Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

[Dave Grubb]

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase from the United States Declaration of Independence. The phrase gives three examples of the unalienable rights which the Declaration says have been given to all humans by their Creator, and which governments are created to protect.

Do we still believe that?

I understand that the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution is claimed to guarantee another unalienable right (as defined by individual states)---and I will not depute that notion.

So, my friends----what do we do to hold up our Government's end of this "deal"?

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A Texas man went next door with a rifle and began shooting his neighbors, killing an 8-year-old and four others inside the house, after the family asked him to stop firing rounds in his yard because they were trying to sleep, authorities said Saturday.

Does the killer have the right to deny the rights of his neighbors simply because he has a gun?

This is not asked in jest---seriously---if you have an answer please tell me---we are failing our people

[Mike]

It is clearly a problem that has to be corrected, Dave. But how?

Some call for the banning of various types of firearms, others call for banning all firearms, and still others say leave the guns alone. I do not think banning any particular type of firearm will solve the problem. I do not think banning all firearms will solve the problem. There are far too many legally owned guns in circulation to collect anywhere near all of them. It is simply not possible because criminals will never surrender their firearms, and many otherwise law abiding citizens will become criminals rather than surrender their firearms.

Firearms are here to stay, either legally, or illegally. Pandora's box has been opened and we must somehow deal with the consequences.

The only things I can think of that might help would be the strict enforcement of our existing firearms laws.

1. Enact new laws that would prohibit anyone with a conviction for any level of a violent act from possessing firearms.

2. Enact new laws that would prohibit anyone convicted of any crime while possessing a firearm from possessing firearms.

3. Make the penalties as harsh as Constitutionally permissible.

4. Make use of the dreaded "P" word to proactively profile and seek out the nut jobs who are killing us. Use the results of the profiling to prove mental incapacity and deny firearms ownership or possession to those found to be mentally incompetent.

5. Enact mandatory storage requirements to secure firearms from theft and unauthorized use.

6. Require universal background checks with a minimal fee.

[Dave Grubb]

It is clearly a problem that has to be corrected, Dave. But how?

That is both my statement and my question---and I find the possible answer(s) a conundrum

I don't foresee fiddling with the 2A as a likely answer---but that does not relieve us of the obligation to confront this problem in search of answers. The defenders of the 2A seem to say---the answer is "not in my back yard" but display no intent to offer workable alternatives that aren't in their back yards. Not only is there no help offered, many are bent on removing even the least measures of "control". It seems to have become the "red badge" of pandering politicians to show how they have protected the rights afforded by 2A. There is no mention of those who have lost their rights as a result of unleashed nut cases like kyle rittenhouse who was allowed to skate and now seems to be a cult hero---not to mention a roll model for other potential nut cases

[UTAH]

My take on it is that this wingnut who took out the neighbors, would have gone off on someone else given time. If not a rifle, it would have been a car or a plane or a bat. He's messed up and used the gun to take revenge on fellow humans.

I've made it apparent that I'm into Psycho/Social things. Yet, I do not see killings like this fitting those disciplines. Instead, we need to let our politicians do their jobs in determining what will work to stop such things in the future. If they fail, it indicates we failed by electing them to represent us.

Dave points out our system appears to be broken. When our people kill their neighbors over a dispute - he's right.

Hunter

[Truckman]

Instead, we need to let our politicians do their jobs in determining what will work to stop such things in the future.

Politicians are too busy solidifying their own positions and power to do what they were elected to do...Statesmen are needed and nobody wants that job......Ben

[Mike]

Politicians are too busy solidifying their own positions and power to do what they were elected to do...Statesmen are needed and nobody wants that job......Ben

True Dat!

[FredK]

Only one I'd trust is Bo.

However In answer to Dave's question, from what I saw on TV the other day, it seems this guy was always firing shots into the air. Cops were called yet for whatever reason nothing was done.

Just saying I don't believe a rational person would be firing a weapon without a just cause.

[Mike]

Fred, in Texas, it is illegal to fire shots into the air.

It appears the murders discussed here took place outside the city limits and were the responsibility of the San Jacinto County Sheriff's office. It would appear that they dropped the ball on those calls. It might not have changed the eventual outcome, but we will never know.

[Honda]

Instead of focusing so much over the second amendment, we might want to look at our immigration policies. From my understanding the shooter had been deported four times and was in the country illegally.

[Sandman]

My concern is where, how did the “perp” acquire the weapon?

Note: My grandfather was “With Out Papers” .. he was never in trouble with the law (US law)