Eeeeeeaaasy there, pardner. Nobody here defined "gun nut" as mass murderer. Nobody (except, now, you) has suggested that there is even a relevant political affiliation element to mass shooters. And ... really, what does this have to do with anything?And perhaps before people start tying so-called "gun nuts" to the republican party, here is something interesting to wrap your head around.
- VaTech - Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff, registered democrat.
- Columbine - Both too young to vote but both families were registered democrats and progressive liberals
- Fort Hood - Registered democrat, on Homeland Security advisory task force aimed at advising the Obama transition team.
- Colorado Theater - Registered democrat, staff worker on the Obama campaign, linked to the Occupy San Diego group.
- Connecticut School Shooter - Registered democrat.
Regardless, there IS precedent (common law) for regulating HOW citizens can use guns. For example, regarding concealed weapons:
Note that this court opinion referred expressly to a case regarding concealed weapons; their text, therefore, should not be taken to mean that that is the only reasonable constraint.In Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897), the Court stated that laws regulating concealed arms did not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms and thus were not a violation of the Second Amendment:
The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the "Bill of Rights," were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (Art. I) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.
Ahyhoo… You aren’t prosecutor, judge and jury here at SKMB… unless that is if you're in training to take over for Ms Mod once she retires. Something we don't know about yet?
Well let's all keep in mind the good folks who gave us guns rights and the reasons for them... USA!! USA!! USA!!
Anyway, I wasn't really referring to my post; I think hossenpepper gave some good counter-examples. Admittedly, he wasn't as wordy as I was ... but really, who is?
...umm, maybe Spike's little pal here...he wasn't as wordy as I was ... but really, who is?
The bottom line is, this is the law of our land. At the risk of sounding a bit callous, a few people's inability to raise their kids properly does not justify congress to start eliminating rights and generating laws that have absolutely nothing to do with kids going postal apart from what tool he decided to use. If that kid walked into that school with a crowbar with the exact same intentions, what would be the probability of a different outcome? One thing is certain, we wouldn't be debating the second amendment right now.
What would we be talking about? I bet we'd be discussing this kid's history of diagnosed mental issues and what psychotrophic drugs his doctors have been pumping into him for who knows how many years, and how this appears to be a common thread between these incidents. Funny how we hear absolutely *nothing* in the news about what drugs this kid had been directed to take.. only that the police could find no evidence of drugs in his system, which implies if he was taking something, he stopped taking them.
Also a common thread was the ease with which the shooters were able to gain access to guns and ammunition that rapidly killed and/or wounded a large number of victims. No one's right to own a gun is being taken away--just the type of gun and ammunition--and at the risk of my sounding a bit callous, I have very little sympathy with those who are arguing against having restrictions placed on those. Where do we draw the line at how much firepower the average citizen should have to defend themselves? Until fairly recently there had been stricter restrictions so it's not something new. Let's say that there's a demand in the future for even more lethal weapons--just because people want them does that give them the right to have them? At what point does the escalation continue or do we finally say no--you have what you need to defend yourself by still being allowed to own a less powerful weapon. And if something more isn't done about background checks, those who shouldn't have them at all may continue to fall between the cracks and legally have access to weapons. Yes, something needs to be done about mental health issues but that is not going to solve the issue of having access to guns and ammunition that can kill large numbers of people in a very short period of time.