Yet another mass shooting - Umpqua Community College, Oregon

[DavidSnider]

Yes. It "only" requires a 2/3 majority vote by both the Senate and the House of Representatives, followed by approval by 3/4 of the state legislatures. Have at it.

There are people living today who have seen this happen 10 times... not sure what all the eye rolling is about.

 

[nsaspook]

There are people living today who have seen this happen 10 times... not sure what all the eye rolling is about.

It's possible but extremely unlikely with the original bill of rights and I would hope we learned an important lesson with two of those 10.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution had ushered in a period known as Prohibition, during which the manufacture, distribution, and sale of alcoholic beverages was illegal. Passage of the Eighteenth Amendment in 1919 was the crowning achievement of the temperance movement, but it soon proved highly unpopular. Crime rates soared under Prohibition as gangsters, such as Chicago's Al Capone, became rich from a profitable, often violent black market for alcohol. The federal government was incapable of stemming the tide: enforcement of the Volstead Act proved to be a nearly impossible task and corruption was rife among law enforcement agencies.[1] In 1932, wealthy industrialist John D. Rockefeller, Jr. stated in a letter:

When Prohibition was introduced, I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would soon come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognized. I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result. Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-first_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The amendment was repealed in 1933 by ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment, the only instance in United States history that a constitutional amendment was repealed in its entirety.

 

[SteamKing]

There are people living today who have seen this happen 10 times... not sure what all the eye rolling is about.

Yeah, but those people are over 100 years old and are unlikely to have remembered when some of those amendments were passed by Congress and sent to the states for ratification.

The 27th Amendment was ratified in 1992 and has the distinction of being the latest change to the Constitution and the one which took the longest.

What few know is that this amendment was originally one of 12 amendments passed by the first Congress in 1789 and sent to the states for ratification. Ten of those amendments were quickly ratified and became the Bill of Rights. The eleventh and twelfth amendments in that package were not ratified at the time and languished for years as new states entered the Union. The 27th Amendment was ratified by a bunch of states between 1978 and 1992, finally gaining the required approval by 3/4s of the state legislatures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

[Astronuc]

There are people living today who have seen this happen 10 times... not sure what all the eye rolling is about.

Not many born in 1919 are still alive. The 18th amendment was passed in January 16, 1919, then repealed by the 21st Amendment on December 5, 1933.

The 12th Amendment (June 15, 1804) was the first amendment modified or superseded by a later amendment - Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment (January 23, 1933).

The 14th Amendment (Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.) was modified by Section 1 of the 26th Amendment (Passed by Congress March 23, 1971. Ratified July 1, 1971.). The modification was to change the voting age from 21 to 18 years.

http://www.ushistory.org/documents/amendments.htm
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html

However, to my knowledge, none of the Bill of Rights has been modified or superseded, and I would expect that is unlikely.The Second Amendment provides for well-regulated Militia, since there was no standing Army.

Amendment I - 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.

That applied to single shot pistols and muskets. Had guns and rifles with high capacity magazines been in existence, perhaps the Amendment would have been written differently. The implication is that any man with a gun could be called up for service in the Militia - and subject to some regulation or discipline - which doesn't seem to be case necessarily for folks owning guns now.

 

[Astronuc]

http://news.yahoo.com/oregon-gunman-killed-himself-police-shot-him-173148263.html

Authorities have said the gunman's mother told them her son was struggling with mental health issues, but no details have been released.

Harper-Mercer and his mother shared a love of firearms and would go to shooting ranges together.

Like Adam Lanza.

 

[nsaspook]

The Second Amendment provides for well-regulated Militia, since there was no standing Army.

Amendment I - 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.

That applied to single shot pistols and muskets. Had guns and rifles with high capacity magazines been in existence, perhaps the Amendment would have been written differently. The implication is that any man with a gun could be called up for service in the Militia - and subject to some regulation or discipline - which doesn't seem to be case necessarily for folks owning guns now.

The Oregon state Constitution/laws are much clearer.

Article 1, Section 27 of the Oregon Constitution states: “The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]”

2009 ORS § 166.170¹

State preemption
(1) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly.

(2) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, no county, city or other municipal corporation or district may enact civil or criminal ordinances, including but not limited to zoning ordinances, to regulate, restrict or prohibit the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition. Ordinances that are contrary to this subsection are void. [1995 s.s. c.1 §1]

 

[Astronuc]

Murphy’s Law - I hope Congress gives this serious consideration and if viable passes such a law.
Tim Murphy (R-Pa), a seventh-term congressman, a clinical psychologist of 40 years, and a commander in the Navy Reserve, still treats traumatized soldiers at Bethesda Naval Hospital.

After the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, Murphy, who leads a subcommittee on government oversight and investigations, asked the Republican leadership if he could look into government programs that are supposed to address the most severe and violent kinds of mental illness. His investigation led him to write the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act, known familiarly in the Capitol by its bill number, 2646.

Murphy’s sprawling bill would amend the existing federal privacy laws, so that in cases of serious mental illness (and only in those cases), a consulting doctor would have the ability to call the patient’s parent or caregiver and share information about medications and follow-up treatment. Not incidentally, that’s when a doctor might also learn something about guns in the home.

That same loosening of the privacy laws would apply to universities and other institutions, so that administrators could let parents know if a student had been treated for an acute bout of mental illness.

Cheers to Tim Murphy!Meanwhile - Northern Arizona University student kills one, injures three with handgun: police
http://news.yahoo.com/northern-arizona-university-student-kills-one--injuries-three-with-handgun--police-140215971.html

 

[gfd43tg]

Does He really fear an attack from our government. Did our founding fathers fear that too?

Of course they did, do you think the 2nd amendment was made for duck hunting??

 

[mheslep]

Murphy’s Law - I hope Congress gives this serious consideration and if viable passes such a law.
Tim Murphy (R-Pa), a seventh-term congressman, a clinical psychologist of 40 years, and a commander in the Navy Reserve, still treats traumatized soldiers at Bethesda Naval Hospital.

Cheers to Tim Murphy!


Meanwhile - Northern Arizona University student kills one, injures three with handgun: police
http://news.yahoo.com/northern-arizona-university-student-kills-one--injuries-three-with-handgun--police-140215971.html

Rep Murphy has authored an article in today's paper on the bill. Why the bill doesn't go farther is a mystery. In addition to the violent mentally ill, the bill is bound to help the mentally ill portion of the homeless population.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/mass-shootings-and-a-mental-health-disgrace-1444346679

 

[Astronuc]

One killed, one wounded in shooting near Texas Southern University
http://news.yahoo.com/texas-southern-university-lockdown-nearby-shooting-media-171423983.html#

Northern Arizona University student kills one, injures three with handgun: police
https://www.yahoo.com/news/northern...ies-three-with-handgun--police-140215971.html

Northern Arizona University Police Chief Gregory T. Fowler identified the gunman as 18-year-old student Steven Jones and said he used a handgun.

Jones has been charged with one count of first degree murder and three counts of aggravated assault. His first appearance in front of a magistrate is scheduled for Friday afternoon.

The suspect allegedly fired his gun at 1:20 a.m. during a confrontation that spiraled out of control outside Mountain View Hall on the northeast side of the campus.

Jones had stopped shooting the firearm by the time campus police arrived and did not attempt to flee the scene, . . .

I don't think arming students would work. All it takes is for someone to get pissed off during a dispute and use a gun. What would happen if several people pulled guns in the heat of the moment and started blazing away? What about folks caught in the cross fire or side fire?Meanwhile, Obama visits Roseburg.
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-focusing-condolences-not-gun-laws-oregon-visit-073323382--politics.html

 

[nsaspook]

One killed, one wounded in shooting near Texas Southern University
Northern Arizona University student kills one, injures three with handgun: police

Meanwhile, Obama visits Roseburg.
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-focusing-condolences-not-gun-laws-oregon-visit-073323382--politics.html

These two shooting are really unrelated to the subject of mass killings. They mainly reflect the willingness to use deadly force easily in today's culture for something that once ended with a fistfight.

I think Obama saying the issue is one "we should politicize" after the shooting was stupid and polarizing but his actions in Oregon was good for the affected families that wanted to talk to him.

 

[Astronuc]

These two shooting are really unrelated to the subject of mass killings. They mainly reflect the willingness to use deadly force easily in today's culture for something that once ended with a fistfight.

On the other hand, some advocate arming teachers and students with guns in order to protect themselves from folks who plan mass shootings. I agree with the second statement, which is why I addressed the matter of arming many folks with guns. How many conflicts would escalate into shoot outs?

In Obama's case, I think "politicize" was perhaps a poor choice, probably since it was taken out of context. I don't think he meant to politicize meaning to make it a "us vs them", or D vs R, issue, but rather, the matter needs to be discussed in the broader society and a viable solution developed.

How do we prevent violence (mass shootings), or does society decide it's a problem that doesn't require preventative action? Or it's not a problem, but an acceptable price for some to be allowed to bear arms?In the past, I've walked into establishments that serve alcohol and seen signs that indicate weapons are not allowed. There is a good reason (impaired judgement) for preventing folks from carrying guns into places where they will consume alcohol. Growing up, I remember hearing news reports on the radio of folks getting stabbed or shot in or near bars, usually on a Friday or Saturday night. Sometimes there were 2 or 3 events in a single night. Bar fights were quite common.

 

[jtbell]

Does He [Ben Carson] really fear an attack from our government. Did our founding fathers fear that too?

Of course they did, do you think the 2nd amendment was made for duck hunting??

I suspect they were thinking of attacks from native Americans, the British, etc.

Note that George Washington himself led an army to put down an armed rebellion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

 

[jtbell]

some advocate arming teachers and students with guns in order to protect themselves from folks who plan mass shootings.

Suppose an event takes place with the teacher and/or fellow students firing their weapons in order to take down the assailant. Several people die. After the dust clears, it turns out that one of those bullets took down one of the students, and/or the teacher. What do we do then? Do we simply say, "Oops. Stuff happens."? How would you feel if you were the one who fired the fatal "friendly fire" bullet?

 

[nsaspook]

Suppose an event takes place with the teacher and/or fellow students firing their weapons in order to take down the assailant. Several people die. After the dust clears, it turns out that one of those bullets took down one of the students, and/or the teacher. What do we do then? Do we simply say, "Oops. Stuff happens."? How would you feel if you were the one who fired the fatal "friendly fire" bullet?

I don't see much of that actually happening in reports of citizens stopping armed assaults in states with concealed carry. It's a possibility sure, just like it's possible for us to accidentally bomb a hospital in war. barack obama personally apologises The difference is intent to do harm. The police have accidentally shot and killed many because of "friendly fire" in the exercise of their duties. I see no call to disarm them.

 

[gfd43tg]

I suspect they were thinking of attacks from native Americans, the British, etc.

Note that George Washington himself led an army to put down an armed rebellion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

I agree that it was for attacks, both foreign and domestic. Consider this excerpt from the Declaration of Independence

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

You can't overthrow an armed government without having arms yourself. I just had to respond even though its getting off topic from the OP. I'm happy the name of the shooter is not being released in order to avoid copycats who might want to get their name known.

Also just wanted to say that they will only get my guns if they pry them from my cold, dead hands. In the words of King Leonidas to Xerxes, Molon Labe!

 

[BobG]

It's possible but extremely unlikely with the original bill of rights and I would hope we learned an important lesson with two of those 10.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

When Prohibition was introduced, I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would soon come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognized. I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result. Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before.[2]

Just cause he said it doesn't mean it's true. Alcohol consumption is estimated to have dropped to 30% to 60% of pre-prohibition consumption levels (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohi...tates#Rates_of_consumption_during_Prohibition).

However, I'm not sure any of the studies conducted (nor the studies cited by Wiki) would really provide accurate results. Average alcohol consumption in the US is about 13 drinks a week. But, if you consume 13 drinks a week, that puts you well into the top 20% of alcohol consumption. There's a huge segment of the population (close to 40%) that consume no alcohol and another 20% that rarely consumes alcohol. Heavy drinkers skew the average much higher than rate of consumption of the typical person. It's heavy drinkers that would most likely exhibit the symptoms the studies were using for their analysis. In other words, prohibition was cutting significantly into the drinking levels of even heavy drinkers.

On the other hand, he is correct that reduced alcohol consumption came at the cost of higher alcohol smuggling/bootlegging related crime. And unstated was the loss of potential tax revenue caused by prohibition.

Ignoring the right/wrong of the issue, gun control would be an interesting effect. I think accidental gun deaths and the gun violence we see today would almost certainly decrease due to reduced availability (due to increased expense of guns), but gun violence related to gun smuggling would increase. I wonder which would be affected most.

 

[nsaspook]

Ignoring the right/wrong of the issue, gun control would be an interesting effect.

On a national scale similar to Prohibition the effect would IMO make the lost of civil liberty and expansion of the police state from the drug war look tiny in comparison.