Commentary on the Issue of Diffusion of Power

Work in progress -- mainly notes at this point

The Second Amendment doesn't matter.

The debate over gun control has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment - it is fundamentally a disagreement over collectivism vs. individualism, with a focus on the federal government. The argument could easily turn solutions focused, with an emphasis on controls at the State or local level, which would mostly deflate the political Right's concerns about keeping the growth of the Federal government at bay, while allowing those who would defend themselves that option, provided they are trained.

Acknowledging that some can't be trusted with guns is acknowledging that men are fallible.

The federal government HAS usurped power - the political Right are therefore justified in their concern about additional federal government usurpation. As support for this statement: The purpose of the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd amendment, was understood for a significant portion of this nations history to limit the federal government - not the states or the people. In the preamble to the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution, we read: "THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution." [5]

As appropriate, the State governments CAN and DO make their own laws concerning weapons, speech, court, and numerous other areas.

See http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm Scroll down and look for New Jersey. Take note that the great state of New Jersey offers no protection for bearing arms. Take note of the same for California. Take note of how Texas' Constitution reads. For additional support, see the Constitution for the Common Man.

There was a list of 17 enumerated powers, one of which was the General Welfare clause which has been one of the ways of usurping power. The General Welfare clause was interpreted narrowly within the scope of the 17 enumerated powers for a significant period of our nation's history as 'promised' its founding documents (see the Federalist papers todo: add specific references).

The General Welfare clause was interpreted broadly starting in 1937, which resulted in a massive growth in the Federal government. "Finally, in 1937, a single justice changed his vote and a new majority of the Supreme Court initiated the modem tradition of judicial deference to economic and social welfare legislation." [4] The federal government effectively gave itself more power by granting itself the ability to interpret the terms of its own governing document through the concept called Judicial Review. The federal government uses money gained from the income tax against citizens of the States to keep a leash on the State governments. [todo: add specific references] The interstate commerce clause has been used to FORCE Federal regulation of guns i.e., Background checks, restriction of automatic weapons, etc. The equal protection component of the 14th amendment is what has been used to gradually FORCE the Federal Bill of Rights and various Supreme Court 'decisions' onto the many States Read here: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html, and quoting from the foregoing link: "These interpretations tend to lean in one of two ways. The first is that the amendment was meant to ensure that individuals have the absolute right to own firearms; the second is that the amendment was meant to ensure that States could form, arm, and maintain their own militias. Either way, it is a bar to federal action only, because the 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated by the Supreme Court to apply to the states." (emphasis mine).

The federal government effectively changes the terms of its own 'contract' with the people and the states. For example, the Supreme Court seems to be fickle regarding its "laws" around guns: In United States v. Cruikshank (1875), the Court ruled that "[t]he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government." (emphasis mine)In United States v. Miller (1939), the Court ruled that the amendment "[protects arms that had a] reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home", but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose".In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal governmen

Making all the States alike with respect to rights has advantages, but it also undermines competition among the States and therefore reduces incentives for States to cater to the People with laws, find better practices to create good trade-offs that work with local culture and conditions, etc. The equal protection component of the 14th amendment may very well eventually result in an incorporation of the 2nd amendment onto the States, but this has not yet fully occurred

Our government has checks and balances for a reason - because men are fallible. This is a well-covered topic - see Plato's Republic for details. In the history of mankind, governments ran by fallible mankind have killed MILLIONS, most of which have been in the last century. Many state governments ALREADY have many basic checks in place that have so far stopped NO mass murders, but have perhaps raised awareness and prevented some accidental deaths. The weapons that are often slated for banning are exceedingly rare in their criminal use. Mass shootings occur at places where weapons have been banned.

In order to purchase a firearm, each state may need to adjust their residency/citizenship requirements to include an attestation that citizens will not attempt to harm citizens or residents of the state unless in active self-defense and are qualified, mentally competent, and trained to operate a firearm. State laws can be modified to put exceptions to gun purchase or sale for the following: mentally ill Take note: there are plenty of medicinally-managed mental illnesses, short duration mental illnesses, the definition of mental illness changes OFTEN - e.g., homosexuality was once considered a mental illness - only 2 updates ago of the DSM, there could be a tolerance to meds built-up rendering them ineffective, going off the meds may result in side-effects, seasonal affective disorder for example is real, but may not disqualify gun usage, some soldiers have PTSD, but are highly trained, and the guns make them feel safe, etc. etc. etc. this is a complicated bullet. This would require a database of everyone who has EVER had a mental illness and ONLY if the people sought treatment - resulting in punishing those who have sought or seek help, and potentially eventually resulting in LESS seeking of help that is needed. Be careful! Defining what mental illness is in relation to arguments for controls such as licensing around the acquisition of devices which possess a high degree of destructive capability within a package that can be hand carried (gun control). In secular society, we have the DSM, but even a couple revisions ago, homosexuality was defined as a mental illness in the DSM and now it isn't, so I'm not sure of its reliability. What is mentally 'ill'? Is it simply incomplete reasoning or --perhaps reasoning which although having a kernel of truth or even incomplete, does not factor other mitigating factors, becomes twisted and justified into a state which is unsustainable and will result in where the reasoning would eventually result in a violent encounter not originating from self-defense. If so, by this definition, in many ways, the whole darned world is mad! Maybe a line is drawn somewhere - if there have been or appear to be instances of physical violence not originating from self-defense, then that might be a good line to draw.

While I could disagree with how someone arrived at their opinion on a given topic, I could see their use of reasoning and conclude that it was reason-ABLE, but not necessarily complete. Are all suicide attempts born out of an errant concern for others?

incompetent: lacking ability to hit targets Appeals process with emergency approval Increase gun safety awareness through public service announcements Increase awareness amongst health care professionals and patients on gun safety Encourage community based training where possible Provide exceptions for attestation requirements for: rural, farming peaceful, non-aggressive religious communities who assert their right to self-govern and self-defense on emergency basis for those fearing for their life under attestation It will take years, but create a positive and responsible culture around firearms - see Texas, see Switzerland. Texas moves to open carry in 2016, we'll see how it goes. Considering making background checks AVAILABLE, but not required for the State governments If you want protection that is practical - concealed carry is here and now and training can be required. In the same way that it was demanded that employers cease having their employees work on Thanksgiving, demand that employers provide security: Alongside fire safety, which is well covered by fire extinguishers, sprinkler systems, and automatic calls to emergency responders Trained and armed security guards Emergency Taser Shotguns with competent 'sleeper' staff Active shooter drills; or Allow concealed carry in alignment with State law.

Risk Assessment

Threat      	 Vulnerability	 Risk Likelihood	 Risk Impact	 Recommendation	Residual Risk if Recommendation Implemented
Federal Government Actively Attempting to Commit Genocide Against its own People	People forgetting or being poorly trained

Religious War People being Unorganized

Ham Radio, Social Media, Preserving Internet Freedom

Federal Govenrment reducing Liberty of its own People	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	Reinstate the Check and Balance between State and Federal government by revise the 14th amendment such that the equal protection clause can't be used by the Supreme Court to force State governments on political winds.

Your safety and security is ultimately your responsibility. You are accountable with your very life. I suggest not putting it in the hands of others less competent than yourself. Kindly give me the same respect. With all of this said, your odds of dying in a mass shooting are much less than getting bit by a shark, dying in a car accident, or being struck by a bolt of lightning. Maybe you should go buy a State lottery ticket.

Sources

Credits S. Jones - editing and additional quotes

A work in progress - if something is in error, please tell me

Maybe what we're really all concerned about has a common thread, - accountability for power, just the scale and focus is different. To test this, at what point do those reading say enough is enough. Hypothetically, if I could carry a suitcase nuke, would that count as Arms? Those against the larger capacity guns I think are saying that in the microcosm idiots with lots of unaccountable force can get into trouble. Having seen for myself some of the idiots with guns, I can say that those asking for more accountability are not wrong, but I'm not sure they are right either. Personally, I suspect that much of the energy spent debating may be better placed on improving training programs or in recognizing the signs that someone is about to freaking lose it.

In your case, it appears that you believe your nutcase neighbor is in many ways, making "motions towards war" given his display of weaponry. If you are truly frightened, then I suspect you could go do battle with this individual, but the reality is you have not done battle, therefore you concerns are perhaps inflated - you have assessed the risk though having a high impact as being fairly unlikely otherwise perhaps even stymied by the reality that maybe as crazy as you think your neighbor is, he hasn't shot you yet. Maybe he has some understanding that he can be hauled off to jail if he does.

But, to what I believe is the thread behind your point with its tie in to screaming fire in the movie theater. Let's keep to the idea behind the Bill of Rights. If you were to check the preamble, you would find the it was meant to restrain the Government NOT the people. Got that? Which government and which people is perhaps debatable, but for a significant portion of our nation's history, the Bill of Rights was understood to limit the Federal government. What is the exact legal construct limiting your ability to scream fire in a movie theater? Is it really the 1st amendment?

The second amendment has some history to it - and initially I understand there was actually some debate about how to word it such that those who DIDN'T want to carry guns to defend the country, weren't forced to. Initially, they could have someone stand in their place. Weird, right? But, as time drags on, it seems we forget things. Even the state of Georgia, at one point, seemed to think that the 2nd amendment was sufficiently robust that in its state government it had no need to pass any laws regarding the carrying or storing of arms. They changed that recently. Did the amendment change? Or were they trying to limit when and where black people could carry firearms, perhaps?

The 1st amendment limits .... who? It limits Congress! But I guess, the powers that be saw fit to "Fix" that. Here's the obligatory wikipedia quote:"Initially, the First Amendment applied only to laws enacted by the Congress, and many of its provisions were interpreted more narrowly than they are today. Beginning with Gitlow v. New York (1925), the Supreme Court applied the First Amendment to states—a process known as incorporation—through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

See https://en.wikipedia.org/.../First_Amendment_to_the...

Perhaps in due time, the 14th amendment will eventually force the whole issue of the second amendment upon the states. California's recent legislative actions may force this challenge.

Accountability over the use of power. In the history of governments ours is a rare gift. There have always been and always will be characters that do horrible things on a small and large scale and there will be corruption. The whole idea behind representative government is to dilute the ability of one man to take control of what could become a large scale killing and enslaving machine.

Don't believe it? I've already mentioned Georgia's change of heart regarding the 2nd amendment (Read animal farm anyone)? Members of our various intelligence agencies have been caught red-handed lying during Congressional inquiries about basically violating the 4th amendment. And if you don't have a problem with that, that is, complete strangers that you know nothing about pouring through your email and personal effects, then by all means, post your email credentials in response.

While the government is not overtly attacking the majority of us, these type of events prove that we must always be on guard. To counter act such a threat I would say requires a level of force at near equivalence to what the military carries. If someone wants a cannon, fine that must be controlled by a town or militia. But, the place to have such laws would be at the state or local level, not the Federal level.

I thought we weren't supposed to have standing armies?

I thought Congress was supposed to declare war?

I thought bombing is an act of war?

I thought never in the history of governments has some megalomaniac convinced the legislative branch to grant him more power and use some crazy emergency powers clause. Right. Never happened. Not here, right?

What happened in the American revolution of 1937 may not have involved bullets, but ....

"Finally, in 1937, a single justice changed his vote and a new majority of the Supreme Court initiated the modem tradition of judicial deference to economic and social welfare legislation."

A single justice changed his mind and thereby changed the lives of hundreds of millions. Anyone see a problem here?

Destructive Bulldozer

If light sabers were an actual thing, would we want to ban them, license them for concealed or open carry, perhaps only allow Jedi to have them? What about hand carried devices that can blow up entire cities? It seems that each of us draws the line somewhere with respect to destructive potential being utilized without accountability or responsibility.

While I have already covered the second amendment and offered some simple proposals to move forward on that debate for the short term, there is another part of the debate related to the future of weapons and by proxy, the Second Amendment.

Research

Nancy Pelosi and her friends on the Left have recently asked to revisit the ban on funding the CDC's research on gun crime. Gun research by the CDC has long since been 'banned' due to efforts of the NRA and Congress - in particular, there was a provision called the Dickey amendment from back in the mid 1990s that blocked research on guns. Nancy Pelosi and her ilk are now asking to revisit this decision and they act as though they do not understand why those on the Right would be opposed to this. It's unfortunate to take such a position, because there very well could be some interesting conclusions from such research which may help make gun safety better for everyone.

Per the Huffington post [4]: Dickey proclaimed victory -- an end, he said at the time, to the CDC's attempts "to raise emotional sympathy" around gun violence. But the agency spent the subsequent years petrified of doing any research on gun violence, making the costs of the amendment clear even to Dickey himself. He said the law was over-interpreted. Now, he looks at simple advances in highway safety -- safety barriers, for example -- and wonders what could have been done for guns. "If we had somehow gotten the research going, we could have somehow found a solution to the gun violence without there being any restrictions on the Second Amendment," Dickey said. "We could have used that all these years to develop the equivalent of that little small fence."

The basic part of the problem is that while that many parties on the Left will indicate that: they have no desire to confiscate guns; or the research on guns and by proxy gun registries won't lead to confiscation.

However, the reality is that gun registration leading to gun confiscation has ALREADY happened. Further, in the Left's efforts to champion gun control, it has unwittingly encouraged:

the spawning of a whole new class of guns which are UNDETECTABLE and will never find their way onto some gun registry; the development of protest kits to organize and stand against quasi-militarized police forces. firearm and ammunition sales are now through the roof; growth of quasi-military groups and militias.

It's a type of see saw - cause and effect, which is the operation of the natural laws that our founding fathers alluded to in the Declaration of Independence. Stated simply: unbalanced attempts to control backfire. Government must be by the consent of the governed!

If the Left were being genuine in not wanting to confiscate guns, then perhaps some real solutions could be found that wouldn't result in making the situation more dangerous through all the reactions to talk about gun control. In fact, maybe some elements of such CDC research could help reduce violence, if the right questions were asked.

Rather than focusing on the weapons, maybe one should focus on the ones wielding the weapons (or fists). While the Left will happily endorse such a position for the mentally ill or suspected terrorist, perhaps there is more? For example, is family history a reliable indicator of someone's propensity towards violence? Given our legal framework, family history isn't or can't be factored in to how we limit guns in our efforts to stymy violent crime, though such things could be useful in our border controls perhaps. How about something more scientific? A recent study [1] has found that some people have two genes which could indicate violent tendencies. Perhaps there could be some genetic screening? Does such a proposal sound a bit too precrime or Gattaca-like? Never mind the future, this is an old story well covered in Plato's Republic, but it wasn't called genetic screening.

I expect that what will happen is that in the attempts to intervene, control, and politically posture against one another, it won't be long before someone figures out that we just need to ban all the violent people to reduce the need for guns in the first place. It could at last be something the Left and Right can agree on. Sounds good on paper, but if the concepts I have espoused so far have any weight, it would mean that such efforts to control would only make things worse.

Let's avoid that situation before it get there.

Don't get me wrong, perhaps using some sort of genetic screening has some value and I have some ideas mentioned further on, but I truly believe it is also a recipe for abuse as we have been taught for years by Hollywood.

But, before we get to the sad state of swabbing people at birth and rushing them off to some 'safe zone', let's focus on the here and now. Let's talk about section 8 housing and how it contributes to gun crime. "What?", you say? That was random, you say? No - they are connected. Allow me to explain via a side bar --

While I applaud the noble intent behind them, the Right's efforts to spread freedom to the Mideast share a common thread with the Left's desires to spread the wealth locally and make life 'FAIR' for everyone. After all of our investment, Iraq is more friends with with Iran and Russia that its liberator, us Americans? Isn't that the opposite of the original goal? In a similar way, section 8 and similar housing in Chicago was intended to relieve conditions for poorer people and give them a chance, yet it has resulted in the spread of similar conditions all over the city. The city is now called Chiraq by many - a reference to it being a war zone like Iraq.

I. In watching Vice episode number 9 one begins to gain an understanding of the problem in Chicago. It is a catch-22 type paradox. The young men in that city are basically forced to arm themselves due to all the gang violence, if they don't they die, if they do, they die! It has been demonstrated that the statistics on gun or violent crime largely stem from people existing in such situations

Basically, I believe what happened is a gift was given to a people who weren't ready for it and the natural laws of this world are forcing a course correction. In a way, the attempt to relieve their burdens was like giving the keys to the family station wagon to an unruly teen-ager and then wondering why they crashed the car. The Right has done no better in its own intervention in Iraq and other places. We toppled Sadam and believed we were liberators, but perhaps the reality is that that part of the world wasn't ready for that type of liberty. One almost has to be born into it to handle it. Maybe there is even a reason it has been like that over there for thousands of years? As Rand Paul has said, the Mideast may even NEED an Iron Fist as it was the only thing keeping the nastiness of ISIS at bay. As bad as Sadam and Assad was and are, they did keep that part of the world relatively stable - the lights stayed on! Our intervention made it worse.

In the same way, the Right's ban on drugs has probably contributed to violence along the border of Texas, and dare I say may even contribute to the gun crimes - perhaps making an entire generation of absentee fathers, which is only made worse with each succeeding generation. Ever wondered why so many black men like to have matching clothes? Perhaps it is owing to being raised by their mothers instead of their fathers! Both sides of the political spectrum want to implement controls and interventions that are in reality causing the very thing they oppose. We know how much the Right despises criminals, but in many ways, the cartels and inner city gangs profit from the war on drugs - such legislation encourages criminal enterprise in the same way that the Prohibition era did.

Returning to the discussion of genes. I predict that in, years to come, we will make much headway on isolation of genes which lead to violence and will AGAIN attempt to CONTROL, which lead to the very opposite of the intention.

By destroying the family unit through our interventions, we have turned the state into the mother for entire generations and classes of people and there is no end in sight. While this may yield many voters for the Left, I don't believe it is sustainable for the country as a whole. Perhaps we should undo some of the interventions and get back to a path which more closely learns from the law of nature. In the 1990s, science came to the epigenetic realization that the womb environment affects a baby's later metabolic expression [2] with some diseases in adulthood originating in the womb environment. What if the same thing happens with the expression of violent genes?

This gives me pause - I wonder how many terrorists or violent offenders were borne of Amish environments.

Let me relate the concept using personal terms. My mother came to visit my wife and I after we had our first child together. She toured our home and yard - the outside has been largely my responsibility and the inside my wife's. My mother commented that I had recreated many aspects of my grandparent's environment into our backyard. As I thought about her comments, I was at first taken aback, but then I realized she was not wrong. For several years now, I have studied my own behavioral patterns and seen my parents in me, but to see my roots so literally and unconsciously manifested into my home environment came as a bit of a shock. I feel this is somehow connected to my earlier comments about the birth environment, epigenetics, and the expression of violent genes.

When our daughter was in utero, we were doing everything we could to provide a quality environment for the developing child. This goes beyond nutrition - we were trying to connect with her, sing to her, and so on giving her the best environment possible so that the growing seed could thrive. As she emerged from the womb and into this world, our goal is help her thrive with the environment we provide for her.

Perhaps we humans are like seeds and while there is no doubt there is a uniqueness or special quality to each seed, there is also the reality or environment that the seed is placed into. I figure that both factor into the expression - perhaps depending upon the qualities of the seed and the environment. It is no wonder that perfectly good seeds can be placed into crapulous environments and emerge stilted or vice versa.

Rather than argue over nature vs. nurture, perhaps both are important. If the genetic markers were identified early on, perhaps they could be used to assist individuals in finding their path and healthy expression of their particular type. Is there an environment where those who are more aggressive might find healthy expression? Perhaps as a soldier or in sports? This is basically what Plato talked about in parts of his Republic. I also have a strong feeling that the caste system in India originated as a more ancient attempt to put some of the timeless concepts in Plato's Republic into practice - namely, that some people are naturally predisposed to play out certain roles - having natural strengths and weaknesses. Eventually whoever set the system up was no longer around, so it transmogrified, and now we have the vestigial elements which have devolved into priestcraft and politics - thousands of years later! I expect the same will happen if we attempt to play god with people's genes.

Perhaps there is an even better way?

In many ways, the checks and balances between the Federal government, the state governments, and local mimic the natural laws that our founding fathers and even Plato alluded to, but we have long since forgotten. Despite all the corruption, our government still provides enough of a framework for anyone in the society to change their whole stature in one life time - IF they put their mind to it.  I don't believe this is nearly as possible in any other environment on earth.  I believe that the American Constitutional Republic system, when not excessively corrupted, is a type of womb - in that it is an environment for human, spiritual development.

If we were to couple the Constitutional system's potential, even returning to our liberty roots, with advances in genetic science, perhaps genetic read outs could better assist individuals with certain genes to find their path. I expect that if this were done, such individuals would not butt heads with society, but rather would be at home - doing what they are good at and loving what they do. Perhaps people that are ordinarily predisposed to violence would make football players, soldiers, or through the power of self-determination find paths we haven't even conceived of ... yet!

In the 1920s, Upton Sinclair wrote a book about the poor treatment of the workers in the meat-packing industry. His book succeeded only in grossing the public out and the passage of health codes for meat-packing - with little done for the workers. Share the knowledge - ignorance is our enemy, but make sure you share with those ready to receive, lest the intent become distorted.

This mark has high ideals about peace, and that is commendable; however, maybe the ideals must also be met with a healthy dose of reality about human nature. I'd say an analogy might be attempting to convince a rattlesnake to give up its defense mechanism against other animals. Not all men are as noble as Mark seems to consider himself to be.

While he may choose to abstain from protecting himself from those that would do him or his family harm with firearms or brute strength, it doesn't obligate the rest of us to his point of view. Stated simply: don't like guns - don't buy one.

With millions already in circulation, the cat is already out of the bag, the genie is out of the bottle, and the beans have already been spilled. Even if they weren't in circulation, people could just make them if they wanted to do others harm. Borrowing from Star Trek IV - we forbade them weapons, and they began to fashion their own.

See here:

http://www.gunslot.com/blog/how-make-gun-common-materials-self-defense

Here:

https://www.wired.com/2014/05/3d-printed-guns/

See what happens in the Philippines:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-21840183

We also can learn from history what happens when the guns are taken.

While the Wikipedia is hardly authorative, we can at least begin the journey. Consider:

"Starting in 1936, the Gestapo prohibited German police offices from giving firearms licenses to Jews.[1] In November 1938, the „Verordnung gegen den Waffenbesitz der Juden“ prohibited the possession of Firearms and bladed weapons by Jews." borrowed from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmament_of_the_German_Jews

And consider the special exemptions given for members of the Socialist Workers Party, " More classes of user were exempt from the requirement to hold an acquisition permit; holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP (the National Socialist German Workers' Party) members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted." borrowed from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_legislation_in_Germany#Gun_regulation_of_the_Third_Reich

Have we truly learned the lessons of history? Judging from the scale of violence on the scene of the world today, I'd say not.

Fortunately, in this country, if someone wanted to take the weapons away, we have plenty in circulation and the Jews and other minority groups wouldn't become subject to such persecution. But, that hasn't stopped law makers from trying to disaffect some groups. While I wasn't around at the time, I understand that many of the current gun control measures were often born out of an attempt to keep black folks from defending themselves from what they considered police brutality and even outright murder received at the hands of members of the majority group following the Civil War.

If true, it might explain some of the difficulties in conservative reforms encountered in this area, and it may provide some indication that life is circle of some sort, we just may not be aware of how large a circle it is. In this circle, maybe if you attempts to prevent one group from protecting itself, the same fate may again befall you in some other as yet un perceived future.

Be careful out there, y'all.

History of firearms restrictions in Germany The Ewige Landfriede (Perpetual Public Peace) ruling of 1495 banned the medieval right of vendetta (Fehderecht) in the Holy Roman Empire (which encompassed what is now Germany). It passed at the Diet of Worms and was enacted by the German king and emperor Maximilian I. In the Holy Roman Empire claims were henceforth no longer to be decided in battle, but through legal process. It established a certain monopoly of the state in the use of organized armed force. The German nationalist movement asked for Volksbewaffnung, a militia system according to the Swiss role model, but failed with those requests in the German revolutions of 1848–49. However, possession of guns and weapons was not generally restricted, but regulations about carrying arms in public came into use.

The general disarming of citizens and a generic gun law was imposed by the Allies after World War I. The law was introduced by the Weimar Republic; actual enforcement was not stringent, and there was no general disarmament immediately after the war. After incidents including the 1920 Kapp Putsch and the 1922 assassination of Walther Rathenau, the law was enforced more strictly. The Weimar Republic saw various Freikorps and paramilitary forces like the Reichsbanner Schwarz-Rot-Gold, the Stahlhelm and the Nazi SA.

The requirement for trustworthiness of the owner and need for the special purpose of the user (e.g. hunting, sport or self-defence) has been included in German gun laws since then.

New Zealand, a country with similar socioeconomic profile as Australia, and similar gun laws prior to Australia changing theirs, hasn't had a mass shooting since 1997. See here: https://beingclassicallyliberal.liberty.me/no-australia-is-not-an-example-of-the-effectiveness-of-gun-control-sorry-jim-jefferies/

"It should be noted that most of the users of psychotropic drugs do not have the potential to be mass murderers; yet all of the mass murderers listed here had been prescribed one or more psychotropic drug."

They also all wore clothes, I'm betting, so not sure how helpful that is. But, they all were also being given psychotropics as a treatment for some already existing issue. The question is whether the drugs caused an adverse reaction or exacerbated something already present, or if the drugs were merely staving off the inevitable. I think the stories told from the perspective of the bad actors indicate that some of these drugs open up doors to the unseen somehow. Some report hearing voices or even losing control - acting as an observer. In my youth, I observed dramatic personality shifts in folks who had too many beers - allowing for completely out-of-character behavior. Perhaps there is a reason some forms of alcohol are called spirits. Perhaps members of the unseen were troubling some of these people already and the drugs merely opened the gate wider...

"Through the whole thing, it was like watching your favorite TV show. You know what is going to happen, but you can't do anything to stop it."

FWIW:

https://www.ladailypost.com/content/brief-history-psychotropic-drugs-prescribed-mass-murderers

https://www.amazon.com/30-Years-Among-the-Dead/dp/0878773258

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-asBCa6mfU

Sources

[1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/two-genes-may-contribute-to-violent-crime-study-says/ [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/08/science/parents-may-pass-down-more-than-just-genes-study-suggests.html [3] http://corporate.dukemedicine.org/news_and_publications/news_office/news/9322 [4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jay-dickey-gun-violence-research-amendment_561333d7e4b022a4ce5f45bf [5] http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=227 [6] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/[1] http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/san-bernardino-massacre-suspects-appear-have-been-radicalized-n473261 [7] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3017629/BA-pilot-planned-crash-plane-killing-wife.html [8] https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/september/fbi-releases-study-on-active-shooter-incidents/pdfs/a-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013 [9] http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3764&context=flr [10] http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html [11] http://data.baltimoresun.com/bing-maps/homicides/index.php

= On not coming for the 2nd amendment