Tuesday January 15, 2013, 8:52 am

Millennials and Guns
Ryan Dahrouge, Jamira Burley and Extra Credit on January 15, 2013 - 11:24 AM ET

Since the beginning of the 2012-2013 school year, six shootings have been committed by American students on or in proximity to their school’s campus, totaling over 30 student and faculty deaths. These high-profile killings are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to gun violence, which claims 30,000 lives a year, as illegal and legal guns are increasingly finding their way into the hands of young people.

As members of the Millennial generation, we know that gun control is in desperate need of reform in this country. We’ve lived it. Yet many politicians still refuse to consider revision in any measure. Representative Tim Huelskamp of Kansas neatly summed up the argument against gun reform in an appearance on the MSNBC political talk show, Morning Joe: “It’s not a gun problem,” he said, “it's a people problem, it's a cultural problem.” This claim is not supported by the data.

Over the past two decades, the United States has experienced a nearly universal decline in crime. The FBI crime statistics report of 2011 shows that from 2003, there have been substantial decreases in the rate of violent crime, property crime, and nonfirearm homicide. At the same time, the rate of firearm homicides has remained essentially stagnant. Ignoring this data, opponents of increased gun control insist that the conversation shouldn’t be about guns but rather about the influence of the culture we’ve bred through our media.

Is the notion that our films, television, and video games portray violence as devoid of any real consequences valid? Absolutely. But is anyone prepared to argue that American teenagers spend more time playing violent video games than the teenagers of Japan or South Korea, where the rate of firearm related homicides in both nations is averaged at zero? Blaming a problem as systematic as the high rate of gun homicides in the United States on something as broad and ever-changing as the entertainment industry is simply blatant scapegoating.

This isn’t to suggest that those gun reform opponents haven’t come up with policy suggestions of their own. In an NRA press release following the Sandy Hook shootings, Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the group, declared: “We care about our money, so we protect our banks, yet when it comes to…our children we as a society leave them utterly defenseless.” A stirring declaration, no doubt, but would armed guards solve the problem? In 1999, Columbine High School had a sheriff’s deputy stationed at the school who even traded fire with Klebold and Harris during the rampage that killed 15. Virginia Tech, in addition to the armed guards stationed on the campus, had officers in position three minutes after the first emergency call was placed. Heightened security measures can’t be used to prevent future shootings.

The United States needs a comprehensive reform of its gun laws, reforms that have teeth and are not riddled with loopholes and exceptions. A total ban on assault rifles, high capacity magazines, and military-grade ammunition would prevent untrained individuals from obtaining and operating dangerous weaponry – the same reason surface-to-air weapons aren’t currently available to the general public. Mandating universal background checks, broadening the base of searched databases, and extending the waiting period could prevent those with histories of violence or debilitating mental illness from purchasing firearms. Official reporting for all firearm transactions could spur private dealers to run background checks before a sale as a means of reducing their liability.

Finally, ensuring quality mental illness and addiction care for those who want it can prevent those in need from turning to violence or retribution. Limiting exposure to firearms, which are the most effective means of suicide, coupled with increased mental health care can put those predisposed to depression on a more positive track that circumvents gun violence.

Ten days into the New Year, we were introduced to 2013’s first school shooting. A student was critically shot at Taft Union High School before a teacher could talk the shooter down. Ironically enough, as all of this was taking place, Vice President Joe Biden was giving a televised press conference on gun violence. Events like these have become so commonplace that outrage was short. At least we could find solace in the fact that it wasn’t nearly as bad as last month’s school shooting, when 20 elementary schoolers were gunned down.

Until we address gun violence as a policy issue and not as the inevitable product of American individualism, school shootings will remain as morbid reminders of our own failure to address the issue. That is why the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network has launched the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force – an effort to delineate reasonable solutions, including firearm and ammunition regulations, more complete background checks, improving mental health coverage, and addressing the role of the media, to limit ongoing violence.

Millennials cannot afford to bury any more of their peers because of an irresponsible society. From this moment onwards, we commit to the goal of planned obsolescence of the term “gun violence.” To that end we submit the recommendations and commentaries of our working group to curb gun violence in America.
[Campus-oriented news, first-person reports from student activists and journalists about their campus.]

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 11:33 am
"As members of the Millennial generation, we know that gun control is in desperate need of reform in this country. We've lived it. Yet many politicians still refuse to consider revision in any measure."

As the blurb implies, sometimes change is a generational process. As the "reefer madness" generation fades into history, suddenly the US seems ready for drug reform. Likewise, we may need those in power, especially since so many of them have accepted payola from the NRA and from weapons manufacturers, to retire or be voted out of office so that new leadership can bring fresh ideas and real change to fruition.

In '08, I voted for "Change We Can Believe In," and have been sorely disappointed ever since. Now, I see that we need real change that we can all actually see, including a ban on private ownership of assault weapons. Millennial activists and activists from other generations need to employ all the tools at their disposal from social networking to direct actions, such as protests, to make the change happen. Belief is no longer enough. We have to get real and get the job done.

The progressive left is going to have to organize with the internet, but put their feet to the road and march if they want to see any progress on any issue in this nation.

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 11:51 am
Thank you for adding your insights and recommendations for what change seems to require Brian--both add a lot to this discussion. You cannot currently send a star to Brian because you have done so within the last week.

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 2:35 pm
I state the obvious position. I oppose gun control legislative as it as always leads to more crime and Democide.
No fighting just an educated opinion with years of research.

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 3:06 pm
I respectfully disagree since the international data from a multitude of sources consistently shows a reduction in crime with increased gun control. The same is true in the US when data is analyzed on a state, country or other regional basis.
Just a century or more of research and data that there is a broad consensus of agreement is valid and reliable.
Democide is not a crime data is collected on.

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 3:08 pm

Some people also have an educated opinion and completely disagree with that. I have knowledge of guns, have taught concealed carry, for license and still see nothing in the proposed laws that would in in any way infringe on the second amendments. Democide? That term is from Rummel implies that our government is planning to kill us all. To what possible ends?

Currently we are discussing possible options for public safety, not options to remove all guns from gun owners.

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 3:13 pm
Oops--typo alert! Country should be county in prior comment.
Thanks Kit for illumination of the term democide's history and guiding future comments back to the article's actual topic (I'd send you a green star if I could).

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 5:04 pm
My reply to Kit.
Really? You believe that crap. Hear what Diane Feinstein said. Caught in a Lie.
http://youtu.be/k3DKuN2ey80

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 5:07 pm
So you trust the government.
Ask any Native American and see what reply you get.

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 5:18 pm
http://saf.org/LawReviews/DeZeeQuarterly.htm
http://www.brookings.edu/research/books/2003/evaluatinggunpolicy
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf

Two non government respected research entities with expertise in doing such analyses (e.g., appropriate statistical analyses for the type of data( with findings quite similar to the official government evaluation

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 5:19 pm
Democide is tied to disarmed. Rummel did coin the term but it still does not change the fact that governments kill people. Disarmed people. Gun Control is relevant topic.

Democide is a term revived and redefined by the political scientist R. J. Rummel as "the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder." Rummel created the term as an extended concept to include forms of government murder that are not covered by the term genocide, and it has become accepted among other scholars.[1][2][3] Rummel presents his definition without referencing any previous uses, but the term democide was defined and used in English more than 40 years earlier by Theodore Abel.[4] In the 20th century, democide passed war as the leading cause of non-natural death (according to Rummel).[5]

Governments killing unarmed civilians would be considered as non-natural deaths Gun Control makes Democide easier. Chew on those facts

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 5:22 pm
Noted

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 5:25 pm
After that diversion from the topic of this article written by members of the Millenium generation who have grown up with and attended school with all the policies, procedures and practices intended to keep them safe after the first school shootings and their views on what is needed in this country for their generation's future related to gun control reform. What reforms are needed? What will help or hinder those reforms? That is what this article and thread is about.

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 5:40 pm
Armed guards and conceal and carry laws necessary to protect our children, shoppers, college students, or any soft targets. Not gun control. Topic of this thread.

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 5:41 pm
As members of the Millennial generation, we know that gun control is in desperate need of reform in this country. We've lived it. Yet many politicians still refuse to consider revision in any measure.

Your topic.

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 5:44 pm
The article's topic--if you are having trouble going to the site, I also copied and pasted it in my first comment so all could easily read it and ensure their comments related to the article itself and connect their comments to contents in the article.

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 5:45 pm
I should have added it was a quote from the article itself (not my voice at all).

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 5:54 pm
Facts about guns not being told in main media owned by big corporations.
boy uses dad's ar15 to shoot home invader http://youtu.be/XMg0FQS6Fqo
Guns used to defend
http://youtu.be/tiiQQP4-Ijw

http://youtu.be/bp5gAY6aIjA

http://youtu.be/j-q2zHIovOE

http://youtu.be/n1FLXLXCdgo

http://youtu.be/FdA_5r_Gu-A

http://youtu.be/-0jxfcgj1fc

http://youtu.be/3MoKGxGPDrg

http://youtu.be/evEg1VNfX3o

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 5:57 pm
Try to identify your sources and credibility! I did with mine.

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 5:57 pm
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

[a peer reviewed journal article which means it has the highest standard for credibility, reliability and validity or truth of any source]

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 5:58 pm
To repeat:
After that diversion from the topic of this article written by members of the Millenium generation who have grown up with and attended school with all the policies, procedures and practices intended to keep them safe after the first school shootings and their views on what is needed in this country for their generation's future related to gun control reform. What reforms are needed? What will help or hinder those reforms? That is what this article and thread is about.

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 6:03 pm
Never mind, just another left wing anti gun group bent on gun control. No credibility or scientific proof to justify their claims.
Text Size A | A | A
Millennials and Guns
Ryan Dahrouge, Jamira Burley and Extra Credit on January 14, 2013 - 11:24 AM ET
Since the beginning of the 2012–13 school year, six shootings have been committed by American students on or in proximity to their school’s campus, totaling more than thirty student and faculty deaths. These high-profile killings are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to gun violence, which claims 30,000 lives a year, as illegal and legal guns are increasingly finding their way into the hands of young people.

As members of the Millennial generation, we know that gun control is in desperate need of reform in this country. We’ve lived it. Yet many politicians still refuse to consider revision in any measure. Representative Tim Huelskamp of Kansas neatly summed up the argument against gun reform in an appearance on the MSNBC political talk show Morning Joe: “It’s not a gun problem,” he said, “it’s a people problem, it’s a cultural problem.” This claim is not supported by the data.

Over the past two decades, the United States has experienced a nearly universal decline in crime. The FBI crime statistics report of 2011 shows that from 2003, there have been substantial decreases in the rate of violent crime, property crime and nonfirearm homicide. At the same time, the rate of firearm homicides has remained essentially stagnant. Ignoring these data, opponents of increased gun control insist that the conversation shouldn’t be about guns but rather about the influence of the culture we’ve bred through our media.

Is the notion that our films, television and video games portray violence as devoid of any real consequences valid? Absolutely. But is anyone prepared to argue that American teenagers spend more time playing violent video games than the teenagers of Japan or South Korea, where the rate of firearm-related homicides in both nations is averaged at zero? Blaming a problem as systematic as the high rate of gun homicides in the United States on something as broad and ever-changing as the entertainment industry is simply blatant scapegoating.

This isn’t to suggest that those gun reform opponents haven’t come up with policy suggestions of their own. In an NRA press release following the Sandy Hook shootings, Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the group, declared: “We care about our money, so we protect our banks, yet when it comes to…our children we as a society leave them utterly defenseless.” A stirring declaration, no doubt, but would armed guards solve the problem? In 1999, Columbine High School had a sheriff’s deputy stationed at the school who even traded fire with Klebold and Harris during the rampage that killed fifteen. Virginia Tech, in addition to the armed guards stationed on the campus, had officers in position three minutes after the first emergency call was placed. Heightened security measures can’t be used to prevent future shootings.

The United States needs a comprehensive reform of its gun laws, reforms that have teeth and are not riddled with loopholes and exceptions. A total ban on assault rifles, high-capacity magazines and military-grade ammunition would prevent untrained individuals from obtaining and operating dangerous weaponry—the same reason surface-to-air weapons aren’t currently available to the general public. Mandating universal background checks, broadening the base of searched databases and extending the waiting period could prevent those with histories of violence or debilitating mental illness from purchasing firearms. Official reporting for all firearm transactions could spur private dealers to run background checks before a sale as a means of reducing their liability.

Finally, ensuring quality mental illness and addiction care for those who want it can prevent those in need from turning to violence or retribution. Limiting exposure to firearms, which are the most effective means of suicide, coupled with increased mental health care can put those predisposed to depression on a more positive track that circumvents gun violence.

Ten days into the New Year, we were introduced to 2013’s first school shooting. A student was critically shot at Taft Union High School before a teacher could talk the shooter down. Ironically enough, as all of this was taking place, Vice President Joe Biden was giving a televised press conference on gun violence. Events like these have become so commonplace that outrage was short. At least we could find solace in the fact that it wasn’t nearly as bad as last month’s school shooting, when twenty elementary schoolers were gunned down.

Until we address gun violence as a policy issue and not as the inevitable product of American individualism, school shootings will remain as morbid reminders of our own failure to address the issue. That is why the Roosevelt Institute Campus Network has launched the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force—an effort to delineate reasonable solutions, including firearm and ammunition regulations, more complete background checks, improving mental health coverage, and addressing the role of the media, to limit ongoing violence.

Millennials cannot afford to bury any more of their peers because of an irresponsible society's neglect. From this moment onwards, we commit to the goal of planned obsolescence of the term “gun violence.” To that end we submit the recommendations and commentaries of our working group to curb gun violence in America. May it be the start to the end of the epidemic of senseless killing in our country.

No mention of drugs or gmo foods as cause of mass killings based on facts.

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 6:04 pm

I was a dues paying member of the NRA, until I realized that they had no interest in the sportsman or those who own guns for whatever personal reason. The average student in a concealed carry class is barely literate, fortunately for them the class is limited to one hour, and a monkey could pass the test. A 12 year old may be able to drive, that doesn't mean they should drive.

We had less violence before guns became an American obsession. There is a reason we no longer have armed guards in banks, they get shot first.

It's lame argument, based on no substantial research to claim that to have all of us walking around armed would in any way reduce crime or protect the general pubic. Though it is most certainly nearly word for word from the mouth of Wayne La Pierre, a man who has every thing to gain and nothing to lose by trying to convince his followers that this is true. I see some make the choice to believe this nonsense, but opt out of learning the actual facts, those based on real research.

Currently, those in Congress (both Houses) and many in the country at large are having a discussion on how to best address laws that will protect the public safety while leaving those who own guns to continue to do so. The limitations need to be directed at the type of gun, the size of the magazine, a waiting period of at least 3 days while a full background check is completed. The other issue being discussed is closing this gaping loop hole for gun shows. That must end.

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 6:07 pm
BTW--two research entities with stellar reputations in peer reviewed journals (highest standard for source credibility of any) validating the official government research & evaluation report findings is the kind of sourcing most researchers become familiar with during their internship years as they learn the craft, required skills to avoid errors and ensure the accuracy of any research they eventually do independently.[for the first].

Videos on YouTube do not have the oversight to control for accuracy that a peer-reviewed journal does.

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 6:15 pm
Who cares if you were a card member of NRA. I am not card member of NRA but staunch defender of the 2nd amendment. I don't want M:Y rights discarded by anyone w/o knowledge of what the 2nd amendment is about.
The survivor of a mass shooting in her testimony covers all your arguments and she lived it. Note she is also not a NRA cardholder. She talks about assault rifles, conceal and carry, magazine sizes, and much more. Listen very carefully to her last statement. Then learn something from an actual victim.
http://youtu.be/77_BzTO7X0E

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 6:24 pm
Thanks Kit for your well-thought out comment consistent with the research, like what I posted above, that is on topic related to the kinds of gun control reform to consider consistent with the topic of the article. I'm sorry Julian is choosing to go off on a tangent from your statements about the NRA's role in facilitating or hindering the adoption of the reforms, which is a part of the topic.

On another thread someone posted the history that the 2nd amendment was written to permit the State militias (note the language) that existed at the time to track down run away slaves. I haven't verified it, but it would explain why that amendment was worded exactly as it is.

Any other on-topic comments related to needed gun control reforms --specifics to improve the laws and/or related to implementing them?

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 6:26 pm
Official government sources. Yes I believe the government and 19 terrorists defeated the whole intelligence network, initiated 4 government simulations of the same attacks, and jet fuel kerosene burned twin towers and bldg 7 pulverizing concrete with heat so intense it melted steel and planes but people could be seen in windows and not melted or pulverized. Yeah right. Youtube videos which document their sources are more reliable than government disinformation. Wake up and open your minds. Watch as an introduction to 911 the video Loose Change http://youtu.be/ynROamW80O0. See the sources shown in this video. And you believe the government. I recommend you watch all versions of this video.

Peer journals only support what they are made to support.

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 6:30 pm
Not true--you tube posts anything and everything without any process to ensure accuracy or anything else until a complaint is made, like with using music--unlike peers reviewing the methods and words for factual accuracy before it gets printed in the journal. If anything ever comes up later, a retraction or correction is always written (and I can almost count the number of times something slipped through for that to happen on my fingers).
Got anything credible since you tube isn't?

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 6:33 pm
BTW research journals are completely independent of government

Any other on-topic comments related to needed gun control reforms --specifics to improve the laws and/or related to implementing them? I will respond to and moderate any that are actually on topic like Brian and Kit's have been.

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 7:13 pm

Let's actually look at case law on the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an “individual rights” thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a “states’ rights” thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units.1 Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state2 or private3 restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force.

In United States v. Miller,4 the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed–off-shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that “[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.”5 The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of “civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.” It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that “comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,” who, “when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”6 Therefore, “[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well– regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”7

Since this decision, Congress has placed greater limitations on the receipt, possession, and transportation of firearms,8 and proposals for national registration or prohibition of firearms altogether have been made.9 At what point regulation or prohibition of what classes of firearms would conflict with the Amendment, if at all, the Miller case does little more than cast a faint degree of illumination toward an answer.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt2_user.html#amdt2_hd2

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 7:18 pm

Sorry to take up so much room on your comments section with the above post, J L.

I'll take case law rather than some collection of You Tube videos.

Like all of the amendments to the constitution, none is exclusive of the others and all susceptible to change, revision, and accommodating the current most needs of the will of the people.

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 7:20 pm
Thanks Kit for providing the legal analyses from a highly respected law school's legal reference library (i.e, the source type any lawyer advising any client or filing for any legal action using the 2nd Amendment would refer to, cite and use). You cannot currently send a star to Kit because you have done so within the last week.

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 7:21 pm

Of course, I could add more if that doesn't seem to answer the questions.

For someone who claims to not be familiar with the NRA you most certainly are adept at quoting them word for word, Julian.

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 7:22 pm
Ooops--concurrent posting. No problem. I think many will find it useful in analyzing further posts, comments and debates as our country wrestles with the best choices for gun control reform.

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 7:50 pm

One of the videos posted by Julian really hit home with me:

Suzanna Gratia Hupp explains meaning of 2nd Amendment!
 
I say that because, in the past, I have quoted it as a reason citizens should have the right to arms to defend themselves.  (It's quite a moving video -- so moving as to, perhaps, change the thinking of those citizens who would want to remove arms from anyone other than police, guards, military, etc.)
 
That said, the weapon Suzanna regretted leaving in the car on the day a gunman killed her family in a restaurant, was NOT semi-automatic, rapid-fire, full-metal-jacketed.
 
I do fervently believe that, if ALL guns were taken out of the hands of average citizens, only criminals (or any other foreseeable threat) would violate their rights to protect their families and homes.
 
HOWEVER, I do NOT agree that a weapon developed specifically for its efficiency to kill with critical mass destruction should be available to all until psychological examinations are mandated and home environment (including any family members who have a history of violent/disruptive behavior) is critically evaluated.
 
Scream all you want about gun rights . . . But civil and human rights should be the first consideration.  Our local and federal governments have a fiduciary obligation to ensure they have done their utmost to protect the safety of the very citizens they represent.
 

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 8:02 pm
Thank you Carole for your thoughtful and common sense comment related to the one example and telling us all how it fits into the topic of determining what gun control reforms are best for the country. Your further explanations of what you agree and disagree with shows how this is not a have vs. don't have guns issue and that there is a broad area inbetween those two extremes where gun control reform can occur (and given the article's content--the most they expect at this point in history).

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 8:18 pm

 
Additionally, as I stated earlier in another great thread posted by my dear friend, Judi, on this subject:
 
Was Hitler Really A Fan Of Gun Control
 
I am a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but believe that our founders never envisioned the fervor of certain industries to perfect ways to kill people. There definitely needs to be some control, but I am not going to jump to the highly-improbable extreme of believing the government is taking the first steps to completely disarming American citizens. (Good luck with that here in the South! LOL)
 
For one thing, the government already has more than enough military, tanks, sophisticated weaponry . . . and so on that I doubt they'd be intimidated by some disorganized civilians with knock-offs of some of their arsenal.
 
In fact, even the "hint" that the government is attempting to take away people's guns has caused a huge spike of gun and ammo sales. So, another possibility is that (again) the public is being manipulated, but this time by the NRA and arms manufacturers.
 
Too bad we have to constantly question such things, but it's a reality (and eternal vigilance is a necessity).
 
[I only reposted this here, rather than to avoid "remaking the wheel," not to bore readers who already read it.  *smile*]
 
 

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 8:39 pm
Kit again you lie and twist words. I said I am not a card carrying member of the NRA., I did not say I am not familiar with what they say. Stop commenting on what I say unless you comment on what I say and not what you think I said.

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 8:58 pm
Just C,
TY for your input. I agree to a point on what you say. Clarify on who would conduct psychological exams, the government? I believe high capacity semi automatic weapons should be available to law abiding citizens. The purpose is to defend ourselves from the government. Yes I believe this country is turning into a dictatorship taking away all our rights. The government owns fully automatic weapons as well as armored vehicles, drones etc. They also violated posse comitatus laws and have militarized the police. Why does Social Security, Department of Home Land Security (nazi term), and Post Office need to buy over a billion rounds of hollow point bullets with our tax dollars? Yes hollow point which are made specifically to tumble within your body to cause the most damage. So don't give me lame target practice bs. I say if a law abiding citizen lets his assault weapon fall in to a deranged family member then that citizen should be harshly tried for this. Just like if an unleashed dog attacks person or people the owner is held responsible. In gun violence harsher punishment. But don't blindly ban all law abiding citizens. Remember prohibition created more criminals than protecting the public. So all you create is mass gun owners unregistered with guns obtained by any means. Also it is a 2nd amendment right. I can explain more about rights if you need. Like forefathers never envisioned these types of weapons. But both sides should have them. They did not foresee cars and planes so we should still ride horses and buggies?

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 9:03 pm
Julian, for clarification so I don't misunderstand you, the gun control reform you could support is stiffer penalties on people who let others get their guns?
Would that also apply to when guns are stolen from individuals or businesses?

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 9:04 pm
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
I repeat the right of the PEOPLE shall not be infringed.


Learn English, the definition of the word infringed

in·fringe (n-frnj)
v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es
v.tr.
1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.
v.intr.
To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 9:09 pm
No, unless owners were negligent in securing the weapons. IE like left out in open on a counter or such. To do otherwise is to hold store owners citizens responsible for having TVs etc stolen from them.
Try to practice common sense please. What you propose is not logical even under the guise of clarification.

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 9:11 pm
Here is a post to a Care2 Cause Article relevant to this Supreme Court's view of the power to control guns:
http://www.care2.com/causes/why-gun-control-legislation-will-likely-pass-supreme-court-review.html

This is a case where constitutional property rights were also involved

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 9:13 pm

I understand, Julian . . . and I respect your input. As I've already stated, the Suzanna Gratia Hupp video made a life-long impression on me.

And, like you, I see the necessity to limit availability of many guns created to exact efficient violence on the majority of innocents, but am becoming increasingly guarded about the allegiances of a Congress whose salaries I am permitting my tax dollars to pay for (but who are, in actuality, representing corporations) I am reticent to give a Congress and/or President (who've both proven an affinity for "back door deals") the ultimate decision as to who, what, why and the formula for the grade.

It's complicated, but IMO, it's something we need to formulate, amongst us, as citizens equally affected, and as a common cause.

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 9:23 pm

Well, I see the confusion, I used the legal definition and not the common dictionary use of the definition of infringe.

When discussing the Second Amendment, one does need to stay within legal definitions.

I did not misquote you, Julian - read it again. Is it really necessary to be so rude to make your point?

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 9:34 pm

Also, as I've previously stated, I believe the possibility of a successful armed conflict with this government would be an exercise of extremely bad judgment . . . and suicidal. We will NEVER have access to the manpower, weapons and control they do.

And, as such, THAT topic is off the table for me.

First of all I'll quote a phrase I'm fond of: "Fighting for peace is like f***ing for virginity."

I'm asking for people to consider something on a higher level than murder to accomplish goals. Considering that this country was originally populated by genocide of existing natives, and since then, has imperialistically participated in carnage to accomplish its "goals" (none of which were truthfully the same as the propaganda used to incite our strongest youths to voluntarily subject themselves to the possiblity of death) I can understand how, to some, that may seem to be the only answer.

But, as we are seeing today, that theory of "might equals right" is barbaric and temporary.

There is NO WAY this country can keep killing others with impunity and expect to not create more enemies.

It's insane.

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 9:38 pm
My question derived from one of the independent research articles identifying how many innocent victims are killed with stolen weapons. Your answer suggests that the reforms you can support need to include language distinguishing between what is a secured gun/weapon from what is not secured. Is that what you meant?

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 9:54 pm

There's the rub, Judi.

While the original applicant for firearms may be subjected to a background check, there are statewide interpretations that allow those same weapons to be sold or resold without any check.

Also, many citizens independently sell to friends and neighbors and there is no record of them doing so.

If the average citizen can figure out how to bypass those restrictions, how concerned is our own Congress for being unmindful of the loopholes?

They're NOT concerned. They are well paid by arms manufacturers and the NRA lobby to look the other way.

I'm convinced that the only reason they're going through the charade of pretending to take firmer measures is, like most of what they do, an act to present themselves as caring -- all the while, knowing that nothing will change.

It's frustrating (to the "Nth degree") to understand that citizens -- at least on any level other than local government -- have been rendered powerless.

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 9:59 pm
Carole, Some seem to be looking at making gun identity numbers so filing off not possible & having gun seelers record who sold to with the manufacturer (I think) with a process similar to the registration of cars and transfer of ownership recorded to facilitate the tracing of weapons from crimes. One component seems to be changing how gun stores/individuals report stolen guns--I believe nothing is required if less than 10 at a time right now. This area seems to be one of the loopholes--is that your understanding too?

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 10:07 pm

More people should be concerned about the extreme corruption of this government (and MIND YOU, they are paid with your own tax dollars), instead of quibbling over the party of the representative.

In fact, I even think the drama of Republicans vs. Democrats is a pre-staged drama (similar to "professional" wrestling).

It's a soap opera perpetuated to divide the population. They know that most folks believe in good guy vs. bad guy, so they smear each other.

But, in the end, we are still facing a Congress full of liars and deceitful behavior.

Parties and voting? Rigged. They're equally complicit.

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 10:11 pm

Judi, it's worse.

More loopholes! Even if they close all legal gaps, what about if a weapon is stolen? How 'bout someone gets a gun from a foreign country? What about firearms inherited before these laws?

Honestly? One of the best restrictions has been less talked about.

A gun is useless without bullets. Why not restrict ammo? . . . or check to make sure that the person buying it has a weapon registered to use it?

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 10:23 pm

I also want to add that I do NOT believe in restricting gun ownership other than assault weapons. (I'm sorry, Julian, but I already stated that believing a bunch of disorganized civilians, with modified weapons, similar to military-issue will make a million government-paid soldiers, and who knows how many mercenaries and drones, stand down is ludicrous.)

Any automatic or semi-automatic weapon that can take down innocents with maximum efficiency should be highly controlled.

For heaven's sake, there are tougher state-mandated restrictions on the sale of alcohol on Sunday (or in grocery stores)!

SHEESH!

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 10:25 pm
Carole, I have heard some discussion related to addressing ammunition like you mention.

And I must confess I'm so used to the nature of compromise in legislation ultimately passed on state or federal levels, that I long ago stopped expecting perfection and celebrate incremental, measurable progress in what some call a risk reduction model. The research provides an estimate of how many deaths go with stolen, how many go with in the home, etc. and strategies to reduce each of those areas as much as feasible becomes the goal in how a legislative package is structured--knowing that zero deaths while most desirable is not realistic.
CA has fewer loopholes than the federal laws do and I heard that NY just introduced the tightest. Historically the feds often start with what states have, ensuring overlap areas of many states makes it in at a minimum. That's why federal legislation sometimes doesn't change much for some states.

Is this my ideal? No. Does it often improve things? Yes. And I accept the improvements and continue efforts for more improvements before I stop celebrating.

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 10:30 pm
From the SCOTUS C2 article I posted the link on earlier: "As noted by The New York Times, with the exception of a recent Seventh Circuit decision that struck down an Illinois law that banned loaded guns in public, federal courts have upheld federal laws banning gun ownership by people convicted of felonies and some misdemeanors, by undocumented immigrants and by drug addicts. The federal courts have also upheld laws making it illegal to carry guns near schools or in post offices and laws concerning unregistered weapons. And they have upheld laws banning machine guns and sawed-off shotguns."
Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/why-gun-control-legislation-will-likely-pass-supreme-court-review.html#ixzz2I7L0XS3T

Sounds as if many jurisdictions do limit who can have a gun with the list given Carole. Can you agree with any of those restrictions?

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 10:32 pm

Bless your heart, dear Judi!

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 10:52 pm

Ummmmmmmmm . . . I am on the fence.

We are, as you insinuated, becoming accustomed to being placated.

Frankly, as more and more studies are released, we Americans are, increasingly, being portrayed as being portrayed as sub-standard in many areas, such as overall health (because, while other nations recognize health care as a government obligation to its citizens, for some strange reason, the U.S. government sees the perpetuation of foreign wars as more important (in comparison with other "wealthy" nations).

We are drawn to issues, and made to concentrate on them, by mainstream media, who follow an agenda we are kept ignorant of, but actually know, deep down, is being manipulated by corporations.

Today, and in the month since the Sandy Hook massacre, because we are sentient and empathetic, we concentrate on the loss of 20 innocent lives (their last experiences being so horrific that we hope we will never see such moments before we draw our last breath).

In reality? This government takes (anonymously with the use of drones, similar to video games) more lives than that on a daily basis. And we pay, with our meager wages, for it.

With all that in mind, and with on-going recruitment for more lives used as fodder for unscrupulous greed at middle and high schools, and no jobs available, how really important is this argument?

I struggle with that. (It's similar to the chicken vs. the egg -- which came first?)

While we are concentrating on gun restrictions, and the ammo needed, how many soldiers committed suicide? How many people sleep in their cars, with stomachs growling and children wimpering because they are hungry?

We're being distracted from much larger issues.

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 11:13 pm
 
Here's an example of how mainstream propaganda purposely diverts our attention (while they busily do their dirty work):
 
Test Your Awareness
 
 

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 2:18 am
The laws must be changed.

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 7:01 am
Julian says: "No mention of drugs or gmo foods as cause of mass killings based on facts."

Really? Drugs or gmo foods have been proven to be the 'cause of mass killings'?

What a generality. And proof? Maybe in one or two mass killings has it ever been PROVED that drugs CAUSED the person to do it but that would be a tiny rarity of verified proof in all mass killings. It MAY be proved eventually, but it ain't as of now.
Methinks Julian is trying everything he can possibly can come up with to get others to NOT LOOK at guns, divert it onto anything else he can conceive of.

When you state something as 'true' Julian it has to be true, every time. Otherwise your credibility becomes zilch and you are rejected. That's just the way it is with people.
.

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 7:02 am
Thanks for adding your perspective from someone who isn't living in the US. You cannot currently send a star to Giana because you have done so within the last week.

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 8:54 am
Kenneth watch the deliberate dumbing down of America and educate yourself before you make uneducated remarks. Pay close attention from mark 8:43 to end. Look it up after watching video. Open your mind and don't be a sheeple. It is the truth, just because you are unaware of the truth really shows your lack of knowledge and credibility. That is how it works with people

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 8:55 am
Kenneth the link for you. http://youtu.be/eZJoCfgAEuE

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 8:57 am
I think Alex Jones tells the truth more than not. I definitely trust him over both Bush presidents, Obama, both Clintons, Henry Kissinger, Dick Cheany etc.

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 9:01 am
Please watch this video slowly so you don't miss the message.
56 Million Exterminated Under the Guise of Gun Control
http://youtu.be/ln56Zp22res

Hypocrites like Rosie O'Donnel, Obama, Diane Feinstein etc have concealed guns and/or armed guards.
But we should be disarmed.

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 11:03 am
Note To Readers:
YouTube is an unedited platform and not a source and does not verify the factual accuracy of any posts (a user beware element). It occasionally removes items when complaints have been filed (e.g., copyright infringements with music used). There are reports that YouTube has permitted proven hoaxes to remain posted.

YouTube is sometimes used by credible sources like National Geographic and such credible sources identify themselves on both the site information when posting and on the video itself. I've been trained to view any YouTube post without these two factors as having suspect credibility and to verify any information against other sources with proven reliability, validity (i.e., factual accuracy) and credibility.

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 11:23 am
True about youtube but documents within the videos provide credibility. but any site like the one of this group giving no proof or scientific data to very or prove their position are not credible.
Since National Geographic is deemed credible by writer of news here is another video by National Geographic on the CIA using US citizens as guinea pigs. More reason to defend yourself from government.

http://youtu.be/prQpG1k9UcY

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 11:57 am
Nope, Julian, that video you gave me doesn't PROVE your statement that "No mention of drugs or gmo foods as cause of mass killings based on facts." Using a video created by someone who has compiled various data and then everyone is supposed to come to the same conclusion about that data doesn't PROVE anything.

Read my first post again. Someone who thinks they know everything about a subject has blocked themselves from learning anything more about it, be it true or false.

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 12:00 pm
You're also engaging in what is known as thread hijacking. There's something wrong when one person takes over a thread and deems their personal viewpoint as being so much more important or correct than anyone else's and nobody, but nobody, can disagree or have any other viewpoint worth anything to that person.

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 12:15 pm
Thank you Kenneth for pointing out the thread hijacking issue with such a neutral voice. I had previously brought another thread to Care2's attention and added this one to my latest response to Care2.

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 12:25 pm
Back before the election, I had a crazy person posting the same inane messages across all my news posts, whether or not their comments fit the articles or not. This person is still active on Care2, and probably waiting to harass me when the next election cycle comes around. More needs to be done to restrict such people's access.

As for this article, it comes down to one thing: how long are the American people going to have their government hijacked by the NRA? We need common sense gun control legislation to protect our children and all citizens.

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 12:29 pm
When will we have effective changes to the gun laws? Anyone who purchases a gun anywhere should undergo a background check by the FBI which they should pay for themselves. Then there should be a mandatory waiting period before they get the gun or ammunition. And, the only people who need automatic guns are the police or the military.

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 12:30 pm
Thank you Brian for sharing your thread hijacking experience and returning the focus back to the article and topic for this thread.You cannot currently send a star to Brian because you have done so within the last week.

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 1:00 pm
Thank you for your on topic comment Winn. You cannot currently send a star to Winn because you have done so within the last week.

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 1:10 pm
Kenneth,
You are misinformed. Every thing I posted is relevant to the topic. You just want me censored or to go away with my views. I will not go away. Maybe you should since all you bring is false accusations.
Brian, Police and military only should be armed. Just remember Occupy movement and how police treated protesters and even killed a veteran shooting him in the back of the head point blank with tear gas canister.
Now look how you pro gun control nut jobs murder people with opposing view and make public threats. They should be prosecuted for threats. Yeah we should disarm. I say give up your guns but don't take mine.
http://youtu.be/ZicVxkthPmg

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 1:11 pm
Tuesday January 15, 2013, 3:06 pm
I respectfully disagree since the international data from a multitude of sources consistently shows a reduction in crime with increased gun control. The same is true in the US when data is analyzed on a state, country or other regional basis.
Just a century or more of research and data that there is a broad consensus of agreement is valid and reliable.
Democide is not a crime data is collected on.


Show your source of information because that is a lie.

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 1:16 pm
Apparently the two independent peer reviewed journal sources validating the government reports either were too technical since done by experts or not read. I could provide hundreds, but if the former is true it would be a waste of time-and please stop with the personal attacks Julian--attacks are not on topic.

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 1:20 pm
That was your comment above JLA

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 1:25 pm
Grammatical accusatory (for example: Mr. Y You are misinformed or it is a lie) are personal attack language.

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 1:29 pm
Kit you did misquote me. You read again. Copy and paste the part you said that I said I am not familiar with NRA. I am not rude just short with people who try to put words in my mouth. Provide legal definition and I will bet it supports dictionary version. Go ahead and prove it. Post legal definition.

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 1:32 pm
Black's Law Dictionary:
What is INFRINGEMENT?

A breaking into; a trespass or encroachment upon; a violation of a law, regulation, contract, or right. Used especially of invasions of the rights secured by patents, copyrights, and trademarks. Goodyear Shoe Machinery Co. v. Jackson, 112 Fed. 140, 50 C. C. A. 159, 55 L. R. A. 092; Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Ohio Brass Co., 80 Fed. 721, 20 C. C. A. 107.

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 1:43 pm
Just C,
I have seen this video before and is so relevant here. Bless you for your input.

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 1:55 pm
JLA quit trying to create a .falsehood
Wednesday January 16, 2013, 1:16 pm
Apparently the two independent peer reviewed journal sources validating the government reports either were too technical since done by experts or not read. I could provide hundreds, but if the former is true it would be a waste of time-and please stop with the personal attacks Julian--attacks are not on topic.

Note I said Show your source of information because that is a lie. Thelie refers to your info and is not a personal attack.

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 2:01 pm
Tuesday January 15, 2013, 6:30 pm
Not true--you tube posts anything and everything without any process to ensure accuracy or anything else until a complaint is made, like with using music--unlike peers reviewing the methods and words for factual accuracy before it gets printed in the journal. If anything ever comes up later, a retraction or correction is always written (and I can almost count the number of times something slipped through for that to happen on my fingers).
Got anything credible since you tube isn't?

JLA your first sentence says not true! Thus you are calling me a teller of untruths or a liar? Quit your personal attacks on me. Don't hide behind semantics.

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 2:05 pm
Black's Law Dictionary:
What is INFRINGEMENT?

A breaking into; a trespass or encroachment upon; a violation of a law, regulation, contract, or right. Used especially of invasions of the rights secured by patents, copyrights, and trademarks. Goodyear Shoe Machinery Co. v. Jackson, 112 Fed. 140, 50 C. C. A. 159, 55 L. R. A. 092; Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Ohio Brass Co., 80 Fed. 721, 20 C. C. A. 107.

Your definition supports mine. A violation of the Law! The constitution is the highest law of this country. lt is a contract of the People. That is why ALL politicians are sworn in to defend the Constitution from all foreign or domestic threats.

What more do you need?

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 2:07 pm
Let's actually look at case law on the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an “individual rights” thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a “states’ rights” thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units.1 Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state2 or private3 restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force.

In United States v. Miller,4 the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed–off-shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that “[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.”5 The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of “civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.” It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that “comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,” who, “when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”6 Therefore, “[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well– regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”7

Since this decision, Congress has placed greater limitations on the receipt, possession, and transportation of firearms,8 and proposals for national registration or prohibition of firearms altogether have been made.9 At what point regulation or prohibition of what classes of firearms would conflict with the Amendment, if at all, the Miller case does little more than cast a faint degree of illumination toward an answer.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt2_user.html#amdt2_hd2

What the courts say is the law.

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 2:09 pm
Oh lets not also forget the part about rights in the legal definition. Seeing as the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of RIGHTS!

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 2:11 pm
According to Thom Hartmann: "The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states." Thus, the rationale for arming a militia is NOT defense against the government, but rather to arm bounty hunters and slavers to brutally enforce the rule of slavery and to punish those that ran in search of freedom.

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 2:12 pm
As the Care2 article provided above reported, public safety constitutional rights can require limits on guns even with 2nd amendment. Constitutional property rights have similarly been ruled to permit the owner to refuse to allow guns on their property. There are legal limits.

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 2:17 pm

Mass murder, when used directly in a discussion about gun violence refers to the slaughter of many people at one location in one specific period of time.

Yes, I believe many can agree that the end result of abuse of drugs, whether by prescription or drugs labeled as illegal can lead to death. The Agricultural companies do not have our health or longevity, not even our best interest in mind, when developing GMO crops. That in turn many lead to many deaths from their products at some future point in time.

Neither of those are defined or discussed in this article. This article is specific to the use of guns with the intent of killing people once the bullet has left the muzzle of the gun. That is not denial, it is just a fact.

A You Tube from Alex Jones is in no way to be taken as accurate information, there is no substantial research to verify the validity of this video. However, should anyone have solid proof that this video is based only on Factual information, has been verified by independent sources, I would be most happy to read that.
*****
http://www.care2.com/news/member/451276626/3516159 - a petition for support of more restrictions on the purchase of guns, the size of the magazine for that gun, and closing the loop holes for gun shows.

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 2:19 pm
What the courts say is the law.

No courts can uphold any law but are not valid if unconstitutional.
I will give you examples later.

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 2:20 pm
I made a mistake when I said fluoride was an ingredient of arsenic. I should have said the nerve gas Sarin.

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 2:23 pm
When it is The Supreme Court saying it is the law since the constitution says they are the final word on what is or isn't the law:



U.S. Constitution

Article III
Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 2:24 pm

I said only this: "For someone who claims to not be familiar with the NRA you most certainly are adept at quoting them word for word, Julian."

How many one can get that twisted into an insult or a personal affront is beyond comprehension.

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 2:31 pm
Sodium fluoride is an ingredient of rat poison.

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 2:49 pm
NaFl is not considered among the "active" ingredients in top 10 rat poisongs (warfarin is number 1 --to create bleeding like the drug with that name is used for blood thinning in patients with phlebitis).
Now let's return this thread to the topic (not sideline personal attacks, etc. or content without any visible relationship to the article)

To repeat again:
After that diversion from the topic of this article written by members of the Millenium generation who have grown up with and attended school with all the policies, procedures and practices intended to keep them safe after the first school shootings and their views on what is needed in this country for their generation's future related to gun control reform. What reforms are needed? What will help or hinder those reforms? That is what this article and thread is about.

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 2:49 pm
I also want to add that I do NOT believe in restricting gun ownership other than assault weapons. (I'm sorry, Julian, but I already stated that believing a bunch of disorganized civilians, with modified weapons, similar to military-issue will make a million government-paid soldiers, and who knows how many mercenaries and drones, stand down is ludicrous.)

Any automatic or semi-automatic weapon that can take down innocents with maximum efficiency should be highly controlled.

Just C, I respect your stance but do you know that by banning semi automatic weapons you are banning all guns?
Semi automatic means bullets shoot as fast as you pull the trigger. Than includes hand guns revolvers etc.
Fully automatic weapons are those that continuously shoot bullets rapidly as long as the trigger is held down.

The people should have semi as the government has fully automatic as well as their arsenals.
he right to bear arms is about people being able to fight their own tyrannical governments. The fight is coming with the actions of both political parties to take ALL our rights away. A fact about history is that Japan did not invade the US mainland for fear of armed citizens. Wait til we have to fight our own government like we did before. Remember. We were under the government of King George and fought to free ourselves. We may have to fight King Obama or people his ilk.

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 3:07 pm
Code of Conduct:

Respect and courtesy - All Care2 Members are entitled to express their views and beliefs in a safe environment without feeling attacked. Members may not infringe on the rights of any other person to express themselves in a safe environment. This policy includes:
Any harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or otherwise objectionable posts.
Any posts which are invasive of another's privacy.
Name calling or otherwise attacking the person posting rather than the content of the post. Disagreement is encouraged, but you should only comment on the argument or position taken, never against the person posting their opinion or belief.

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 3:09 pm
Now watch this video and see the hypocrisy of this government and why we need to be armed.
Time is running out indeed.

http://youtu.be/4yIEgZxU1kc

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 3:20 pm
Watch police brutality on demonstrators using nun chucks to break arms.
http://youtu.be/4yIEgZxU1kc
Disarm no way.

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 4:06 pm
Noted w/thanks, J.L. Well, Pres. Obama has now had his press conference, and I agree with his message. I only hope we can get some good measures passed through Congress. I haven't heard one single person say they want to take people's guns away...how about starting by funding laws currently on the books? When the Assault Weapons Ban comes up, that should definitely be passed. My own dearly departed WWII veteran dad, who also enjoyed hunting and trapshooting, (and was an NRA member), would definitely be for that. Gabby Giffords, my Rep. who was shot in the head, is a gun owner...DemandAPlan.org.

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 4:15 pm
You are welcome Lois and thank you for adding your on topic comment. You cannot currently send a star to Lois because you have done so within the last week.

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 4:20 pm
Sad that poor innocent children( & also adults) are being killed for the sake of gun possession.US has the highest rate of gun deaths in the world according to the BBC news 2 nights ago.Makes me very unhappy as some of my family live there & I would like this issue resolved to make America, a beautiful country that I love, safe.If both sides give a bit for the sake of the children surely both sides could come to some agreement.We will never stop all the violence true but we can do our part to stop some.

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 5:05 pm
Thank you for sharing your heart-felt views Penny! You cannot currently send a star to Penny because you have done so within the last week.

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 5:35 pm
The trouble with trolls, they never shut up.
Also the trouble with egomaniacs.

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 11:01 pm
http://www.youtube.com/t/terms
5. Your Use of Content

In addition to the general restrictions above, the following restrictions and conditions apply specifically to your use of Content.

The Content on the Service, and the trademarks, service marks and logos ("Marks") on the Service, are owned by or licensed to YouTube, subject to copyright and other intellectual property rights under the law.
Content is provided to you AS IS. You may access Content for your information and personal use solely as intended through the provided functionality of the Service and as permitted under these Terms of Service. You shall not download any Content unless you see a “download” or similar link displayed by YouTube on the Service for that Content. You shall not copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, or otherwise exploit any Content for any other purposes without the prior written consent of YouTube or the respective licensors of the Content. YouTube and its licensors reserve all rights not expressly granted in and to the Service and the Content.
You agree not to circumvent, disable or otherwise interfere with security-related features of the Service or features that prevent or restrict use or copying of any Content or enforce limitations on use of the Service or the Content therein.
You understand that when using the Service, you will be exposed to Content from a variety of sources, and that YouTube is not responsible for the accuracy, usefulness, safety, or intellectual property rights of or relating to such Content. You further understand and acknowledge that you may be exposed to Content that is inaccurate, offensive, indecent, or objectionable, and you agree to waive, and hereby do waive, any legal or equitable rights or remedies you have or may have against YouTube with respect thereto, and, to the extent permitted by applicable law, agree to indemnify and hold harmless YouTube, its owners, operators, affiliates, licensors, and licensees to the fullest extent allowed by law regarding all matters related to your use of the Service.

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 11:26 pm
Holy crap - another one ?!
I think your being stalked JL. :-p

Wednesday January 16, 2013, 11:27 pm
You cannot currently send a star to Ellen because you have done so within the last week.

Thursday January 17, 2013, 4:04 pm
It is pointless to be "armed against the government" today -- we don't live in a world of muskets -- and that is perhaps not what the 2nd amendment intended (see a post above). We have elections, petitions, letters, protests and so on to have some say in how we are governed. We don't live in the Wild West.

"A total ban on assault rifles, high capacity magazines, and military-grade ammunition would prevent untrained individuals from obtaining and operating dangerous weaponry – the same reason surface-to-air weapons aren’t currently available to the general public. Mandating universal background checks, broadening the base of searched databases, and extending the waiting period could prevent those with histories of violence or debilitating mental illness from purchasing firearms. Official reporting for all firearm transactions could spur private dealers to run background checks before a sale as a means of reducing their liability".

Seems reasonable.

I think "mental illness" is somewhat vague. Some people with mental illness might be prone to violence, some not.

Some people who suddenly take part in gun violence may have no history of violence.Gun regulations might have more success in preventing gun tragedies.

Thursday January 17, 2013, 4:14 pm
Thank you for your thoughtful comment including clear reasons for why you view elements as you do commensurate with the topic Greenplanet. You cannot currently send a star to greenplanet because you have done so within the last week.

Thursday January 17, 2013, 4:22 pm

Plus -- why should the Earth's diminishing resources be used to make weapons? We should be learning to live more peacefully and more in harmony with nature.

Thursday January 17, 2013, 4:23 pm

Thanks, J.L.A.

Saturday January 19, 2013, 8:23 pm
It is clear that almost all of the comments were ignorant. First there is the "ban" everything because we are afraid and idealistic. Get yourself to read history more and get rid of the rose colored glasses. Reality is that those with the best weapons and the will win. The weapons are not only guns but fear,ignorance,idealism,trends of those who are inexperienced. Because of the divide of the generations some of the learnings of the past are not being heeded so we will have to learn them again. Wall Street bailed out the government once before. Now they may do it again. But we are not looking at the real problems. Women have had their rights taken away and just a whimper is heard. Free country? No it is not. Using all of our resources to educate and build a really sustainable future so all can enjoy living. But there will be trade offs.

Sunday January 20, 2013, 3:55 pm
Although I didn't view any comment as advocating banning everything Scott, your reminders of propaganda and lost lessons many do not view as 'weapons' adds to the discussion.