Gun control

DenisIrwin said:
How anyone can question whether "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" relates to a well regulated militia beggars belief.
Click to expand...

The second clause needs not have any relation to the first clause. Even someone without an ulterior motive can easily explain it as 'a well regulated militia' and 'the right of the people to keep and bear arm', shall not be infringed.

As I said, if you read what Washington had to say about militia, you'd really question whether there's any linkage between the right to bear arm and 'well regulated militia'.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
The second clause needs not have any relation to the first clause. Even someone without an ulterior motive can easily explain it as 'a well regulated militia' and 'the right of the people to keep and bear arm', shall not be infringed.

As I said, if you read what Washington had to say about militia, you'd really question whether there's any linkage between the right to bear arm and 'well regulated militia'.
Click to expand...

The first part makes absolutely no sense being in there unless its a qualifier for the second part. It's all one sentence, you can't just claim they're not connected.
 
Kentonio said:
The first part makes absolutely no sense being in there unless its a qualifier for the second part. It's all one sentence, you can't just claim they're not connected.
Click to expand...

It was thus won in court.

Again, I couldn't give less of a shit what interpretation is the right one, laws should be based on common sense and subjected to wisdom of the contemporary age. A few words written when men still think slavery is a good idea has no business dictating public safety in the 21st century. Yet, from the writing of the man who was one of the people responsible for that documents, it's clear he couldn't give two shits for 'a well regulated militia', so the right to bear arm, you'd have to question, does it really have anything to do with the former at all? Bear in mind that the Bill of Rights was written by a dozen different conflicting interests, so they ended up cramping a lot of stuffs that ended up amended/repealed.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
It was thus won in court.
Click to expand...

Heller was a ridiculous decision to be fair.

InfiniteBoredom said:
Again, I couldn't give less of a shit what interpretation is the right one, laws should be based on common sense and subjected to wisdom of the contemporary age. A few words written when men still think slavery is a good idea has no business dictating public safety in the 21st century.
Click to expand...

Amen.

InfiniteBoredom said:
Yet, from the writing of the man who was one of the people responsible for that documents, it's clear he couldn't give two shits for 'a well regulated militia', so the right to bear arm, you'd have to question, does it really have anything to do with the former at all? Bear in mind that the Bill of Rights was written by a dozen different conflicting interests, so they ended up cramping a lot of stuffs that ended up amended/repealed.
Click to expand...

There were a lot of people involved in writing that document, so the thoughts of just one isn't that essentially important.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Not as clear as we'd like to believe, sadly. If you read some of Washington's personal writings, which contain his palpable contempt to militias as a whole, you'd have to question if the 2nd is really about 'a well regulated militia'.

The situation is fecked up, but that's what you get when you are too hung up of the words of slavers 250 years ago. Brilliant men for their time and in some aspects even nowadays, but deeply flawed nonetheless, as did their Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

Washington was a minor participant in the drafting of the Constitution/Bill of Rights, so I'm not convinced his thoughts on militias can be taken as a snapshot of the sentiment on militias. The likes of Madison and Jefferson were much more involved. The Constitution wouldn't have been passed without amendments like the 2nd, which in the opinion of Jefferson and others like minded, served as a check on a then infant government just in case it got any ideas and morphed into a new Great Britain. Madison and others (Hamilton had a chapter in the Federalist Papers on this) felt the Bill of Rights was unnecessary, but let it slide to facilitate the Constitution's ratification.

I still think it was right for them to have the 2nd Amendment in there. Gun violence hasn't really been an issue until the last 30-40 years. There's a mechanism for getting the 2nd amendment repealed or severely restricted. Good luck with that process.
 
senorgregster said:
Something doesn't add up. I've seen numbers as high as mid 80s for Americans wanting stronger gun control. Here is an example at 55%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
Click to expand...

If that was the case, then it would have happened already. You just need to speak to people to find out their thoughts on the matter. A mass shooting occurs, and people talk about gun control, a few days later and it's all over until the next mass shooting. if the Newtown school massacre did not wake up the American public, then nothing will.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
The second clause needs not have any relation to the first clause.
Click to expand...
That's all you really had to say right there.

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm

A preface clause followed by an operative clause was commonplace in the English language of the time.

Rhode Island constitution
The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.

New Hampshire constitution
criminal prosecutions, the trial of facts in the vicinity where they happen, is so essential to the security of the life, liberty and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed.

Massachusetts constitution
The freedom of deliberation, speech, and debate, in either house of the legislature, is so essential to the rights of the people, that it cannot be the foundation of any accusation or prosecution, action or complaint, in any other court or place whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
One of the problems with any sort of polling data on Gun Control in the US is you have understand first what question was really asked and what answer was really being given.

If I ask the generic question about being in favor of Gun Control, this will mean different things to different people. For some it means hugely strict restrictions on gun ownership, for others it means simple things like background checks. Overall most Americans are in favor of Gun Control of some sort, it is the details of it that become the sticking points.
 
senorgregster said:
Did they just walk off or was a deal struck?
Click to expand...

Just walked out with a vow to fight on. Lewis made some comment about being ready to fight on when Congress is back in session on July 5th. So it is either them feeling that there is no sense in sitting there when Congress is not in session or they did not want to give up their vacations. If you are going to do a sit in, then do it right.
 
berbatrick said:
The Guardian is running an interesting series suggesting that most gun control including the assault weapons ban and universal background checks may not be that effective. I've personally felt that if there is to be gun control it must be 1. federal and 2. very strong, otherwise you can just cross state lines or get a different type of gun or find some technicality. Unfortunately those kinds of laws wold probably violate the 2nd amendment. So, I don't think it's a tractable problem at all, and gun deaths will continue at current rates.
Click to expand...
The only way to reduce the use of firearms would start with universal background check, anybody on terrors list, domestic violence and any criminal would be denied, ex-criminals and anybody who just got divorced would had a waiting period, basic training and safety and after all that another 30 days waiting period with the obligation of buying safety devices (boxes or locking devices). But for this to work they will have to have a program to buy guns with no questions asked, bring the gun get your cash and leave from the streets, after all the major shootings are from people who doesn't buy guns from the store.
 
barros said:
The only way to reduce the use of firearms would start with universal background check, anybody on terrors list, domestic violence and any criminal would be denied, ex-criminals and anybody who just got divorced would had a waiting period, basic training and safety and after all that another 30 days waiting period with the obligation of buying safety devices (boxes or locking devices). But for this to work they will have to have a program to buy guns with no questions asked, bring the gun get your cash and leave from the streets, after all the major shootings are from people who doesn't buy guns from the store.
Click to expand...
The obvious and annoying flaw (one often rolled out by NRA guys) with that is that crims won't sell their guns. There will be fewer armed "good guys" in comparison.
 
Swaters16 said:
Without doing any real research this seems like it would have no effect on gun ownership. It is a good I think though, it's just not going to actually address any of the problems
Click to expand...
"This will allow county police departments in Hawaii to evaluate whether the firearm owner may continue to legally possess and own firearms," the Hawaii governor's office said in a statement."
 
DenisIrwin said:
The obvious and annoying flaw (one often rolled out by NRA guys) with that is that crims won't sell their guns. There will be fewer armed "good guys" in comparison.
Click to expand...
Most of the shooting are between gangs (kids really) and if they sold the guns then we will have less guns in the streets, criminals obvious will not sale the guns but any criminal in any country have guns.
 
Carolina Red said:
"This will allow county police departments in Hawaii to evaluate whether the firearm owner may continue to legally possess and own firearms," the Hawaii governor's office said in a statement."
Click to expand...

Yeah to me that sounds like, well if something bad happens the police will take action. Ie if you committed murder with a gun, you wouldn't be able to own a gun anymore. By then it's too late
 
Swaters16 said:
Yeah to me that sounds like, well if something bad happens the police will take action. Ie if you committed murder with a gun, you wouldn't be able to own a gun anymore. By then it's too late
Click to expand...
It's not just murder though. There are lesser offenses that this would apply to. Besides that, the government can't arbitrarily take away a person's constitutional right.
 
Swaters16 said:
Yeah to me that sounds like, well if something bad happens the police will take action. Ie if you committed murder with a gun, you wouldn't be able to own a gun anymore. By then it's too late
Click to expand...

Where it helps is catching things before they get out of control. Crimes of passion are one thing but most people who commit violent criminal acts escalate their behaviour from lesser to more serious offences. You don't want to have gun owners with domestic violence, drug possession, assaults, on their records. Systems such as these do the fact checking that law enforcement can't always complete and clearly say "hey, this dude shouldn't be armed".

The system used in Canada contributes to about 2400 licence renovations each year.
 
So it seems there was a drive by shooting on my street two nights ago. My first thought was gun shots (though I am no expert on the sound they make) but then I thought "Nah, this close to the 4th it is just some kids setting off fireworks."

This was about 11:30 PM right as I was heading up to bed. About an hour or so later my daughter comes into our room waking us up, saying they road out front is closed off and she had to be escorted by the police to our house. They kept the roads closed till about 4 or 5 AM. At 6 AM the cops were still all over the house, they had towed the two vehicles that were parked in the driveway. There were markings indicating where the cars had been parked. A broken window in the garage door. Nobody was hurt.

These folks are relatively new, never met them. Nobody in the neighborhood really knows what is going on. Not seen the people's who's house it is out since. Odd part is there is a website that lists all the 9-1-1 calls in the county , what they are for, the response etc. NOTHING listed at this time for my town. Nothing in the news media, though same night in the nearby city they had a protests against the recent killings of black men by cops which led to some arrests, including a TV reporter (dumb ass cops), so the media has been focused on that. Called the Police Dept, they had no information to share yet (takes up to 48hrs for police reports to get in the system). Only info, we have that it was even a drive by comes from the local Fire Dept who was not even involved.

All sort of strange how quiet it has been. Got a text from my one neighbor, he called several of the news stations, they have nothing at all on it either. One said they heard about the police call but did not send a reporter. The other two said they had no idea anything had happened.

Not sure what I hope is the story here. Which is worse that it was something to do with drugs (heroin issues starting to creep big time into the suburbs) or that it was just some random idiots shooting because they had a gun and thought it would be fun? Could be some other type of dispute also, who knows.
 
JustAFan said:
Odd part is there is a website that lists all the 9-1-1 calls in the county , what they are for, the response etc. NOTHING listed at this time for my town
Click to expand...

Sorry to hijack your whole post with citing only this passage but this made me curious: all 911 without exception for things like domestic violence? What is your attempt on how the police got there as it's rather unlikely they got there on their own investigation so someone must've notified them?
 
Javi said:
Sorry to hijack your whole post with citing only this passage but this made me curious: all 911 without exception for things like domestic violence? What is your attempt on how the police got there as it's rather unlikely they got there on their own investigation so someone must've notified them?
Click to expand...

Not sure if all calls get listed or not. At times it will just list "dangerous condition" as the reason for the call. If it effects traffic it is supposed to get listed and having a major road closed for 5 or 6 hours would fit that condition, even if it is in the middle of the night. Yeah someone notified them. The more I think about it, the lack of media coverage probably just has to do with the lack of anyone being hurt so other stories push this one aside.

Checked a few other sources, a facebook page that reports on crimes in the country, they have mention of something happening, but other than the info from the Fire Dept. nothing concrete.

I am sure I will find out in a day or two what is going on.
 
Another shooting in a Texas high school by a 14 year old girl...

"In the confusion that followed, numerous law enforcement officers rushed to the scene and a US marshal accidentally shot a Homeland Security agent"

But sure, if they all had guns... if this happens with professionals then imagine what would happen with plebs.
 
Zarlak said:
Another shooting in a Texas high school by a 14 year old girl...

"In the confusion that followed, numerous law enforcement officers rushed to the scene and a US marshal accidentally shot a Homeland Security agent"

But sure, if they all had guns... if this happens with professionals then imagine what would happen with plebs.
Click to expand...

Not surprised when you have so many different agencies rushing to the scene. At Columbine the police were criticized for NOT rushing into the building immediately to try to put an end to the shootings, and maybe in that case they should have, but this case shows why you need an organized response from law enforcement.

Myself, I would hate to say be in a movie theater when some nut decided to start shooting, then all the gun owners within hearing distance of the shooting come running in to take out the "bad guy" not knowing who the bad guy is. The scene would be like one of those flash mob finger gun fight videos.
 
JustAFan said:
Not surprised when you have so many different agencies rushing to the scene. At Columbine the police were criticized for NOT rushing into the building immediately to try to put an end to the shootings, and maybe in that case they should have, but this case shows why you need an organized response from law enforcement.

Myself, I would hate to say be in a movie theater when some nut decided to start shooting, then all the gun owners within hearing distance of the shooting come running in to take out the "bad guy" not knowing who the bad guy is. The scene would be like one of those flash mob finger gun fight videos.
Click to expand...

Exactly, people talked about the club shooting that it would be easy for your average pleb in a dark room to identify the shooter and yet here a fecking trained professional shoots someone from Homeland Security.
 
Zarlak said:
Exactly, people talked about the club shooting that it would be easy for your average pleb in a dark room to identify the shooter and yet here a fecking trained professional shoots someone from Homeland Security.
Click to expand...
Yea, I remember someone arguing at length in the Florida club shooting thread that if people in there had been armed it would have been over fast with far fewer deaths. Utter lunacy.
 
Zarlak said:
Another shooting in a Texas high school by a 14 year old girl...

"In the confusion that followed, numerous law enforcement officers rushed to the scene and a US marshal accidentally shot a Homeland Security agent"

But sure, if they all had guns... if this happens with professionals then imagine what would happen with plebs.
Click to expand...
Jesus Christ :lol:

I've genuinely laughed out loud at that. A strange mix of disbelief and a lack of surprise.
 
Unfortunately, I've encountered numerous Americans that feel armed persons would end situations such as Aurora, Ft Hood, Sandy Hooks, Virginia Tech, etc. They'll cherry pick/rush to social media to post an isolated incident where an armed citizen ended a crisis but they never do such when such vigilantes get killed, escalate the incident, shoot the wrong person, etc.
 
MrMarcello said:
Unfortunately, I've encountered numerous Americans that feel armed persons would end situations such as Aurora, Ft Hood, Sandy Hooks, Virginia Tech, etc. They'll cherry pick/rush to social media to post an isolated incident where an armed citizen ended a crisis but they never do such when such vigilantes get killed, escalate the incident, shoot the wrong person, etc.
Click to expand...
In some situations yes they could stop some crazy guy but others like in the movie theater would be worse, the media will not talk about any potential mass killer who was shot and killed by a citizen.
 
Grinner said:
Shooting in a senior living complex. that's a new one...well done America.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...tal-shooting-spree-at-senior-citizens-complex
Click to expand...

My father-in-law who just passed away lived at one of these senior apartment complexes and his daughter (my sister-in-law) had given him a gun so when he passed we had to go to the apartment and search all over to find where he was keeping it. This is in a rural community, could not understand why she felt he needed a hand gun, especially since he had booze issues so you never knew how coherent he was at any given time. I know he used to go target shooting with her and her family, which is fine, but no reason to let him keep the fecking hand gun at his apartment. thankfully he never shot anyone.

We ended up finding the gun, thankfully in it's locked case, hidden in the back of his closet. Disturbingly we did find some loose ammo under the cushions of his favorite comfy chair.
 
Multiple shootings are rare in Cheyenne, Wyoming’s capital city with a population of just over 60,000. City police handled six homicide cases in 2015, the department’s annual report said.
Click to expand...

Fecking hell. Even in a two horse town like that, the most optimistic spin they can put on this is saying multiple shootings in Cheyenne are "rare".
 
priorities_by_americandreaming-d8tsgac.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.