My son is. Do you know how many liquor cabinet locks we went through? He wasn’t at five or seven - at fourteen it was horrible - at seventeen he’s outgrown it - mostly. But the cabinet is now chained and padlocked and alarmed - with padlocks we change out regularly so if he learns the combo, he doesn’t have it long. A keypad didn’t slow him down. A key he found. And it took a bit to figure out we had to rotate identical looking padlocks.
But for my kid it was getting fucked up with his friends. He wasn’t going to break into a gun safe and shoot up his Social Studies class. Apparently, not all parents are so lucky. :rolleyes:
Last year, a kid brought a loaded handgun into my kids school. He wasn’t going to do anything with it (we were told), he wanted to show it to his friend. The school doesn’t have metal detectors. It was in the kids backpack going from class to class until after lunch - when he pulled it out in class to show his friend - and the teacher saw it. It wasn’t his gun. It was Dads. Who didn’t keep it locked up because a gun that is locked up isn’t useful if you have a break in. The kid didn’t know it was loaded. Dad kept it loaded because an unloaded gun isn’t useful if you have a break in.
Your kids might never break into the safe. Your kids may know how to tell if a gun is loaded. Your kids might take shooting lessons and know gun safety. That doesn’t protect your kid from the cross generational idiots.
No, the whole subject of the Second Amendment was entirely uncontroversial until the “individual rights” spin started just in the early 70s. Even Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative Nixon appointee, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as “a fraud.” Here’s a bit of the history. After centuries of uncontroversial interpretation as a collective (not individual) right, and moreover as one that had to be “well regulated”, it was contemporary self-interested political pressures to change the meaning and ultimately the Scalia and conservative-led faction in the Heller ruling that institutionalized an interpretation that so many scholars consider to be seriously misguided – note Burger’s comment and the strong dissent in Heller, particularly from Justice Stevens. Depending on the outcome of future elections and hence SCOTUS appointments, and on the cases brought before it, Heller may well turn out to be a short-lived piece of “mainstream US jurisprudence”. As in most 5-4 decisions, it’s not jurisprudence, it’s politics.
I react with sympathy. A three-digit code takes maybe two hours to break. Longer will take a couple nights, but kids don’t sleep. I solved it by having no firearms.
Well, the turning point was when they had a proxy fight during the 1970s. Interestingly, after the renegades took over they established staggered boards to prevent a recurrence. AFAIK, that wasn’t the case before. (Am I wrong, gang?)
To be clear, I’m not making a soft science argument. The evidence is sufficient for most countries to move to a conclusion. But since we’re discussing a constitutionally protected right, it’s reasonable to ask that every t be crossed and every i dotted.
Oh sure. But I’m not making a black and white argument. I’m saying that existing science doesn’t address heterogeneity within the gun-owning population. The science hasn’t dug that deeply yet.
There’s reason to believe that this effect is not trivial, since the population that has taken a gun training course has significantly superior risk assessment habits, after controlling for various demographic factors. (Cite: Garen J Wintemute,Association between firearm ownership, firearm-related risk and risk reduction behaviours and alcohol-related risk behaviours )
In the US it is.
More generally, if federal gun legislation is highly likely to be ineffective, private sector approaches deserve a closer look. And my take is that a rationalistic organized minority within the gun enthusiast community is prerequisite for effective national legislation.
Emphasis added. The fact that there are competing theories of jurisprudence doesn’t make one the only valid view. As it stands, the majority in the SCOTUS, the President, and American people disagree with you. I’m not sure how you can take the position that that is somehow an invalid interpretation.
There is naturally going to be some disagreement about how far the government can go in regulating firearm ownership, but the individual right to own firearms simply isn’t some fringe view. If some future president appoints justices that nullify that individual right, I’m confident that president’s party is going to suffer at the polls until the decision is reversed. Personally, I wish that weren’t so. But my own wishes are irrelevant in light of the reality of what most Americans think.
Now, originally the constraint spelled out int he 2nd was on Congress alone, not on the states, as was the entire Bill of Rights. But after the 14th amendment, the trend has incontrovertibly been towards incorporating those constraints on the states as well.
This is kind of a feeble objection. Although Pincus may not directly represent the NRA, he was offering one of the seminars approved by the NRA organization for their annual meeting, which they endorse advertise as taught by renowned experts. An NRA meeting seminar isn’t some kind of free-soapbox event where anyone can spout off whatever random opinions they choose: seminar speakers are chosen and endorsed by the NRA organization.
So the headline should read not “NRA Tells Parents” nor “Some Unaffiliated Random Guy Tells Parents”, but “NRA Seminar Speaker Tells Parents”.
The interesting thing about the facts you present is that while they are at face value correct, they are also very misleading if just taken at face value. Consider the three sources of authority that you cite:
SCOTUS
The questionable nature and uncertain future of the Heller opinion is no mere pipe dream but stems from the bitterly divided ideology of the present Court and, if you refer to the links in my last post, the extreme nature of its conservative faction. This is, after all, the same Court that brought you Citizens United and half a dozen similar decisions, all with 5-4 splits, and very nearly destroyed the Affordable Care Act. It would indeed have destroyed the ACA were it not for the sole fact of Roberts’ intervention in the 2012 case, which many saw as motivated by a concern for his legacy and some semblance of integrity and moderation in its rulings. The second ACA ruling, King v Burwell, was decided 6-3, but the claim was so astoundingly frivolous that it’s remarkable that it was heard at all. So when these guys rule, against all precedent, that they’ve just figured out after two and a quarter centuries that the Second Amendment grants an individual right after all, and the ruling is another 5-4 split with strong and impassioned dissent and strong criticism from constitutional scholars, it should be no surprise and its future regarded accordingly.
The polls
The extraordinary thing about how Americans feel about gun rights is how volatile it is. Poll results move as wildly as chaff in the wind depending on perceptions of crime and violence and the latest NRA propagandizing on how guns are the solution to everything instead of the root of the problem. You’re right that the majority of Americans right now favor gun rights over gun control, by a factor of 52 to 46 in 2014, according to Pew Research. Yet as recently as 1999, a whopping 66% favored gun control and just 29% felt protecting gun rights was more important. And as recently as 2006 it was 60 to 32 in favor of gun control. The numbers converged and diverged in the opposite direction only within the past seven years or so, and will likely change again.
Constitutional Scholar in Chief
You appear to be citing a 2012 campaign platform, where he’s trying to strike a balance between appeasing the gun nuts and calling for rational gun control. Obama is clearly beyond frustrated at the number of deadly mass shootings that have happened under his watch and the unwillingness of Congress to do anything about it. In the end, this is all anyone is asking for. Not even the strictest collective interpretation of the Second Amendment or its repeal entirely would have the intent of taking away everyone’s guns as the NRA likes to proclaim, and not even the strictest individual-rights interpretation would imply to any sane person that those rights are absolute. The rational objective here is to see a little of that “well regulated” principle enacted.
Is no one else going to point out the obvious? If the kid can’t get access to the gun, then it’s totally pointless to put it in your kid’s room. It is not easier to get a gun from your kid’s room than somewhere else. You want the guns in the rooms you’re most likely to be in.
There’s no reason to say this except to create controversy and fan the flames.
Another obvious point is even though stolen jewelry has a higher cash value … a stolen gun is exceptional liquid … the typical burglar wants cash-in-hand, he’s going to want the gun.
Returning to my old point, there’s no problem with distinguishing between different populations. The problem is when your evidence base essentially combines wishful thinking with opposition to scientific research. From there, it’s a straight line to crackpot stuff: you can see it in NRA publications. As I noted upthread, the gun literature could use a quality boost. The science would improve with input from the rationalistic gun enthusiast community.
SCOTUS doesn’t like to overrule itself. Heller may be narrowed, but it is likely to stand. Democratic pols liked Heller, because it helped take this wedge issue off the table. And it doesn’t stop us from closing the gunshow loophole.
Even if solid majorities favor gun control, the fact is that most people’s vote won’t swing on that single issue. But gunnuts trend single issue: you can see it on this message board. During the late 1990s the Democratic Party backed off of gun control for this very reason. I would argue that there’s nothing wrong with this: extreme preferences by a minority can reasonably trump the mild preferences of a majority.
The only counterargument is that to the extent that the NRA is fully invested in the Republican Party, votes won’t swing and their influence will diminish. (I’m including varying turnout in the swing however.)
It’s a constant struggle to see what’s in front of your nose. But I’ll note that the NRA’s seminar leader seemed to think that it would be best to distribute guns around different rooms in the house. Highly dubious risk assessment, without any sort of statistical grounding. Crackpot stuff.
Who knows about the future of Heller – you may be right. But it’s a fact that SCOTUS has overruled itself more than 120 times to date, so it’s not exactly a fantastical hope. In fact the current court as it was constituted when Scalia was still present exercised its own brand of extremism to do some overturning of its own; Citizens United overturned not one but two prior rulings, and there were other cases where this happened.
[Bolding mine.] With regard to the bolded part, here’s an example – in case anyone thought I was exaggerating in my first post. “It’s all about guns” was this lunatic’s perspective on the upcoming general election and, presumably, on any and all elections. And he’s not alone – here are a bunch of morons that are entertaining some delusion of building a village of idiots based on a medieval castle where they can wall themselves in and all enjoy their guns without worrying about pesky laws.
As to your last sentence, “there’s nothing wrong with this” depends a great deal on one’s metrics and objectives. If one is espousing some abstract notion of democratic ideals, or commenting on how pragmatic politics actually works, that’s one thing. But if a solid majority of voters have finally become persuaded by the substantial body of evidence that responsible gun control saves lives, but they’re not zealous about it because they’re equally or more concerned about the economy, taxes, or wars and national security, and this then allows a maniacally zealous minority of gun nuts to undermine public safety, then this does not serve the public interest and is not a desirable outcome by any objective rational measure. And the NRA is front and center of making this happen.
They’re armed when they go to kid’s room: A 9 mm Glock for him, and a .32 revolver for her. And it shouldn’t take him long to open the kid’s room gun safe for the assault rifles and extra magazines: a well-prepared family will practice this drill once a week. I hope they keep some grenades and a shotgun in that gun cabinet — you can never be too safe.
This is assuming we’re talking about Real Americans. I know it’s hard to believe. but some households have less than 3 guns! — they must not love their children. (And when are we going to make Concealed Carry permits the only acceptable ID for voting?)
Drunk you don’t spend nearly as much time hanging onto the Jesus handle and shrieking.