After the eighth school shooting in seven weeks – some gun control proposals

If you aren't justifying a gun control proposal as furthering an important government interest, that makes the proposal automatically unconstitutional.


EDIT: Apologies on the first part of my post (that I now removed). I misread the post that that part of my reply was responding to and so replied with a criticism that probably didn't make much sense.

Still, the part of my reply that remains is on target.

 

You wont get her to understand. Its too nuanced for her to comprehend.

 

Where's the blushing emote?

Actually it was me who didn't comprehend.

For some bizarre reason I'd thought the "comprehend" comment was addressing Okiefreak's post to me, and was a bit indignant since it was a topic I'd just addressed over and over again.

But the post in question was actually addressing Okiefreak's post to someone else. So I guess I'm the one who looks silly.

 

The well regulated militia part of the 2nd amendment is only an example of why the the right was given. Not the sole reason. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall shall not be infringed is what is promised to the people. For whatever ( lawful) reason that person likes.

 

Lets start a militia if thats what we have to do.

 

Then it would have to be well regulated, as the second amendment specifically states.

 

Well regulated by whom?

 

A governmental body, obviously.

 

Regulated does not have to mean restricted and supressed. It can also mean orderly and strong.

 

They're not mutually exclusive. Ideally the purpose of regulation is always multi faceted.

 

We would only have to be in a militia if we wanted to have serious military firepower in our homes. Like Stinger missiles.

We have the right to have guns that are suitable for personal self defense regardless of any militia.

The term "well regulated" was used to denote a militia that had trained sufficiently to fight as a single coordinated unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.

 

Actually that part of the Second Amendment was meant as a requirement that the nation always have a militia. A situation like today where the government no longer maintains a militia is exactly what the first half of the Second Amendment was trying to forbid.

But definitely true that the first half of the Second Amendment does not constrain the second half. The two halves are independent of each other.

 

You should be telling that to the FBI. They seem to be under the impression that they didn't follow proper protocol and that the information they received should have been assessed as a potential threat to life, and that they failed to act on that information.

And of course if they hadn't failed to act, they would have investigated (as even you say they should have). And of course their investigation would have confirmed that he was an unstable individual; that he was repeatedly suspended from school; that the school administration sent out emails to teachers asking them to keep an eye on him; that he had been receiving treatment at a mental-health clinic for a while, but that he had not been to the clinic for more than a year; and that the local police had visited his house many times for years.

Now, the FBI understand that they messed up good. Why are you so reluctant to accept that?

 

Exactly! It's an arbitrary judgment based on differing individual's mindsets.

 

You don't seem to understand that a rifle is a weapon, and that you're engaging in a game of semantics here.

Check this out:

weap·on
NOUN - a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.

Also, the thing I've proven about AR-15s is that lack of a pistol grip will not reduce the number of people killed by them in a mass shooting scenario. I have also proven (or rather you did) that they have been in involved in 3 school shootings between 1984 and 2017. I won't trouble you with the statistics concerning that fact.​

 

Yeah, right. You're under the impression that as long as someone doesn't say which school they want to shoot up, and what day they're going to do it on, then the law is forced to ignore the threat sit idly by until the shooting occurs. Really?

After the second tip that came from a person who knew Cruz personally, his identity and location was no longer unknown. You're another FBI apologist unable to accept what the FBI itself has admitted to. And you're also saying that anyone can go online, or anywhere public, and say that they're going be a school shooter and then show the weapons they have to do the shooting, but so long as they don't mention the school they intend to shoot up, the cops have to just wait until the shooter acts. Is that what you're saying?

 

I was just responding to your earlier inaccurate statement that "Written or verbal threats to do harm is a felony." I mentioned that there was, in my opinion, sufficient basis for investigatory follow up, and that if that had been done they might have come up with something they could arrest him on. Whether or not they followed procedures is a different question. But finding that he was unstable, suspended from school, had been receiving treatment, and had been the subject of local police visits many times isn't enough to arrest him. Why didn't the local police arrest him? Civil (involuntary) commitment might have been a possibility. Civil commitment of mentally disturbed individuals in Florida is governed by the Baker Act Florida Mental Health Act - Wikipedia ; the general standard is "danger to self or others", often supplemented by the requirement that the danger be "imminent". There are lots of other procedural and evidentiary safeguards in the act. It would be strange to expect the FBI to be taking the lead in those. It might arouse paranoia among right wing gun nuts (present company not necessarily included) that the Deep State is using civil commitment to put them away and take away their guns. Why are you so eager to put all the blame on the FBI, which is admittedly a fallible human institution. Oh, wait. You want to change the subject from gun control.