Leaderboard

Merry Christmas to all my cooperites!

Merry Christmas to you and all the Cooper sleuths,,, even Georger..

Probably a lot. As a result there are laws against kids buying alcohol, and laws against adults serving them alcohol. There are laws against kids driving, and stricter laws when they first start to drive. There are laws that make it harder for kids to drown, and that significantly drive up the cost of private and public pools. There are laws and testing standards that make cars safer for kids. Billions have been spent on things like airbag research, seatbelt use, car seat testing, rollover testing, audible alerts, backup cameras, collision sensors etc to protect kids in cars (and kids vs cars.) There are laws that prevent kids from buying cigarettes under a certain age, and tens of millions in spending to convince them not to smoke even when it is legal for them to do so. These laws, and this spending, is not seen as onerous; indeed, they are seen as fairly commonsense. Oddly, though, when laws are proposed that would protect kids from gun deaths, they are seen as the end of liberty as we know it.

Penn & Teller are from this time period. If you're trying to use the "Well Regulated" meant "Well Organized" argument - I'm not even sure where that originated. The colonialists (the people) were the militia and not any part of a standing army (which caused Hamilton great concern for the US to have one - but we do). In his Federalist Papers No. 29, he outlines all "three sides" of the coin. The militia, a standing army and the people. "Well Regulated" meant training to a military standard. It was proposed, that the people from each state would gather once or twice a year and train to military standards, but make no mistake they were "the people" of each state - not a paid military. In fact, they could be made to support another state in the event that other state were invaded by a standing army. There is an ongoing myth about what the forefathers "meant" about a "well regulated" militia and "the people" being separate by a single comma. "The people" were "the militia." The right to bear arms was to allow the people to support the militia UNTIL a more formalized militia could be developed at a later date to protect these US from a standing (foreign) army. If you don't believe the government can regulate weapons and ammo, then how has the NFA stood as a law for so long. Did you know that the Supreme Court didn't acknowledge individual gun ownership as a right until 2008. 219 years after the US Constitution was adopted. If you don't think the US can ban certain weapons, then why is there still a ban on gravity knives. Why is there still a law on who can or can't own machine guns and a rather lengthy "well-regulated" process to own one. Having said all that, I personally, don't like the "left's" attack on the 2nd Amendment, but I also don't like the "right's" belief that gun ownership comes without some form of responsibility or accountability, or regulation. The "left" needs to agree to leave the 2nd Amendment alone and the "right" needs to agree that children getting killed in school warrants regulation of firearms to prevent it from happening again. We claim to be morally superior to other countries - let's start with protecting children from even having to have "active shooter" programs by regulating ownership - not banning guns, but banning nut jobs from owning guns AND ensuring everyone who owns a weapon gets the proper training as Hamilton outlined as "the People" being "Well Regulated."

Joe - I've clearly stated many actions that IMO should be taken. You've continually inferred that I support unfettered proliferation of assault weapons. That's not correct. Some comments made on July 23 were: The only point I've been trying to make is that there are many more firearms, other than the typical AR like rifle, that are a problem. To focus solely on assault weapons is short-sighted and will have, at best, a small impact on gun deaths. I agree that it's reasonable to limit the typical semi auto hunting rifle to 5 rounds or less. Raise the age on purchases of non-hunting firearms, tighten up the application process, hammer anyone caught making a straw purchase (maybe some law that says after buying X? firearms a year one has to prove they still have them in their possession, have paperwork documenting the transfer, or if lost or stolen a police report is required), mandatory severe jail time if caught with a stolen firearm, laws requiring owners to be more responsible with managing/storing the weapon, confiscation if mental health becomes an issue, red flag laws, significantly higher training requirements to obtain a concealed weapons permit and ongoing training to keep it, liability laws/exposure for dealers that make errors, strengthen the requirements to obtain and retain an FFL license by requiring a minimum number of transactions per year, special application process for any long gun that can hold more than xx rounds in a magazine, shotguns that hold more than 6 rounds should be considered assault weapons, limit mag capacity with pistols to 10-12 rounds, mandatory prison sentence of 10 years for any crime committed with a gun, etc. etc.

I would be all in favour of mandatory biometric locks on all firearms. The amount of identities that could enable the firearm should be restricted to 2 people max. Sure there will be some instances where they won't work in time, nothing is 100% perfect. But overall it will reduce gun violence.

Tô my way of thinking, that’s a very fitting end to a collection of beloved tools — which is what guns should be. Tools. Not toys or machismo indicators. Wendy P.