Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire The 2nd won't save us this time

It is my opinion that we are reaching the point where society at large is going to force us to separate these maniacs from weapons a lot better than we have been able to accomplish thus far.

No need for that. I'll do it myself.

What I meant is this: The constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court. And this entity has shown itself to be a very political animal. There have been decisions handed down from this august body that would make your head spin in terms of what the constitution says and how they interpret it. They have also made politically expedient decisions that would make your skin crawl in their callous disregard for human decency and dignity.

Depending on what the 2nd says or how this particular group of justices interpret it is fool's gold.

In the long run the SC will go toward what the majority of the citizenry believes, or at least what they will tolerate. The witch's cocktail of psychotic individuals having access to lethal weapons has shown itself to be one with catastrophic consequences. It is my opinion that we are reaching the point where society at large is going to force us to separate these maniacs from weapons a lot better than we have been able to accomplish thus far.

Will

I do believe that a whole lot of what we consider gun rights have been saved for a good long while. A whole lot of what we consider gun rights is not. The right to self protection and whatnot is probably safe. As is the right to manually operated hunting weapons. Everything else? Wouldn't bet on it.
...
Will

Too many of these mass shooting of our most vulnerable have taken place.
Will

Mass murders have been around a lot longer than health insurance....

You have no idea what Penguin said. You have no real ideas period, just an obsessive/compulsive need to rant ignorance.

He didn't once say he was retreating. He was offering another tactic that is far more realistic, under the present circumstances. You...YOU are the best example of what the MSM targets so successfully in their propaganda campaigns.

I'm willing to fight and die for my 2A rights, but it doesn't mean I'll do it dumb.

Your point?? I guess it's to tolerate mass murder, because it's been here so long.

Let's focus on stopping the nuts and keep them out of schools.

Your point?? I guess it's to tolerate mass murder, because it's been here so long.

Let's focus on stopping the nuts and keep them out of schools.

The school on CT was locked and the shooter had to break in.

My understanding is many places have school entrances that resemble a TSA station at an airport.

Your point?? I guess it's to tolerate mass murder, because it's been here so long.

Let's focus on stopping the nuts and keep them out of schools.

No, the supreme court should uphold the constitution as written. That could certainly change with more O picks on the court, but it won't be due to what the founders wrote/thought....

Facts ...

1) The Connecticut shooting is a game changer.

2) The antis will seek a solution and the second won't prevent this from happening.

The only question is how much the game changes.

Should. A big word in this case.

Should the SC have engaged in decades of fence straddling on the issue of slavery? Should this group have overturned child labor laws based on a company owner's right to employ who he chose and engage in contract with whomever he wished? Have you read some of the skin crawling decisions the SC has handed down over the years?

Do you really want to have a discussion on what the Supreme Court should do?

I am merely giving one man's opinion on the landscape as I see it now. Should has nothing to do with it.

Will

I rarely start a new post (aside from the pick'em threads) and rarely partake in the political arguments. Given up on economics threads as ideology seems to trump numeric evidence. But I thought I'd do so at this time only because I haven't seen the points I want to make on any of the numerous threads.

The point it this: The 2nd Amendment won't save gun rights. Not this time.

Stubbornly hiding behind it and making the same arguments in the same way isn't going to work. Too many of these mass shooting of our most vulnerable have taken place. Most people don't give two [bleep] what the constitution says when they see pint sized body bags coming out of a kindergarten school. That is just the way it is. A man's primary function, the reason God and evolution has shaped us as we are and allowed the species to continue, is to provide, care for, and protect those around us. It is just that simple.

And in this society at this day and time we are being shown we cannot do so.

We have become a society that can grow emasculated males, unrepentant sociopaths, base men who live only to feed their lusts, and even monsters who strike out at those around them. We can grow those in droves. But men who believe mankind has a higher purpose? Men who have been instilled with what we used to term the cardinal virtues? Men who are fit to mentor and raise the next generation so that they are fit to receive the world? Seems to be a lost art.

My point is this: Of course mental illness is at the root of this shooting. We all know that. But where is the accommodation from us regarding mental illness?

Think about it. How many times have we tossed around our disdain for any government paid health care? How many employee based health plans substantially or even completely ignore mental illness? Who exactly is going to pay for getting these young men identified and out of circulation? Who among us will stand up and say that this is a prudent spending of resources? Who is going to go along with even the notion of placing young adults into custody when there is only a small but real risk that they will eventually go apeshit and murder those around them?

We had this discussion in the 80s and we decided that not only did we not wish to pay for the care and custody of mentally ill people any more than absolutely necessary but ALSO that we didn't even feel comfortable doing so. Are we ready to revisit that issue?

I bring this up not to inflame but just to offer a few questions. We talk about violent video games and a septic culture while dismissing the availability of some types of weapons that can turn a 3 person shooting into one of dozens. The other side dismisses the risk of having a septic culture and hours on end blasting away realistic men on the computer while talking about the availability of weapons that can turn a 3 person shooting into something much worse.

There is going to have to be something more than "the second amendment says so and so" this time. Might be a good time to take a look at ourselves and see what this should be.

IMvHO,
Will

But we have a problem in that the overwhelming majority of the cross section of this site (and I'm guessing of the ardent gun owners in general) have shown an outspoken and even militant disdain for government mandated health care.