quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

If we were to see a reduction in the carnage that we have become accustomed too, then I would find that a worthy trade off.

That's the big question, isn't it? IF we were to see a reduction...

You seem willing to presume there is a causal connection between mass murders and the availability of ARs. I am not. Whittling away at our Second Amendment rights--and there's no question that's what we'd be doing--is too serious a matter to rest on unsupported presumptions or bare correlations.

Even Japan, with its homogeneous society that emphasizes harmony and where private gun ownership is nearly impossible, sees an occasional mass killing with a kitchen knife or automobile. Don't tell me shotguns at close range against unarmed civilians aren't as deadly as ARs. No one would need an hour to empty a classroom with a pump or semi-auto shotgun.

I am focusing on the killer, not his choice of weapon. I think someone who has set himself on the path of mass murder will simply choose another means. Young killers today happen to choose an AR because they are a glamorous, fashionable weapon.

If they ban or restrict ARs simply because they're popular with killers, what's to stop them from using the same rationale later to ban or restrict shotguns? What happens when some mass killers start using hunting rifles, which will then be called "sniper rifles"?

An AR-15 is far down in my list of favorite firearms. I do own one AR, and I'd gladly give it up if it would stop one mass killing. But it wouldn't.

We can ban various non-sentient objects, but the real causes of mass killings won't be addressed. We ought to face the tougher question of why our society produces and even nourishes mass murderers. "Let's go ban something" is the easy answer, but not the right one, imho.

Did you have a suggestion as to how to reduce mass shootings? Not punishment after the fact but a way to prevent them from happening?

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
I did say "ban or restrict."

Biden and most Dems who have weighed in on the subject do favor an outright ban on ARs and handguns with more than ten-shot capacity, according to what I've heard them say.

So long as we're not talking about banning private sales, I'd go along with tougher purchase restrictions.

I'm not a Democrat or named Biden. I have my own ideas that are not linked to either party.

We require a background check for private party transfers here, they are not banned. Inconvenient certainly, but workable.

quote:

Originally posted by skb:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

If we were to see a reduction in the carnage that we have become accustomed too, then I would find that a worthy trade off.

That's the big question, isn't it? IF we were to see a reduction...

You seem willing to presume there is a causal connection between mass murders and the availability of ARs. I am not. Whittling away at our Second Amendment rights--and there's no question that's what we'd be doing--is too serious a matter to rest on unsupported presumptions or bare correlations.

Even Japan, with its homogeneous society that emphasizes harmony and where private gun ownership is nearly impossible, sees an occasional mass killing with a kitchen knife or automobile. Don't tell me shotguns at close range against unarmed civilians aren't as deadly as ARs. No one would need an hour to empty a classroom with a pump or semi-auto shotgun.

I am focusing on the killer, not his choice of weapon. I think someone who has set himself on the path of mass murder will simply choose another means. Young killers today happen to choose an AR because they are a glamorous, fashionable weapon.

If they ban or restrict ARs simply because they're popular with killers, what's to stop them from using the same rationale later to ban or restrict shotguns? What happens when some mass killers start using hunting rifles, which will then be called "sniper rifles"?

An AR-15 is far down in my list of favorite firearms. I do own one AR, and I'd gladly give it up if it would stop one mass killing. But it wouldn't.

We can ban various non-sentient objects, but the real causes of mass killings won't be addressed. We ought to face the tougher question of why our society produces and even nourishes mass murderers. "Let's go ban something" is the easy answer, but not the right one, imho.

Did you have a suggestion as to how to reduce mass shootings? Not punishment after the fact but a way to prevent them from happening?

Steve,
I have made numerous suggestions through this thread. I agree entirely with what Roland says here. I am just expressing agreement.

quote:

Originally posted by skb:

I think it is far better to have gun people involved in the solution than letting the antis write the laws.

I have my own ideas that are not linked to either party.

From a Gallup poll in February. My guess is the numbers are even worse now since we are on track for the worst year of mass shootings on record. We can pretend this isn't an issue, throw around nice bromides, talk about our cold dead hands, etc. but just like we have seen on international hunting, when public opinion flips on you, you're not going to like the result.

"Americans’ dissatisfaction with U.S. gun laws has risen to 63%, the highest by one percentage point in Gallup’s 23-year trend, and an increase of seven points over the past year. At the same time, satisfaction with gun policy has fallen by the same amount to 34%, tying the lowest reading on record."

Ultimately, “ antis” will hate anything they don’t agree with and will press their demands despite other side giving in
We have seen it over and over and over with any kind of free choice
Antis are closet tyrants, period
Criminals never stop because of another law passed and psychos will find ways to hurt people one way or the other especially with help of violent movies and games and ultimately with repetition of news about mass shootings as copy cat thing is simply their 15 min of fame

Remember back when the trap and skeet shooters were okay with getting rid of handguns?

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
I get tired of hearing that gun-owners should "compromise" on "reasonable" gun laws. What I never hear is what gun owners would get out of such a compromise.

A compromise requires both sides to give up or gain something of value. What will gun owners gain from these new reasonable gun laws? Nada that I can see.

Right now the Democrats have been holding up a bill in Congress that would make sound suppressors (wrongly styled "silencers") more readily available, for the sake of protecting hearing. There is no reasonable basis for opposing this bill.

If the Dems and their anti allies will drop opposition to the hearing protection bill, I'd be willing to experiment with new laws directed at ARs, so long as there is a sunset clause for if they don't work in decreasing mass murders.

That is waaaaayy to reasonable and sensible to ever happen! Not near " knee jerk" enough!

But to me? A damned fine compromise. Well written!

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

If we were to see a reduction in the carnage that we have become accustomed too, then I would find that a worthy trade off.

That's the big question, isn't it? IF we were to see a reduction...

You seem willing to presume there is a causal connection between mass murders and the availability of ARs. I am not. Whittling away at our Second Amendment rights--and there's no question that's what we'd be doing--is too serious a matter to rest on unsupported presumptions or bare correlations.

Even Japan, with its homogeneous society that emphasizes harmony and where private gun ownership is nearly impossible, sees an occasional mass killing with a kitchen knife or automobile. Don't tell me shotguns at close range against unarmed civilians aren't as deadly as ARs. No one would need an hour to empty a classroom with a pump or semi-auto shotgun.

I am focusing on the killer, not his choice of weapon. I think someone who has set himself on the path of mass murder will simply choose another means. Young killers today happen to choose an AR because they are a glamorous, fashionable weapon.

If they ban or restrict ARs simply because they're popular with killers, what's to stop them from using the same rationale later to ban or restrict shotguns? What happens when some mass killers start using hunting rifles, which will then be called "sniper rifles"?

An AR-15 is far down in my list of favorite firearms. I do own one AR, and I'd gladly give it up if it would stop one mass killing. But it wouldn't.

We can ban various non-sentient objects, but the real causes of mass killings won't be addressed. We ought to face the tougher question of why our society produces and even nourishes mass murderers. "Let's go ban something" is the easy answer, but not the right one, imho.

Just outstanding! Very well written!

Thank you for posting that!

You know Texas banned the carrying of Handguns in 1871 in settled counties.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
You know Texas banned the carrying of Handguns in 1871 in settled counties.

Interesting. But as you've pointed out, the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, didn't extend to the states in those days.

It does call into question Justice Thomas assertion that firearms laws must fit a “historical understanding.”

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
You know Texas banned the carrying of Handguns in 1871 in settled counties.

Reconstruction Era law,
along with several other “control” laws in 1871.
1871 was a difficult and controversial legislative session , to say the least.

Nope.

Reconstruction ended in Texas on March 30, 1870.

On March 30, 1870, Texas was formally readmitted to the Union by President Grant.

But the effects of reconstruction lingered on.

Until the compromise of 1877.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

I agree with increased funding for mental health treatment. Unlike Baker's other four proposals, this one at least shows a nexus between the problem and proposed solution, since most of these mass killers had a serious screw loose. It puts proper emphasis on the killers, not the firearms which kill nothing by themselves.

Keep in mind that James Baker is a creature of the DC swamp.
Increasing the government's functions and sales revenue was his bread and butter.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
Until the compromise of 1877.

but we forget
the youngster knows all sees all

Texas was readmitted to the Union on 1870.

Grant ended reconstruction in 1870 in Texas.

Republicans started loosing elections in 1872.

Back40 is wrong as to the ending of Reconstruction in Texas.

that's it-
keep reaffirming for yourself--

Dugga the only states under Reconstruction in 1876 affected by the Compromise of 1877 Presidential Election were:

Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina—the only three states in the South with Reconstruction-era Republican governments still in power.

Texas had Reconstruction end March 30, 1870.

The law is from 1871.

You are incorrect concerning the end of Reconstruction in Texas.

This are fact. You cannot change them by denying them.

Any new gun law puts a burden on law-abiding gun owners. Their Second Amendment rights are affected; maybe not to the stage of actionable infringement, but there is a burden created by the new law. Therefore I believe before we make a new gun law, there ought to be some showing of a causal connection between the new law and its stated goal.

In fact, experience shows that many gun laws are rarely enforced against those who violate them, so often the burden falls entirely on law-abiding gun owners. If someone ineligible to buy a gun, who commits a crime by attempting to do so, faces no consequences, then the law isn't directed at him. Lawful gun-owners are the only targets of the legislation.

I consider waiting twenty minutes for a background check a reasonable burden for the goal of preventing illegal gun purchases. But not when those who are rejected by the system, and thus may have committed a crime, are free to go their merry way and try their luck at the next gun store. The federal government ought to be investigating and prosecuting these people, but it doesn't.

And yes, I do accept that a certain number of mass murders will occur in our free, multicultural society. We should be looking for ways to reduce them as close to zero as possible...not passing knee-jerk, feel-good laws that won't work.

I'm not an expert in mental health, so I can't give more than "platitudes" in that area. If I'm not sure where to aim, at least I'm more confident of the target, the actual murderers.

The constitution of 1876 remains the basic law in Texas today.
It stripped the power out of the state gov to undo the Republican parties reconstruction.
You are stopping your history search to early emperor.

Roland is one of the few that makes sense it seems.
The FBI had 278 thousand fisa warrants in 2020-21
If they are so quick to do searches on people, they can do it on the sites that push these nutcases to shoot up schools.

Only 3 states bring S. CArolina, Louisiana, and Florida were under Reconstruction by 1876. Those are the 3 states and only 3 states The Compromise of 1877 ended Reconstruction in.

That is a fact. You can not defeat.


Just a skin of Dr. Easter’s paper shows Texas had handgun carrying restrictions in the 1880s.

Texas was Not Under Federal Reconstruction in 1871, 1876, nor 1877. Nothing you have said can or does change that.


Oh, and these crimes being Mass Murder are not Fed Crimes subject to Federal Jurisdiction for a FISA like warrant.

A red flag law at the state level would allow for a warrant search of folks internet history. I have written them. It takes time to get the access even when the judge signs off on it.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Dugga the only states under Reconstruction in 1876 affected by the Compromise of 1877 Presidential Election were:

Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina—the only three states in the South with Reconstruction-era Republican governments still in power.

Texas had Reconstruction end March 30, 1870.

The law is from 1871.

You are incorrect concerning the end of Reconstruction in Texas.

This are fact. You cannot change them by denying them.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The "law" which was largely ignored
was enacted at the same time as:


The Reconstruction Administration of Governor E. J. Davis

Congressional Reconstruction brought on the governorship of E. J. Davis, the first Republican governor in the history of the state and the last for over a century to come.
His actions as governor from 1870 through 1873 and those of the Twelfth Legislature would make this period highly unpopular among the majority of Texans.
Each of the following actions played a part.
1. State Militia
The Twelfth Legislature, in which Republican members were a leading force, empowered the creation of a state militia system under the control of Governor Davis. The governor was empowered to use the militia to maintain law and order when local officials failed or refused to do so.
2. State Police
The State Police were a permanent force, as opposed to the state militia, which had the authority to operate anywhere in the state, overruling local law enforcement officials. The State Police were a relatively efficient group but they were hated at the time because blacks made up a sizable portion of the force and it was used to put down unruly and violent groups opposing Reconstruction.
3. The Enabling Act
This legislation allowed Governor Davis to fill some 8,500 jobs in government at every level in Texas that had been made vacant by enforcement of the iron clad oath. Such appointive power in the hands of the governor was unprecedented in Texas where Jacksonian Democracy had always kept governors weak.
4. Martial Law
Governor Davis declared martial law in Limestone, Freestone, Hill, and Walker Counties when law enforcement machinery broke down. He thus sent in the State Police to quell disorder. Historians today maintain the necessity of these actions but they were exceedingly unpopular at the time.
5. The Radical Legislative Program
Reconstruction legislatures across the South have been charged with incredible corruption and lavish spending. There is some truth to these charges, but the same can be said for northern state legislatures and the federal government at the same time. There can be no question, however, that the Reconstruction legislature in Texas pursued a much more active and expensive program than Texas had ever seen before. Public funds were used to create a public school system, to subsidize the construction of railroads in the state, and to construct a road system.
The Davis administration and Congressional Reconstruction were exceedingly unpopular among the majority of Texans for multiple reasons. They were accomplished by outside force through an army of occupation and centralized governmental power where Texans had always preferred decentralization. They pursued active government where Texans had always preferred small, inactive, and cheaper government. Large numbers of Texans were disfranchised by the iron clad oath while blacks were enfranchised. The coercive force of the state militia, state police, and martial law enraged the majority as did the fact that Reconstruction placed state government in the hands of Republicans.
Given the tremendous unpopularity and abnormality of Congressional Reconstruction, it is understandable that Texans moved to undo everything associated with Reconstruction as soon as the state was readmitted to the Union and the iron clad oath and military occupation came to an end.
The process of undoing Reconstruction began in October, 1871 when Texans removed the state's four U. S. Representatives in a special election and replaced them with four unreconstructed Democrats.
Democrats regained control of the Texas legislature in late 1872 as a result of elections in which Texans vented their wrath on the Republicans. Almost immediately the Thirteenth Legislature repealed most of the "radical" legislative program enacted by the previous body and removed some of the governor's most significant powers.
In December, 1873, Texans removed Governor Davis from office in favor of an unreconstructed Democrat, Richard Coke.
In 1875 Texans held a constitutional convention to replace the Constitution of 1869 which had been forced on the state and which the majority of Texans regarded as anathema. In 1876 Texans adopted our present constitution which was designed to prevent a recurrence of active government forevermore. With the adoption of the Constitution of 1876 by Texas voters, the undoing of Reconstruction was complete.
Enduring Impacts of Reconstruction in Texas
While the dismantling of Reconstruction was complete in Texas by 1876, the impact of this experience lasted far beyond that date. The Republican party was discredited in the Lone Star state for almost one hundred years, in large part because of its association with this unpopular period. Similarly discredited was active, interventionary government. Texans had seen such a government during Reconstruction. The majority were convinced it had done things to them not done things for them. They were determined to prevent any recurrence. Government would be kept as small and as weak as at all possible in the aftermath. Reconstruction also produced the exceedingly restrictive Constitution of 1876, under which the state of Texas still attempts to function today. Finally, the Reconstruction experience created a bitterness against black Texans that would delay the attainment of equal rights for a full century.