Use the 2nd Amendment to Outlaw Assault Weapons

[myth-one.com]

The Second Amendment: 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."

The US militia is the world's best. Yet they cannot protect us from domestic terrorists armed with assault weapons bent on destruction.

That being the case, the people should be ordered to turn over all assault weapons owned by them to the militia immediately!

The militia needs your assault weapons now so that security can be provided to the masses.

It's a national emergency.

That's the purpose and intent of the Second Amendment! Learn to read, Supreme Court!

============================================

Politicians often claim that, "The gun doesn't kill people, the person kills people."

True, but people with an assault rifle can kill many more victims in the same amount of time than a person with a regular rifle.

Duh!

Here's another idea: When the government wanted to restrict smoking, they taxed a pack of cigarettes out of reach of many people.

Do the same for assault weapons -- place an excessive tax on each round of ammunition!

Any comments or questions?

[ttruscott]

That's fine, I am guilty of that much. It's a price worth paying for an overall safer society.

How does limiting my defence against criminal aggression make anyone safer except the criminal???

[Bust Nak]

How does limiting my defence against criminal aggression make anyone safer except the criminal???

Asked and answered: it makes it safer for people other than criminals by reducing gun crime, gun accidents and suicides with guns.

[myth-one.com]

1. Citizens should have options for an "effective" means of self-defense. Banning assault weapons will likely leave you with guns that take a long time to reload. When trying to defend yourself, the longer time you take to reload (esp. if you miss the first shot), the more opportunity you give to a violent suspect to attack you, and that's especially true if there are multiple violent suspects on the attack.

If no civilians could possess weapons of war, then every civilian would be handicapped by the same longer reload time.

Granted, with all of the assault weapons now in public hands -- that solution is probably out of reach.

For anyone who wants to ban all guns then they're essentially saying they're okay with people not being able to defend themselves.

I do not support banning all guns or arms.

But even though guns are readily available, my first defense is still 911.

2. The guns are not the problem.

The type of arm is a problem.

The body count in a fixed amount of time is directional proportional to the type of weapon being used.

A single shot pistol will generally kill one at a time when fired. A nuclear weapon can kill millions when triggered.

Thus the type of arm definitely makes a difference.

If guns themselves were a problem then why do you trust cops with them? Why are cops allowed to walk into schools and banks with guns? You trust them because they have been trained and tested, correct? With that said, why not require the same training and tests to regular citizens who want guns? Require that anyone wanting to own a gun to undergo periodic psych evals, gun safety and training/education, etc. So far, this is not done. Doing a ONE time criminal background check is obviously not enough to probe into mental health.

The type of "arm" is a problem (see above}.

Many arms (including some guns) should obviously be restricted to the military and the police.

I'm good with the psych evals, training, etc.

But one can be sane today, and insane tomorrow.

In the University of Texas clock tower shooting in Austin, Texas, on August 1, 1966, Charles Whitman, a student and ex-Marine, fired down from the clock tower on the campus of the University of Texas, killing 14 people and wounding 31 others injured.

He had stated to the university psychologist or psychiatrist that sometimes he felt like going up into the clock tower and start shooting people.

But nothing was done.

=========================================================================

Some general comments:

The Second Amendment: 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.

Notice that the writers are concerned with the "security of a free State."

The United States is generally near the top of nations in gun violence.

The second amendment doesn't seem to have made us more secure lately.

=====================

I agree that the word arms means any type of weapon. The supreme court has ruled that restricting arms is constitutional but it set limits on those restrictions.

What specifically are you talking about? What rulings?

Restricting arms is constitutional?

=============================

I admire the major companies who have recently taken a stand against the bloodbath by refusing to sell assault weapons and large magazines.

Good for them!

It's sad that our "do nothing" government cannot do the job.

[AgnosticBoy]

1. Citizens should have options for an "effective" means of self-defense. Banning assault weapons will likely leave you with guns that take a long time to reload. When trying to defend yourself, the longer time you take to reload (esp. if you miss the first shot), the more opportunity you give to a violent suspect to attack you, and that's especially true if there are multiple violent suspects on the attack.

If no civilians could possess weapons of war, then every civilian would be handicapped by the same longer reload time.

The words "weapons of war" is commonly used by liberals to exaggerate the danger of guns. The reality is that just because a weapon can be used during war does not mean that it shouldn't be used by civilians. If your point were true then we'd have to ban knives and pistols since those are also used by armies at times.

In Posting #2, AgnosticBoy[/url]"]For anyone who wants to ban all guns then they're essentially saying they're okay with people not being able to defend themselves.

I do not support banning all guns or arms.

But even though guns are readily available, my first defense is still 911.

In some cases, you may not even have time to dial 911. Even if you did, it would take time for the cops to get there. Since cops can't be there to stop every crime BEFORE it occurs, therefore citizens need a way to defend themselves.

]2. The guns are not the problem.

The type of arm is a problem.

The body count in a fixed amount of time is directional proportional to the type of weapon being used.

A single shot pistol will generally kill one at a time when fired. A nuclear weapon can kill millions when triggered.

Thus the type of arm definitely makes a difference.

The arms and the type is not the problem. If it were a problem, then why do you trust military and government with them? This is why I say the problem and solution lies with the standards we put in place for people to possess weapons. We don't even need over regulation but rather we need "effective" regulations, like periodic psych evals, red flag laws (kids making prior threats in school, antisocial behavior, etc).

]If guns themselves were a problem then why do you trust cops with them? Why are cops allowed to walk into schools and banks with guns? You trust them because they have been trained and tested, correct? With that said, why not require the same training and tests to regular citizens who want guns? Require that anyone wanting to own a gun to undergo periodic psych evals, gun safety and training/education, etc. So far, this is not done. Doing a ONE time criminal background check is obviously not enough to probe into mental health.

But one can be sane today, and insane tomorrow.

Actually, things normally don't work that way because there's always a reason. People build towards being insane. Oftentimes, people miss or ignore the warning signs that led up to insanity. Unfortunately, we tend to see it more clearly or speak on it after the crime occurs. But now I think people are waking up and seeing the insanity in a person before they commit a mass shooting. What they need to do is report it!

In the University of Texas clock tower shooting in Austin, Texas, on August 1, 1966, Charles Whitman, a student and ex-Marine, fired down from the clock tower on the campus of the University of Texas, killing 14 people and wounding 31 others injured.

He had stated to the university psychologist or psychiatrist that sometimes he felt like going up into the clock tower and start shooting people.

But nothing was done.

So he had some homicidal impulse, and probably some PTSD. I'm sure we can't stop every crime, but it this would be greatly reduced if you require each gun owner to undergo psych evals. A psych eval. could've potentially flagged this soldier. If anything, this story also shows why we need to be big on mental health.

I agree that the word arms means any type of weapon. The supreme court has ruled that restricting arms is constitutional but it set limits on those restrictions.

What specifically are you talking about? What rulings?

Restricting arms is constitutional?

I did not make that statement so I can't answer your three questions.

[myth-one.com]

2. The guns are not the problem.

The type of gun (or weapon) used can exacerbate the problem.

In the University of Texas clock tower shooting in Austin, Texas, on August 1, 1966, Charles Whitman, a student and ex-Marine, fired down from the clock tower on the campus of the University of Texas, killing 14 people and wounding 31 others injured.

He had stated to the university psychologist or psychiatrist that sometimes he felt like going up into the clock tower and start shooting people.

But nothing was done.

So he (Charles Whitman) had some homicidal impulse, and probably some PTSD. I'm sure we can't stop every crime, but it would be greatly reduced if you require each gun owner to undergo psych evals. A psych eval. could've potentially flagged this soldier. If anything, this story also shows why we need to be big on mental health.

I would like very much to see such requirements.

But informing his doctor what he felt like doing seems to be a bright red flag.

Incidentally, Whitman's autopsy discovered a small (pea sized) brain tumor.

They were uncertain if that contributed to the problem.

He also had a history of headaches, which might have been caused by the tumor.

[myth-one.com]

AgnosticBoy and others:

The Secret Service uses threat assessment analyses to detect possible threats against the president, Congress, and probable others.

CBS evening news tonight (11/7/19) reported on a Secret Service threat assessment study applied to past school shootings.

They concluded that many of the shootings could have been prevented if certain common indicators had been detected in the shooters prior to their acting out.

These common characteristics included:

1. Holding long time grudges.
2. 94% of attackers experienced a home life factor that led to an incident (domestic violence, drug abuse, divorce, separation).
3. A fascination with the Columbine, Virginia tech, Sandy Hook, or other school shooting.
4. An interest in Hitler & Nazism.

This is not a complete list, as I scribbled these down while watching the news on TV.

Additional information can probably be found on the Internet.

=============================================

Not sure how one would obtain the inputs on all students to run through the analyses, but its encouraging that there are common characteristics.

A problem that can be well defined, understood, and quantified can hopefully be fixed.

[AgnosticBoy]

2. The guns are not the problem.

The type of gun (or weapon) used can exacerbate the problem.

Immoral and unhealthy thinking is the problem and not the gun. We both seem to agree on this now. I wouldn't say guns exacerbates mental instability but it can make such a person more deadly if they decide to act out violently and use a gun.

But again, this is addressed with my point about better standards. I brought up a good model in law enforcement. This population goes through much more extensive background checks and we don't find a gun problem with them. My point is that these same standards should be applied to civilians, as well.

So he (Charles Whitman) had some homicidal impulse, and probably some PTSD. I'm sure we can't stop every crime, but it would be greatly reduced if you require each gun owner to undergo psych evals. A psych eval. could've potentially flagged this soldier. If anything, this story also shows why we need to be big on mental health.

I would like very much to see such requirements.

But informing his doctor what he felt like doing seems to be a bright red flag.

Incidentally, Whitman's autopsy discovered a small (pea sized) brain tumor.

They were uncertain if that contributed to the problem.

He also had a history of headaches, which might have been caused by the tumor.

Oftentimes, after a mass shootings we find that there were warning signs but no one acted on it, and if they did then there's little to nothing in place to get that information to the FBI and other agencies involved in background checks for guns.

I brought up a model which we find in law enforcement. We don't find a "problem" with cops going on mass shooting sprees. Even you trust a cop with a gun so that shows that you have standards of where you would allow gun ownership (cops have semi-auto).