Does the Second Amendment, belong to the Citizens of the United States?

ZeusAres42

TKDB said:

@ZeusAres42

"How on earth is a lawful gun owner guilty of a crime of a crime they're lawful?

Do you not know what lawful means?"

The Vegas Mass shooter, was a lawful gun owner, who murdered innocent people with his guns.

Please, continue to educate the Public, with your brand of ethics? 

You need to be educated on what lawful means. If a person did something illegal then they are no longer lawful. Lawful means law-abiding.

Try to get it through to your dense skull; not everyone that owns a gun is a murderer!

You  can still possess a gun and be law-abiding

The mere act of owning a gun does not equate to being a mass murderer.

Instead of asking us to invite other people here, why don't you phone up your local police department and explain to them you're thinking that you have expressed here, and if you're lucky they might just answer you instead of hanging up thinking you some kind nutjob.

John_C_87

TKDB said:

@ZeusAres42 ;

"How on earth is a lawful gun owner guilty of a crime of a crime they're lawful?
Do you not know what lawful means?"
The Vegas Mass shooter, was a lawful gun owner, who murdered innocent people with his guns.
Please, continue to educate the Public, with your brand of ethics?

"They did not believe the action they took part in was an unlawful crime." No matter what Lawful means it is not a united state. lawfull and inlawful are the whole truth held in united State. Human inteligent Interitation limited by basic priciple.

Negligence

Conduct that falls below the standards of behavior established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm. ( A standard is an object like fire-extinguisher, or ballistic shield.)

Reasonable person.

A person has acted negligent if she /he has departed from the conduct expected of a reasonable prudent person acting under similar circumstances. The hypothetical reasonable person provides an objective by which the conduct of others is judge. ( in Fire-Arm this means a person is well trained in use and ability to use  lethal force before expecting others to use and apply this force on their behalf to detain or stop others.)

Obviously by basic principle it means then lawful citizen followed a law that was a crime.  A crime needs to be proven in a court beyond reasonable doubt, it can take decades to prove a lie in a Court of law beyond reasonable doubt. It is the hardest crime to prosecute in the world. By civil court standard the victims of gun violence are not innocent their crime is negligence in protecting themselves or others by legal precedent. TKDB basic principle and legal precedent address all court of law.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/negligence

John_C_87

@TKDB ;

Statistic show a united state formed by basic principle not everyone who owns a gun wants to kill with a gun. The most well know legal precedent is War. There are estimated to be 393 million civilian owned firearms in the United States. The U.S. Military is estimated to have 4.5 million small arms, while U.S. law enforcement firearms are estimated around 1 million. The greatest threat in the 2nd Amendment is the united state it creates to those people who file negligence litigation for wrongful death in victim's in shootings.

It is a lie to ever say the 2nd Amendment is the only United State Constitutional way a citizen of American can have "blessing" to own gun. The augment has now been directed to Licensing and not blessing.

https://gunpros.com/number-of-guns-in-united-states/

Blessing is a liberty made without imposed cost or assigned value. 

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

I'm not the non gun owner, with an ethics problem, you are.

"Try to get it through to your dense skull; not everyone that owns a gun is a murderer!"

My ethics are pro family, and pro Public safety oriented, therefore my skull isn't dense, it's sound, and proper.

"You need to be educated on what lawful means. If a person did something illegal then they are no longer lawful. Lawful means law-abiding."

Try to get it through to your dense skull; not everyone that owns a gun is a murderer! 

Here's my ethics argument:

(The Second Amendment should be amended with these changes:

The Death Penalty.

And with an accountability measure, meaning that every gun, legal, and illegal should be accounted for.

This way the new Second Amendment, is fair and equal, to the lawful gun owners, and the rest of the public, that doesn't own a gun, with those new amendments.

Being that if an individual doesn't own a gun, they shouldn't have to buy one, just to keep themselves from being victimized by someone else with a legally owned gun, or with an illegally owned gun?)


@ZeusAres42


Here's you ethics argument.

"You  can still possess a gun and be law-abiding

The mere act of owning a gun does not equate to being a mass murderer. 

Instead of asking us to invite other people here, why don't you phone up your local police department and explain to them you're thinking that you have expressed here, and if you're lucky they might just answer you instead of hanging up thinking you some kind nutjob."

ZeusAres42

TKDB said:

@ZeusAres42

I'm not the non gun owner, with an ethics problem, you are.

Neither am I a gun owner. And you do have a problem with your mentality if you think that everyone that owns a gun is a mass shooting murderer. There are two extremists views on the gun debate; one is the ones that are against any gun legislation; the other extreme is you who thinks all gun owners are evil shooters and need to be sentenced to death. Also,  while also blaming all guns in the country on single events you take away any accountability from the Individuals that committed those attacks. Individuals that commit crimes need to be held accountable for their actions; not the tools they used or other people who also have the same tools.

"Try to get it through to your dense skull; not everyone that owns a gun is a murderer!"

My ethics are pro family, and pro Public safety oriented, therefore my skull isn't dense, it's sound, and proper.

Your words say otherwise. No one in their sound mind thinks that all people that own a gun are mass shooting murderers. Please see a shrink.

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

Your word's below have nothing to do with me, you said them, not me:

"Your words say otherwise. No one in their sound mind thinks that all people that own a gun are mass shooting murderers. Please see a shrink."

Did, I say the above, NO.

You did. 

ZeusAres42

TKDB said:

@ZeusAres42

Your word's below have nothing to do with me, you said them, not me:

"Your words say otherwise. No one in their sound mind thinks that all people that own a gun are mass shooting murderers. Please see a shrink."

Did, I say the above, NO.

You did. 

Great, so you're in agreement that there are people who possess guns that are also good, law-abiding people?

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

In regards to the Second Amendment, the NRA, and Trump on Twitter:

@loisbeckett

"The overwhelming majority of Americans don't own guns. Dedicated gun rights activists are a minority within that minority. Pro-gun activists are deeply aware of this fact. Less than 10% of gun owners are NRA members, per best estimates. Less than 30% of Americans own a gun."

From the NRA, via Twitter:

"I spoke to the president today. We discussed the best ways to prevent these types of tragedies. @realDonaldTrump is a strong #2APresident and supports our Right to Keep and Bear Arms! – Wayne LaPierre"

"In response to Trump calling gun control measures a "slippery slope," @fred_guttenbergsays the real slippery slope is the deregulation of guns that contributed to his daughter's murder in Parkland. "It is the ultimate NRA talking point." #Hardball"

@emptywheel

·

2h

"It's the most Trump thing ever to prostrate himself before Wayne LaPierre even as the NRA is falling apart."

@rweingarten

·

9m

"Once again..Trump side’s with

@nra

over people when it comes to gun violence.. Trump says no to any attempt to keep military style weapons out of the hands of domestic terrorists Quote Tweet"

@DavidJollyFL

· 58m

"Earlier this afternoon ... the president told LaPierre ... universal background checks were off the table. 'He was cementing his stance that we already have background checks and that he’s not waffling on this anymore.'" via @elainaplotthttps://theatlantic.com/politics/archi"

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

No, I don't agree with you, my ethics, are the opposite of yours.

I'm pro family, and pro Public safety, in the face of the failure of the current Second Amendment as its written.

ZeusAres42

If

TKDB said:

@ZeusAres42

No, I don't agree with you, my ethics, are the opposite of yours.

I'm pro family, and pro Public safety, in the face of the failure of the current Second Amendment as its written.

So you're not in agreement then that there are good people that possess guns? In that case, the only logical inference is that you think all people with guns are bad unlawful people.  So my previous points still stands.

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

Keep your ethics to yourself, I'm not wearing your weak argument, with my ethics.

"So you're not in agreement then that there are good people that possess guns? In that case, the only logical inference is that you think all people with guns are bad unlawful people.  So my previous points still stands."

Your word's are yours to live with ethically, I don't care how you view your words to me.
I don't have to live with them, you do.



@ZeusAres42 ;

I'm pro family life, when it comes to the failure of the Second Amendment, because it's too weak, as it's currently written.

Because as it's currently written, it favors the guns, both legal, and illegal, because the Second Amendment, lacks any responsible language, for the entire accountability of the guns in the United States, all 400 plus million of them.

Is it fair, to the U.S. public as a whole to have both legal, and illegal guns, on the streets, as we speak?

Is it fair for humans to be shot, and killed by those cowards who used both lawful, and illegal guns? 

What other, (Pro Gun Websites,) might the pro gun supporters, both of the United States, and the United Kingdom, search the internet for, as more pro gun fodder, to benefit their gun arguments? 

Is it vulgar to be pro human being, in the light of the gun violence crimes, that happens every day?

Please, educate the Global public more, with the preferred pro gun rhetoric, at the very feet or the words:

(((Mass Shootings, Murder/ Suicide, Domestic Violence, and Abuse, Drive By Shootings, at the very feet of the sickening lack of total Gun accountability in the United States?)))

Go ahead, pro gun supporters, and label the above paragraph as being too sentimental, or too emotional? 

Is it fair to every citizen in the United States, to live with that kind of non existent accountability, with 400 million guns in the U.S., and no one knows, how many of those guns are illegal verses legal?

I already Googled that very question, and no answer, to that question exists.  

ZeusAres42

@TKDB

Which is it? You either think all people with guns are bad people or you don't? This has nothing to do with my ethics. This is to do with me asking you a question and you then answer. You're the one that thinks all people with guns are bad people; not me; that's what you have to live with.

I, on the other hand, know that it is extremely unlikely that all people that ow guns are bad people.

The reality is which you're not grounded in as it appears, is that there are both good people that own guns in this world as well as bad people.

PS when someone puts a question mark at the end of a sentence that usually means they're asking you a question, and usually people give an answer. That's just a tip on how questions and answers work; basic grammar really.

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

I have my truth:

I'm pro family, and pro Public safety in the face of the NRA, and in the face of the Second Amendment, as it's currently written, because its very own words, are unethical towards me, and unethical, to those Police Officers, and the citizens who have been killed by the lawful gun owners, who killed people, with the legal guns, and those criminals, and offenders, who killed people, with their illegal guns.

The Second Amendment doesn't belong to them, and their ethics explain why, they view it, as theirs to mess with.

And it doesn't belong to the pro gun extremists, or the Far Right Pro Gun support, either.

The below is your Truth:

"Which is it? You either think all people with guns are bad people or you don't?
This has nothing to do with my ethics. This is to do with me asking you a question and you then answer. You're the one that thinks all people with guns are bad people; not me; that's what you have to live with. 

I, on the other hand, know that it is extremely unlikely that all people that ow guns are bad people. 

The reality is which you're not grounded in as it appears, is that there are both good people that own guns in this world as well as bad people. 

PS when someone puts a question mark at the end of a sentence that usually means they're asking you a question, and usually people give an answer. That's just a tip on how questions and answers work; basic grammar really."

Thank you for sharing your opinion, and educating the Public, with it. 

ZeusAres42

@TKDB

Why don't you just answer the question? Do you or do you not think all people in the US that own a gun are bad unlawful people? It's really a simple question that only requires you to say that you do or you don't.  

You know nothing about me or my truth. So just stop playing games/trolling and answer the question.

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

How I view your question.

My position is firm:

I'm pro family, and pro Public safety in the face of the NRA, and in the face of the Second Amendment, as it's currently written, because its very own words, are unethical towards me, and unethical, to those Police Officers, and the citizens who have been killed by the lawful gun owners, who killed people, with the legal guns, and those criminals, and offenders, who killed people, with their illegal guns.

The Second Amendment doesn't belong to them, and their ethics explain why, they view it, as theirs to mess with.

And it doesn't belong to the pro gun extremists, or the Far Right Pro Gun support, either.

You're educating the Public, with your ethics, and your truth, or arguments, based on your individual opinion, being that your own words, define your arguments for you, just as mine define, my arguments.

I'm not playing games, Nicholas Cruz, and Stephen Paddock, played their games, via their mass shooting murders. 

They trolled on innocent people lives, by killing them with their legally owned guns. 

"Why don't you just answer the question? Do you or do you not think all people in the US that own a gun are bad unlawful people? It's really a simple question that only requires you to say that you do or you don't.  

You know nothing about me or my truth. So just stop playing games/trolling and answer the question." 

 

ZeusAres42

TKDB said:

@ZeusAres42

How I view your question.

My position is firm:

I'm pro family, and pro Public safety in the face of the NRA, and in the face of the Second Amendment, as it's currently written, because its very own words, are unethical towards me, and unethical, to those Police Officers, and the citizens who have been killed by the lawful gun owners, who killed people, with the legal guns, and those criminals, and offenders, who killed people, with their illegal guns.

The Second Amendment doesn't belong to them, and their ethics explain why, they view it, as theirs to mess with.

And it doesn't belong to the pro gun extremists, or the Far Right Pro Gun support, either.

You're educating the Public, with your ethics, and your truth, or arguments, based on your individual opinion, being that your own words, define your arguments for you, just as mine define, my arguments.

I'm not playing games, Nicholas Cruz, and Stephen Paddock, played their games, via their mass shooting murders. 

They trolled on innocent people lives, by killing them with their legally owned guns. 

"Why don't you just answer the question? Do you or do you not think all people in the US that own a gun are bad unlawful people? It's really a simple question that only requires you to say that you do or you don't.  

You know nothing about me or my truth. So just stop playing games/trolling and answer the question." 

 

Why don't you just answer the question? Do you or do you not think all people in the US that own a gun are bad unlawful people? It's really a simple question that only requires you to say that you do or you don't. 

Don't view my question; just answer it with a yes or no. I answer your questions. Please have the decency to answer mine. 

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

I have answered the questions.

I wish you, a good rest of the day. 

My position is firm, and will not change.

I'm pro family, and pro Public safety in the face of the NRA, and in the face of the Second Amendment, as it's currently written, because its very own words, are unethical towards me, and unethical, to those Police Officers, and the citizens who have been killed by the lawful gun owners, who killed people, with the legal guns, and those criminals, and offenders, who killed people, with their illegal guns.

The Second Amendment doesn't belong to them, and their ethics explain why, they view it, as theirs to mess with.

And it doesn't belong to the pro gun extremists, or the Far Right Pro Gun support, either.

You're educating the Public, with your ethics, and your truth, or arguments, based on your individual opinion, being that your own words, define your arguments for you, just as mine define, my arguments.

I'm not playing games, Nicholas Cruz, and Stephen Paddock, played their games, via their mass shooting murders. 

They trolled on innocent people lives, by killing them with their legally owned guns.  

MayCaesar

@TKDB

I do not understand your questions. I simply described how the system of justice and law enforcement works in the US, and pretty much everywhere in the world, even in the countries in which private firearm ownership is banned. It is universally accepted in all modern legal systems, but especially so in the Common Law, that emotions and justice are incompatible.

The argument, "What do the victims' relatives think about it?", can be made about anything. When a woman's son dies in a car accident, what does that woman think about banning cars? What an elderly woman's husband gets a stroke and drowns in a bathtub, what does the wife think about banning water?

If you truly want to get to the bottom of the issue, then you have to discard your emotional attachment to outcomes and, instead, look at raw, cold facts.

TKDB

@MayCaesar

In other word's, you don't have a non "MayCaesar" argument to use as a counter argument? 

You're relying on your own Opinion, to self support your argument?

MayCaesar, didn't call the Police because MayCaesars argument is based on this below mindset? 

"I do not need to call them; enforcing the existing law and ignoring the emotional component is precisely what they are hired to do. If you ever find the police officer who says that emotional arguments should win over the book of the law, then you will be a good citizen to report him/her to the FBI, because he/her obviously is corrupt and unable to do his/her job."

This argument, coming from the individual who is pro illegal immigrant, or illegal alien, and is against a Border wall, or barrier, right MayCaesar? 


@MayCaesar 

My original question:
A whole new question, comes to mind, in wondering, if some of the 22 million illegal immigrants, or aliens, might be an owner, of an illegal gun, while illegally being in the United States? 

My followup question:
How many illegal immigrants in the United States, likely have illegal guns?


@MayCaesar

An Education for the Internet Public, to educate themselves on.

https://cis.org/Cadman/Democratic-Lawmakers-Dont-Want-Know-When-Illegal-Aliens-Buy-Guns

"Democratic Lawmakers Don't Want to Know When Illegal Aliens Buy Guns

Republicans slip an amendment into a House bill requiring ICE notification"

"I've often spoken of the topsy-turvy world of immigration politics, where it's sometimes like looking at a black-and-white photo negative: Everything shows up in reverse. Here's a case in point that involves Republicans offering a gun control measure, and Democrats overwhelmingly voting against it.

The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives recently passed a gun control bill, H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, which would establish new requirements for background checks of individuals who purchase, or are given, weapons from other private parties. Although a variety of amendments were introduced and accepted that would carve out certain common-sense exceptions, such as a gift hunting rifle from father to son, or inheritances, in my personal opinion it's still not really a good bill because the only people ever likely to obey such a law are the law-abiding. How do you make criminals subject themselves to background checks to obtain weapons if they know that they aren't going to pass them?

Seeking to instill a little balance into the bill, Rep. W. Gregory Steube (R-Fla.) introduced an amendment, the focus of which is easy to understand: It requires that whenever any gun purchase is imminent — whether between private parties, or individuals and licensed firearms dealers, or whomever — a comparison of data is made between the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) database of immigration violators. When there is a match indicating that an alien illegally in the country is attempting to buy a firearm, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents would be notified so that the attempted purchaser could be apprehended and prosecuted and/or removed.

Ironically, as Steube notes, the amendment was based on language introduced by two House Democrats, Reps. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) and Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), who is now chairman of the House Judiciary Committee — yet both of them voted against Steube's amendment.

In fact, the amendment failed when the majority Democrats voted against it, even though the premise of these bills is easy enough to comprehend, and certainly logical. It's already against the law for illegal aliens to purchase or possess firearms (see 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(g)) so all that the amendment would have done is require the marriage of existing electronic systems to protect the public and prevent the sale of guns to aliens who, in addition to being illegally in the United States, might also be gang members, or drug or weapons traffickers who simply have no prior arrest records, by promptly enabling their identification and apprehension.

@MayCaesar, really read the below highlighted section:

((This seems like exactly the kind of amendment that both sides of the gun control debate could get behind, right? Well, maybe not.

It appears that Democrats, who generally know no boundaries where gun control proposals are concerned, suddenly become cautious about the idea of a government background check that proves itself effective where aliens, even illegal aliens, are concerned. Curious.))

Even more astounding, socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), whom I have described before as disturbingly inconsistent in her political philosophies (see, e.g., here), fired off a series of intemperate tweets disparaging those Democrats who supported the measure, arguing that it would "expand" ICE powers. Given existing law, that is patently untrue. All it does is provide a common-sense technological solution to ensuring that those who have no business possessing guns don't get them.

Of course, Ocasio-Cortez advocates abolition of ICE. One would think that if she can't accomplish that — and it's unlikely to happen — she would at least like to see some of the agency's efforts and productive work hours put toward eliminating criminal possession of guns in our communities. But no. Her moral boundaries, whatever they may be, don't extend that far.

Now here's the rest of the story: Despite rejection of the amendment, for once Republicans exercised a certain cleverness and used House rules to achieve a victory, however modest. By means of an obscure rule called a "motion to recommit", which permits last-minute introduction of floor amendments by the minority party, Republicans once again slipped in the measure to alert ICE of illegal aliens attempting to buy guns. A few Democrats voted in favor, perhaps concerned with how their constituents might view a "no" vote, and so the amendment survived and passed along with the bill.

The reaction of House Democratic leaders upon finding that they had been neatly sidestepped? They are now considering whether they should amend the rules to eliminate motions to recommit.

What does this bill tell us about Democrats generally? Among other things that their opposition to such a common-sense plan puts the lie to their claim that border security and immigration control can be accomplished solely using "smart technology". How could this possibly be true when they are so inconstant in their approach to public safety that they can't get behind existing technology to keep guns solely in the hands of those legally entitled to possess them, and out of the hands of violence-prone illegal aliens seeking to purchase them?"

@MayCaesar

See, it's an ethical issue, when marijuana user's, want to own a gun, or already own a gun, when it's a conflict of interest.

Because marijuana use, and owning a gun, is illegal.

And because of your pro illegal immigration stance, your position, created a question, which I noticed, that you didn't even try to have a comment on?

It's also an ethical issue, when the criminals, and offenders, who aren't supposed to have a gun, go about unethically murder someone with the illegal gun.

@ZeusAres42

It's also an ethical issue when a gun owner, with a lawfully owned gun, or guns, goes about unethically murdering a mass of people, with their gun, or guns.

That's why there needs to be a 1000% Accountability Measure in the Second Amendment, that accounts for Every Gun in the United States, regardless of how you, the NRA, or the pro gun extremists, or the Far Right Pro Gun supporters, carry on about leaving the Second Amendment alone, to suit your individually based, ethical pro gun standards. 

John_C_87

@ZeusAres42 ;
Great, so you're in agreement that there are people who possess guns that are also good, law-abiding people? 

The issue is the support of Ex post facto law. Evidence of many murder is magically turned type gun. The basic principle TKDB is addressing is called independence not constitution. The sad truth in shootings is the negligence comes by way of lack of Independence not lack of constitution and detail.

John_C_87

@TKDB ;
Police do not enforce the law...They protect and serve Constitution. The Governors state of the union addresses that union, it is not equal to a Presidential state of the union. A lawyer is licensed to enforce the law not the police. We could argue it is a labor Union issue as civil court has somehow been allowed to set a labor dispute with organized labor. Labor Unions, Police and Citizen all share the United State of serving and protecting American United State Constitution. A person can go above and beyond and preserve Constitution as a President or Presadera to the United Sates of America.


The problem of trying to interpret Constitution like you do is when the basic principle is reached there is nothing left to say. A person abides by the law of the land or not. Tell the children in school the truth they are subject to increased danger by the removal of the level of indepence that has take place over the years.

TKDB

 https://abcnews-go-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/US/risk-st-louis-mayor-string-fatal-child-shootings/story?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&id=65178997&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ==#aoh=15668217077243&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://abcnews.go.com/US/risk-st-louis-mayor-string-fatal-child-shootings/story?id=65178997 

'We are all at risk,' says St. Louis mayor as string of fatal child shootings climbs to 9."

@MayCaesar

Are you going to try to downplay the emotional words of Lyda Krewson, the Mayor of St. Louis?

Her words from their press conference;

"If you are as outraged, as I am? And I say,  who does this? Who shoots in the direction of a 3yr old, or shoots in the direction of a 7 yr old?

"The message now for these shooters is when you engage in this type of violent behavior, there will be a significant incentive for people to give us information to lead to your arrest," Krewson said."

Go ahead:
@ZeusAres42

@MayCaesar

@Vaulk

@John_C_87

Downplay her words, just as some of you,  continue to downplay mine, with your pro gun rhetoric? 

Now, you have families, who's kids have been killed, by gun violence crimes, and killing any kids, via gun violence, is sadistic, to say the least. 

"For the second time since classes resumed at public schools in St. Louis this month, grief counselors will be on hand at an elementary school on Monday to comfort friends of 8-year-old Jurnee Thompson, a third-grader gunned down while standing in front of a restaurant with relatives following a football game.

Since April, nine children under the age of 17 have been killed by gun violence in the city of St. Louis, and authorities say no one has been charged in any of the slayings."

"We are all at risk," a frustrated St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson said at a news conference on Saturday. "If you are as outraged as I am ... please help."

"Saying the child killings have reached a point of "urgency," Krewson announced a $25,000 CrimeStoppers reward for information leading to an arrest in any of the unsolved cases.

"The message now for these shooters is when you engage in this type of violent behavior, there will be a significant incentive for people to give us information to lead to your arrest," Krewson said.

But Lisa Pisciotta, executive director of St. Louis Regional CrimeStoppers, said the reward money will only be available until Sept. 1, and encouraged people with information on any of the case to contact police immediately, adding that all tips will be kept anonymous.

"It expresses the urgency of the situation," Krewson said of the time limit put on the reward."

"Less than 24 hours after Krewson announced the reward, St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department homicide investigators responded to the fatal shooting of a 15-year-old boy. The victim, whose name was not immediately released, was discovered on the southeast side of the city at 6 a.m. on Sunday with a bullet wound to the head.

Police said no arrests have been made.

The fatal shooting came about 35 hours after Jurnee Thompson was shot in the head and killed on the northeast side of the city after she attended the football jamboree, the city's annual kickoff to the high school football season, police said.

St. Louis Police Chief John Hayden said Jurnee had attended the jamboree at Soldan High School and was waiting for a food order with her two teenage cousins outside a restaurant when gunfire rang out.

Hayden said the mortally wounded little girl, who had just started the third grade at Herzog Elementary School in the city, was taken to St. Louis Children's Hospital, where she died. Her two cousins, both 16, were also wounded in the shooting, as well as a 64-year-old woman.

The chief said the shooting erupted after police were called to the football jamboree to quell several fights that broke out.

He said a contingent of police officers had been in the area for 30 to 45 minutes clearing the crowd when they heard gunfire and found the girl and the three other victims shot.

"Of course the little girl wasn't doing anything wrong," Hayden said. "She was with family when this occurred and shots rang out."

St. Louis Schools Superintendent Kelvin Adams said counselors will be at Herzog Elementary school on Monday to provide support for classmates and teacher who knew the girl.

“I don’t know that there are words to explain how difficult it is for the families that are hurting, and the impact this has on the community," Adams told reporters on Saturday.

The girl's death came just 12 days after 7-year-old Xavier Usanga was killed by a stray bullet while playing near his St. Louis home. Xavier was slain a day before he was to start the second grade at Clay Elementary School in St. Louis.

A funeral for Xavier was held on Saturday.

“I miss your smile, your laugh, your hair. I couldn’t believe that you were gone. Why would someone take your life away?” Xavier's 10-year-old sister, Trinity Usanga, told mourners who packed her brother's funeral at a St. Louis Catholic church, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch newspaper.

Federal authorities said in court earlier this month that a 23-year-old man, who was arrested and charged with stealing $50,000 from an armored car company he worked for, had confessed to firing the shots that killed Xavier. St. Louis police continue to investigate the killing, but state prosecutors have yet to charge him in the homicide.

On Saturday, Chief Hayden read off a list of other fatal shootings of children that have yet to be solved and pleaded with the public to come forward with information.

He said it was time for people in the community to be less concerned about retaliation for coming forward with information to police and more concerned about "what would happen to little children if you don't."

Hayden said other unsolved homicides of children include the April 30 killing of 2-year-old Kayden Johnson and his 18-year-old mother, Trina'ty Riley, who were shot to death while hiding in a closet of their home after an intruder broke in.

He said Kennedi Powell, 3, was shot to death on June 9 when she was standing on a sidewalk near her father's car with other children and a gunman drove up in a vehicle and opened fire.

Four other children and three adults were injured in the incident. No arrests have been made.

Eddie Hill IV, 10, was killed in another drive-by shooting on July 19 as he stood on the front porch of his home with his father, Hayden said. No arrests have been made.

Other youngsters killed by gun violence were Kristina Curry, 16, who was found shot to death in the parking lot of a high school on May 23; Derrel Williams, 15, who died on June 25 after being discovered shot on a street; and Jashon Johnson, 16, was found shot multiple times on a street on June 8.

"In each of these cases, police investigators know that people were at or near the scene of these homicides. Please help us find the shooters," Jimmie Edwards, the St. Louis public safety director and a former juvenile court judge, said at Saturday's news conference. "If you or someone else you know may be hiding a shooter, please turn them in. Your failure to turn in people that have committed these types of offenses may also cause you to be charged with a crime." 

To the pro gun crowd:

2019, the year of the gun violence crimes, involving kids ages 3 years old and up.

Like I said before, no amount of any pro gun expressed rhetoric, has any ability to downplay, kids being killed by any gun violence crimes. 

Who do you believe will leave a lasting impression on the Public as a whole?

1) The NRA message?

2) The non gun owner, pro gun supporter message?

3) The pro gun extremists message?

4) The Far Right Pro Gun supporter message?

Nope, none of the above.

Those kids killed by the gun violence crimes, and their deaths, are the messages that have, and are leaving a lasting impression.

The Second Amendment, as it's currently written, is failing the Public.

Amend the Second Amendment, to where it's fair, and equal to both, the parents who own guns, and have kids, and to those parents, who don't own guns, or don't want to own a gun, and have kids as well?

ZeusAres42

@TKDB

Stop calling me pro-gun. I have never said that or implied it. My position is simple, clear and firm. I am neither pro-gun nor anti-gun.

John_C_87

@TKDB ;
Are you going to try to downplay the emotional words of Lyda Krewson, the Mayor of St. Louis?
Her words from their press conference;
"If you are as outraged, as I am? And I say,  who does this? Who shoots in the direction of a 3yr old, or shoots in the direction of a 7 yr old?
"The message now for these shooters is when you engage in this type of violent behavior, there will be a significant incentive for people to give us information to lead to your arrest," Krewson said."
Go ahead: 

Honestly and in united state it is often children under 17 who fire at children.

The Second Amendment, as it's currently written, is failing the Public.
No, the 2nd Amendment, nor American United State constitution fails the public. Literally the United State Constitution is not graded it is a specification to legislation. The facts here points to the loss of human independence which is the cause of failure by improper states of union. Made between Independences issues and United State Constitution issues.

Amend the Second Amendment, to where it's fair, and equal to both, the parents who own guns, and have kids, and to those parents, who don't own guns, or don't want to own a gun, and have kids as well?
Amending independence to where lethal force is fair and equal to both the parents plus kids who own guns with those don't own guns.

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

Here's what I said:

(2) The non gun owner, pro gun supporter message?)

I'm a non gun owner, who is pro family, and pro Public safety.




@ZeusAres42

Here's how you apparently viewed it, I guess?

"Stop calling me pro-gun. I have never said that or implied it. My position is simple, clear and firm. I am neither pro-gun nor anti-gun."

TKDB

This isn't being expressed towards, ZeusAres42.

But the pro gun extremists, the Far Right Pro Gun supporters, and the NRA, the Second Amendment, doesn't belong to you:

So please refrain from making statements like it does?

It belongs to the entire Public, of the United States, regardless of how you view the Second Amendment, as it's currently written?

And I disagree with the NRA's mindset.

And I disagree with the pro gun extremists, mindsets.

And I disagree with the Far Right Pro Gun supporter, mindsets.

The Kids, and the families, in the United States, come first, and not any of the 400 million guns, and not those crimes, that have been committed by the first time gun violence offender, or the criminals, and offenders alike, who have killed kids, and family members, unlawfully with their both legal, and illegal guns?

TKDB

12 Kids in St. Louis have been killed by gun violence crimes, and so far two other participants, have nothing to add, thus far to those sadistic gun violence crimes? 

No apparent downplaying of what the Police Officer, (Chief Hayden said, or the Mayor of St. Louis, Lyda Krewson said?)

(Are you going to try to downplay the emotional words of Lyda Krewson, the Mayor of St. Louis?
Her words from their press conference;
"If you are as outraged, as I am? And I say,  who does this? Who shoots in the direction of a 3yr old, or shoots in the direction of a 7 yr old?
"The message now for these shooters is when you engage in this type of violent behavior, there will be a significant incentive for people to give us information to lead to your arrest," Krewson said."
Go ahead.")

Instead of downplaying their words, here's what @John_C_87 said?:

"Honestly and in united state it is often children under 17 who fire at children."

(The Second Amendment, as it's currently written, is failing the Public.)

"No, the 2nd Amendment, nor American United State constitution fails the public. Literally the United State Constitution is not graded it is a specification to legislation. The facts here points to the loss of human independence which is the cause of failure by improper states of union. Made between Independences issues and United State Constitution issues."
 
(Amend the Second Amendment, to where it's fair, and equal to both, the parents who own guns, and have kids, and to those parents, who don't own guns, or don't want to own a gun, and have kids as well?)

"Amending independence to where lethal force is fair and equal to both the parents plus kids who own guns with those don't own guns."

@John_C_87;


You avoided their message directly:

And provided your own counter message rhetoric instead? 

@John_C_87

I feel sad, and sorry for you.


I feel sad, and sorry for @Vaulk as well.

I feel sad, and sorry for @MayCaesar as well.

And I feel sad, and sorry for @CYDdharta also.

CYDdharta

TKDB said:

And I feel sad, and sorry for @CYDdharta also.

I feel sad, and sorry for @TKDB for his inability to put forward a cogent argument.

TKDB

@CYDdharta

"co·gent

/ˈkōjənt/

adjective

1. (of an argument or case) clear, logical, and convincing."

"I feel sad, and sorry for @TKDB for his inability to put forward a cogent argument."

I expressed a very clear, and logical argument:

The facts, and truth about those kids, were included in the article.

Did you maybe misunderstand the article? 

Here you go, the article is available to you:

 https://abcnews-go-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/US/risk-st-louis-mayor-string-fatal-child-shootings/story?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&id=65178997&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ==#aoh=15668217077243&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://abcnews.go.com/US/risk-st-louis-mayor-string-fatal-child-shootings/story?id=65178997 

'We are all at risk,' says St. Louis mayor as string of fatal child shootings climbs to 9."
 
12 kids in St. Louis, getting killed by gun violence crimes, isn't enough information, to make you feel any kind of remorse over them? 

I'll donate funds to St. Louis, to help with those families who lost their kids, to gun violence, @CYDdharta, want to join me? 

TKDB

@CYDdharta

I think that every gun, legal and illegal, in the United States, should be legally accounted for, don't you?

Or is that a matter, that the NRA, should maybe, create a PSA, over? 

Or are you content, with criminals, and offenders, owning an illegal gun, just like the legal ones that you own? 

TKDB

https://amp-cnn-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/08/26/us/st-louis-shooting-children-victims/index.html?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ==#aoh=15668554579897&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/26/us/st-louis-shooting-children-victims/index.html 

"At least 12 kids have died from gun violence in St. Louis since April. Here are their stories"

By Hollie Silverman and Eliott C. McLaughlin, CNN 

Updated 2:07 PM EDT, Mon August 26, 2019 

"(CNN)The fatal shootings of two children, 8 and 15, over the weekend in St. Louis were the latest casualties in what has been a deadly summer for young people, police said.

At least a dozen children 16 years old or younger have been fatally shot since April, police said.

Local reports indicate a 10-year-old girl was among the victims in a triple homicide over the weekend, but it wasn't immediately clear if she was shot or stabbed. The St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department did not include her in a list of young gunshot victims."

"On Saturday, officials announced its grim formula for calculating rewards leading to the children's killers: $25,000 for each child younger than 10, for a total of $100,000.

But the reward money will expire Sunday, city officials said.

"The message to the shooters is now there will be a significant incentive for anyone with information that could lead to your arrest," Mayor Lyda Krewson told reporters at a news conference, according to CNN affiliate KPLR.

The St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department said it is investigating nine of juveniles' deaths as homicides, while two others are classified as suspicious sudden deaths," spokeswoman Evita Caldwell

"We have nothing further to provide," she said in an email."

Here is what we know of each of the young victims: 

"Kayden Johnson, 2

The first victim, Kayden was also the youngest. The boy was killed April 30 along with his 18-year-old mother, Trina'ty Riley, police said.

Kayden and his mother were found dead in a home around midnight after police responded to a shooting call, according to a police report.

Kayden's father, Elijah Johnson, told CNN affiliate KMOV he was devastated. He received a call on his way to work telling him that his son and mother of his child were killed.

"Just a lot of pain, it was unbelievable. I could not believe it," Johnson told the station. "Mixed emotions, very heartbroken right now actually."

Johnson said his son was a happy child.

"He was uplifting, he was always smiling," he said.

Kristina Curry, 16

Kristina Curry, 16, was shot and killed in May.

Kristina was found dead near Roosevelt High School on May 23 after suffering apparent gunshot wounds.

The teen had been attending Roosevelt a month before her death but had recently dropped out of school, grandmother Antanina Valentine told KMOV.

Valentine couldn't comprehend her granddaughter's violent end, she said.

"I hurt because I can't understand why someone would hurt my granddaughter that way," Valentine told KMOV.

Jashon Johnson, 16

16-year-old Jashon Johnson was found dead of a gunshot wound near Fairground Park in June.

Another teen, Jashon was found near Fairground Park in the O'Fallon neighborhood on the night of June 8, after suffering multiple gunshot wounds.

When police arrived just after 10:30 p.m., he was not conscious or breathing and was taken to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

Kennedi Powell, 3

Fewer than 24 hours later, Kennedi was shot and killed 3 miles away from the spot where Jashon was found. At least one other child, a 6-year-old girl, was shot in the same incident, a police report said.

Kennedi had a big personality, her family said.

Kennedi Powell, 3, was shot and killed in June.

"She was beautiful young lady. She was the type of person who liked to play a lot, like to run off and pinch you," grandmother Tracy Waffard told CNN affiliate KMOV. "There's nothing that's going to bring her back. Every time I look out here on the ground, I see her, and it's hard -- real hard."

Tanisha Smith, the mother of the 6-year-old girl injured in the shooting, told CNN affiliate KTVI she feels the area is no longer safe for children.

"The streets are not safe no more, not even for your kids," Smith said. "This is a war zone now."

Charnija Keys, 11

Charnija is one of the cases being handled as a suspicious death, according to St. Louis police.

Officers responding to a shooting call found the girl just before midnight June 11 with an apparent gunshot wound to her head, police said. Paramedics took her to the hospital where she was pronounced dead.

A child abuse unit and homicide detectives are taking part in the probe, police said.

Myiesha Cannon, 16

Myiesha's is the other death authorities are classifying as suspicious.

The girlwas found with an apparent gunshot to the head just after midnight June 12, and she was transferred to the hospital where she was pronounced dead, according to police.

Derrel Williams, 15

Derrel Williams, 15, died at the hospital after suffering multiple gun shot wounds in June.

About two weeks later, officers responding to a shooting call found Derrel on the northside of the city June 25.

The teen was taken to the hospital in critical condition where he died after suffering multiple gunshot wounds, a police report said.

Eddie Hill IV, 10

Eddie Hill IV, 10, was shot and killed in July.

On July 19, Eddie was found dead by police responding to a drive-by shooting. The 10-year-old had been sitting outside with family on his porch when a dark blue SUV drove by and opened fire, KTVI reported

"It's really hard to deal with, especially someone young," Kaprice Hill, the boy's aunt, told KTVI.

Rachel Kemp, Eddie's mother, added, "It can cause so much pain and suffering to their family and it's unimaginable."

Xavier Usanga, 7

Xavier Usanga was shot and killed while playing with his sisters in his backyard.

Xavier was playing with his sisters in the backyard of their home in the Hyde Park neighborhood August 12 when he was killed, police said.

The boy was hit when two men exchanged gunfire in a nearby street. An 18-year-old black man was also shot but survived, police said. A gun was recovered at the scene.

"The bullet went through my son's throat and then grazed my daughter's elbow," Xavier's mother, Dawn Usanga, told KTVI.

Xavier was supposed to start second grade the day after he was fatally shot, his mother told the station.

A suspect in Xavier's death was later arrested, though police did not provide additional details to KTVI, citing an ongoing investigation.

The mother spoke directly to her son's killer, telling KTVI: "You killed my son and I know you see him playing and I hope his smile will burn in your brain forever and you know you killed my son."

Jason Eberhart, 16

Jason, 16, was shot multiple times in the Carr Square neighborhood August 18, police said. Another victim, an 18-year-old black man, was shot int he buttocks and survived, they said.

Charles Shelton, 49, one of Jason's cousins, told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that the family was expecting big things from the teen.

"He had a lot of potential," Shelton told the paper. "We were looking for him to go somewhere. The plan was for him to follow his big brother in football."

Jason's brother plays for Ball State University, and his father is a former University of Illinois player who has coached in the St. Louis area, the Post-Dispatch reported.

Jurnee Thompson, 8

Jurnee Thompson was killed Friday outside a high school football game.

Jurnee Thompson was killed Friday night while at a football game with her family.

Two teenage boys and a woman were injured outside the preseason high school football game at Soldan High School.

Police officers were already in the area when the shooting happened and were clearing crowds after fights were reported, St. Louis Police Chief John Hayden said

"The little girl wasn't doing anything wrong," Hayden said. "She was with family when this occurred. Shots rang out. Not sure what particular fight that was going on when shots rang out."

Mayor Krewson asked during a Saturday newsconference that anyone with information come forward because "conventional policing tactics are not enough."

Sentonio Cox, 15

Police responding to a missing person call arrived in the Carondelet neighborhood to find Sentonio dead from a gunshot wound early Sunday morning, authorities said.

A teenager who identified himself as a friend of the victim told the Post-Dispatch that Sentonio was headed home when he was shot. To get home, the teen often cut through an empty lot near the site of the shooting, the friend told the paper."

"CNN's Konstantin Toropin, Melissa Alonso, Alta Spells, Jason Hanna and Jason Morris contributed to this report."

More information for the Public, to educate themselves with.

To those families, and the communities in St. Louis, I'm sorry, for your loss.

Vaulk

Car accidents account for the majority of all deaths of Children ages 15 and under.  Until we ban privately owned automobiles and force everyone to use perfectly acceptable public transportation, I won't agree that gun violence needs to be examined by lawmakers.

CYDdharta

TKDB said:

@CYDdharta

"co·gent

/ˈkōjənt/

adjective

1. (of an argument or case) clear, logical, and convincing."

"I feel sad, and sorry for @TKDB for his inability to put forward a cogent argument."

I expressed a very clear, and logical argument:

The facts, and truth about those kids, were included in the article.

Did you maybe misunderstand the article? 

Here you go, the article is available to you:

 https://abcnews-go-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/US/risk-st-louis-mayor-string-fatal-child-shootings/story?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&id=65178997&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ==#aoh=15668217077243&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://abcnews.go.com/US/risk-st-louis-mayor-string-fatal-child-shootings/story?id=65178997 

'We are all at risk,' says St. Louis mayor as string of fatal child shootings climbs to 9."
 
12 kids in St. Louis, getting killed by gun violence crimes, isn't enough information, to make you feel any kind of remorse over them? 

I'll donate funds to St. Louis, to help with those families who lost their kids, to gun violence, @CYDdharta, want to join me? 

Your arguments are hardly logical.  Almost all of them, like this one, rely on the appeal to emotion fallacy I posted earlier.

TKDB said:

@CYDdharta

I think that every gun, legal and illegal, in the United States, should be legally accounted for, don't you?

Or is that a matter, that the NRA, should maybe, create a PSA, over? 

Or are you content, with criminals, and offenders, owning an illegal gun, just like the legal ones that you own? 

Wonderful, how would you go about doing that?  How would you get criminals, who are already prohibited from owning a gun of any sort, to legally account for their weapons and admit they're breaking the law?

TKDB

@CYDdharta

Let me ask you a pro family, and pro Public safety question?

So because you're a pro gun extremist, you're apparently not bothered by 12 separate families, having lost their kids, to a gun violence problem, in St. Louis?


"Your arguments are hardly logical.  Almost all of them, like this one, rely on the appeal to emotion fallacy I posted earlier."

So when the Mayor of St. Louis expressed herself, she disappointed you, because you viewed her words as an emotional fallacy, to you pro gun extremist, mindset, right?

A gunman having murdered a Police Officer, is an emotional fallacy, isn't it @CYDdharta?

A mass shooter, having murdered 49 innocent people at a concert, is an emotional fallacy, isn't it @CYDdharta?

So when an individual kills via a gun violence crime, they aren't appealing to the emotional fallacy inside of their own minds?

"Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones ("argument from passion") is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence."

Haven't some of the mass shooters, via their gun violence crimes, committed their crimes, to manipulate the Public, by their self written manifestos?

By making excuses for why they committed their crimes, or in other words, trying to sell the Public, on their logical fallacies to manipulate the Public through their written manifestos? 

The kids, and families, who have been affected by gun violence, deserved more respect, than how the criminals, and offenders, with their illegal guns, and disrespected their families loved one's, through those gun violence crimes, don't they @CYDdharta?

TKDB

@Vaulk

Your argument is an outright emotional fallacy, being used to defend your pro gun stance, right @Vaulk?

"Car accidents account for the majority of all deaths of Children ages 15 and under."

"Until we ban privately owned automobiles and force everyone to use perfectly acceptable public transportation, I won't agree that gun violence needs to be examined by lawmakers."

The theme of this forum, has ZERO, to do with Car Accidents, doesn't it @Vaulk?

You don't have to agree @Vaulk?

And neither does the NRA, or the Far Right Pro Gun supporters, have to agree?

Are you a lawmaker @Vaulk?

Do you have the ability to block any lawmaker, from examining gun violence @Vaulk?

TKDB

https://www-newyorker-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/politics-changed-the-reading-of-the-second-amendmentand-can-change-it-again/amp?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ==#aoh=15668766333610&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/politics-changed-the-reading-of-the-second-amendmentand-can-change-it-again

"Politics Changed the Reading of the Second Amendment—and Can Change It Again"

Jeffrey Toobin

August 05, 2019

"In spite of the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton last weekend, the future of federal gun control looks grim. Yet the lesson of the gun-rights fight is that no victory, or defeat, is permanent."

"Notwithstanding the most recent spate of mass shootings, over the past weekend, the prospects for gun-control legislation in Congress appear remote. The reason is no mystery. The National Rifle Association and its allies in the gun lobby maintain a firm grip on the Republican Party, including President Trump, and thus on veto power over the passage, or even the consideration, of measures to curb gun violence. But the power of the N.R.A. extends beyond its control of the legislative and executive branches of the federal government. It’s less well known that the N.R.A. has also transformed the judiciary and, in the process, rewritten our understanding of the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

For about two hundred years, the meaning of the Second Amendment was clear and mostly undisputed, despite the gnarled syntax of the text itself: “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.” Generations of Supreme Court and academic opinion held that the amendment did not confer on individuals a right “to keep and bear Arms” but, rather, referred only to the privileges belonging to state militias. This was not a controversial view. The late Chief Justice Warren E. Burger said, in 1991, that the idea that the Second Amendment conferred a right for individuals to bear arms was “a fraud on the American public.” Burger was no liberal, and his view simply reflected the overwhelming consensus on the issue at the time.

But, starting in the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. undertook a patient and extensive effort to change the public, and eventually the judicial, understanding of the Second Amendment. As David Cole recounts in his book “Engines of Liberty,” the N.R.A. recognized that its path was blocked by binding precedents in the federal courts, so it turned to a state-by-state approach. Embracing and passing gun-rights legislation in the states, Cole writes, “fostered a legal culture in which the right to bear arms enjoyed a privileged place.” At the same time, the N.R.A. sponsored academic research that purported to show that the traditional understanding of the Second Amendment was incorrect. The movement reached its climax in 2008, when the Supreme Court, in Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, rewrote its understanding of the Second Amendment, and concluded that the Framers of the Constitution had, after all, intended the Amendment to confer an individual right to bear arms. (As Adam Gopnik recently observed, Justice John Paul Stevens’s dissent had the better argument, but Scalia’s opinion had the five votes.)

Past New Yorker coverage of mass shootings and the battle over gun control.

Cole, who is now the national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, draws an important parallel to the N.R.A.’s effort to transform the meaning of the Second—that is, the movement to guarantee a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Of course, these two efforts to change the political trajectory of the country went in opposite ideological directions. But the strategies behind them were remarkably similar. In both cases, the legal terrain, especially in the federal courts, was clearly hostile. In both, the movement for change began succeeding at the state level, and, in both, the culmination came at the Supreme Court. With regard to both gun rights and same-sex marriage, the Court ultimately yielded to a political movement that had mobilized legislators, academics, and ordinary citizens.

There is a lesson in these politically divergent victories for the current moment. Though the Supreme Court has been cautious since 2008 in expanding gun rights, there is every likelihood that the new conservative majority will frustrate federal or state legislative efforts to insure gun safety. In other words, even if Congress or states manage to pass laws restricting gun rights—including limits on assault weapons or even requiring universal background checks—there is a real possibility that a majority of the Justices will overturn these laws as violations of the Second Amendment.

But the lesson of the fight over gun rights—like that over the protection of same-sex marriage—is that the Constitution remains a political document that is subject to the ideological forces of the time. No victory, or defeat, is permanent. The Court changed the Second Amendment, and the Court can change it back again, in its original direction. This kind of change takes significant resources and enormous patience. At the moment, the future of gun control looks grim in all three branches of the federal government. Trump is President, the Republicans control the Senate, and conservative appointees dominate the Supreme Court. Control of the elected branches is up for grabs in less than a year and a half. Control of the Supreme Court will, of course, take much longer to change. But even the Court usually bends with public and political opinion over time, and that change may yet happen on guns. The grim lesson of recent weeks is that the need for that transformation has never been greater."

More reference material, for the Public to educate, it's self on.

CYDdharta

TKDB said:

@CYDdharta

Let me ask you a pro family, and pro Public safety question?

So because you're a pro gun extremist, you're apparently not bothered by 12 separate families, having lost their kids, to a gun violence problem, in St. Louis?


"Your arguments are hardly logical.  Almost all of them, like this one, rely on the appeal to emotion fallacy I posted earlier."

So when the Mayor of St. Louis expressed herself, she disappointed you, because you viewed her words as an emotional fallacy, to you pro gun extremist, mindset, right?

A gunman having murdered a Police Officer, is an emotional fallacy, isn't it @CYDdharta?

A mass shooter, having murdered 49 innocent people at a concert, is an emotional fallacy, isn't it @CYDdharta?

So when an individual kills via a gun violence crime, they aren't appealing to the emotional fallacy inside of their own minds?

"Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones ("argument from passion") is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence."

Haven't some of the mass shooters, via their gun violence crimes, committed their crimes, to manipulate the Public, by their self written manifestos?

By making excuses for why they committed their crimes, or in other words, trying to sell the Public, on their logical fallacies to manipulate the Public through their written manifestos? 

The kids, and families, who have been affected by gun violence, deserved more respect, than how the criminals, and offenders, with their illegal guns, and disrespected their families loved one's, through those gun violence crimes, don't they @CYDdharta?

Correct, in fact about the only correct thing you've said in this thread, those are all blatant appeals to emotion.

And once again, Wonderful, how would you get criminals, who are already prohibited from owning a gun of any sort, to legally account for their weapons and admit they're breaking the law?

TKDB

@CYDdharta

You still don't have a counter argument.

You're all about your pro gun position, and it shows.

"Correct, in fact about the only correct thing you've said in this thread, those are all blatant appeals to emotion.

And once again, Wonderful, how would you get criminals, who are already prohibited from owning a gun of any sort, to legally account for their weapons and admit they're breaking the law?"

You're a gun owner, and they're the only thing you're defending. 

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

"Neither am I a gun owner. And you do have a problem with your mentality if you think that everyone that owns a gun is a mass shooting murderer."

I'm not Nicholas Cruz, or Stephen Paddock. 

My mentality is sound.

I've never said, that I think that everyone that owns a gun is a Mass shooting murderer, but I've noticed how you've expressed this mess of words before? 

"Do you or do you not think all people in the US that own a gun are bad unlawful people?"

It's creative how you used the words "all people in the US own a gun are bad unlawful people?"

Are you a doctor? 

I'm not, so I can't tell who's good or bad at being a gun owner, can you?

I've seen two grown men walking around inside of a Wal-Mart before, on two separate occasions, one of them had their gun holstered, but he didn't look like he had it altogether, and when people noticed his gun, they avoided him.

The other guy, had his gun casually stowed in his front pocket, and kept pulling his pants up, because his belt was loose, and I guess that was the fashion statement, he appeared to be making? 

Or his gun, could have been a pellet gun, but who can really say? 

Maybe he was making a silent statement, he's packing a gun, so you might want to leave his individual self alone? 

Those two individual gun owners, helped to educate my position, being that I'm pro family,  and pro Public safety, in the face of the Second Amendment as its currently written, because there is Zero accountability for all of the guns in the United States. 

TKDB

@Vaulk

@CYDdharta

@ZeusAres42

@MayCaesar


"What does right to bear arms really mean?

The right to keep and bear arms (often referred to as the right to bear arms) is the people's right to possess weapons (arms) for their own defense. Only few countries recognize people's right to keep and bear arms and protect it on statutory level, and even fewer protect the right on constitutional level."

"The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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." ... Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory."

Now can anyone, educate the Public, on where in the Second Amendment, it says, that the criminals, and offenders, and their illegally owned guns, are protected by the Second Amendment, as it's written?

Because some of the lawful gun owners, and the illegal gun owners both, have infringed on the Public itself, via their Mass shooting crimes, and the other gun violence crimes, thus disturbing the peace, of the overall Public?

Can anyone educate the Public, on where it says that the Second Amendment, belongs to:

1) The NRA?

2) The gun owners in the United States?

3)The pro gun extremists?

4) Or the Far Right Pro Gun supporters? 


It's very educational to see, how some of the above individuals, talk about the Second Amendment, via their individual perceptions.

Because I don't see any Accountability Measures, in the Second Amendment, that can account for all of the 400 million guns in the U.S.?

And that is a problem. 

And I don't see anywhere, where it says that those criminals, and offenders, with their illegally own guns, are protected by the Second Amendment?

And I also, don't see anywhere, where it says that some of those legal, and illegal gun owners, are protected by the Second Amendment, from infringing on the Public, by disturbing the Peace of the overall Public, via those Mass shooting crimes, or gun violence crimes in general?

CYDdharta

TKDB said:

@CYDdharta

You still don't have a counter argument.

You're all about your pro gun position, and it shows.

"Correct, in fact about the only correct thing you've said in this thread, those are all blatant appeals to emotion.

And once again, Wonderful, how would you get criminals, who are already prohibited from owning a gun of any sort, to legally account for their weapons and admit they're breaking the law?"

You're a gun owner, and they're the only thing you're defending. 

I don't need a counter argument, you have yet to come up with a valid argument to counter.

And once again, how would you get criminals, who are already prohibited from owning a gun of any sort, to legally account for their weapons and admit they're breaking the law?"

TKDB

@CYDdharta

@Plaffelvohfen


Can either of you explain why you view the below as a fallacy?

My arguments are based on what the Second Amendment says, and on what it doesn't protect.




@CYDdharta

Read up on what the Second Amendment says?

"And once again, how would you get criminals, who are already prohibited from owning a gun of any sort, to legally account for their weapons and admit they're breaking the law?

@CYDdharta

"What does right to bear arms really mean?

The right to keep and bear arms (often referred to as the right to bear arms) is the people's right to possess weapons (arms) for their own defense. Only few countries recognize people's right to keep and bear arms and protect it on statutory level, and even fewer protect the right on constitutional level."

"The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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." ... Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory."

Now can anyone, educate the Public, on where in the Second Amendment, it says, that the criminals, and offenders, and their illegally owned guns, are protected by the Second Amendment, as it's written?

Because some of the lawful gun owners, and the illegal gun owners both, have infringed on the Public itself, via their Mass shooting crimes, and the other gun violence crimes, thus disturbing the peace, of the overall Public?

Can anyone educate the Public, on where it says that the Second Amendment, belongs to:

1) The NRA?

2) The gun owners in the United States?

3)The pro gun extremists?

4) Or the Far Right Pro Gun supporters? 


It's very educational to see, how some of the above individuals, talk about the Second Amendment, via their individual perceptions.

Because I don't see any Accountability Measures, in the Second Amendment, that can account for all of the 400 million guns in the U.S.?

And that is a problem. 

And I don't see anywhere, where it says that those criminals, and offenders, with their illegally own guns, are protected by the Second Amendment?

And I also, don't see anywhere, where it says that some of those legal, and illegal gun owners, are protected by the Second Amendment, from infringing on the Public, by disturbing the Peace of the overall Public, via those Mass shooting crimes, or gun violence crimes in general? 

John_C_87

Lawful   being in harmony with the law.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lawful

Lawful does not mean law is followed or has not been broken, it only means the person who enforces law may not know, or be capable of finding, capable to prove in front of others a law has been broken beyond reasonable doubt.

“Nicholas Cruz, was a lawful gun owner.” Case in point TKDB is stating a grievance that a person is a legal constitutional gun owner by united state simple because he could own a gun by unconstitutional legislation. As I have stated continually the issue is over independence as a united state not American Constitution. It is also about the use of lethal force not gun violence by united state and basic principle.

Please, continue to educate the Public, with your brand of ethics? 

There is no attempt made to re-educate anyone TKDB. You make a grievance an a statement is given in truth to address the grievance made.

John_C_87

The right to keep and bear arms (often referred to as the right to bear arms) is the people's right to possess weapons.

No the Amendment to constitution dictates the meaning by basic principle. Bear Arm is a distribution of weight of storing armament outside an Military armory. If the statement had been made in just a legislated law we would be allowed to Interpret beyond less basic detail. Weapon and burden a weapon creates as weight in united state. The principle is elaboration of a declaration of United State as it applies to lethal force. The Crime in united state by this grievance is placed upon all Americans for not being trained equally in response to an attack made against them.

And I also, don't see anywhere, where it says that some of those legal, and illegal gun owners, are protected by the Second Amendment, from infringing on the Public, by disturbing the Peace of the overall Public, via those Mass shooting crimes, or gun violence crimes in general? I know you have already admitted not understanding the weight of independence this by attacking the American Untied States Constitution and not the American Declaration of Indecencies which is what you are using as the foundation of defending this grievance.

The public has no constitutional right to peace it is a liberty they may take when preserving United State Constitution. To be clear. preserving United State Constitution is such thing as a woman is Presadera not President, A woman can not be in the United States Military she is received by a Congressional Armed Service this is not a United State assembled by American Constitution. There is no such thing as a same gender marriage it is a formation of a State cooperation by civil ruling.

@TKDB ;

TKDB

@John_C_87

Does the Second Amendment as its written, support your arguments?

"Lawful   being in harmony with the law."

"Lawful does not mean law is followed or has not been broken, it only means the person who enforces law may not know, or be capable of finding, capable to prove in front of others a law has been broken beyond reasonable doubt."

"Case in point TKDB is stating a grievance that a person is a legal constitutional gun owner by united state simple because he could own a gun by unconstitutional legislation. As I have stated continually the issue is over independence as a united state not American Constitution. It is also about the use of lethal force not gun violence by united state and basic principle."

Where does the Second Amendment, mention (Lawful, or being in harmony with the law) specifically within the language of its published wording? 

"No the Amendment to constitution dictates the meaning by basic principle. Bear Arm is a distribution of weight of storing armament outside an Military armory. If the statement had been made in just a legislated law we would be allowed to Interpret beyond less basic detail. Weapon and burden a weapon creates as weight in united state. The principle is elaboration of a declaration of United State as it applies to lethal force. The Crime in united state by this grievance is placed upon all Americans for not being trained equally in response to an attack made against them."


"The public has no constitutional right,"'
"to peace it is a liberty they may take when preserving United State Constitution. To be clear. preserving United State Constitution is such thing as a woman is Presadera not President, A woman can not be in the United States Military she is received by a Congressional Armed Service this is not a United State assembled by American Constitution. There is no such thing as a same gender marriage it is a formation of a State cooperation by civil ruling."

Does the Second Amendment, support, any of your arguments?

No, but you self support your own arguments, via how you individually perceive your own opinions.

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen
(All of the below is very relevant, being that my argument, is based on the Second Amendment.)

@ZeusAres42

@CYDdharta

@Vaulk


(What guns are protected under the 2nd Amendment?)

"The Second Amendment was part of the Bill of Rights that was added to the Constitution on December 15, 1791. This amendment protects the rights of citizens to "bear arms" or own weapons such as guns. The Second Amendment has become a controversial amendment in recent years."

(Does the Second Amendment protect gun ownership?)

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms and the right to a well regulated militia.

Wikipedia › wiki › Second_Amend...

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia 

"The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope."

(Can Congress change the second amendment?)

"The first process requires that any proposed amendment to the Constitution be passed by both the House and the Senate with two-thirds majorities. It would then need to be ratified by three-fourths of the 50 states – or 38 of them. ... The second option for repealing an amendment is to hold a Constitutional Convention.Mar 28, 2018"

https://www.cbsnews.com › news › r...

Repealing the Second Amendment – is it even possible? - CBS News

More results

(Does the 2nd Amendment have limits?)

"No state can take it away your Second Amendment rights. But they can place limits on it. The way most states regulate guns is through licensing requirements and bans on certain guns within a given class. Those kinds of limits have generally been upheld by courts and Heller doesn't stop them.Aug 30, 2012"

https://blogs.findlaw.com › 2012/08

Second Amendment Limits to Gun Ownership 

Various questions that have been expressed in regards to the Second Amendment. 

TKDB

More reference material for the Public to educate itself on:

(What is an illegal gun?)

"Illegal firearms" can mean two different things: Obtaining firearms illegally - For example, if you buy guns off the back of a van in an alley, most likely it is an illegal firearm. Even obtaining or selling a legal firearm in an illegal manner makes the firearm illegal.May 22, 2018"

https://www.legalmatch.com › article

Illegal Firearm Lawyers | LegalMatch 

(How much is the illegal arms trade worth?)

"The small arms trade is worth an estimated US$8.5 billion per year.Sep 12, 2017"

https://www.amnesty.org › 2017/09

Killer Facts: The scale of the global arms trade | Amnesty International

(Is it legal to buy a gun from someone?)

"Generally, secretly purchasing a gun on someone else's behalf from a gun dealer, called a straw purchase, is illegal. ... In most states, when giving or selling a gun, there are laws regarding registering the transfer, and some states even require the transfer be done through a licensed gun dealer.Jan 23, 2017"

https://blogs.findlaw.com › 2017/01

Is It Illegal to Buy a Gun for Someone Else? - FindLaw Blogs 

(Can I own a gun if my husband is a felon?)

"A Felon in Possession of Firearms

You have a conviction for a felony or serious misdemeanor. Because of your criminal record, you cannot legally purchase or possess firearms. ... However, you can be guilty of constructive possession if the following are true: The felon knows that the firearm was in the home.Sep 27, 2017"

https://wiperecord.com › felon-live-...

Can a Felon Live with Someone Who Owns a Gun? Check Your ... 

(How much jail time do you get for a gun?)

"Possession without license: first offense: up to two years in prison or jail, a fine of up to $500, or both. Subsequent offense: up to two years imprisonment, a fine of up to $1,000, or both. Federal law generally prohibits convicted felons from possessing handguns (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)).Aug 7, 2012"

CT.gov › cga › rpt

PENALTIES FOR ILLEGAL HANDGUN POSSESSION 

(What is considered an unregistered firearm?)

"It generally means a firearm which has not been registered with local authorities, in a place whee local ordinances require registration. It's a crime to possess an unregistered one in those places, but the term is pretty much meaningless in places that do not require such registration.Mar 5, 2019"

https://www.quora.com › What-is-a...

What is an unregistered firearm? - Quora 

It's educational to see how some of the guns in the United States, are treated by some, when it comes to legal, and illegal guns?


https://www-al-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.al.com/news/2019/08/alabama-man-charged-with-illegally-selling-guns-across-us-mexico.html?outputType=amp&amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ==#aoh=15669628245252&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.al.com/news/2019/08/alabama-man-charged-with-illegally-selling-guns-across-us-mexico.html

"Alabama man charged with illegally selling guns across US, Mexico"

Updated Aug 07, 2019; Posted Aug 07, 2019

"Washington said that after the federal agents contacted him, he threw the phone in a Birmingham dumpster and shredded his shipping records and other documents.

Court records don't list a lawyer who could speak on Washington's behalf. Messages sent to Armslist.com were not immediately returned Wednesday.

On Tuesday, the online site was singled out by Everytown for Gun Safety's "Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America" campaign when it issued a news release in response to Sunday's mass shooting in Dayton, Ohio.

“A recent report showed that in 2018 alone, there were as many as 127,524 ads on Armslist.com offering guns for sale in Ohio with no background check required,” the group said in its news release.

Current federal law allows gun sales through such online sites without requiring background checks, the group said. The group has said the internet "has emerged as a massive, unregulated marketplace" for guns sales."

So apparently there are illegal gun dealers using the internet, to sell guns to whomever, in the United States, and Mexico?

TKDB

@CYDdharta

@Plaffelvohfen

Do you view the Second Amendment as a fallacy?

My arguments are based on what the Second Amendment says, and on what it doesn't protect.

A parallel argument, the illegal immigrants, or aliens, get the same type of treatment, that both the legal and the illegal guns get?

There are illegal guns in the United States, but some of the pro gun extremists don't care, or they've refused to comment on the illegal guns in the U.S. by defending their own guns, thus placing the (illegal guns conversation) in the very shadows, of their own defense over their own guns?

Just like the pro illegal immigrant, or illegal alien crowd, creates Sanctuary Cities, for the illegal immigrants, to gain sanctuary from, in the face of the Federal laws in the U.S.?

No wonder, the United States, has a gun accountability problem? 

John_C_87

@TKDB ;

Does the Second Amendment as its written, support your arguments?  Yep.

(Does the Second Amendment protect gun ownership?) Yep, Again this is not the right question as not all gun owners understand the basic principle behind the protection and how it has been placed in constitution.

(Can Congress change the second amendment?)

Wrong question, can a congressional representative legally and illegally amend American constitution law held by United State? The answer to both questions is still yes, we can do both. Both can also be proven by preservation of American United State Constitution.

(Does the 2nd Amendment have limits?)

Yes the legal limit of verbal and written interpretation is set by basic principle and legal precedent. We must presume an Amendment was created by the people legally. The immunity of such state is not united by the creator, it is held by those who must recreate as creator. We know not all unions are perfect as a united state. Ever.

"No state can take it away your Second Amendment rights. But they can place limits on it. The way most states regulate guns is through licensing requirements and bans on certain guns within a given class. Those kinds of limits have generally been upheld by courts and Heller doesn't stop them.Aug 30, 2012"

"There are state's of American united state constitutional law which describe details of independence. The 2nd amendment is a change made by American constitution to common law. In basic principle it may be proven we never had a American united state constitutional right."

States do not, as to date effect the American United State Constitution by legislative actions, This is my Presidential state of the Union. They for the most part address limits by law only against a persons Independence under the American Declaration of Independence, this independence is made form England’s parliament government also Known as common  Law.

TKDB is acting on an Idea the unconstitutional law, common law, and/or religious law can bear the arm of constitutional law. The state may say the person owned a gun legally it does not mean that as a United State the same person was constitutional legally armed with a gun. There are a series of question that must be provided as a common defense to the tranquility of united state constitution to make an assessment on if the shooter was in truth Preserving American United State Constitution by bearing Arm. This type trial would be a separate crime outside the criminal use of lethal force. Any statement may be not relevant to a proceeding in court, this does not mean relevance can not be established. 

CYDdharta

TKDB said:

There are illegal guns in the United States, but some of the pro gun extremists don't care, or they've refused to comment on the illegal guns in the U.S. by defending their own guns, thus placing the (illegal guns conversation) in the very shadows, of their own defense over their own guns?

And once again, how would you get criminals, who are already prohibited from owning a gun of any sort, to legally account for their weapons and admit they're breaking the law?"