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.
It's the psychotropic meds being prescribed in increasing numbers to kids. We've always had access to guns. My husband (in his mid-50s) remembers taking a new rifle to school for show and tell. Kids had them in racks in the back windows of their pickup trucks (we were raised in the country). Have a fight or disagreement in the school yard and run back to the car for a gun? Didn't happen!!! Not back then. Minds were not hijacked by mind-altering meds back then!
Prozac (a new class of anti-depressants called Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor) came out in 1987 followed by a slew of other SSRI antidepressants. They increased in use exponentially. Then they started being Rx'd for children. Now they're given for just about any "condition". They were eventually given a black-box warning about increased suicide risk when Rx'd for young adults and kids. They should've been outlawed at that point!
Suicidal and HOMICIDAL ideation are known side-effects that are rarely mentioned and more common than anyone believes. All you have to do is visit a few forums where people are trying to get support while on these meds or during withdrawal from these meds and read what they are talking about. I've seen it in my own household. My husband was placed on Effexor for anxiety. It made a mess of our lives for a few years until I figured out that it all happened starting right after he went on this med. Thankfully my research into it warned me of how bad withdrawal can be--you only get one real shot at it for some people, or you just end up back on a med, usually a roller-coaster of meds after that. The thing is, you don't know until you either go on a particular drug....or try to come off it....whether or not you're going to be one of the lucky or unlucky ones. It's freaking Russian Roulette with a person's mind! And therefore their lives!! We went VERY slowly in reducing his meds and still, there was one dropdown where he told me, "I don't want to scare you, but I think it'd be best if you hid our guns." I was never so frightened in my life. This, from a mature, professional person. Can you imagine in the still-developing mind and body rife with hormones, too!?
If you go back through all the mass school shootings since the late 80s, you'll see the increase in shootings rise along with the increase in children being prescribed these drugs. You check into each of these shooters (and not just the kids!), and (I think the figure is this or higher) 80% of them were on psychotropic meds (or changing meds, or withdrawing).
These meds limit a person's ability to properly inhibit oneself in many socially unacceptable behaviors. I've watched it! I'm also currently watching a friend's marriage implode because of one mate's behavior on these meds.
I never knew any of this before our experience with it.... But once I discovered how this med had affected my life, I started doing a lot of research, and I try to spread the word BECAUSE you will NOT learn of this connection via the news outlets lest they lose the almighty advertising dollar from Big Pharma.
You can limit rapid-fire weapons and therefore decrease the number of deaths per incident, but unless you correct the underlying COMMON DENOMINATOR which are these meds, we will keep having these events.
Imagine this: a kid fails an exam and gets abnormally depressed about it which gets mentioned to a doctor. Said kid gets prescribed a med to "help even him out". The med doesn't seem to do much or the kid even seems worse, and you'd think the logical thing would be to consider the med has made things worse, right? Oh no....the doctor will say, "we need to increase the dose." If/when that doesn't work, it's "well, we should add-in a mood stabilizer." Because now psychiatrists have created a NEW diagnosis called "treatment resistant depression." And guess what!? Yup, they have a pill for that.
White hats-Black hats silly !!
Seriously though, same thing could be used as a reason a homeowner should not have a gun.
How would the cops know who the bad guy is ? Not a great argument to expect
people to be okay with being slaughtered before cops arrive just to be sure the cops don't get confused.
How often have the cops taken out the killers anyway.
Disagree. There's a difference between going into a home where there's a shooter, vs. a whole school full of them.
.
In the former, unless they're throwing a party, there's not going to be that many people. 3 to 8 tops. Not as difficult for a LEO to control the situation, get testimony from each occupant, and the cop could probably determine a lot arriving on the scene.
.
In the latter, you have a school full of hundreds to thousands of kids (quick Google search shows Parkland had 3158 in 2015-16). The post your quoting was speaking out against many other students having guns. It puts officers on high alert since they got word there's a student shooter (or a kid that looks like any other high school kid). Cops tell EVERYONE to put down their guns, but they can't take the kids word that they'll all do it. The real shooter who refuses to do so, but also doesn't make mentioned he's still armed is still a threat. They need to frisk ALL the students. All few hundred to few thousand of them.
.
It's one thing for the killer to be killed. However, with this many guns around, innocents are bound to get hurt or killed. SCENARIO: What if that innocent was you? After all, you would be armed in such cases. It wouldn't be too far fetched that some panicked student sees YOU with a gun and thinks you're that shooter
You are right. Yes we should. But we can't.
After the war it took serious political work and was a near thing, but finally the Republicans prevailed and the slaves were no longer property. The battle for the change was difficult. Slavery was not written into the Constitution. Previously withheld rights had to be given "to all men" without including women back in those days.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The process to create an Amendment is outlined in Article 5 of the Constitution. Briefly:
Both Chambers of Congress agree on a resolution to be sent to the States. It is passed by 2/3 of each chamber. This has happened 33 times. There have been more than 10,000 proposed.
The First sentence is: "The Second Amendment of the Constitution is repealed" More follows to replace it.
The Resolution is sent to the legislatures of each of the 50 States. Each of the chambers of each of the states is subject to the Constitution of each of the individual States so there are 50 x 2 sets of rules for endorsing the resolution. There can be no changes made to the resolution, it is yes or no. It is implemented when 3/4 of the States have agreed. This has happened 27 times. Two cancel each other.
Then what?
Well, as challenging as that process was, there are 45 States and territories and some other bits & pieces, with Articles in their constitutions with similar provisions to provide the right to bear arms. Those have to be repealed and replaced or altered. There is no way to force the States to comply with the Federal Constitution as amended.
How would it be possible for roughly 3/4s of 7,383 state legislators voting independently in each of their 50 States to agree with Congress given the divisive nature of the issue today? Probably longer that the 7-10 years typically allowed for passage. Probably longer than before the heat death of the universe.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hence my process:
Pass a law banning the possession of ANY SEMI-AUTOMATIC WEAPON capable of using more than some small number of rounds without reloading. The old list of 200 is futility. There are far more fearsome weapons available that you haven't heard of or seen in movies. Must get rid of all of them
Please do not explode yet. Hold you comments for the end.
BATFE enforces this against exactly one preselected candidate who is seized by US Marshals and then booked, indicted, and bailed on the charge. Everyone on both sides understands what is going on, so the Third War of the American Revolution does not break out.
This judicial action would be an overt violation of the 2nd Amendment but SCOTUS can't review it until there is a case.A Justice gives an injunction against further enforcement until it gets to SCOTUS.
Appeals and counter appeals follow until the case arrives at SCOTUS.
"all the world wonders . . ."
SCOTUS holds the Second Amendment Valid but of no Consequence (MOOT) since there is no "Well regulated Militia" at the National level. The National Guards are separate organizations controlled by the States and do not fit the requirements of the Amendment. So nobody gets to "own, operate , or possess said AR-15 Type rifle unless they are in the as yet None Existent Well Regulated Militia."The decision is confirmed and the case is returned to the lower court, and our felon heads for SuperMax.
BUT WAIT! The President signs an executive order creating A Well Regulated Militia with a Charter, rules, and all that. Congress cheers and endorses it. Our prototype felon is immediately installed as commander of AWRM and is pardoned by the President. All retired military are installed as members with a big parade. The guy that dreamed up this solution is awarded The Presidential Freedom Medal, pardoned of all his sins, and gets a parking place on The Mall. Or something like that.
The application for everyone else to join is on line. It will take awhile to vet 200 million citizens.
Sorry , it's past bedtime.
It would be a Federally Chartered Organization, well supervised and controlled at the State and Federal levels. It would not be a military organization, but the membership and command staff would be there for setting standards, training, providing safe facilities, and secure storage of weapons, and most important, examination and certification of candidates. Any citizen not a member can have a six shooter and a double shell shot gun and a bolt action or lever action rifle or anything that is non-repeater built before some arbitrary date. The rest of the "big black ugly rifles and pistols that look like weapons of war" can be stuffed in museums or melted down. Certificate exceptions allowed for collectors.
The whole point is the weapons are removed from the general public and the membership weeds out the nut cases.
(Yes, there are issues for registry and all the other conflicts. I am not writing your laws in one post.)
"My point, and I did have one, is if you can't live with the 2nd, and you can't repeal or replace, change the meaning."
A big part of a militias duty is to ensure Govt does not become tyrannical, so how could a militia effectively do this while it is that very Govt that is regulating it?
A govt that is tyrannical is never going to just come out and announce themselves to be tyrannical, naturally they are going to try and disguise this, using safety, national security, etc etc.
The types of militia the founding fathers wanted would be very effective at ensuring tyranny never gets a foothold, a militia that is threatening enough to Govt/ military would be enough to ensure Govt does not overstep its bounds imo.
Children have grown up for the last couple decades with no consequence's for bad behavior. They have gotten away with mouthing off to their own parents because if they are punished the child calls the police on their parents. Kids will always test the limits.
Give the right to discipline, back to the parents.
BS poll. First way to DECREASE MASS KILLINGS. Get rid of GUN FREE ZONES.
What percentage of Mass killings took place in GUN FREE ZONES in the last twenty years?
Get rid of them and allow LEGAL carrying.
So, to be clear, right wing logic consists of two key points:
- Gun laws are not perfect: some thugs and crazies are always going to get more guns.
- We need more guns.
You folks DO realize that means, by definition, you'll be putting mores guns in the hands of crazies and thugs, right? Your own reasoning condemns your laughable "solution."
Children have grown up for the last couple decades with no consequence's for bad behavior. They have gotten away with mouthing off to their own parents because if they are punished the child calls the police on their parents. Kids will always test the limits.
Give the right to discipline, back to the parents.
Oh, please. The parents failed their kids, not the other way around.
Nothing more laughable than listening to aging Boomers whine about "kids these days!" while ignoring the fact that it was their generation that raised them.
The one thing missing today, and present 50+ years ago (when this junk didn't EVER occur) were psychiatric hospitals with locked doors. Almost anybody could initiate committing a person to one of these places. Competent, properly trained psychiatrists and knowledgeable nursing staff observed all committed people for a period of time until they were convinced whether or not that person could/should be released. That decision had nothing to do whatsoever with the ACLU or any other "self-anointed" bunch. You can thank Jimmah Carter for these shoot-'em-ups. He and his minions closed the psych hospitals as "inhumane." We have now seen the result of "Peanut Brain's" great ideas.
So what's more inhumane? A few dozen schizos, not responding to anti-psychotic drugs, locked up... or 100's of innocent people shot to death? You decide.
The one thing missing today, and present 50+ years ago (when this junk didn't EVER occur) were psychiatric hospitals with locked doors. Almost anybody could initiate committing a person to one of these places. Competent, properly trained psychiatrists and knowledgeable nursing staff observed all committed people for a period of time until they were convinced whether or not that person could/should be released. That decision had nothing to do whatsoever with the ACLU or any other "self-anointed" bunch. You can thank Jimmah Carter for these shoot-'em-ups. He and his minions closed the psych hospitals as "inhumane." We have now seen the result of "Peanut Brain's" great ideas.
So what's more inhumane? A few dozen schizos, not responding to anti-psychotic drugs, locked up... or 100's of innocent people shot to death? You decide.
Reagan...not Carter.
I don't think it should be easy to get someone committed - the rule now is you have to be a danger to yourself or others.... Reagan closed down these facilities which had become warehouses people never got out of. And he messed up by not making provisions for the community services for all the people released. REAGAN.
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.
After all, you would be armed in such cases. It wouldn't be too far fetched that some panicked student sees YOU with a gun and thinks you're that shooter
