steve rains

Someone is shy

Steve hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
steve rains
Posted over 2 years ago
Solving gun violence in the US in today's insane political climate requires a solution that makes it painless for everyone.
Rob: Thanks for the reply, I must admit I had to look up the countries in the OCED ( Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Your statement “we are the only OCED country that has this problem” is factually incorrect. Mexico which has strict gun laws is in a lawless state of war with mass killings each day due to the drug wars that continue unabated. Mexico's current status quo is similar to our prohibition period, which exemplifies the argument “if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns” . Given the choice I would rather live anywhere in the US under current gun laws rather than live in Juarez unarmed. Greed, corruption, violence and murder is the law of outlaws working in a black market whether we are talking about guns, drugs, prostitution or other illegal activity. There has been a lot of talk and some action on legalization of Marijuana in the US, while I do not use the stuff, it seems to me there is a valid argument in legalizing rather than continuing to allow drug cartels to kill innocents for profit. This debate and other originated from the school shooting, but many more die each day in the trafficking of illegal narcotics. Yet after an endless cost and escalation of efforts by our government, the demand and use is still there. Do we really want our gun market to be ruled by cartels? If we outlaw guns, or severely prohibit them will we not set the stage for cartels to profit from the demand? Will they do background checks?
Noface
steve rains
Posted over 2 years ago
Solving gun violence in the US in today's insane political climate requires a solution that makes it painless for everyone.
Re: Solving gun violence in today's insane political climate Each and every year, there are about 150 Mass murders by mentally unstable individuals each year with the use of firearms. I think is an insane act to perpetrate a mass murder by whatever means, gun, bomb, poison, or any other method. Like it or not this is the price we have as a society of very free individuals pay for the status quo. The real question is “ What is an acceptable number ? ” 300,000,000 people, 150 mass murders. This statistic has remained fairly constant for the past 20 years, through varying levels of gun control. Ignoring reality for a moment, lets assume that a magic virus melted all the guns in the US and there were no firearms anywhere, police, military, or civilian. Would mass murders cease to exist? Would deranged individuals seek another method to perpetrate mass murder? Would the numbers change? I have read many comments from both sides of the gun debate. It occurs to me that our government has lost sight of its own morality and each camp has its own problems. The Republicans are portrayed as bought off by the banks, wall street, and rich and powerful seeking to legalize greed in its primal form to take advantage of the poor, working poor and middle class. The Democrats seem too quick to attack the rights of all Americans on both the First and Second Amendments. Dems have for the first time, a chance of passing some real legislation for the good of the country and will be decimated at the next election due to this fight only to see it overturned. Dems may be able to force some legislation through, but at what real cost? Years as the minority party? Loss of all the progress toward other programs envisioned? How many others will pay the price for such action and in what ways? The legislators responsibility is not to try to subjugate the minority, but to protect the minority. There may be enough votes to pass gun control but should we ? Would it be a win?
Noface
steve rains
Posted over 2 years ago
Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?
Your wish has been granted ! The Supreme court has finally and clearly defined what constitutes "a well regulated militia" In 2008 the Supreme court decided in the “Heller case” Antonin Scalia for the majority in Heller, stated: Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people”
Noface
steve rains
Posted over 2 years ago
Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?
Mathis: I support Don Andersons' comment “ Think of having a well-armed civilian population as part of America’s check and balance system. “ The framers of the Bill of Rights sought to balance not just political power, but also military power, between the people, the states and the nation. Alexander Hamilton explained in 1788: “If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens” Noah Webster similarly argued: Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. The British could not subjugate the colonists because there was a gun behind every bush. The Colonists won because they demoralized a superior force. The shoe was on the other foot when we entered into Vietnam. Politics aside we were the superior power, defeated by an inferior force, through the use of small arms to demoralize our will to fight. At the time of the colonists, a civilian had the same available firepower as the army musket versus musket. The balance of power is today very lopsided as you suggest “ As if armed civilians were a comparable force to the army...” Could a well armed militia defeat a modern army? This is actually playing out in the world today. Syria's Assad Regime has tanks, planes, and the full complement of trained military. He is trying to suppress a population who has decided that they will not tolerate the oppression of his regime any longer. Any guess as to how that will turn out ?
Noface
steve rains
Posted over 2 years ago
Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?
Obey No1kinobe: In reverse order to your comments: I am not sure what "your country" is but I respect you and your countrymen ( and women) deciding what is right for you. The "wild west mentality" and "militant distrust of authority" should be a healthy consideration in any country. Our founding fathers were very distrustful of ruling classes and specifically established a "check and balance" system of government . This included the right for citizens to bear arms as a protection from ruling classes seizing power and subjugating the masses. These values are deeply seated in our culture. Many Americans have volunteered, fought and died protecting freedom around the world, not only of America but to the aid of the oppressed of foreign peoples. In your country, wherever that may be, America would fight for your right to self govern as YOUR people see fit. Please remember that the British are not the only Redcoats out there, and a well armed public would be a nightmare to subjugate. The Assad Regime comes to mind, and a populous that will no longer tolerate that oppressive government. Assuming that Assad eventually falls- will the new government be more democratic more Pro-USA? Doubtful- but the people of Syria have the RIGHT to chose there own system of governance. Finally, The discussion of firearm laws in the USA is part of a world wide focus right now due the school shooting last month. Each year for the last 20 years or so there has been on average 150 people killed in these mass shooting incidents, from other counties it is easy for the media to portray this as the "Wild West" but the fact is there are 300 million people in the USA, statistically this number in miniscule. The profound cause of this is not the gun but our broken health care system as it is impossible to pay for mental health services, and privacy laws prevent the reporting of dangerous mentally ill people. Thank you for your comments, I hope my reply has been helpful.
Noface
steve rains
Posted over 2 years ago
Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?
The Second Amendment debate has been framed around gun control which is misguided. The events in December were carried out by a mentally unstable individual as all of these crimes are. By definition mass murder is the act of a person insane. So we cannot discuss the repeal of the Second Amendment without including in the discussion the treatment of the mentally ill. Over 6 million guns were purchased in the USA in November and December alone so clearly a large segment of the population is not mentally unstable and can own a firearm responsibly. The common denominator of mass murderers are the perpetrators are insane or mentally unstable with a trigger event that sets them off on a killing rampage. Most of us have health insurance, however except in rare instances there is little or no coverage for mental health care on these policies. Maybe the Democrats can put forth a real solution to the problem with some sort of universal health care for those that are mentally unstable, Private insurance certainly does not want anything to do with this segment of the ill, and Republicans could see this as an acceptable compromise to prevent the further erosion of our second amendment rights. There are legitimate uses for firearms, even in a defense capacity. Are we as a people willing to strip our wives and daughters of the option to defend themselves from rape or attack ? Feinstein's proposal goes further than an assault weapons ban it outlaws all semi automatic firearms that CAN accept magazines over 10 rounds which would ban most modern firearms both rifles and semi auto pistols. 150 people die from these insane mass murders each year. Society pays a higher price for the availability of alcohol to the public for deaths due to drunk driving, despite ever tightening laws. The proper action is the treating of the mentally ill not stripping the freedoms of the sane. Passing the Feinstein proposal is repealing the Second Amendment and not fixing the problem
Noface
steve rains
Posted over 2 years ago
Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?
I have read your previous comments and we are in more agreement than you perceive. I am not trying to steer off of the topic, just to provide some food for thought, it is easy (even lazy) to form firm opinions based on media pundits without doing the research. The assault weapons ban which expired is not the same as the current Feinstein proposal as the media pundits are selling. It would virtually ban all semi auto firearms in the US. Please look at her site for specific info. Passing the Feinstein proposal is repealing the second amendment and not fixing the problem. The problem is the non- treatment of the mentally unstable, and insane. I stand by my original post.
Noface
steve rains
Posted over 2 years ago
Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?
Colleen, I am glad that we agree that mass murderers may (or is) triggered by mental instability and is an insane behavior. If you group all kinds of firearms together do you really feel that firearms are PRIMARILY used for killing people? Or just assault weapons? There are many legitimate uses for firearms, hunting , target shooting, competitive shooting, collectors, farm and ranch use and some say as a check and balance from a oppressive government etc. May I ask how do you feel about the Assad Regime and the rebels fighting against this oppressive regime? Do you feel that the rebels should not be allowed firearms? The rebels are not an official military. Additionally, I see by your picture and name that you are a woman. Not always but most frequently a women is easy prey for a stronger man with evil intentions, Are you willing to strip all women of the option to defend themselves from rape or mugging through the use of a firearm? If you know firearms and can read Feinsteins propsal at her website, it goes far further than an assault weapons ban it almost outlaws all semi automatic firearms that CAN accept magazines over 10 rounds which would eliminate virtually all modern firearms both rifles and semi auto pistols. Let's open the discussion a bit and look at the costs of society at large. I agree that each year there are about 150 or so of these insane mass murders. Each of these are tragic, but as a society this is a price we ay for the policies in place as we speak. The school shooting is a very emotionally charged topic, but all emotion aside. Society pays a higher price for the availability of alcohol to the public for deaths due to drunk driving, and we could look at many other examples, despite ever tightening laws. I fully agree that the mix of the mentally unstable and a firearm carries a unpredictable result. But again the proper action is the treating of the mentally ill not stripping the freedoms of the sane.