FScouter

Quit trying to restrict rights.

The Supreme Court recognizes there are restrictions to rights and properly so. Amendments dont automatically come with any provision against regulation.

The Court's majority opinion in the Heller case (2008) found that:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courts opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

There are arguments to be made either way. Even the Supreme Court has been deeply divided coming to a decision on the intent and meaning. Many would agree it is poorly worded, inviting multiple interpretations, perhaps intentionally so.

Your thought about paying attention to the will of the citizenry under threat of nastiness has possibilites. You think we could get all the gun folks to march up to the capitol building and demand our legislature start doing their jobs? Exercise your 2nd amendment rights as was intended!

There's "rights" and then there's other rights. Something is wrong when the citizenry is "required" to arm itself for protection against other citizens. Do the 2nd amendment fans have the "right" to structure the system such that it is easy for the crackpots to possess guns to the detriment of the rest of us to be secure in our blessing of liberty? I think I have the right to not be worried about getting shot by my paranoid neighbor, or worry that his minimally secured arsenal will not be stolen, or that he is not going to sell his old style AR to some crackpot who will use it in a way not intended by the writers of the 2nd amendment.

As I see it, the 2nd amendment fans have a responsibility here to figure out some methods by which they can have their rights, and at the same time prevent innocent citizens including school kids from getting killed.

Yeah, the mention in the 2nd amendment of bearing arms has to do with supporting a "well regulated militia" to provide security for the state, but that part of the sentence is usually ignored.

That article was not from Harvard. Its published by an organization of Harvard law students. Yeah, the two attorneys Kates and Mouser lost their credibility at the very beginning of their article when they dismiss the works of others as a mantra, and proceed to list a variety of published papers as being full of misconceptions and factual errors, and effectively dismissing all of them. One doesnt write a credible research paper by exposing a bias in the first paragraph. Still, it is well foot-noted and a lot better than most of the one-side stuff one finds on the typical gun web site.

"There is the unrealistic expectation that we disarm everyone and remove guns from society."

Only the gun folks talk about this. Why is that?

How would the media know what company manufactured the weapon unless that is what they were told by police? What difference does it make anyway?

The "Batman" shooter choose that particular theater because that is where the "Batman" movie was playing. Ya think?

It's been said that the "end game" for some proposing gun restrictions is to confiscate and destroy all guns, or to dismantle the second amendment. It's been stated any number of times, always by the gun lobby and folks advocating free guns. Never have I ever heard any proposal by anyone to actually work towards that end. Is there any organized group, or any national committee, or any political faction working on this? Or any opinion papers or speechs or any evidence at all to support the claim of an "end game"?

Yes, there's a ton of "internet quotes" to be found on the gun discussion forums and gun enthusiast web sites, but like the stuff on Snopes, the context is twisted, enhanced, or diminished, or there's no source, and never more than a quick sound bite, and not much to suggest it's anything more than all made up.

Sure, it happens. The best parenting sometimes notwithstanding, the kid may turn out to be a sociopath.

So as the broken record says, "guns don't kill people..." then surely the gun lobby folks would be the first one's to address the people problem. You think?

A "law" for loving and caring parents who raise and teach kids that become responsible and productive members of society - it deserves some consideration and some effort.

Instead, we try to pick up the pieces when they fail. We react with solutions that involve defenses and protections against the resulting misfits; we get more guns and bigger guns and demand armed guards.

I wonder if NRA would support parenting education?

The concern may be valid, but the response to the concern is off the charts.

"ONE of the proposals was to put armed officers in every schools."

The bulk of the NRA speech was to criticize and blame the media, video games, and movies. The only solution put forth was to come up with a "emergency response plan" and put an armed police officer in every school.

Maybe NRA has some other ideas proposed elsewhere. What are they?

You can thank NRA for meaninless gun "laws". They fight tooth and nail against any and all meaningful laws and the only thing that can get passed is silly stuff like "no gun zone". Of course they don't work - it's by design.

If NRA would actually enter into a meaningful discussion to solve the problems we might make some progress. Meanwhile we can wait for the next mass shooting.

It's clear NRA is not so interested in solving a problem as in furthering the proliferation of firearms in this country. I thought they would have been a little more rational. Wow. Logic and common sense and discussion and considering the ideas of others carries no weight. More firepower is the "answer".

As long as we're proposing crackpot ideas, how about putting an armed guard in every classroom.

Wow. If there was any doubt before, the posits posted in these various gun topics make it crystal clear. One would think the trails and camps and remote areas are controlled by roving bands of thugs preying on innocent citizens. One cannot venture to take a walk down the street or to the local shopping mall or corner grocery without the risk of death. Our homes, our property, our kids and womenfolk are being pillaged and raped on a daily basis.

Therefore it is incumbent for the citizenry of our country to be armed against these attacks.

Looking for (but not finding) the reports that would substantiate all this:

Last week my neighbor was attacked and dragged off by a mountain lion, the week before bears mauled an elderly couple taking a walk, and this summer we had three Scouts that were attacked by rabid skunks. There was yet another incident last week where a wacko began shooting up cars as they drove by, and another wacko that grabbed on old lady at the mall and shot her to death. It was the fourth killing this month at the same mall.

Where are all those stories?? You would think this stuff would be happening on a daily basis right in our neighborhoods and in our Scout troops and our workplaces every day. Instead all we hear is what-if scenarios, anecdotes about somebody saw a mountain lion track in the mud, and somebody else was nervous a few years back because he didnt have a gun. Never mind that nothing actually happened, but he was really nervous!

For this we need multiple guns in the house, and automatic/semi-automatic capabilities, and 50 shot magazines, and need to holster a gun 24 hours a day where ever we go?

Im convinced more than ever that our society is truly gun crazy.

It would be useful for the rest of us if the gun enthusiasts could put forth a few convincing arguments as to why big guns and big ammo magazines etc have a useful purpose in our society. We seem to hear only that the second amendment permits every kind of "arm" you can think of, or that if we dont have them a dictatorship or worse might result. What-if scenarios are easy to describe, but have any of them ever played out?

What are the demonstrated benefits today, or in the past, of having such weapons? Until the gun folks can present a believable case, the pressure to regulate will not go away. Meanwhile we can look forward to the next mass shooting.

That's the argument from authority fallacy. "I have experience in these matters, therefore the truth is ... and your opinion is invalid".

Raise some funds and use the money to help solve the problem. Armed guards in the classroom, bullet proof vests for the citizenry, meaningful background and suitability checks, mental health research, bigger prisons and longer sentences the specifics arent as important as is the resolve to solve the problem.

Self-policing doesnt work. Laws don't work. Guns are everywhere and anyone can get one.

It is reasonable is to expect that the negative aspects of firearms in society be mitigated by the owners of firearms. As with anything else, you fund it with a tax. $100 per gun sale, 25 cents per cartridge, $100 annual license fee.

"Of all the millions of words written on happiness, this is the oldest and most enduring truth. If the principles of contentment are not within us, no material success, no pleasures or possessions, can make us happy." Lillian Eichler Watson

Bible passages may be found to supposedly support a whole slew of sins.

What would a Cubmaster do at a Den meeting?

My "view" baden, is that it is not "national" as you say that dumbs down or deemphasizes outdoor programs. Units do that, not "national".

Non sequitur Mr. Baden