3 dead, 6 injured in Michigan high school shooting; 15-year-old suspect in custody, authorities say

[Suave]

I don't see the point, because there's nothing to stop them from getting a bigger clip illegally. Shoot, street gangs have AK-47s and all kinds of other illegal weapons. It's a waste of time trying to ban this stuff. The law-abiding will follow the laws and the criminals will continue to do what they want, as I mentioned about other mass shooters. The ones I mentioned didn't legally own the guns they used.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 worked to prevent mobsters from possessing fully auto submachine guns, I'm confident a National Firearms Act of 2022 could work in the same way to prevent gangsters from possessing firearms with high capacity magazines. There'd be no harm with us at least experimenting with this sensible and historically effective gun control measure. Right?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The National Firearms Act of 1934 worked to prevent mobsters from possessing fully auto submachine guns, I'm confident a National Firearms Act of 2022 could work in the same way to prevent gangsters from possessing firearms with high capacity magazines. There'd be no harm with us at least experimenting with this sensible and historically effective gun control measure. Right?

Once again, these are criminals. Why would you expect a criminal to follow the law? It's like how drug laws never stopped anyone from getting the illegal drugs of their choice.

 

[Revoltingest]

Since the U.S. Constitution was written at a time when firearms were limited in capacity to being loaded with just one bullet stored in them, the second Amendment could not even possibly apply to firearms with high capacity magazines.

That constitutional philosophy has major problems.
Freedom of the press & assembly in the 1700s was
by printed paper & crowds in public. Should we limit
1st Amendment liberties to just those? Nah.

I prefer constitutional originalism, ie, discerning the intent.
"Press" & "assembly" were about communication in general.
So these rights would apply to electronic venues.
The 2nd Amendment was about militarily capable small arms.
Just as with the "press", arms would increase in capability.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That constitutional philosophy has major problems.
Freedom of the press & assembly in the 1700s was
by printed paper & crowds in public. Should we limit
1st Amendment liberties to just those? Nah.

I prefer constitutional originalism, ie, discerning the intent.
"Press" & "assembly" were about communication in general.
So these rights would apply to electronic venues.
The 2nd Amendment was about militarily capable small arms.
Just as with the "press", arms would increase in capability.

It doesn't really specify what arms we are allowed to keep and bear.

 

[pearl]

At only 15 he is to be charged as an adult. According to police news release the boy was called to the school office that AM. This was evidently the culmination of problems in school, as too often not picked up on or dealt with.

 

[Suave]

Once again, these are criminals. Why would you expect a criminal to follow the law? It's like how drug laws never stopped anyone from getting the illegal drugs of their choice.

People, even most criminal-minded people file federal tax returns out of fear of being imprisoned for failure to file a tax return, Like-wise, I suspect even criminal-minded persons of fearing to own a firearm with a high capacity magazine if federal tax law were to require them having to pay a hefty tax levy on possessing of a high capacity magazine with failure to comply with this federal tax law resulting in stiff fines and imprisonment. There are still laws, despite the fact criminals don't abide by them.

 

[Suave]

That constitutional philosophy has major problems.
Freedom of the press & assembly in the 1700s was
by printed paper & crowds in public. Should we limit
1st Amendment liberties to just those? Nah.

I prefer constitutional originalism, ie, discerning the intent.
"Press" & "assembly" were about communication in general.
So these rights would apply to electronic venues.
The 2nd Amendment was about militarily capable small arms.
Just as with the "press", arms would increase in capability.

If there is a legitimate need for the private ownership of firearms with high capacity magazines, I'd be among the first to defend this as being a Constitutionally granted right! ...

 

[Revoltingest]

It doesn't really specify what arms we are allowed to keep and bear.

Indeed it does not.
So we should look to what arms they did have,
& how capable they were relative to military arms,
eg, the Brits. It appears to me that the founders
thought of what people owned, ie, small arms, not
cannons or warships.

 

[Revoltingest]

If there is a legitimate need for the private ownership of firearms with high capacity magazines, I'd be among the first to defend this as being a Constitutionally granted right! ...

Need or not, if the Constitution confers the right, tis
not up to legislators or courts to eliminate it by fiat.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Need or not, if the Constitution confers the right, tis
not up to legislators or courts to eliminate it by fiat.

What about artillery then, to prevent the government from stealing your rights?

 

[Revoltingest]

What about artillery then, to prevent the government from stealing your rights?

See post #48.

 

[Suave]

Need or not, if the Constitution confers the right, tis
not up to legislators or courts to eliminate it by fiat.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 imposes a hefty tax and national registry on private ownership of fully automatic firearms. Hence, I am confident such measures imposed on the private ownership of firearms with large capacity magazines would be allowed by the U.S Construction Right?

 

[Revoltingest]

The National Firearms Act of 1934 imposes a hefty tax and national registry on private ownership of fully automatic firearms. Hence, I am confident such measures imposed on the private ownership of firearms with large capacity magazines would be allowed by the U.S Construction Right?

It all depends upon how the justices feel.
The law can be bent to mean whatever they want.

 

[Sand Dancer]

And yet many other countries basically have eliminated it. We as Americans should expect first world living conditions, not accept as a fact of life violence that is more on par with third world countries.

We are a first world nation filled with many folks with third world mindsets.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Mental Illness Not a Factor in Most Mass Shootings

"THURSDAY, Feb. 25, 2021 (HealthDay News) -- Contrary to what many believe, a new study finds that mental illness isn't a factor in most mass shootings or other types of mass murder.

I think most people deep down know that this is true, but we just don't know how to classify people who think it's okay to shoot other people. Maybe we have an anger problem.

 

[Sand Dancer]

That constitutional philosophy has major problems.
Freedom of the press & assembly in the 1700s was
by printed paper & crowds in public. Should we limit
1st Amendment liberties to just those? Nah.

I prefer constitutional originalism, ie, discerning the intent.
"Press" & "assembly" were about communication in general.
So these rights would apply to electronic venues.
The 2nd Amendment was about militarily capable small arms.
Just as with the "press", arms would increase in capability.

I think the people who take the Bible literally and won't update it also won't update the Constitution.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think the people who take the Bible literally and won't update it also won't update the Constitution.

The Constitution & the Bible are very very different
documents. The former is law regarding government.
The latter is religious scripture. People who uphold
the Constitution, & people who believe the Bible
aren't always the same.
BTW, the Constitution has been amended many
times by process specified within it. I don't think
the Bible has an amendment process...it's supposed
to be inerrant absolute truth handed from God.
So I've heard.

 

[Sand Dancer]

The Constitution & the Bible are very very different
documents. The former is law regarding government.
The latter is religious scripture. People who uphold
the Constitution, & people who believe the Bible
aren't always the same.
BTW, the Constitution has been amended many
times by process specified within it. I don't think
the Bible has an amendment process...it's supposed
to be inerrant absolute truth handed from God.
So I've heard.

They tend to be folks who don't believe in separation of church and state. True, there are amendments, which I keep forgetting about, yet it's the interpretation of the existing rights that we fight about. I wish the Bible could be amended, however, the different versions change things a little, and I guess for the better. Meh.

 

[F1fan]

I know a lot of 'liberals' that own guns.

I'm a bleeding heart liberal with 15 guns. I was a gun dealer for 9 years. With a few serious exceptions everyone i sold guns to were responsible and stable people.

On the response, I think you are correct. This is one instance of a continuing series and still things are as they have been.

I think that there are parts of this country that have taken gun ownership to a different level than defense or sport. It is as an office of a religion for many.

I think the vast majority of gun owners pose no threat to others. My concern is that if they were truly responsible people they would acknowledge that we need to be very discriminating about who gets guns, especially those that are typically used in mass killings.

 

[F1fan]

"Better" rather than "more" is my regulatory focus.
But it would mean some new ones regarding
storage & training.

Part of the problem is that republicans don't like massive changes in gun law. they are more likely to compromise on some small series of baby steps that don't look as bad to constituents. The dilemma is the cobbling together of laws that are still not very effective.