Gun control....

[measanan]

I'm normally against gun control. It's unconstitutional, for one.

BUT

I think Pelgar said it well, if more forcefully than I would have done. The constitution protects the rights of US citizens. The shooter at Virgina Tech was not a citizen.There are many possible arguments, including the fact that ANY gun control bill potentially opens the

Comments

[motlei]

Actually and historically control over gun ownership has been found not to violate Constitutional Law. It's similar to the lack of First Amendment coverage on pornography, hate speech, slander, libel, etc. Within recent years legislation has been enacted and allowed to sunset, without successful challenge in Court deciding that such legislation was unconstitutional

Actually, that's what I meant....

[measanan]

That a basic background check to find out if someone were a US Citizen and therefore entitled to make such a purchase was a good idea.

I lived for over a decade in NH, where the checks were minimal; mostly you had to have a valid driver's license. But there were checks. Much as folks griped about them, most thought they had good reason.

[fennel_fox]

I'm not against gun control in moderation (like all things), but I do have a problem with restricting specifically by citizenship. This disturbed young man carried a green card, which meant that he and his family paid taxes and support this country in many ways. People with green cards in no way sponge off of us citizens. It's like saying that not only my cousins, aunts, and uncles should have (probably severely)lessened rights, but so should people like Chiara.
Mass murders are not only done by foreigners.
It's sad that humans in general have an overwhelming need to categorize people into 'us' and 'them'. Lets hope that too many people don't get hurt by being categorized this time.

Yes.

[measanan]

I do understand what you're expressing. Also that guns don't kill people, people kill people.

My grandfather used to say "Everything is best in moderation. Including moderation!"

I'm not thinking anything other than the actual purchase of firearms should be restricted. You and I both know so many other methods of self-defense....

Re: Yes.

[fennel_fox]

But what you are saying is that my Uncle with two bad knees who hasn't fully recovered from surgery a couple of months ago, and my Aunt who is an actual sweet and delicate flower, both living in a not great part of New York City, should not be allowed to defend themselves on equal footing with yourself because you were born here.
These are actual people who may be called upon to actually defend themselves at some point, and you want to take away their ability to do so simply because they haven't taken and passed a certain written exam that has nothing to do with the item they might use to defend themselves with.

You might as well state that: All people are created equal so long as they have American citizenship. And the rest can be easy pickings, because they don't count.
One right is always just a place to start.

I think maybe you missed...

[measanan]

That this is a moral struggle for me, as well.

Your cousins, Aunt, and Uncle, would not necessarily be restriced. They would be checked.

NPR today, 24 hours after, had reports from one of the professors. If NPR is to be believed, she had been reporting possible problems to many folks, including the police, before the gun was purchased. She was told that legally, their hands were tied. Until he made an actual threat, they could not act.

[pelgar]

I'm very worried that some yahoo in our government will take this opportunity to push for overly restrictive ligislation, rather than fixing the actual problems that exist.

The government won't be in my home to provide protection when someone breaks in to rob me. The Constitution will be.

Sensible weapon policies yes! Mucking with the Second Amendment no!

[motlei]

Thing is, the right to keep and bear arms wasn't added to the U.S. Constitution in order for you to defend your home from a robbery. The Constitution won't be providing you protection from a robbery unless you're using it to hit someone over the head. If you are advocating that people trade life for possessions then I think you've your priorities wrong. Get insurance, get a dog, get better locks, it's cheaper.

Personally, I'll help anyone load my stuff into their van so they can resell it. I'll be a bit miffed, but hey, I've insurance. Personal safety is a different matter from possessions, but then, there are other investments you can make with great health benefits as well.

[pelgar]

The Second Amendment was enacted to give the US a viable militia in order to defend itself from enemies, whether they be foreign or domestic. There was a great deal of conflict between people who trusted the govt, and those who did not

[wyldehunt]

I'll start by saying I don't like guns. Guns are for hunting. Guns are for law enforcement. Guns are the military. Guns are for the citizenry. I may not like them, but I have owned one since I was 12. The problem isn't guns. It's people. Guns simply make it easier for someone to go postal than say a cleaver. Guns give greater potential for harm to many people at once than a tire iron. So, we limit guns for folks that might be using them within the context and spirit of the law? No. We limit individuals. Security checks, pshych profiles, what have you. Most objects around the house are legal if you apply them to the task. Should we all be reduced to safety scissors and needing the butcher to cut out steaks really small because we have no knives

[wyldehunt]

Nope, no need for 1000rnd/min. But a semi-automatic weapon with a clip or magazine of 15-30 bullets is reasonable. You should have enough bullets to be scared shitless and still be a viable threat if attacked. You should have few enough that you need to reload often if you are a freaking sociopath. Yeah, my numbers are soft, but they are a sensible starting point.

oh, and I meant items are leTHal, not leGal if applied to acts of violence. Just a wee typo there.