Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/29/neil-heslin-father-of-newtown-victim-heckled_n_2572503.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...503.html</a> If I felt like this was one person or an isolated incident, I wouldn't post it. But instead, I think it's indicative of how many gun owners respond. They are so emotionally attached to their guns it blinds them to just howw absurd they look, shouting out at a parent whose child was murdered barely six weeks ago. We see this sort of blind insensitivity replaying itself over and over across the country in the wake of Newtown.
Originally Posted By utahjosh So your anecdote is indicative of how others respond, but a story that goes against what you'd prefer to see is just a single case and should be ignored.
Originally Posted By utahjosh But I'll agree that the few here who "heckled" this poor man were insensitive and acting very stupidly. I don't know any second amendment advocates that would do that.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>So your anecdote is indicative of how others respond, but a story that goes against what you'd prefer to see is just a single case and should be ignored.<< The story notes "dozens" of people heckled him. And it's a scene we've witnessed since Newtown—a cluelessness that borders on comical, from the NRA's press conference to whole cities declaring they won't obey Obama's completely reasonable proposals, to gun owners repeating, ad nauseam, that they won't give up their guns, even though no one has proposed taking away their guns.
Originally Posted By ecdc The point being, that for a bunch of people who keep saying let's have a conversation and we're totally responsible, a lot of gun owners sure fly off the handle and react very emotionally to anything they don't like. Yeah, just the kind of people I want walking around armed.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer You have to wonder about these individuals. Heckling during a hearing is tacky. Being so focused on preserving your right - and the shooter's right - to have assault weapons that you'd yell out while the father of a kid who took several bullets from one was testifying shows a lack of compassion of sociopathic levels.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I don't know any second amendment advocates that would do that.<< In the days following the Newtown massacre, pro-gun stuff started popping up even before the first funeral was held. It was sickening. Just the other day, I "unfriended" someone on Facebook for the hateful, ugly pro-gun junk they were posting constantly. After seeing it daily for several weeks, I decided I didn't need that garbage in my life, clicked "block" and feel immeasurably better ever since. I have no doubt whatsoever that my "friend" would indeed say nasty things to anyone, including a Newtown parent, if they made even the slightest mention of gun control. Not all gun owners are ignorant, mean nuts. But a lot of ignorant, mean nuts own guns.
Originally Posted By Tikiduck I guess now that the initial shock has somewhat diminished, some people feel comfortable with this sort of thing. I do not condone it. However, the parent has placed himself in a political situation, endorsing measures that could infringe on the existing rights of others. To say he should be exempt from criticism seems a bit excessive.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>To say he should be exempt from criticism seems a bit excessive.<< 1) No one said that. 2) You're equating heckling with criticism; they aren't the same thing. 2) Criticizing him is an ad hominem fallacy. 3) Criticizing his ideas in a respectful fashion is game. These toxic people did none of that.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf "the parent has placed himself in a political situation, endorsing measures that could infringe on the existing rights of others" The whole "rights" of gun-ownership argument baffles me. Yes, an amendment to the constitution establishes the right to bear arms, but the same document also established other rights that have been taken away (slavery for example) and did not establish rights that would be given later (voting rights for women for example). The constitution is a remarkable document, but it is not perfect. Those who talk about their right to own weapons speak as if it is a divine right -- as if God him/herself wrote in stone with his/her finger. Personally, I think the right of a parent not to see a child massacred is more sacred than a person owning any sort of gun. So here is what I think the government should propose regarding gun ownership: Attention all gun-owners. Your right to own guns is beng threatened, but not by anyone other than yourselves. You have allowed guns to become acessible to just about everyone so that anyone struggling with depression, hurting in a bad relationship, or just having a bad day, has access to a super-efficient life-taking machine whenever they have a "what do I have to lose?" moment. Rights are being threatened, but they are the most sacred rights there are - the right to life, liberty and the pursut of happiness. Innocent people are losing this most sacred right due to the easy accessibility of guns. If you cannot come up with a way to prevent lives of the innocent from being taken, you are going to force your government to do so - and you won't like it. We will take each and every gun away. So be warned. Your right to own guns is indeed being threatened, but only because the right to live trumps the right to own a killing machine. In order to protect your rights, protect innocent life. There are ways to do it so get busy, otherwise we will.
Originally Posted By SuperDry << Yes, an amendment to the constitution establishes the right to bear arms, but the same document also established other rights that have been taken away (slavery for example) and did not establish rights that would be given later (voting rights for women for example). >> What you say is true, but I think it's a bit more complex than that. Both of those changes (abolition and women's suffrage) took Amendments to happen. I think we're a long way off from having a political climate where you could get an Amendment ratified that would remove the individual's right to bear arms for self-protection that's established in the Second Amendment. Consider what it takes to pass an Amendment: 2/3's approval of both the Senate and the House, as well as ratification by 3/4's of the states. That is, it only takes 13 states to be against a proposed Amendment to kill it, no matter what the popular vote would say about the matter. That's a very, very difficult hurdle to overcome on any issue that's controversial.
Originally Posted By fkurucz ^^All it would take would be a Supreme Court ruling on how to interpret the Second Amendment.
Originally Posted By SuperDry << All it would take would be a Supreme Court ruling on how to interpret the Second Amendment.>> There already has been one. The Heller decision in 2008 established that the Second Amendment provides for an individual right to bear arms, including for household self-defense, and that this right is not tied to service in a militia. It is interesting (actually, I'd say fascinating) that these key points were undecided/unknown, and subject to much debate and speculation for some 200+ years. But as of 2008, the meaning of the Second Amendment with respect to those issues is now known. Our entire constitutional system is based on judicial review, where when we have a situation where the meaning of the Constitution is vague, the Supreme Court is the body that makes the interpretation and their decision is final and binding (other than an Amendment, of course). It's not a matter for Congress or the President to have a binding different opinion. And, we have another important concept in constitutional matters known as "stare decisis." Roughly translated from Latin, it means "already decided." US courts, including the Supreme Court, are *very* reluctant to just "undo" what a previous court has decided on a particular issue. They might augment it, clarify it, or come to a different conclusion in a particular specific case based on some narrow, unique, and particular fact. But they don't just undo or reverse prior court's rulings on the same issue, *even if they themselves would have come to a different opinion had they been the ones to rule originally*. The importance of that concept can't be over-stated. It's totally different from how Congress or a President acts. It's not unusual for a presidential candidate to say during a campaign "If elected, on Day 1 in office I will do X, Y, and Z by Executive Order to reverse what the previous President did" and they often follow through with these promises, and that's considered for the most part an acceptable use of the system. Not so with the Supreme Court. Thankfully, we don't have wide, sweeping changes in existing interpretations of the Constitution every time the balance of opinion changes on the court. Judicial review is supposed to be above the political process, and in practice it for the most part is (at least as compared to what Congress and the President do). So, it's very unlikely that you're going to get a Supreme Court decision that does away with the notions of a) individual right, b) right to self defense, and c) lack of requirement of militia service in the Second Amendment, even if the balance on the court changes to be primarily liberal. People that find themselves sitting on the bench of the Supreme Court for the most part see their role of guardians of the process to be far more important than any individual decisions that they might disagree with. The cases where such a 180-degree change has been made on major issues are few and far between. The two cases that come to mind are the Dred Scott case, which was overturned by the 14th Amendment that banned slavery, and the "Separate but Equal is OK" case from the 1800's which was eventually overturned by Brown vs Board of Education in the mid-1900's. The first one took an Amendment to change, and the second one took decades before the Supreme Court was able to take the highly unusual step of an about-face that blatantly reversed a prior decision. Since I don't think an Amendment on gun control has any likelihood of overcoming an effective 13-state ratification veto, and that any about-face by the Supreme Court would be decades away, I don't think that a Constitutional approach is the way to go do address gun control. Having said all of that, I don't think that this means nothing can be done. Even with Heller, there are all kinds of restrictions on guns that pass Constitutional muster: highly-regulated possession of machine guns, no guns for convicted felons or domestic violence offenders, no guns for people with certain mental issues, no guns for drug addicts, mandatory background checks for purchases, licensing for concealed carry in public, etc. The list goes on. so, there's plenty that can be enacted via legislation to change things. For example, I doubt that the Supreme court would rule that an AR-15 specifically is required for home defense, nor are 30-round magazines. It's probably possible to require background checks for private sales, closing what some call the "gun show loophole." There's also registration. There are many others I'm sure. You might even be able to say that a handgun in particular is not necessary, as a shotgun is an effective means of household self defense. But let's put to rest the argument that you need to "join the army" in order to own a gun, or that people don't have a right to self-defense. Those issues have been settled.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer The Heller decision turned 200 years of precedence on it's head, thanks to the Roberts court. They've been doing that a lot. I think that the conversation is drifting to a focus on gun violence rather than gun ownership, so a constitutional amendment is unnecessary. You have the right to own guns, but that doesn't mean that the right is unlimited or unlicensed.
Originally Posted By SuperDry << The Heller decision turned 200 years of precedence on it's head >> It does? How? Well, unless you count the notion of not setting a precedence on the matter as precedence.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Gun ownership was never an individual right until Heller. Before then it was a collective right in the context of a militia.
