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

[VikingsGuy]

What are you getting in return for your ”give a little”?

50 state firearms carry, no NFA bullchit for suppressors and barrel length, a push to enforce and prosecute existing laws, a funding mechanism for mental health upgrades, federal pre-emption to stop the CA/MA battle to be the most regulated states, and several others above.

 

[VikingsGuy]

So if that was the law, would 19 kids and two adults that were alive two days ago be alive today? I’m not so sure.

I don't know - maybe if the kid and his mom had proper drug addiction and mental health treatment when he was ten we wouldn't know his name or care if he had a rifle to hunt with. I do know that doing nothing is not a permanent option.

 

[A207X2]

Respectfully, A2, @VikingsGuy asked responders to “avoid…generic tropes”

this is an example of a generic trope.

How on Earth is this a generic trope? It’s taken directly from the 2nd Amendment. It’s not exaggerated, or over the top.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Respectfully, A2, @VikingsGuy asked responders to “avoid…generic tropes”

this is an example of a generic trope.

Given how the NRA (and pro-choice on their issue) have driven a no-surrender approach to all issues, I assume honest misunderstanding on this point by many and am happy to discuss if it helps folks better understand how all the rights under our constitution work.

 

[A207X2]

50 state firearms carry, no NFA bullchit for suppressors and barrel length, a push to enforce and prosecute existing laws, a funding mechanism for mental health upgrades, federal pre-emption to stop the CA/MA battle to be the most regulated states, and several others above.

I don’t believe you would even get a fraction of any of that.

 

[Dsnow9]

Thanks for responding and sharing your thoughts. I do not intend to be argumentative, but do want to respectfully push back on this approach.

Please point to a single personal right/liberty that is not subject to some govt restriction? Free speech - nope, freedom of religion - nope, search and seizure - nope, right to vote - nope (think felons), human life - nope (think death penalty) etc etc etc. We can never progress in any constitutional topic if folks don't even accept the general framework that has governed it since the founders. Our founding father's absolutely supported laws that infringed speech when it came to libel/slander/profanity/pornography etc etc for example. There we many examples of gun restrictions in the thirteen colonies along the way and in later states as we moved west.

I get the rejection of the proposed limitations if you think they would be too invasive, too unlikely to have a positive effect, too difficult to effectively manage, too expensive, or any number of other objections. But the objection cannot be that zero limitations are demanded by the constitution. I don't know of a single justice in the last 250 yrs or a single serious scholar that has taken such an extreme view on the Bill of Rights.

Your response to my post is great and I do not disagree with your response. I also tried to note that I like the thought you put into your list and I think it makes good compromises for both sides of the argument and is definitely not the norm.

If I had to pick someone’s “common sense” gun laws I think yours would be A+! Thank you for your thoughts and responses. Will continue following even if I don’t have a ton to contribute.

 

[VikingsGuy]

How on Earth is this a generic trope? It’s taken directly from the 2nd Amendment. It’s not exaggerated, or over the top.

A profound misunderstanding of how the Constitution has been read since the founders - yes. Exaggerated or over the top - no

 

[cedahm]

How on Earth is this a generic trope? It’s taken directly from the 2nd Amendment. It’s not exaggerated, or over the top.

I will defer to those better versed in constitutional law than I am for details, but simply put, this is not how those words have been legally interpreted and laws applied over the years.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I don’t believe you would even get a fraction of any of that.

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.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I will defer to those better versed in constitutional law than I am for details, but simply put, this is not how those words have been legally interpreted and laws applied over the years.

Have you read Heller? Did you read Scalia's specific commentary that restrictions like background checks were constitutionally permissible?

What about the NFA? It stood as good law for 70 yrs.?

There is no jurisprudence in the last 250 years to support a limitless right to bear arms.

So, I can respect that in your judgment these are bad ideas (I don't like some of them either). I can respect that you think "strict scrutiny" should be the constitutional standard for the 2A (I agree). But we can't have an honest discussion if we actually believe that for 250 years the 2A was legally interpreted and applied in a way that made any regulation of personal firearms impermissible - as it is simply untrue.

 

[Cheesehead]

A thought…Your prototypical mass shooter is a young (18), angry white male with a proclivity for guns. Kind of hits home thinking about the hunting tribe.

My wish list item is banning civilian possession of semi automatics. Constitutional originalist, perhaps.

I’m convinced this country is incapable of progress on reasonable gun control until two generations of voters die off and a more educated, less dogmatic cohort takes over.

The easy money bet right now is plenty of meaningless #thoughtsandprayers and absolutely zero progress.

 

[cedahm]

Have you read Heller? Did you read Scalia's specific commentary that restrictions like background checks were constitutionally permissible?

What about the NFA? It stood as good law for 70 yrs.?

There is no jurisprudence in the last 250 years to support a limitless right to bear arms.

So, I can respect that in your judgment these are bad ideas (I don't like some of them either). I can respect that you think "strict scrutiny" should be the constitutional standard for the 2A (I agree). But we can't have an honest discussion if we actually believe that for 250 years the 2A was legally interpreted and applied in a way that made any regulation of personal firearms impermissible - as it is simply untrue.

Yes, I have, and I was implying all of these as arguments against the validity of “shall not be infringed”. In my judgment those are not bad ideas.

specifically, this is what I was implying, but better said by you:

There is no jurisprudence in the last 250 years to support a limitless right to bear arms.

 

[Tiredofthebickering]

I will defer to those better versed in constitutional law than I am for details, but simply put, this is not how those words have been legally interpreted and laws applied over the years.

Have you read Heller? Did you read Scalia's specific commentary that restrictions like background checks were constitutionally permissible?

What about the NFA? It stood as good law for 70 yrs.?

There is no jurisprudence in the last 250 years to support a limitless right to bear arms.

So, I can respect that in your judgment these are bad ideas (I don't like some of them either). I can respect that you think "strict scrutiny" should be the constitutional standard for the 2A (I agree). But we can't have an honest discussion if we actually believe that for 250 years the 2A was legally interpreted and applied in a way that made any regulation of personal firearms impermissible - as it is simply untrue.

Just so we're all on the same page. These 2 are agreeing with each other lol.

Edit: beat me to it.

 

[VikingsGuy]

A thought…Your prototypical mass shooter is a young (18), angry white male with a proclivity for guns. Kind of hits home thinking about the hunting tribe.

My wish list item is banning civilian possession of semi automatics. Constitutional originalist, perhaps.

I’m convinced this country is incapable of progress on reasonable gun control until two generations of voters die off and a more educated, less dogmatic cohort takes over.

The easy money bet right now is plenty of meaningless #thoughtsandprayers and absolutely zero progress.

If you look at deaths, death by handguns related to the problems associated with inner-city (and rural) poverty outpace deaths by AR by several orders of magnitude. The same can be said about successful suicides with firearms (handguns and shotguns in particular). Investing in mental health services, drug rehab services and economic development will save many more lives than an AR ban. Other than the obvious fundraising angle ARs provide to both sides, they just aren't really relevant to 95+% of the fatalities.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Yes, I have, and I was implying all of these as arguments against the validity of “shall not be infringed”. In my judgment those are not bad ideas.

specifically, this is what I was implying, but better said by you:

Sorry for my misunderstanding.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Just so we're all on the same page. These 2 are agreeing with each other lol.

Edit: beat me to it.

Ya, my bad. I need to go to bed.

 

[Doublecluck]

I don't know - maybe if the kid and his mom had proper drug addiction and mental health treatment when he was ten we wouldn't know his name or care if he had a rifle to hunt with. I do know that doing nothing is not a permanent option.

Right, but who are the people most “common sense” to recognize the mental health issue? Who to address it? and who to effect meaningful change? teachers and administrators? law enforcement? doctors?. Funding? Maybe, maybe they aren’t educated, maybe they aren’t empowered, but when do they and the “system” become accountable for our children’s safety? Can I send my kindergartner to school tomorrow safely? Or is little Jonny who had a f’ed up childhood, no father in the home, and a history of red flags going to show up and gun her down? Free pass to they system. let’s pass some gun laws, maybe that will help?

What pain could possibly be on someone’s heart for them to want to harm children? And how do we make sure those people don’t slip through the cracks? Thats the only permanent option.

 

[hank4elk]

Sounds like a good starting place for discussions.
Me ,I'm much more critical on what is meant in the 2nd in original form and today.
On what is an infringement and what is legal or should be.
Maybe it's 22 years total in law enforcement and on combat tours in the service.
Maybe it's some never learned what no is before kindergarten and have lived their whole lives getting around the answer.

 

[Shortbowshot]

If only conversation on the Floor could be this civil, intelligent and well informed. They might actually solve problems with legislation.

 

[VikingsGuy]

What pain could possibly be on someone’s heart for them up want to harm children? And how do we make sure those people don’t slip through the cracks? Thats the only permanent option.

I don’t think anyone has all the answers to our nationwide mental health crisis, but it’s damn sure we are overdue in trying to figure some of it out. This is much bigger than just the few dozen killed by active shooters - or even the few thousand who choose firearms for suicide. This is about literally tens of millions suffering from on-going mental health challenges - a very small percentage of whom will pick up a weapon and use it to horrible effect.