DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Another Mass Shooting Thread. Cause....

Like we both said, it will be impossible to follow through on at least two of those items. I do think more research needs to be done on what creates an environment that produces so many violent, social misfits. We also have to factor in all the teen suicides. Some kill others. Most kill themselves. Why? I have some ideas. We all know about the differences in gun laws between our country and others. That's a given.

But, what else?

The amount of bullying on social media? The political divide that prevails in this country? The racial and social hostilities? Lifestyles? Family life? Single parent homes? Entitlement? Rights?

I have a few ideas and I have been researching the political divide in this country as opposed to some other nations. There are far worse cases and almost all of them are disasters where there is fighting in the streets and killing one another cripples the country. Others seem to have less of a divide and have more peaceful people. I think there are a multitude of factors that play into this and it can't be narrowed down to just one or two things. Not just guns, but including guns. Not just the political divide, but including the political divide. Not just the amount and ferocity of social media bullying, but including the amount and ferocity of social medial bullying. Etc, etc.

Are our people willing to become kinder? Less hateful? More tolerant? Take more accountability? I don't know and the answers to those questions begin w/the individual, but our government must also be willing to spend the money where needed and it begins w/more research on the subject.

I think you bring up some great ideas. Hopefully we can find some final and long term solutions to these issues and stop the root cause. But school boards and local politics vary from place to place. I know it certainly should not be a political matter but as we're seeing more and more, school boards are. Now in my state people running for school board are forced to be affiliated and run under a political party. So while many places would adopt such a common sense approach, consensus would be hard to find on a national level.

I know my suggestions are what I would hope to be something that is only temporarily needed until the things you are suggesting could be achieved.

And BTW- having a metal detector at the main entrance of a school allowing only entry through those doors would help prevent the lass majority of guns from getting into our schools in the first place.

And allow me to remind you how a message boards works. When someone posts something, anything, people are allowed to respond with their opinions as well. Many people disagree with Frank on his "arm teachers" opinion. The fact they express opposing opinions doesn't mean they're "ganging up" on anyone. Only someone trying to silence the opposition would resort to trying to use such a nefarious slant on that.

We need to force a constitutional convention and demand that modern issues be resolved as amendments. Then we can address all of our numerous issues. Protect our rights, reel in unbridled capitalism and corporate greed, redefine and ensure bipartisan or multi-partisan inclusive governing, end the state's rights debate and make fair laws apply to all states, address the gun problem, mental health problem, all the damn problems. The founders envisioned regular reviews and improvements to the constitution in order to keep our laws modern and effective for the issues of the day. They never intended for us to live by THEIR words for over 200 years.

In one fail swoop, we could fix a lot of crap. And remake the government to serve the people again. But the people have to be willing to want to fix things TOGETHER.

Good in concept, but do you really believe Congress can come together and compromise on such profound issues?
We can't even get the woring group to agree to close the boyfriend loophole.

Also, be careful what you ask for.
I highly suspect that you (you as a group and you in particular) won't be happy with the outcome should they come to some agreements.

You put enough people on the streets pissed about "politics as usual" to force 34 states to sign on to call for a constitutional convention. Then Congress has a DUTY to call for it. Those same people in the streets "We the People" numbering in the tens of millions, scare the hell out of both sides in DC. Look at BLM. They would do the people's will under those circumstances I believe. But, that doesn't mean they wouldn't try some snaky crap. So you simply bypass them like this:

Ask Civics 101: Do The States Need Congress's Permission To Hold A Constitutional Convention?

Our question this week comes from a listener who asks: Under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, do the states need Congress’s permission to hold a convention to propose constitutional amendments, or was this originally proposed by the Framers as a way to bypass Congress in order to amend the Constitution?

Do you have a question for the Civics 101 team? Submit it here!


Article V of the U.S. Constitution lays out the amendment process for altering our governmental structure. It’s a product of two systems: checks and balances and federalism. The former is an arrangement of counterbalancing influences preventing all power from residing in one branch of government, and the latter is a structure that divides power between the national and state governments. As such, the answer is, no, the states don’t need Congress’s permission to apply for and hold a convention to propose constitutional amendments. Rather, this was included by the Framers as a way for the states to bypass Congress in the amendment process.

To explain this in more detail, let’s start by taking a look at Article V. There are two steps to amend the Constitution. The first step, proposal, can be done one of two ways. Congress can propose amendments when two-thirds of both houses deem it necessary, or the states can propose amendments when two-thirds of the state legislatures apply for and Congress calls a convention for that purpose.

Once proposed, the next step is ratification. Congress chooses whether ratification should be considered by state legislatures or by state conventions created for that purpose. Three-fourths of the states, whether as legislatures or conventions, must ratify an amendment in order for it to become part of the Constitution. The Twenty-First Amendment repealing prohibition remains the only one that was ratified by conventions in three-fourths of the states.

The listener’s question focuses on the first step. The text of Article V states, “on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, [Congress] shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments.” Let’s call this an Article V convention.

Interestingly, this type of convention has never been called! All 27 amendments to the Constitution, and thousands of others that died during the ratification process, were proposed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress. Today, 34 of the 50 state legislatures would need to apply in order for Congress to call a constitutional convention.

The Article V convention is a way for the states to bypass Congress. When two-thirds of the state legislatures apply for a convention, Congress is constitutionally required to call it. In Federalist No. 85, Alexander Hamilton wrote, “The words of this article are peremptory. The Congress ‘shall call a convention.’ Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body.” In other words, the states don’t need Congress’s permission. Congress doesn’t get to decide whether the states should or shouldn’t hold an Article V convention; Congress actually doesn’t have any say in the matter besides merely calling the convention when two-thirds of the state legislatures apply.

Once called, the Article V convention can propose amendments that are then sent to the states for ratification. By creating a process for the states to propose amendments without Congress’s permission, the Framers created a way to check and balance Congress’s power over the amendment process. Moreover, the Framers wanted the states to retain a substantial amount of power under the Constitution, so granting them the shared power of proposing amendments was logical under their federalist design.

Amendments proposed by the Article V convention are also not subject to Congress’s approval. There are conceivably many constitutional amendments that could affect Congress but, no matter how popular, might not be in Congress’s interest to propose. The Framers knew there should be another way to formally propose amendments to the Constitution when Congress drags its feet.

Let’s use the example of congressional term limits. Getting two-thirds of the House of Representatives and the Senate to propose a constitutional amendment establishing term limits for themselves and future lawmakers seems unlikely. So, if a congressional term limits amendment was popular enough, at least two-thirds of the states could go around Congress, apply for an Article V convention to propose this amendment, and send it to the states for ratification. If three-fourths of the states approve, it would become the law of the land without Congress’s permission or support.

https://www.nhpr.org/nh-news/2021-0...sion-to-hold-a-constitutional-convention

If you select/elect the right state officials they can bypass congress. And a huge crowd at statehouses will get the attention of State Congresses n a hurry. I'm telling you now, you just need to bring the people together to take back power. No DC politicians, no Governors, just the state congresses. Now of course you will have to have a compromise between the parties, but there is a hell of a lot that both sides agree on that could be accomplished, and some big problems attacked at state level, like term limits, would bypass all the lifer politicians. And if states ratify those amendments, DC has NO CHOICE, they become law of the land and near impossible for anyone in DC to stop or alter.

The lower down the totem poll state legislators are, the more pressure they would feel to do the will of the people, IMO. But, regardless of party, you have to have good and decent people as the state's legislators. Since the approval bar is SO high a two-thirds vote is required to ratify. That's a mix of both parties at the state level, as well as independents backing amendments, requiring a 2/3rds majority to ratify, you will get compromise and a framework for us to come together to accomplish it in a bi[artisan manor. Neither party controls 2/3rds of state legislatures. How do you like it now?

To make an amendment to the constitution takes a two thirds vote to agree with the wording and implementation of an amendment.

I think we all know that. This is about evoking a article V convention. The way I read this, It takes 2/3 of the 50 states to agree for an amendment to the constitution for congress to be required by constitutional law to evoke an article V convention. Which is incredible it never has happened. Right? Or maybe I’m missing something. Could be a way to end gridlock on Capital hill on many constitutional issues.

The problem is do you actually think two thirds of the states would agree to that? As of now you can't even get people or states to agree on whether asking a state election official overturn an election is unconstitutional. I would love to see gridlock ended and it's great to try and help keep hope alive. It's just from a practical standpoint in today's political climate a lot of things will have to change before that will happen. And in the end, anything decided in regards to constitutional issues can be revisited and overturned by the SCOTUS.

You could ask them to pass legislation that puppies are cute and it would probably go 50-50 in the senate.

What’s in the Senate’s new gun control bill

Christopher Wilson·Senior Writer
Wed, June 22, 2022, 2:42 PM·5 min read

The Senate voted to advance bipartisan gun legislation on Tuesday, with hopes of passing it prior to the July 4 recess.

All 50 members of the Democratic caucus joined 14 Republicans in moving the legislation forward. The bill comes after a number of mass shootings, most notably in Buffalo, N.Y., and Uvalde, Texas.

The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act falls short of more expansive proposals passed by Democrats in the House and is already facing opposition from top House Republicans. Should it become law, however, the bill would be the most sweeping gun safety legislation passed by Congress in decades.

The bill’s chief negotiators — Sens. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., John Cornyn, R-Texas, Kyrsten Sinema, D-Conn., and Thom Tillis, R-N.C. — released a joint statement celebrating the agreement.

“Today, we finalized bipartisan, commonsense legislation to protect America’s children, keep our schools safe, and reduce the threat of violence across our country,” they said. “Our legislation will save lives and will not infringe on any law-abiding Americans’ Second Amendment rights. We look forward to earning broad, bipartisan support and passing our commonsense legislation into law.”

Here are some of the key provisions in the 80-page bill.

Funding for crisis centers and so-called red flag laws

A long line of people standing and seated on folding chairs and on the ground, wait to enter a store marked: GUNS, Knives, Collectibles, and We Buy. Guns, Single Gun or Entire Collection.
People wait in line to enter a gun store in Culver City, Calif. in 2020. (Ringo H.W. Chiu/AP)
Under the legislation, $750 million would be allotted over the next five years to help states implement red flag laws, which allow authorities to temporarily confiscate guns from individuals deemed a threat to themselves or others. (Similar laws already exist in 19 states and the District of Columbia.) The legislation allows for the implementation of these programs through mental health, drug and veterans’ courts.

Republicans involved in the negotiations pushed to make sure no one is flagged without “the right to an in-person hearing, an unbiased adjudicator, the right to know opposing evidence, the right to present evidence, and the right to confront adverse witnesses,” as well as a right to bring counsel to the hearing.

“Under this bill, every state will be able to use significant new federal dollars to be able to expand their programs to try to stop dangerous people, people contemplating mass murder or suicide, from being able to have access to the weapons that allow them to perpetrate that crime,” Murphy said in a floor speech.

Closing the 'boyfriend loophole'

A potential buyer holds a Glock in their right hand.
A shopper at a store in Orem, Utah, in 2021, holds a Glock handgun. (George Frey/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
While spouses, co-parents or cohabitating partners convicted of domestic violence are already banned from purchasing firearms, abusers in relationships between people who are not married and live separately are still able to purchase guns, creating the so-called “boyfriend loophole.” (According to Everytown, a gun safety advocacy group, about 70 women are shot and killed by an intimate partner every month.)

Under the new legislation, anyone convicted of domestic violence against a former or current dating partner would be banned from purchasing a weapon.

Republican negotiators pushed for a strict definition of who would qualify as a dating partner and the length of time for which they’d be unable to purchase a gun. The law also would not apply retroactively, meaning that someone would have to be convicted of domestic violence after the law went into effect before they were stripped of their right to buy a firearm.

“Unless someone is convicted of domestic abuse under their state laws, their gun rights will not be impacted," Cornyn said in a floor speech.

"Those who are convicted of nonspousal misdemeanor domestic abuse — not felony, but misdemeanor domestic violence — will have an opportunity after five years to have their Second Amendment rights restored. But they have to have a clean record."

Expanded background checks for younger buyers

Seen looking over a counter of handguns at an array of rifles, a customer ponders a purchase.
A customer views handguns for sale at Knob Creek Gun Range in West Point, Ky., in 2021. (Jon Cherry/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
The legislation calls for an expansion of background checks into buyers under 21 years of age, providing three business days for the check into their criminal and mental health history to be completed. If that background check finds something questionable in a potential buyer’s record, the legislation would provide for an additional seven business days to look into the buyer.

Funding for mental health and school security

The bill provides funding for expanding access to mental health services, including making it easier for Americans on Medicaid to use telehealth services and work with “community-based mental health and substance use disorder treatment providers and organizations.” And it would provide additional funding for the national suicide prevention hotline (since guns accounted for a majority of suicide deaths in 2020) while schools would receive funding to increase the number of staff members providing mental health services.

Flowers and gifts are piled around the Robb Elementary School sign.
The Robb Elementary School sign, covered in flowers and gifts on June 17 in Uvalde, Texas. (Brandon Bell/Getty Images)
The bill also provides $300 million for the STOP School Violence Act for increased security at schools, although some Democrats had expressed concern about this aspect of the bill. Last week, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said she was worried about “the expansion of background checks into juvenile records,” arguing that previous attempts to secure schools were both ineffective and harmful.

After the 1998 shooting at Columbine High School in Colorado, Ocasio-Cortez said, "we hired thousands of police officers into schools, and while it didn’t prevent many of the mass shootings that we’ve seen now, it has increased the criminalization of teens in communities like mine.”

Licensed dealers and gun trafficking

At a gun store counter, a customer hands over cash for an AR-15 rifle.
A customer purchases an AR-15 rifle with cash at a store in Orem, Utah, U.S., on Thursday, March 25, 2021. (George Frey/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
The legislation would also require more sellers to register as “Federally Licensed Firearm Dealers,” including anyone who sells guns to “predominantly earn a profit.” These sellers would in turn be required to run background checks on potential buyers and keep records of the sales.

The bill would also impose penalties on “straw” purchasers who buy guns for people who can’t pass a background check.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/whats-in-the-senates-new-gun-control-bill-184238529.html

Every new law creates a whole new class of criminals, or dangerous circumstances.
For instance.
There was nothing wrong with the State of Ohio's fireworks laws from I989, yet, whenever they elect new Dolts to sit in government cushioned chairs, Those jokers can't leave well enough alone.
The overseers want to micromanage the shirt you wear outside as you recycle your compost because you were told.

(Browns' Owner(s) also can't leave well enough alone concerning waiving Ouarterbacks.)

This place is too full of propaganda.

I am not trying to be argumentative. Instead, I just want people to pause just for a moment and reflect.

The anti-gun thing is a huge topic of conversation. It consumes us as a nation. The call to enforce new gun laws grow and grow. Some ask for a ban on all guns. Many others want extreme laws passed. Guns are blamed for mass murders more than any other factor by most who comment on the situation.

However........

--What happened when the Volstead Act, or otherwise known as the National Prohibition Act was passed around 1920 or so? Did people stop wanting booze? Did violence increase or decrease? Did the Mafia gain a lot of power and wealth due to the passing of this do-good act? How effective was the new law? Did it endure the test of time?

--How about illegal drugs? Has making certain drugs illegal stopped people from buying them? Has violence increased or decreased as a result of these laws? Would the drug cartel have more or less power if the laws were not passed?

Does anyone really believe that more crimes will not be committed if we make guns illegal or harder to get? Can anyone see that it might actually lead to a rise in crime?

Tell the GOPers to quit spreading it then.

Most of it comes out of your mouth.

Hardly. But Vers appreciates your help. He'll like anything that bashes me right now. lmao.

Anyway, do any of you ban gun enthusiasts want to answer the questions about how effective Prohibition and anti-drug laws were? And did violence increase or decrease as a result of these laws?

I'm not a ban guns guy and have stated that numerous times. I think guns for hunting and protection are fine. I just don't think we need "kill thirty people in 30 seconds" style weapons on the streets. At least not without more regulations on responsible gun ownership. Limitations, licensing, insurance, responsibility for allowing another access, etc. I don't know what it would look like, I just think we should come together without all the partisanship to figure out what we can do to limit the number of mass shootings. If that is even possible. I don't think ignoring it, or saying thoughts and prayer will satisfy most people anymore. And we need to protect the kids somehow, regardless of guns being regulated. That's the part that really angers me. That shouldn't even be a debate IMHO.

That is fair. I was just trying to keep things real. Some laws actually create more violence. Not asking anyone to agree. Just think about it.

All we have in here are opinions and rudimentary ideas for solutions from time to time, with little to no power to actually do a damn thing. All that leaves is for us to argue is our positions on a given topic, so that's what we tend to do. I get that, but sometimes I have to step back and think about it to calm myself. I know others do that too, or at least it appears that way to me.

Just like the DW issue, neither of us can do a damn thing one way or another about it. Half the fanbase hates the whole situation the other half is happy to have his talent and some defend that, but not what he did or didn't do.

My thoughts on the situation with school shootings especially, is like you said, social media. I honestly believe that is the #1 driving factor, for multiple reasons. #1 is the bullying. Kids can bully as school, but nowadays, they can bully 24/7. Kids can't escape it. And there are usually zero repercussions for doing it. When I was younger, and I'm 35 so it's "relatively" recent, if a kid bullied you too bad, you fight and usually that was the end of it. Nowadays, you fight and then you and your entire family get sued and a chance of expulsion from school. #2 is that people see everyone else with these "amazing" online lives, when in reality they are just as miserable everyone else. But their online profile shows them as these super happy, amazing people.

I am not for "ban gun laws" but I am for more regulation. And when is the last time you heard of mass shootings in Europe? It happens, but it's way less frequent than in the US. So I'd say in general the laws work, though nothing is ever 100% effective.

I agree with you. I just don't believe that there are that many people that want to ban or take away guns. No more than I think there are that many people who propose we do nothing. As per usual the media on both sides accentuates the extremes to paint the picture that people see it as an all or nothing proposition.

Yeah, that was a little out there. Most of my points were solid, but that one was a stretch.

Pretzel logic in accordance with the great philosopher Steely Dan.

The corollaries…

Because there are murders, we should not have laws against murder.

That was not my message at all. But, hopefully you feel better by dismissing a conversation w/a shallow response.

Been thinking about laws stopping crimes in general, not just this situation.

Yes, making a law doesn't prevent all crime but it helps. Let's keep it to something no controversial. Speeding. We have laws to against speeding. Does the stop some people? Yes. Does that stop all people? Absolutely not.

The other thing passing a law does, is give police authority to intervene. Without traffic laws people could drive 80 mph in a school zone and the police would be impotent to do anything about it.

I was not talking about not passing laws. It was about the depth and severity of laws. Never mind. As always, it's about sides rather than a productive discussion that includes reason and cooperation.

Eveytime I see this thread with a new post I half expect to open it only to find out about another mass shooting. That’s how frequent and ‘normalized’ it’s become in this country.
Murika’!


Sad.

I must have misinterpreted your prior posts.
Sounded like you were saying making laws were futile and would actually make things worse

I have repeated multiple times that I am in favor of creating new laws in regards to guns. I was trying to generate a deeper conversation, but again, never mind. Woofer's post threw that discussion out the window. We are stuck on "sides."

To Vers point, if we were to go the extreme and ban guns, does that create an underground of gun sales? Which would most likely go to criminals and those with ill-intent.

That's where we need to really think through legislation, and not just react on the emotional highs of recent events. Things need to be thought through to ensure we are aware of possible alternate outcomes to the intent.

IMHO, that is the biggest problem with most laws created anymore, as in general, most everything that is bad falls under some law currently on the books, so layering laws on top of laws may have consequences that were not the intent, but all the same must be considered and have foresight to be prepared to deal with it.

I don't disagree with a thing you said. But here's the problem. You will find very few, from a percentage standpoint, actually want to "ban guns", which is why I think the comments by both you and vers are not getting any feedback. I think the same goes for those who think we should do nothing about stronger gun control laws are few. Those are the two fringe extremes that each side uses to portray how the other side feels but not the reality.

As of now the only laws I see even attempted to be passed on a federal level is to try and keep guns out of the hands of those who are most likely to commit such mass shootings. I advocated semi auto weapons not be sold to anyone under 21. I think that is logical considering the age of many mass shootings, especially in schools. The compromise that seems to have been reached is that they open up their juvenile record since their time as an adult has been so short. Now I'm not sure how much that will help. As has been noted a lot of these mass shooters have been the target of bullying, not the bullies themselves. So the question then becomes, are these kids that have been bullied the one's with a troubling past that can be indentified by their juvenile record? Or are they kids that have been bullied so much they just snap?

I'm very cautious about the things I promote in terms of gun laws. I consider things like people taking a safety course before being able to carry a concealed weapon one such thing. And it seems to me only those pro gun extremists would object to common sense safety.

j/c...

I wonder, in the light of NYSRPA, what challenges will be used to swat this down.

The 2A two step is gone. I haven't seen much in the way of history and text that would allow much of what I have seen in this one to be considered constitutional. I dare say some of NYSRPA had eyes on something like this.

The decision to strike down the New York law was correct IMO. You don't need to have a justifiable reason to carry a firearm.

See, we can agree on something

I tend to agree, but the most likely response is to ban the places where they are not permitted.

I can see every business and residence having a "No Guns Allowed" sign. Just like the stupid Prop 65 warning that is on everything in California.