Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What if banning does interfere with certain rights? Do we sacrifice rights enshrined in our Constitution?
In looking at the whole picture, the right to be alive is the most important. To the children in Connecticut, they will never get to enjoy their right to vote or bear arms or anything else, because another citizen chose to take away their basic right to LIFE.
I said in my opening post that a knee-jerk reaction will not solve the problem. But I am open-minded enough to look at statistics and data as it continues to be collected, and to consider accepting fewer rights of some types if it means more people will statistically have a greater chance at LIFE. It seems it is worth respectfully and intelligently considering what changes could be enacted, rather than holding so tightly to "our rights" that they don't even want to have the conversation. The Constitution is said to be a living document, and its interpretation may need to change as society changes, if it is to truly protect our rights.
It's kind of like traveling by airplane these days. (not a perfect analogy, since the Constitution doesn't talk about flight security). It's a bit of a nuisance to take my little 3 ounce bottles of liquid in a ziplock baggie, instead of full size products, and to remove my belt and shoes when going through security. But I don't recall any airplanes being blown up in recent years, so I gladly deal with the restrictions.
I'm curious as to if there's a common thread with these shooters and medications.
Just a theory, but it kind of seems to me that these tragedies started happening more when the drug companies started coming out with meds for everything you can imagine.
So many have the craziest side effects as well as horrific effects if you quit them cold turkey, as opposed to weaning off them. Someone unbalanced, IMO, should never be prescribed something where you can't miss a dose without going off the deep end. They're on meds because they have issues... they can't be counted on to "takes their meds every day, at the same time"!!
Just a few weeks ago, a few miles from my house, a guy stabbed a homeless man to death, while he was sleeping.
From what I understand, it was because he went off his meds cold turkey.
Certainly, there are things that should be done differently.
The sad fact is, though, it won't stop things from happening. It'll just change where and how they happen.
Things can be done that could stop at least SOME of these tragedies from happening, or how many people are affected, or how often these scenarios are played out.
We never really know how many tragedies DIDN'T happen, because of some safeguard or restriction being in place. What if the windows at Sandy Hook had been impermeable to the break in? Or what if outside surveillance had captured the image of Adam Lanza approaching the building with his weapons, and he was stopped before he entered the school? Any number of things might have prevented this tragedy, and if so, this whole event might have been written up as a small story in the local newspapers about an attempted shooting, instead of the horrific event that it turned out to be.
But it did happen, and if this tragedy keeps people talking, and helps us find ways to reduce future occurrences, I'm all for those changes. We can TRY. We can do better. I refuse to throw my hands in the air and accept this as how our nation has to be. Those children and every other murder victim deserves our efforts to do better for the future.
^^^^ What you never hear is the many times ARMED citizens STOP these things! The media doesn't like reporting or sensationalizing THAT!
Like when an armed CCW'er stopped an Aurora CO church shooting after only one victim, back in April...NO you NEVER heard THAT one but OMG you heard all about the theater!
I am convinced that these mass shootings will continue till our fascination with guns and the ease in which they are acquired continue.
Poor, depressed, abused, evil, mentally ill, socially marginalized people have always existed in every country of the world. However, no other western country suffers mass shooting with the same frequency as we. What do these other countries have that we don't?
We should indeed treat the sick and create a more equitable society. However, offering this as a sole solution to prevent mass killings is at best ramblings of bored minds and at worst a slap on face of those whose families were murdered. The only direct and effective solution to prevents these incidents is gun control.
Perhaps someone will explain why does an ordinary American needs to have military grade weapons. Who do we need protection from; the Apaches, King George's army, Obama's Army?
I don't understand the rigid adherence to the 2nd amendment. Religious texts have been changed over time so what's so special about the 2nd amendment? The country which gave us this law has banned all hand guns. Result being, they have some 37 times less gun related deaths than us.
So the way I see, in a week, the media chatter will quite down. All of us, not directly affected by the CT killings, will be consumed by our daily lives. And gun ownership and gun related deaths will go on unhindered.
Nothing much can be done, we are all at the mercy of crazy lunatics and that's how it's always been. While we can point to some people and wonder why nobody did anything the truth is there is little than anyone CAN do until something horrible happens. We can't mointor the minds of individuals or know whey someone is about to snap.
As far as schools go, and I think this has already happened, the designs can be more secure with fewer in/out points and check in procedures. That won't prevent every possible sceniaro from happening but nothing can. Tragedy is part of life whether is purposeful or accidental.
ICE needs to step forward and deal with the lack of security in our schools. armed officers need to confront armed intruders that murder our children just as armed security do on airlines and at border crossings.
The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. Period. Congress can pass what legislation they want. The trials begin. A ruling is made. End of the story.
We've become conditioned to think this, especially as the court has become more willing to exercise the powers it has, and as Congress has been more reluctant to exercise its powers, but it's not really so. All three branches have equal power and responsibility to interpret and uphold the Constitution.
The Constitution is what it is, and while the courts now have the authority to review legislation, they are powerless to enforce their decisions. Enforcement still rests with the executive, and he may not go along with their decisions.
Famously, Andrew Jackson responded to the news of an unfavorable Supreme Court decision in 1832 in a case involving Georgia's powers over the Cherokees by saying, (Chief Justice) "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let's see him enforce it!"
We know how that turned out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
