School Shooting Newtown CT

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Jeff OTMG

That scares me. A hot headed person CANNOT be allowed to carry a firearm. That is when the risk of a fender bender or road rage incident turns deadly.


I do not want all teachers armed for the very reasons you mention. I would like to see it as has been done in places like Harrold, TX. Maybe not even all the teachers who are qualified to carry should carry, but that opens up another can of worms.


Unfortunately, that is the truth.

And how, pray tell, do you propose we keep guns out if the hands of the "hot heads"? It's not a medical diagnosis. It's a character flaw.

[CutiePie2000]

I've noticed this photo, complete with spelling mistake, cropping up in Facebook, and other websites.

Please.....if you're wanting to honor the memories of the deceased, at least spell the name of their town correctly. It is NewtoWn, not Newton.

[Jeff OTMG]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

And how, pray tell, do you propose we keep guns out if the hands of the "hot heads"? It's not a medical diagnosis. It's a character flaw.

I have no idea. I might suggest that all permit holders or even gun owners be required to complete an MMPI and have it evaluated. I voluntarily took one some 30 odd years ago. Unfortunately we get into privacy issues, innocent until proven guilt, proving competency before exercising a right, there are many problems that need to be addressed. If we do this regarding 2nd Amendment rights then they must be applied equally to rights of free press, speech, expression, religion, and lawful assembly. A slippery slope.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by Jeff OTMG

I have no idea. I might suggest that all permit holders or even gun owners be required to complete an MMPI and have it evaluated. I voluntarily took one some 30 odd years ago. Unfortunately we get into privacy issues, innocent until proven guilt, proving competency before exercising a right, there are many problems that need to be addressed. If we do this regarding 2nd Amendment rights then they must be applied equally to rights of free press, speech, expression, religion, and lawful assembly. A slippery slope.

I don't think you can compare owning a gun (a physical, tangible item) to practicing religion.

As bizarre as it is for me to look at PA state liquor stores as a model, maybe that's the answer - un-privatizing gun sales. There are too many dealers out there who will overlook the requirements to get the $$$.

[Jeff OTMG]

Originally Posted by 33girl

I don't think you can compare owning a gun (a physical, tangible item) to practicing religion.

It has nothing to do with that aspect of being tangible or intangible. It is the exercise of at right. If we could require a test or standard be applied to firearms ownership, which I think would be a good idea but oppose based on the difference in a 'right' and a 'privledge', it would then be required for other rights under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. You must take a test to know the position of candidates before being allowed to vote. The press must have tested knowledge of a topic before being allowed to report on the topic. (This would be great for reporters speaking about 'assault rifles', 'high powered' ammunition, and automatic firearms.) Religion has probably caused more human on human death in the history of man. License religion so that the government can protect us from violent followers of some religions. People would also have to be licensed to practice their religion and if you claim to be Christian forget about being allowed to get an abortion. I support the right of a woman to choose, but I personally find it abhorent. My belief is based on religion and I believe that the governement cannot force a religious belief on the general populous. We are born with rights. Those rights are in the Constitution. Beyond that are privledges, which can be licensed and controlled by the government and I don't want to see rights become privledges. Rights must be exercised with responsibility and I do see some advantages to licensing rights, especially when it comes to voting, but I must oppose any attempt to regulate rights.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Jeff OTMG

The 14th was passed in 1868 and was the result of some of the enumerated rights be stepped on. IMO the states could not void rights under the Constitution, but it took the 14th Amendment to make it official. I think that the 10th Amendment should have been recognized to identify the rights of 'the people', and the rest were for the states. The 14th was a restatement.

History and the Supreme Court disagree with you.

The Fourteenth Amendment was passed in the aftermath of the Civil War, emancipation and the actions of some states that sought to blunt the effects of emancipation, and the Dred Scott decision.

Prior to ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court specifically held that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. The drafters of the amendment believed that the amendment was necessary not to confirm what was already the law, but to change the law and impose on the states the obligation to respect the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

It wasn't until 1920 that SCOTUS first held that the First Amendment applied to the states. Prior to 2010, SCOTUS had held on more than one occasion that the Second Amendment did not apply to states. There are a few rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, such as the right to trial by jury, that still-valid SCOTUS decisions hold do not apply to the states. As far as that goes, the same 2010 case that held that the Second Amendment does apply to the states, McDonald v Chicago, specifically notes which rights in the Bill of Rights are not incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also said very clearly, "The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, originally applied only to the Federal Government."