Abbott refers to mass shooting victims as "illegal immigrants"

More guns, more deaths: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

 

Actually the constitution reads,

"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."

would seem to indicate that bearing arms is necessary for a well regulated Militia. It's interesting that it has been twisted to mean individuals and the Militia reference is completely ignored.

 

It's at least in part a practical matter. Given that Red State Americans seem to love their guns more than they love their children, disarming them would be a difficult and dangerous undertaking. Besides...there is a counter example that deserves some study I think. Mexico has the strictest gun laws you will find anywhere. Mexico also has criminal gangs that in places supplant the local governments through violence and terror. Is there a connection? I don't know but I also suspect that no one knows for sure.

 

Well, I've never seen any seriously proposed laws that involved taking guns away from their owners. I've seen voluntary "buy back" for guns but not forced removal.

US has the most guns and the more guns we get the more dangerous the statistics say it is. Comparing gun deaths in the USA versus anyplace else, I think, makes it clear that more guns does not make us safer, just the opposite.

 

Gee, I wonder where those gangs get the guns and the money to buy them? What could it be?

 

I don't see how that view can be reconciled with "A well regulated militia," which is, by definition, an organization (collective).

Better still: The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. But it doesn't specify which arms. We could easily outlaw guns. A bow and arrow set meets the Constitutional requirement.

But what about all those guns out there? The number of gun owners is a distinct minority, most of whom would comply with the law, even if they didn't like it. That would leave those who chose to become criminals by refusing to comply.

But..."if you outlaw guns, only criminals will have guns." Umm...no. Let's not forget police, the National Guard, the Armed Forces, sheriffs, marshals, FBI, ICE, CBP.... And better guns, too. Nice AR-15 ya got there. Let's see how that does against a GAU-8.

We could do it as a society. We don't want to.

 

46% of the world's firearms in civilian hands are owned in the US. That's 393 million guns - more than one for every American. (About 120 guns per 100 population.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_ownership Yet Rich is right. "Among those who live in rural areas, 46% say they are gun owners, compared with 28% of those who live in the suburbs and 19% in urban areas."
From here: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/

So - forever after, Americans have to take the bad with the good? Amendments to the Constitution have been repealed before. For example, the Volstead Act (Prohibition). I think that was the 19th Amendment.

I certainly believe that!!

 

Gallup says 32% of Americans own guns. Your numbers support the notion that those gun owners average several guns each. Okay. But that wasn't what I was saying.

One-third, I think, qualifies as a "distinct" minority.

 

It certainly does. Sorry, Rich. You'll notice I rewrote the post after I got proper info and wised up. Yes - a distinct minority, for sure.

I apologize for my error - but at least I managed to correct it -- even with the 10 minute timer.

 

But it points to a massive issue: America's fetish with guns. See, it's not just the 33% who own guns, or the 44% of households with guns in them. It's the rest of us chuckleheads who abide by it all.

It isn't a problem for the US on the world stage, and it doesn't really impact us macroeconomically. It's just that it's horrid, mean, violent, and random. I don't like that.

 

"Fetish" is the right term.

 

Easy solution: anyone can own as many guns as they want. As much ammo as they want.

But no model newer than what was available in 1787.

 

Most of my relatives are Republican. They generally have lots of guns. They have some heavy duty arsenals. These are "needed" in case it becomes necessary to protect our country. At least that is the thinking. I guess the idea is some foreign power might take over or the government "turns bad" and must be over thrown.

Here's an interesting statistic.
"Just 3 percent of American adults own half of the nation's firearms, according to the results of a Harvard-Northeastern survey of 4,000 gun owners. Sep 19, 2016"

I probably have 2 or 3 relatives that fall into that 3%. They are very responsible gun owners. Meaning they keep their guns locked in a safe and are very careful and safe when they take them out or go shooting. I really have no problems with that kind of gun ownership. I consider it highly unlikely that their guns will ever be used in a mass shooting or anything like that.

Personally I believe we'd be better off with common sense gun laws being passed at the national level. Things like making weapons of war illegal outside the military. Universal back ground checks, red flag laws, etc

 

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense.

How is a militia anything but a collective?

 

Steve is correct. You are thinking collective in the sense of an activated militia or the sense in which the body is potentially available.

The militia was made of individual "citizen soldiers" (ordinary people going about the business of daily life until called upon). Them having their weapons available and maintained was important to defense and protection of the community.

A famous court case (Columbia vs Heller) extended that to include protection of homes and so on.

Somewhat similar concept in Switzerland where men between certain ages are trained and given weapons (may purchase their own weapon).

"The 2017 report from Small Arms Survey has estimated that the number of civilian-held firearms in Switzerland is of 2,332,000, which given a population of 8.4 million corresponds to a gun ownership of around 27.6 guns per 100 residents."

This stat seems to be the one commonly
used (eg by business insider).

 

I understood what Steve was saying. The misunderstanding I had was caused by not appreciating the difference in society of 1785 and now. The "local militia" was similar to the local "fire department" at the time. The local fire department was simply citizens not professional fire fighters. So the local militia might be called up or activated in the case of say an Indian attack or a gang of criminals or something similar. Now, this type need is no longer an issue in our modern society.