Actions
Post info
cosmicrat
Peace, freedom, equality, tolerance, and justice for all
19.02.2018 (367 days ago)
Recommend
 
Post view

The Second Amendment Problem
by cosmicrat ·
19-February-2018, 12:25 am

The second amendment to the Constitution, as currently interpreted, is a piece of crap. The NRA, largely responsible for that bizarre hijacking of what began as a protection for Southern state slavery, is a subversive organization.

Does anyone find my words too harsh? Harsher than the sound of a bullet tearing through the flesh of a child? I didn’t think so.

Let’s get specific.

The NRA is an organization that enables and contributes to domestic terrorism, mass murder with firearms, and many thousands of individual firearm homicides every year.

Once a relatively benign promoter of gun safety, the NRA suffered a hostile takeover in 1977 by right-wing extremists.

The hostile takeover of the NRA

SCOT LEHIGH: The NRA’s sharp turn to the right

For 40 years these extremists have been propagandizing Americans and bribing our legislators.

The right to bear arms, an amendment that has been twisted loose from its original purpose, resulting in a heavily armed population in a society where that is not only useless but dangerous as well, serves to give gun owners a sense of personal power that is only an illusion. It turns them from a part of a society to a collection of individuals, distrusting other individuals, unable and unwilling to cooperate and organize with others to defend their common interests.

This, of course, was and is the intention.

The increased level of fear, the growing divisiveness, and the rampant corruption of legislators, both state and federal is eroding the function of, and trust in, democracy.

It is important to recognize that the far right really doesn’t like democracy. They will use and abuse and manipulate its forms, and take advantage of the freedom it provides, in order to further their agenda. They don’t want the will of the people in a healthy responsive democratic system to get in the way of their oligarchy.

The NRA has done more to subvert our democracy and our principles than the Communist Party ever did. It should be declared criminally subversive by law. Consider it a violation of Congressional ethics to accept any donation from the NRA. All legislation known to have been endorsed by the NRA should be reviewed for immediate repeal. The financial relationship between the NRA and all US gun manufacturers and importers should be investigated. For any employment requiring a security background check, the applicant would need to reveal present or past membership.

The Second Amendment was never intended to apply to individual private citizens. It clearly states that its purpose was to enable armed state militias. A Supreme Court with an intelligent majority should have long ago clearly stated that. It is not so much a matter of “conservative” or not, but a willingness and ability to disregard the propaganda and interpret the words as written. Scalia couldn’t do that. What would the current court do? Let’s find out.

The amendment could have been more clearly written. The others, despite their terse style, left little room for doubt as to their intent or reason for existing, which were mostly self-evident.

The first half of the sentence describes the purpose clearly enough, but does not state why such a guarantee be might thought necessary. That was intentional. The Southerners who insisted on it understood. Those in the north who were not at all pleased about the acceptance of slavery already included in the Constitution’s compromises, probably knew as well, but preferred not to have it spelled out.

No other major nation has the firearm violence problem we have created for ourselves over gun obsession.

Let’s begin to end it.

Facts:

[1] Individuals who were in possession of a gun were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession.

[2] For every one justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 44 criminal homicides.

[3] The presence of guns in the home increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by 90%.3

[4] Gun ownership is at the lowest level in the United States since at least the early 1970s. In 1973, 47 percent of American households reported having at least one gun. That figure peaked in 1977 at 50.4 percent, according to the most recent report by the University of Chicago. But since then it has trended downward. In 2014, 31 percent of households in the US said they had a gun.

Though there are about as many guns as people, only a minority of Americans own them.

[5] In an analysis of 235 mass killings, many of which were carried out with firearms 22 percent of the perpetrators could be considered mentally ill.

[6] A 2015 study found that less than 5 percent of gun-related killings in the United States between 2001 and 2010 were committed by people diagnosed with mental illness.

So, while it’s true that disturbed people shouldn’t be allowed guns, they aren’t the main problem. It’s the guns, and the people who propagandize for proliferation, and those stupid enough to believe them.

For sensible and effective changes to be made, a great deal of public education will be needed. About 20% since 1977 have already realized they don’t need to own guns. But even among the 70% who are gun-free, too many fail to question the “right” that some of the 30% claim. Not all gunowners are ideological about it. Many of them may have legitimate practical needs for them, but would not say that everyone should have one.

All of us, especially politicians, need to stop pandering to the phony 2nd Amendment argument. 

The gun nuts are a misinformed minority, and should be treated like climate change deniers, Holocaust deniers, flat-Earthers, etc. We need strict gun registration, gun-owner licensing, requiring a verified legitimate purpose as well as a background check. Non-official carrying in public places should be banned.  That would be a start.

Comments
Order by: 
Per page: 
 
  •  SecretCorners: 
     

    UPDATE: the federal statues; in 2013, define a mass killing as only THREE people. 

     
     364 days ago·1 replies1 replies 
    0 points
     
    •  SecretCorners: 
       

      This is why the number of mass shootings in the US is so bloody high.  As I kept trying to tell you, definitions do matter.

       
       364 days ago 
      0 points
       
  •  SecretCorners: 
     

    I know that data gets in the way of the narrative but as a scientist, I have to live by the data.

    According to the FBI, there were a total of 625 murders committed with rifles and shotguns in 2012. That breaks down to 322 murders that were rifle related and 303 that were shotgun related.

    The total number of deaths committed with fists, hammers, and other blunt objects was 1,196. That breaks down to 518 murders related to hammers and blunt objects and 678 related to fists.

     
     365 days ago·1 replies1 replies 
    0 points
     
    •  cosmicrat: 
       

      The problem with that comparison is that the type of firearm is not always known or accurately reported.  It is well known that the vast majority of murders are with handguns.  For planned multiple murders, the logical choice is a semi-auto rifle, for ammo capacity and accuracy.

      "According to FBI data for 2016, 11,004 of the 15,070 murders in the United States were committed with firearms. Handguns were the most common type of firearm used in 7,105 cases. In 3,263 cases, the type of gun was not reported to the FBI or was listed as “other” while in 903 instances, the weapon was not identified or was listed as “other.”

      Meanwhile, in the UK:  "The Home Office Homicide Index showed there were 518 homicides (murder, manslaughter and infanticide) in the year ending March 2015 in England and Wales. This represents a decrease of 5 offences (1%) from the 523 recorded for the previous year. Over recent years, the number of currently recorded homicides has shown a general downward trend and the number for the year ending March 2015 (518) was the lowest since 1983 (482). In the year ending March 2015, there were 9.0 offences of homicide per million population."

      However, the US does not have a higher general crime rate than other industrialized countries, just a much higher murder rate, and nearly 70% of those murders are by firearm.  

      America doesn’t have more crime than other rich countries. It just has more guns.

      https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9217163/america-guns-europe

      And, we don't have more mental illness than other countries.  We're not even close to highest in suicides (though our rate would be even lower if we didn't make it so easy to do it with a gun).  http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/254610/1/WHO-MSD-MER-2017.2-eng.pdf

      Those who claim our gun problem is not a gun problem are running out of other things to blame it on.

       
       364 days ago·1 replies1 replies 
      0 points
       
      •  SecretCorners: 
         

        Is it a gun problem?  You ignored the data again, was that intentional?  It appears that it is not a gun problem but a hammer and fist problem since more murders were committed by using blunt force trauma.

         
         364 days ago·1 replies1 replies 
        0 points
         
        •  cosmicrat: 
           

          Where did you get that idea?  69% of US murders are by firearm-- by your own chart, in 2012 & 2013.  Other years were close to the same.

           
           363 days ago 
          0 points
           
  •  SecretCorners: 
     

    It appears that the last assault weapons ban had little affect.

    https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf

    What is really wanted is a weapons confiscation; removing guns and rifles completely by force.  Will that mean less deaths or just less shootings.  Well, it appears that it will mean less shootings but not necessarily less killings.  Look at how many deaths were from knives.

    http://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/FBI-Murder-Victims-2013.png

    Also, the data shows that 2/3 of the shooting deaths were suicide.  So we are chasing the wrong rabbit here.

    The problem is the culture as Dan has stated.  For one, parents are not parenting; they let children with undeveloped minds sit in the room with the telly on with violence blaring out onto the room.  There was a study done back in the sixties I think; timestamp could be wrong, where children that watched violent shows played more violently than if they watched nonviolent shows.

     
     365 days ago·1 replies1 replies 
    0 points
     
    •  cosmicrat: 
       

      "Compared with the 10-year period before the ban, the number of gun massacres during the ban period fell by 37 percent, and the number of people dying from gun massacres fell by 43 percent. But after the ban lapsed in 2004, the numbers shot up again — an astonishing 183 percent increase in massacres and a 239 percent increase in massacre deaths."

      Banning assault weapons specifically reduces mass killings.  It is true that they are a minority of gun deaths, but they are a different kind of murder, usually random strangers, sometimes picked for a certain characteristic, but not personally known to the killer.  More than ordinary murder, it increases the general level of fear.

      Obviously, we should reduce ALL murders, by controlling all kinds of firearms.

       
       364 days ago·2 replies2 replies 
      0 points
       
      •  SecretCorners: 
         

        Looking at the data, it would appear we need to ban knives; sorry cooks, you will just have to use your teeth in your food preparations.  However, we know if we ban all knives, the people would just use other means to commit the murders.  The current mentality is that if we remove the guns then no more murders; however, we know that is not really the truth.  Gun ownership is actually down in the US.  Perhaps the breakdown of the traditional family has a role to play; this is especially true in the Black community and let's not dance around the elephant in the room, Blacks do commit a proportionately higher rate of crimes and no, it is not due to a system in place to put all Blacks in prison.

         
         364 days ago 
        0 points
         
      •  SecretCorners: 
         

        Banning assault weapons specifically reduces mass killings.

        Does it?  Where is your data on this?  Are you saying the DOJ is wrong? The man in the Florida nightclub shooting might have just as well used a different method for killing those in the night club.

        By the way, the definition for mass killings is the death of five or more people.  There have been many mass killings where a knife was the weapon.  There has been many mass killings where a handgun was used.  There has been many mass killings by means other than assault weapons.  The problem of mass killings is not due to any specific weapon but due to the people that committed them.  Instead of focusing on such things as weapon laws we need to focus on the people and try to figure out the true cause of the actions they took.

         
         364 days ago·1 replies1 replies 
        0 points
         
        •  cosmicrat: 
           

          This is the summation of the data, as posted above:  "Compared with the 10-year period before the ban, the number of gun massacres during the ban period fell by 37 percent, and the number of people dying from gun massacres fell by 43 percent. But after the ban lapsed in 2004, the numbers shot up again — an astonishing 183 percent increase in massacres and a 239 percent increase in massacre deaths."  

          I'll retrieve the graph if you need something visual.

           
           363 days ago 
          0 points
           
  •  Greystarfish1: 
     

    Gun Control has failed. Chicago has some really strict gun control laws, yet it is one of the most dangerous cities in the world. It is a mental health and a Psychiatric drugs issue.

    An article of interest is at https://www.cchrint.org/school-shooters/ .If you are at Facebook, watch this video at https://www.facebook.com/jayla.holmes.14/posts/540421986326650?pnref=story .It talks about mass shootings and suicide caused by Psychiatric drugs. If you are not at Facebook, I found this video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhO0Pul_FcE

     
     366 days ago·1 replies1 replies 
    0 points
     
    •  cosmicrat: 
       

      Gun control has not failed, because it hasn't really been tried yet in this country.  It does, indeed work quite well in other countries.  Do you think Americans are uniquely violent people, or the psychiatric drugs you mention are only used here?  Whether the drugs always work as intended is another question, but mental illness is a factor in only about 22% of mass shootings, and less than 5% of all shootings.

       
       365 days ago·1 replies1 replies 
      0 points
       
      •  Greystarfish1: 
         

        Gun control has failed. Crime rises because the criminals will use guns, knives, etc. http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-in-other-countries/ .Did you watch the video?  

        It talks about  Psychiatric drugs, mass shootings, and suicide. The  Psychiatric drugs effects people and causes all kinds of problems. The video has doctors, psychologist, etc. discussing the problem. It includes 911 calls, as well. 

         
         365 days ago·2 replies2 replies 
        0 points
         
        •  cosmicrat: 
           

          Gun control WORKS in all the countries where it has been instituted.  They have crime, they have drugs, and they have mental illness.  They have human social problems.  Because they have MANY fewer guns, they have MANY fewer murders.  It's not that complicated.

          Some US states have slightly more restrictions than others, but if the state next to it doesn't, it can't really be effective.  The guns leak through.

           
           363 days ago 
          0 points
           
        •  SecretCorners: 
           

          You have to understand what is meant by the definition of gun control; it is the removal of guns, not simply the restrictions of guns to those with mental illness.  I don't hold any desire for guns myself, not even for target shooting.  I would rather test my skill at hitting a target with bow and arrow; which, by the way, can be a very deadly way to kill someone; just harder to conceal.  Of course the small high power dart shooters could be used.  See, the problem is not the weapon.

           
           364 days ago·1 replies1 replies 
          0 points
           
          •  Greystarfish1: 
             

            I totally agree.

             
             364 days ago 
            0 points
             
  •  Midianlord: 
     

    America doesn't have a "gun problem", and never did.

    It has a culture problem, and always did.

     
     366 days ago·1 replies1 replies 
    1 point
     
    •  cosmicrat: 
       

      Yes, the culture problem includes an obsession for firearms.  Rather than discourage that sickness, we are barraged with propaganda making it worse, and laws making it easy for anyone to partake of them.

       
       365 days ago·1 replies1 replies 
      0 points
       
      •  SecretCorners: 
         

        No, the problem is a fascination with violence.  Americans are some of the most violent people on the planet.  Look at what sells in the theatre.  Look at the show "Into the Badlands."  The violence in that show is so bad that if I try to watch it, it makes me sick, physically sick.  I have watched it but only by turning my head away from the screen at the graphic scenes of gore.

         
         365 days ago 
        0 points
         
  •  SecretCorners: 
     

    Let me ask you this, since the "gun nuts" (and you should define this; what is a gun nut?) are a minority, then it would appear that if they were to disappear or if they were regulated (again, we need a definition) then would the number of shootings change much?  To see a big difference wouldn't the "gun nuts" need to be a majority and be responsible for most of the shootings?

    We have gun registration; guns have serial numbers and even grinding them down they can be recovered, background checks, etc.  The background check did not prevent the woman; who cited a legitimate reason for owning a handgun, from trying to kill her family.  I think concealed carry should go away.  I want to know who around me has a gun so I can avoid them or leave a place if I don't want to be around someone with a gun.  Mental illness?  That is not an easy test.  It can take doctors years to show that a person my be able to cause harm to others.

    Non-official carrying in public places would require a change in interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.  The Supreme Court has already ruled a few years back that a person has a right to bear arms and that means in public places.

     
     366 days ago 
    0 points
     
  •  SecretCorners: 
     

    Do you remember the school incident where a boy stabbed a girl to death; it appeared she had rejected his offer to go to the school prom.  However, not much was said about that incident.  However, the solution with schools is to prevent it at the entry point.  A scanner could have detected the knife on the student before he was able to take it into the school and stab the girl.

     
     366 days ago 
    0 points
     
  •  SecretCorners: 
     

    Do you remember the post I made a couple years back about the woman putting a hole through her head; killing her, as she adjusted her bra holster?  I don't understand why so many people feel they have to arm themselves when they go out.  The woman was getting ready to go to a New Year's Eve party.  Did she feel that her life would be in danger attending the party?  If so, then why go to the party?  Does someone need a gun to go shopping at Wally World?  Are they afraid they will be attacked by the Charmin?  The number of conceal carry is unreal and that scares me.  One woman dropped her handgun in Wally World and it discharged and hit a woman in the arm.  It could just as easily killed the woman.  A baby died because it reached in its mother purse and discharged a handgun; killing the baby instantly.  A gun was found in the toy section of Target; carelessly left by its owner; my guess a woman that had it in her purse and was trying to find something and took it out of the way and place it on the shelf and then forgot.  It could have been found by a child looking at toys but luckily it was found by a clerk or adult shopper.

    I have never felt the need that I needed to be armed when I go out in public.  If I am going somewhere that I feel will be an endangerment to my life, then I won't go.

     
     366 days ago·1 replies1 replies 
    0 points
     
    •  ghostrider: 
       

      pretty good point there..been around guns as baby.ppl no fear..even lots did..ha..kids go to school.pick ups guns on the rack.parked ,windows down.cars..them on seats,back dash..around here..as preeteen...no school shootings..folk go in stores.throw pistol on dash.go in.drive off..no killings..most around here used durring rifle season.hardly none ever stolen..or you got found.punched once.give gun back.walk away..ha..these clowns these days..i had a pistol..broken..took 7 yrs ..then to cut it with grinder....that was month half ago..and ya..it was given to me..but trust me..it was broke..n it was non repairable..n its un traceable..mb melted bdy now..

      never had a urge till few month ago..for a lil revolver..not target pracrice..ammo expensive..besides..something dif  for the hunting..a just once thing..bein last to the fam tradition..rest had luck..and i feel..ok..mb fill the gap..i already done others in the sport.but..still no need to hide the thing..im harmless...what drives folks to be..ill never understand..no dif than a rapist..its a ughhh situation with odd balls feeling a evil desire...and leave a gun on a shelf shopping..oh my..are we bright or what..shakes head...

       
       366 days ago·1 replies1 replies 
      0 points
       
      •  SecretCorners: 
         

        Right, the US is getting worst for some reason; we need to address that and figure out what is happening to the mindset of people.  There are now home invasions in my area.  I am beginning to think that maybe I do need something that will stop an intruder.  However, it will be secure.  My first line of defense is a home alarm system and every house should have one.  However, if the intruder is a drug crazy lunatic, he or she will ignore that alarm.

        At the same time, having a gun in the house increases the risk that it will be used on a family member.  A man shot his daughter dead; the pain he must be in, as she was sneaking back into the house through a window.  More family members have been shot than a home intruder.  So maybe I don't need a gun; maybe I should turn my closet into a safe room that can not be penetrated and just call the police.

         
         365 days ago 
        0 points
         
  •  SecretCorners: 
     

    Yes, the National Rifle Association started out as a gun safety organisation with the intent to teach people how to safely fire guns.

    Yes, the 2nd Amendment was due to the fact that the newly formed USA had no funds for a standing army.  In fact, a law required that every man from the age of 14 (I may be wrong on the age) owned a rifle and that they could be called into service at at time.  The first such call of service was during the Whiskey Rebellion.

    However, the USA constitution is an interpretive document.  That interpretation falls upon the Supreme Court and they have upheld the interpretation that the right to bear arms includes private citizens.  That may change in the future.  The Supreme Court has also upheld that the federal government and states can pass gun control laws as long as they do not violate the right to bear arms.

    I did agree with the assault weapon ban and was disappointed to see it end.  I don't think citizens should have high capacity guns that can shoot extreme number of rounds in a few seconds.  With these weapons you don't need to even know how to shoot to cause a lot of deaths in a crowd.  Just squeeze the trigger and wave the gun around; you are bound to hit something.

    However, every time we have such a shooting in a school they start yelling to arm all the teachers.  I have yet to hear anyone talk about building fences and walls around the schools and requiring the students; who are the main cause of school shootings, to go through metal detectors.  I can not enter any federal or state building or courthouses without going through such a detector. 

    Yes, most shootings are not by people that have a clear mental illness.  They are by criminals, family members, boyfriends and girlfriends, etc; usually resulting from arguments where the solution is to pull out a gun and start shooting.  A man was arguing with his girlfriend in NYC and decided to end the argument by pulling out a gun and firing it at his girlfriend.  He missed and hit a woman that was coming up from the subway (underground).

    For good or bad, guns in the US are here to stay.  I do agree with good background checks but they only help at the time of gun purchase and even then may not prevent senseless shootings.  A woman applied for a gun permit in December of some year; the year doesn't matter.  She stated she wanted the permit for personal safety.  In January of the next year she attempted to kill her family with that gun.

    I think the main problem is that people are violent; have they become more violent than in the past?  One thing is that today we have access to more news from anywhere instantly.  It may just appear that gun violence is up; that needs to be studied.  I do know that the people in the US need to change how they look at things.  They get upset at seeing boobs on the telly but not some guy getting his head blown off.  Is the problem guns or is the problem violence?  A man died from a punch; a fist punching him, as he stood in queue to a club.  His offense was that he looked at some guy wrong as the guy walked past him.

    Every time an event happens, the hysterics starts.  That solves nothing.

     
     366 days ago 
    0 points
     
  •  SecretCorners: 
     

    You really don't know much about the whole history of slavery in the United States.  Not sure why you had to throw that in when it was not really related to the topic at hand.

     
     366 days ago·1 replies1 replies 
    0 points
     
    •  cosmicrat: 
       

      Slavery is most definitely relevant, because it is the REASON for the second amendment!

      Think about it-- for an ordinary state militia, for defense or keeping order, there was NO threat to disarm it.  No motive to do that.  In the south, they feared having their slave patrols disarmed, if abolitionists got the votes to do that, and that would have made slavery MUCH harder to maintain-- probably impossible.

      The new US was a weak nation then, and needed all 13 former colonies to survive, so the north was willing to make compromises like that, and like the 3/5 of a slave counting for representatives deal.  Like it or not,  the "founders" made some pretty shady compromises to human bondage in the "land of the free".

       
       363 days ago 
      0 points
       
1
The Second Amendment Problem