The Cost of Constitutional Freedoms?

[myth-one.com]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

None of the admirable reasons listed above for the creation of our Constitution were realized by the twenty-six "people of the United States" who were shot to death at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012. The murderer was the only person present who benefitted from his constitutional rights. But by guaranteeing his rights, we nullified the rights of 26 others to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

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.

If I possessed nuclear arms in my garage I would be charged with breaking criminal laws. But if my case reached the Supreme Court I should prevail as the Constitution guarantees my right to “keep and bear arms.�

Right?

But now that the United States maintains a well-equipped standing militia, is it still necessary for civilians to stock military weapons?

Are the Columbine, Aurora, Newtown, and others such tragedies simply the price we pay to maintain our freedom to keep and bear arms?

Before answering, take a minute and imagine that one of the Newtown victims was your child.

A parallel situation exists within the Christian religion. Many Christians proclaim they will spend eternity in heaven while all others burn eternally in hell. The one exception is innocent (sinless) children, who go to heaven immediately upon their death. The wages of sin is death, but young children have never knowingly sinned, thus they go to heaven and avoid the possibility of eternity in hellfire.

Based upon their own statements, disturbed Christian parents have periodically used this theology to justify the murder of their innocent children.

Must we endure these cyclic events as simply the price we pay for our freedom of religion?

Solving these two problems requires intelligence, a little infringement, and courage. Thus they remain unsolved.

Are they worth solving, or are these tragedies simply the price we must continue to pay to support these freedoms?

If they are worth solving, does anyone have any idea as to a starting point?

Think quickly, before the next tragic event occurs!

[charles_hamm]

We could fit each assault rifle sold to the public with a safety which would only allow the purchaser to fire the weapon. This would make resale and theft useless, while still providing security to the owner.

That system exist today. Police officers use it on their service revolvers now.

In the small town of Deer Park located near Houston several years ago, a police officer rushed home, set his revolver on his night stand, changed clothes, and hurriedly left with his wife to attend a party as soon as the baby sitter arrived. One of the children found the revolver and a child ended up being shot dead.

This finding and playing with guns by children is another repeatable event.

It is repeatable and tragic. I think the officer is actually guilty of criminal negligence here. One of the first thing that all the gun owners I know that have children buy is a gun safe. They also go to great lengths to educate their children on gun safety and proper gun usage.

Let's modify the safety system discussed above so that multiple people could fire the gun.

Could you then support a law whereby guns sold into homes with children must have that safety mechanism? This would allow the defined adults within the family to use the weapon for necessary defense, but would prevent it from firing if any child discovered and played with it! This would probably not violate the second amendment. A person could own and bear arms. But they would only work for those persons.

I think that an equally effective method would be some sort of locking mechanism that goes behind the trigger and prevents it from actually being able to be squeezed. The only problem I have with your idea is it would prevent a parent from allowing the child, at the proper age and supervised, to fire the weapon and be taught how to use it safely and properly. I believe that once the child fires the weapon and feels the kick and hears the bang, the mystery and awe of the weapon go away some. This also would show the child how powerful the weapon is and give him/her a greater respect for the weapon.

Think of the many lives which could be changed by such a system.

If you say no because of cost, then could you support such a law if the cost was covered by someone other than the purchasers?

I think my system could save many as well and would probably be more cost effective. I don't believe anyone but the gun owner should pay for safety items for the gun (safe, lock box, whatever).

I will say that the 3-D printing of guns is troublesome for me. Right now the printers are still new enough that the price is a little high for the common man. I do worry what will happen 5-10 years from now when the price drops and they become cheap enough (say $2,500 or $3,000) for lower income individuals to own. Right now most people would not have $5,000 to spend on this.

One major problem is that they can be printed from non-metalic material. Thus, undetectable by metal detectors.

This is true. Getting around the use of printers for guns will be tricky. This is an example of the law of unintended consequences.

But if it proves to be impossible to restrict gun access, we could make some calibers of ammo cost restrictive via taxation -- as was done with tobacco. This was effective in causing a drop in the number of smokers. Although guns can be printed, loaded cartridges cannot.

I would be a little worried about what kinds of ammo would be banned.

I wondered about that myself. Assault rifles probably use a standard shell commonly used by many other non-military type weapons.

Something that is interesting is that there actually is no military classification called "assault rifle". It's a term the government came up with because it sounds scary. If you look at the specs for an AR-15 or any other so-called "assault rifle" you will see that the damage they inflict is no greater than what can be done with a shotgun or any other rifle.

[100%atheist]

[Replying to post 3 by East of Eden]

Just ban all firearms in private hands, and confiscate all already available firearms ammunition on hands. This will be the ultimate solution to the problem, and I approve my message.

So would you agree that all these private security guards that are hired to protect elected officials should give up their weapons as well?

Are you a private contractor? Why does it bother you?

Also how would you compensate those of us who hunt and put food on our table for the lose we will have from not being able to hunt anymore?

I am now really curious where you leave. Are there places that have both the internet access and the need to hunt to survive?

Will you also ban 3-D printers since they have been shown to be able to make guns?

And would you now ban pressure cookers?

If so, how would you compensate the machine shops that use these to manufacture parts cheaper and faster than traditional methods?

How would you compensate the families who use pressure cookers in their everyday lives?

I agree, banning a machine gun ("high-capacity magazines" and stupid half-way proposals) will not prevent anybody from getting a truckload of handguns from Walmart and unloading a bunch of small magazines in a school next door to that Walmart. Ban 'em all!

I don't know about other states, but in Texas a person must have a special license to modify any weapon from semi-auto to full auto. I think that the license is federal, but I may be wrong. Automatic weapons can only be sold by a gun shop with a class III weapons license to an individual with a class III weapons license. All of these weapons are over 20 years since Gun Owners Protection Bill (I believe that's the name) passed in 1986. Handguns still require a waiting period and a backgroud check if you buy them from a reputable dealer.

And if you by them from a dealer that is not reputable? And if you have no background checks ran on you?

Constitution? It's old, and need a revision anyway.
Law abiding citizens? It is a classic NoTrueScotsman fallacy because when you pay for your gun you are a law abiding citizen, but then you are excluded from the pool of such as soon as you shoot "that little b...h" next door.

Which part and who gets to chose what the amendments say?

I don't know.

By the very definition of the word if you purchase a gun AND it is legal AND you have committed no crime, you are a law abiding citizen. When you commit a crime, by definition you have broken the law and can now be called a criminal. The NoTrueScottsman fallacy applies to a persons opinion, not the classification of a group.

The best example is:
"No True Scotsman would rape a woman"
A Scotsman rapped a woman.
"Then he is not a true Scotsman"

We don't have this case. We have:
"No law abiding citizen would break the law"
A law abiding citizen broke the law.
"Then he is no longer a law abiding citizen."

This is a legal classification and not an individuals opinion so it's not a fallacy.

You made my day man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I was reading, and re-reading what you have said. I only can say, thank you for your support!

[myth-one.com]

In the small town of Deer Park located near Houston several years ago, a police officer rushed home, set his revolver on his night stand, changed clothes, and hurriedly left with his wife to attend a party as soon as the baby sitter arrived. One of the children found the revolver and a child ended up being shot dead.

It is repeatable and tragic. I think the officer is actually guilty of criminal negligence here. One of the first thing that all the gun owners I know that have children buy is a gun safe.

He was charged with some offence.

I think that an equally effective method would be some sort of locking mechanism that goes behind the trigger and prevents it from actually being able to be squeezed.

Let's compare the two systems.

With a gun safe and trigger locking mechanism:

There is still something the gun owner must do to render the gun safe. If gun owners sometimes forget and leave their unsafe gun lying around in reach of children, why won't they still do the same with a safe and locking mechanism?

If the owner is awakened in the middle of the night by a burglar, he will have to unlock the safe and/or the trigger lock -- hopefully before being shot by the burglar.

If the house is robbed while the owner is away, the burglar doesn't have to search the home for guns to steal -- as they are all in the safe.


With the gun safety mechanism which only allows the owner to use it:

No action is required for the gun to be safe -- it is always on safety for everyone except the owner.

If the owner is awakened in the middle of the night by a burglar, he reaches for his gun and defends his property immediately.

If the gun is ever stolen, it is useless to the thief.

The only problem I have with your idea is it would prevent a parent from allowing the child, at the proper age and supervised, to fire the weapon and be taught how to use it safely and properly.

At the proper time, take the child to a gun range and allow him/her to fire regular firearms under your supervision.

If you look at the specs for an AR-15 or any other so-called "assault rifle" you will see that the damage they inflict is no greater than what can be done with a shotgun or any other rifle.

Shotguns and ordinary rifles cannot equal the rounds per minute rates of "assault rifles."

The damage inflicted at Sandy Hook was devastating. I believe the ratio of dead to wounded was about 26/3.

[myth-one.com]

NEWS UPDATE!

The Company "Defense Distributed" has created and successfully tested the first gun produced on a 3-D printer. Click on this post for a link to see the gun fired in a 53-second video.

They plan to put specs for the device on the internet.

The weapon contains one metal part , but it is said to be undetectable by metal detectors at airports.

[marketandchurch]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

None of the admirable reasons listed above for the creation of our Constitution were realized by the twenty-six "people of the United States" who were shot to death at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012. The murderer was the only person present who benefitted from his constitutional rights. But by guaranteeing his rights, we nullified the rights of 26 others to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

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.

If I possessed nuclear arms in my garage I would be charged with breaking criminal laws. But if my case reached the Supreme Court I should prevail as the Constitution guarantees my right to “keep and bear arms.�

Right?

But now that the United States maintains a well-equipped standing militia, is it still necessary for civilians to stock military weapons?

Are the Columbine, Aurora, Newtown, and others such tragedies simply the price we pay to maintain our freedom to keep and bear arms?

Before answering, take a minute and imagine that one of the Newtown victims was your child.

A parallel situation exists within the Christian religion. Many Christians proclaim they will spend eternity in heaven while all others burn eternally in hell. The one exception is innocent (sinless) children, who go to heaven immediately upon their death. The wages of sin is death, but young children have never knowingly sinned, thus they go to heaven and avoid the possibility of eternity in hellfire.

Based upon their own statements, disturbed Christian parents have periodically used this theology to justify the murder of their innocent children.

Must we endure these cyclic events as simply the price we pay for our freedom of religion?

Solving these two problems requires intelligence, a little infringement, and courage. Thus they remain unsolved.

Are they worth solving, or are these tragedies simply the price we must continue to pay to support these freedoms?

If they are worth solving, does anyone have any idea as to a starting point?

Think quickly, before the next tragic event occurs!

So because 26 people... no, let's make this hit closer to the heart: So because 26 Children... lost their lives, due to a system that has benefited hundreds of millions of people over the 200+ years that we've existed as a sovereign country, you would do away with that system, for the sake of 26 Children?

If you observe the deaths that come about as a result of centralizing authority, and then only allowing this authority to be the only ones with all the weapons, add up all the public shootings that have happened in the US over its nationhood, and it doesn't even come close to touching the lives lost to nazism, communism, or fascism. From the Khmer Rogue, to Pol Pot, to Kim Sung Ill, the track record of humanity simply doesn't warrant such a romantic view.

The OP is purely emotional blackmail. Even the citing of the passage about Christian parents killing their children based on theology is pretty low, and so is the assumption that those who support gun ownership lack intelligence, and courage, for not being a gun-control advocate. If I omitted a truly bipartisan approach, such as widespread gun-ownership, paired with even heavier gun control laws, you probably would not support it. What if we swapped gun-rights ownership for doing away with the legality of abortion? Preserving current life for ensuring future life. It is unlikely that most gun-control advocates would be willing to "compromise."

You are anti-gun ownership, and the only solutions you seek, are ones that answer your question, of how we can best remove arms from the hands of private citizens.

[myth-one.com]

Are they worth solving, or are these tragedies simply the price we must continue to pay to support these freedoms?

So because 26 people... no, let's make this hit closer to the heart: So because 26 Children... lost their lives, due to a system that has benefited hundreds of millions of people over the 200+ years that we've existed as a sovereign country, you would do away with that system, for the sake of 26 Children?

If you observe the deaths that come about as a result of centralizing authority, and then only allowing this authority to be the only ones with all the weapons, add up all the public shootings that have happened in the US over its nationhood, and it doesn't even come close to touching the lives lost to nazism, communism, or fascism. From the Khmer Rogue, to Pol Pot, to Kim Sung Ill, the track record of humanity simply doesn't warrant such a romantic view.

The OP is purely emotional blackmail. Even the citing of the passage about Christian parents killing their children based on theology is pretty low, and so is the assumption that those who support gun ownership lack intelligence, and courage, for not being a gun-control advocate. If I omitted a truly bipartisan approach, such as widespread gun-ownership, paired with even heavier gun control laws, you probably would not support it. What if we swapped gun-rights ownership for doing away with the legality of abortion? Preserving current life for ensuring future life. It is unlikely that most gun-control advocates would be willing to "compromise."

You are anti-gun ownership, and the only solutions you seek, are ones that answer your question, of how we can best remove arms from the hands of private citizens.

So you believe these tragedies are simply the price we must pay for these freedoms.

[marketandchurch]

Are they worth solving, or are these tragedies simply the price we must continue to pay to support these freedoms?

So because 26 people... no, let's make this hit closer to the heart: So because 26 Children... lost their lives, due to a system that has benefited hundreds of millions of people over the 200+ years that we've existed as a sovereign country, you would do away with that system, for the sake of 26 Children?

If you observe the deaths that come about as a result of centralizing authority, and then only allowing this authority to be the only ones with all the weapons, add up all the public shootings that have happened in the US over its nationhood, and it doesn't even come close to touching the lives lost to nazism, communism, or fascism. From the Khmer Rogue, to Pol Pot, to Kim Sung Ill, the track record of humanity simply doesn't warrant such a romantic view.

The OP is purely emotional blackmail. Even the citing of the passage about Christian parents killing their children based on theology is pretty low, and so is the assumption that those who support gun ownership lack intelligence, and courage, for not being a gun-control advocate. If I omitted a truly bipartisan approach, such as widespread gun-ownership, paired with even heavier gun control laws, you probably would not support it. What if we swapped gun-rights ownership for doing away with the legality of abortion? Preserving current life for ensuring future life. It is unlikely that most gun-control advocates would be willing to "compromise."

You are anti-gun ownership, and the only solutions you seek, are ones that answer your question, of how we can best remove arms from the hands of private citizens.

So you believe these tragedies are simply the price we must pay for these freedoms.

Myth-one, it isn't that we conservatives don't care for the lives that were lost at sandyhook. But why is there a war on guns immediately after every public shooting? When has there ever been a gun-shooting, and the immediate reaction on the part of the Left has been to wage a war on culture?

You are blaming homicides on the existence of guns. But why does white-on-anyone crime not make up more then 6% of all gun related homicides? Why aren't rednecks in the south shooting their neighbors, store-owners, and others in their community up, despite their even higher rate of gun ownership?

• If you were to dump 100,000,000 guns in sweden, you would see swedes slaughtering each other. No. They will most likely melt it down to repurpose as Ikea furniture or use it to construct progressive scandinavian art installations.

And the reason is simple… as it is in Japan, and many other places on earth. It's not about the availability of the material, or the climate of that nations economics/politics that leads to a high level of crime, but rather, the culture and values that underpin it. Dump those guns in Denmark, or Japan, and they won't shoot each other up to anywhere near a 10th of the homicides that take place in inner city neighborhoods, amongst african americans and hispanics. It's a matter of values, and right now, the urban inner city's health is on full display, with its high dropout rates, high homicide rates, high diabetes and obesity rates, high unemployment rate, high out-of-wedlock birthrates, paired with a terrible street culture, and all are reinforcing mechanisms that sustains and perpetuates murder rates.

Values, Myth-one, are the problem. Not Guns.

[myth-one.com]

You are blaming homicides on the existence of guns.

The second amendment isn't about Guns -- but arms!

Guns are a small subset of arms. The general public is now in an arms race with each other. Someday when most of us have machine guns, someone will obtain the first armored personnel carrier to take his kids to school, then others afraid of him, will want an RPG to defend against it, or land mines to blow it up, ... etc.

Let's be expeditious and go straight to public nuke ownership. Afterall, all of these devices, being arms, should be protected under the second amendment!

There is absolutely no reason to assume that the founding fathers did not anticipate that lines would have to be drawn someday. Perhaps somewhere between guns and guided missiles.

Or perhaps within guns and before "assault rifles." (Too late for that one now.)

Or perhaps within assault rifles at small clips.

Or perhaps the public should not be able to legally own weapons greater that those of the police department.

Values, Myth-one, are the problem. Not Guns.

Lets take values and Guns, and assume that these high body count massacres are a result of our values as you say.

Now lets keep the same values and eliminate guns from the equation. Then consider the following questions:

Without guns, how many could the murderer have killed in the same amount of time at Sandy Hook before being subdued?

Without guns, how many could the murderer have killed in Aurora before being subdued by the theater full of mostly adults?

Without guns, how many could the current record holder (at 32 victims) have killed at the Virginia Tech massacre?

The arms selection of these murderers obviously did make a difference!

I am not against gun ownership. There are good valid reasons for the general public owing guns.

[charles_hamm]

[Replying to post 3 by East of Eden]

Just ban all firearms in private hands, and confiscate all already available firearms ammunition on hands. This will be the ultimate solution to the problem, and I approve my message.

So would you agree that all these private security guards that are hired to protect elected officials should give up their weapons as well?

Are you a private contractor? Why does it bother you?

No I am not. I am just curious whether all people would be considered equal when banning firearms or would some deserve special treatment.

Also how would you compensate those of us who hunt and put food on our table for the lose we will have from not being able to hunt anymore?

I am now really curious where you leave. Are there places that have both the internet access and the need to hunt to survive?

I live in Texas. We hunt to help reduce the cost of groceries. It is not the only means of food, but it is a means of food that we utilize.

Will you also ban 3-D printers since they have been shown to be able to make guns?

And would you now ban pressure cookers?

I asked first. I am asking because I would like to know how far you would be willing to go to ban all guns.

If so, how would you compensate the machine shops that use these to manufacture parts cheaper and faster than traditional methods?

How would you compensate the families who use pressure cookers in their everyday lives?

See my response above.

I agree, banning a machine gun ("high-capacity magazines" and stupid half-way proposals) will not prevent anybody from getting a truckload of handguns from Walmart and unloading a bunch of small magazines in a school next door to that Walmart. Ban 'em all!

I don't know about other states, but in Texas a person must have a special license to modify any weapon from semi-auto to full auto. I think that the license is federal, but I may be wrong. Automatic weapons can only be sold by a gun shop with a class III weapons license to an individual with a class III weapons license. All of these weapons are over 20 years since Gun Owners Protection Bill (I believe that's the name) passed in 1986. Handguns still require a waiting period and a backgroud check if you buy them from a reputable dealer.

And if you by them from a dealer that is not reputable? And if you have no background checks ran on you?

So you are asking if a criminal buys a gun from a dealer who is committing a crime by selling it to him. Think about that for a minute. Both parties are committing a crime so they are both criminals. The only place background checks are not ran is at conventions.

Constitution? It's old, and need a revision anyway.
Law abiding citizens? It is a classic NoTrueScotsman fallacy because when you pay for your gun you are a law abiding citizen, but then you are excluded from the pool of such as soon as you shoot "that little b...h" next door.

Which part and who gets to chose what the amendments say?

I don't know.

Thank you for your honesty.

By the very definition of the word if you purchase a gun AND it is legal AND you have committed no crime, you are a law abiding citizen. When you commit a crime, by definition you have broken the law and can now be called a criminal. The NoTrueScottsman fallacy applies to a persons opinion, not the classification of a group.

The best example is:
"No True Scotsman would rape a woman"
A Scotsman rapped a woman.
"Then he is not a true Scotsman"

We don't have this case. We have:
"No law abiding citizen would break the law"
A law abiding citizen broke the law.
"Then he is no longer a law abiding citizen."

This is a legal classification and not an individuals opinion so it's not a fallacy.

You made my day man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I was reading, and re-reading what you have said. I only can say, thank you for your support!

Glad to help. Hope you see the difference now.