Summations Only

vimesey asks: I'm thinking it's probably related to this preamble snippet in a subconscious way, at the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment: So the answer would be: their Creator.Which, for me, would be my parents and their ancestors. For some, it could be the God they believe in.

Theodoric writes: Well, big DUH. I know that. That is why I used the word "subconscious". Do you think the writers of the 2nd Amendment were completely oblivious and had no memory of the Declaration's Preamble? Do you think the Declaration is a minor document in the history of the USA? Or, more to the point, do you think that the writers of the 2nd Amendment thought the Declaration was a minor document in the history of the USA?I think the 2nd Amendment authors were being very attentive to the business and spirit of reaffirming the Declaration of Independence.

ICANT stumbles forth with: Right in front of his own eyes.Clue #1: the 3rd word.
Clue #2: the 2nd word.Perhaps you think citizens should be able to have their own thermonuclear bombs?Edited by xongsmith, : introduce some genetic complexity to the grammar with neutral selection

ICANT writes: What "enemy" do you envision that would limit itself to 30 round magazines and assault weapons? The US Military has way more than that to level at you, should this be your imagined "enemy".So presumably you must be referring to criminal invasion of your home?

ICANT stumbles on with: Wow did that one ever fly over your head.

Straggler writes: I think CS is arguing that some of it could be the other way around: One thing that cannot be disputed is that higher gun prevalence leads to higher successful suicide rates.

This might more properly belong in the humor thread, but I couldn't stop myself. Sometimes I think we need to lighten up. LOLCold Dead Hand with Jim Carrey – Funny Or DieI like the Lewbowski moment....

NoNukes probably is right when he says: My issue is this - this woman should have been barred from getting weapons from the outset. She was already patently nutzo. If they had done a background check on her, they would have had good reason to deny her buying all that fucking weaponry she accumulated. Then! then they would have looked A LOT CLOSER at her son. He might, in all likelihood, have been properly institutionalized, well before 2012. How would they have had a clue that this lady was up to weirdo behavior? By the rate of gun registration.Well, if "wishes" and "buts" were "candy" and "nuts...."BUT WAIT!! THERE'S EVEN MORE!
My OTHER brother has made a good point:Apparently this kid BOUGHT a bullet-proof vest. Other than the law enforcement agencies, who would think they had a reason to believe that bullets would be flying their way in large quantity? This guy was a MINOR when he bought the vest. HELLO? Shouldn't this ring a bell, raise a flag? Hello? We have a problem here, Houston.

Well, the Senate has rejected the Bill that would have expanded background checks in the US. What can I say? Yuck.

CS writes: So make everyone that lost right to have to carry a card that says they cannot be in possession of a gun?? No - you must be thinking of... So how does the bus driver know if you are a redhead? Suppose you dye your hair Black? Suppose you wear a religious turban? The driver is going to inconvenience everyone by making sure they are not redheads, isn't she? So, see, the bus driver will have to ask everyone to remove their hat (show your FOID)....CS continues with: Well here it is - Background check! Yes, let's do that nationwide. But still Guns are smuggled into Chicago every day....So maybe...maybe gun smugglers should be locked up for life, maybe - plus heavily fined.Also get rid of all drug laws to remove that reason to get a gun.Hmmmmmmm...food for thought. Complex issue.

CS responds: Oh for crying out loud you are not thinking this through. If Georgia has NO BACKGROUND CHECK but Tennessee does, the guy just drives to Georgia, buys the gun and returns to Tennessee.Canada? Mexico? Yeah they could buy them there - it would be several levels more of an effort, but, yeah they could do that. Or they could go even further away, if the mob money is right.The States have NOT shown an even-handed record. From racism to LGBT rights to prayer in schools to marijauna, to anything of that sort. There are well entrenched bigots in power (think George Wallace's political descendants). Arguing "States rights" is dog whistle for continuing bad behavior. As even the noble Atticus Finch, played by Gregory Peck in To Kill A Mockingbird, at the end of his final remarks and getting very disgusted at the progress of the trial - even he had to wave a limp hand at the thinking of those would convict Tom Robinson.This is a NATIONAL issue now. Actually, it's an INTERNATIONAL issue now. And I am not trying to get rid of guns. I'm trying to get them out of the hands of criminals. Background check. Across the planet.

CS replies: More than None. Even just 1 stop is enough to justify it.You also wrote in the post just before: No. but I addressed that issue later in that post, mostly pointing out that would be hard to come up with anything that would make a difference other than increasing the jail time for gun runners and legalizing all drugs.

CS replies: No. Same as spending billions of dollars on space programs. We can afford it. In fact we cannot afford NOT to do it.That place to get your money is from is from the F-35-minded idiots in the Pentagon. And the subsidies to fossil fuel industry....Now you should give your answer to the background check question. How many stops would it take for you to think it was worth it?Secondly, how many do you think it would stop? I say easily in the hundreds.

CS replies: I would agree. But let's get the funding from other parts of the Federal budget. First off I would never characterize "hundreds" as "successful". "Successful"would be in the order of 30,000. But still "hundreds" are worth doing. And I don't think it would cost all that much.

Diomedes & NoNukes write: Now, with 20-20 hindsight, we can see that it was not the son that the background check should have stopped, but the mother. She was the one who had the mental problems that somehow slipped under the radar.It is true that she was terrified of the father and thought she needed major protection from him, but her solution was, in the end, wrong.What would the best way have been? Assuming the father was under a restraining order and the police could not be there 24/7 to keep him away, what kind of defense might there be? Have the whole house compartmentalized so every room can all go under lockdown at once and the 911 call be automatically made - a major expense available only to the 1%?We see that today the alternatives are woefully inadequate. We need to focus on non-lethal weapons. Spock, set your phasor on stun.