I was suggesting that a partial solution to mass shootings is to minimize the publicity they get--I was saying that a news outlet should be limited to reporting any given fact about a mass shooting once (although I would put a time on that--say a year) other than as necessary to make a coherent report. The proposal was made to not permit reporting at all, but that's a bad idea--that would allow the government to hide things and that's not my objective. My objective is not to hide but to deny the shooters the attention they desire.
-
Features
My Vision Of Gun Control In The USA
- Thread starter ZiprHead
- Start date
Shadowy Man
Contributor
Yes, and your suggestion would be a violation of the First Amendment. If you view it as simply a regulation then would you also consider regulations of the Second Amendment that, if implemented, could make it less necessary for your type of regulation of the First?
Many of us have been proposing quite reasonable regulations of the Second Amendment, but are often shouted down by so-called Constitution defenders, who seem to forget there are other Amendments and guaranteed rights.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 46,237
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Presently, our Second Amendment is violating the First Amendment.
Elixir
Made in America
Something about that 2nd Amendment ... I was watching live coverage of the NRA convention.
It looks like a meeting of Weight Watchers dropouts. Gravy Seals, whatever. Obesity looks like their identifier.
lpetrich
Contributor
Shadowy Man
Contributor
Honestly, this seems kind of silly to me. The likelihood of this becoming an amendment is vanishingly small. It makes more sense to support gun legislation, which could tackle all of these issues without necessarily violating the 2nd amendment. And as has been pointed out by our pro-gun friends here, the term "assault weapon" is too vague. For that point, we should put limitations for gun bans based on the following characteristics: ammunition size, muzzle velocity, rate of fire, and magazine capacity. These are measurable quantities and thus can more easily be applied to specific guns to see if they should be banned. Where we draw the line is of course a matter of negotiation, but that can be done and has been done, hence why things like fully automatic machine guns are generally banned as well as other types of weapons like hand grenades and mines.
Yup, laws should be exact and this isn't.
How about a different 28th: Laws must be written so that a reasonable practitioner of whatever activity the law describes and knowing the facts of the situation that they can reasonably know can conclusively decide whether any given act is legal. The only exceptions to this are laws pertaining to emergency situations where acting on incomplete data is commonplace. Ambiguity goes to the defendant and if any judge on a panel considers it ambiguous it is considered so. (Thus if SCOTUS rules 8-1 against you it's in your favor.)
TomC
Bless Your Heart!
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2020
- Messages
- 11,154
- Location
- Midwestern USA
- Gender
- Faggot
- Basic Beliefs
- Agnostic deist
While I'm with Newsome in spirit, the Devil is in the Details.
This looks more like political grandstanding than anything serious.
One of the huge problems is that guns are easy to steal, hide, smuggle, and transfer with no paper trail whatsoever. The people we don't want to have access won't be bothered by the niceties of Newsome's efforts.
It's kinda the problem Chicago has. Big problems with gun violence resulted in strict gun control laws. But that only affects law abiding citizens of Chicago. Here in Indiana, which includes southern Chicago, guns are easily available. People who don't much care about the law can easily drive here, buy weapons that are illegal to buy in Chicago, and go right back up the road.
Chicago effectively disarmed law abiding folks, while Indiana kept arming criminals. We can all see the results.
Tom
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Thank goodness that you are not in charge.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Governor Gavin Newsom has proposed a "28th Amendment to the Constitution" which will enact gun control measures.
While I disagree with everything in his proposed amendment, I respect him for being the first progressive in decades to go about this properly.
While I disagree with everything in his proposed amendment, I respect him for being the first progressive in decades to go about this properly.
Tigers!
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 5,877
- Location
- On the wing, waiting for a kick.
- Basic Beliefs
- Bible believing revelational redemptionist (Baptist)
At the risk of teaching my grandmother to suck eggs are the existing gun laws, pathetic as they maybe, being enforced?
There is little to be gained by adding new laws to already unenforced ones.
There is little to be gained by adding new laws to already unenforced ones.
Shadowy Man
Contributor
Could you point out which laws were not enforced that had they been enforced would have prevented any of the recent mass shootings? Uvalde for example? Which law wasn’t enforced there?
I don’t understand the logic behind argument.
Elixir
Made in America
Tigers means well IMO, but tends to assume things about the US society and legal system that just are not so. The question
... wants to imply that there are sufficient laws on the books to mitigate US gun violence, but they're not being enforced. That is not the case. For example - there are illegal guns all over the fucking place. If the laws against those guns were enforced there would be no illegal guns on the street and gun violence would be lessened. But it's not like someone can just take a decision to magically make illegal guns disappear. Illegal guns are confiscated when discovered, and sought out when suspected. But they're ALL OVER THE FUCKING PLACE, and there are not enough cops in the world to ferret out all the illegal guns in the US. I invite @Tigers! to come on over and enforce those laws, or design some system that can mitigate the ubiquity of illegal guns without new laws doing away with all freedoms like rights against random search and seizure.
thebeave
Contributor
Would be nice if Greasy Gavin would spend more time focusing on governing his fucked up state of California, and less time on federal issues and those of other states.
Derec
Contributor
Gov. Goodhair has his sights firmly set on running for president in 2028.
#neverGavin
#neverGavin
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 49,983
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Specifically, we have lax laws in states near states with not as lax laws. The borders aren't protected, and weapons easily cross them.
The enforce the laws that exist now is a red herring. Much like, 'we need to address mental illness' which 2nd amendment folks like to trot out after the latest mass shooting, but then disappear with that thought immediately afterwards.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 39,641
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
The logic is very simple. If the Uvalde shooter had been arrested and charged with jaywalking, when he unlawfully crossed the road without waiting for the "Walk" light, the shooting would not have happened; Therefore until every jaywalker has been arrested, gun control laws are unnecessary.
It's so simple that
It's a cousin to the "Why are you picking on me, you should be out there catching the real criminals" defence, which (as any fool knows) is a guaranteed way to persuade the authorities to release you without charge, under almost any circumstances.
As long as anyone can get away with anything, it stands to reason that everyone can get away with everything, and therefore legislation against <insert any antisocial behaviour I wish to engage in> is not only unjust, but also futile.
Derec
Contributor
Never going to happen. And I see he is still obsessed with so-called "assault weapons" that are responsible for a tiny fraction of all homicides.
"Assault weapons" have become a shibboleth for fauxgressives. And on a practical matter, would his hypothetical 28th Amendment even define what "assault weapons" are?
Now, Gov. Goodhair's proposal is more dangerous than a mere amendment. He wants to call an Article V constitutional convention.
Gov. Newsom’s call for a constitutional convention is a well-intentioned, terrible idea | Opinion
It's not just Indiana. Drugs get in, it's even easier to bring guns in because there is no smell for a dog to home in on.
It is effectively impossible to disarm criminals, all we can do is balance inconveniencing criminals with inconveniencing the law abiding. Look at how badly the drug war has gone for society, think a gun war would do any better?
Yup, politicians love to pass laws--doesn't mean they're practical to enforce or that there are the resources to enforce them. Locally we had a prime example: IIRC a court decision that gun rights can't be stripped without a trial (I don't recall the exact details.) Law making certain DV cases strip gun rights--the result is the prosecutors couldn't possibly handle the load and plead the cases down instead to keep from triggering the gun ban.
I'd love to see laws have to have a section reviewing the current situation and describe how the law will improve the current situation--and if that's a laughingstock the law can be challenged in court. Likewise, if the reasoning is unconstitutional that makes the law unconstitutional.