The head ball coach is exasperated:
I share that exasperation. I would propose a Constitutional Amendment to clarify the reach and scope of the current Second Amendment.
The purpose of the clarifications would be to:
- update and modernize the Second Amendment for today’s purposes
- enshrine specific rights that would no longer be subject to any future court’s interpretations
- allow flexibility between various state and local jurisdictions
My premises are that:
- the needs of a high-density urban communities are vastly different from low-density rural areas, and
- every American has the right to protect their homes and families with firearms suited to those purposes.
As such, what I would propose is an Amendment that would protect the possession of a loaded, single shot, bolt-action or pump shotgun or rifle inside of a dwelling by anyone not trespassing therein. That would mean that anyone, anywhere in America could have a firearm designed solely for home protection in their own home. You may have to put it in the trunk unloaded while traveling, but once you get inside your home you can lock and load.
However, if Idaho wants to permit someone to have an arsenal of AR-15’s and open carry, fine. Same with Georgia and Florida. If Atlanta (Fulton Co.) or Miami (Dade Co.) wanted to restrict/prohibit open carry or concealed carry they could do so. However, no state could “gerrymander” gun laws in order to apply more restrictive regulations in only certain areas. The local authority could, but if the state passes a law, it applies to every corner thereof.
If Virginia wants to pass a law that says that anyone over 18 can buy and possess basic hunting rifles and shotguns, but handguns and other types of weapons require some sort of increased age limit, licensing, training, certification, periods of renewal, etc… that would not only be allowed, but encouraged.
Could such a modification and structure, or any proposed alternatives/refinements you may suggest, be somewhat more effective than the total insanity that we are experiencing on a near daily basis? Wouldn’t we at least be able to hold federal, state and local officials to account when a nexus between lax laws/enforcement and tragedies manifest? Can we do anything other than not a damn thing while expecting a different result to magically appear?
Discuss.
This issue is one where there is no good solution. Criminals are going to skirt or ignore any gun control law on the books. Likely the same for a deranged or just flat out evil person who wants to engage in an active shooter incident.
We outlaw the distribution and sale of controlled substances, but yet we still have a supply of illegal drugs flowing into the country. Same will happen for illegal firearms.
I don’t know what the solution is that truly protects the rights of responsible gun owners while attempting to control the flow of firearms to those who aren’t.
All of this comes from someone who doesn’t own a gun and also believes in the 2nd amendment.
Its pretty undeniable that the rate of and carnage from mass shooting incidents has increased as particular types of guns have been made more and more available. I think that if you want to live in a community where AR-15s are not legally possessed you should have that opportunity. The inverse is true as well.
I seem to recall the argument against drug legalization/decriminalization being that usage would go up. Of course, in that event the impacted party would be volunteering to be a “victim.” Compare the harm done to a willing drug user theoretically due solely to the end of prohibition to a 3rd grader cowering under her desk trying to survive a mass shooting incident.
For drugs the attitude is: “oh we can do this with laws and prisons though zero progress has been made in 60 years” but for guns its: “yeah it gets worse and worse every day, but what can you do?”
I can’t square that.
Single shot for self defense. lol.
I asked a buddy of mine who has a number of firearms what he would suggest for home protection. He said a pump action 12-gauge because someone trying to enter your home will reevaluate their priorities when they hear the sound of a shell going into the chamber.
Wise man… Never made sense to me to wander around a dark house looking for an intruder with a pistol.
Rack that shotgun and stay where you are. If they keep coming you won’t have to be that accurate to terminate the problem. Chances are very good that they’ll just turn and leave the way they came.
“Never made sense to me to wander around a dark house looking for an intruder with a pistol.” Wise words, Derek. Outside of calling 911, PLEASE – your best home defense “gun” is the weapon system you know you can use the best. You fall to the level of your preparedness not rise to your hopes.
The people who scream the loudest about guns tend to be the people who know the least about them. There’s not going to be any gun control no matter how badly some might want it. Lotta reasons why. There’s only one reason our so called leaders would want gun control and it’s not your safety. If they have a fuck about safety they wouldn’t do a lot of the things they do.
You got that right:
“There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.”
Ronald Reagan 5/2/67
And a little later:
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/JU2JD7rgmYAsgW9V/?mibextid=6GsUZ4
I do think there are others though who are people of good will and who also promote reasonable regulations.
There are gun control laws:
no machine guns
Prohibition on felons and drug addicts and undocumented persons possessing guns
No silencers
Waiting periods
Whether you approve or disapprove of “gun control” it does exist now. The question is whether the lines we are currently drawing are putting the kids at greater risk than necessary when they go to school. Would additional lines offer more protection is the question.
Nah. I crash a gun wherever I want and nothing happens as a result. Maybe that’s gun control for n somebody’s head but that’s the only place.
I have an automatic shotgun only for back up. Now when I breach my 9mm Ruger it makes a hell of a sound too. I guess it’s an individual decision, but I prefer something compact that doesn’t get in the way. There’s no need to breach a pump action shotgun if ammo is already in the chamber. If someone enters your home, they may be locked and loaded too. If they hear that sound they may just start shooting.
I’m a bit too mouthy and slow footed to keep that thing loaded. I’m gonna need an extra step or two should the long suffering red head who lives there decide she’s had enough.
Every home is set up a bit different. I would have a bit of time to send out the warning and load it. And its going to take some doing to get through the bedroom door anyway, if someone were so inclined.
Its no “panic room” but I think it’ll do.
The downside of pistols for me is the need for accuracy. If someone is in my home I want to be playing “horseshoes and hand grenades” not Will Munny.
Not the choice I would make either. I chose a Remington 12 gauge pump.
In my view the disconnect is in the LEO/Legal system. It seems to me that in most of these shootings people afterwards say “we knew that kid/person was a problem”. Law enforcement sometimes reveals “there were red flags, shooter was questioned by us”. The disconnect is that lawfully executing warrants or effective deterrence can’t make it through the legal system, right? Furthermore, if we as a people loosen laws on warrants or intervention it opens the door for loss of liberty, which is why no politician would ever survive such a proposition.
Also, most young people that I know buy these rifles simply because they “better get it now while we still can”. It’s the 21-30 crowd mostly around me and some of them are LEO’s. I think it’s probably an issue with the general disdain on where our governments are leaning, or that’s the impression that they get sold on somehow, whether it’s parents or the news in general.
I also think that a lot of people fear the situation where weapons are tightly regulated for law abiding citizens resulting in bad actors being the only people with any weapon that they would want.
I think we all agree that it’s a problem. I also think it’s a legal/constitutional quandary where effective measures would degrade the rights of citizens which is rightfully a very uncomfortable subject. Derek, if you can’t tell, I largely agree with your post, just commenting/discussing.
“I also think that a lot of people fear the situation where weapons are tightly regulated for law abiding citizens resulting in bad actors being the only people with any weapon that they would want.”
That’s exactly where I am.
That’s why I included a specific, clear constitutional amendment. To permanently put those concerns to rest. Hard to get on with regulations if people think:
“If they take away the ar-15’s I’ll be murdered by an ar-15!”
“You mean like all those people were yesterday?”
“Exactly!”
While I don’t get the cause and effect argument, I do agree that we should specify and speak clearly on what we collectively think the floor is in terms of guns rights so that no government can successfully overreach. Nor should we have to live next door to or send our kids to school with the sons of parents who think an ar-15 with a folding stock is a really cool 14th birthday gift because not accepting that consequence is somehow a greater public safety risk.
The broader question is not about these mass shooting episodes … don’t get me wrong, they are awful. My heart hurts for those families in Barrow County and other places across America whose family members or friends were killed or injured. They also get the highest visibility because they advance a narrative and an agenda (I’m not saying you are doing that, Derek).
No one seems to care about the shootings that happen every week in many locations all over this country, and many of those occur in some of the places with most restrictions on the ownership and legal carry of firearms.
That’s why I say this issue is complex, and I don’t think many of our elected representatives at all levels are serious, deep thinking people.
If you look at the actual numbers rates of homicide by firearm are highest where guns are most available. Memphis, Birmingham, Atlanta, New Orleans, Jackson all have higher rates of gun deaths than New York City. The guns that are in the cities up north are bought “legally” in the South and shipped north and sold at premium. As such, if this region had the same restrictions as those other areas, their rates of gun related homicide would be even lower.
It depends on your definition of “tightly regulated.” Personally, I do not think things like requiring backgroud checks, age restrictions, permit/training requirmements, closing the gun show loophole, red flag laws, or outlawing certain gun modifications are unreasonable things to try if we can reduce gun deaths by even 10%. We now have over 40K gun-related deaths (many of which are suicides) every year. “Thoughts and prayers” is not a policy solution, it is meaningless virtue signaling from people who are fine with the carnage as long as it only impacts others.
Personally, I am a big proponent of personal responsibility, so most of your ideas make a lot of sense. I would go further to say that the most basic gun safety course should be compulsory, provided we could find teachers that were level-headed, unbiased, and unevangelical on the subject of guns. The amount of sheer misinformation about guns leads to tremendous amounts of fear, which makes people do really silly things, either by thinking they need 97 guns strategically stationed on every windowsill of their house or making people think that guns just go off of their own accord. I like the idea of further defining the second amendment and putting a lot of the onus back on the states and municipalities to individually mandate their own situations regarding ownership, although it becomes a bit more problematic with regulation without some sort of registration/enforcement/seizure.
To each their own, except for your own rifle/shotgun.
Ultimately, the people in each community, along with the elected officials, need to take accountability for these issues and quit acting as if doing nothing is going to start working one day. Get creative. Try things. Experiment. If someone comes up with something that is working, share and copy.
The crazies attack schools because of the lack of security. There is no deterrent.
Same reason people wear suicide vests and fly planes into buildings. What’s the worst that could happen really? You can always count on crazy people to act rationally.
What is the survival rate of a school shooter? I think its well under .500.
Maybe its just me, but I think they target schools because that’s where the kids are. Its pretty straightforward Wille Sutton logic in my book.
A building full on unarmed people. Seems like a more logical place to do it, considering they are not attacking highly secured areas.
The 2nd amendment is not for home protection. It is to defend against a possibly tyrannical government.
I was wondering when someone would go there. While I can’t dispute the correlation, I do think that train has left the building and a long time ago.
While having romantic notions of using your arsenal for freedom from tyranny may be admiral, I am convinced that any one or group of such wannabe 21st Century Founding Fathers would have a life expectancy measured in seconds.
Not only are the tools at your disposal far inadequate the same goes for resources and intel. Command and control is non-existent. No computers, no phones, no nothing. An infant would have a greater chance of becoming heavyweight champion of the world.
My personal belief is that if you met with one other person in a corn field in Iowa to discuss the over throw of the US government chances are about 99.9% that you are meeting with a fed.
So for me the idea that we have to stand by and watch people mow down third graders with an AR-15 so that one day a group of patriots can defeat the 101st Airborne is about the same logic as me refusing a vasectomy because one day Scarlett Johansson is going to have my child. There may be good reasons, but that ain’t one of them.
Argue all you want, but that’s why the 2nd amendment is there, and it can’t be violated as it’s the law of the land. Guns aren’t the only reason these things happen, which leaves many other areas of concern that can be addressed.
Who is suggesting that it be violated? If the Supreme Court has declared that you are entitled by the constitution to weaponry sufficient to defeat the US Marines I am unaware of it.
Many are suggesting it.
In my opinion, the 2nd amendment entitles us to be armed sufficiently enough to deter a tyrannical government. If the supreme court declared otherwise, I believe they are wrong. At the time of its writing, the authors absolutely meant for it to respect arms equivalent to the government to which they were opposed, otherwise they never would have defeated the English. They indeed had weaponry sufficient to defeat the british army.
Sign me up for the ICBM.!
I see this “good luck against the US Army” argument a lot when someone brings up the 2nd Amendment as defense against a tyrannical government. Yet, our superior military could not even defeat a bunch of well-armed cave dwellers in Afghanistan, or dudes wearing black pajamas hiding in the tunnels of Vietnam. We gave up and left each time rather than blowing the whole thing to hell via nukes. When you have a well armed populace you have a deterent against an invading army and a chance to hide, organize and fight back via urban combat should someone, anyone, come in and decide to rape and pillage your community. When you don’t, you have modern day Ukraine, who’s citizens all had to flee their cities as soldiers rolled in from Russia. They are now refugees scattered all over the world. I’ll keep my guns and hope like hell the 2nd Amendment remains unchanged and our country unified behind our Bill of Rights thank you very much. The real problem we face in this country is not guns, but unchecked mental health among our citizens.
These are two different things. Do I think a well trained, armed group could cause a shit ton of trouble if they decided they ain’t coming off the mountain? You’re gd right they could. Could probably stay as long as they wanted and it would probably be best to leave them be. That’s a far different matter than changing gubmits. Do I think that armed militia gets to decide who is or isn’t “tyrannical” and thus should have the benefit of filling some widow’s husband with rounds from an AR-15 in the off chance that they’re right? Not really I don’t. Doesn’t occur to me to ensure maximum carnage.
I do appreciate that we’ve moved on from deciding that the four kids at Kent State deserved to be shot dead while standing unarmed and observing to arguing that they were constitutionally entitled to shoot some Ohio National Guardsmen down with weapons produced for such a purpose. I must have missed a day of Civics. Has american conservatism devolved into the Symbionese Liberation Army at long last? Who knew we’d come to this?
Finally, its good to know that you can “check” on everyone’s mental health without breaching a constitutional right. How long to you propose we each be housed at the designated facility for observation? As long as it takes I suppose.
Regardless of what side of the aisle you’re on in re these issues or politics in general, you want to tread lightly when it comes to calling for constitutional amendments. When a Constitutional Convention, a necessity for any amendment, is in session, there’s not much to prevent the passage of or cancellation of, any other amendments they may want. The Rights we hold so dear would be wide open for change, or even ellimination.
Has that ever happened?
No amendment even the repeal of prohibition has come from a convention of states. Every one of them has been passed by a supermajority of both houses of Congress and ratified by the states.
First off, Derek, thank you for a well-reasoned and concise analysis of an extremely volatile topic. I’m intrigued by your assertion that a “states’ rights” approach might be the best way to make progress in curbing gun violence in this country. It’s senseless, illogical, and not in society’s best interest to continue allowing firearms to dominate our lives. “Tots and Pears” aren’t working.
In 2021, the most recent year for which complete data is available, 48,830 people died from gun-related injuries in the U.S., according to the CDC. In comparison, there were 43,000 car accidents, but fewer than 1% resulted in fatalities. Apples and oranges?
In 2022, there were 283,400,986 registered vehicles in the U.S. Meanwhile, the Small Arms Survey reported that American civilians own an estimated 393 million firearms—about 120.5 for every 100 American residents. One of these is a means of transportation; the other, an effective tool for killing.
Does the Second Amendment obligate every American to own at least one firearm? For those who believe that firearms are the only thing preventing the government from breaking down their doors and making them watch drag shows on NPR, look no further than Waco and Ruby Ridge. No amount of personal firearms will stop a tyrannical government from using a Bradley vehicle with a battering ram to assert its power. So why are we allowing this obsession with firearms to kill our children?
According to the FBI, “The number of officers assaulted and injured by firearms reached a 10-year high in 2023, with approximately 466 officers affected.” Meanwhile, CNN reports that firearms accounted for 18% of childhood deaths (ages 1-18) in 2022, with about 3,500 children dying in gun-related incidents.
Your child is more likely to die from a gun than a police officer on patrol. How does that not sink in? How has the daily schoolyard shooting become someone else’s problem? Why are we still content with our elected officials echoing “Tots and Pears”?
I could continue, but I’d risk matching Derek’s verbosity. JK, Derek, you da man! In my opinion, the solution is to regulate guns like we do automobiles: register every firearm, license each owner after passing a test, and insure every firearm with liability coverage based on the underwriter’s evaluation. A 410 shotgun in Montana would have a lower premium than an AK-47 in Atlanta. Discounts could be offered for gun safes, additional training, and trigger locks.
“When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns,” some will say. I remember that phrase well from the 60’s. I thought at the time, at least it would make them easier to spot. Nowadays, I can’t tell if the guy behind me at CVS, openly carrying a seventeen shot Glock, is there to “protect the neighborhood” or to “by God get this Oxy prescription refilled.” We shouldn’t have to question his intent, and police shouldn’t have to worry about what’s behind a door when serving a warrant. Reducing their anxiety might help them handle the less volatile situations as well.
Let’s let the insurance companies handle this—they’re the only ones big enough to take on the gun issue and it requires no backbone from Congress. A “state’s rights” amendment to the 2nd would provide cover for the RWNJ’s and allow municipalities to protect their citizenry.
We may not all agree on the details but as SOS suggests, doing not a damn thing is shameful.
Contrary what the esteemed “gun enthusiast” Old Ball Sack spouts in this video about AR-15s (the AR stands for ArmaLite Rifle, not Assault Rifle), many firearms instructors, at least in my neck of the woods in south Georgia, recommend AR-15s as home defense guns. Shorter barrels and stocks allow for better movement throughout the home as opposed to standard rifle and shotgun lengths. The lighter recoil of these guns allow men of smaller stature and women to shoot these guns, as well. Also, these guns can be used for hunting game and are currently used for that purpose by many. Long story short – he’s talking out of his ass, as usual.
They are also the leading choice for people who shoot lots of school children. I’m sure it’s happenstance.
“Can we do anything other than not a damn thing while expecting a different result to magically appear?”
The first suggestion is to talk about the real problem. Guns cause school shootings as much as water causes drowning. A few years ago someone drove through a Christmas parade. Why didn’t anyone blame the automobile?
I don’t consider myself pro or anti gun. But I am for solving real problems. But in order to solve a problem you have to identify the root cause. No inanimate object is the root cause and it is disingenuous or ignorant to suggest otherwise.
Save for the fact that the number of incidents and deaths have gone up as the availability of the AR-15 has increased. If you avoid that clear factual correlation, the nature of the weapon is irrelevant.
Have you, like I, wondered why only MP’s can carry firearms with live rounds on a military base? My guess is that all of the commandants are commie pinkos and/or total morons.
“Save for the fact that the number of incidents and deaths have gone up as the availability of the AR-15 has increased.”
I think if you look sincerely there have been several other more pivotal and impactful societal changes that correlate to that same time period than the weapon availability.
I can’t locate a sincere suggestion as to what those “several other more pivotal and impactful societal changes” might be in your response.
Convince me.
Look at the number of single parent and no parent homes today (last 20 years) versus 1960’s.
It doesn’t matter the race or religion the stats are all similar.
Look at the number of mass shootings by date and you see 2012 as the date they began to spike with a total of 7. The prior 30 year average was 1.8 per year. During that time the high was 5 the low was 0. Since that time the low has been 2 and the high is 12. Yet during that time the weapon you refereed to has been just as readily available.
Even when there was a so called ban for about 10 years there was no shortage of these weapons.
So if it isn’t the weapon what is it? What happened in 2012 that caused the spike? It would appear to me that the combination of my fist sentence coupled with the steep increase in social media has led us to where we are. During that time period those are the largest two societal changes that negatively impacted the mindset of people especially those vulnerable to the attraction to commit such an act.
But for the fact that neither Columbine shooters were raised in single parent homes and it happened way before social media came into prominence you’d be onto something.
The occurrence of interest in or ready access to AR-15’s without a father figure around is no doubt low.
Sorry for the delay, unfortunately WordPress only seems to recognize my login from my office.
If you want to break down the cause for each and everyone of the mass shootings I and I dare say you also, do not have anywhere near the information required to do that. But if you want to talk trend and when and possibly why it happened then I believe the conclusions I reached were correct.
In addition since young people as a rule are much more impressionable then the fact that many of their friends are in homes without a father may have a bearing on their thought processes enough to impact their decision making.
Another thing to consider is the extremely wide use psychiatric drugs (many if not most of the mass murderers were on them) today that was absolutely not the case in the 80’s and 90’s. So there are many possibilities other than the one it is obviously not.
Again “The occurrence of interest in or ready access to AR-15’s” is no less at the beginning of this time period (pre increase in mass shooting) than it is in the current period. Therefore that cannot be the reason or cause.
The issue isn’t “causality.” The issue is efficiency. People motivated to kill as many people as possible choose weapons suitable for that purpose and use high capacity magazines. The only proof I need of that is the nature of the firearms and magazines employed in these events. Its almost always an AR-15. Why? Because its suited to the job. Its never a pump shotgun or a bolt action rifle and for obvious reasons. If thats all the person had it wouldn’t get the job done and they might jit do it OR they wouldn’t do it with the same lethality. You might get the occasional guy in a tower, but most 3rd graders will be out of range.
When terrorists hijacked planes and flew them into buildings we didn’t blame the culture and stop there. We took other measures suited to prevent those events. Because thats what you do. You take away the tools and the opportunity. You don’t naval gaze about how we can have a world without killing.
So yes, if Eve doesn’t bite the apple, we wouldn’t need a machine gun ban, but she did and I don’t think anyone needs access to weaponry that provides the capability to kill dozens of people in seconds while we work on the whole “fall of man” problem.
I listened to the ol’ Ball Sack twice and still can’t figure out who he’s blaming for what he calls “these school shootings”. Sounds like in his mind it’s
the gun store’s fault
or the gun laws’ fault
or American citizens who support rifle ownership’s fault
or the rifle’s fault
wonder why he never mentioned it being the criminal’s fault
Maybe he should stick to football. Just a thought.
I think, like many of us, that he believes that high powered rifles in the wrong hands are leading to a lot of school shootings and its shameful that we aren’t doing anything to try and put a stop that.
And instead we act confused and/or helpless as children die in our schools.
I think he thinks thats pathetic.
Late to the party, been traveling a bit.
The school district I work for is next door to Barrow. Trust me…just like everything else this type of thing can seem “Unpossible! That can’t happen here!!” until it happens in your backyard. I do facilities maintenance so most of the security measures in place fall on my team to maintain. We spend ridiculous amounts of taxpayer money and time to TRY to keep our kids safe without turning our campuses into minimum security prisons (which they already are). For the record: Barrow County has basically the same measures in place that we do. This type of tragedy cannot and will not be stopped or really even slowed down without some drastic measures and yes, some type of firearms control needs to happen.
First: School safety. I personally am at the point where students should adhere to a dress code, carry only a clear bag, pass through a turnstile AND a metal detector. Draconian, right? But… That’s where we are.
Next: Gun Control. I am a shooter and a collector of firearms. That said, there needs to be some sort of license acquired by proper instruction and testing required to purchase or possess a firearm of any sort. It should be tiered. Derek makes the damn good point that while my old H&R Topper 20 is lethal, it’s not nearly so much so as my AR.
There are measures that could be taken to at least start getting a handle on the issue. You can’t get a hunting license in GA without passing a safety course. (There is an attest clause) Firearms used to take game are pretty strictly regulated. In that vein I do not think myself or anyone else should be allowed to possess a firearm without proving at least some proficiency and understanding of the responsibility that goes with it.
As far as fighting tyranny? I don’t care to spend the rest of my days starving, sick, and hiding in a cave. LMAO. To paraphrase some of what has been said here and my good friend RangerRuss; “They already know who you are and what you have. If it comes to it, they’re not gonna shoot it out with you…”
Friend of mine once said “If people are shooting each other for a box of pop tarts I’m outta here”.
I think a good starting point would be for LEO’s/Agency people to be able to act on “red flags”, not just be aware of them. As Derek noted, that’s no small task. Our government isn’t known for being efficient and accountable…..