A "common sense" proposal that will piss off both sides

[VikingsGuy]

None of those bolded were thought of as highly to receive their own Amendment. I'm thankful that the constructors were such forward thinkers. The ignorant or the evil may defeat 2A one of these days, but it won't be easy. Likely will be small bites at a time allowed by those that don't understand its significance. That is why many don't want to give up a small bite that would do little to no good in reducing actual crimes.

Ok ignore everything after the comment of grandpa knew.

Everyone knew feds could regulate - at least everyone since 1934. My apologies to HT members in their 90s.

The bottom line you keep dodging is the acknowledgment that every single right guaranteed under the Bill of Rights is in fact, and always has been, subject to federal regulation if that regulation meets strict scrutiny (or lower in some cases). That is not news.

 

[Deleted member 52098]

You are so busy being opposed you don't seem to be getting the premise of my post. I already said the partisans on both side will kill every idea in my post, but I wanted to share a set of proposals that I believe could fit together and make some progress. But I have no illusions that I would "get" any of this from the left, nor will the right "give" on any of it either. We no longer negotiate for a common good, we play a blood sport for team red/blue. It was just offered as a thought experiment that might rise above that for a few moments.

This right here. Loved the OP and this is ^ is why we can't have nice things or negotiate for a better future. Entrenched thinking & voting... all about sides, not the greater good.

 

[longbow51]

But not a short barreled shotgun, or a Tommy gun. Grandpa knew there were regulatory limits.

There were times when people knew they could buy cocaine in a soft drink. Time they could drive 80mph in MN. Time they could buy alcohol at 18yo. Time a developer could drain a wet land without permission. Time when one man could kill 100 buffalo in a day and let them rot. But those aren’t today’s times.

It is centuries old law that a govt’s forbearance in regulating things is no way an admission that it can’t/won’t in the future. And again, it did regulate firearms from 1934 to the present - everybody knows that.

While I have tapped out on this thread for serious discussion,

1. What's wrong with a little pick-me-up around 2 pm? Coca Cola sounds great.
2. Admit that 80 is ridiculous. You can still drive 85 in MT, and back then, whatever was "safe and prudent". I had a V-12 Mercedes in those days, and it was often about 105.
3. And, no, I love wetlands.
4. Nah, brah, that's just wrong. Our Native American brothers ran thousands off buffalo jumps though...

Y'all need to go fishing.

 

[antelopedundee]

While I have tapped out on this thread for serious discussion,

1. What's wrong with a little pick-me-up around 2 pm? Coca Cola sounds great.
2. Admit that 80 is ridiculous. You can still drive 85 in MT, and back then, whatever was "safe and prudent". I had a V-12 Mercedes in those days, and it was often about 105.
3. And, no I love wetlands.
4. Nah, brah, that's just wrong. Our Native American brothers ran thousands off buffalo jumps though...

Y'all need to go fishing.

That's supposedly how Chugwater, WY, got its name; from the chugging sound that a buffalo made when it hit the water below. I read about it in the local phone book during a stopover on a family vacation.

Chugwater, Wyoming - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Etymology of the town's name[edit]​

Some historians hold that the name "Chugwater" is derived from a Mandan account of a bison hunt. According to this narrative, a chief was disabled during the hunt and his son took charge of the hunt or "buffalo jump". Under his direction, hunters drove the bison over nearby cliffs; when the animals reached the ground below, a sound of "chugging" was heard by the hunters. The story concludes with an etymology: since a stream was near the base of the cliffs, the site of the stampede has been called "the place" or "water at the place where the buffalo chug."[9]

 

[Jwill]

After reading through this thread I decided to buy Busse's book. So, nice work folks!

In my opinion, if we, as gun owning/liking folks, can't figure out how prevent this from happening, then the folks that don't like guns are going to figure it out for us and we're probably not going to like what they come up with...

 

[CAV67]

Bro. That was Patrick Henry.

Yes, Patrick Henry is famous for the phrase, but a little history digging and you'll find that John Stark uttered this phrase first at Bunker Hill..."Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils." and also used it to close a letter many years later to some colleagues and it became the State motto of New Hampshire in 1945...

 

[4ohSick]

Yes, Patrick Henry is famous for the phrase, but a little history digging and you'll find that John Stark uttered this phrase first at Bunker Hill..."Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils." and also used it to close a letter many years later to some colleagues and it became the State motto of New Hampshire in 1945...

If we're going to allow loose paraphrasing to stand in for quotes, I think you should've gone with Braveheart's version of the same.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Yes, Patrick Henry is famous for the phrase, but a little history digging and you'll find that John Stark uttered this phrase first at Bunker Hill..."Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils." and also used it to close a letter many years later to some colleagues and it became the State motto of New Hampshire in 1945...

All the misquotes of history are a reminder that "common knowledge" is not always "accurate knowledge"

 

[Randi]

In my view, "common-sense" legislation implicitly requires some degree of compromise - a move by both sides to the middle.

I thought of this sentence today, {which I agree with ), while listening to Cicilline and Bishop discussing the new "Protecting Our Kids Act".

 

[JLS]

Democrats have bad solutions to gun violence. Republicans have none. Let's build common ground. — USA TODAY

Republicans and Democrats have to come together to find commonsense gun reforms after mass shootings in Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo, New York.

apple.news

 

[VikingsGuy]

Democrats have bad solutions to gun violence. Republicans have none. Let's build common ground. — USA TODAY

Republicans and Democrats have to come together to find commonsense gun reforms after mass shootings in Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo, New York.

apple.news

We tried to help 'em both out

 

[LWC55]

Ok ignore everything after the comment of grandpa knew.

Everyone knew feds could regulate - at least everyone since 1934. My apologies to HT members in their 90s.

The bottom line you keep dodging is the acknowledgment that every single right guaranteed under the Bill of Rights is in fact, and always has been, subject to federal regulation if that regulation meets strict scrutiny (or lower in some cases). That is not news.

When grandpa was alive everyone also knew that women didn't have balls, kids didn't shit in litter boxes or eat laundry detergent. The mentally ill were actually put in mental institutions. Today those that do not know the difference between a man and a woman are trying to take away gun rights from law abiding citizens. They will not get any of my support or placation.

 

[VikingsGuy]

When grandpa was alive everyone also knew that women didn't have balls, kids didn't shit in litter boxes or eat laundry detergent. The mentally ill were actually put in mental institutions. Today those that do not know the difference between a man and a woman are trying to take away gun rights from law abiding citizens. They will not get any of my support or placation.

You do you, but that is not a logical response to this post's premise. As far as mental institutions, I suggest you do a little reading about what those really were before you nostalgize them.

 

[LWC55]

You do you, but that is not a logical response to this post's premise. As far as mental institutions, I suggest you do a little reading about what those really were before you nostalgize them.

I have no nostalgia for mental institutions. Just for common sense. If someone is a danger to society, should they be freely walking around in society? People are talking red flag laws for guns. Do you want a person who is deemed a danger to society with a gun to have access to a car, to a knife, to a baseball bat?

 

[QuazyQuinton]

I have no nostalgia for mental institutions. Just for common sense. If someone is a danger to society, should they be freely walking around in society? People are talking red flag laws for guns. Do you want a person who is deemed a danger to society with a gun to have access to a car, to a knife, to a baseball bat?

I find it interesting, given your stance on 2A, that you don't seem worried about compromising the Constitutional rights of the mentally ill.

QQ

 

[VikingsGuy]

I have no nostalgia for mental institutions. Just for common sense. If someone is a danger to society, should they be freely walking around in society? People are talking red flag laws for guns. Do you want a person who is deemed a danger to society with a gun to have access to a car, to a knife, to a baseball bat?

Just for once, stop the half-assed arguments and read something that may challenge your assumptions. Mental institutions were effectively torture chambers in much of America.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I find it interesting, given your stance on 2A, that you don't seem worried about compromising the Constitutional rights of the mentally ill.

QQ

Recent public discussions have pointed to nineteen states which have enacted thoroughly vetted and carefully crafted laws which appear to highly prioritize the rights of mentally ill or otherwise unstable persons who may present strong potential for harm to themselves or others.

To your question of LWC55, I think restricted access to firearms is a viable preventative "red flag" measure; however, restricted access to "a car, to a knife, to a baseball bat" is unrealistic and is imposing unjust restrictions of rights.

 

[LWC55]

Just for once, stop the half-assed arguments and read something that may challenge your assumptions. Mental institutions were effectively torture chambers in much of America.

Nobody is calling for antiquated "torture chambers". It was a simple question. if someone deemed so dangerous that they should not be around firearms, should they have access to an F250 or an ax or numerous any other item that could be used as a weapon?

 

[LWC55]

Recent public discussions have pointed to nineteen states which have enacted thoroughly vetted and carefully crafted laws which appear to highly prioritize the rights of mentally ill or otherwise unstable persons who may present strong potential for harm to themselves or others.

To your question of LWC55, I think restricted access to firearms is a viable preventative "red flag" measure; however, restricted access to "a car, to a knife, to a baseball bat" is unrealistic and is imposing unjust restrictions of rights.

I appreciate your response and honesty. But the only right you feel comfortable restricting, of the ones being discussed is the only one that is specifically protected by the constitution.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Nobody is calling for antiquated "torture chambers". It was a simple question. if someone deemed so dangerous that they should not be around firearms, should they have access to an F250 or an ax or numerous any other item that could be used as a weapon?

There is a difference between sincere questions and "what about-isms" and self-perceived "gotchas" - I choose to distinguish between them.