a falsehood.

[morningfog]

13. We need guns to be less accessible, less powerful and fewer. I fully support working on those

efforts from any and all angles. Regardless of whether any of the efforts would prevent the most recent mass shooting.

I ignore those who fight any and all reforms or who try to muddy the waters with pedantic arguments.

[malaise]

2. He was a Veteran from the Afghanistan war

He may well have had PTSD issues

[JonathanRackham]

15. His MOS was carpenter in an engineering group.

No combat exposure. DD214.

[haele]

23. Had a neighbor who worked the motor pool in Mosul until he came back 2009. "No combat exposure".

However, he's still going to rehab with 75% disability when the convoy he was in hit an IED - the disability came from the force that shattered his skull, shoulders, and pelvic bones which never really healed, and complete loss of hearing on one side.

A carpenter in an engineering group would have undergone some form of battle stress even if he just stayed put in Bagram, no matter what the DD-214 indicated. Saw it in the Navy back in the '70's with those who had signed up in the 'Nam era. Didn't matter if they were only "in-country" when the ship pulled into Saigon or went a bit up the Dong Nai to Bien Hoa, they still had a bit of edgy stress about them if they had deployed in that area.

Haele

[malaise]

37. Just look at what they found at his home

Lots of guns and ammo; bomb making materials and a military tactics journal.

I don't think folks understand the war theater.

+1,000

[Nuclear Unicorn]

36. You have an extremely poor record of assumptions

[Skinner]

3. Then let's propose even more laws.

And pass them. Finally.

[Eleanors38]

6. All unconstitutional proposals should and will be opposed.

[Skinner]

8. We've got a long way to go before we hit that limit.

I'm sick and tired of the inaction.

[Eleanors38]

9. Inaction results from miscast issues and not knowing what ones philosophy is about.

I explained further in Earl's OP of the day.

[morningfog]

14. Inaction results form impotent fucks in congress scared to upset their the teat that they suck.

[Eleanors38]

17. "impotent fucks" are on which side of the ailse? If you believe they are Democrats...

they are not getting NRA money. They just MIGHT see the gun-ban/culture war approach as having little upside, politically. In terms of solving problems they may see none at all.

[morningfog]

18. Considering they are not getting the job done, they are all impotent fucks.

We will get there though.

[Eleanors38]

20. Well, given DU's fluid notion of impotency, I guess we'll let it slide.

[aikoaiko]

27. Actually NRA hating Senate Democrats voted against two pieces of gun control legislation.

Supposedly because they didn't go far enough.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/284182-senate-rejects-first-background-check-bill

[Eleanors38]

38. The DiFi approach to politics

[LanternWaste]

49. Lacking objective evidence to support your conclusion, it was a well-written bumper-sticker

"Inaction results from miscast issues and not knowing what ones philosophy is about..."

Lacking objective evidence to support your conclusion in any rational form, it was a well-written bumper-sticker, and thus given all the credibility bumper-stickers warrant.

[Eleanors38]

50. Just my opinion, lanterWaste.

[trotsky]

11. "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"

"Well-regulated" seems to give us a fair amount of leeway.

[Eleanors38]

19. The government does not condition individual rights, nor create communal rights...

When passed, the Constitution only just created a standing army. Many states were suspicious of that power, and to reassure them and to gain passage, the powers of militia (the only armed forces extant at that time) were re-stated, and served as the government's limited interest in the broader un infringed right. "Well-regulated" at the time of passage meant those called to militia were to bring arms suitable for infantry, in proper working order, and with knowledge of how to operate. A fuller explanation of the militia powers is in Article 1.

You will find when perusing the constitutions of various states, the same kind of language structure with regards the security of the state and freedom of the press. Check out Rhode Island's Constitution. There are others.

[Hoyt]

21. I'll take Justice Stevens' interpretation in Heller over he NRA's biased attorneys' or right wing

Justices' any day. The contortions you guys go through to reach that interpretation is hilarious.

[trotsky]

22. "arms suitable for infantry, in proper working order, and with knowledge of how to operate"

LOTS of leeway.

[Eleanors38]

39. Presently, "suitable for infantry" could mean full-auto, the standard around the world.

That's a lot of leeway, though probably not what you have in mind.

[trotsky]

40. Lots and lots of leeway indeed.

Might not be what you had in mind either.

[Exilednight]

44. knowledge how to operate is a key to any loophole. The fact is

That many people don't know how to safely operate a weapon.

Back in colonial days militias also had cannons, should we start adding ICBMs to right to bear arms?

[Eleanors38]

47. The debate at the time centered on infantry frearms; that is, long guns and pistols...

designed to be held and fired from a person's hands, and suitable for the time.

Note:. It is NOT illegal to own artillery, war planes, tanks, etc. But these articles are highly regulated as they fall from without the context of debate when the Second was adopted. Frankly, "well-regulated" firearms for the infantry could be argued to include FULL-AUTO weapons, as these are suitable for infantry now (no infantry in the world equips soldiers with semi-auto fire-only rifles, as they are obsolete for infantry). Yet, few are making this case. I would rather let that be the case, would't you?

On a tangential note, the "press" is a specifically mentioned piece of technology for the Revolutionary period, yet our "organic" Constitution has allowed the expression to include teletype, radio, t.v., the innertubes, etc. I am happy with that, also.

[guillaumeb]

52. Incorrect. No standing army was created. Thus the need for a

"well regulated militia". That should be obvious. But in addition, Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution states:

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

I addition to various other provisions, there is this:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?470865-Article-I-Section-8-of-the-U-S-Constitution-Is-a-Standing-Army-Unconstitutional

[Eleanors38]

54. Okay, authority was granted in the Constitution. And it happened.

[here2help]

28. agree

[Hoyt]

7. Exactly. Let's quit coddling gunners and those who profit from the darn things.

This is just going to get worse.

Some day, we are going to have a natural disaster, or something similar, that pits what are essentially armed militia types against others. I've even read threads right here where folks discussed the best guns for people fleeing a hurricane that was moving up the east coast.

[aikoaiko]

26. We, Democrats, could have had some gun control, but were greedy and wanted more.

So we rejected the Republican amendments and pursued more far reaching legislation which Republicans rejected. I no longer believe Democrats when they say we need to do something even if it doesn't solve all gun violence issues after those votes.

Democrats voted down two amendments that would have improved background checks and added terrorists on the no-fly list to NICS denials with a due process procedure.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/284182-senate-rejects-first-background-check-bill

[Skinner]

29. You no longer believe the Democrats on the issue of gun control.

But you believe the Republicans would have agreed to some gun control if only the greedy Democrats didn't vote it down.

OK.

[aikoaiko]

31. Well, 50+ Republicans voted for the amendments.

And the NRA stood down on them.

So yeah I think they would have at least gotten to the house and Ryan doesn't have the clout to go against 50 Republican senators and no NRA opposition.

It was a chance to do "something" and we said no thanks.

So yeah, I'm skeptical that we mean it when we say we just want to make some progress on things that both sides of the aisle agree upon.

Is it better to have done nothing?

[Duckhunter935]

32. Sorry Skinner

The Democrats could have had at least something but voted not too. The let the perfect get in the way of doing something. I think we need more and better background checks, but we must acknowledge the truth that at least one of the four proposed amendments would have passed if the Democrats did vote for it.

PS, please answer my ATA questions

[bullimiami]

4. You have to start somewhere. And you need a majority to vote for it.

[gratuitous]

5. Oh, okay

Never mind then. Let's just go on as we have, and let the bodies fall where they may. If a proposed regulation doesn't magically end all unpleasantness immediately and forever, there's no sense in even trying. Thank you, citizen, for your invaluable service and heartfelt concern.

[yallerdawg]

12. I'm with her!

Identified with PTSD should create ban on gun purchasing until medically/psychologically cleared.

Common sense.

As President, Clinton will:

1. Fight for comprehensive background checks:

• She will advocate for comprehensive federal background check legislation.

• She will close the “Charleston loophole,” which allows any gun sale to proceed if a background check is not completed within three days.

2. Hold dealers and manufacturers fully accountable if they endanger Americans:

• She will repeal the gun industry’s unique immunity protection due to lobbying by the NRA.

• She will revoke the licenses of bad dealers, such as those that knowingly supply guns to straw purchasers and trafficker

3. Keep guns out of the hands of potential terrorists, domestic abusers, other violent criminals and the severely mentally ill.

• Clinton has said “If you are too dangerous to fly, you are too dangerous to buy a gun, period.” She will insist on comprehensive background checks prevent suspected terrorists from buying guns.

• She will support legislation to prohibit all domestic abusers and individuals suffering from severe mental illnesses from buying and possessing guns.

• She will make straw purchasing a federal crime.

More at: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factchecks/2016/04/14/hillary-clinton-will-fight-for-common-sense-solutions-to-reduce-gun-violence/

[Rex]

16. So he was a 'good guy with a gun', until he became a 'bad guy with a gun'?

The problem is guns. Too many guns. Too easy to get a gun.

[NCTraveler]

24. Thank you for showing how meager the changes we want really are.

It's not far enough and if this gun grabber had her way he wouldn't have had it by way of law.

You have to start somewhere and not every shooting is similar. It's pretty sad to say it wouldn't have stopped this one. That's ignoring the thousands of others.

[rock]

25. "The gun laws ... proposed would not have stopped ..."

are always anecdotal evidence. Do I need to continue?

[makokun]

30. Screw the Constitution right?

What I hear:

"I don't care about some stupid words on some old piece of paper!"

"Our lawyers are good enough to find a loophole!"

"I WANT WHAT I WANT. WHEN I WANT IT, AND I WANT IT NOW!!!"

[etherealtruth]

33. The constitution is fluid (or living)

I am praying liberal or democratic appointees to the court will change the balance from a conservative court to a more liberal court of the people ... nd will over turn this very recent interpretation into something much closer to wht the founders intended.

In his dissenting opinion on the Heller case Justice Breyer:

Justice Breyer filed a separate dissenting opinion, joined by the same dissenting Justices, which sought to demonstrate that, starting from the premise of an individual-rights view, the District of Columbia's handgun ban and trigger lock requirement would nevertheless be permissible limitations on the right.

The Breyer dissent looks to early municipal fire-safety laws that forbade the storage of gunpowder (and in Boston the carrying of loaded arms into certain buildings), and on nuisance laws providing fines or loss of firearm for imprudent usage, as demonstrating the Second Amendment has been understood to have no impact on the regulation of civilian firearms. The dissent argues the public safety necessity of gun-control laws, quoting that "guns were responsible for 69 deaths in this country each day.'"

With these two supports, the Breyer dissent goes on to conclude, "there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas." It proposes that firearms laws be reviewed by balancing the interests (i.e., "'interest-balancing' approach&quot of Second Amendment protections against the government's compelling interest of preventing crime.

The Breyer dissent also objected to the "common use" distinction used by the majority to distinguish handguns from machineguns: "But what sense does this approach make? According to the majority’s reasoning, if Congress and the States lift restrictions on the possession and use of machineguns, and people buy machineguns to protect their homes, the Court will have to reverse course and find that the Second Amendment does, in fact, protect the individual self-defense-related right to possess a machine-gun...There is no basis for believing that the Framers intended such circular reasoning."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Dissenting_opinions

[Paladin]

42. Not much of an argument, considering how Scalia fucked up the 2nd Amendment. (nt)

[ecstatic]

34. And flu vaccines don't stop all (or most) flus. Yet, many people

are still forced to get them every year.

[Skittles]

35. so fucking what?

[arely staircase]

41. But they are still a good idea. nt

[Paladin]

43. Laws against rape, murder and bank robbery aren't 100% effective, either.

Shall we abandon such laws as a lost cause? You're just dealing in one of many time-worn Gun Enthusiast diversionary tactics.

[Straw Man]

53. No.

Laws against rape, murder and bank robbery aren't 100% effective, either.

Shall we abandon such laws as a lost cause? You're just dealing in one of many time-worn Gun Enthusiast diversionary tactics.

But those crime are malum in se. Your analogy to gun ownership falls apart unless you can come up with an example of government functionaries being institutionally approved to commit rape, murder, and bank robbery just as they are institutionally approved to carry guns.

[Paladin]

55. I stand by my comments.

A Latin phrase does not a persuasive argument make.

[Straw Man]

57. Of course you do.

A Latin phrase does not a persuasive argument make.

OK, I'll explain.

It means "evil in itself." It refers to things that should never be legal for anybody. Such objects or actions have no redeeming purpose, and should be discouraged to the greatest extent possible. Street drugs are one example. It's hard to argue in favor of recreational use of heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine.

Such is not the case with gun ownership. Obviously there are positive and necessary uses for firearms, since every society allows their use by police and the military. Our nation extends this allowance to non-police civilians, the vast majority of whom make safe and legal use of firearms. At least 50,000 people a year use firearms to defend themselves from criminal victimization. This cannot be discounted.

[dembotoz]

45. so a cure for some cancer should not be celebrated unless it cures all cancer?

a cure for some cancers would be pretty damn cool

[Nuclear Unicorn]

59. Shouldn't a purported cure for cancer be able to actually cure cancer or even alleviate a symptom?

There is not a single rampage killer that would have been subject to the law.

[dembotoz]

60. it is a start

[uponit7771]

46. Strawman, no one said that all shootings everywhere are going to be stopped by gun laws ...

... that wuuld be a position without a working solution

[LanternWaste]

48. Who has argued that the proposed law would have stopped it?

Who has argued that the proposed law would have stopped it?

[SkeleTim1968]

51. Would they stop other people who meet those restrictions?

Yes they would. Just because one thing doesn't work in one scenario doesn't mean it isn't good for another.

[davidn3600]

56. It seems no one cares, they just want to pass a law, ANY law...

None of these laws being proposed would have stopped these mass killings.

[quaker bill]

58. No remotely passable gun law

stops everyone from using them. This does not mean we should not pass some.

Speed limits do not keep all people from speeding, this does not mean that 60 mph in a school zone is acceptable.

[Elmergantry]

61. But it would have the word "common sense"

Meaning quite the opposite BTW, and give everybody a warm-fuzzy for a while until the next shooting, which would result in a call on even more "common sense"-not laws to give the the advocate another dose of warm fuzzy. Rinse Repeat. We have a people problem, not a gun problem.