Acceptable Losses

Sadly, that is true, but that's another form of corruption that needs to be addressed separately because it affects all aspects of the law and court systems. I was a journalist at Sacramento Court for a time and witnessed firsthand the vast differences between charges, convictions, sentences, etc. for the same crime in regards to people of different "races." There is so much racism, and so much variance in accountability because of class. I was a double major in sociology and psychology. So much of my education was absolutely infuriating because it highlighted the existing unfairness in our legal systems.

Also, someone in this thread (sorry, can't remember who), mentioned that there's a conflict of interest when performing background checks before issuing firearms... this conflict of interest lies in stigmatizing mental illness. I see where you're coming from, but a history of mental illness should factor into the issuing of guns, and here's why: Police officers have to undergo psychological evaluations before rejoining the force after a traumatic event before being allowed to carry a firearm again. So should anyone looking to get a gun license with (or without) a history of mental illness have to undergo a psychological evaluation.

Owners of guns should also have to undergo annual psych evaluations/background checks.

Interesting point and a valid one, personally I think police officers should have to have a psychological evaluation each and every year, they go through so much and it's a known fact that most of them have a very unstable home life.....the same for returning servicemen and ex-cons.

This article is incendiary (I hope you can ignore the tone and rhetoric), and I would probably double check their sources. But I'm curious, what are your thoughts on these statistics?

http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/politics/the-top-10-states-for-gun-deaths-guess-how-many-are-blue-with-strict-gun-control-laws-images/

Jane, pretty sure it was me that mentioned that will mental illness, and my point was exactly what you're saying.

Also, the way you phrased the bit about those of "you" wanting to see mass shootings reduced, that's kinda crappy. You're basically saying those of us who are pro our 2nd amendment rights are wanting to see mass shootings stay the same or increase? Of course not.

The people who purchased the firearms with questionable history should absolutely not have been able to. In Oregon, my uncle had a DUI. He is not allowed to legally own a firearm. He does not have one, and the family knows we are not allowed to bring one in the house. I'd absolutely trust my life in his hands, especially since his DUI was 17 years or so ago. But Oregon prevents this from happening. I think I have a skewed vision of this because Oregon law is pretty strict with their checks.

Anyway, criminal history and any sort of questionable mental health should not have passed the background check. The checks need to be more defined, not just if you have a felony, you don't get a gun.

So Britt are you evaluating societies values based on a an amendment written 224 years ago ?

your 2nd amendment was partial based on the English Bill on the rights to keep and bear arms in English common-law. Over the last 100 years British gun laws have increasingly tightened. Hand guns have been banned since 1997 other than for a few registered guns, pistols of historic interest, starting pistols for sport etc. The United Kingdom now has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world.

Every country that has introduced strict gun control has seen a huge decrease in gun homicides rates

Everybody rattles on about the 2nd amendment, for god sake change the bloody thing, its 224 years old. The Gun lobby is controlling all this, its not about mass killings its about money and greed. trying to limit sales to the insane or mentally impaired will have minimal effect. What Jane is saying isn't crappy its right, its not 1791 its 2015....

Those congressmen that voted to continue selling automatic weapons to known terrorists would not last 10 seconds in Australia's political system, they would be hounded out of office and publicly disgraced..... they are either corrupt, morally bankrupt, or living on another bloody planet.

Sorry, Britt, I was talking about those people who insinuate there's no point in trying to remedy the proliferation of mass shootings because it might not work. People suggesting that bad people will do bad things no matter what, so why try to stop them. I'm against that rhetoric.

I wasn't targeting those of you who support the 2nd Amendment. I'm not necessarily against the right to bear Arms, though I wouldn't say I'm for it either. I am, however, wholly against the ease with which many people are able to acquire firearms, and I am also against some of the types of firearms currently accessible.

Whether you support the 2nd Amendment or not, it's possible to offer ideas. Which you have, Britt. The 'there's nothing we can do' attitude is what makes me nauseous. Hope that clears things up.

"personally I think police officers should have to have a psychological evaluation each and every year, they go through so much and it's a known fact that most of them have a very unstable home life"

^Oh yes, I agree.

"Those congressmen that voted to continue selling automatic weapons to known terrorists would not last 10 seconds in Australia's political system, they would be hounded out of office and publicly disgraced..... they are either corrupt, morally bankrupt, or living on another bloody planet."

Nicko, you're too right. There's such corruption in the U.S. A handful of wealthy Americans with too much power have dollar signs in their eyes and don't seem to consider consequences of their decisions, though they affect us all.

Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0

The language is pretty strong but worth a watch, he was playing to a crowd in Boston, part two follows part 1

Sorry just saw this. Jane, totally get what you mean, now. Thank you for clarifying :)

Nicko - yes. I base society on values printed in the Bible, so based on an amendment, that shouldn't surprise you. ;)

No Britt it doesn't surprise me but your 2Nd Amendment states

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Do you belong to a well regulated militia ? like the police or army?

does everybody else wondering around with a gun belong to some well regulated militia ??

If thats not the case then why does everybody have guns ?

Militia in the 2nd amendment does not mean military like it does now, but rather the people. At least that's how it was depicted over 200 years ago.

^youd be correct, that was the only protection against rogue government......

Regarding militias and the background of the Second Amendment:

Back in the 1700s the colonies & new states had no standing army. You had to recruit citizens as they were needed for a militia. The government that was feared was that of George III. Britain did have a standing army which was imposed upon the colonies in several objectionable manners.

In response to the 1773 Boston Tea Party, the British Parliament passed the Coercive Acts in 1774. In anticipation that Britain would attempt to enforce these new laws there were calls for armed resistance in the colonies (Pennsylvania & South Carolina in particular).

General Thomas Gage, Royal Governor of Massachusetts, responded to this clamor by seizing hundreds of barrels of black powder from the town storage in Charleston on 1 September 1774, in what became known as the Powder Alarm. This event alone almost precipitated the Revolution. The act electrified the colonies and several "illegal" militias were established with the purpose of resisting British attempts to disarm them.

Less than two months later, in October 1774, the Royal Secretary of State for America, Lord Dartmouth, sent a letter to Gage charging him with the task of disarming the citizens of the colonies. Two days later George III blocked the import of arms and ammunition to the colonies.

On 19 April 1775 a contingency of Redcoats under Major John Pitcairn attempted to seize the gun powder and arms in Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts. He was met by the famous Minute Men who drove the British away from the weapons caches. The battles that took place that day began the American Revolution. It was the armed citizens who formed the militias throughout the colonies.

Today many States in the US have their own standing armed forces made of up the State Guard. 32 U.S.C. Sec. 109 provides that state defense forces may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces of the United States as a safeguard of state rights. Additionally, the Federal Government has its own domestic armed force, the National Guard, which can be incorporated into the US Army in times of war. The national Guard and most State Guards are comprised of Reservists, who have full time jobs ("weekend warriors) and full-time guardsmen.

The term "militia" used to mean a citizen, not a member of the armed forces. Today it is much more complicated.

The last active engagements of a citizen militia were in the Spanish American War (1898), the Mexican Revolution (as insurgents between 1910-1920), and the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba (1961).

Sources:
http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/american-revolution-against-british-gun-control.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)