DiscussMormonism.com

Two recent items:

Retired Justice John Paul Stevens calls for the Repeal of the Second Amendment.

Survey finds 1 in 5 Americans favors repeal of the Second Amendment.

Justice Stevens was elevated to the Court by that liberal gun-hater Gerald Ford. Now I fully admit that Steven's position is an outlier, but I think it shows where intransigence over the 2nd Amendment is leading. The NRA continues to block any effort to limit the sale of certain types of guns or high capacity magazines, stating that any effort at regulation will surely end with enslavement in a fascist/and/or/communist dictatorship. But as long as people who have legitimate concerns about guns are met with the argument that any regulation is an infringement of rights, perhaps the 70% of adult Americans that do not own guns will look at the gun homicide figures of other advanced nations and ask why we need the Second Amendment?

And that would be a long, ugly, bitter road to travel.

The average American gun owner owns three guns, according to a 2015 survey conducted by Harvard and Northwestern University. More than a half of them own just one or two, whereas 14% of them–7.7 million or 3% of the US population–own anywhere between eight to 140 guns. This 3% of the population owns half of the civilian guns in the US. The police found 47 guns associated with Paddock in three different locations two days after the (Las Vegas) massacre, which puts him among the 3%.

Let that sink in. People compare guns with automobiles. What if 3% of the population owned half of the automobiles? The 3% of the country that live in CrazyTown have as much firepower as the rest of the civilian population. Let's get back to a non-fetishistic view of gun ownership. A revolver for home defense, rifles and shotguns for hunting. An upper limit on the number of guns a person can own. Even in a well regulated militia, not every militiaman is considered responsible for arming the entire army.

But as long as the fetishists use the paranoid argument that any infringement is the first step on the road to slavery, perhaps the country will ultimately have a battle over the second amendment. Post Columbine generations coming into the voting ranks may not be so sympathetic towards the right to keep and bear arms.

MeDotOrg wrote:Two recent items:

Retired Justice John Paul Stevens calls for the Repeal of the Second Amendment.

Survey finds 1 in 5 Americans favors repeal of the Second Amendment.

2 in 5 Americans are obese.
0.7 in 5 Americans are illiterate.
1 in 5 Americans own an iphone.

Retired United States District Judge Robert Echols donated $2,950 to the Mary Noel Kershaw Foundation… which just happens to fund firearms self-defense training for the League of the South (yeah, that is kinda a white supremacist group)...so, i get ya post on the whole retired judges thingy.

Personally I don't think Justice Stevens did those seeking regulation any favors with his op-ed. Those of us that just want to do things like, expand background checks, expand registration programs, restrict ammunition sales can do so while keeping the 2nd intact.

Frankly there is absolutely no politically viable path to amending the constitution currently, whether it is the 2nd or something entirely different. Too much bi-partisan cooperation is required for it to be feasible. I understand Stevens point, that for lasting and permanent change the 2nd will have to be looked at but we just aren't there as a country.

All these calls to remove the 2nd do is provide the cover the NRA and their ilk need to claim that is what librulz REALLY want with these proposed legislations. Polling averages show that some 80+% of the population is in favor of expanding background checks, maybe just start with that before we derail into the "take all the guns" stuff.

Xenophon wrote:Personally I don't think Justice Stevens did those seeking regulation any favors with his op-ed. Those of us that just want to do things like, expand background checks, expand registration programs, restrict ammunition sales can do so while keeping the 2nd intact.

Frankly there is absolutely no politically viable path to amending the constitution currently, whether it is the 2nd or something entirely different. Too much bi-partisan cooperation is required for it to be feasible. I understand Stevens point, that for lasting and permanent change the 2nd will have to be looked at but we just aren't there as a country.

All these calls to remove the 2nd do is provide the cover the NRA and their ilk need to claim that is what librulz REALLY want with these proposed legislations. Polling averages show that some 80+% of the population is in favor of expanding background checks, maybe just start with that before we derail into the "take all the guns" stuff.

Having a majority in favor of expanding background checks does not equal "good solution". In fact, it seems that gun violence has been increasing as gun regulation has increased (see how easy it is to justify silly stuff?). Nevertheless, as most reasonable minds would understand...guns are not the problem...just like drugs aren't the problem. Anti-gun activists are no different than those homosexuality rehab clinics that believe that if we isolate the faggot from other faggots then there won't be any gay sex acts....i mean, sodomy is still illegal in many places, right?...and if you believe homosexuality is a sickness would the cure be found in more penis regulations?

subgenius wrote:Having a majority in favor of expanding background checks does not equal "good solution". In fact, it seems that gun violence has been increasing as gun regulation has increased (see how easy it is to justify silly stuff?).

Your ridiculous comparison aside, the research on this (even though it is harder to get than it should be) does not support your above conclusion. There is plenty reason to suspect that gun violence would actually be worse were it not for the laws in place.

The Rand Corp did a bang-up job combing through basically ever study on guns that they could get their hands on and providing a high level overview on what we actually have research to prove. Long story short, there is moderate evidence to suggest that things like background checks, child-access laws and prohibitions based on mental illness reduce deaths, while also having evidence that stand-your-ground-laws and concealed carry laws increase homicides.

Rand.org wrote:The primary focus of our analysis was the systematic review of 13 broad classes of gun policies that have been implemented in some states and the effects of those policies on eight outcomes. We produced research syntheses that describe the quality and findings of the best available scientific evidence. Each synthesis presents and rates the available evidence and describes what conclusions, if any, can be drawn about the policy’s effects on outcomes. In many cases, we were unable to identify any research that met our inclusion criteria (which required a study to provide minimally persuasive evidence for a policy’s effects).

Overall, we found statistically significant evidence that seven of the 13 policies affect four of the main outcomes. For the remaining policies from our analysis, either the policies had inconclusive effects on outcomes or no research about the policies met our inclusion criteria. This does not mean that these policies are ineffective; they might well be quite effective. Instead, it partly reflects shortcomings in the contributions that scientific study can currently offer to policy debates in these areas.

Listen, I'm happy to open up the laws to allow the CDC to conduct more robust research on these topics before we commit to legislation. Remind me who it is that doesn't want that to happen again...

It is time for the National Bomb Association and the National Knife Association to stand up and be counted along with the NRA.

The Fair Play for Video Games Committee can sit this one out and content themselves knowing the above will be a Far Cry from reality.

Xenophon wrote:There is plenty reason to suspect that gun violence would actually be worse were it not for the laws in place.

And plenty of reason to believe anything...including that gun violence could be better were it not for the laws in place.

subgenius wrote:And plenty of reason to believe anything...including that gun violence could be better were it not for the laws in place.

Agree to disagree then, I suppose. I'm content to leave the research I cited above and let individuals come to their own conclusions.

The easiest way to reduce gun violence is to replace American citizens with the citizens of any of the other leading industrial nations. Americans are acculturated to gun violence. People from other parts of the world are able to refrain from committing murder with guns to a much higher degree. They are also able to pass more sensible gun laws and would be able to discern the NRA as a tax-free PR machine for the gun manufacturing and sales industries.

Since giving up my guns I've been murdered three times, assaulted five, and robbed four.

- Doc