• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The mechanics of gun control preventing the Orlando massacre

Hari Seldon

Stable Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2014
Messages
11,530
Reaction score
8,967
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
One in ten people in Florida, are concealed carry permit holders. However, Florida Law prevents the carrying of a concealed weapon in this club.

Doing the math, conceivably 30 people could have been carrying here, out of 300 or so present. But they couldn't carry.

This perp scouted out the club on numerous occasions and knew what type of security they had.....which was rather weak.

Gun Free Zones need to be abolished!

Yea he scouted out the club for 3 years. Brilliant.
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
74,518
Reaction score
60,618
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I've had a few ideas that might help, but certainly not stop, the flow of guns to criminals; but those involve things like gun registries, ammo registries, improving serial numbers (so they can't be obliterated), and complete bans on resale of guns other than back to a licensed firearm dealer. But I've pretty much never heard a gun enthusiast agree (some gun _owners_ have agreed, but mere owners aren't the ones that need convincing about reasonable gun control).

None of that would stop mass shootings.

In fact, I don't think we can pass *anything* consistent with the 2nd Amd. that will stop or even reasonably cut down on mass shootings. Ditto for the rest of gun violence in this country. There are just so many guns out there.

We'd need to repeal the 2nd, confiscate the myriad guns out there, pass a new much more limited 2nd, and start all over. Not happening. That's less likely than building a wall, forcing Mexico to pay for it, deporting all the illegals, and actually keeping them all out. HAH!

Basically, either Americans are extremely violent evil people as compared to the rest of the world, or having the most guns per capita means you have the most gun violence per capita (not including broken states like El Salvador).

The guns aren't going anywhere. So, as tragic and frustrating as it is, we're going to have to get used to the idea that if you live in America, you're far more likely to be gunned down than in any other "civilized" nation.
You miss one key point in your analysis, which is the courts, specifically the Supreme Court.

Both Heller and McDonald were narrow 5-4 rulings, hinging on the now deceased Justice Scalia. They could easily have gone the other way with a liberal Justice in his place.

The sad truth about the Constitution (as it applies to us) is: It only means what a given Judge thinks it means on a given day!

A Hillary win and a subsequent coupla' justice appointments can swing this whole thing around - reference: Plessy v Ferguson --> Brown v Board.

As a matter of fact, the San Fran 9th District just recently ruled concealed carry *illegal* in California by 7-4! And with our current 4-4 SCOTUS, that could possibly stand! Does anyone wanna' bet how a 6-3 liberal Court might rule?

So yeah, nothing ever is written (or should I say, interpreted) in stone.
 

MickeyW

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2015
Messages
14,012
Reaction score
3,439
Location
Southern Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You miss one key point in your analysis, which is the courts, specifically the Supreme Court.

Both Heller and McDonald were narrow 5-4 rulings, hinging on the now deceased Justice Scalia. They could easily have gone the other way with a liberal Justice in his place.

The sad truth about the Constitution (as it applies to us) is: It only means what a given Judge thinks it means on a given day!

A Hillary win and a subsequent coupla' justice appointments can swing this whole thing around - reference: Plessy v Ferguson --> Brown v Board.

As a matter of fact, the San Fran 9th District just recently ruled concealed carry *illegal* in California by 7-4! And with our current 4-4 SCOTUS, that could possibly stand! Does anyone wanna' bet how a 6-3 liberal Court might rule?

So yeah, nothing ever is written (or should I say, interpreted) in stone.

You got it.


And if that happens, there will be thousands of now, law abiding citizens, turned into criminals. I carried for years w/o any permit and that's what will happen for many.
 

coyotedelmar

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2014
Messages
822
Reaction score
183
Location
Arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Iffy? It's Unconstitutional!


Question wasn't if the method was doable and/or constitutional, it was what gun control methods would have stopped the shooting. The only one that might have was a complete ban and it's iffy because even with a complete ban their is no guarantee he couldn't have got weapons through another source.
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
74,518
Reaction score
60,618
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal

countryboy

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2014
Messages
18,769
Reaction score
7,410
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I don't disagree with a law that says those drinking alcohol cannot carry firearms. I think that is a sensible state law. I doubt the establishment that was victimized had many, if any patrons who were non-drinkers. SO maybe the only solution is more armed security. Not telling those drinking alcohol they ought to carry while drinking

It seems to work fine here in Ohio. :shrug:
 

cabse5

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
22,637
Reaction score
2,295
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
there is nothing in the constitution that can remotely support gun confiscation from honest americans
Like I said, you are interpreting the second amendment as judges are currently interpreting the second amendment. I have a suggestion: read the history of the passing of the second amendment in the book "The First Congress", by Fergus M. Bordewich. It entails the meaning of the second amendment by the congressmen who passed the second amendment into law in 1789. Or are you not an originalist of The Constitution?
 

jet57

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
31,057
Reaction score
3,969
Location
not here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Wayne LaPierre himself said on CBS's Face the Nation this morning, that he doesn't believe that guns should be where people are drinking alcohol.

So there's goes CCW or open carry in bars. LaPierre avoided the question when told that 'there was an armed guard at the nightclub who didn't stop him (Mateem).
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,383
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Like I said, you are interpreting the second amendment as judges are currently interpreting the second amendment. I have a suggestion: read the history of the passing of the second amendment in the book "The First Congress", by Fergus M. Bordewich. It entails the meaning of the second amendment by the congressmen who passed the second amendment into law in 1789. Or are you not an originalist of The Constitution?

nothing in the constitution even remotely supports an claim that the federal government was intended to have the power to control firearms
 

cabse5

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
22,637
Reaction score
2,295
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
nothing in the constitution even remotely supports an claim that the federal government was intended to have the power to control firearms
The second amendment does. The history of the passing of the second amendment does. The clause in the The Constitution that allows actions by the federal government to promote the general welfare of the federal government and to do those things necessary to preserve the federal government does. Here's a link. I know it's Wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_powers
 

justlikethat

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2016
Messages
73
Reaction score
21
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
You miss one key point in your analysis, which is the courts, specifically the Supreme Court.

Both Heller and McDonald were narrow 5-4 rulings, hinging on the now deceased Justice Scalia. They could easily have gone the other way with a liberal Justice in his place.

The sad truth about the Constitution (as it applies to us) is: It only means what a given Judge thinks it means on a given day!

A Hillary win and a subsequent coupla' justice appointments can swing this whole thing around - reference: Plessy v Ferguson --> Brown v Board.

As a matter of fact, the San Fran 9th District just recently ruled concealed carry *illegal* in California by 7-4! And with our current 4-4 SCOTUS, that could possibly stand! Does anyone wanna' bet how a 6-3 liberal Court might rule?

So yeah, nothing ever is written (or should I say, interpreted) in stone.

However, if the republicans keep control of congress, they have the power to render a Supreme Court's ruling obsolete by amending a law or writing a new one!
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,383
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The second amendment does. The history of the passing of the second amendment does. The clause in the The Constitution that allows actions by the federal government to promote the general welfare of the federal government and to do those things necessary to preserve the federal government does. Here's a link. I know it's Wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_powers

uh that's idiotic. its beyond idiotic. Its something you made up that has no basis in fact. Its why FDR and his cesspool of toadies had to pretend the commerce clause and taxation allowed de facto bans. Claiming the second amendment does is perhaps the most moronic claim I have seen (you aren't the first). Claiming the second amendment was intended to give congress any powers demonstrates a complete and total lack of any understanding of what the bill of rights are or were intended to do
 

justlikethat

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2016
Messages
73
Reaction score
21
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The second amendment does. The history of the passing of the second amendment does. The clause in the The Constitution that allows actions by the federal government to promote the general welfare of the federal government and to do those things necessary to preserve the federal government does. Here's a link. I know it's Wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_powers

You are misunderstanding Implied Powers.
Implied Powers can only be used for things not directly stated in the constitution, the 2nd amendment clearly is!
 

Crimefree

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,476
Reaction score
2,623
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The second amendment does. The history of the passing of the second amendment does. The clause in the The Constitution that allows actions by the federal government to promote the general welfare of the federal government and to do those things necessary to preserve the federal government does. Here's a link. I know it's Wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_powers

Please quote the words in the constitution instead of alluding to mystery imagined powers. Anybody can claim the constitution intends this, so far gun control advocates have failed miserably to quote the words that empower their false claims.
 

cabse5

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
22,637
Reaction score
2,295
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
uh that's idiotic. its beyond idiotic. Its something you made up that has no basis in fact. Its why FDR and his cesspool of toadies had to pretend the commerce clause and taxation allowed de facto bans. Claiming the second amendment does is perhaps the most moronic claim I have seen (you aren't the first). Claiming the second amendment was intended to give congress any powers demonstrates a complete and total lack of any understanding of what the bill of rights are or were intended to do
I see your point. It goes against your ideology of citizens always getting their guns. The two guys who were most diligent in writing the Federalist Papers, Hamilton and Madison, agreed with this 'federal government must do what is necessary to survive' viewpoint. The first chief justice of the Supreme Court, Marshall, also agreed. Then there's the history of the passage of the second amendment which you consistently ignore...
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,383
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I see your point. It goes against your ideology of citizens always getting their guns. The two guys who were most diligent in writing the Federalist Papers, Hamilton and Madison, agreed with this 'federal government must do what is necessary to survive' viewpoint. The first chief justice of the Supreme Court, Marshall, also agreed. Then there's the history of the passage of the second amendment which you consistently ignore...

its amazing that if they actually believed it, you cannot find a single document from either that even hints they wanted the federal government to have any gun control power. Not a single whiff of that in Article One Section 8 and then they ratified the second amendment, ninth and tenth,all of which prevent-if honestly interpreted-federal interference of what private citizens can keep bear and own. don't forget that until the FDR turds came along, the Commerce clause was held to give congress NO POWER over private citizens either
 

cabse5

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
22,637
Reaction score
2,295
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
its amazing that if they actually believed it, you cannot find a single document from either that even hints they wanted the federal government to have any gun control power. Not a single whiff of that in Article One Section 8 and then they ratified the second amendment, ninth and tenth,all of which prevent-if honestly interpreted-federal interference of what private citizens can keep bear and own. don't forget that until the FDR turds came along, the Commerce clause was held to give congress NO POWER over private citizens either
Here is Article One Section 8 of The Constitution. I refer you, again, to..."provide for the common defense and general welfare of United States." Annenberg Classroom - Article I Section 8

The federal government can provide for the common defense (of the federal government). Forcefully removing all AR-15s, for example, would provide for the common defense of the federal government. That means at nightclubs and in inner city Chicago, for example.
The federal government can provide for the general welfare (of the federal government). For example, terrorists may be attempting to injure the US. The federal government may institute measures to preserve the general welfare (and defense) of the US.

The 'do whatever necessary to provide for the general welfare' segment of Article 1 Section 8 of The Constitution was upheld quite early in America's history by chief justice Marshall over the US bank Hamilton proposed before the turn of the 18th century.
I propose the 'do whatever necessary to provide for the common defense' was upheld when standing armies were instituted soon after.
 
Last edited:

SMTA

Ketsu no Anna
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2012
Messages
38,680
Reaction score
10,366
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Laws preventing the sale of guns to anyone that might be a friend, relative or crime victim of a possible bad guy could work. ;)

Who, exactly, watches those placed on the terror watch llist?

The morons at the FBI manage the terror watch list and the 4473 database approval.

The FBI has never been able to find their own ass with their hands, so there you go.

Lack of coordination and information sharing among all US law enforcement agencies was identified as a major cause of 9/11, and that has changed very little.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,383
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Here is Article One Section 8 of The Constitution. I refer you, again, to..."provide for the common defense and general welfare of United States."http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/article-i-section-8

The federal government can provide for the common defense. Forcefully removing all AR-15s, for example, would provide for the common defense of the federal government. That means at nightclubs and in inner city Chicago, for example.
The federal government can provide for the general welfare. For example, terrorists may be attempting to injure the US. The federal government may institute measures to preserve the general welfare of the US.

The 'do whatever necessary to provide for the general welfare' segment of section 8 was upheld quite early in America's history by chief justice Marshall over the US bank Hamilton proposed before the turn of the 18th century.
I propose the 'do whatever necessary to provide for the common defense' was upheld when standing armies were instituted soon after.

LOL sorry complete fail. None of the gun banners in congress have successfully argued that as a basis for gun control and the general welfare is a taxing matter. Your argument is pathetic and doesn't have any court decision or scholarship backing it. You could argue that should trump MIRANDA or the fourth amendment or the sixth amendment too.

You are just making stuff up to argue when you have absolutely no honest basis for making the claim
 

cabse5

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
22,637
Reaction score
2,295
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
LOL sorry complete fail. None of the gun banners in congress have successfully argued that as a basis for gun control and the general welfare is a taxing matter. Your argument is pathetic and doesn't have any court decision or scholarship backing it. You could argue that should trump MIRANDA or the fourth amendment or the sixth amendment too.

You are just making stuff up to argue when you have absolutely no honest basis for making the claim
Gun banning is not a taxing matter. It is a banning matter. Neither was the federal bank proposed by Hamilton a taxing matter. It was a concern to promote the general welfare of the federal government. Upheld by Marshall. Before the turn of the 18th century.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,383
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Gun banning is not a taxing matter. It is a banning matter. Neither was the federal bank proposed by Hamilton a taxing matter. It was a concern to promote the general welfare of the federal government. Upheld by Marshall. Before the turn of the 18th century.

and there is no such power in the constitution.
 

jonny5

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
25,456
Reaction score
4,227
Location
Republic of Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
and there is no such power in the constitution.

To be fair, congress does have the power "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

BUT, that doesnt equal a blank check, as Madison argued.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I've had a few ideas that might help, but certainly not stop, the flow of guns to criminals; but those involve things like gun registries, ammo registries, ......

I've stated several ways on how to reduce over all crime (including gun violence) many times around here. First though I'm going to respond to your post #6 and then this post.

What you're wanting in post #6 is simply not possible for one post, or more than likely even 2 or 3 posts to cover. You would also need to get health professionals involved to get the kind of detail that you want. Essentially what you're doing in that post is disregarding any suggestions as it simply not being possible because we're not able to give you a full answer of the kind you're wanting. Any posts that you see on pretty much ANY forum is not going to give detailed instructions or analysis of how to get this problem fixed. All that you'll get is generalizations and simplistic answers. Mainly due to limited space per post and the limited time that posters have due to real life concerns that take priority over DebatePolitics.com.

But what you CAN get here is simplified plans. For example here is my simplified plan to reduce over all crime, which will also address your post above here.

First and foremost we HAVE to address our education system. It is, quite frankly, abhorrent. The US used to be in the top 10 ranked countries in education. Now, depending on your source the US ranks in the mid to bottom 20's. So we need to better our education system. The best way to do this I think is to assemble a group of experts and have them study the top 10, maybe just top 5 of the best ranked countries as far as education goes. Take the best among those countries ideas and merge them into one system and apply it to our education system. Now here's why I say we need to address our education system when referring to reducing over all crime. The better educated a person is the less likely they are to commit a crime. No, its not a guarantee to stop crime all together, but it will reduce it. The reasoning is that the more a person is educated the more that they can attain, the more that they attain the less likely they are to commit a crime due to them not wanting to lose everything that they have attained. This will also have the effect of reducing poverty levels as more people will be able to get or create better jobs. Poverty is one of the major reasons for crime. So bettering our education system will actually have two net effects, both leading to reduced crime.

The next thing that needs to be addressed is our Justice System. It DESPERATELY needs reformed. It needs to be changed from one of punishment, to one of reform and rehabilitation. It is a well known fact that when we send people to prison, when/if they get out they often come out worse psychologically than when they went in. That needs to change, which can be done via making our justice system into one of reform and rehabilitation. Instead of letting prisoners sit around all day teach them useful skills that they can apply to life outside of prison. Also while they are in prison get them psychological help. Make it mandatory to both see a shrink and go to classes that teach them useful skills.

Now in order for this reform/rehabilitation to actually work it needs the required TIME to make it work for each individual. And since there is no set time for such things we need to get rid of or at least adjust our sentencing guidelines. Instead of a judge declaring some arbitrary number of months/years that a person has to spend in prison let the psychologists and teachers decide when that person gets out of prison. But they can only be released once they are provably reformed/rehabilitated. If that means that a person stays in prison for just 1 year then so be it, if it means that person stays in prison for the rest of their lives then so be it. They HAVE to have the signature of both the shrink and the teachers to be able to get out. There will of course be exceptions where some mandatory sentencing needs to be fulfilled. Such as 1st and 2nd degree murder and rape and child rape. But those sentences should only be used against the worst type of offenders.

Next post....
 
Top Bottom