Thank You President Obama

[dillon]

As a government employee, I see regulations get changed all the time. The fastest step is for a legislature or Congress to take an issue out of rules and codify it in law...as you want it to be. This has happened a lot in NC since the GOP took over the legislature, and frequently with little notice and virtually no debate. To amend an existing rule is more complicated because the agency's hands are tied by the legal process. But if an appointed administrator wants to amend a rule, it can be done, just requires notice periods and public hearings, but it liberates politicians from having to cast a vote on something controversial. But don't try to make it out to be impossible, because I can assure you it is not, and it happens often when governing parties change.

And as for mental instability, there is little control regarding gun sales in most states, since there are few mental health checks unless a court has deemed you mentally unfit to conduct your own affairs, or you have been involuntarily committed to a mental facility. So that catches only a tiny number of people with severe mental issues who fall as wards of the state. If treated voluntarily, outside a state facility or as outpatient, there are patient confidentiality rules that prevent that info from entering a database. So I am not sure why you would claim there are laws already there, especially since your own state of Kentucky will apparently let almost anyone buy a gun anytime, crazy or sane. If you're getting your info from the NRA or conservative media, or from the old guys in the local barbershop, maybe you'd be better off checking the facts first.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 ... .html?_r=0

[dillon]

Sorry, but ANY FORM of Governmental control operating in opposition to the 'Bill-Of-Rights',
is a pox on America! (Chicago's 'gun control' is a prime example of how NOT to do it.)

Uncle Al

Chicago's laws fail because they are effective only in Chicago. When one drives a block outside the city limit, one can proceed to buy guns with few restrictions. So most Chicago guns come from Cook County towns in the Chicago suburbs. But it is interesting to see how many come from Mississippi, both because of family ties of "gangstas" to the deep south, and because of exceptionally lax gun laws.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013 ... -from.html

[Disaffected.citizen]

Europe thinks you're all raving nutters, devoid of civilisation and sanity, given your paranoid angst over a misquoted amendment.

Sadly, that sentiment is understandable given the amount of ink that gets spilt on the topic. However, it's not entirely correct. There are lots of us over here that are entirely rational beings who take pride in "sanity and civilisation".

Please don't paint us all into that box.

As with any nation, there are a significant proportion of sane minded, level headed, rational people just getting along. Unfortunately, mass media takes the few truly unhinged, mixes them into some of the "oddballs" and adds a large amount of those considered normal to portray the whole as.... well, "nutters".

Europe thinks you're all raving nutters, devoid of civilisation and sanity, given your paranoid angst over a misquoted amendment.

Ray is it at all possible for you to post a comment without resulting to insults and name calling

Oldsalt, I think Ray is communicating how gun ownership and usage in the USofA, coupled with the recent election coverage, is represented in European media, particularly the UK. I'm fairly certain he was not saying you are all nutters, merely that this is the perception portrayed.

In my years on this third rock I have met only a few Americans, all of whom have been outside US territorial limits. Thus, my experience has been limited. Joining this and a couple of other fora has graced me with the opportunity to interact with many more; from which I know that your views, beliefs, experiences, ideals, etc., vary as widely as anywhere else. If I were to only view the USofA through the eyes of our news coverage, I don't know what I'd make of you; fortunately, I see a bigger picture (not necessarily accurate, mind!)

Note that when we post to a forum, we are committing to writing something that, once read by another, cannot be undone. Also, writing doesn't necessarily convey all of the nuances of social interaction with body language, intonation, etc. Therefore, it is important to be careful in what is committed to writing is as clear as possible.

It is also important to read the postings carefully so as to not misinterpret or muddle the reception. Part of this is to read widely for individual styles, so as to understand the writer.

Personally, I find postings with mistyped, poorly punctuated, and poorly spelled content to be offputting; it leaves me with the impression that the individual is actually quite rude in that they can't be bothered to put their best into the post. To conclude that the individual is rude would be wrong simply because it bases their writing on my education and knowledge; an assumption which shouldn't be made.

So, maybe if I recast Ray's post and say that "I think the Syrians are all nutters based upon the civil war there", would that be an accurate assessment of the people? I doubt it. I suspect the majority there wish the war would end and allow them to get on as peacefully as possible. We might not like our governments, but at least we get an opportunity to get rid of them every few years.

[Pdxfashionpioneer]

I read a ways into that rule and what I saw was something the NRA has advocated for every time there was a mass shooting, better reporting of mental illness so that such people can be denied firearms under the Brady Act.

Those of you who fear "the slippery slope" of any gun laws I would like you to consider a few facts:
* Our Founding Fathers were quite clear about the difference between liberty and license. Consequently, they recognized that there were limits to all of our freedoms and believed in reasonable limits as problems arose.
* There are recognized and accepted limits to all of our rights. We are entitled to freedom of expression, but are legally forbidden to commit libel or slander.
* The original intent of the authors of the 2nd Amendment was to insure that the states had the freedom to maintain their militias and the force to quell riots, hence the opening phrase, "A well-regulated militia being essential to the maintenance of civil order ... " They wrote that amendment because they weren't quite sure how powerful the federal government they had just commissioned might become and were jealous of their states' rights. They were also afraid of the mob, what we would now call average Americans. So it seems to me, and most of the courts that have considered cases challenging the Constitutionality of a given gun law, the last thing the Founding Fathers had in mind was getting guns into the hands of those average Americans so they could overthrow the federal government on a DIY basis. If one or more states wanted to, perhaps, but not the "mob!"
* Justice Antonin Scalia the author of the Supreme Court decision that for the first time enunciated an individual's right to own firearms as being part of the 2nd Amendment specifically stated in that opinion that reasonable and necessary restrictions to protect the population at large do not infringe on that individual right to own firearms and are therefore Constitutional and are a proper exercise of legislative power.
* None of the laws limiting any of our other rights have taken us down a slippery slope, with the possible exception of the Patriot Act, so why in the world do you suppose it will be different with guns?

Oldsalt, the revolving chamber of a revolver is NOT a clip so that New York regulation would not affect revolvers.

Carl, before you jump on the Patriot Act as being an example of the government charging down the slippery slope so they could abrogate our right to privacy, consider: it was controversial when it was ridden, it's been chipped away at each renewal and it's brought in an utterly overwhelming amount of data. So much so, the content is only useful after a strong suspicion of the individual has been established.

[hoborob]

I have hesitated to weigh in on this topic but I must step in and remind everyone that the Constitution of the United Sates was written to define the powers and authority of the US Federal Government. The elitists and politicians have over time gotten everyone to believe that the Constitution was written to protect and define your (the individuals) rights and the government can at anytime redefine what those rights are by redefining its (the governments) powers. In this manner those same elitists have then used that belief to empower their own ability to get into an office and remain there virtually uncontested.

I will point you to the amendment which states that "Any powers not enumerated within the articles of constitution are reserved for the states." This single amendment empowers the states to regulate and thus control the Federal Government and thus the people who are supposed to control and regulate the states. With the whole thing turned on its head the Federal government regulates the states which in turn control its citizens. Until that belief gets turned back around this argument will continue to rage with no end in sight.

We as citizens should not be asking for our rights to be protected but rather we should be demanding to know by what granted power the government is using to control our actions.

[crfriend]

I will point you to the amendment which states that "Any powers not enumerated within the articles of constitution are reserved for the states." This single amendment empowers the states to regulate and thus control the Federal Government and thus the people who are supposed to control and regulate the states.

As with most of the component parts of the so-called "Bill of Rights" that one is dead as a stone. As of January of 1860 it was so, and in April of 1861 that was backed up with military force. Give it up. Of all the first ten amendments -- which is one of the places that the "Founding Fathers" of the United States got it horribly and terribly wrong -- only the third amendment holds any sway whatsoever today, and that's mainly down to today's technology.

So, I'll posit that it's entirely safe to stop quoting the Constitution and it's assorted amendments. It's obsolete -- or, as Ronald Reagan once called it, "an inconvenient document". Give it up; the little people have lost. (If you actually read the thing, it's all about keeping the Landed Gentry in power and "little people" be damned save for a benevolent dictatorship.)

We as citizens should not be asking for our rights to be protected but rather we should be demanding to know by what granted power the government is using to control our actions.

Too late. Those "granted powers" have long since been usurped. 'Tis the nature of absolute power. Once gone, "powers" are never retaken without force -- and in the modern realm, use of force against a state by its subjects is laughable.

[dillon]

If we want to be strictly Constitutionalist, then let's legalize only weapons of the era; muzzle-loading, single-shot, and pre-rifle-bore weapons. There is NOTHING in the constitution to suggest that the Founding Fathers saw anything apart from weaponry of their own era.

[crfriend]

[...] pre-rifle-bore weapons[...]

Rifled barrels existed in the 1770s. The technology was well understood, even if smooth-bore muskets were the norm due to cost. Even so, a skilled musketeer was expected to hit a man-sized target at 100 yards -- and that's why drills and marksmanship practise were mandatory for certain individuals. Short range nowadays, but pretty good for the time.

Side-arms also existed at the time, but whether many of those sported rifling I'm not sure of.

However, the notion of a band of individuals standing together against the might of a modern state stands. Contemplate a frontal encounter of a company of machine-gunners and a handful of individuals with pistols and semi-auto assault rifles. It's a non-starter.

[dillon]

At this time and place, I will prefer some alternative to an unethically gerrymandered Congress who are nothing more than the brothel girls of the country's most powerful lobbying organization...and its most ruthless and deceptive propagandists. I can only shake my head at those who swallow their rhetorical exudations...like a good brothel girl does. Before your feigned outrage, just bother to convince me with a rational, intelligent argument, that it isn't the case.

[crfriend]

[...] nothing more than the brothel girls of the country's most powerful lobbying organization [...]

Add in a little bit of dancing and you're pretty close to where my opinion stands -- simply put, bought and paid for with a sideshow to keep the populace from realising what's going on by keeping them distracted: in short, an oligarchy.

To crib one from Sarah Palin: "I can see Russia from my front porch". That's not too hard; I live (t)here. We're just not encouraged to make that comparison.

[Darryl]

So. Does the 1st Amendment only apply to quills and parchment and the occasional printing press?

They said "arms" which is a generic term. Perhaps George Soros could buy, maintain and operate his own F-35 or M-1 Abrams tank. That's the real barrier.

Instead of the Internet, do we return to the Pony Express? Hope that Ms. Revere's horse is faster than those of the OPFOR?

During my time in the service there was an annoying phrase: 'good enough for government work.' If the private citizens don't push the limits the military and police will mostly stagnate. I met my first firearm in boot camp on 1971 and its been a continuing relationship. I paid for and took my own training, was a founding member of a local IPSC and later IPDA club focused on 'practical' competition and took periodic training with (sometimes) nationally recognized military and police trainers. I knew for a fact that I was 'better' than at least some military and police in 'practical' and sometimes 'surprise' competition courses with beat cops and military guys from Corporal to General. Those were fun days.

That said: the sweater dress I'm now sitting here wearing is not that much different from the k'toneth mentioned throughout the Old Testament, which roughly translates into "a long, shirtlike garment." Skirts? Well, the Egyptians had the shendyt. Pretty much thousands of years of history and pretty much only the materials have changed a bit. Now...maybe when we step out of our sonic shower and pick up the chip of 'goo' we have selected to wear today and slap it on our chest and start walking for the door as it is activated by body heat and "grows" into the garment we are going to wear that day, shoes and all, and possibly have built-in protections for environmental issues and other things...like ballistic protection from the projectiles of the day and/or 'ray-gun' protection....well, then we'll have had some progress.

But I don't think the Founders were ignorant of the fact that technology moved forward, sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly. Spear, bow, compound bow, cross-bow....wrap-around clothing using knots and tucks to buttons to zippers to Velcro......

[dillon]

Perhaps the Founders envisioned technical advancement in vague terms, but in the same way your grandfather envisioned the smart phone, perhaps as a possibility that was irrelevant to the world he had to deal with, and without a grasp of the possible ramifications. Much the same as Orwell transposing the year of 1948 into 1984. I think they wold be appalled by Newtown and Pulse, and sickened by those who enable such acts by declaring the weapons that can destroy so many lives so quickly as constitutionally protected "sacred cows." Don't you dare call such patent evil the inevitable price of freedom. That's inexcusable and, frankly, sick.

[Darryl]

Actually, I think the Founders would be astonished that no one was shooting back.

Perhaps they might be sickened by all the press time and dwelling on the 'poor misunderstood miscreant.' Thinking instead that he should be taken out by the nearest law-abiding citizen as soon as humanly possible, said citizen being awarded a good citizenship prize and then the event and everything related to it is over. And maybe...not even the miscreant's name being used in the 10-second or less blurb saying he'd (or she'd) been shot to death as soon as they started their killing spree.

[Pdxfashionpioneer]

Hello Darryl,

If you listen closely you will notice that starting in 2016 the media has paid as little attention as possible to the name, motives, etc. of mass shooters as possible so that other mentally disturbed people don't get the idea that shooting a host of people is a way to get attention.

Hi Carl,

I don't know where you got the idea that an 18th century musketeer was expected to be able to hit a man at 100 yards. Back then a musket round would barely carry 40 yards with what passed for accuracy. There was a reason the troops advanced shoulder to shoulder, there was very little downside and the upside was that once they got within range of the position they were attaching they could fire their volley and then run to their objective with fixed bayonets before their foes could get off another volley.

And yes, rifles were in use at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, but almost exclusively for hunting. For all of their shortcomings, muskets had 4 times the rate of fire as rifles for one thing. Cost was very definitely an issue. Muskets could be mass-produced; rifles were handcrafted.

The Bill of Rights was added almost immediately after the 13 original states adopted the Constitution almost as a condition for adoption. In fact, 12 amendments were proposed, but only 10 were ratified in time.

As far as our rights being upheld by the government goes, there have been any number of times in recent history that public opinion polls show that the most people favor far greater restrictions on speech, news outlets, etc. than the government would dare think of because what the poll questions asked about would be unconstitutional. In addition, we do NOT have a state-supported religion, troops are not quartered in people's homes, federal office are filled according to the provisions of the Constitution, etc.

So please, stop with the Jeremiads about how we're living in a Soviet knockoff of a country. Because we're not.

Yes, our Congressional Districts have been gerrymandered to a ridiculous extent; but as a Bay Stater you should know this is not a 20th century innovation. The term was coined in Massachusetts in the early 1800's! Certainly, the Republicans appear to have refined it to perfection, but they may have been too clever by half. Most Democratic districts have a majority of Democrats in them. However, in most Republican districts, they're still a minority. The folks who drew those lines just assumed that the Independents in those districts were really Republicans in everything but name. While that's worked so far, we all know nothing lasts forever.

Hello Dillon,

When it comes to weapons technology I have to side with the folks on the other side of this debate. I think if we were to ask the Founders they would shrug and say, "Who'da thunk?," of what kind of firepower would be available to the average individual. They would go on to say, "We were just trying to avoid raising and maintaining a standing army. We also wanted to be sure the states had a counter balance; we recognized that this Chinese fella, Mao?, was right, 'Political power does grow out of the barrel of a gun.' We proved to the British it cuts both ways."

Hello Hoborob,

Carl's right that the Constitution was written to set the form of the central government and outline the mechanics of the central government. The Founders had experience with toothless central governments (the Continental Congress and then the Articles of Confederation) so they included a clause in the Constitution making it "the supreme law" of the land and giving the federal government power over the states.

In that same vein, conspicuous in its absence is any kind of escape clause; there is no provision for states to leave the union. There were plenty of attorneys at the Constitutional Convention so I strongly suspect the omission is deliberate. Blood in, blood out. Consequently, when Andrew Jackson backed South Carolina down from seceding during his Presidency no one challenged him on it. When the so-called Confederate states tried to secede, Lincoln was able to get plenty of support in reuniting the country and got some push-back from his troops when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation. They had signed up to preserve the Union, not necessarily to abolish slavery.

[crfriend]

I don't know where you got the idea that an 18th century musketeer was expected to be able to hit a man at 100 yards. Back then a musket round would barely carry 40 yards with what passed for accuracy.

I've watched competitions with people shooting them. I trust my eyes.

The Bill of Rights was added almost immediately after the 13 original states adopted the Constitution almost as a condition for adoption.

It was realised at the time that the drafters screwed the job up. However, instead of "amending" the thing they should have gone back and put those provisions into the body.

As far as our rights being upheld by the government goes, there have been any number of times in recent history that public opinion polls show that the most people favor far greater restrictions on speech, news outlets, etc. than the government would dare think of because what the poll questions asked about would be unconstitutional.

That's herd-mentality in action and happens because most folks are gullible and don't bother to contemplate consequences.

In addition, we do NOT have a state-supported religion, troops are not quartered in people's homes, federal office are filled according to the provisions of the Constitution, etc.

What we have is religion infiltrating and co-opting government, not the formal establishment of a state religion. We have a de-facto one in hard-line fundamental Christianity, however, even if it is non-legislated. However, we no longer have proper freedom of speech in which individuals may freely speak their minds, we are no longer safe in our persons, properties, nor private matters from unreasonable search and seizure, and we are no longer allowed any measure of privacy. The process (the Constitution), like any other tool, can be used for good or nefarious purposes.

So please, stop with the Jeremiads about how we're living in a Soviet knockoff of a country. Because we're not.

I have never compared the United States to the Soviet Union. I compare it to modern Russia, which is a very different entity. There are also parallels with pre-Soviet Tsarist Russia as well, mainly in the economic sphere. Those who believe that the Republic is still functioning as such either have not been paying attention in the past couple of decades or are happily deluding themselves in the hope that the problem goes away on its own.

Yes, our Congressional Districts have been gerrymandered to a ridiculous extent; but as a Bay Stater you should know this is not a 20th century innovation. The term was coined in Massachusetts in the early 1800's!

And named for one of Massachusetts' own as well. It's not one of our prouder moments. We've also had witch-hunts and hangings for religious reasons. It's a complex and sometimes messy history. We also enjoy a distinctly 17th Century feel to the "criminal justice" system.

[...] we recognized that this Chinese fella, Mao?, was right, 'Political power does grow out of the barrel of a gun.' We proved to the British it cuts both ways."

I find it interesting that you fail to perceive the path the country is on yet you quote Mao. Curious.

Political power also accrues from money and influence; that's what's got us the mess we're in now -- and money buys armies. Do you not think for a moment that the US military would fire on its own citizenry if ordered to do so? A rag-tag collection of individual with side-arms and semi-auto small-bore rifles are not a match for a trained army. Period. An armed citizenry might have been of some use for ensuring the freedoms of the people in the 18th century, but that's nullified by the sorts of fire-power only available to state-level actors in the 21st.