Mass shooting on campus in Oregon

He's done more than speculate in speeches. He included it in a SCOTUS decision.

District of Columbia v. Heller held a complete ban of handguns was unconstitutional. It held the 2A protects an individuals right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and "to use for traditionally lawful purposes." The Court then said that since handguns were chosen most often for self-defense and self-defense is a legal purpose for owning a firearm, individual ownership of handguns couldn't be banned.

However, the Court, in a decision written by Scalia, said the licensing, registration, permitting is constitutional. He also noted the following with regard to permissible regulation under the 2d A:

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right. [Citations omitted]" (emphasis added)

 

Pssssh ... Scalia. What the hell does he know? Baron or Alma would have him quivering in the fetal position inside of five minutes.

 

Amy's posts are always like an oasis of sanity in the middle of a bullshit desert.

 

Are you saying that removing one-fifth of three hundred million guns would have no effect? Or that the number of shootings, and in particular mass shootings, is not lower in Australia than in the US?

 

Australia had 300 million guns in the country and got ALL of them off the streets? Really?

 

We have reasonable gun laws already.

 

To the question "How do you plan to remove all of the[m] from circulation?" you answered "Australia managed it."

Australia didn't manage it. Australia didn't come close to managing it.

But I can definitely see how my pointing out that fact was equivalent to me saying that removing that many guns would have no effect.

 

Right. Let's try this then. Australia made an attempt to decrease shootings by removing some guns from circulation and by better controls. We are frozen in place and allow these massacres to continue while making no concerted effort whatsoever to change things because of the political implications.

I'll say it again - simply because we can not completely remove weapons from the wrong hands or decrease the sheer number of guns, or of the deadliest of them, does not mean that we should do nothing. By that logic, since we can not prevent cancer from killing people we shouldn't attempt to treat it or develop better, more effective treatments for it.

Three hundred million guns? Hell no, we won't get all of them out of circulation, nor am I saying that we should. I'm saying that anything that we *can* do to control them, to keep them out of the hands of criminals, the psychotic, people with restraining orders on them, and the like, we should. I am, or perhaps more properly was, a hunter. I never needed a weapon with a twenty round plus magazine to hunt, to protect my self or my home. Sure, people own and enjoy them. People also own and enjoy cars capable of speeds of approaching 200 mph... but if you get caught doing so on the public road there will be consequences.

 

Of course not.

They're just better people than us. As are the people in every other civilized nation. Our culture is warped. Our values are warped. That's Option B, seeing as there is much disagreement on Option A (gun control doesn't work). If anybody has an "Option C", I'm all ears.

 

To an extent, I agree with this. But who's to say a mentally ill person intent on killing people won't find some other weapon to use?
Let's say we get rid of all guns in this country. Put aside the reality of that happening for a minute; let's just say it somehow happens and 300 million guns are gone overnight. Joe Sicko intent on killing someone still has weapons available. Knives, box cutters, scissors, for example. Those obviously wouldn't be as effective as using a gun, since Joe would in all likelihood be able to stab 2-3 people at most before being tackled.
But there are other weapons to use. Bombs, for example. Joe can follow the lead of McVeigh and drive a vehicle into a place where it can detonate and kill far more people than any gun-fueled rampage.
Further, what if Joe is a computer whiz? He can rig a drone with explosives and have a field day. Or he can hack into a vehicle's computer system -- say, a school bus -- and cause all sorts of mayhem.
I guess what I'm getting at is if we get rid of guns entirely, how is that getting to the core problem? If we take away one form of weapon, does that really make the Joe Sickos of the world less sick? Does that really make them say "You know what, I don't have a gun, I'm not going to kill or hurt people." Maybe it will; that's why I agree with the above post to an extent. But it seems like a band-aid fix instead of a solution to the real problem. And no, I don't know what a real solution to the mental illness epidemic is; I just feel focusing time and effort solely on gun control won't fix the real problem.
For the record, I'm in agreement with Ragu about the second amendment. I know I differ from a lot of my conservative friends, but I don't believe the second amendment calls for anyone and everyone to own guns. I believe the amendment allows law enforcement and military to have guns, not hunters or those who feel they need guns for self-defense.

 

Meh. Scalia's no Bork. Now there's a city on the hill!

 

What Australia did do was reduce the suicide rate and they haven't had a mass shooting since after the gun ban.

Here’s the deal with the Australian gun control law that Obama is talking about

The point of its law, as near as I can tell, wasn't to eliminate every single gun in the country but to make it marginally more difficult to buy a gun and to get some guns off the street.

No one who supports gun control wants every gun gone.

Close the loopholes, a buyback program and require licensing for gun ownership.