Town Square

Post a New Topic

Pleasanton students rally for gun reform on National School Walkout Day

Original post made on Mar 14, 2018

About 1,000 Foothill students joined others around the Tri-Valley and the country in walking out of class Wednesday morning to support gun reform and to commemorate the victims of the Parkland school shooting.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, March 14, 2018, 1:31 PM

Comments (139)

Posted by Deborah
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 14, 2018 at 1:54 pm

Deborah is a registered user.

In my opinion, and I'm just here to offer it and not ram it down anyone's throat, insisting that they agree with me, the students' time would have been better spent taking the advice of retired science teacher David Blair:

"IN LIGHT OF THE RECENT TRAGEDY IN FLORIDA, WALKING OUT OF SCHOOL IN PROTEST OF POOR SCHOOL SECURITY WILL NOT LEAD TO A SOLUTION, BUT IF YOU ARE SINCERE IN WANTING TO BE PART OF THE REAL SOLUTION, CONTINUE READING…

Dear Students,
I know you. I am a retired teacher of 24 years. I have taught you as 7th graders all the way through 12th grade. This is not a tweet or a text. It’s called a letter; lengthy and substantial. Do you really want to make a difference? Are you sincere about making your schools safe? Don’t walk out, read this instead. Walking out of school is easy compared to what this letter will challenge you to do.
First of all, put down your stupid phone. Look around you at your classmates. Do you see the kid over in the corner, alone? He could likely be our next shooter. He needs a friend. He needs you. Go and talk to him, befriend him. Chances are, he won’t be easy to like, but it’s mainly because no one has tried to like him. Ask him about him. Get to know him. He’s just like you in that respect; he wants someone to recognize him as a fellow human being but few people have ever given him the chance. You can.
Next, see that kid eating lunch all alone? He could likely be our next shooter. Invite him to eat lunch with you. Introduce him into your fold of friends. You’ll most likely catch a lot of flack from the friends you eat with because they don’t want him upsetting the balance of their social order. After all, who you hang out with is critical to your status, is it not? If status is important to you, don’t you think it’s important to him also? The only difference being that he has no status because generally, shooters have no friends. Are you serious about wanting to make your school safe? Invite him to your lunch table and challenge your friends to do something meaningful with thirty minutes of their lives each day.
Lastly, are you completely frustrated by that kid who always disrupts your class and is consistently sent to the principal’s office? He could likely be our next shooter. Do you know why he causes so much trouble? He initiates disruption because that’s the only thing he does that gets him attention, and even bad attention is better than the no attention he receives from you and your classmates. You secretly wish he would get kicked out of school or sent to the alternative disciplinary school so that he wouldn’t disrupt your classes anymore, that somehow, he would just disappear. Guess what? He already feels invisible in a school of thousands of classmates, you included. So, before he acts out in your next class, why don’t you tell him you’d be willing to help him with the assignment that was just given? Or why don’t you ask him to join your study group? If you really want to blow his mind, ask him for help on the assignment. He’s never been asked that. Ever.
If you’ve read this far, you probably really do care about the safety of your school. Don’t trust that walking out of school will bring an answer. Gun control or more laws is not, and will not, be the answer. You are the answer. Your greeting, your smile, your gentle human touch is the only thing that can change the world of a desperate classmate who may be contemplating something as horrendous as a school shooting. Look past yourself and look past your phone and look into the eyes of a student who no one else sees. Meet the gaze of a fellow human being desperate to make contact with anyone, even just one person. You. If you really feel the need to walk, walk toward that person. Your new friendship can relieve the heartache of one person and in doing so, possibly prevent the unjustifiable heartache of hundreds of lives in the future. I know you. I trust you. You are the answer.
And teachers, my fellow guardians of our youth, I know you too. I know the desire of wanting to make a difference in a young person’s life. I know the thrill of stepping in front of a classroom of students but simultaneously intimidated by the trust bestowed upon you. I also know the crushing, sometimes unbearable responsibility that your shoulders are asked to carry. But that’s why you got into teaching, because you have big shoulders. And a big heart. You’re overworked (I would add underpaid, but you didn’t get into teaching for the pay, so it needn’t be said), underappreciated and exhausted. May I add one more item to that list? You’re also a miracle waiting to happen in the life of your worst student. He could likely be our next shooter. The next time (and there’s always a next time) he’s ready to wreak havoc in your classroom, I challenge you to pull him aside and ask him if he’s ok, if there is something bothering him and is there anything you can do to help? Your genuine concern for him may be just the miracle he’s looking for. The miracle we’re all looking for. I know you. I trust you. You are the answer.

A former teacher who is as heartbroken as you and trusting you not to walk out on the real answer,
David (yes, teachers really do have first names) Blair
Science Teacher, retired"


Posted by js
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 14, 2018 at 2:33 pm

I would like to point out that they walking out caused you to write this letter, so I would arguethe walkout is working as now others will read your letter do some self reflecting.

the walkout inspired you to write that letter and inspired look how views this and the other thread have.

it is working, one might even say Its working BIGLY


Posted by Pleasanton Parent
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Mar 14, 2018 at 3:26 pm

Pleasanton Parent is a registered user.

It is absolutely a shell of an effort at meaningful action.

My thoughts on this are well documented in the other discussion.


Posted by Jon G
a resident of Del Prado
on Mar 14, 2018 at 4:11 pm

Everyone needs to be mindful of the fact California already has some of the strictest firearms laws in the country.

Assault weapons ban (AR-15’s are included here and other guns with “evil features”)
High capacity magazine ban (nothing over 10 rounds)
Universal background checks (gun shows, private party transfers, and at gun shops)
10 day waiting period
Firearms purchase registry (yes, the state knows who owns guns)
Mandatory firearms safety test and a $25 fee
Bumpstocks are illegal
.50 cal weapons are banned

EVERY buzzword for “responsible gun safety” measures is covered in our current gun laws. Yet, two individuals were able to shoot 22 people and kill 14 in 2015. Our strict gun laws did not stop this tragedy. What makes you so sure more gun laws are the solution? The kid in Florida passed a background check because he wasn’t a felon or had a violent misdemeanor.

Ask the local kids in Chicago how well guns laws work. Chicago is the murder capital of the country and features some of the strongest gun control laws. New York? DC?

What about firearm prohibitions like those in Australia? Look at Mexico as an example. Citizens are NOT allowed firearms, yet the drug cartels have made cities like Juarez one of the most dangerous places in the world with gun violence.

We have a total ban on Schedule 1 narcotics and yet they still get into the hands of our citizens.

What these kids should be doing to demonstrate their 1st admendment rights is to recognize the 46 people who die each day from opioid abuse.

Our country’s drug problem and general apathetic attitude to those around us should be causing walkouts - not guns.


Posted by LanceM
a resident of Mohr Park
on Mar 14, 2018 at 5:18 pm

LanceM is a registered user.

Jon G

"What these kids should be doing to demonstrate their 1st admendment rights is to recognize the 46 people who die each day from opioid abuse."

Maybe that's what YOU should be doing. Don't put down the students for wanting action. They are young and trying to do something. Yes, it may not be perfect, but it is something. They stare at people like you who do nothing and want a change. They look to you/us to make that change. They want to be heard. To belittle their actions only shines the light on the fact that you don't care about them or their voice and that is pathetic.

You want to tell them what they SHOULD do? They help them do that. Guide them. They are children who need guidance from adults, not condescension.

You claim to have all the knowledge about gun control and what does and doesn't work. You should be sharing with them, but instead you patronize with your sense of self-superiority without concern that children in this country are actually scared that they might get killed at school. It is not a paralyzing fear, but it is there and should be recognized.



Posted by LanceM
a resident of Mohr Park
on Mar 14, 2018 at 5:21 pm

LanceM is a registered user.

Pleasanton Parent - grow up


Posted by Pleasanton Parent
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Mar 14, 2018 at 5:39 pm

Pleasanton Parent is a registered user.

Lance, read your last post and tell me who’s acting like the child.


Posted by Erin
a resident of Birdland
on Mar 14, 2018 at 6:11 pm

[removed because it did not further the conversation]


Posted by Pleasanton Parent
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Mar 14, 2018 at 6:22 pm

Pleasanton Parent is a registered user.

Classic example of “if you don’t agree with me mentality “ while continuing to perpetuate my point of inaction being pushed as resolution


Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Mar 14, 2018 at 6:41 pm

Well, so much for the simple idea of Trump and the NRA of just flooding schools with lots and lots of "good guys with guns" - and these two people in the story below actually have experience as trained police officers. Imagine the rate of gun accidents if normal teachers all over the country are encouraged or required to bring guns to school.:

- - - - -
"2 “good guys with guns” accidentally fired them in schools on Tuesday"

"As the Trump administration advocates for more guns in schools and allowing teachers to carry firearms, two separate incidents in Virginia and California on Tuesday in which trained school employees accidentally fired their weapons highlight the dangers of such a proposal."

"A teacher who is also a reserve police officer trained to use a gun accidentally discharged a firearm at Seaside High School in Monterey County, California, on Tuesday. According to the local outlet KBSW, Dennis Alexander’s gun went off around 1 pm while he was teaching a course about gun safety. He was pointing his gun at the ceiling when it went off, and pieces of the ceiling hit the ground."

"...In a separate incident in Alexandria, Virginia, on Tuesday, a school resource officer — a five-year veteran of the Alexandria Police Department - accidentally discharged his weapon while inside George Washington Middle School. No one, including the officer, was injured."
Vox: Web Link
- - - - - -


Posted by @Jon G
a resident of Ruby Hill
on Mar 14, 2018 at 6:56 pm

"Everyone needs to be mindful of the fact California already has some of the strictest firearms laws in the country. "

What is your point? That since we as Californians are more evolved than the rest of a pitiful situation across the country we should be happy, stay silent, do nothing. Be mindful?

Then you cite Mexico as as some bizarre example. I am not sure where you are getting your information? Maybe NetFlix?

The US is so far ahead of them (and pretty much every other country) in gun violence it is not even close. What are you smoking?


Web Link

Web Link





Posted by Jon G
a resident of Del Prado
on Mar 14, 2018 at 7:21 pm

Thank you for the feedback LanceM. Yes, we need to be better role models for our kids. Yes, we need to help guide them thru this rough time in our country’s history.

To be clear, I applaud these kids exercising their first amendment rights - based on peaceful assembly. Taking a stand on an issue and doing something about it is commendable.

But I don’t agree with their stance/position. That’s my right. This is a similar arguement to burning the US flag. One is protected by our Constitution to exercise their first amendment rights by doing so- but I don’t have to agree with it or support it.

I saw a young lady wearing a “F**k the NRA” T-shirt today in Starbucks. That’s not appropriate in my view, but it’s her decision.

The NRA is not the problem. Neither is the AR15. Our society has become sick and is causing young people to go out and commit horrible acts that were unthinkable a few years ago.

The AR15 has been available to the public since the early 1960’s (as the Colt SP1) and before the GCA of 1968, you could receive one in the mail. If the gun was the root of the problem, then we would be having mass shootings in the 60’s and we didn’t. Guns are harder to obtain now than in 1968 believe it or not.

Our nation should be asking if the cause is violence in the media, video games, over medicated kids, social media or all of the above.

Yes, guns kill people. But it’s always somebody pulling the trigger. Let’s fix that!

All that I am asking is everyone consider both sides and keep the conversations civil and productive.


Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Mar 14, 2018 at 7:24 pm

"What about firearm prohibitions like those in Australia? "

Yes, what about them?:

- - - -
"Tough Gun Control Laws in Australia Really Have Stopped Mass Shootings, Study Shows"

"There's been a 22-year-long absence of mass shootings in Australia since 1996 gun reforms were put in place."
Science Alert website: Web Link
- - - -


Posted by Pleasanton Parent
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Mar 14, 2018 at 7:36 pm

Jon,
I agree with much of what you've stated, though I disagree that the nra is not part of the problem. I see them sharing a similar role to a union inhibiting idea scope.

I think the nra does a lot of good in education and traininf, but i think they're too engrained in the politics and politicians.


Posted by Jon G
a resident of Del Prado
on Mar 14, 2018 at 7:37 pm

I cited Australia and Mexico as situations of gun prohibitions. Australia was a forced confiscation by the government called a “buyback”. That was based on Nazi Germany’s gun laws in the 1930’s. Our next door neighbor Mexico has more crime that it can handle and civilians can’t legally protect themselves against the cartels.

Our country tried a prohibition on alcohol not too long ago. How did that turn out? What about the war on drugs? Are we winning that? So banning guns is the answer then?


Posted by Pleasanton Parent
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Mar 14, 2018 at 7:45 pm

Interestingly enough while you can't legally buy a gun in Mexico if you're in possession of a 35 caliber or smaller in your home, or use it to defend yourself, you are "legal".

So now ask, ok, so how do those guns get purchased - grey market. Unregulated.


Posted by Billy
a resident of Amador Estates
on Mar 14, 2018 at 7:49 pm

Sam,

A little misleading because didn’t really have many shootings before The shooter in this case was mentally ill. I lived in Australia for 12 years and now the perps just use knives and cars. If you join a shooting club there you can have weapons even as a foreigner.


Posted by On point Deborah
a resident of Laguna Oaks
on Mar 14, 2018 at 8:26 pm

I couldn't agree more with the content of that letter. Time and effort spent this way would go so much further than the 17.... err 45 minute protest that took place. And that "debate" with the pro NRA kids was hardly a debate. They were skewered for having a different opinion from the hoards who took to the quad to skip class to protest gun violence while the superintendent claimed it was to honor the fallen 17.





Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Mar 14, 2018 at 8:40 pm

@Billy :”A little misleading because didn’t really have many shootings before The shooter in this case was mentally ill. ”

So you say that having about ten gun massacres in Australia involving five or more people in the ten years before the 1996 Port Arthur Massacre is your definition of “didn’t really have many shootings before”?

List of Massacres in Australia (Wikipedia): Web Link
- - -


Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 14, 2018 at 8:58 pm

BobB is a registered user.

It does appear that what was done in Australia was effective, and I think we should look at doing something similar here.


Posted by MichaelB
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Mar 14, 2018 at 9:19 pm

"They stare at people like you who do nothing and want a change. They look to you/us to make that change. They want to be heard. To belittle their actions only shines the light on the fact that you don't care about them or their voice and that is pathetic."

All I hear about "changing" from these kids is just more gun control measures. And belittling others about being supposedly "responsible" for school violence if you don't agree. It's pathetic that some people think the entire Parkland incident and others can be conveniently "explained" by the presence of so called "assault weapons", legal owners of guns, and/or activities of an organization supporting the 2nd Amendment.

These are the people we need to listen to? Sounds like they need a "time out" instead.


Posted by MichaelB
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Mar 14, 2018 at 9:28 pm

"What is your point? That since we as Californians are more evolved than the rest of a pitiful situation across the country we should be happy, stay silent, do nothing. Be mindful?"

We're more "evolved" because California rationalizes illegal behaviors with guns and ignores the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution? Just the opposite. It's pitiful that a debate/discussion is now required for so called "progressive" people as to who is really responsible when someone picks up a gun and tries to injure/kill someone with it.


Posted by MichaelB
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Mar 14, 2018 at 9:49 pm

"It does appear that what was done in Australia was effective, and I think we should look at doing something similar here".


No, we should not.

It makes no sense whatsoever to disarm people who have nothing to do with crime and violence as a "solution" to reduce crime/violence. Good luck with telling people that their property they've owned for years is now illegal/must be surrendered to the government. Australia doesn't have a right to bear arms either.

New York and Connecticut passed "assault weapons" registration requirements after the Sandy Hook shootings. The compliance rate was about 10%.


Posted by Dabster
a resident of Downtown
on Mar 15, 2018 at 7:12 am

You will never stop school shootings until you (A) disarm all citizens, which is not going to and should not happen, or (B) have armed police or trained individuals at schools. Marches expressing feelings are nice, but don't actually solve anything.

A big part of the problem in my opinion is the media. They give these nut jobs a platform and notoriety, which is what they desperately want. Media should avoid naming the shooter, and showing images of the person. Having MSNBC stick a camera in victims faces and ask them how they feel does not help solve the problem, only helps them get ratings. This creates copy cat crimes, as some mentally ill kids crave that type of sick attention

The right to bear arms is sacred in America, and is the ultimate check on government tyranny. Throughout history, it is governments that have been the most prolific murderers of their own population (see Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc).

Gun laws are great, but law enforcement FAILED in Florida. First responders did not engage the shooter. The FBI did not follow up on many tips about this nut job. Laws have to be enforced to work.

In the mean time, putting up more "Gun Free Zones" will accomplish nothing


Posted by resident
a resident of Downtown
on Mar 15, 2018 at 7:38 am

As stated above -- "Our nation should be asking if the cause is violence in the media, video games, over medicated kids, social media or all of the above."

And I would ask just who it is that buys these kids all of the crap that they are so caught up in and allows them to use it every waking second? Come on mommie and daddie, you are raising punks who have no boundaries. You buy them everything, you set no limits, you allow them to get away with whatever they want without consequence. And then when they commit some horrific act (Cody Hall anyone?) you act surprised because they never did anything to make you think they might do that. Really? Open your eyes. Every one of those kids who did this acted out in all sorts of ways that should have opened the eyes of the parents or guardians, yet nothing was done. Look in the mirror before you blame "society" or "drugs" or "social media" for making your kid into a monster. YOU had them, now YOU raise them and take some responsibility for doing it right.


Posted by Pleasanton Parent
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Mar 15, 2018 at 7:55 am

Pleasanton Parent is a registered user.

resident - I think you're hitting on an important discussion that isn't talked about enough. What are the parents' or guardian's responsibility in intervening and preventing these events, and if something happens, what are they held accountable for?

While its easy for me to judge from a distance, I can't imagine a situation where I wouldn't be aware of some of the signs - social postings, buying guns/ammo, poor performance in school, explosion from school, "loaner" amongst social groups.....again, might not see all, but some absolutely.

Maybe a more specific statement - (extreme for discussion sake only) if parents/guardians were held fully accountable financially and criminally for an event like this, perhaps even extended to other direct family members, would there be an instant step change in the level of attention and intervention to individuals? And if so, would it have an immediate impact?

I think its hard to accept that given the guilt I'm sure any parent or guardian would already harbor - I guess what I'm asking is, if the individuals perpetrating these horrific events already accept and disregard the consequences for being caught, do we need to change the consequences so that the people closest too them pay more attention because the consequences to their direct livelihood are more impacted?

Scary thought for me as a parent as I know there is only so much I can control.... and I don't like being held accountable for someone else's actions, but in so many ways, as a parent, I already am.






Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Mar 15, 2018 at 8:31 am

@Resident & Pleasanton Parent

The parents aren’t to blame in all of these cases. In particular, the mother of this Florida shooter recognized that her adopted son had mental issues and tried to control him. Sometimes a kid just has mental problems and no amount of parenting is going to solve that problem. I know of a couple who adopted a pair of sons. One of the sons turned out great, doing well in school, eventually graduating from a Annapolis, and going on to a fine career in the navy. The other son was always getting into trouble and had behavioral problems and poor grades and, to the best of my knowledge, is now living as a transient. You think that the parents are to blame? The problem isn’t parenting. The problem is that some people just have mental issues.

BTW, you can thank Trump for revoking an Obama-era regulation aimed at making it more difficult for certain mentally ill people to have guns.


Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 15, 2018 at 9:11 am

BobB is a registered user.

All,

Please remember that gun violence is less of a problem today than at any time in the past. It is still a problem, just, like most violent crime, less of one.

Crime rates in the US and throughout most of the world have been dropping for many decades.

The current generation of kids have it better than we had, and have it better in all the important ways than previous generations. Too much consumption of CNN and Fox news can easily lead a person to think otherwise, but news outlets give a very distorted version of reality. The statistics and facts say otherwise.

That said, it does the United States no service to regard gun rights as sacred. They are not some kind of check on government tyranny or some kind of safeguard against foreign invasion. Australia isn't living under tyranny or threat of invasion as a result of their strict gun control laws, and we wouldn't be either. And please ignore all the false quotes circulating around the internet regarding this.


Posted by Jon G
a resident of Del Prado
on Mar 15, 2018 at 9:21 am

Bob,

I would like to imagine Thomas Jefferson would disagree with you. Our American Revolution was an ARMED revolt against our then British government over taxation. As the colonists has no standing army, a group of citizen soldiers (a minority of the population FYI) fought for our freedom. Not sure how that would work for them if the British confiscated all of the guns to “prevent gun violence”

#1-Freedom of speech
#2- Right to bear arms


Posted by Neighbor
a resident of Dublin
on Mar 15, 2018 at 9:53 am

The walkout is a notion of frustration from our youth. An I hope their votes will count someday soon at the polls and perhaps their career could take a political path and stomp out cronyism.
More importantly for the protection of our schools the police need to reinvent themselves and make their Juvenile Division more viable with relevant training and take to heart what the retired teacher pointed about our troubled youth. Too many police departments allow the lazy and marginal police persons play “Kiddie Cop” rather than do serious training to interact with school administrators and students on a full time basis and investigate. We have allowed ourselves to minimize troubled students to be labeled “Truants” and “incorrigibles” rather than really investigate problems at home and so on before they pick up a weapon. We did this to ourselves and we saw it when we were in school back in the day. It was just a matter of time. Now we have our court system address those broken people in our society on what many term as the “Guns and Nuts” calendar where there are hearings to take away or return guns that where initially removed by law enforcement. We have the laws on the books and still those that shouldn’t have guns fall through the cracks.


Posted by Liz
a resident of Foothill High School
on Mar 15, 2018 at 9:56 am

Very well stated David Blair. PLEASE everyone, read "Nineteen Minutes" written by Jodi Picoult, published in 2007.


Posted by Grumpy
a resident of Vineyard Avenue
on Mar 15, 2018 at 10:29 am

Grumpy is a registered user.

This boils down into the competing desires of gun control advocates to bring attention to this as a crisis, and gun ownership advocates who don’t like where the attention is leading.

There’s a lot of virtue signaling going on with the pro gun side—usually of the form “gun violence can’t be totally eliminated”, “other countries failed”, “California sucks”, “progressives are wasting time”, and “students should be neither seen nor heard”. It’s best for the rest of us to see these as shibboleths, almost like birds calling to each other and less of an honest debate.

As I’ve also said before, the fact that we’re talking about it proves that the students’ actions were more than just lonely cries for help. Whether it amounts to serious change or not is a problem that will not be solved in comments. But perhaps a cultural shift away from protecting arbitrary or reflexive gun ownership can occur.


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Mar 15, 2018 at 11:43 am

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Jon G, what weapon(s) can a citizen own today to create the same cause and effect as the American Revolution. It is a non-starter to any reasonable discussion.


Posted by SHale99
a resident of San Ramon
on Mar 15, 2018 at 7:45 pm

SHale99 is a registered user.

"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"

How come the NRA or gun nuts never mention or acknowledge the '....well regulated Militia' part of the amendment?

And where does it say one MUST have a military type assault weapon or fully automatic rifle to 'protect' themselves? Spray and pray you hit something? Really.

Hopefully these kids will become voters soon and vote all out who seem to be confused on the above.


Posted by Puff Daddy
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on Mar 15, 2018 at 8:05 pm

Puff Daddy is a registered user.

Kathleen, interesting point. In conversation with friends of mine who interpret the 2nd amendment differently than I do (I'm a supporter, but not averse to reasonable controls to protect life), they make the point that the original intent was to ensure that citizens are armed to an equal level with the government so they can defend themselves. I think that ship has sailed, for better or worse, but probably for the much better. Citizens can't (without very special permits in some cases) own fully automatic guns, nuclear weapons, tanks, highly specialized software, etc. Personally, I feel safer for that. I'm guessing that our military could easily out weapon any dude in a bunker with multiple M16-inspired rifles, bump stocks, high capacity pistols, etc., not to mention our military's training/experience. It seems to me to be an unreasonable fantasy that arming oneself with all this stuff makes you safer.

Based on a lot of the sentiment from the young people, I believe that the government for and of the people will move away from allowing such unfettered access to weapons. I, as a gun owner, 2nd amendment supporter, and ex-NRA member, would happily sign up for strict control of who has weapons and draconian punishments for those who have them outside the law. Keep 'em in the hands of the proven good guys and bring the hammer down on the bad guys.

Also, there's a lot of talk being thrown around about the "lefties" regurgitating "anti-gun" rhetoric. I think those of us leaning a little right should think deeply about that and apply the same rigor to our position. As an ex-NRA guy, I think I'm guilty, in the past, of not thinking deeply enough about my statements. We should base our positions on data, not dogmatic fervor.


Posted by Grumpy
a resident of Vineyard Avenue
on Mar 15, 2018 at 11:15 pm

Grumpy is a registered user.

The second amendment was not written to establish a balance between the police power of the state and the firepower of the people. It was written to allow people the ability to take up arms of war against foreign invasion. What sort of invasion is an interesting question: natives, slaves, French, and then English when the time came. This is a problem that makes the second amendment suspect as an important right: it was never considered an inalienable right by the founders, but rather a practical constraint on the government when remembering how the English didn’t want to allow the colonies to protect themselves.

The amendment secures the right of the people to take military, not police, action. People do not have the right to take police action themselves, and in fact the power flows the other way, where most states allow forced posses but criminalizes vigilantism. The military nature of the second amendment is clear in the language “keep and bear arms”. An arm is a weapon of war. It’s not another word for guns, although guns may be used in war. Think “armament”. To keep an arm is to maintain it, not to possess it, just as keeping right when driving is to maintain that side of the road, not to confiscate it as your private property. To bear an arm is to use it in battle.

The preamble only serves to highlight this more. That’s why it mentions a militia, and a “well regulated” one too. A militia is of the people, not an army. And regulated means supplied, not controlled, although self control is a part of the meaning.

Personal self defense is a police action. Common law has always allowed it, and the English never barred it, so the drafters had no reason to mention it. Hunting was always a common law right on your land, and thus also is not what was meant.

The meaning is clear to any linguist, and that people debate it is an unfortunate result of bad faith politics trying to redefine it.

Therefore, the meaning cuts both ways. Pro gun advocates cannot correctly claim that they have a right to personal defense because of what the 2nd Amendment says. And pro gun control advocates must admit that the 2nd Amendment does require a way for the average person to access militia-appropriate weaponry.


Posted by Puff Daddy
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on Mar 16, 2018 at 11:03 am

Puff Daddy is a registered user.

Grumpy, most thought-provoking, thoughtful post I've seen in these threads. Very interesting. Seems like the 2nd amendment doesn't provide very clear guidance for the world we're in. Early in your post, you talk about what kind of "invasion" might be likely. At the end, that the 2nd amendment provides for citizen access to militia-appropriate weaponry. I would assume that today any sort of invasion would look like a modern army. Then I start wondering about the definition of "militia-appropriate weaponry". If I'm defending myself against a foreign army, where is the line on what kind of weapon to which the 2nd guarantees my right? Some I might expect from a foreign army in roughly descending order of impact:

Nuclear missile?
Aircraft carrier?
Tomahawk missile?
Helicopter gunship?
Tank?
Fully automatic, high capacity rifle?
.50 Caliber rifle?
High capacity magazines (pistol or rifle)?
Pistol/shotgun/hunting rifle?
Knife?

Would be curious to hear your thoughts on the question. Seems muddied already with restrictions on citizens' owning some of these. Thanks very much for the thoughtful post.


Posted by Grumpy
a resident of Vineyard Avenue
on Mar 16, 2018 at 12:16 pm

Grumpy is a registered user.

Thanks, Puff. Your question is exactly the right one.

It’s hard to make sense of the consequences of the 2nd amendment in a world where nuclear war, or even drone war, is how battles are fought, as there are no defenses to them. The amendment was written, as many have mentioned here, during the time of muskets, when a defense with more muskets made sense.

We have to admit that the 2nd Amendment may be practically ineffective at this point. We will not be attacked on our soil by an invading army. With news today that Russia is admitting their penetration into our aircraft, energy, and control systems, not a bullet need fly for a foreign power to attack us.

I suspect this realization is a part of what lead the NRA to the dramatic shift from decades ago of admitting that it doesn’t apply to self defense to now it being their primary focus. Warfare changed too much for a legal right for people to participate in their own military defense to make sense. Yet that served as a good and legitimate pretext to allow private gun ownership with few restrictions. As society realized that military self defense became meaningless precisely because weapons of war advanced so much, we changed the way we looked at guns and that threatened the NRA’s purpose. So they pivoted from patriots defending their county to good guys with guns acting as untrained police. It’s the only place they could go.

I don’t have a good answer from here. I sympathize with gun supporters that the 2nd Amendment might protect them from some reasonable regulation. My solution would be to remove the amendment and replace it with something that, as a part of a negotiated outcome, enscribed a personal ownership right but outlined its restrictions. I don’t see that happening though, because currently the NRA has hope that they can use the sloppy interpretation to secure an ever expanding set of “rights”, and have no reason to bargain with those who want reasonable restrictions based on guns as a public health crisis.

But the two things we should be honest with ourselves are that
1) the 2nd Amendment isn’t about self defense, and
2) gun restrictions save lives, even if they offend a person’s beliefs.

Then we can have a real debate on what type of right gun ownership should actually be. Gun supporters would stop arguing that gun restrictions are prohibited or imperfect and would instead have to embrace the more honest argument that they don’t want some restrictions because they believe there ought to be a right there. (As a car driver, I feel that driving cars should be a “right”, even though it is undoubted that eliminating cars will eliminate car accidents.)


Posted by sanity
a resident of Mohr Park
on Mar 16, 2018 at 7:37 pm

sanity is a registered user.

As soon as we make guns illegal there won't be any more shootings.
That's how we got everyone to stop doing drugs. :-0


Posted by sanity
a resident of Mohr Park
on Mar 16, 2018 at 7:42 pm

sanity is a registered user.

Maybe if these kids stayed in class and read a history book they would know why the 2nd. amendment is so important.


Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 17, 2018 at 5:41 pm

BobB is a registered user.

@sanity,

I hope you read the discussion above, where some of the history of the second amendment was actually discussed (see Grumpy's comments above).

There is a big difference between "make guns illegal", and banning civilian sales of fully automatic weapons (for example) -- which was first done in 1935. One is a blanket ban of all weapons and the other is a sensible gun control law. Can you see the difference?

Also, plenty of Amador Valley HS and Foothill HS students have read the history of the Bill of Rights and understand the historical context of the second amendment. Some have won awards.

Web Link

Were did you learn about it?


Posted by sanity
a resident of Mohr Park
on Mar 17, 2018 at 8:10 pm

sanity is a registered user.

@BobB If you read your history you'd know that one always leads to the other.


Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 18, 2018 at 8:25 am

BobB is a registered user.

@sanity,

Please clarify. One what leads to what?


Posted by sanity
a resident of Mohr Park
on Mar 18, 2018 at 9:43 am

sanity is a registered user.

Partrial gun confiscation always leads to total gun confiscation, which is ultimate the goal of the left. Look at how many countries in history that have surrendered their weapons only to be brutalized and murdered by their own government. The second amendment isn't about hunting, it's about protection from a tyrannical government. The framers of our constitution put that in there for a reason and I'll thank you not to tread on my right to protect myself and my family from those who intend to pervert that constitution. Funny how the left constantly beats the drum of gun control and how the NRA is responsible and how Conservatives are so dangerous and violent, but those who are doing the violence are on the left. Tell me, what percentage of mass murders and bombings have been committed by NRA members and conservatives...? We don't need gun control, we need idiot control.


Posted by MichaelB
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Mar 18, 2018 at 11:02 am

MichaelB is a registered user.

"My solution would be to remove the amendment and replace it with something that, as a part of a negotiated outcome, enscribed a personal ownership right but outlined its restrictions. I don’t see that happening though, because currently the NRA has hope that they can use the sloppy interpretation to secure an ever expanding set of “rights”, and have no reason to bargain with those who want reasonable restrictions based on guns as a public health crisis"

@Grumpy

It's not "reasonable" to negotiate with those who think guns are a "public health crisis" (sloppy interpretation). Firearms are not "germs" that infect people causing disease or illnesses. People make a choice to abuse guns which is already against the law.

Amazing what lengths some people will go to trying to preserve the left wing status quo on this issue - "society is to blame" and "everyone is a victim". And that the only "reasonable" solution going forward is for those supporting the right to bear arms agreeing to more restrictions/bans while the other side gives nothing in return. We have more restrictions on guns now - and more school shootings. Predictions from gun control supporters about "wild west shootouts" after more states issued concealed weapons permits never materialized.

There is no "negotiation" on this issue in California and other states where so called progressives get their way/control the debate. New restrictions/bans are introduced every year - for the law abiding. And all are conveniently marketed as being "reasonable", "for the children", "gun safety", etc.


Posted by sanity
a resident of Mohr Park
on Mar 18, 2018 at 11:16 am

sanity is a registered user.

Those who scream we need more gun control to save kids lives yet support the mass murder of unborn children to the tune of 3000 murders every single day are simply not being honest. It's not about saving kids through gun control. It's about control. I've heard the excuse that "It's my Body I can do what I want". but here's an inconvenient truth for you. It's not your body, if it was you would be the one that dies. How's all that gun control working for you in Chicago? How many school shootings do you see in open carry states? Its not the gun people....it's the people. And until we address the reason kids kill other kids they are going to continue weather its guns or knives of bombs or running people down with cars. Society has a problem, and it perpetrated by those who exonerate the wrong doer and blame the innocent.


Posted by MichaelB
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Mar 18, 2018 at 11:25 am

MichaelB is a registered user.

"There’s a lot of virtue signaling going on with the pro gun side—usually of the form “gun violence can’t be totally eliminated”, “other countries failed”, “California sucks”, “progressives are wasting time”, and “students should be neither seen nor heard”. It’s best for the rest of us to see these as shibboleths,"

@Grumpy

And there's a lot of silliness going on from the gun control side.
Students marching with signs/chanting the predictable slogans "end gun violence", "ban assault weapons" or "stop the NRA" is somehow productive and useful? Exactly how is this going to identify and stop the next Nikolas Cruz - who authorities were repeatedly warned about but did nothing? Or improving security measures for those who do not belong on school grounds/pose threats?

It's best for the rest of us to see these as political opportunists.


Posted by Puff Daddy
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on Mar 18, 2018 at 1:15 pm

Puff Daddy is a registered user.

Grumpy, I very much appreciate your thoughts on the history and meaning of the 2nd amendment. It has given me more to think about and, I believe, a better understanding of the amendment. In fact, I'm probably a stronger supporter now that I've thought about your points.

That said, I support reasonable controls on weapons that can inflict mass damage quickly, like M-16 inspired rifles, high capacity handguns, hand grenades, rocket launchers, etc (some of which we already have restrictions on and nobody's come to get my guns yet). I really, really don't want a crazy person coming to my kids' school with that type of weaponry. I think we can find a balance. And, just because I support that, doesn't mean I don't think we should hit the mental health/bullying aspect. We need to look at all the data and figure out how to solve these problems. The answers don't appear to be simple to me.

In fact, one of the things that dismays me the most is that Dickey Amendment has effective stopped the CDC from looking at gun violence/death data (seems like that's going to change soon, including the backing of Dickey). I think that if looked at, the data would likely support a lot of the arguments seen here. I.e. that it's a mental health issue, that responsible gun owners aren't the problem, etc. However, sticking our heads in the sand doesn't let us get to good solutions. Starting with the data could. And, by the way, I'm pretty sure Grumpy doesn't think that firearms are a germ. I don't think "public health crisis" means germs. That could be stuff like drunk driving, opiod crisis, texting while driving, etc. Anything that causes preventable deaths.

A troubling aspect, to me, of this conversation and many others is the knee-jerk move to label. Either your a "leftie" or "conservative nut". I'm personally uncomfortable with that because I don't fit into either side that neatly. I'm a 2nd amendment supporter, own guns, would support reasonable restrictions, don't mind killing animals for food, wildly liberal on peoples' personal orientation choices, don't personally support abortion, but get it in some cases, strongly support our military, believe the ACLU is wildly American, etc. The labels just irritate me and seem superficial.

I don't think this black and white defining of people helps figure out what's best for the country, just divides and makes us weaker. I was lucky enough to have a few "greatest generation" uncles/dad who fought in wars and didn't, were on very different ends of the political spectrum, but always had very civil conversations. listened to each other, and I think really got an understanding of where each was coming from. I truly admired that and think it's sorely lacking on both extreme ends of our current political spectrum.

There, that's my Sunday afternoon rant! I truly hope you all have a great rest of the weekend and week!


Posted by MichaelB
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Mar 18, 2018 at 1:39 pm

MichaelB is a registered user.

"In fact, one of the things that dismays me the most is that Dickey Amendment has effective stopped the CDC from looking at gun violence/death data (seems like that's going to change soon, including the backing of Dickey). I think that if looked at, the data would likely support a lot of the arguments seen here."

Or maybe not.

Web Link


Posted by Puff Daddy
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on Mar 18, 2018 at 2:07 pm

Puff Daddy is a registered user.

One of my points was that I suspect that the data would support some of the responsible gun owners' arguments. E.g. that law abiding citizens are not the problem, that concealed carry helps, etc. There was a great article years ago in the WSJ about Switzerland. They are (or were at the time) the most heavily armed country in the world with every (male only I think? wassup with that?) citizen required to own a gun and the fewest gun-related issues.

The bigger point is, let's look at the data and make reasonable decisions. Big things are achieved with data and rational approach. It has historically been our strength. Taliban denies and suppresses science. Look where it gets them vs. our guys. A can of you know what! Let's be smart.


Posted by Puff Daddy
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on Mar 18, 2018 at 2:08 pm

Puff Daddy is a registered user.

And, my data approach presupposes no answers. Just that it makes sense to look at the data and figure it out.


Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 18, 2018 at 5:15 pm

BobB is a registered user.

@sanity,

The ban on Tommy guns has been on the federal books since 1935. That hasn't led to "total gun confiscation" 83 years later. The slippery slope argument completely fails, unless you were kidding. 83 years.


Posted by sanity
a resident of Mohr Park
on Mar 18, 2018 at 6:51 pm

sanity is a registered user.

@BobB..really?
Are we not now talking about more weapons bans? You argument is invalid.

How about this....I'll control my guns, You control your kids.


Posted by Puff Daddy
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on Mar 18, 2018 at 7:14 pm

Puff Daddy is a registered user.

sanity, I'd love to hear the reasoning behind why BobB's argument is invalid. And, I didn't hear him mention his kids? Not quite sure I follow your logic. Thanks so much for elaborating.


Posted by Puff Daddy
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on Mar 18, 2018 at 7:15 pm

Puff Daddy is a registered user.

And, by the way, that wasn't meant to be antagonistic. Just really want to hear the details behind everyone's opinions. Helps me understand the issue better. Thanks again.


Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 18, 2018 at 7:16 pm

BobB is a registered user.

@sanity,

So maybe after 83 more years, some other kind of gun will banned too? I'm really worried.

How about this -- you don't don't get to buy fully automatic weapons.


Posted by sanity
a resident of Mohr Park
on Mar 18, 2018 at 7:26 pm

sanity is a registered user.

Read Saul Alinkski's "Rules for radicals" and everything becomes crystal clear. It is the express intent of the left to minimize everything they do and demonize everything the right does. It states directly that big changes are hard to make and incremental changes are easier to push through until the final agenda is realized. They call it a "Nudge". Every so often a nudge in your direction and eventually the agenda is achieved. Make no mistake, A total gun ban is the intent of the left, and it has been said by (I forget which lefty government official but I heard it myself) exactly that verbatim. So lets not pretend it's not. It is. And I'll tell you what, you don't want another civil war, because that's what you'll get. And you'll lose.


Posted by sanity
a resident of Mohr Park
on Mar 18, 2018 at 7:34 pm

sanity is a registered user.

@Puff Daddy

It was a general point about the problem being the generation of kids we've produced that are causing these problems not the guns. You obviously knew that but felt the need to poke at me. Guns have been around for a long time, but this problem of kids shooting up schools is a relatively new one....so what changed?


Posted by Puff Daddy
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on Mar 18, 2018 at 7:47 pm

Puff Daddy is a registered user.

Sanity, i was actually honestly curious as to the reason for your statement about the argument being invalid. The kid thing seemed completely out of the blue and separate to me, so I asked. I get your position on the kids now. Why do you think the BobBs argument on the tommy gun ban not leading to total confiscation is invalid? I'll always poke to get a better understanding. Don't assume I'm not on your side. Or that I am looking for an argument. I just like clarity so I can understand where people are coming from.


Posted by Puff Daddy
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on Mar 18, 2018 at 7:48 pm

Puff Daddy is a registered user.

Oh, and possibly embarrassing question, why the "@" before the names in these threads?


Posted by sanity
a resident of Mohr Park
on Mar 18, 2018 at 7:58 pm

sanity is a registered user.

@Puff Daddy: Its common thread edicate to direct a response to someone by putting an @ in front of the name. I didn't make that up....it's common knowledge.
As far as why his argument is invalid, he claimed that since tommy guns were made illegal and a total ban on weapons hasn't happened yet that somehow this isn't the intent of the left. OF COURSE it';s the intent of the left. First it was tommy guns then it was just this...and then just that and the left is never satisfied, they just keep plugging away at our rights until we wont have them anymore. If it really was just about tommy guns there would be no need to ban anything else....but it never ends with these jokers. There is example after example where the left has demanded something and then ridiculed the right for not wanting to give in because we know it won't stop there....but the left continues to deny it and deny it...and then they do exactly what they promised not to do and promise that will be it....until the next time and they do it again. The left has cause enough irreparable damage to this country and the real constitutional Americans have had enough. It pretty much comes down to this.....if I have to explain this to someone, they are part of the problem and no explanation is going to change their mind.


Posted by Puff Daddy
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on Mar 18, 2018 at 8:15 pm

Puff Daddy is a registered user.

Thank you sanity. Really appreciate you taking the time to explain. Tough issue for America. Hope we can sort it out.


Posted by Mikel
a resident of Vineyard Avenue
on Mar 18, 2018 at 9:24 pm

Mikel is a registered user.

Exactly! What has changed? The problem isn’t guns. It’s sucidal kids and there are hundreds of thousands of them.


Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 18, 2018 at 10:05 pm

BobB is a registered user.

School shootings are not more common now, and schools are safer than ever.

Web Link


Posted by sanity
a resident of Mohr Park
on Mar 19, 2018 at 8:32 am

sanity is a registered user.

@BobB if that's true, then what's the beef with guns all of a sudden?
If the problem really is getting better, why the outcry and demands to circumvent my constitutional right to protect myself and my family? You'd think they'd be happy, but this isn't about kids getting killed, it's about control. It's all a political drive to disarm america as an defenseless america is an easily controlled america...again, look at history. How many countries started by banning weapons and ended up murdering millions of their own people...? I see no one is talking about that, but I guess it doesn't fit their taking points.


Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 19, 2018 at 9:01 am

BobB is a registered user.

@sanity,

Gun violence has been a problem for a long time. The second amendment was about state militias, not defending your family. Just because things have gotten better doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement.

Hitler didn't rise to power by first banning guns. He was elected. Don't trust the memes you see circulating on the Internet. Go to reliable sources.

Australia banned many weapons, and they are very much a free country. We should look at doing something like that here.


Posted by sanity
a resident of Mohr Park
on Mar 19, 2018 at 10:09 am

sanity is a registered user.

@BobB Exactly, Hitler was elected and was a leftist/socialist. (Bernie anyone?)
He provided free healthcare and subsidized housing.
He also created his own gold backed currency and free'd his country from the world bank and also disarmed his citizens. All good utopian ideas that the left champions.

And look how that turned out.

Or how about venezuela or Syria or china or any one of a dozen other countries throughout history where this exact same thing has played out. See a pattern here? It always ends the same. Always.
Name one country where socialism has not ended up with a dictatorship and oppression?
I see some americans falling for this same trap and it scares the hell out of me.


Posted by sanity
a resident of Mohr Park
on Mar 19, 2018 at 10:20 am

sanity is a registered user.

BObB said:
Australia banned many weapons, and they are very much a free country. We should look at doing something like that here.

This is a relatively new thing, it hasn't had time to play out yet. It's a slow process , but a process just the same.
Besides, what are you going to do when guns are illegal and they just start running people over with cars? Ban cars? And then bombs? Oh wait, bombs are already illegal, so I guess nobody ever gets blown up then do they...oh wait, yes they do. How about knives, are you going to ban knives? And hammers? More people are killed
The problem isn't the tool, it's the people. And until we address the actual problem madmen will just find new tools to kill with.


Posted by Ennis
a resident of Pleasanton Valley
on Mar 19, 2018 at 1:10 pm

Ennis is a registered user.

@Sanity -"This is a relatively new thing, it hasn't had time to play out yet. It's a slow process , but a process just the same".
In other countries, such as Australia, there has been a recognition, that we in the US haven't had and won't have, that guns are not a solution to solving a problem. Individual rights trump (no pun intended) a basic societal compact and the basic social compact is more important. Other countries recognize this and the idea that there is some type of government subversive plot is going on to create some kind of dystopian society is considered laughable. Other countries mindsets and cultural views are very different than those in the US -the irony is that they don't have the gun violence issues that we have.


Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 19, 2018 at 1:37 pm

BobB is a registered user.

@sanity,

I see you are making the slippery slope argument; If A happens, that will lead all the way to Z happening. Therefore A must not happen. I can't see that applying to gun control. Like I said above, America has been banning guns for over eighty years, as have most free governments, and we are still free.

I like what George Will wrote about slippery slope arguments:

"Life, however, is lived on a slippery slope: Taxation could become confiscation; police could become gestapos. But the benefits from taxation and police make us willing to wager that our judgment can stop slides down dangerous slopes."


Posted by sanity
a resident of Mohr Park
on Mar 19, 2018 at 6:31 pm

sanity is a registered user.

@BobB Yeah, I know you don't get it. That's the problem.
Meanwhile the left continues to ravage this country like a bull in a china shop oblivious to the damage they inflict and then leave the mess for others to clean up, then bitch at the people doing the cleaning. There is a plethora of examples all of which you will deny, but are true just the same....should I bother?

If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor....oh wait, you can't.
Obamacare will not pay for illegal aliens health care....oh wait, it does.
Obamacare will save the average american 2500.00 annually...oh wait, it didn't.
We have 6 million illegal aliens in this country, you can't kick them out, just give them amnesty and we won't let any more in.
Now we have 12 million illegal aliens, we can't kick them out, give them amnesty...and drivers licences.....and illegally, without congress create DACA, now we have Daca people demanding amnesty. Deporting illegal aliens is racist. Everything is racist. Let illegal aliens flood the country. You're a racist bastard if you don't let them stay, but we won't ever let them vote. Now governor moonbeam is giving them voting rights. Wait...they aren't even supposed to BE HERE much less let them vote....oh you're a racist biggot if you don't let them vote....We now have an government official who is an illegal alien. Explain to me how somebody who is not even supposed to be in the country at all can hold a public office? The left is the master of sippery slope problems for the rest of us to clean up. How about our lovely state, highest taxes in the country with millions of dollars allocated to shielding illegal aliens from being deported for BREAKING THE LAW but we don't have money to fix the dam and it almost wiped out a whole town. The lefts solution? Tax us MORE....California has the highest taxes and the most poverty in the nation. You have to either make a butt load of money or be dirt poor to get by as the middle class is taxed to death. (I'd dig up the link to the article but you wouldn't bother to read it and even if you did, you'd deny it anyway) Business and families are leaving the state in droves. Meanwhile conservative states like Texas thrive. But since the economy is so crappy here and so good in texas liberals are now moving to texas and creating the same problems there that they left here. No learning in that group. So don't give me that crap about there's no slippery slope...I could go on and on and on about the problems created by the left but the left will never admit it, and Americans are sick of it. That's how a guy like Trump got elected. Like him or not, he is as opposite of liberal and the vast majority of states voted him in. The lefts answer? Abolish the electoral collage. Funny, they didn't have a problem with the electorial collage when Obama was voted in. Oh wait, Russia did it, now we find out the "Russian Dossier" was created and paid for by the Democratic party. All BS. Then, 'women were forced by their husbands to vote for Trump. I tell you, the left is insane. Which reminds me...I keep hearing how we can't let forigeners ie Russians interfere in our elections, how is this any different than letting Illegal aliens vote? Look, I know you don't get it. I know you'll deny every bit of it. There's no talking sense into you guys, all we can do is continue to vote you out of office. The lefts solutions? Let Illegals vote to effect the outcome of our election. You disgust me.


Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 19, 2018 at 6:57 pm

BobB is a registered user.

@sanity,

Weren't we talking about gun control? And how after more than 80 years of gun control in the US, there are 100s of millions of guns in circulation, and plenty more for sale?

I take it you disagree with George Will's quote about slippery slopes? And what is with the personal comments. Everyone who disagrees with you is "disgusting?". You realize that would be the vast majority of people. There are very few 2nd amendment absoultists.


Posted by sanity
a resident of Mohr Park
on Mar 19, 2018 at 7:14 pm

sanity is a registered user.

@BobB
Absolute B.S.


Posted by sanity
a resident of Mohr Park
on Mar 19, 2018 at 7:17 pm

sanity is a registered user.

"You disgust me" as in the left.....not you specifically.


Posted by truth
a resident of Castlewood
on Mar 19, 2018 at 9:52 pm

truth is a registered user.

Some believe bad actors have been trying to divide the country on Facebook. Some comments here seem quite personal, calcified in basis and intended to stop conversation.. The bad actors are likely pleased. Are we not all Americans? Our biggest threat is sophisticated foreign strategies designed to divide us and have us fight each other while knocking the knees out of our great country and its principles. As Lincoln said, United we stand divided we fall.


Posted by MichaelB
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Mar 20, 2018 at 6:46 am

MichaelB is a registered user.

"I see you are making the slippery slope argument; If A happens, that will lead all the way to Z happening. Therefore A must not happen. I can't see that applying to gun control"

@BobB

I see you weren't paying attention to what happened in Washington DC before the Supreme Court got involved. City officials basically banned private gun ownership there - which made self defense illegal. Criminals ignored the regulations. Obama called it "constitutional". The Congress tried to resolve it with legislation and most of the Democrats wanted to keep it as is. All of the so called "progressives" on the Supreme Court did as well.

So please don't lecture everyone about "reasonable" regulations on guns. The political left doesn't want people owning them - at all.


Posted by MichaelB
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Mar 20, 2018 at 6:56 am

MichaelB is a registered user.

"Gun violence has been a problem for a long time. The second amendment was about state militias, not defending your family. Just because things have gotten better doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement"

@BobB

Stop giving human qualities to inanimate objects. There is no such thing as "gun violence" and it's not an "improvement" to treat people who abuse firearms as victims.

The progressive "blame society" agenda is a failure. If you treat criminals like victims, you'll end up with more criminals. Predictions of "wild west shootouts" from gun control advocates after more states issued permits for people to carry guns never materialized. Want improvement? Hold people accountable for their actions vs. banning your neighbor's guns, running the local gun shops out of business, etc.


Posted by MichaelB
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Mar 20, 2018 at 7:05 am

MichaelB is a registered user.

"So maybe after 83 more years, some other kind of gun will banned too? I'm really worried.How about this -- you don't don't get to buy fully automatic weapons"

@BobB:

How about this - since the 2nd Amendment is a Constitutional right you tell us which gun control laws we can repeal in California as part of a "compromise" on this issue. I'm guessing the answer will be none because they are all "good" or "necessary" - even though criminals don't bother complying/paying attention?


Posted by MichaelB
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Mar 20, 2018 at 7:54 am

MichaelB is a registered user.

"The bigger point is, let's look at the data and make reasonable decisions. Big things are achieved with data and rational approach. It has historically been our strength. Taliban denies and suppresses science. Look where it gets them vs. our guys. A can of you know what! Let's be smart."

@Puff Daddy

Let's be honest. The leadership of a major political party, most of its members, mainstream media outlets, and educational institutions don't support the right to bear arms and try to erode it on a regular basis.

It's not "rational" for politicians like Hillary Clinton to advocate filing lawsuits against the gun manufacturers for the actions of criminals. And it's not "reasonable" to advocate Australian style gun confiscation for the law abiding when they have absolutely nothing to do with crime/violence.

Data not conforming to/conflicting with views of the political left will simply be ignored and replaced with "if it saves one life, it's worth it", "it's for the children","the fewer the guns, the better", etc.


Posted by Puff Daddy
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on Mar 20, 2018 at 8:04 am

Puff Daddy is a registered user.

MichaelB. I totally agree that that likely what will happen initially with data. I'd like to think that with some focus and a talented, honest politician or two, we could get to a better place. I'm probably too old to be so optimistic, but hey ...


Posted by MichaelB
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Mar 20, 2018 at 8:36 am

MichaelB is a registered user.

"I, as a gun owner, 2nd amendment supporter, and ex-NRA member, would happily sign up for strict control of who has weapons and draconian punishments for those who have them outside the law. Keep 'em in the hands of the proven good guys and bring the hammer down on the bad guys."

@Puff Daddy

Not a good idea to sign up for "strict control" and expect to be left alone afterward.

This would be the equivalent of having female employees having to report to male chauvinist bosses. No matter what gun owners (female employees) did to comply with/follow regulations the gun control movement (male chauvinist boss) would endlessly find fault with them and never be satisfied. Sooner or later they'll be none in the hands of "good guys"


Posted by sanity
a resident of Mohr Park
on Mar 20, 2018 at 9:34 am

sanity is a registered user.

Truth says: "Some believe bad actors have been trying to divide the country on Facebook. Some comments here seem quite personal, calcified in basis and intended to stop conversation.. The bad actors are likely pleased. Are we not all Americans? Our biggest threat is sophisticated foreign strategies designed to divide us and have us fight each other while knocking the knees out of our great country and its principles. As Lincoln said, United we stand divided we fall"'

@Truth:
Except it's all true.
Russia didn't declare California a sanctuary state, Democrats did. Etc. etc. etc.
Make no mistake, both parties have sold us down the river in the endless pursuit of power,control and money. Both parties are criminals. The Democrats are just criminals on steroids.

President Trump-like him or not, is trying to fix this mess and the establishments response? Destroy him. If he is successful in fixing the problems "Professional Politicians" have created and haven't been able to fix for 30 years, the current cabal in Washington is through. So quit all this fake Russia BS and other ridiculous lies and get behind the president who is already having great success despite the pressure and media against him, we will all prosper.
To quote my friend "Truth", Aren't we all Americans?

I'll share one more thing that just frosted my cookies.
As an employer, I recently received a letter from the state ordering me not to comply with Federal Immigration laws, if I do, I will be prosecuted.
So Democrats passed a law that says if I obey the law, I am breaking the law, so I have to break another law so that I am not breaking the law.
Ridiculous? Of course it is. And that's Liberal logic for you.

They don't care, as long as they get the votes.


Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 20, 2018 at 9:52 am

BobB is a registered user.

This thread is really getting way too negative. Things aren't so bad. We aren't in some kind of crisis, or decsent into tyranny. I'd like to answer some of the statements regarding gun control, but I've got to work.

Cheer up everyone! There hasn't been a better time to be alive.


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Mar 20, 2018 at 10:02 am

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

I find extremes of most debates are specious: we have a right to own all the guns versus they want to take away all the guns. Neither statement is true or even realistic. Yes, people should be allowed to own guns. Defining who can have a gun, how they can get the gun, and what types of guns they can have are reasonable/necessary.

Here is a graph going back to 1972 on gun ownership: Web Link They also have a graph of gun ownership by state: Web Link California is second in gun ownership, despite having the strictest gun laws: Web Link Gun ownership has remained relatively steady over nearly 50 years.

Is there a reason why owning a semiautomatic weapon or bump stock is a necessity other than "because my interpretation of the second amendment says I can"? Have a gun, have ten guns--protect yourself, your family, your possessions; go hunting. That doesn't, in my opinion, require weapons intended for killing many quickly, be that people or a herd of buffalo.


Posted by Matt Sullivan
a resident of Stoneridge
on Mar 20, 2018 at 3:35 pm

Matt Sullivan is a registered user.

The Second Amendment was written in a time of militias rather than a standing army and gun ownership was encouraged to help wipe out the native population so that the colonization of the continent could rapidly progress. It’s insane that a 19-year-old could easily obtain weapons of war and slaughter innocent people. This type of gun ownership should be banned, but the problems go deeper. As a society, we solve our problems through violence: we don’t negotiate with other countries to resolve differences, instead we institute violent “regime change” or threaten “fire and fury” to get our way; our police don’t work with citizens to “protect and serve”, instead they don military hardware and invade neighborhoods in armored vehicles, and especially in neighborhoods of color, shoot first and ask questions later, without repercussion; we raise our kids in virtual combat zones through “gaming” websites; and finally we elect presidents who take bullying and hostile behavior to unprecedented levels as standard accepted practice. In other words, we live in a violent and sick society, and organizations like the NRA encourage this because it results in more profits for the gun industry.


Posted by Matt Sullivan
a resident of Stoneridge
on Mar 20, 2018 at 4:07 pm

Matt Sullivan is a registered user.

And back to the original question, these kids are taking action because our generation has refused to. The walkouts were courageous and we can only hope it will continue.


Posted by Puff Daddy
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on Mar 20, 2018 at 5:07 pm

Puff Daddy is a registered user.

Kathleen, reading your comment, my thought is that when people get backed into the extremes of an argument, real solutions are not going to happen.

Me, I own guns, like them, happy to have them. Am also for reasonable regulations and am not so worried about the slippery slope. I don't fall conveniently on the "left" who wants guns taken away. I think that's nonsense and won't happen. I think we can craft an intelligent solution if we have a reasonable conversation. I know lots of people who feel the same way. And, I think if we don't do it, the current tide (who will be of voting age in the next decade or so) will likely institute laws that are not so friendly to the 2nd amendment. And even work to amend the 2nd. I know, that some here think that if that happens, it'll be Hitler all over again, but there are lots of countries today where it's hard to own gun that are quite nice.

Another thought I had this evening (kind of trying out the argument to see what folks think), if it's not guns that are the problem, do we need them for the solution? I.e. if it's not the guns that are responsible for mass shootings, can we not run a country without them? Must not be a really strong tool to effect change, so why the big worry whether we have them or not? A) not a problem in schools, but b) really good to have if the government goes against us? Seems like a disconnect to me.

On another note, thanks BobB for the perspective. Great time to be alive.


Posted by Puff Daddy
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on Mar 20, 2018 at 5:10 pm

Puff Daddy is a registered user.

And, by the way, I don't buy the likely counter argument that any tool in the wrong hands ... There are always right and wrong hands. Better tools have higher impact in the right or wrong hands. Tough problem, but what is the proposed solution? I'd love to hear a positive suggestion instead of chipping away at the thought. Thanks.


Posted by Puff Daddy
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on Mar 20, 2018 at 5:29 pm

Puff Daddy is a registered user.

Even more specifically, how do we not allow crazy people to get ahold of weapons capable of inflicting massive damage so quickly in public places (like schools, Vegas, etc.), but maintain our gun rights?

It's such a balance. How do the good guys keep the advantage while minimizing access for the bad guys? And who determines? Back to trusting authorities in power, which also doesn't make the most comfortable.

With younger kids, I really lean towards clamping down a bit. I can defend myself, but not always there for my kids. Nor do I trust anyone else to handle a weapon in their presence. Exhibit A, the clown who fired his gun in a class in Monterey. Good grief.


Posted by Puff Daddy
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on Mar 20, 2018 at 5:32 pm

Puff Daddy is a registered user.

In rereading my earlier statement, I realized I wrote poorly, saying "if it's not guns that are the problem". What I meant was to focus on the impact of the tool. I fully realize that guns are not sentient beings. It's just the tool in the hands of whomever has it.


Posted by Puff Daddy
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on Mar 20, 2018 at 5:35 pm

Puff Daddy is a registered user.

This would likely be more fun over a cup of coffee!


Posted by sanity
a resident of Mohr Park
on Mar 20, 2018 at 6:18 pm

sanity is a registered user.

Posted by Matt Sullivan
"And back to the original question, these kids are taking action because our generation has refused to. The walkouts were courageous and we can only hope it will continue."

Bull. These kids are being used as pawns for the left and using the excuse to get out of school. Say, aren't these the same kids who were eating tide pods just a week or so ago?

Yeah, I don't take advice on constitutional rights from kids and you shouldn't either.


Posted by Puff Daddy
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on Mar 20, 2018 at 6:29 pm

Puff Daddy is a registered user.

You're underestimating the intelligence and will of these kids sanity. Of the many I know, there is not a bit of "getting out of school" sentiment. They are scared and trying to fix something. Maybe they could use some guidance, but I find your dismissive position offensive. It's a lightweight argument to dismiss them as Tide pod eaters. I have zero respect for such generalization.


Posted by Puff Daddy
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on Mar 20, 2018 at 6:34 pm

Puff Daddy is a registered user.

Check out this book and it's thoughts on specious arguments: Web Link


Posted by sanity
a resident of Mohr Park
on Mar 20, 2018 at 6:36 pm

sanity is a registered user.

@Puff Daddy

Regardless, it's the damn truth.


Posted by Puff Daddy
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on Mar 20, 2018 at 6:46 pm

Puff Daddy is a registered user.

Today's kids are rolling into the voting age. They will define the truth in the next 20 years. That said, I actually agree with some of your fundamental thoughts. Just disagree on how best to ensure they endure. I think these guys need some guidance, not being dismissed out of hand.

Off to eat a Tide pod ...


Posted by Michael Austin
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Mar 20, 2018 at 7:01 pm

Michael Austin is a registered user.

Several years ago, I covered as a reporter, an "every fifteen minutes" program at Foothill High School.

I met with several young ladies, all in their junior year, responsible for coordinating that years "every fifteen minutes" program.

I was immensely impressed, coming out of that meeting, feeling reassured, that the future of our country is in good hands.


Posted by sanity
a resident of Mohr Park
on Mar 20, 2018 at 7:24 pm

sanity is a registered user.

@Michael Austin
There's always some good ones thank God....let's hope they outnumber the tide pod eaters because let's be honest, that happened.


Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 20, 2018 at 7:56 pm

BobB is a registered user.

Kids today are no better or worse than kids at any time in the past. Some old people will always complain about young people.


Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 20, 2018 at 7:58 pm

BobB is a registered user.

Remember back in the fifties when teenagers actually played "chicken" with cars? Talk about foolish!


Posted by MichaelB
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Mar 20, 2018 at 8:06 pm

MichaelB is a registered user.

"And back to the original question, these kids are taking action because our generation has refused to. The walkouts were courageous and we can only hope it will continue."


Nikolas Cruz was known to be a threat. He was expelled from school, the police were called to his residence dozens of times, he made threats that were communicated to the FBI and never addressed, law enforcement didn't engage him when he returned to school grounds armed, and he was recommended to be involuntarily committed. Any of these should have either stopped the event from taking place and/or been flagged by a state background check for denying a gun purchase - but were not.

Nothing "courageous" whatsoever about blaming the entire event on "assault weapons", legal gun ownership, or an organization supporting the 2nd Amendment. But what do you expect from the political left?


Posted by Puff Daddy
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on Mar 20, 2018 at 8:28 pm

Puff Daddy is a registered user.

How about the vegas guy MichaelB? How to catch/stop him? One select example doesn't refute the argument


Posted by Puff Daddy
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on Mar 20, 2018 at 8:30 pm

Puff Daddy is a registered user.

Or Sandy Hook guy? What's common across them?


Posted by Puff Daddy
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on Mar 20, 2018 at 8:33 pm

Puff Daddy is a registered user.

And MicaelB I agree they background checks should be better enforced. Dig deeper before one can own a gun


Posted by Puff Daddy
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on Mar 20, 2018 at 8:37 pm

Puff Daddy is a registered user.

I don't blame the thing on guns. Just makes it easier for crazies to maximize damage


Posted by Ben J.
a resident of Birdland
on Mar 20, 2018 at 9:05 pm

Ben J. is a registered user.

Matt, those that believe this was an organic student protest are ignorant. So I assume the CTA, local school districts, Soros funded groups,
main stream media and all the other leftist organizations which pushed for the walkout, would all be behind a student walkout/protest for the 3000+ babies killed each day from abortions, ~1000 by Planned Parenthood alone. Funny how there is no anger that our taxes help kill 3000+ babies a day by funding Planned Parenthood, yet the left goes crazy about a self funding group that has NEVER killed someone.


Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 20, 2018 at 9:11 pm

BobB is a registered user.

@ Ben J,

We were talking about guns, not abortion.


Posted by sanity
a resident of Mohr Park
on Mar 20, 2018 at 9:15 pm

sanity is a registered user.

BobB
It's just another example of liberal hypocrisy.
Calling these kids "courageous" is moronic. If they were walking out protesting in favor of the NRA you be having a damn hissy fit about it.
The left has zero credibility.


Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 20, 2018 at 9:26 pm

BobB is a registered user.

@sanity,

I agree that just walking out of class didn't take much courage on the the kids' part.


Posted by Puff Daddy
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on Mar 20, 2018 at 9:29 pm

Puff Daddy is a registered user.

Good grief fellas. Shifting the argument, calling names? Full disclosure, I have cooties. C'mon man! Let's respect each other enough to talk specifics not dogma.


Posted by sanity
a resident of Mohr Park
on Mar 20, 2018 at 9:31 pm

sanity is a registered user.

THIS is how you do it:

Web Link

Who knows how many lives were saved by the COURAGEOUS officer.


Posted by Puff Daddy
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on Mar 20, 2018 at 9:35 pm

Puff Daddy is a registered user.

I agree that "courageous" is an over statement. Though proud of kids working to effect change


Posted by Puff Daddy
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on Mar 20, 2018 at 9:45 pm

Puff Daddy is a registered user.

SaniIty, great job by officer. Curious to see what type of handgun on assailant.


Posted by sanity
a resident of Mohr Park
on Mar 20, 2018 at 9:49 pm

sanity is a registered user.

9mm Glock.
In that state the legal age to own a gun is 21. The shooter was 17.
Apparently criminals don't obey gun laws. Go figure.


Posted by Puff Daddy
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on Mar 20, 2018 at 10:05 pm

Puff Daddy is a registered user.

Whose gun? Family or illegal purchase? I'm for draconian punishment for illegal gun owners. If pinky good guys with guns, no problems.


Posted by Puff Daddy
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on Mar 20, 2018 at 10:06 pm

Puff Daddy is a registered user.

Only not pinky. Pinky doesn't really seem like a term useful in this context


Posted by sanity
a resident of Mohr Park
on Mar 20, 2018 at 10:08 pm

sanity is a registered user.

All we know at this point is it didn't legally belong to him.
I'm sure more will come out soon.


Posted by MichaelB
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Mar 21, 2018 at 6:51 am

MichaelB is a registered user.

"Is there a reason why owning a semiautomatic weapon or bump stock is a necessity other than "because my interpretation of the second amendment says I can"? Have a gun, have ten guns--protect yourself, your family, your possessions; go hunting. That doesn't, in my opinion, require weapons intended for killing many quickly, be that people or a herd of buffalo."

A bump stock is a novelty item that compromises the accuracy of the gun by making it less controllable to fire faster. Even Trump and the NRA wants to get rid of them. Semiautomatic firearm technology has been around for 100 years. The 2nd Amendment is not about "need" and the idea that this kind of technology is now the "cause" of violence/needs to be restricted or banned makes no sense.
We heard the same type of argument after the Reagan assassination attempt in 1981. Handguns had to be banned because they "were only used for killing people".

Go down this road and the left will claim people don't have a "need" for guns at all. This is exactly the same reasoning process used to deny applicants for a concealed weapons permit in California. Those willing and able to complete the background checks and training programs are told there is no "need" for the permit/are denied. That's not how the process works in most states.

Any firearm is dangerous when misused. To prevent this criteria for prohibitions/restrictions on ownership should be focused on the individual and his/her behaviors (mental illness, drug addiction, violent crime,physical incapability (blindness), dishonorable military discharge, etc.) vs. the kind of gun, proximity of the gun shop, gun show at a fairgrounds, size of the magazine, etc.


Posted by MichaelB
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Mar 21, 2018 at 7:04 am

MichaelB is a registered user.

"In other words, we live in a violent and sick society, and organizations like the NRA encourage this because it results in more profits for the gun industry."

Actually Matt it was the NRA who wanted the government to charge/imprison criminals in Chicago with federal firearms violations to clean up the streets. Strange how the Obama Administration didn't seem interested/had an abysmal record in this area.

In other words, could we live in a "violent and sick society" because so called "progressives" think everyone is a victim of something (guns, gun manufacturers, etc.) and should never be held accountable for his/her actions?


Posted by MichaelB
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Mar 21, 2018 at 7:08 am

MichaelB is a registered user.

"Or Sandy Hook guy? What's common across them?"

The "Sandy Hook guy" (Adam Lanza) was mentally ill. Didn't purchase guns under CT laws. He stole firearms/ammunition from his mother after killing her.


Posted by MichaelB
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Mar 21, 2018 at 7:21 am

MichaelB is a registered user.

"You're underestimating the intelligence and will of these kids sanity. Of the many I know, there is not a bit of "getting out of school" sentiment. They are scared and trying to fix something. Maybe they could use some guidance, but I find your dismissive position offensive."

Sanity is correct.

These kids aren't talking about the failure of law enforcement to intercept/stop Cruz or increased security measures on school grounds to prevent the next incident from taking place.

It's all about guns, the NRA, and smearing those who don't agree with their gun control measures as somehow being "responsible" for school violence/not caring about the safety of others. Nothing "intelligent" about that - and how does that "fix" things? Look no further than the CNN "town hall" where they called the NRA spokesperson a "murderer" because she didn't tow the gun control line.


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Mar 21, 2018 at 9:55 am

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

MichaelB, "The 2nd Amendment is not about 'need' and the idea that this kind of technology is now the 'cause' of violence/needs to be restricted or banned makes no sense."

I agree tech isn't a cause of violence--people kill people--but I'll go back to what I said before, extremes of most debates are specious: we have a right to own all the guns versus they want to take away all the guns. Neither statement is true or even realistic. Yes, people should be allowed to own guns. Defining who can have a gun, how they can get the gun, and what types of guns they can have is reasonable/necessary.

I'm not surprised that many posting here stick to the right to own whatever gun they want and to swearing others want to take away all guns. It just isn't true.


Posted by sanity
a resident of Mohr Park
on Mar 21, 2018 at 10:04 am

sanity is a registered user.

@Kathleen Ruegsegger
"I'm not surprised that many posting here stick to the right to own whatever gun they want and to swearing others want to take away all guns. It just isn't true."

Yeah....that's what they always say.


Posted by sanity
a resident of Mohr Park
on Mar 21, 2018 at 10:23 am

sanity is a registered user.

@Kathleen Ruegsegger

Would you like a list of things the left has promised would never happen, but did?

It's a long long long list.


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Mar 21, 2018 at 2:43 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

@sanity,
Who is “they”?

Sure, I’d love the list. Got one for the right too? Neither party has much to recommend them.


Posted by Grumpy
a resident of Vineyard Avenue
on Mar 21, 2018 at 3:25 pm

Grumpy is a registered user.

OMG we understand you already. The left is evil. Over half of Americans and a majority of your neighbors identify as left or voted for them. So you live in a world where you’re beset by evil everywhere you go. Or you’re exaggerating, and the left does things you don’t like and it animates you to post here how much you dislike them.

Cool.


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Mar 21, 2018 at 4:09 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

@sanity, I don’t see many heroes on either side. Both sides of the aisle use “blatantly false narratives” because they believe they are chosen, right, important, and/or are acting in our best interests. Lots of bluster, little action, and plenty of cover stories to protect their own backsides. I like Lewis Black’s assessment: We have a two party system: the Democratic party, which is a party of no ideas, and the Republican party, which is a party of bad ideas. And the way it works is, the Republican stands up in Congress and goes, "I got a really bad idea." And the Democrat says, "And I can make it sh***ier."

Arguing that one side is worse than the other is taking another stance in extremes. Discuss the issue without hyperbole. Should Americans have guns? If so, which Americans? Do we limit that access by age or type of weapon? Do we limit access for certain personalities? Do some people qualify to own the most powerful weapons?

You are disqualified from participating in the discussion if you use Democrats or Republicans or any euphemism for those groups. We need reasoned people who understand the law, understand it’s flaws and various interpretations, see the problems, and seek to find solutions the majority can accept. I don’t see those people in DC.

Can we protect everyone, no. Can we make everyone happy, no. But we can do our best to find balance.


Posted by MichaelB
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Mar 21, 2018 at 7:49 pm

MichaelB is a registered user.

"We need reasoned people who understand the law, understand it’s flaws and various interpretations, see the problems, and seek to find solutions the majority can accept. I don’t see those people in DC."

Sounds good. Let's start by disregarding/ignoring these kids marching on Washington carrying signs that say "end gun violence".

What do THEY know about the law, its flaws, and interpretations? All they are offering are the usual simple minded us vs. them "solutions" - banning "assault weapons" and blaming the NRA for "facilitating" mass shootings because they won't support more gun control. And then smearing those who don't agree. Doesn't sound very reasonable, does it?

Some of us think what Nikolas Cruz did/how to stop it in the future is just a little more complicated than guns being around/available for sale. Because most people who have guns don't do what Cruz did. And never will either.


Posted by sanity
a resident of Mohr Park
on Mar 21, 2018 at 7:55 pm

sanity is a registered user.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


Posted by sanity
a resident of Mohr Park
on Mar 21, 2018 at 7:57 pm

sanity is a registered user.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Mar 21, 2018 at 8:24 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

MichaelB, the students had some specific ideas—one is now Florida law—being 21 to buy a gun. But the students didn’t write or pass that law. I’m fine with students having a voice/opinion.

If you have a different idea for a discussion that isn’t polarized to us versus them, I’m interested.


Posted by MichaelB
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Mar 21, 2018 at 9:02 pm

MichaelB is a registered user.

"I'm not surprised that many posting here stick to the right to own whatever gun they want and to swearing others want to take away all guns. It just isn't true."

We live in a free society, have a limited government structure, and the 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution. That puts the burden/effort on those who want to erode/restrict gun ownership vs. those who want to preserve it.

I am surprised that you simply expect people to ignore individuals/organizations/elected officials repeatedly saying there are "too many guns" in our nation, that people "do not need them", and praising other "civilized" nations that banned ownership/confiscated guns from legal owners. Just put more of these people in office/positions of authority and everything's fine?

So gun control advocates don't try to ban guns outright because it sounds bad,loses votes,generates lawsuits, etc. If guns are regulated/restricted enough they simply become out of reach for the average person to own/use/repair. See what is involved with legally owning a gun in New York City. Try opening up a new gun shop in the Bay Area - and watch what happens. All of the firearms vendors in Pleasanton were run out of business 20 years ago by Ben Tarver and the city council - for doing nothing wrong. There used to be gun shows at the Alameda County Fairgrounds. Those were banned in the late 1990s for "safety" reasons. Just obey the law and you're fine? California passed a measure in 2000 that restricted magazine capacity. If you owned one before the passage date you were told you could keep it. Now the state wants you to turn them in or destroy them - or face criminal penalties.

Sounds like you are just not paying attention on this issue. Want to change direction on this topic for "reasonable" solutions/compromise/bipartisan support? Discredit/replace those who advocate and promote what I've just described. Otherwise expect people who support the 2nd Amendment to resist new measures as they continue feel ignored, insulted, and threatened while the gun control movement makes no concessions/expects the other side to simply cave in.


Posted by Puff Daddy
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on Mar 21, 2018 at 9:03 pm

Puff Daddy is a registered user.

One thing I'm wrestling with is that the weapons used in the highest casualty attacks are M16 inspired civilian version rifles and/or pistols with high capacity magazines. There's a reason they are chosen. Now I know that these weapons are not responsible for the decision to make the attacks, but the fact is that they definitely made the attacks more effective. One can argue correctly that, even with regulation, nuts will get access to these. That said, how do we make it harder and hopefully stop at least one of the future attacks? Pretty meaningful stuff for the families involved. I'd give up my guns to save one of my kids. What we're talking about isn't that dramatic. Maybe stuff like: parents/families with mentally ill relatives can't have guns in home (sandy hook), databases that track purchase patterns (Vegas), algorithms scanning social media. Reflecting on all these conversations, I believe I understand the 2nd amendment and history much better. Thank you all for that. And, I thoroughly agree that the vast majority of gun owners are rock solid in their responsibility. But, I think we can do better.


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Mar 21, 2018 at 11:20 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

I think we disagree on the intent of the second amendment, Michael. As long as one side believes the intent was to allow ownership of any and all types of weapons and others see it as falling short of owning any and all weapons, the debate will continue to be polarized. It’s unfortunate.


Posted by MichaelB
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Mar 22, 2018 at 7:22 am

MichaelB is a registered user.

"I think we disagree on the intent of the second amendment, Michael. As long as one side believes the intent was to allow ownership of any and all types of weapons and others see it as falling short of owning any and all weapons, the debate will continue to be polarized. It’s unfortunate."


It's unfortunate that you seem to have ignored what I described earlier - politicians systematically shutting down the legal process to own/sell guns of ANY type and/or attempting to confiscate the property of those having nothing to do with violence after they were told the opposite earlier. Criminals don't care about/will not comply with any of this.

This type of situation is not something that takes place nationwide on this issue. It's out of the political mainstream. Only the far left/"progressive" communities and localities do it.

Your intent appears clear and sounds quite familiar. We just need to do more of what the gun control side wants/allow them dictate the terms because they have a "superior" position - regardless if it actually makes any sense or even works as intended. This is not a "debate". It's heads you win, tails everyone else loses.


Posted by DKHSK
a resident of Bridle Creek
on Mar 22, 2018 at 7:57 am

DKHSK is a registered user.

Kathleen,

The debate is not about one side wanting no limitations on weapons. The debate is now, and has always been about definitions, particularly for the AR-15 and the laughable term "semi-automatic'.

The AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle, period. It LOOKS like one, but it isn't one by mechanism or use. You libs have gotten into tatters about this particular weapon but still refuse to accept the fact that it is no different in its mechanism and use then literally hundreds of other weapons. The ONLY difference is, IT LOOKS OMINOUS.

You're all either so damed ignorant you refuse to look at facts, or you are being dishonest and know the facts but really just don't like any weapons at all.

Furthermore, the 2nd amendment is constitutionally solid and the NRA is not fighting to open up more weapons to see if they pass the muster, those battles have already been waged and litigated. It is the LEFT in this country that continue to try and litigate more gun control.

[removed]

Dan


Posted by Puff Daddy
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on Mar 22, 2018 at 8:07 am

Puff Daddy is a registered user.

DKHSK, you have 20 bad guys, 75 yards away, advancing on you with baseball bats and deadly intent. You want an AR-15 with a 30 round clip and two more 30 round clips on you or a 6-shot .45 with a few speed loaders?


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Mar 22, 2018 at 10:12 am

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Dan, From Cornell Law: “The majority carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purpose. Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purposes as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.” What weapons fit “law abiding purposes”?

Michael, I don’t oppose gun ownership. A gun, however, is a weapon. The act of defending yourself is violence; hunting is violence. Both law abiding purposes. Maybe the answer is like drivers’ licenses. I can drive a car; I am not licensed to drive a semi. Perhaps there is a law abiding purpose to owning a rocket launcher—get the license allowing it. At least when there’s an accidental hole through several houses after using it to shoot at a burglar or deer, there would be a clue as to who might have done it. A purposely grand example to say licensing levels could be a solution.


Posted by SHale99
a resident of San Ramon
on Mar 22, 2018 at 10:12 am

SHale99 is a registered user.

gosh, I wonder in this thread how many people even know:

What AR stands for
What 'semi-automatic' means hint it's not a 'spray and pray rifle'

I suspect perhaps one or 2 know b4 rushing off to 'google' it. /s




Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from PleasantonWeekly.com sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

Our First Anniversary in my Husband’s Retirement
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 2,258 views

Pleasanton officials sprint to approve housing plan
By Tim Hunt | 6 comments | 992 views

Thanksgiving day blues
By Monith Ilavarasan | 0 comments | 271 views

Student Loans That Make Sense
By Elizabeth LaScala | 0 comments | 162 views