Idiot Republican Solutions To Mass School Shootings

Mark writes:

"I have no problem with members of a well reguated Milita being allowed to store their guns in thier [sic] home when they are on leave from the military."

The Second Amendment makes no mention of "storing" firearms or doing so when "on leave."  (The Founding Fathers probably assumed it was unnecessary to guard against the Government infringing upon "the right of the people to store arms".)

Ahh, . . . words have meaning, . . .

[e.g.] bear arms - to carry or be equipped with weapons

. . . and then again words have legal meaning.

DonDiego counsels Mark to Google court decisions, especially Supreme Court decisions, which clarify the intention of the Founding Fathers that "well regulated militia" means all individual citizens whether members of an organized group or single persons.

Not every Justice may have agreed or, likely, agrees now, . . . but it is, nonetheless, the Law of the Land now.  DonDiego recognizes this interpretation may change at the whim of the Court, . . . but it is unlikely to change significantly with the presently seated Justices, . . . or Justices yet to be seated under the current Administration.

A well-regulated militia member does not mean average joe citizen.  Our founding fathers thought it meant members of a militia organized by state government.  I understand court decisions have gone back and forth, and I suspect they will again until they get it right.

What makes for an interesting comparison is the first amendment.  That amendment has no language limiting its scope like the second amendment does. Yet the court has invented all kinds of exceptions to the regulation of free speech including commercial speech, obscenity, speech by a minor, public safety, limiting free speech to so called free speech zones and so on.  Indeed, it has allowed some very heavy-handed regulation of speech. Given that, it is ludicrous to make the argument that 2nd amendment can’t be limited in a similar fashion.

Why not limit gun possession to special Second Amendment Zones?  It seems permissible to me given the case law.

There are none so blind as he who will not see.

From Wikipedia District of Columbia v. Heller:

quote

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.

endquote

n.b.

". . . individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia . . ."

Yes, I am aware of that case and sometimes the courts get things wrong.  As I said, at some point in the future, I think that ruling will be reexamined because that is certainly not what the founding fathers intended. But the case was a big win for lovers of judicial activism and encourages judical activism in other areas of Constitutional litigation.  

Who needs CNN or Yahoo when we have Mark?

It is always nice to be appreciated.

School shootings are extraordinarily rare. About 10 school children die each year in the US from gunfire. Your child has a 1 in 614,000,000 chance of dying at school tomorrow from gunfire. Hysteria does not help.

Neither do false statistics.

400 people killed in school shooting since 2012

Here's another true statistic.   More than 80% of AMericans want some degree of gun reform including a majority of Republicans.    That makes the NRA's position (along with their puppets in Congress) massively out of touch with America.   And thats bad news for Republicans facing an energized group of youths who normally dont vote.

Retired Republican Supreme Court Justice, John Paul Stevens:  "Repeal the 2nd Ammendment"

Link

"Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century."

P J Stroh writes:

"More than 80% of AMericans want some degree of gun reform including a majority of Republicans."

A source would add to the readers' understanding of publicly approved "gun reforms".

A quick twirl around the internets suggest the only gun-control issues receiving near/above 80% are i. expansion of background checks and  ii. a ban on 'bump stocks'.

[ see note i. below]

Very Recent Reference: 

AP NORC [Associated Press Non-partisan and Objective Research Organization at the University of Chicago”

https://www.apnorc.org/PDFs/March_2018_poll_guns/March%202018%20AP-NORC%20Poll%20Topline_guns.pdf

Even poor old DonDiego opines these two "gun reforms" pr'bly do not infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.   Why heckfire, . . . DonDiego had never heard the term "bump stock" until the Las Vegas shooting. 

note i. This poll also addresses limitations on gun ownership for the mentally-ill or self-destructive which meet the 80%-or-thereabouts approval level.  Poor old DonDiego opines some legal/Constitutional difficulties imposing such restrictions on the targeted populations; i.e. who decides  to whom it applies.