“ gun control “

[wanderingrichard]

There is an interesting article in the Atlantic this week, titled THE NARCISSISM OF THE ANGRY YOUNG MEN. The point seems to be that we need a way to identify and help or or intercept what the author calls "The Lost Boys." Here are some quotes from the paywalled article:

They are man-boys who maintain a teenager’s sharp sense of self-absorbed grievance long after adolescence; they exhibit a combination of childish insecurity and lethally bold arrogance; they are sexually and socially insecure. Perhaps most dangerous, they go almost unnoticed until they explode. Some of them open fire on their schools or other institutions; others become Islamic radicals; yet others embrace right-wing-extremist conspiracies.

These attacks are not merely “violence” in some general sense, nor are they similar to other gun crimes classified as “mass shootings” beyond the number of victims. Drug-war shoot-outs and gang vendettas are awful, but they are better-understood problems, in both their origins and possible remedies. The Lost Boys, however, are the perpetrators of out-of-the-blue massacres of innocents. Their actions are not driven by criminal gain, but instead are meant to shock us, to make us grieve, and finally, to force us to acknowledge the miserable existence of the young men behind the triggers.

After each Lost Boy killing, Americans are engulfed in grief and anger, but eventually, we are overtaken by a sense of helplessness. Sometimes, we respond by raging at one another; we fight about gun control or mental-health funding or the role of social media as we try to fix blame and reduce a seemingly inexplicable act to something discrete and solvable. But I wonder now, as I did back in 2015, if all of these debates are focusing on the wrong problems. Yes, the country is awash in guns; yes, depression seems to be on the rise in young people; yes, extremists are using social media to fuse together atomized losers into explosive compounds. But the raw material for all of the violence is mostly a stream of lost young men.

Why is this happening? What are we missing? Guns and anomie and extremism are only facets of the problem. The real malady afflicting these men, one about which I’ve written much in the intervening years since that original article, is the deluge of narcissism in the modern world, especially among failed-to-launch young men whose injured grandiosity leads them to blame others for their own shortcomings and insecurities—and to seek revenge.

The lost boys are mostly young and male, largely middle- or working-class. Frustrated by their own social awkwardness, they are so often described as “loners” that the trope has been around from as early as the 1980s. But these young males, no matter how “quiet,” are filled with an astonishing level of enraged resentment and entitlement about their roles as men, and they seek rationalizations for inflicting violence on a society they think has both ignored and injured them. They become what the German writer Hans Magnus Enzensberger called “radical losers,” unsuccessful men who feel that they have been denied their dominant role in society and who then channel their blunted male social impulses toward destruction.

What we can do, however, is start talking more about the specific problem of dangerous male immaturity without falling into endless loops about gun control, public health, or “toxic masculinity.” We can, in schools and colleges, pay closer attention to the boys and young men who seem to be sliding toward darkness, perhaps with more attempts to pull them toward a community or into mentorship with older men. At the least, we should be able to find a way to engage in gentle interventions early rather than face more drastic consequences later. As Enzensberger presciently warned nearly two decades ago: “It is difficult to talk about the loser, and it is stupid not to.”

So, the term of the day is now "Lost Boys" and not "Incels"?

 

[charles sullivan]

The bill of rights was absolutely never to be taken away from. Those are SOME of the God given rights that government is forbidden to touch.. yes absolutely forbidden regardless I'd circumstances or the will of the majority..

If an AR is not protected by the second ammendment then your tweets and emails are not protected by the first..

As far as a tyrannical American government? We're already not that far off. Or do you not recent government actions that kept you locked up at home?

There is no such thing as god given. There is no god.

 

[TicTokCroc]

Oh now it's gettin' good

Case of the Mondays today...

 

[Zak]

So, the term of the day is now "Lost Boys" and not "Incels"?

The article does mention incels.

 

[Salmo_g]

@Salmo_g
Wouldn't the mental health waiver constitute a violation of HIPAA ??

While assisting my late sister with getting her affairs in order, we couldn't even discuss her medical issues with my wife in the room because Hospital staff would invoke HIPAA at the slightest breath of disclosure.
So, how would this requirement in 1143 not violate it too ?

Richard,

1143 violates HIPAA and so much more than I know. I can see how the bill is well intended, but I think it is ultimately a "can't get there from here" piece of proposed legislation.

 

[Rob Allen]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

The consent of the governed is waning.

 

[flybill]

No, bill, its not an interpretation. It was written so that the greater population would have parity of arms with the "government" if it became necessary to overthrow a tyrannical government by force of arms.
Each of our guaranteed rights within the bill of rights and the body of text that is our constitution are inter linked. Remove or weaken one, and you lose others in the process.

Regarding "militia" : that's a deep dive i think anyone interested in the term should take the time to make.
Looking at the Militia Act of 1903, it pans out as a way for the federal government to consolidate military power away from the states, several of which had very powerful state militias and "State Guard" units, prior to the National Guard Act, which came later.

If you do do that dive, beware you'll need a score card and a Ouija Board at times to make sense of it all.

I don't need a deep dive.. I studied polical science and the constitution in college.. basically we have the right to bear arms.. but the current ammendment was written long before the AR-15 and modern society.. things can and will(should) change..

Regarding "Militia" that was different when the 2nd ammendment was written.. to think that it applies to the modern interpretation of what we have going on is a reach at best.. I do not believe that the language of t Ihe ammendment can be changed in today's choatic envirnoment is possible.. we can't even agree on common sense guns right changes.. my opinion...

We are not currently fighting the current administration or even government at the moment.. unless you believe assholes like Trump and his followers.. I am tired of hearing that any change to current regulations will take "all" of our guns away.. there are and always been certain gun and weapon systems that we as individuals cannot own.

Our military, or miltia, if you want to substitue that do have and can use are differeent than what we can own as individuals can possess and own. I have the right to arm myself for protection.. I just can't own everything out there.. Iike rpgs and fully automatic weapons!

In my opinion, anyone who thinks otherwise is foolish.. so we will have to agree to disagree.. and deal with the legal system if we (you) use them in some inappropriate way..

I'm not trying to make it personal.. you vs me.. if it comes accross that way I do not mean it to sound like that.

Peace!
Bill

 

[charles sullivan]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

The consent of the governed is waning.

The consent of the governed was limitted to white men who owned property at this point in time. Fortunately that is no longer the case.
Also, that was from the declaration of independance. It has nothing to do with 2A.
Further, when the 2A was written the purpose was to arm state militias as there was a very limited federal army. The states at that time were responsible to defend themselves and therefore the US. This perspective held until the Heller decision. Prior to that SCOTUS interpreted it far differently. Recent courts have made assertions regarding intent that other courts would not. The idea that the 2A was there for personal protection was not precedent until the most recent court. As with the 1st amendment this court like to favor only a portion of the amendment acting like the portion on the other side of the comma does not exist.
I would argue that you are correct, that the consent of the governed is waning. The countries distrust and at times contempt for this particular supreme court is clear and easily quantified. They have created their own form of judicial governance, overeaching and ignoring plain language and precedent with contempt for secular governance. They have routinely overturned precedance like Dobbs and Heller and gone so far as to blatently lie in the Kennefy case. Provided you are a Christin male, your rights may be safe. The "governed" is no longer just white men who own land though. This leads to the waning of the majorities consent to be governed by this court.
In the end, I see a scenario where 2A is overturned by the will of the people and this would not happen if this court did not inject it's own religous beliefs into the minds of those who wrote the constitution. They do this by disregarding precedent, and ignoring the totality of the 1st and 14th amendments as a matter of covenience in an effort to assert their power over our country.
This court will be the reason that the 2nd will be repealed or replaced. The modern version of "the governed" will at some point be forced to act.

 

[SurfnFish]

I don't need a deep dive.. I studied polical science and the constitution in college.. basically we have the right to bear arms.. but the current ammendment was written long before the AR-15 and modern society.. things can and will(should) change..

Regarding "Militia" that was different when the 2nd ammendment was written.. to think that it applies to the modern interpretation of what we have going on is a reach at best.. I do not believe that the language of t Ihe ammendment can be changed in today's choatic envirnoment is possible.. we can't even agree on common sense guns right changes.. my opinion...

We are not currently fighting the current administration or even government at the moment.. unless you believe assholes like Trump and his followers.. I am tired of hearing that any change to current regulations will take "all" of our guns away.. there are and always been certain gun and weapon systems that we as individuals cannot own.

Our military, or miltia, if you want to substitue that do have and can use are differeent than what we can own as individuals can possess and own. I have the right to arm myself for protection.. I just can't own everything out there.. Iike rpgs and fully automatic weapons!

In my opinion, anyone who thinks otherwise is foolish.. so we will have to agree to disagree.. and deal with the legal system if we (you) use them in some inappropriate way..

I'm not trying to make it personal.. you vs me.. if it comes accross that way I do not mean it to sound like that.

Peace!
Bill

Let's keep the name calling out of this, regardless of personal feelings.
As long as we have the debate offering facts and opinions without the attacks...well, that's the only we can actually have a debate, and not just another closed thread.

 

[Rob Allen]

No one knows more about what the 2nd ammendment means and what it's purpose is than those who wrote it and signed it into law.

What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Stephens Smith, son-in-law of John Adams, December 20, 1787


Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787


f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788


The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788


The words of these men matter, ours do not.

 

[Zak]

No one knows more about what the 2nd ammendment means and what it's purpose is than those who wrote it and signed it into law.

What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Stephens Smith, son-in-law of John Adams, December 20, 1787


Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787


f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788


The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788


The words of these men matter, ours do not.

Great quotes! The first Jefferson quote reminds of (if I remember it right) "The tree of liberty must from time to time be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

I think that the Founders feared standing armies, and thus the necessity for a "well regulated militia" of armed citizens. Of course, now we have, by far, the largest standing army in the world.

Our words (speaking generally of voters and citizens) matter. The Founders intended the Constitution to change over time. That's why there is a process for amending it. But it is the supreme law of the land.

 

[charles sullivan]

No one knows more about what the 2nd ammendment means and what it's purpose is than those who wrote it and signed it into law.

What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Stephens Smith, son-in-law of John Adams, December 20, 1787


Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787


f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788


The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788


The words of these men matter, ours do not.

The words of them those men should not and do not matter most. The words and actions of present day living and breathing humans do. In fact, there are mechanisms for changing the constitution, which was what I was saying will be the end of the 2A. This court and their bungling of nearly every case associated with the 1st and 14th amendments will force the nations hand at some point. At that point, the 2nd can and will come in to play to be changed, reversed or clarified in a manner far different than this courts interpretation.

Our voices matter most not only because we should not be governed by selfish morally reprehensible people who died 200 years ago but also because those people were homogenously wealthy white men who formed a government for their own benefit. The words of Jefferson and Hamilton were eloquent and spoke of freedom and liberty but in action they actually owned and traded human beings. So while their words may be inspiring or comforting especially to those who believe in fairy tales, they created a government that allowed for the owning and trading of humans. The government that they created was designed to treat people so unequally as to allow humans to be owned. This was done mostly through "states rights" and by abdicated the responsibility to protect all people through the federal government and bill of rights. All this was done for their own personal gain. It's pretty difficult to think that they created some form of perfect governmental system or should be treated as though they deserve some respect. They did not and they do not. They should not be looked upon with reverence. In fact, they should be looked upon with skepticism, doubt and often scorn. The best of them like Webster turned a blind eye to slavery and the rights of women when crafting our form of government. Others like Hamilton and Jefferson were active slave owners and traders. To use their work creating our government as guidance as to how to assure freedom and liberty for all is like using R Kelly as a role model as to treat your daughters.

Look at the Declaration of independence: "All men are created equal?" except the humans that I profit from, trade, use for sex, and give no rights to? Solid work Tommy J! Liberty for me, freedom for me, slavery and no rights for African Americans and women. The truly sickening part is by virtue of the words that they wrote, they showed that they knew better. By their actions, including creating our government, they showed that they did not actually care. Looking at these people as in any way being superior or more important than present day living humans defies logic. The country can not and should not be beholden to them or the government that they formed for the enrichment of themselves and their peers at the cost of everyone else. It's a fairy tale told for the comfort of those too weak to think on their own.

They were so good at creating a framework of planned inequality that slavery required a war to overcome. Jim Crow lasted until modern times and the effects of it are still felt every day. Inequality has been ingrained into our society so much that it is still the norm in the most powerful of places.

Much of the planned inequities of our original form of government began to be healed with the 14th amendment. This court has all but ignored it and it's true meaning as evidenced by recent court rulings. This is why I am of the belief that this very court is the single greatest thereat to the 2nd amendment. At some point as they strip Americans of long standing and immensely popular rights conveyed thorough the 14th, the population will be forced to look at all of our government. When the 2A is changed due to popular pressure, I believe that you will have Sam Alito and his religious zealot cohorts to blame.

 

[SurfnFish]

Last year in Canada two brothers stabbed 10 or so people to death on a reserve if I remember correctly.

Two brothers, each over 240#, attacking people in their homes early in the morning and on the streets, pulling over,jumpiing out and bum rushing the victims, and no one notified the tribal police for over an hour. And being in Canada, with no concealed carry, victims did not have much chance to fight back.
Getting back to the NRA, their big contribution to gun safety was to become one of the parties fighting the bump stock ban after the Las Vegas massacre, while the manufacturer of the bump stocks went after the shooters estate for 'damages' from the ban. Despicable. 58 fathers, mothers, and children killed from the window of a hotel. Without AR's, it would never have happened.

Gunman opens fire on Las Vegas concert crowd, wounding hundreds and killing 58 | October 1, 2017 | HISTORY

On October 1, 2017, a gunman opened fire on a crowd attending the final night of a country music festival in Las Vegas, killing 58 people and injuring more than 800.

www.history.com

 

[SurfnFish]

The words of them those men should not and do not matter most. The words and actions of present day living and breathing humans do. In fact, there are mechanisms for changing the constitution, which was what I was saying will be the end of the 2A. This court and their bungling of nearly every case associated with the 1st and 14th amendments will force the nations hand at some point. At that point, the 2nd can and will come in to play to be changed, reversed or clarified in a manner far different than this courts interpretation.

Our voices matter most not only because we should not be governed by selfish morally reprehensible people who died 200 years ago but also because those people were homogenously wealthy white men who formed a government for their own benefit. The words of Jefferson and Hamilton were eloquent and spoke of freedom and liberty but in action they actually owned and traded human beings. So while their words may be inspiring or comforting especially to those who believe in fairy tales, they created a government that allowed for the owning and trading of humans. The government that they created was designed to treat people so unequally as to allow humans to be owned. This was done mostly through "states rights" and by abdicated the responsibility to protect all people through the federal government and bill of rights. All this was done for their own personal gain. It's pretty difficult to think that they created some form of perfect governmental system or should be treated as though they deserve some respect. They did not and they do not. They should not be looked upon with reverence. In fact, they should be looked upon with skepticism, doubt and often scorn. The best of them like Webster turned a blind eye to slavery and the rights of women when crafting our form of government. Others like Hamilton and Jefferson were active slave owners and traders. To use their work creating our government as guidance as to how to assure freedom and liberty for all is like using R Kelly as a role model as to treat your daughters.

Look at the Declaration of independence: "All men are created equal?" except the humans that I profit from, trade, use for sex, and give no rights to? Solid work Tommy J! Liberty for me, freedom for me, slavery and no rights for African Americans and women. The truly sickening part is by virtue of the words that they wrote, they showed that they knew better. By their actions, including creating our government, they showed that they did not actually care. Looking at these people as in any way being superior or more important than present day living humans defies logic. The country can not and should not be beholden to them or the government that they formed for the enrichment of themselves and their peers at the cost of everyone else. It's a fairy tale told for the comfort of those too weak to think on their own.

They were so good at creating a framework of planned inequality that slavery required a war to overcome. Jim Crow lasted until modern times and the effects of it are still felt every day. Inequality has been ingrained into our society so much that it is still the norm in the most powerful of places.

Much of the planned inequities of our original form of government began to be healed with the 14th amendment. This court has all but ignored it and it's true meaning as evidenced by recent court rulings. This is why I am of the belief that this very court is the single greatest thereat to the 2nd amendment. At some point as they strip Americans of long standing and immensely popular rights conveyed thorough the 14th, the population will be forced to look at all of our government. When the 2A is changed due to popular pressure, I believe that you will have Sam Alito and his religious zealot cohorts to blam

This corrupted SC has become the tip of the spear for the white Christian movement that made it so, their mission to gut the absoute prime tenent of the Constitution, which is the seperation of church and government. And that is hella more threatening to democracy than any changes to the 2nd amendment.

 

[wanderingrichard]

The article does mention incels.

True, but the article also brought out the wise ass cynic in me that just had to speak up.

 

[wanderingrichard]

I don't need a deep dive.. I studied polical science and the constitution in college.. basically we have the right to bear arms.. but the current ammendment was written long before the AR-15 and modern society.. things can and will(should) change..

Regarding "Militia" that was different when the 2nd ammendment was written.. to think that it applies to the modern interpretation of what we have going on is a reach at best.. I do not believe that the language of t Ihe ammendment can be changed in today's choatic envirnoment is possible.. we can't even agree on common sense guns right changes.. my opinion...

We are not currently fighting the current administration or even government at the moment.. unless you believe assholes like Trump and his followers.. I am tired of hearing that any change to current regulations will take "all" of our guns away.. there are and always been certain gun and weapon systems that we as individuals cannot own.

Our military, or miltia, if you want to substitue that do have and can use are differeent than what we can own as individuals can possess and own. I have the right to arm myself for protection.. I just can't own everything out there.. Iike rpgs and fully automatic weapons!

In my opinion, anyone who thinks otherwise is foolish.. so we will have to agree to disagree.. and deal with the legal system if we (you) use them in some inappropriate way..

I'm not trying to make it personal.. you vs me.. if it comes accross that way I do not mean it to sound like that.

Peace!
Bill

Notice that my part regarding" Militia" was written to address the rest of this forum as well.

 

[Emily27]

The words of these men matter, ours do not.

Why do you worship these old dead white guys? They made a system that gave power to (some of) the people for a reason and for all you claim to respect them you ignore the core tenets of our democracy.

 

[charles sullivan]

This corrupted SC has become the tip of the spear for the white Christian movement that made it so, their mission to gut the absoute prime tenent of the Constitution, which is the seperation of church and government. And that is hella more threatening to democracy than any changes to the 2nd amendment.

I agree 100%.

I can see the 2nd going as collateral damage.

 

[Roper]

All this hatred for the AR. Where’s the hate for the over 60 other guns to be banned? There‘s several other makes and models not on the list, but I won’t mention them here. If you look around there are several semi-auto rifles capable of doing the same harm. But they’re not “scary looking”. That’s our myopic government for Ya…

 

[Long_Rod_Silvers]

All this hatred for the AR. Where’s the hate for the over 60 other guns to be banned? There‘s several other makes and models not on the list, but I won’t mention them here. If you look around there are several semi-auto rifles capable of doing the same harm. But they’re not “scary looking”. That’s our myopic government for Ya…

You can't hate what you don't know. All people know is AR. 'Cause AR = Assault Rifle, right?