Want gun control? Fight smart.

[Auld Phart]

That 'interpretation' is something anyone old enough to read sees.

No, it's not.

It's only an interpretation recent to 2008, and it was a reversal of every single other lower court ruling. It took a 5-4 Conservative majority to undo law that had been upheld by every single lower court.

It's the interpretation I learned over 55 years ago, in junior high.


Makes me wonder about the judges that ruled on it prior to it going to SCOTUS

 

[cnm]

Gun control is such a typically trite and meaningless prog solution to a serious problem. Only the law abiding citizen will follow these laws, old and new. The end result is that only criminals will have guns.

Talking about typically trite and meaningless...

 

[The Derp]

Rhetorical questions.

How's it a rhetorical question? Do you know what "rhetorical" means? My quesiton about why all ammo isn't lead-based isn't a rhetorical question. So stop pretending, man up, and answer the fucking question.

And Let me educate you. I have the right to keep and bear arms. Nowhere is it written I have the right to fire those arms at anything.

So then that pretty much invalidates the belief that you have a right to own something, if you say you can't use it.

When you fire a gun at another person you have to justify that action.

I guess. Seems like the justification is pretty loose.

 

[Defiant1]

Why don't you ride a horse to work?
Why don't you dig a well and haul water up by hand?

So you are arguing that it's an equal necessity to use an assault weapon to hunt game, as it is to have a car and/or indoor plumbing?

You don't have an inalienable right to own a car or indoor plumbing.

 

[The Derp]

It's the interpretation I learned over 55 years ago, in junior high.

Your bullshit and fake anecdote means nothing to me.

Makes me wonder about the judges that ruled on it prior to it going to SCOTUS

The judges ruled it correctly, as it had been ruled for 230 years. It was only 10 years ago that this new interpretation came into being, and it's only because of the SCOTUS undoing the ruling of every single lower court.

 

[cnm]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Because a well regulated militia's necessity for the security of a free state is the Constitutional reason the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[sealybobo]

I was going to compose a letter to these young whippersnappers today, telling them that they are the voice of hope, but only if they refrain from the usual screeching and name calling and hyperbolic empty rhetoric that passes for political "debate" these days. I didn't have to write it--David Brooks already did.
I wanted to share it with all of you, and hope/wish you will all read it and think about it.

DAVID BROOKS

Respect First, Then Gun Control
Image

Students and family members gathered at a makeshift memorial for the victims of last week’s school shooting in Parkland, Fla.CreditMark Wilson/Getty Images North America
Image

By David Brooks

Feb. 19, 2018
This has been an emotional week. We greet tragedies like the school shooting in Florida with shock, sadness, mourning and grief that turns into indignation and rage. The anger inevitably gets directed at the N.R.A., those who support gun rights, and the politicians who refuse to do anything while children die.

Many of us walked this emotional path. But we may end up doing more harm than good. If there’s one thing we’ve learned, it is that guns have become a cultural flash point in a nation that is unequal and divided. The people who defend gun rights believe that snobbish elites look down on their morals and want to destroy their culture. If we end up telling such people that they and their guns are despicable, they will just despise us back and dig in their heels.

So if you want to stop school shootings it’s not enough just to vent and march. It’s necessary to let people from Red America lead the way, and to show respect to gun owners at all points. There has to be trust and respect first. Then we can strike a compromise on guns as guns, and not some sacred cross in the culture war.

So I’ve been thinking about a group that’s in the trust and respect business. Better Angels is a nonprofit led by David Lapp, David Blankenhorn and a prominent family therapist, Bill Doherty. The team members travel from town to town finding members of the Red and Blue Tribes and bringing them together for long, humbling conversations.

My Times colleague April Lawson has gotten involved with Better Angels and has been reporting back on its techniques.

One of the most successful parts of the structured conversations is built around stereotypes. Doherty, the head moderator, asks the people at each gathering to name five major stereotypes that the other side throws at them. The Republicans invariably list “racist” first, followed by, say, “uncaring,” “uneducated,” “misogynistic” and “science deniers.”


You have 2 free articles remaining.

Subscribe to The Times


In a session Lawson attended, a Trump supporter acknowledged that the G.O.P. has had a spotty record on racial matters, but it’s important to him that Blues know that’s not why he holds his opinions.

Doherty says that the Reds feel shamed by the Blues to a much greater degree than the Blues realize. Reds are very reluctant to enter into a conversation with Blues, for fear of further shaming, but they often come to the table when they are told that this will be a chance to “de-monsterize” themselves.

At that session one Blue said she was really grateful to hear a Red acknowledge the Republican history on race. When Blues are asked about the stereotypes thrown at them, they tend to list “against religion and morality,” “unpatriotic” and “against personal responsibility” among their responses. They, too, relish the chance to clear the air.

After the stereotypes are discussed, the room feels different. As one Red in Ohio told Lawson, “I think we are all pretty clear on one thing: Don’t tell us who we are and what we think.” Another Red was moved almost to tears by the damage categories do. “We’re not just cookie-cutter people; we’re individuals. Just because you don’t like something, you don’t have to ridicule it — you probably don’t understand it,” she said. “When someone’s heart is full up with something, and then you demean it without even listening to them — I hate that.”

The discussions reveal other sensitivities. Some Blues didn’t want to enter a venue that had a “Don’t Tread on Me” flag on the wall. To Reds that was a neutral flag from American history, but to Blues it carried all sorts of nasty associations. Reds were offended by the lawn signs that said, “Hate Has No Home Here.” The implication: Hate has no home in my house, but it does in yours.

In another exercise, Reds and Blues ask each other honest, nonleading questions. Blues may ask Reds, “Name a safety-net program you can support.” Reds may ask Blues, “How do you balance having a heart with keeping health care costs under control?”

By the end of the conversations, the atmosphere has changed. Nearly always somebody will say that the discussion was easy because only moderates were in the room, not the people who post crazy stuff on Facebook. The staff tries not to smile, knowing that some of the people were selected precisely because of the intense stuff they posted on Facebook.

“This is not a civility organization,” Blankenhorn told Lawson. Better Angels is aiming to build a group of people whose personal bonds with their fellow citizens redefine how they engage in the political system.

We don’t really have policy debates anymore. We have one big tribal conflict, and policy fights are just proxy battles as each side tries to establish moral superiority. But just as the tribal mentality has been turned on, it can be turned off. Then and only then can we go back to normal politics and take reasonable measures to keep our children safe.


Michelle Goldberg is off today.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

A version of this article appears in print on February 20, 2018, on Page A19 of the New York edition with the headline: Respect First, Then Gun Control. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

Forget all that. Just vote. All they have to do is vote. Protests don't do shit if you don't vote.

In 1976, one of the first elections in which 18-year-olds were able to vote, 18-24 year-olds made up 18 percent of all eligible voters in America, but only 13 percent actually voted - an under-representation of one-third.

In the next election in 1978, youth were under-represented by 50 percent. “Seven out of ten young people…did not vote in the 1996 presidential election… 20 percent below the general turnout”.

In 1998, out of the 13 percent of eligible youth voters in America, only five percent voted.

During the competitive presidential race of 2000, 36 percent of youth turned out to vote and in 2004, the “banner year in the history of youth voting,” 47 percent of the American youth voted.

Recently, in the 2008 U.S. Presidential election, the number of youth voters tripled and even quadrupled in some states compared to the 2004 elections.

But then they didn't show up in 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016.

Based on these numbers what percent do you think will vote in 2018 and 2020?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Rhetorical questions.

How's it a rhetorical question? Do you know what "rhetorical" means? My quesiton about why all ammo isn't lead-based isn't a rhetorical question. So stop pretending, man up, and answer the fucking question.

And Let me educate you. I have the right to keep and bear arms. Nowhere is it written I have the right to fire those arms at anything.

So then that pretty much invalidates the belief that you have a right to own something, if you say you can't use it.

When you fire a gun at another person you have to justify that action.

I guess. Seems like the justification is pretty loose.

Why aren't all bullets lead free?

Why aren't all people nice to each other?

Rhetorical questions.

And I do not fucking care why all bullets aren't lead free. Start a fucking PAC and go about making all bullets lead free.

And where did I say I can't use my firearms?

I can use them I just have to use them in legally allowable ways.

 

[cnm]

You don't have an inalienable right to own a car or indoor plumbing.

As though those are not necessary in the pursuit of happiness.
Blasphemer!
Burn him!

 

[The Derp]

You don't have an inalienable right to own a car or indoor plumbing.

Neither do you have the right to own a gun, either. There are plenty of restrictions on gun ownership.

A car and indoor plumbing are necessities in today's society. A gun isn't.

In fact, gun ownership is at its lowest levels ever. The violent crime rate is at its lowest levels ever. Coincidence?

 

[Auld Phart]

It's the interpretation I learned over 55 years ago, in junior high.

Your bullshit and fake anecdote means nothing to me.

Makes me wonder about the judges that ruled on it prior to it going to SCOTUS

The judges ruled it correctly, as it had been ruled for 230 years. It was only 10 years ago that this new interpretation came into being, and it's only because of the SCOTUS undoing the ruling of every single lower court.

I repeat:

"Makes me wonder about the judges that ruled on it prior to it going to SCOTUS"

 

[Aba Incieni]

Gun control is such a typically trite and meaningless prog solution to a serious problem. Only the law abiding citizen will follow these laws, old and new. The end result is that only criminals will have guns.

Talking about typically trite and meaningless...

You're quick. It's right there in my post. Sounds like you had a mirror moment.

 

[Auld Phart]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Because a well regulated militia's necessity for the security of a free state is the Constitutional reason the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Sorry bud...

the right is for the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, not the militia.

(try reading the rest of the Amendment)

 

[cnm]

It's the interpretation I learned over 55 years ago, in junior high.

Tell me, just to satisfy my curiosity, did you also learn America was a republic and not a democracy in that same institution?

 

[Aba Incieni]

It's the interpretation I learned over 55 years ago, in junior high.

Tell me, did you also learn America was a republic and not a democracy in that same institution?

If it was a democracy, Hillary would have won. It's a representative republic.

 

[2aguy]

I would love to know what law would have stopped that kid from shooting up the school.

The law that says a person can't buy a hand gun until they are 21, should have included semi automatics like the AR15.

And when the guy turned 21.....then what, genius....most mass shooters are older than 21.....moron.

 

[The Derp]

Why aren't all bullets lead free?

Not a rhetorical question because there's a singular answer. Just because you cannot answer a question doesn't make it rhetorical...it makes you incapable.

Why aren't all people nice to each other?

That is a rhetorical question.

And I do not fucking care why all bullets aren't lead free. Start a fucking PAC and go about making all bullets lead free.

You're the one who claimed they're safer (somehow), yet you ignore the impact lead bullets have on the environment and the animals in that environment you want to hunt. So it is of your fucking concern since you stupidly said that it was safer.

 

[2aguy]

I would love to know what law would have stopped that kid from shooting up the school.

The law that says a person can't buy a hand gun until they are 21, should have included semi automatics like the AR15.

I carried an actual military rifle in the National Guard.....an actual military rifle with select fire capability at the age of 17........we had racks of them in the armory......and we were lucky no one came in to steal them....

 

[The Derp]

"Makes me wonder about the judges that ruled on it prior to it going to SCOTUS"

OR, maybe the singular outlier is the problem, not the half-dozen lower courts who all are in alignment.

 

[cnm]

the right is for the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms

Because a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. Why are you scared of admitting that?