I cannot believe that the founding fathers wanted or foresaw that mentally ill people would have free access to guns. If you look back in the record you will find that at the time of our founding fathers mentally ill people were chained up and put in kennels like animals. They never would've gotten access to a gun. Such treatment was clearly the wrong approach to mental illness but allowing the mentally ill free access to guns today is also not the right approach. I don't feel sorting out whether or not someone is mentally stable is an infringement on the right to bear arms.

The world is a different place today with ISIS and lone wolf terrorism, and until we eradicate this backward way of thinking by these ISIS supporting lunatics, there is never going to be a non-zero risk of terrorism.

I believe the reality is that backward ways of thinking are impossible to eradicate. How would you even begin to go about it? You can't police thoughts, mindsets, beliefs. The only other option we have is to start taking away what some of you consider to be gun "rights", and if that treads on someone's concept of liberty, well, so be it.

If just one life is saved ... just ONE ... it will be worth it.

Most of the terrorist attacks in Israel use bombs and suicide bombers. The Boston terrorists used a bomb. Banning guns is a misplaced feel-good strategy.

I would rather take my chances against someone with a gun than a bomb.

In the US, there is a mass
shooting every day. Every. Day. Toddlers have killed more Americans with guns
than ISIS has. I’m far more fearful of radicalized Christians and White Supremacists
– I’m not seeing a ban on Christians and White men, yet they are statically who
we should be scared of. There are plenty of crazies other than ISIS, yet that is
who we are focused on. What a distraction from the real problem! Other Western
countries have their share of mentally ill people, but far, far fewer mass
shootings. But it’s not about guns??

Try ordering a pressure cooker
and backpack on Amazon and the FBI will be at your door. But you can go to
Walmart and buy as many guns and ammo you want and no one will bat an eye because
it’s your “right”.

Quote:

Supreme
Court Justice Scalia writing for the majority In District of Columbia v.
Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only
those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second
Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as
the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno
v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the
Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v.
United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends,
prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even
those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

End Quote

This issue isn't about tools, this is about the American Constitutional Rights ... all of them.

"As America grapples with a relentless tide of gun violence, pro-gun
activists have come to rely on the Second Amendment as their trusty
shield when faced with mass-shooting-induced criticism. In their
interpretation, the amendment guarantees an individual right to bear
arms—a reading that was upheld by the Supreme Court in its 2008 ruling
in District of Columbia. v. Heller. Yet most judges and scholars who debated the clause's awkwardly worded and oddly punctuated 27 words in the decades before Heller
almost always arrived at the opposite conclusion, finding that the
amendment protects gun ownership for purposes of military duty and
collective security. It was drafted, after all, in the first years of
post-colonial America, an era of scrappy citizen militias where the idea
of a standing army—like that of the just-expelled British—evoked deep
mistrust.

In his new book, The Second Amendment: A Biography, Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice
at New York University, digs into this discrepancy. What does the
Second Amendment mean today, and what has it meant over time? He traces
the history of the contentious clause and the legal reasoning behind it,
from the Constitutional Convention to modern courtrooms.

This historical approach is noteworthy. The Heller decision,
written by Justice Antonin Scalia, is rooted in originalism, the
concept that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the
original intent of the founders. While Waldman emphasizes that we must
understand what the framers thought, he argues that giving them the last
word is impossible—and impractical. "We're not going to be able to go
back in a time machine and tap James Madison on the shoulder and ask him
what to do," he says. "How the country has evolved is important. What
the country needs now is important. That's certainly the case with something as important and complicated as guns in America."

Source: The 2nd Amendment Doesn't Say What You Think It Does

and

So You Think You Know the 2nd Amendment

Statement from the family of the inventor of the AR-15:

""Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47," the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."

Complete statement

OK, I give up, again. Let's all kill and be killed. It's the American way, after all. The nature of man. Man's inhumanity to man, 'twas ever thus, and all that. Why bother trying for a solution, when I might get hit by a bus this afternoon. I think I'll stop wearing my seat belt, too.

Yeah, sheesh. As long as my only two choices are to be blown up or cut down with an assault rifle, why even try.

In my own lifetime I've seen "Whites Only" signs at hotels AND witnessed a black man become President of the United States.

My State is represented by two women Senators. Women were not even able to vote when the Constitution and Amendments were drafted.

Right is right. Change doesn't happen overnight. Are there still racial problems and gender inequality? Of course. But we can't lose heart on working to make things better for the world we're leaving our children.

Everyone who knows in their heart that there is no need for dangerous military grade weapons to be sold to civilians should fight for their restriction. The civil right we'd be fighting for is our right to life.

An AR-15 is not a military grade weapon!! The military would not hand out ARs as field weapons. They are not automatic. They could not be used in combat. They would hand out automatic weapons. I am retired Army Reserve. Qualified expert with an M16.

I am on my cell, so not scrolling back up, but would like to address the person that said these types of guns are only used by people that want to kill other people (similar words). I know family members and friends that own a variety of pistols, shotguns and rifles including AR type rifles. They use them for hunting and target shooting. Gun enthusiast find them fun to shoot. One of my older family members shoots 6 days a week, and has for the past 15+ years. He reloads his own shells and bullets, takes home his best targets and can talk for days about anything gun related. Neither he or any of my other friends/family have ever killed anyone.

Allison, did you miss Maddielee's link?

Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians

and

history of the AR-15

"I know family members and friends that own a variety of pistols, shotguns and rifles including AR type rifles. They use them for hunting and target shooting. Gun enthusiast find them fun to shoot."

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? So everyone has to just accept things as status quo because your friends and people like them want to enjoy shooting these guns in their back yard? Do you guys even see how ridiculous that sounds?

There are lots of compromises that the people of this country are expected to make for the benefit of the majority. The NRA and gun lovers should be held to the same standard. Why is it the folks who want the gun laws changed are the only one's willing to meet somewhere in the middle to find a compromise?

"If I thought that some new law would stop the shootings, I would be more open to considering it. The fact is, it WON'T do anything. It will be taking away rights and giving the government more power for no reason.

To be honest, I believe people against any change to the laws are closed minded and too focused on thier own agenda to even consider the idea..

CindyMac, "But after Stoner's death in 1997, at the age of 74, a semi-automatic
version of the AR-15 became a civilian bestseller, too, spawning dozens
of copy-cat weapons."

and

"The AR-15 was first built in 1959 by ArmaLite as a small arms rifle for the United States armed forces. Because of financial problems, ArmaLite sold the design to Colt. After some modifications, the redesigned rifle was adopted as the M16 rifle.
In 1963, Colt started selling the semi-automatic version of the rifle
for civilians designated as the Colt SP1. Although the name AR-15
remains a Colt registered trademark, variants of the firearm are made,
modified, and sold under various names by multiple manufacturers."

The original AR-15 and military issued M-16s are not the same as current versions. Here is an article on more current issues.

lukkiirish, " So everyone has to just accept things as status quo because your
friends and people like them want to enjoy shooting these guns in their
back yard"

Where did I say my "friends people like them want to enjoy shooting these guns in their back yard?" The only time I have shot anything in my yard (rural area) was to kill a raccoon with distemper (Sheriff told me to shoot it/animal control verified) and a rattlesnake. There are numerous gun ranges within a 20 mile radius of our home(s). Hunting clubs are a dime a dozen. It is also illegal to shoot a weapon within X yards of another house, so I hope you see how ridiculous your comments sound.

I also never said we don't need any changes. When people (politicians, anti-gun civilians) start screaming from the rooftops after an incident, they just become raging lunatics of another variety to their pro-gun opponents.

Yes, because we just saw twenty six year olds shot to pieces. That should make anyone a raging lunatic.

Go read the details of Sandy Hook. It's on Wikipedia.

This depresses me completely. We pass plenty of laws that we expect will help increase the general level of safety with no expectation of 100% compliance. Other than the blessed NRA, why is any sort of measure associated with guns so different?

If one likes to target shoot with a powerful weapon, can you use some sort of non lethal bullets? Could the guns be safely stored at the gun club?

I would love to see any valid statistics on how frequently guns have been effectively used in home protection, and I am not talking shooting rabid wildlife

I have never heard of anyone protecting their home with an assault weapon.

The AR-15 is a military and civilian rifle that has been produced in many different versions. The term AR-15 was chosen by Colt for the civilian models it produced after selling the rifle to the U.S. military as the M16 rifle, and many people and references use the term AR-15 exclusively for civilian models.

However you spin it the fact remains the inventor never intended it for civilian use.

As for sport shooting there's no need for assault style rifles.

I've read the details of Sandy Hook.

Balls are getting dropped (article) and there are no good excuses.

Lisaam, the guns are safely stored by their owner(s) in gun safes.

Mayflowers, you can search "defend home with assault rifle" and come up with articles. Example of 5 homeowners.

The answer to the OP's question is pretty simple: No. It's abundantly clear that as a country we love guns more than our children. Everyone in the rest of the world can see that, although they mostly can't understand it, of course. Until that changes nothing else will. Just look at some of the posts in this thread.

Oh good grief...

Allison, in 2 of those examples I was surprised that someone was able to quickly reach for a weapon that seemed to have been loaded and ready.

A handgun would have worked in all of those situations.

An assault weapon's only purpose is as a fun toy. It has nothing to do with Second Amendment rights.

So are these people who are so adverse to changing gun laws protecting their right to own these automatic mass destruction assault rifles? This is what a lot of Americans have on hand in their homes?

In case you end up discussing this with gun enthusiasts who swear the type of gun is significant (why not the mentally ill gun owner?) the gun supposedly used in Orlando was the sig sauer mcx (not an AR-15) but it USES AR-15 type magazines- meaning it can fire a lot of bullets.

"Where did I say my "friends people like them want to enjoy shooting these guns in their back yard?" The only time I have shot anything in my yard (rural area) was to kill a raccoon with distemper (Sheriff told me to shoot it/animal control verified) and a rattlesnake. There are numerous gun ranges within a 20 mile radius of our home(s). Hunting clubs are a dime a dozen. It is also illegal to shoot a weapon within X yards of another house, so I hope you see how ridiculous your comments sound.

I also never said we don't need any changes. When people (politicians, anti-gun civilians) start screaming from the rooftops after an incident, they just become raging lunatics of another variety to their pro-gun opponents."

Your right, you didn't say back yard, but your statement(s) refer to just your little neck of the woods when the laws are actually different depending on where one lives. My neighbor (also a gun enthusiast, rural and has never killed anyone) has a shooting range on his 5 acre property, in his back yard so my statement was not unrealistic. And it does imply that their joy time is a valid reason to keep the laws status quo. However, that's just knit-picking and not really the point is it? The point IMO, is that just because there are people who enjoy shooting high powered weapons and aren't killing anyone doesn't mean that the laws still don't need to be changed. Frustrating absolutely, but bad people ruin things for good people all the time. For example, people who take opiates for cancer pain aren't over dosing on them or out selling them on the street, but because of the people who are, they have to pay more and jump through hoops to get their much needed medications. So just like with opiate drugs, changing the laws to protect the general public will be a price those joy shooters may have pay at the bad guy's expense. So blame the bad guys, not the raging lunitics.

And btw, we raging lunitics who don't want anymore of our children and loved ones killed, have really had enough. We're not going to just shut the h*ll up and let it be. People supporting change are the majority and getting angrier and angrier, I believe that eventually we will find a way to make it happen.

So again, imagine that one of the victims listed below is someone you love. Try to imagine how it would feel to know that your loved one was injured or killed and there was a chance it could have totally been prevented if....

• BTW Allison, I never said that you specifically said that you weren't for change, that was a new thought in a new paragraph, but if you do feel change is needed then Hallelujah, that's one down and how many thousands more to go.

And btw, we raging lunitics who don't want anymore of our children and loved ones killed have had enough and are not going to just shut the h*ll up and let it be. People supporting change are getting angrier and angrier, I believe that eventually we will find a way to make it happen.

Repeat over and over again.

Pleasure shooters will just have to adjust themselves, just like the rest of us have over everything else. It is absurd on the face of it to think that a locked up, unloaded gun of any sort is going to protect a shooter in an intruder emergency. Sure, it happens, but the opposite happens far more often.

And if guns aren't locked up unloaded except when in the hands of a registered, well trained shooter user, they are a dangerous threat to any and all in the vicinity. There is no other way to look at it.

Pleasure shooters - hunting clubs. How about we stop the violence against animals too.

Ok, let's. But first things, first, snookums.

Even Presidents Ford and Reagan (Saint Ron to some, it seems) supported banning the sale of assault weapons, from Politifact.....

a May1994 signed by Reagan and former Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter urging members of the U.S. House of Representatives to to support a pending bill banning assault weapons.

They wrote, "While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons."

Not sure what your point is, sheesh. I wasn't prioritizing. It was a statement on a culture of guns, violence. It's all intertwined.

I think maybe she was saying that hunting animals is a whole other discussion and should have its own thread???

The NRA sees ANYTHING in terms of restriction with firearms to be a threat.

And that's because the NRA isn't an organization for gun owners. It's an organization for gun makers and sellers. The almighty dollar is more important to them than the lives of kindergartners.

I thought this was a home and garden site. Imagine my surprise when I logged on to get advice about butcher block countertops and found myself on an msnbc comment thread. As a relatively objective outsider, I'm surprised that someone created a forum for something like this on what I value as a politically neutral website. The heartache, despair and frustration in many of the comments is palpable and my heart goes out to you as you seek safety and false reassurance through meaningless laws. Government is not overtly concerned with the plight of the individual and collective safety measures will sacrifice many of our liberties in the name of the greater good. Our personal safety ultimately rests with us. New laws and increased legislation are the answers sought by people who refuse to accept that evil exists in our world and it cannot be stopped by the well-intentioned restriction of our constitutional rights. This is not the same as saying we should do nothing. Perhaps the solution lies in better access to mental healthcare or in abandoning the political correctness that keeps many of us from saying something when we see something. I do not belong to the NRA but I am a responsible gun owner and I do feel very strongly about preserving the integrity of our entire bill of rights, including our 2nd amendment. The man who murdered the poor souls in Florida was committed to breaking laws, committed even to the forfeiture of his own life. I can't fathom that another law would stop him or others like him but I believe deep down that had he met armed resistance inside the club, prior to police intervention, perhaps one of the victims would instead be hailed as a hero. My argument is for re-examining the effectiveness of gun free zones and encouraging more people to become responsible gun owners.

Misty, very well said! I would have to agree 100%. I'm of the opinion this is a discussion for the hot topics forum, but because this is the conversation side, there are no dictates for subject matter.

Please, please click on this link. My youngest DD lives a few miles away, and her husband travels extensively, leaving the 2 kids and her alone. Please suggest an alternative.

http://kxan.com/2016/01/12/intruder-shot-during-dripping-springs-home-invasion/

She shot him once with a handgun, not 100 times with a fake uzi. Even in Canada people can have handguns in their home as long as they're properly secured (and you pass a second more restrictive application process).

Two other alternatives, call 911 (which she did) and tell the guy that (which she did not), and lock your doors which she did not.

Reading the article and the comments it seems this guy was pretty delusional and off his meds so I guess my third alternative would be comprehensive public medical and mental health care.

Signed, very happy with the gun control in Canada, a nation of hunters and very few mass shootings, where we still commemorate our Ecole polytechnique massacre of 15 nationwide every year since 1989...which btw spurred major additional gun control legislation. of course, according to older polling (2001-2009) most Canadians actually think private citizens shouldn't own guns at all! That obviously wouldn't fly with you guys.

Thank you, Robo!

I've reached the point of utter disgust at the Second Amendment argument. Stop with the handgun argument, please. This has never been about your right to purchase a handgun.

I'm disgusted that our Republican lawmakers are protecting your right to own a weapon that is used for entertainment and fun. I'm disgusted that you value that "freedom" more than human life. I feel sorry for you that you have an irrational fear of government taking away your guns so that you need to cling to your assault weapons and unreasonable interpretations of the Second Amendment. Yes, cling. I'm disgusted that our lawmakers have let the NRA buy them off and won't protect the lives of their constituents. Disgusted that they are only willing to hold a vote to put some laws in place now that it's a "Muslim terrorist". Nothing was done when it was only mentally ill white men doing the killing. Congress won't even pass the mental health bill, so there goes that solution.

Actually hunting is on the decline. More people go the the ballet than hunt...at least that is what the BBC was reporting yesterday. It was an intereting discussion. The speaker felt that there was nothing we could do about mass killings, but that better gun control would substantially reduce the suicide rate and a toddler's ability to get hold of a gun. He wanted a long period of paperwork, reasonable background checks and verification of ownership a secure gun locker before a gun purchase could be completed. There was no limit on the guns you could buy. I think those items are all reasonable but the NRA does not. The only way to deal with the NRA is to figure out who isn't taking their money and to vote for them in the upcoming elections.

I have to agree Mayflowers, this isn't about handguns, although I'd prefer not to walk around in public knowing that the people around me may be carrying, this debate is about the high powered weapons used in these mass killings. That's where I believe the compromise (from my perspective and that of so many others) comes in. We ARE willing to say don't like it but keep your handguns.

Unfortunately, whether the pro gun folks want to admit it or not, the NRA is pro MONEY and it just has it's pro gun users fooled into thinking this is about their 2nd Amendment rights when really it's not.

Misty, as pointed out earlier, this side of the board is not decor, it's conversations. It's also not Hot Topics, which has a very different style of conversation, one I perfer not to participate in for a number of reasons. We are allowed to discuss any topic we want. Though passionate, we're really good at staying civil with each other whereas in Hot Topics, that's not the case. I'm glad both you and Patty chose to participate as all opinions and points of view are welcome.

I should also say... My uncles and cousins are hunters, I love game meat, and deer can be a real nuisance animal around here as well as being delicious, so I'm actually probably more pro gun on average than the average Canadian. Of course one of my relatives also locked his little kid out of the trailer and called his ex wife to come over to see him commit suicide via shotgun (didn't follow through) so, I can see the anti suicide point to limiting guns. Canada has a real high firearm suicide rate compared to much of the EU.

I grew up in a family of avid hunters, and my DH and sons are also hunters. All guns and ammo are locked in safes, and we do not keep loaded handguns or any other type of loaded gun around. DH thinks the NRA is a bunch of lunatics, and he supports gun control. He is intelligent enough to realize closing the assault weapons loophole will not infringe on his rights as a law-abiding gun owner. I just wish others did. Enough is enough.

The Swiss do more of something like I think the founders imagined. Every male who is mentally and physically fit for military service gets called up for training upon turning 18. Not sure how long it lasts, maybe 6-12 months, and then they get issued a gun which they would then bring with them if they were called to defend the country. Not sure about the ammo. But anyway, you can buy a gun and ammo in most of Europe, but the restrictions are a bit tighter, not sure if they have the gun show loopholes like we do. I think Europeans are not as bothered by this because they don't have this really strong fascination with guns. Some people are big into shooting sports just like here, but I dunno, Europeans are just more world weary, war weary maybe, I mean they've been having violent uprisings for way longer than us. I met a Swiss man once who talked quite a bit about Europeans attitude towards guns and he felt Americans were immature about it. He felt the Swiss had a better attitude because they got training in responsible gun use from their military training. Of course he was a real Teutonic type of a guy, not at all loosey goosey, very formal in his manners. He found a lot of American behavior unruly, lol!

The Constitution is built upon "natural" principles which means they are build upon reason which we finally agreed applied to all humans. What could we reasonably expect a reasonable person to want to do. Yes, the founders wanted citizens to have the right to bear arms. But they were also educated men and lovers of reason, so I would like to see some of that come into the current gun debate. I don't know what to do about this violent culture that is escalating here in the US, but I do think as smart and reasonable citizens we can come up with some solutions. If we are at least allowed to research and talk about it and discuss it without absurd and untrue slogans being substituted for sincere efforts to learn about the causes and get something done. I'm like most posters here, I'm getting sick and tired of this being business as usual and acceptable. Some modest reforms might help, but so will addressing many aspects of this problem. There are clearly lots of alienated people here and abroad and we've got to figure out ways to make ourselves less vulnerable to the negative gang mentality that people get swept up in. We've chipped away at a lot of problems here in this country and made progress so it can be done. I know that young men in violent and unstable situations are very vulnerable to lashing out. Here in the US they join gangs of various ilks. But then again, Mateen had every chance to settle down and become a solid citizen (education, jobs, marriage, etc.) and he just couldn't do it. Lots of cases like this, then add this inflammatory rhetoric that is so easily accessible . . .

Hot button issue for some, indeed. Changing someone's mind is a losing battle, but I do feel encouraged to see what seems to be a turning tide in this debate. The words of the 2nd Amendment clearly state: a well regulated militia, after all.

Dahlia Lithwick @ Slate had this article not too long ago that spells out the core problem, IMO:

The Second Amendment Hoax /How the NRA and conservatives have perverted the meaning of the right to bear arms.

Well. The Senate voted down all 4 amendments. Damn.

Article

I guess we'll have to wait for the next mass shooting. Maybe that will reach their quota.

Please remember during the next election, These common sense measures were defeated:

"-In 1st vote, the US Senate blocks measure to increase funding and resources for national background check system

-In 2nd vote, the US Senate blocks measure expanding national background check system to close “gun show loophole"

-In 3rd vote, the US Senate blocks measure to delay gun purchases for suspected terrorists while seeking court ruling on sale

-In 4th vote, the US Senate blocks measure to prevent individuals on terror watch list from buying guns"

As long as children see violence on TV everyday, they will become more apt to see violence as normal life. Some of you need to live in the city I have been raised in, watch the news, examine the lives of most of our current local politicians. It's a shock.

My granddaughter goes to a nice high school which used to be considered upper scale. There are fights there every day. Over the weekend, there was a brawl at a local pancake house. I've never seen anything to equal the hatred, name-calling, violent behavior, throwing of furniture, pummeling, pulling of hair. All while one mother carried a screaming baby on her hip. This was not a short altercation, it went on and on. There was no stopping some of these people and I was only thankful there was no gun involved, but history here shows that someone in this scene will be avenged by shots fired at a participant walking down the street or an associated house shot up from a passing car. This is how this type of thing is avenged in our locality.

Sorry for the long post but I could write a book.