Online users
???: Message   

Not so fast, there, Susan.
Post Reply   Forum

Posted by: TEEBONE ģ

08/30/2019, 11:36:03

Author Profile Mail author Edit

Susan Stornetta: Gun control laws are coming

Susan Stornetta
4-5 minutes

CBS news reports the appallingly dismal fact that 255 mass shootings happened in the U.S. as of Aug. 5, more than one each day. Iím deeply saddened that our nation, which began with an idealistic vision unique in the known world, has come to the point where honorable idealism, empathy, and compassion have been replaced by hatred and fear.

Mass murder is committed on family members, for criminal purposes, or on the general public, the most widely publicized type. The perpetrator is usually a testosterone-fueled male between his late teens and 40 years of age. Possibly heís experienced childhood trauma, has a fervent cause, crisis, or grudge, or wants to ďgo down in history.Ē The excuses donít count. What matters is that an unbalanced, deluded, or amoral person has the means to commit such a crime.

The Second Amendment of 1791 allowed states to sponsor citizen armies to protect themselves if the federal government ran amok. At the time, muzzle-loading flintlock rifles were used. The flintlock horsemanís pistol in arrived in the U.S. around 1799; deadlier weapons appeared during the 1800s. Gatling guns were patented in 1862, shotguns by 1878, semi- and fully automatic rifles by 1885, handguns by 1892, and semi-automatic pistols by 1910; machine guns drove World War 1.

Proliferation inevitably prompted gun control laws. Our 182-year history of taxing, licensing, restriction, purchaser records, background checks, and gun owner protections is lengthy, and can be found on internet websites such as State and federal governments have struggled to balance the rights of all citizens alike, pursuant to the Second Amendmentís protection for weapons carried for self-defense.

Times change, and society has changed in ways inconceivable in 1791. The fluctuations of constitutional interpretation, the pressures of political influences coupled with the tremendous increase in population have produced a nation now strongly at odds with itself, particularly regarding guns.

The National Rifle Association, founded in 1871 to improve marksmanship among state militias and teach firearm safety and competency, supported the earliest gun control legislation. Now itís a partisan political force, uncompromisingly rejecting gun control. Its money and unyielding stance have influenced legislatorsí voting behavior since the 1970s, and clearly, gun control is effectively nonexistent.

Legislatively, other safety issues have been addressed summarily. To operate that deadly weapon, the automobile, requires a renewable license, training, knowledge of laws, and insurance, and the industry provides safety improvements. Seven deaths from Tylenol tampering in 1982 resulted in the universal use of tamper-proof containers. Jayne Mansfieldís death in 1967 led to safety additions on semi-trucks on the highway. A 2001 failed shoe bomb attempt on an airplane resulted in todayís inspection of every air travelerís shoes. Yet the horrendous impact of gun misuse continues unrestrained.

Gun control laws are often developed in response to horrific events, by fearful people unfamiliar with guns and seeking quick solutions. New laws are coming, like it or not. If responsible gun owners truly wish to protect their rights, they must step up to the challenge, and provide their representatives with knowledgeable solutions. Isnít it worth considering scientific research, background checks, renewable licenses, safety training classes, prohibitions on assault-type weapons and their accessories, and buy-back opportunities, to preserve those rights? Give it serious thought.

The ďJust Say NoĒ mantra didnít work for Nancy Reagan, and itís not working for the self-reported 5.5 million NRA members. Polls say that the majority of their samples support gun control. If just half of the 113 million people who voted in the 2018 election support it, thatís about 57 million voices, far outshouting those 5.5 million NRA folks. Legislators, unstop your ears, and find genuine solutions.

Barry Hirsh
Ms. Stornetta -†

Fundamental rights are not subject to any plebiscite or majoritarian impulses by lawmakers. That is a First Principle of this nation.

Your skillful exegesis on the evolution of small arms notwithstanding, the principle remains - times change, but principles don't.

As the SCOTUS recognized in 1875, the people's right to go armed for lawful purposes wasn't granted by the Constitution, it was assumed arguendo to preexist the nation's founding, and the Second Amendment was enshrined to foreclose the government from infringing its exercise. In other words, the Second Amendment exists to remind the government that the right is fundamental, and cannot be materially abridged.

Were the Second Amendment to be repealed or amended further, the status of the right would not change - it would still be fundamental, and it would still be endowed in the people, not in the government.

If you wish to have a serious debate about methods to attenuate violence, you must first accept that reality.

Then we'll talk.


Democrats wouldn't buy a clue if it was government subsidized.

Post Reply | Recommend | Alert   Previous | Next | Current page