Is the price we pay for 2nd amendment freedom too high?

[canadyjd]

Given the events in Texas, do you think the price for 2nd amendment rights is too high?

If you believe the price is too high, what can be done to lower the societal costs of this freedom?

If you don’t live in the US, please refrain from voting or commenting.

peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

I confess to being unsure at this particular moment. I am shaken, rattled that what appears to be a mentally ill 18 year old was able to legally purchase these weapons and commit this carnage.

But I am also unsure if an alternative. I certainly do not trust the politicians that rushed to seek political advantage before the victims were even identified, much less mourned and laid to rest. So very unseemly.

So, I am left to ponder the costs of this freedom and what changes can be brought that do not infringe on this right.

peace to you

 

[Salty]

If someone wants to do a mass killing - they will find a way - even if they have no firearms.

 

[Revmitchell]

the problem is freedom surrendered is freedom lost. Further, the left wants to get rid of personal gun ownership altogether. The answer is not getting rid of guns but dealing with the issues that lead to these killing. Guns are not that. This is basic logic not sure why that needs explaining.

 

[canadyjd]

If someone wants to do a mass killing - they will find a way - even if they have no firearms.

I don’t doubt it, but had he not been armed with that semi auto rifle the SRO may have been able to stop him at the door. He was wounded but was able to get him to drop a bag of ammo. Probably saved lives, but could he have saved them all?

The SRO was probably armed with a 9mm handgun with 15 rounds plus two clips, going against a high powered semi auto rifle with high capacity magazines. He was vastly out gunned.

Peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

the problem is freedom surrendered is freedom lost. Further, the left wants to get rid of personal gun ownership altogether. The answer is not getting rid of guns but dealing with the issues that lead to these killing. Guns are not that. This is basic logic not sure why that needs explaining.

My suggestion doesn’t ban guns. It limits the types of guns available to those 18-20. That seems reasonable to me, given we don’t allow people below 21 to purchase or consume alcohol.

peace to you

 

[Revmitchell]

My suggestion doesn’t ban guns. It limits the types of guns available to those 18-20. That seems reasonable to me, given we don’t allow people below 21 to purchase or consume alcohol.

peace to you

Alcohol is not an equal comparison. It is not declared to be a right that cannot be taken from or reduced.

 

[Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin]

I have 18, 19, 20 and 21 year olds in my Fire Department that are responsible enough to save folks lives or to go interior on a structure fire or to fight a brush fire with me and some of them even drive our 10 to 30,000lb apparatus to scenes running Code 3 lights and sirens.

Clearly these young men that I volunteer with are responsible enough to have a firearm. Why then, are other 18 - 21 year olds not responsible enough?

The answer lies in the difference of their raising. One set of kids was raised right. The other set weren't. If we're going to pass a law, then pass something that reinforces parenting. However, restricting responsible young men from exercising their rights because some of their peers are morons is not right. And as @Salty mentioned, if we ban the guns then the next dingdong is just going to steal a pickup truck and drive it through a school, or rent a U-Haul/Penske and do it...

 

[canadyjd]

I have 18, 19, 20 and 21 year olds in my Fire Department that are responsible enough to save folks lives or to go interior on a structure fire or to fight a brush fire with me and some of them even drive our 10 to 30,000lb apparatus to scenes running Code 3 lights and sirens.

Clearly these young men that I volunteer with are responsible enough to have a firearm. Why then, are other 18 - 21 year olds not responsible enough?

The answer lies in the difference of their raising. One set of kids was raised right. The other set weren't. If we're going to pass a law, then pass something that reinforces parenting. However, restricting responsible young men from exercising their rights because some of their peers are morons is not right. And as @Salty mentioned, if we ban the guns then the next dingdong is just going to steal a pickup truck and drive it through a school, or rent a U-Haul/Penske and do it...

No doubt those you know are mature, but they can’t purchase alcohol before they are 21.

And of course it depends on parental upbringing. But since the government can’t be in everyone’s home (and no one wants them to be) why not laws that give everyone a chance to mature before they buy these specific, high powered, high capacity magazine semi auto rifles?

Peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

Alcohol is not an equal comparison. It is not declared to be a right that cannot be taken from or reduced.

The 2nd amendment can be taken from people (convicted felons) and can be reduced (children under 18 cannot currently purchase these weapons, specialized weapons such as 50 cal machine guns, etc)

And my suggestion allows 18-20 year olds to purchase guns, just not these specific weapons.

peace to you

 

[Revmitchell]

The 2nd amendment can be taken from people (convicted felons) and can be reduced (children under 18 cannot currently purchase these weapons, specialized weapons such as 50 cal machine guns, etc)

And my suggestion allows 18-20 year olds to purchase guns, just not these specific weapons.

peace to you

And those laws are unconstitutional. Whether the SC says so or not. Good grief when I was in grade school we had guns in school learning gun safety. The age is irrelevant. I know many teens and younger who can responsibly handle any gun. The issue is not age its lack of family the break down of morals.

 

[AustinC]

We can still have 2nd Amendment rights while tightening our gun laws.
We require people who drive cars to be licensed and to register their cars and insure their cars. There is no reason why we cannot require registration and background checks on every gun owner. We can require hours of gun safety practice before issuing a gun. We can work to assure that there is a limit the guns someone under 18 can use. We can restrict and ban guns that are not legalized for legitimate hunting purposes. This still keeps the 2nd Amendment in tact, yet it protects us from the corruption of our Cain-like hearts.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

One problem with your solution is it drives up the price of entry the low-income folks who need the 2A on a daily basis.

We can still have 2nd Amendment rights while tightening our gun laws.
We require people who drive cars to be licensed and to register their cars and insure their cars. There is no reason why we cannot require registration and background checks on every gun owner. We can require hours of gun safety practice before issuing a gun. We can work to assure that there is a limit the guns someone under 18 can use. We can restrict and ban guns that are not legalized for legitimate hunting purposes. This still keeps the 2nd Amendment in tact, yet it protects us from the corruption of our Cain-like hearts.

 

[just-want-peace]

IMHO, the legal system should hold parents, fully or partially, responsible for their children's actions.
I suspect that there are some, but I am not savvy enough in this area to know.

 

[canadyjd]

And those laws are unconstitutional. Whether the SC says so or not. Good grief when I was in grade school we had guns in school learning gun safety. The age is irrelevant. I know many teens and younger who can responsibly handle any gun. The issue is not age its lack of family the break down of morals.

It’s not having “guns”, it’s the type of guns.

Until the people of the country, or a ruling from SC, say differently, those restrictions will remain.

peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

We can still have 2nd Amendment rights while tightening our gun laws.
We require people who drive cars to be licensed and to register their cars and insure their cars. There is no reason why we cannot require registration and background checks on every gun owner. We can require hours of gun safety practice before issuing a gun. We can work to assure that there is a limit the guns someone under 18 can use. We can restrict and ban guns that are not legalized for legitimate hunting purposes. This still keeps the 2nd Amendment in tact, yet it protects us from the corruption of our Cain-like hearts.

Again, we would not require government classes and instruction for worship, free speech, free press, free assembly. The 2nd amendment isn’t the same as owning a car, which is a prick edge not granted by our constitution.

I do agree with you somewhat that we might be able to limit the types of weapons adults 18-20 can own to non-semi auto rifles, shotguns and revolvers.

There is no protection from our “Cain-like hearts”

peace to you

 

[Salty]

I have 18, 19, 20 and 21 year olds in my Fire Department that are responsible enough to save folks lives or to go interior on a structure fire or to fight a brush fire with me and some of them even drive our 10 to 30,000lb apparatus to scenes running Code 3 lights and sirens.
...

We allow 18 and 19 year olds drive a 10 million dollar Abrams M-1 tank,
among other many hi-tech equipment

 

[canadyjd]

We allow 18 and 19 year olds drive a 10 million dollar Abrams M-1 tank,
among other many hi-tech equipment

Yes we do. We also train them to use machine guns, mortars, Granada launchers etc, all under the strict instructions and supervision military professionals for the purpose of preparing them for combat.

peace to you

 

[AustinC]

Again, we would not require government classes and instruction for worship, free speech, free press, free assembly. The 2nd amendment isn’t the same as owning a car, which is a prick edge not granted by our constitution.

I do agree with you somewhat that we might be able to limit the types of weapons adults 18-20 can own to non-semi auto rifles, shotguns and revolvers.

There is no protection from our “Cain-like hearts”

peace to you

Comparing guns to worship is just silly.
Guns are a tool, like a car. We regulate the use of tools. Nothing is infringed in the 2nd Amendment when we setup checks to require a proper training for anyone who wants to own a gun.

 

[Salty]

Comparing guns to worship is just silly. ...

Not it is not that silly! - the point being they both are constitutional rights

... Nothing is infringed in the 2nd Amendment when we setup checks to require a proper training ...

Technically there is a case to be made.
The 2nd A states "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".” -- PERIOD - and training could be considered an infringement.
Lets say for example - the govt require a six moth training period (you must attend 26 weekly training sessions...)

Granted - back in the 18th century - just about every boy at age 5 or 6 was taught how to fire a weapon and to do it safely. I realizes that here in the 21 century - not so much - but does that change the original intent. -- Now that would be an interesting court case!

Lots of ways to look at these things