Multicolored Lemur

Well-known member
Atheist / Agnostic
Nov 23, 2021
702
260

In full, the 2nd Amendment reads:

“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.”

***************

Reading just the words, this means regulation is okay. Of course, our system is build on going with previous court decisions, especially those of the Supreme Court.

And most of all, I want regulation of guns that’s not merely symbolic or feel good. I want reform and policy that actually makes a difference.
 
A well regulated Militia
Yes, I agree with your point. Regulation was in the Constitution. Some might emphasize the word "infringe" where it says "shall not be infringed". Either way, you still have to factor in the "well regulated" part.

Here's an interesting information that covers the second amendment when it comes to what "militia" means, and goes over some key decisions in DC and New York:
The long-running argument over the Second Amendment largely stems from its language, especially at the beginning: “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.” (A militia is a military force made up of civilians that the government can call up in an emergency.) For decades, many scholars and courts interpreted the amendment as only preserving states’ authority to keep militias, which would mean that the right to have firearms was linked to militia service.

But in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court reached a broader interpretation, finding that the Second Amendment gave individuals a right to have guns—unconnected to any militia service—and to use them for traditionally legal purposes like self-defense. The Court said that the District of Columbia’s law was unconstitutional because it essentially banned all handguns—the most popular type of gun Americans choose for “the core lawful purpose of self-defense.” The Court also said that, by requiring people to keep all firearms trigger-locked or disassembled, even in the home, the law kept people from using their guns to defend their families and property. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), the Court built on its opinion in Heller, holding that this right to self-defense must include the right to carry a gun in public, not just a right to keep a gun in your home or business. The Court said that New York’s law was unconstitutional because it required people seeking concealed carry permits to show “proper cause” for why they needed a weapon for self-defense. The majority opinion said that, because there is a Second Amendment right to carry a gun for self-defense, it was unconstitutional to make permit applicants prove that they had a particularly good reason for needing to defend themselves.
Source: Lawyers.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: Multicolored Lemur
I'm sure very few would like violent criminals to have guns. Republicans/gun rights advocates who tend to say there should be no regulations sound just as extreme as Dems. that don't specify limitations on abortions. Both are extreme.

Nowadays, just going by criminal background is not enough. That is not a good indicator to catch those going through mental health issues. We need to add mental health as a requirement for owning guns.
 
Either way, you still have to factor in the "well regulated" part.
We used to have an assault weapons ban which to me would include clip size. But, in today’s partisan environment, we’re not going to get that.

I think there’s potential in red flag laws.

And I’ve heard various things about whether the gun show loophole is closed, or not. Obviously it should be, at least in my Universe and all.
 
We need to add mental health as a requirement for owning guns.
I respectfully disagree.

And the reason is that I’m most likely on the Aspergers-Aspergers Spectrum myself. I’m age 60. And when I was a teenager and young adult, heck no, so-called mental health “professionals” weren’t helpful, like not at all.

They tend to be strong believers in this or that particular theory, almost like Christians belonging to a particular denomination. Or in other words, they’re one-trick ponies. They tend to be good at one type of situation, but if you ask them to move laterally, perhaps not so much.

Look, 25% of us just in the natural course of life will struggle with either anxiety or depression to an extent that we’d probably benefit from medication. Whether we get the medication or even request it is perhaps another matter.

And I want people to realize they have a choice.

By all means, a person should go see a psychiatrist if that is his or her choice. Or alternately, you can see a “regular” doctor such as an internist, and if the indications are such that you’re clinically depressed, that doctor most likely would be happy to prescribe an anti-depressant such as Zoloft. I want the choice to be each individual patient’s.

And from what I’ve read, don’t quit the medication cold turkey.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AgnosticBoy
I respectfully disagree.

And the reason is that I’m most likely on the Aspergers-Aspergers Spectrum myself. I’m age 60. And when I was a teenager and young adult, heck no, so-called mental health “professionals” weren’t helpful, like not at all.

They tend to be strong believers in this or that particular theory, almost like Christians belonging to a particular denomination. Or in other words, they’re one-trick ponies. They tend to be good at one type of situation, but if you ask them to move laterally, perhaps not so much.

Look, 25% of us just in the natural course of life will struggle with either anxiety or depression to an extent that we’d probably benefit from medication. Whether we get the medication or even request it is perhaps another matter.

And I want people to realize they have a choice.

By all means, a person should go see a psychiatrist if that is his or her choice. Or alternately, you can see a “regular” doctor such as an internist, and if the indications are such that you’re clinically depressed, that doctor most likely would be happy to prescribe an anti-depressant such as Zoloft. I want the choice to be each individual patient’s.

And from what I’ve read, don’t quit the medication cold turkey.
Your points here made me think about which mental health issues should prohibit someone from owning a gun. I wouldn't say depression. I would go with the more obvious ones, like suicidal and/or homicidal thoughts. A lot of the mass shooters, esp. the younger ones, showed signs of mental health problems along those lines. I think it would be a mistake to ignore that pattern.

It's also okay if we disagree:) . Such is the nature of debate. I like to also look at this issue from a practical standpoint instead of just thinking there is one correct solution. I'm sure a lot of things would work but what are the risks vs. benefits.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Multicolored Lemur
I'm sure a lot of things would work but what are the risks vs. benefits.
Or, how about compromise on free speech ? ?

For example, one police chief said, This was some hugely misplaced quest for glory, and not one time will you hear me mentioning this individual’s name [I’m not using quote marks because I don’t remember the exact quote, but it was something very similar to this].

We’d pass a law that each time a media company says a mass shooter’s name, they’re fined 10% of monthly revenue. Please notice, not profit, but revenue. Probably Unconstitutional, and certainly is a compromise. But it might help for a while, and I think frankly, this is something perhaps worth considering.

Or, you pass a law allowing family members to sue for damages a media company who previously gave lavish attention to a mass shooter. Again, definitely a compromise, but just maybe worth it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AgnosticBoy
Or, how about compromise on free speech ? ?

For example, one police chief said, This was some hugely misplaced quest for glory, and not one time will you hear me mentioning this individual’s name [I’m not using quote marks because I don’t remember the exact quote, but it was something very similar to this].

We’d pass a law that each time a media company says a mass shooter’s name, they’re fined 10% of monthly revenue. Please notice, not profit, but revenue. Probably Unconstitutional, and certainly is a compromise. But it might help for a while, and I think frankly, this is something perhaps worth considering.

Or, you pass a law allowing family members to sue for damages a media company who previously gave lavish attention to a mass shooter. Again, definitely a compromise, but just maybe worth it.
It certainly must pass the constitutional hurdle. But I do agree that we pay too much attention to the shooters. I think that was a bigger problem in the past (starting with Columbine), but not as much now since people have pointed out that more focus should be on the victims.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Multicolored Lemur
This looks like a good idea to prevent shootings:
A U.S.-based technology company says it has built the world's first biometric smart gun.

The 9mm handgun fires only for authorized users, ensuring it can't be used by children or criminals.

Secured by fingerprint and 3D infrared facial recognition, Biofire Technologies announced the 9mm handgun in a news release on April 13. It works in a wide variety of conditions, including if a user is wearing gloves or a face covering.

Customizable LED indicators show when the gun is armed and it even locks automatically when not in use.
Source: CBS News

I wonder what other technology can be added? Like Deactivating the gun around school zone areas?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Multicolored Lemur