I have no power to bestow anything. This "select group of elites" (who were elected, not selected) would vote for it on their own. That being said, the Heller decision by the Supreme Court probably makes preventing such an incident impossible.

It would e better to go after people who shouldn't be carrying weapons because of mental illness and/or criminal records than trying to bodyguard elites. Republicans got to see closeup the result of their kowtowing to the NRA over guns.

In Tucson, Arizona the congresswoman Gifford was shot at a supermarket event to meet with constituents. Outdoors with easy access it wouldn't have made a difference if she had bodyguards.

While bodyguards wouldn't have prevented the Giffords incident, gun buyers who are mentally ill sometimes don't seek a mental illness diagnosis prior to purchasing their weapon. Indeed, many times mental illness goes undiagnosed until AFTER the tragedy.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/14/politics/scalise-shooting-history/index.html

The attacks are coming more frequently and better armed.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/14/politics/steve-scalise-shooting-political/index.html

Identified attacker supported Bernie Sanders and was anti-Trump.

@Hauta - Republicans have fought to keep mental illness off as a reason to disqualify gun ownership.

yes no question

I don't think you can chalk up every shooting to mental illness. Comprehensive mental healthcare would do wonders in this nation (at a very high price tag) but I don't think you can simply say "do this and all these shootings would stop"

There's many steps to be taken - more screening of gun buyers, more resources dedicated to tackling the illegal arms trade, prevention of the sale of semi-automatic rifles.

But just like how the police can't prevent all terrorist attacks, you can't prevent all shootings with the above measures. So yeah, I would think large gatherings of congressmen should have at least a local police unit around.

"Normal" mental health as a prerequisite for gun purchases is a non-starter and it is disingenuous that Republicans keep trotting it out instead of addressing the real problem which is ready access by anyone.

- why should people be allowed to have guns?

because we have a right to defend ourselves from government tyranny. people often say it's for self defense or it's simply a tool, but those arguments are only mere sidenotes compared to the ultimate reason for gun ownership, which is to prevent fascistic rule.

- but surely the USA has enough checks and balances?

well, the second amendment is the BIGGEST check and balance. it's the final protection of rights of individuals. the idea that Democracies NEVER turn tyrannical is simply wrong, and if you say you know exactly where the USA will be in 100 years, then you're deluding yourself

- but won't we see the tyranny coming and prevent it through government?

i like Reagan when he said that freedom is one generation away from extinction. and the first steps to autocratic rule are almost unilaterally disarming the public. once gun rights are gone, it's almost politically IMPOSSIBLE to get them back

- but couldn't the government just kill us all if it wanted to anyways?

actually no. many liberals have this horrifying view of tanks smashing over babies in streets and we're at the government's mercy, but from a purely tactical standpoint, the current armed populous in the united states could probably defeat the military. in terms of resources and supplies, the fact there's no single population epicenter, and even the militia operations already occurring in the north, the US military would be hard pressed to kill or enslave us without destroying the entire country int he process.

- but the military is made up of citizens, they'll never turn against us!

once again, look at history. this happens frequently, and look at our current state. we have mass mobs of rioters wanting cops dead, calling for heads (not being figurative, 100% literal here) and many people attacking military action overseas. you want to segregate the public from the military? you're on a good track.

- well people shouldn't have to live in fear of gun crime.

the problem with massive bans on guns is that it doesn't actually fix crime. it simply shifts it. European countries and Australia have seen decreasing crime rates for decades, and the gun bans haven't actually accelerated that trend. in fact, violent crime, rape, and "hot" burglaries (where the people are still in the residence) are up across the board in most of these nations. banning guns is addressing a symptom, what we need to do is cure the disease.

- but why would anyone need a semiautomatic rifle? those things are so deadly!

well this goes back to my point about government tyranny, if we only had pistols, shotguns and hunting rifles, the military would be much more capable of subduing us. the real tipping point is just about at semi automatic rifles.

furthermore, there's nothing much worse about semiautomatic rifles, the majority of deadly crime with guns occurs with pistols, that are FAR more easily concealable. rifles actually only offer better range, which many hunting rifles can equal or best. the thing that decides the power of the gun is the ammunition, and there are pistols with higher calibers than rifles. if you want to make temporary limits on ammunition restrictions we're going to need EXTREME specifics, and rationales behind them. furthermore, they MUST be temporary measures, as military might increases, so must the power of the citizenry.

- well it's simple math, if we ban guns, it's fewer dead children.

actually, it's simple math, and if we ban guns, there will still be dead children. it's extremely sad, but you must remember that 80% of all gun crimes are illegally owned. the government cannot take away guns they cannot track.

- why not make a gun registry?

there is a worry of fascism and regulation, but at the end of the day i'd be fine with it, as long as it were not public. a public gun registry would be dangerous not only for gun owners, but also for NON-gun owners, as criminals could see who is disarmed.

- well then how do we stop children from being massacred?

EXTREME background checks, but with complete transparency. if there is a history or perhaps dormant mental ailment, there could be access to guns but only with yearly check ups. furthermore, we need to aid our police in allowing them to do their job in high crime communities.

- won't some gun crime still occur?

gun crime still occurs in every major nation worldwide, there's no perfect system, but the rights of the people must be maintained.

- but we still have more mass shootings than other nations.

it depends on how you define mass shootings. much of the problem in the united states is gang or drug related, along with an infrequent spike with terrorism. these are macro factors that can be addressed, where a gun ban on law abiding citizens will have little influence. furthermore, mental illness if a continuing problem in the united states, and the healthcare industry has been regulated in such a way to allow international pharmaceutical companies to have local monopolies that drive up prices and make treatment near impossible. also this:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/11/health/big-pharma-presidential-politics/index.html

- other nations don't have as many guns as us, why can't you see this as a problem?

because the VAST majority of the guns will never be used in a crime. also, those numbers shrink down quite a bit when you consider the per capita, and although the USA does have quite a few more guns, most of these are in the hands of private individuals using them for self defense. in Britain, after the gun bans there was such a large spike in knife violence, they even considered a knife ban! this is what happens when you don't address the problem, and focus more on pushing a narrative than creating solutions.

- just because you have the right to own a gun doesn't mean you should.

i suppose not, but it's funny how much of the mainstream left have the narrative that there are all these racist whites out there for black people, and then also colleges are a cesspool of rape... but then they vote against allowing guns for self defense, even on public campuses.

- does owning guns make you feel powerful, and that's why you want them?

no but seriously guys, this is an actual argument i come up against AFTER every talking point above. but back to the question, it's not that it makes me FEEL powerful, it DOES make me powerful. it allows for selfdefense and for a strong check against government. if there were no power in guns... why even have the debate?

- so you think everyone should own a nuke.

no, i'm actually not fully constitutionalist on this, i think we should have a ban on fully automatic long range weaponry, and bullets specifically crafted to break body armor (or of that degree of caliber). however, as military strength grows, i want to reinstate rights for these kinds of weapons. it sounds entirely backwards to both right and leftist policy, but it's the best solution right now from my perspective.

- Republicans deserve to get shot since they love the second amendment.

once again, i've actually heard this argument. liking protection, is not the same as wanting to use it.

- Republicans are creating all this violence.

actually the top 3 cities for homocides are all run by people who support gun control.. and only 2 in the top 10 are run by republicans who oppose gun control. in fact there's only 9 in the top 35!!! in fact the 3 democrat run cities of Baltimore Chicago and Houston have seen the biggest increases in murder rates, and also caused the biggest increase in the murder rate nationally, all with major gun control laws.

- i meant the ones in congress, who won't listen to the democrats who bravely had a sit in for a few days with food and water and air conditioning.

um... democrats had the house, senate, presidency with a supermajority in 2008 to 2010. if they really wanted gun control reform, why didn't they do it then? or maybe it's because they're political hacks who are too afraid of not being reelected.

- so you just love republicans, and are blinded by the right, huh?

actually republicans have some of the stupidest arguments i've heard on this issue, from no-gun control whatsoever of any size or sort, to the absolute demonization of gun free zones.

- aha! so you support gun free zones?

not in general, but for hospitals and banks, i think they have a prerogative to not allow guns onto their property.

- how do you like all the dead children?

i don't know... medium rare?

- how dare you make such a horrible joke!

how dare you ask such a horrible question.



any other talking points not addressed here, let me know!

Zzzz...you talk too much. Yet you didn't answer the OP.

because there is no one answer. should they or should they not? it's really their own personal decision.

Forgive me for offering an opinion, being the 'wrong' side of the Pond, but surely the problem is your bizarre interpretation of the right to bear arms.

Since when did an Eighteenth Century necessity become an unassailable Twenty First Century privilege?

And then there's the gun control laws - or lack of them. If everyone does gave the right to arms then everyone has the responsibility to go with it, which means coherent licensing and effective compliance monitoring. Controls of ammunition need to be tighter too; without bullets a gun is just an inefficient club.

And why can't 'arms' be restricted to single shot weapons? Better still, make them muzzle loaded like the the ones that the original constitution drafters were referring to.

The answer to all these questions is 'politics' - there's a lack of political will to see them made. And why's that? Because not enough voters make enough fuss to oblige the politicians to support change.

It might take 20 years but with enough noise change will come.

Best of luck!

What happened today was an attempted series of political assassinations of GOP Congressmen and GOP Senators. The shooter was a deranged leftist, someone who regularly listened to Rachel Maddow and worked for Bernie Sanders. He was part of several anti-GOP groups.

The GOP should be granted extra protection. There are a lot of deranged people out there who are out to get Republicans. Some of these people are on this very board (I have been threatened several times on this board by leftists). Frankly since the election there has been a wave of violent fringe leftist groups trying to hurt and kill Republicans (Antifa). This guy is just the latest psycho, fringe, leftist who is trying to hurt Republicans and unless the left changes the way they communicate and stops with all of the fake news this type of stuff will continue. So yes, the right and GOP needs extra protection and security to protect themselves against nut case leftist psychos like this guy.

Additionally, I think that Democrats who feel like they need extra protection should also get it. But, clearly the threat is against the GOP members and Trump and the people threatening them are deranged leftists. I am sorry, but that is the way it is right now. Most Democrats are good people I am sure, but some 'leftists' are deranged and violent (antifa and this guy) and the GOP needs protection from them.

Yanik said:

"- but the military is made up of citizens, they'll never turn against us!
once again, look at history. this happens frequently"

In fact, it happened in my lifetime. When Yugoslavia started falling apart, it was believed by many that the multinational Yugoslav army would take care of order. Unfortunately, while ordinary soldiers were multinational, the high-ranking officers were almost exclusively Serbs. It was an insidious change that took several decades to accomplish.

So when the army turned against the Croatian citizens, what defense did we have? The police transformed overnight into an army surrogate, but that wouldn't have been enough. Hundreds of Croatian villages weren't overrun because of local militias, which were composed mostly of hunters. Interestingly, the best-armed areas were those that were always considered to be the most patriotic.

By the way, the gun registry came in really handy. Many owners were too old to fight, so police had the guns redistributed.

Yugoslavia was a fantasy nation cobbled together with no thought as to who lived there or why it should be united; that it fell as it did was only a matter of time once there was no suppressive central authority

@Deeply Dippy

"Forgive me for offering an opinion, being the 'wrong' side of the Pond, but surely the problem is your bizarre interpretation of the right to bear arms."

actually looking at outside letters the founders wrote to colleagues, notes and drafts of the second amendment, this isn't a BIZARRE interpretation by any means.


"Since when did an Eighteenth Century necessity become an unassailable Twenty First Century privilege?"

the right to bear arms was not made just for hunting and food. that is stupid, and i addressed it. the right to bear arms is to protect against government tyranny, which by the way, Britain EXCELS at


"And then there's the gun control laws - or lack of them. If everyone does gave the right to arms then everyone has the responsibility to go with it, which means coherent licensing and effective compliance monitoring. Controls of ammunition need to be tighter too; without bullets a gun is just an inefficient club."

i'm fine with regulation, but the RIGHT to bear arms does not NECESSITATE regulation. regulation is done by the consent of the masses bestowing power upon government.


"And why can't 'arms' be restricted to single shot weapons? Better still, make them muzzle loaded like the the ones that the original constitution drafters were referring to."

Horribly wrong. i'm linking you to a video by Steven Crowder. he's a bit nutty on other subjects but he's actually quite well versed on the 2nd amendment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CquUBWHU2_s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle

this gun in 1780 PRE CONSTITUTION could fire fully automatic 20 rounds in about 25-30 seconds. the idea that the founders NEVER could conceive of bigger and faster weapons, is ludicrous and intellectually lazy


"The answer to all these questions is 'politics' - there's a lack of political will to see them made. And why's that? Because not enough voters make enough fuss to oblige the politicians to support change."

that is your opinion, and a warped one at that. this is only true for the left, when it comes to mass shootings they always react emotionally. for most on the right there is a consistent adherence to principles


"It might take 20 years but with enough noise change will come.

Best of luck!"

sadly this might become true. have fun with your potential knife ban britain

The shooting is the result of left-wing vitriol, and the media's extreme demonization and dehumanizing of conservatives. If the left doesn't change their attitude, tragedies like this will continue to happen.

@JY - I think you're off on a few things on the last post.

First off, he stressed the time periods between the Constitution and now, not the intent of the 2nd Amendment. So I think he was asking, holistically, why is it that some laws shouldn't change over time when others do? Almost every other interpretation of an article in the Bill of Rights has been updated and clarified over time via Supreme Court rulings. Moreover, laws sometimes simply become antiquated. Great Britain doesn't exactly follow the Magna Carta anymore.

Second, your argument on the founders and weapons is the epitome of intellectually lazy. A delicate air rifle, effective for 125 yards, with a clunky gravity reload and a compressed air canister that required 1500 pumps to fill is in no way comparable to a modern day rifle that can shoot 30 rounds in under 4 seconds on full auto and have bullets that travel for miles. Even 140 years later, during WW1, the leaders still didn't understand the potency of this technology, as they wasted men in mass assaults.

That was just a dumb point to attack him on. Even through the 1870s, most guns were muzzle loaded.

@goldfinger

to your first point on the differing time period, i addressed that. the idea of the citizenry having the ultimate final check over government isn't something that goes out of style with time.

as for most other laws that change over time, either there are new moral implications about some laws (slavery), new ideologies (marxism), or unforeseen technological advancement.

"Second, your argument on the founders and weapons is the epitome of intellectually lazy. A delicate air rifle, effective for 125 yards, with a clunky gravity reload and a compressed air canister that required 1500 pumps to fill is in no way comparable to a modern day rifle that can shoot 30 rounds in under 4 seconds on full auto and have bullets that travel for miles. Even 140 years later, during WW1, the leaders still didn't understand the potency of this technology, as they wasted men in mass assaults."

you ENTIRELY misconstrued my point of that post. my reference to that gun was that the founders were capable of imagining a future with bigger bullets, faster reloading times increased accuracy and range.

in fact i SAID THAT in my post

"the idea that the founders NEVER could conceive of bigger and faster weapons, is ludicrous and intellectually lazy"

my point wasn't a direct comparison of the two, it was to speak to the mindset of the founding fathers.

do YOU think the founding fathers could NEVER have imagined... let's say for arguments sake with Democrats, Fully automatic, high caliber, quickly-reloaded, long range rifles?

if the ancient Jews in the Torah made observations reminiscent of quantum physics, i think the historical record will show that the fathers weren't some infantile inept politicians.

so if you'll please stop misrepresenting me, any more questions are welcome

@goldfinger

you also seemed to have misread his post. his initial claim was that we MISREPRESENTED the right to bear arms.

regardless of whether or not you LIKE the 2nd amendment, the historical context, letters the founders wrote concerning it, discussions and drafts all give a very clear picture of what the founders meant.

claiming that we don't understand our own law is ludicrous, and even the liberal supreme court judges upheld the 2nd amendment, but not for self defense, but primarily as a means against government.

those were the dissenting voices of the supreme court, and they were far from a full on rejection of the amendment

Trump Encourages Violence

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gLbN1TcgLA

Yep, I guess there are consequences for promoting violence.

Live by the rhetorical sword, be victimized by stochastic terrorism.

Good times.

"If they start throwing tomatoes..." "punching them back" Sounds like self-defense to me.

@JK

and with all that CLEARLY serious and hateful rhetoric, somehow the left managed more riots than the right the entire campaign.

interesting how that happened, you rarely saw Trump supporters going to protest a Bernie or Hillary rally and it ending in fights, but for some reason when Bernie or Hillary supporters went to Trump events... violence is the norm?

what is this black mag... i mean, person of color magic???

@JY - just because right-wing violence didn't happen at rallies doesn't mean it didn't happen elsewhere. Or have you missed the news of all the noises showing up in trees on college campuses, or the rapid proliferation of other hate crimes?

*noises = nooses

It isn't just nooses. Remember Portland just a few days ago?

Conservative haters are bullies and seek one on one opportunities to be assholes. At least liberals take it to the source at alt-right events and Trump rallies where they have no qualms about being seen RESISTING.

@JK

the Portland guy was a major Bernie/Stein supporter...

and also there's a difference in-between protesting events and the shit pulled on liberal campuses where they've threatened professors lives and rioted shutting down conservative speakers.

furthermore, i don't see a great logical connection in saying "we go TO them and fight" rather than the self defense claim, when it comes to making your side sound more peace-orientated.


@goldfinger

you're entirely right that the right was violent, this entire election was volatile, but let's not pretend like this is just Trump creating the violent aura in politics. perhaps my comments dismissed his own role in this a bit too much but the left still has to answer for the growing radicalization in their own movement.

Sounds like Jeff is one of these antifa people..." At least liberals take it to the source at alt-right events and Trump rallies where they have no qualms about being seen RESISTING." (Jeff) Antifa are the most dangerous and violent people on the left. Really scary. Going around just beating up old people wearing trump hats and trying to murder people because they voted Republican.