MY IDEA FOR GETTING AMERICA'S GUN PROBLEM UNDER CONTROL (by Dachshund)

Dachshund said:
My argument is this...


(1) If you're normal, everyday American adult - a well-adjusted "Charlie Brown", then you should be able to "own and use" a private firearm appropriate for the purpose of self-defense, or if you are a member of a gun club a because are passionate about a hobby like target-shooting; or, if you are a farmer and you need to have your own a gun/s for stuff like vermin control and so on.

(2) America is a very big place and it has a big population, a lot of its population lives in urban areas, in, say, big cities like NYC, Los Angeles, Chicago. Right? Now, there are a lot of drug-addicts, mental cases and low-IQ goof-balls cruising around. It is largely in these urban areas that gun crimes , like homicide, occur. So what needs to happen is...


(1) Gun control legislation focussed on identifying these kind if individuals needs to be drafted. I have already made one suggestion, that is, a mandatory official IQ tests for anyone who want to own and bear a private firearm. If you want to buy a gun, then you have to sit the IQ test. Takes about 30 to 40 minutes to get it done. If you don't score 100 point at least, you are not permitted to buy, keep and carry a firearm. I'm going to get abused for sayinging this, but its true nonetheless - the reason there is such a disproportionate number of African-Americans blowing each other (and other Americans) away with guns, is because they have a well- established, average IQ of 85 - for lots of different reasons - (if you want to know what they are I can tell you in a separate post)- having an IQ of 85 points is not compatible with safe gun ownership.


(2) If you are a normal, well-adjusted, average American "Charlie Brown", you do not need a fully automatic "Heckler and Kock" or an "Uzi" or an ArmaLite, AR-15 (i.e; a semi-auto M-16) nor do you need an active "Tommy Gun." They are heaps fun to mess around with- shooting up targets and stuff like that, I know, because I was in army cadets and had gun training sessions with the Regular Australian Army. We got to fire fully automatic ArmaLites on the Army shooting ranges (under VERY close supervision) My point is that you you don't need guns like these if you want a weapon to defend your self and your family. There are plenty of handguns and rifles that will immediately drop an armed intruder in your house.


(3) There are a lot of emotionally unstable psychiatric cases in urban America: psychotics; schizophrenics; individuals with Bipolar disorder; Methedrine/Crack-Cocaine freaks who have permanently warped their own minds; psychopaths (individuals with anti-social personality disorder); clinically paranoid "Eight - Balls"; mental retards- (i.e. individuals with an IQ below 85); severe ADHD cases, and so on. It doesn't take much to "trigger" people with mental illnesses the these (and a range of others) into "acting out" violently and mindlessly. That would be another recommendation I'd make. Where individuals with these kind of "externalising ("short-fuse"/ potentially very violent psychiatric disorders, (or reallyANY severe psychiatric disorder) come to the attention of the police or other law enforcement officials, the "system" should give them the voice,EITHER they agree to have their condition regularly treated and monitored by by qualified psychiatrists or Clinical psychologists (NB: NOT IGNORANT mental health nurses and the like; OR - they go to jail; no ifs or buts.




So, the 2nd Amendment is out-dated. It was ratified in December of 1791 and has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with America's gun violence problems today ( and it never did).


Step ! is to expunge it from the Bill of Rights, ASAP.

Step 2: Is the long hard work of drafting a new set of gun laws foe the people. Somehow, money from the big pro- gun lobbies, the NRA, etc would have to kept out of the political process. That will be a difficult task in just in itself !


I think drafting new laws to control gun violnce/homicide in contemporary America would be a VERY COMPLEX and DIFFICULT challenge.


BUT, I THINK IT'S DO - ABLE !:good4u::)
Click to expand...


this is all total and complete horseshit.


:truestory:
 
Dachshund said:
America is supposed to be the most powerful, innovative, productive, wealthy, etc; nation in the West. Right? I think your original Constitution was a brilliant masterpiece, especially in its original, late 18th- century historical circumstance. There is still much in the Constitution that serves America very well today in the year 2023 - the Founders were extremely well-read liberal intellectuals, but they weren't wankers like today's left/liberal woke "intellectual" elite; they were also men of action who actually set,- worked hard toward, and achieved, many big and very worthwhile goals.


They are still very well worth listening to, but naturally, there are parts of the Constitution that have not aged well, or indeed, that have become completely redundant.


If America is such an advanced, successful country, what's to stop it saying: "Look guys, there are a few parts of the Constitution that are really outdated and we need to expunge them (coz they're start to cause serious trouble). The Second Amendment is one, It is about letting militiamen in each state keep and carry their own firearms. Right? But the whole militia thing just doesn't exist anymore - America simply doesn't have a state militia defence system like it envisaged -1791. Today, America has a massive, professional standing Military Force (army, navy, air-force, coastguard).


So with respect the gun law in America for the 21st century, I think it's high time that some "tippexced" the 2nd Amendment, and something more appropriate to the 21st - century was scribbled in.


Why couldn't Trump say - if he wins the 2024 election - " Right, I'm in charge here, and I say that the Constitution has got some outdated crap in it that we need cut out as a priority. We are not living in the year 1791 - the world and America has changed a great deal.


I am going to delete the Second Amendment entirely, because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the law regarding the ownership and carriage of firearms in America in 2024 - ZERO, ZIP, NADA !


We are going to start from scratch, drafting new firearms law, and I am willing to involve the people in the process.BUT, I will not have any time for any individual or group of person who put forward ding-bat proposals such as: the ordinary, everyday American "Charlie Brown" has a right to possess military rifles like fully-automatic AK-47 or "Heckler and Koch" automatic rifles or AR-15s (because AR-15s are simply semi-automatic M-16s) AR-!5s were NEVER designed for anything but the battlefield, they have FAR too much killing power for any legitimate civilian use.


President Trump continues: " I know you are all worried about being able to defend yourselves from an unfortunate minority of Americans who are: mentally ill, with, say, severe psychiatric conditions like; any history of chronic substance abuse/addiction; psychoses or grandiose narcissism, delusional disorders, antisocial personality disorder Intellectual Deficit Disorder (IDD) aka Mental-Retardation, which in the context of private, individual, gun ownership would rule out any American adult with a measured IQ score of 85 points or below; people who are seriously emotionally unstable due to a mental disorder or a congenital disorder like ADHD.


I envisage that under any new firearms' law the onus would be on the individual who wished to purchase a firearm to prove to the government they are of a sound state of mind.First and foremost, hey will need to pay for a mandatory government IQ test; also, they would likely need to produce official documentation from a private clinical psychologist or psychiatrist who is happy to confirm that an individual seeking to purchase a gun is of sound mind in all respect. This "soundness of mind" criterion would involve both rigorous and comprehensive medical (psychological/psychiatric) screening.


There would be many other qualifying criteria for Individual who seek to purchase ("Keep and bear) for instance, if an applicant had spent ANY time in prison they would be immediately disqualified; also if the applicant had any immediate family who had been incarcerated in the past for serious crimes like violent assault, murder, this in itself would disqualify an individual from being able to purchase a firearm.



Also , very importantly, if firearms vendors sell guns to members of the public they must make a scrupulous effort to ensure that the various items of documentation required for an individual to purchase a gun in America are legitimate and in order If the proprietor of a firearms selling business, is found to have failed to make the required checks of documents they would automatically receive a custodial sentence. If, over a substantial period of times a gun store owner is found to have failed to strictly comply with the law as it concerns the selling of firearms to the public, and guns have been sold to a sizeable number or members of the public who should not not have them; I would envisage a custodial sentence of at least 20 years in prison for the proprietor.



In short, under the new gun laws, a grub and a criminal ass-hole, like Hunter Biden, would not be able to waltz into a gun store in Delaware, "high-as-a-kite" on crack, then walk out 5 minutes later with a .38 revolver (which is what he actually did). One reason is that being a chronic drug addict should disqualify you immediately from purchasing a firearm. Another is that needing to purchase a .38 revolver so you can pose naked with the gun in your hand ( and juxtaposed suggestively close to your 2- inch "peenie") in order to impress a Skanky Ho you got in your hotel room - i.e; with your rugged, "Clint Eastwood" machismo:):) - is not a legitimate reason for being able to purchase a gun.



Writing new gun laws that work would be a very complex and difficult problem. It would be a long process. But if American can put a man on the moon, (and create a totally awesome Sit-Com like "The Brady Bunch" - I still love it !!):good4u: then I'm sure it can sort it's current gun-crime problem out. Right?







Dachshund - the Wonder Hound



DLM....Dachshund Lives Matter !!
Click to expand...

"Heller" vs. D.C. has already decided this one...and you lost.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
who cares about 'muh constitution' anyway, am I right?
Click to expand...

the constitution is made up of original text, amendments and court decisions. It is simply not realistic to expect decisions made about the constitution in 1850 to be reversed by other court decisions in 2023. This is not a Roe v Wade scenario. This will require an actual amendment to correct
 
Last edited:
zymurgy said:
the constitutions is made up of original text, amendments and court decisions. It is simply not realistic to expect decisions made about the constitution in 1850 to be reversed by other court decisions in 2023. This is not a Roe v Wade scenario. This will require an actual amendment to correct
Click to expand...

How does a constitutional amendment get changed?

Article V of the Constitution provides two ways to propose amendments to the document. Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress, through a joint resolution passed by a two-thirds vote, or by a convention called by Congress in response to applications from two-thirds of the state legislatures.

Lots of luck with that.
 
Earl said:
How does a constitutional amendment get changed?

Article V of the Constitution provides two ways to propose amendments to the document. Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress, through a joint resolution passed by a two-thirds vote, or by a convention called by Congress in response to applications from two-thirds of the state legislatures.

Lots of luck with that.
Click to expand...

it gets changed by another amendment.

It can get interpreted and clarified by the courts.
 
zymurgy said:
it gets changed by another amendment.

It can get interpreted and clarified by the courts.
Click to expand...

“It can get interpreted and clarified by the courts.”

No, this hurdle must be cleared:


Article V of the Constitution provides two ways to propose amendments to the document. Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress, through a joint resolution passed by a two-thirds vote, or by a convention called by Congress in response to applications from two-thirds of the state legislatures.

Courts can not change an amendment.
 
Earl said:
No, this hurdle must be cleared:


Article V of the Constitution provides two ways to propose amendments to the document. Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress, through a joint resolution passed by a two-thirds vote, or by a convention called by Congress in response to applications from two-thirds of the state legislatures.

Courts can not change an amendment.
Click to expand...

You say they can't - but history is not on your side. They used judicial review to change the constitution to grant them judicial review. The rest is history. We can act like little kids and jump up and down and throw a tantrum, or we can work to fix it.
 
zymurgy said:
You say they can't - but history is not on your side. They used judicial review to change the constitution to grant them judicial review. The rest is history. We can act like little kids and jump up and down and throw a tantrum, or we can work to fix it.
Click to expand...

Which part of the Constitution was altered by judicial review?

You simply must read the Constitution. “judicial review” is not mentioned.

“The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803).”

It addresses violations of the Constitution.

Good grief, is this an example of the efficacy of high school civics?
 
Last edited:
Earl said:
Which part of the Constitution was altered by judicial review?

You simply must read the Constitution. “judicial review” is not mentioned.
Click to expand...

where in the constitution is judicial review mentioned.

let's start with that change itself in 1850 it became a defacto part of constitutional powers.
 
zymurgy said:
You say they can't - but history is not on your side. They used judicial review to change the constitution to grant them judicial review. The rest is history. We can act like little kids and jump up and down and throw a tantrum, or we can work to fix it.
Click to expand...

just because they did it and people apathetically allowed it, does not mean that they can constitutionally. One way to fix it would be for everybody to actually read the constitution, read the debate minutes, federalist and anti federalist papers, and ALL of the commentaries before, during, and after ratification. THEN, remember that we all have the right of jury nullification to nullify federal laws they have no power to make or enforce.
 
zymurgy said:
yet an American Farmer can be ordered to not grow wheat. Countless examples like that exist

So you say it can't be done - but it is happening.
Click to expand...

because way too many liberals here believe that we the people, who own the constitution, are now too stupid to understand it and must let the nanny state government tell them right from wrong.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
just because they did it and people apathetically allowed it, does not mean that they can constitutionally. One way to fix it would be for everybody to actually read the constitution, read the debate minutes, federalist and anti federalist papers, and ALL of the commentaries before, during, and after ratification. THEN, remember that we all have the right of jury nullification to nullify federal laws they have no power to make or enforce.
Click to expand...

We are saying the same thing "We can act like little kids and jump up and down and throw a tantrum, or we can work to fix it."
 
SmarterthanYou said:
because way too many liberals here believe that we the people, who own the constitution, are now too stupid to understand it and must let the nanny state government tell them right from wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to sit here and blow smoke up peoples ass. when a boot is at your throat, you don't say "golly gee beave, it is not possible for a boot to be at your throat".
 
Any decision decided by jury nullification can be reviewed by the Supreme Court or lower Appellate courts.

Jury nullification has zero to do with amending the Constitution.

Otra vez:

How does a constitutional amendment get changed?

Article V of the Constitution provides two ways to propose amendments to the document. Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress, through a joint resolution passed by a two-thirds vote, or by a convention called by Congress in response to applications from two-thirds of the state legislatures.

Lots of luck with that.

Two thirds of Americans could not agree on anything.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top