School Shooting in Connecticut

Off Topic
401

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
I can go make an amonium nitrate bomb today and blow up a school, if I was so inclined. So can you.
[/quote]
I believe the ingredients needed to make a bomb of decent size are more regulated than guns. Try buying a significant amount of fertilizer and see what happens. Big Brother is out there. [/quote]

Nope. It’s reportable, but it’s not controlled unless you buy it by the ton. I have several tons sitting in 100lb bags in our warehouse. (I own a cherry farm; I am not a terrorist.)

You could just go to tractor supply and buy it 200lbs at a time. Take you a couple days to get a truck load.

402

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]BeefEater wrote:
In additions I think that gun laws need an overhaul. I think there are ways to remain true to the 2nd amendment without allowing things such as handguns and assault rifles to be as readily available as they are now. [/quote]

And what would those ways be? Please, expound. [/quote]

By taking current laws that exist for fully automatics and applying them to handguns and reserving assault rifles (semi and fully automatic) for police and military use. Placing a limit on the amount of ammunition and firearms any one person may purchase at one time. Proof of ownership of a gun safe prior to purchase of any firearms and better enforcement of the current laws for purchase of hunting rifles and shotguns.

403

[quote]BeefEater wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]BeefEater wrote:
In additions I think that gun laws need an overhaul. I think there are ways to remain true to the 2nd amendment without allowing things such as handguns and assault rifles to be as readily available as they are now. [/quote]

And what would those ways be? Please, expound. [/quote]

By taking current laws that exist for fully automatics and applying them to handguns and reserving assault rifles (semi and fully automatic) for police and military use. Placing a limit on the amount of ammunition and firearms any one person may purchase at one time. Proof of ownership of a gun safe prior to purchase of any firearms and better enforcement of the current laws for purchase of hunting rifles and shotguns.[/quote]

So you would incrementally eat away at the freedom afforded to us by the 2nd Amendment contained in the Bill of Rights, is what you are saying.

Why stop there? Why not a national registry? And harsh, of course federal, punishments for carrying your gun in regulated space. Or having it loaded when not in use. Or without the proper trigger lock? Or…

404

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]BeefEater wrote:

Prevent is not likely, but reducing the chances is what needs to happen. The treatment of mental illness needs to change. Currently mental illness is not treated the same as other illnesses and is almost never covered by insurance. [/quote]

OK, then start here and leave the guns alone.

Overwhelmingly by orders of magnitude the number of gun owners who are responsible and don’t commit murder or break laws outnumber the number of incidents involving criminal use of firearms.[/quote]

That would be fine if I believed that mental illness was the only contributing factor. The problem isn’t just that they are sick, it’s that they are sick and have easy access for weapons.

405

[quote]BeefEater wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]BeefEater wrote:
In additions I think that gun laws need an overhaul. I think there are ways to remain true to the 2nd amendment without allowing things such as handguns and assault rifles to be as readily available as they are now. [/quote]

And what would those ways be? Please, expound. [/quote]

By taking current laws that exist for fully automatics and applying them to handguns and reserving assault rifles (semi and fully automatic) for police and military use. Placing a limit on the amount of ammunition and firearms any one person may purchase at one time. Proof of ownership of a gun safe prior to purchase of any firearms and better enforcement of the current laws for purchase of hunting rifles and shotguns.[/quote]

All that does is make it more expensive to own guns, legally.

For example, I have a Thompson sub-machine gun.* I got it after forming a gun trust and paying a $300 class 3 weapons tax stamp. There was no more background check than I had already had. All in like $650 extra dollars to a lawyer and the government.

Done the same thing to buy suppressors (except I already had the trust).

  • I got it because it’s cool. I’ve shot it once, but .45 rounds are too damn expensive.

Again, what is needed is nut control, not gun control.

406

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]BeefEater wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]BeefEater wrote:
In additions I think that gun laws need an overhaul. I think there are ways to remain true to the 2nd amendment without allowing things such as handguns and assault rifles to be as readily available as they are now. [/quote]

And what would those ways be? Please, expound. [/quote]

By taking current laws that exist for fully automatics and applying them to handguns and reserving assault rifles (semi and fully automatic) for police and military use. Placing a limit on the amount of ammunition and firearms any one person may purchase at one time. Proof of ownership of a gun safe prior to purchase of any firearms and better enforcement of the current laws for purchase of hunting rifles and shotguns.[/quote]

So you would incrementally eat away at the freedom afforded to us by the 2nd Amendment contained in the Bill of Rights, is what you are saying.

[/quote]

Why not? Has it not also been incrementally expanded?

407

[quote]BeefEater wrote:
That would be fine if I believed that mental illness was the only contributing factor. The problem isn’t just that they are sick, it’s that they are sick and have easy access for weapons.
[/quote]

Like the cars we drive are not weapons, if motivated.

Or they could do some home cooking with nitric acid (the most common chemical produced in the world) and de-icing prill (or any source of urea, even dehytrated piss). Combined you have an explosive way more powerful than ammonium nitrate — and I should know having had my ass blown up by it by insurgents in Iraq using it.

Household stuff is easily made into weapons with the most basic of chemistry knowledge.

No frikking way to stop it.

408

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
He was smart enough TO NOT use a shotgun (hard to conceal, heavy, small ammo capacity, slow to reload). [/quote]

He used a Bushmaster AR-15. It’s likely larger than tactical shotgun, both length and height.

You can conceal a shotgun in a long coat; ask the victims of many a mob hit.

Round capacity is lower (typically 7), but anyone with any skill can reload a round a second, which is about as fast as you can shoot.[/quote]

A shotgun at close range with low gauge shot would also be a more “accurate” weapon, and cause more damage to more people with a single pull of the trigger than any rifle could ever hope to. Saw off the barrel and you’ve got a portable mayhem manufacturing machine at your fingertips.

409

[quote]BeefEater wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]BeefEater wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]BeefEater wrote:
In additions I think that gun laws need an overhaul. I think there are ways to remain true to the 2nd amendment without allowing things such as handguns and assault rifles to be as readily available as they are now. [/quote]

And what would those ways be? Please, expound. [/quote]

By taking current laws that exist for fully automatics and applying them to handguns and reserving assault rifles (semi and fully automatic) for police and military use. Placing a limit on the amount of ammunition and firearms any one person may purchase at one time. Proof of ownership of a gun safe prior to purchase of any firearms and better enforcement of the current laws for purchase of hunting rifles and shotguns.[/quote]

So you would incrementally eat away at the freedom afforded to us by the 2nd Amendment contained in the Bill of Rights, is what you are saying.

[/quote]

Why not? Has it not also been incrementally expanded?[/quote]

No. It was intended to be applied as it is written. You are way off base. Not even inside the foul ball line.

410

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]BeefEater wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]BeefEater wrote:
In additions I think that gun laws need an overhaul. I think there are ways to remain true to the 2nd amendment without allowing things such as handguns and assault rifles to be as readily available as they are now. [/quote]

And what would those ways be? Please, expound. [/quote]

By taking current laws that exist for fully automatics and applying them to handguns and reserving assault rifles (semi and fully automatic) for police and military use. Placing a limit on the amount of ammunition and firearms any one person may purchase at one time. Proof of ownership of a gun safe prior to purchase of any firearms and better enforcement of the current laws for purchase of hunting rifles and shotguns.[/quote]

So you would incrementally eat away at the freedom afforded to us by the 2nd Amendment contained in the Bill of Rights, is what you are saying.

Why stop there? Why not a national registry? And harsh, of course federal, punishments for carrying your gun in regulated space. Or having it loaded when not in use. Or without the proper trigger lock? Or…[/quote]

I’m still of the opinion that we’re way too focused on the letter of the 2nd amendment and not the intent. As far as the intent is concerned, no amount of assault rifles or munitions really will even remotely protect civilians against the threat of a military-run tyranny these days.

Talk about gun control laws is fine… but you really can’t call it 2nd amendment rights anymore. Those were effectively lost many many decades ago.

411

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]BeefEater wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]BeefEater wrote:
In additions I think that gun laws need an overhaul. I think there are ways to remain true to the 2nd amendment without allowing things such as handguns and assault rifles to be as readily available as they are now. [/quote]

And what would those ways be? Please, expound. [/quote]

By taking current laws that exist for fully automatics and applying them to handguns and reserving assault rifles (semi and fully automatic) for police and military use. Placing a limit on the amount of ammunition and firearms any one person may purchase at one time. Proof of ownership of a gun safe prior to purchase of any firearms and better enforcement of the current laws for purchase of hunting rifles and shotguns.[/quote]

So you would incrementally eat away at the freedom afforded to us by the 2nd Amendment contained in the Bill of Rights, is what you are saying.

Why stop there? Why not a national registry? And harsh, of course federal, punishments for carrying your gun in regulated space. Or having it loaded when not in use. Or without the proper trigger lock? Or…[/quote]

I’m still of the opinion that we’re way too focused on the letter of the 2nd amendment and not the intent. As far as the intent is concerned, no amount of assault rifles or munitions really will even remotely protect civilians against the threat of a military-run tyranny these days.

Talk about gun control laws is fine… but you really can’t call it 2nd amendment rights anymore. Those were effectively lost many many decades ago.[/quote]

You forget exactly who would be fighting against whom. A revolutionary war, with house to house combat, where patriots have to choose between a tyrannical, overreaching government telling them to shoot their own friends, brothers and cousins?

What you are saying is what naysayers would have said about those “ragtag” American revolutionaries going up against the British Leviathan.

412

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
What specific legislative measures would have prevented this tragedy from occuring?

[/quote]

Armed teachers.

Here are my observations:

  1. This is a tradgedy, but keep it in perspective. Your kid is much more likely to die from a falling big screen TV than being shot. I don’t see the media demanding big screen TV control. Gee, I wonder why?

  2. The USA has a crazy loner problem, not a gun problem.

If someone wants to kill people, they will find a way. I can go make an amonium nitrate bomb today and blow up a school, if I was so inclined. So can you. The root causes I see on this are the isolation of people due to a break down of the family unit AND, more importantly, since the Earl Warren Court, it’s basically impossible to lock up crazy people.

Yes, I know there is a sordid history in this country with sanitariums, but if done right, they are a great, safe, place. This is also the problem with homeless people, too, BTW.

  1. The attached picture is from Israel. It’s a school trip. The guys and lady with rifles are teachers.

You see, we have a much more common problem in Israel with sadly very sane people plotting to kill masses of Jewish children because their prophet told them we should be killed wherever we are found.

They use whatever is at hand — my wife was killed with a bomb; my daughters at about age 6 narrowly avoided being run over by a gentleman who just decided one day to drive along the sidewalk because it was filled with little Jewish girls. (He was gunned down by an off-duty IDF soldier with his sidearm.)

The world is a scary place. The USA has lived in a bubble for the better part of a century, but that bubble is popping. You need to get over the irrational fear of firearms because you are going to need them in the hands of sane, good, people.

[/quote]

Excellent post.

However, aren’t most teachers of a liberal inclination?

What are the chances they would want to be armed?

Don’t you think the inclination will be “No. I don’t want to be an active participant in protecting my community, I want my government to do it for me.”

I also read of the relationship of the Lanza boy and his mother.
It appears she was overprotective of him and very secretive of her family life.

If she had some kind of pathological symbiotic relationship with the boy, what are the chances the government would be allowed to 'take him away from her"?

Overly possessive mothers and absent fathers can form a lethal combination in the psyche of the human being upon whom that falls.

413

[quote]LoRez wrote:
As far as the intent is concerned, no amount of assault rifles or munitions really will even remotely protect civilians against the threat of a military-run tyranny these days.
[/quote]

Not really. The USA would be ungoveranable by a domestic-based military tyranny, simply because the soldiers and their families would have no where safe to go.

The USA can project force to other countries (e.g., Iraq, Afganistan) with SOME success because the means of production of weapons are safely back in the USA.

In a borderless war, the means of production, etc., would be fair game.

In such a circumstance, rifles and handguns would be devastating.

414

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]BeefEater wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]BeefEater wrote:
In additions I think that gun laws need an overhaul. I think there are ways to remain true to the 2nd amendment without allowing things such as handguns and assault rifles to be as readily available as they are now. [/quote]

And what would those ways be? Please, expound. [/quote]

By taking current laws that exist for fully automatics and applying them to handguns and reserving assault rifles (semi and fully automatic) for police and military use. Placing a limit on the amount of ammunition and firearms any one person may purchase at one time. Proof of ownership of a gun safe prior to purchase of any firearms and better enforcement of the current laws for purchase of hunting rifles and shotguns.[/quote]

So you would incrementally eat away at the freedom afforded to us by the 2nd Amendment contained in the Bill of Rights, is what you are saying.

Why stop there? Why not a national registry? And harsh, of course federal, punishments for carrying your gun in regulated space. Or having it loaded when not in use. Or without the proper trigger lock? Or…[/quote]

I’m still of the opinion that we’re way too focused on the letter of the 2nd amendment and not the intent. As far as the intent is concerned, no amount of assault rifles or munitions really will even remotely protect civilians against the threat of a military-run tyranny these days.

Talk about gun control laws is fine… but you really can’t call it 2nd amendment rights anymore. Those were effectively lost many many decades ago.[/quote]

You forget exactly who would be fighting against whom. A revolutionary war, with house to house combat, where patriots have to choose between a tyrannical, overreaching government telling them to shoot their own friends, brothers and cousins?

What you are saying is what naysayers would have said about those “ragtag” American revolutionaries going up against the British Leviathan.

[/quote]

Hm, maybe the 2nd amendment should be expanded to better account for apocalyptic scenarios too?

But good point.

My take has always been that it was intended as “citizens vs tyrannical centralized government with military force” – and at this point, frankly, ‘citizens’ have no chance given our current military capabilities – rather than “citizens vs citizens” in desperate times.

I just think the discussion of “should I have a gun for self defense against breaking and entering” is a very discussion than “should I have a gun to defend my rights”. The 2nd amendment wasn’t intended to deal with the former, but that’s what most of the discussion is about.

415

[quote]LoRez wrote:
My take has always been that it was intended as “citizens vs tyrannical centralized government with military force” – and at this point, frankly, ‘citizens’ have no chance given our current military capabilities – rather than “citizens vs citizens” in desperate times.

I just think the discussion of “should I have a gun for self defense against breaking and entering” is a very discussion than “should I have a gun to defend my rights”. The 2nd amendment wasn’t intended to deal with the former, but that’s what most of the discussion is about.[/quote]

The Supreme Court rejected the argument [collective right]. The appellees ask us to repudiate the Court’s historical analysis. That we can not do. Nor can we ignore the implication of the analysis that the constitutional right of armed selfdefense is broader than the right to have a gun in one’s home. The first sentence of the McDonald opinion states that two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, McDonald v. City of Chicago, supra, 130 S. Ct. at 3026, and later in the opinion we read that Heller explored the right’s origins, noting that the 1689 English Bill of Rights explicitly protected a right to keep arms for self-defense, 554 U.S. at 593, and that by 1765, Blackstone was able to assert that the right
to keep and bear arms was â??one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen, id. at 594. 130 S. Ct. at 3037. And immediately the Court adds that Blackstone’s assessment was shared by the American colonists. Id.

Both Heller and McDonald do say that the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute in the home, id. at 3036 (emphasis added); 554 U.S. at 628, but that doesn’t mean it is not acute outside the home. Heller repeatedly invokes a broader Second Amendment right than the right to have a gun in one’s home, as when it says that the amendment guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and Nos. 12-1269, 12-1788 5 carry weapons in case of confrontation. 554 U.S. at 592.

Confrontations are not limited to the home. The Second Amendment states in its entirety that 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 (emphasis added). The right to bear as distinct from the right to keep arms is unlikely to refer to the home. To speak of bearing arms within one’s home would at all times have been an awkward usage. A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.

Edited to clean up formating.

416

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]BeefEater wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]BeefEater wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]BeefEater wrote:
In additions I think that gun laws need an overhaul. I think there are ways to remain true to the 2nd amendment without allowing things such as handguns and assault rifles to be as readily available as they are now. [/quote]

And what would those ways be? Please, expound. [/quote]

By taking current laws that exist for fully automatics and applying them to handguns and reserving assault rifles (semi and fully automatic) for police and military use. Placing a limit on the amount of ammunition and firearms any one person may purchase at one time. Proof of ownership of a gun safe prior to purchase of any firearms and better enforcement of the current laws for purchase of hunting rifles and shotguns.[/quote]

So you would incrementally eat away at the freedom afforded to us by the 2nd Amendment contained in the Bill of Rights, is what you are saying.

[/quote]

Why not? Has it not also been incrementally expanded?[/quote]

No. It was intended to be applied as it is written. You are way off base. Not even inside the foul ball line.
[/quote]

This is where we will simply have to disagree as I don’t believe that the 2nd Amendment was at all concerned with concealed carry or stand your ground laws.

417

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
As far as the intent is concerned, no amount of assault rifles or munitions really will even remotely protect civilians against the threat of a military-run tyranny these days.
[/quote]

Not really. The USA would be ungoveranable by a domestic-based military tyranny, simply because the soldiers and their families would have no where safe to go.

The USA can project force to other countries (e.g., Iraq, Afganistan) with SOME success because the means of production of weapons are safely back in the USA.

In a borderless war, the means of production, etc., would be fair game.

In such a circumstance, rifles and handguns would be devastating.[/quote]

I see. Ok.

I was imagining a situation like, say, right-now Syria, with US Military capability.

But now I have a renewed appreciation for the design of Congress.

418

^ Sorry, I dumped a lot of info on you in a terrible format with no explanation. The above is from a case decided by the 7th Circuit less than 2 weeks ago. You can see that starting on line 6, the USSC does in fact hold that a purpose of the 2nd Amendment is personal protection. In fact, they even go back to the English Bill of Rights written in 1689 to show that the right to keep and bear arms was for self-defense.

419

[quote]BeefEater wrote:
This is where we will simply have to disagree as I don’t believe that the 2nd Amendment was at all concerned with concealed carry or stand your ground laws.
[/quote]

Please see my post above where the 7th Circuit explicitly stated that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to not only keep arms in the home, but also to bear them, in other words, carry for self-defense.

420

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]BeefEater wrote:
This is where we will simply have to disagree as I don’t believe that the 2nd Amendment was at all concerned with concealed carry or stand your ground laws.
[/quote]

Please see my post above where the 7th Circuit explicitly stated that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to not only keep arms in the home, but also to bear them, in other words, carry for self-defense.
[/quote]

This would be an example of where I feel that the 2nd Amendment has been expanded based on a later judgement. This judgement appears to focus solely on what the founders meant by “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” based on an educated guess. Regardless the intent of my discussion all along has been that the way we are using the 2nd Amendment now is problematic.