Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Can we go back to blaming the shooter and not the guns?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
We do not, the 2nd amendment, is read properly, states you do not.

Tell me which part is the dependent clause, again?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:


Yep, it only takes 1 donkey-cave to ruin it for everyone. It's why I see so many americans against letting in refugees, OMG we might let in 1 terrorist, don't take any of them.

For this one it hasn't been released yet, but as we see here in point 1:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/18/11-essential-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/
almost all mass shooters had obtained their guns legally, so it can reasonably be assumed this one did as well. But as guns are so freely accessible, you don't need to get one illegally, I'm surprised they're not given out as happy meal toys at McD's.

So in 12 or so of 61 cases since 1982....

Yeah, sounds like a massive problem requiring the curtailment of the rights of millions of law abiding citizens.

now compare that to the 247 mass shootings this year alone. compared to the "voter fraud" problem, this is a hugely epic problem. So if your not actually in the state's well regulated militia you should not have a gun. You have no right to one, turn it in.

There are numerous state constitutions that repeat the individual right to own firearms that is also in the US constitution. It's not as if the 2nd Amendment is the sole law regarding firearms ownership in the US. But don't let facts get in the way of your diatribes.

So...? On the federal level, state constitutions do not matter (IIRC).

They matter a lot when it comes to my rights to own and carry firearms, amongst other things. Regardless of your personal opinion regarding the 2nd Amendment which contradicts SCOTUS and legal precedent, I still have the right to own and carry firearms as a resident of my state. The 2nd Amendment could get repealed tomorrow and it would have no impact on my ability to own and carry firearms as a law abiding resident of North Carolina. So sirlynchmob's chosen interpretation of the 2nd Amendment being limited to the organization of a militia (quick fact, a militia is made up of civilian volunteers so it's only possible to form a militia, well regulated or not, if the populace isarmed) has no bearing on my right to own firearms.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Because it isnt. The Second Amendment maintains the Right for well regulated militia by the state, not by personal people. And because we have our Militia, the national guard, we do not need personal gun ownership.
That and another part of it is "Well Regulated" is something we do not do.

Well, you're wrong.

DC v Heller And SCOTUS agree that you're wrong.

And like I say in an earlier post, 4 times before Heller, SCOTUS said he was right. Who's to say that SCOTUS won't change its mind again in future?

Presser v Illinois (1886), US v Miller (1939), lewis v US (1980), DC v Heller (2008) and McDonald v Chicago (2010) are all SCOTUS rulings that support the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as granting US citizens the right to keep and bear arms. Gun ownership has always been regulated by municipal, state and federal laws. However, regulating ownership of firearms does not extend to banning law abiding citizens from owning firearms. That is where the courts have drawn the line, govt can regulate my ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens but it cannot prevent law abiding citizens from exercising their 2nd Amendment right to own firearms if they so choose.

Nobody denies that people don't have the right to carry guns, but in what CONTEXT?

I believe, after reviewing the evidence as a historian, it's a collective right i.e as part of a militia.

As a private citizen, I'm in favour of people owing guns. It's important to separate the professional from the private. If that makes sense

 whembly wrote:
Can we go back to blaming the shooter and not the guns?

People can do both. If it were an isolated incident it might make sense, but since this is a troubling trend that transcends one incident pretending there is no issue involved seems a bit troublesome.

 cincydooley wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
We do not, the 2nd amendment, is read properly, states you do not.

Tell me which part is the dependent clause, again?

"In order to maintain a WELL REGULATED militia"
We have a "Militia" for state defense its called the National guard

 whembly wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
So if your not actually in the state's well regulated militia you should not have a gun. You have no right to one, turn it in.

Is this wishful thinking or are you trying to argue that we don't have individual rights to guns?

it's the part of the second amendment that is never quoted.

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.

Surely the national guard fits this bill, it's clearly a well regulated militia, so if your not in the guard, you shouldn't have a gun.

regardless, it's an amendment, those can be repealed and changed to fit the times.

this nonsense where more guns will make us safer is insane. there's enough guns for every man, woman, child & fetus to have one. When will there be enough guns that we'll finally start being safe? we've tried more guns, now is the time to try less guns.

 cincydooley wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Doesnt mean I have to agree with SCOTUS, Personal gun ownership is not needed in the united states and has done more harm then good.
If guns where not so readily available to buy, we would not have the level of gun violence we would.
And on the same, why talk to me at all? IF you dont like what im saying and you think i have a fundamental misunderstanding, why insult? OR say anything at all?

This presumes most firearms used in the commission of a murder (hint: a capital felony) are obtained legally (hint: they aren't).

When I had an assailant on the job, pepper spray worked fine to get him off me.
Same with my friend and his Taser when he got a Knife pulled on him on the job.
Heck look at this video where police take a man down with just pepper spray.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9TFvh6Xps4

1: The allowance of firearms to be purchased legally allow them to be readily purchased illegally.
2: Why not add something instead of "HURRR I think this guy is stupid, so im just gonna Facepalm him to show How stupid he is"

Prestor Jon wrote:
it's only possible to form a militia, well regulated or not, if the populace isarmed

No, it's not. You can have a central depot and hand out weapons to your militia when the time requires it. Or have the populace armed but without ammunition. I believe Switzerland follows the latter model, IIRC.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
We do not, the 2nd amendment, is read properly, states you do not.

US case law disagrees with you and legal precedent actually matters to the legality of firearm ownership rights much more so than your opinion. That's why I keep citing the cases wherein the courts specifically call out the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Because it isnt. The Second Amendment maintains the Right for well regulated militia by the state, not by personal people. And because we have our Militia, the national guard, we do not need personal gun ownership.
That and another part of it is "Well Regulated" is something we do not do.

Well, you're wrong.

DC v Heller And SCOTUS agree that you're wrong.

And like I say in an earlier post, 4 times before Heller, SCOTUS said he was right. Who's to say that SCOTUS won't change its mind again in future?

Presser v Illinois (1886), US v Miller (1939), lewis v US (1980), DC v Heller (2008) and McDonald v Chicago (2010) are all SCOTUS rulings that support the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as granting US citizens the right to keep and bear arms. Gun ownership has always been regulated by municipal, state and federal laws. However, regulating ownership of firearms does not extend to banning law abiding citizens from owning firearms. That is where the courts have drawn the line, govt can regulate my ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens but it cannot prevent law abiding citizens from exercising their 2nd Amendment right to own firearms if they so choose.

But can the government prevent you from owning certain types of firearms?

Yes. That was expressly ruled upon in US v Miller and the NFA Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_v._Miller

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968

 Frazzled wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Because it isnt. The Second Amendment maintains the Right for well regulated militia by the state, not by personal people. And because we have our Militia, the national guard, we do not need personal gun ownership.
That and another part of it is "Well Regulated" is something we do not do.

When I can be bothered, I'll start a thread on this on why I believe that the Heller case, and Scalia's ruling, were a complete crock!

Yes, I've been reading my federalist papers, James Madison's notes, and a heap of other stuff!

EDIT: just noticed this thread is spiralling out of control

yes, please as a British non-lawyer, tell us why a Supreme Court Justice was wrong on, well anything outside of dress sense.

For the record, I'm trying to break away from Britain (Scottish independence)

Frazz, SCOTUS was clearly wrong on slavery, so lets pretend that SCOTUS is infallible.

But yes, I will start an appropriate thread on that ruling.

 Ahtman wrote:
Person A: X is a problem we should address probably.

Person B: But it is Constitutional™.

Person A: Well then I guess we have to ignore it.

I think the problem that many responsible gun owners have is that none of the rhetoric actually proposes anything that would curtail the commission of crimes with guns by criminals.

IMO, the place to start is by actually enforcing the gun penalties we have on the books to the fullest extent, and even making them harsher. You commit a crime with a gun, you don't get parole, etc.

As it stands now, we don't.

http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/quick-facts/Quick_Facts_Felon_in_Possession_of_a_Firearm.pdf

Pay special note to the graph on page 2; on average, we aren't even sentencing people to the guideline minimum....

So lets back up find common things we can agree on.

1. I'll go for: A. universal background checks for all transfers via FFL; B. Strengthen reporting of mental health and other background check violations to NCIS; C. California style hearing to remove firearms from location if reportable mental event occurred.

2. In return I want CHL supremacy clause. All states that have CHL have to recognize other state's CHL if those persons are in your state; and 2. No limitations on the purchase of ammunition (Certain cities limit hollowpoint ammo which greatly increases the chances of bystanders being hit for why???).

Its common sense compromise.

I think the problem that many responsible gun owners have is that none of the rhetoric actually proposes anything that would curtail the commission of crimes with guns by criminals.

Bingo!

 -Shrike- wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
it's only possible to form a militia, well regulated or not, if the populace isarmed

No, it's not. You can have a central depot and hand out weapons to your militia when the time requires it. Or have the populace armed but without ammunition. I believe Switzerland follows the latter model, IIRC.

The Swiss are allowed to buy personal ammunition for their issued firearms kept at home, they are not allowed to keep military issued ammunition at home. In theory every Swiss person who is keeping their military issue rifle at home as part of the military obligation can have plenty of ammunition for it. I couldn't find information regarding how many Swiss keep a supply of private ammunition for their military rifle at home in the few seconds it took me to google the information regarding their firearm laws.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

2: Why not add something instead of "HURRR I think this guy is stupid, so im just gonna Facepalm him to show How stupid he is"

You did just fine.

So you acknowledge that the "well regulated militia" portion is our dependent clause.

What is it dependent on?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
"In order to maintain a WELL REGULATED militia"
We have a "Militia" for state defense its called the National guard

If just repeating ideas over again made them true, then my boyhood muttering would have surely scored me a hookup with Drew Barrymore.

Sadly both you are are are left empty handed; although in my boyhood it was more figuratively. Especially when thinking of Drew Barrymore.

The point is, that the idea you are expressing has been roundly rejected by the Supreme Court, it took a really, really long time for them to get to that ruling, and they are unlikely to revisit it anytime soon.

 whembly wrote:
Can we go back to blaming the shooter and not the guns?

In contrast to any other piece of equipment used, we must blame the equipment.

 Frazzled wrote:
So lets back up find common things we can agree on.

1. I'll go for: A. universal background checks for all transfers via FFL; B. Strengthen reporting of mental health and other background check violations to NCIS; C. California style hearing to remove firearms from location if reportable mental event occurred.

2. In return I want CHL supremacy clause. All states that have CHL have to recognize other state's CHL if those persons are in your state; and 2. No limitations on the purchase of ammunition (Certain cities limit hollowpoint ammo which greatly increases the chances of bystanders being hit for why???).

Its common sense compromise.

I think the problem that many responsible gun owners have is that none of the rhetoric actually proposes anything that would curtail the commission of crimes with guns by criminals.

Bingo!

Dude, its NICS, National Instant Criminal Background Check System. NCIS is your weiner dog's favorite tv show.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 whembly wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
So if your not actually in the state's well regulated militia you should not have a gun. You have no right to one, turn it in.

Is this wishful thinking or are you trying to argue that we don't have individual rights to guns?

it's the part of the second amendment that is never quoted.

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.

Surely the national guard fits this bill, it's clearly a well regulated militia, so if your not in the guard, you shouldn't have a gun.

regardless, it's an amendment, those can be repealed and changed to fit the times.

this nonsense where more guns will make us safer is insane. there's enough guns for every man, woman, child & fetus to have one. When will there be enough guns that we'll finally start being safe? we've tried more guns, now is the time to try less guns.

Edited for being too harsh..

Here's the 2nd Amendment in it's entirity:
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.

You are incorrect.

And, yes, it can be amended/changed in the future. Good luck with that.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
it's only possible to form a militia, well regulated or not, if the populace isarmed

No, it's not. You can have a central depot and hand out weapons to your militia when the time requires it. Or have the populace armed but without ammunition. I believe Switzerland follows the latter model, IIRC.

The Swiss are allowed to buy personal ammunition for their issued firearms kept at home, they are not allowed to keep military issued ammunition at home. In theory every Swiss person who is keeping their military issue rifle at home as part of the military obligation can have plenty of ammunition for it. I couldn't find information regarding how many Swiss keep a supply of private ammunition for their military rifle at home in the few seconds it took me to google the information regarding their firearm laws.

Switzerland has an estimated 3M guns in total in their largely homogenized country. The United States has 300M.

Comparing the US to Switzerland is foolhardy.

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Can we go back to blaming the shooter and not the guns?

In contrast to any other piece of equipment used, we must blame the equipment.

When someone kills nearly a dozen people in less than 10 minutes with a baseball bat, and then that happens again and again every few weeks, we'd probably start to look at the availability of baseball bats, too.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Because it isnt. The Second Amendment maintains the Right for well regulated militia by the state, not by personal people. And because we have our Militia, the national guard, we do not need personal gun ownership.
That and another part of it is "Well Regulated" is something we do not do.

When I can be bothered, I'll start a thread on this on why I believe that the Heller case, and Scalia's ruling, were a complete crock!

Yes, I've been reading my federalist papers, James Madison's notes, and a heap of other stuff!

EDIT: just noticed this thread is spiralling out of control

yes, please as a British non-lawyer, tell us why a Supreme Court Justice was wrong on, well anything outside of dress sense.

For the record, I'm trying to break away from Britain (Scottish independence)

Frazz, SCOTUS was clearly wrong on slavery, so lets pretend that SCOTUS is infallible.

But yes, I will start an appropriate thread on that ruling.

Under the constitution, SCOTUS wasn't legally incorrect. It took an Amendment to change that. If you feel the Second Amendment is bad, people can attempt to change it. Thats what the Constitution is designed to do.

 Frazzled wrote:
So lets back up find common things we can agree on.

1. I'll go for: A. universal background checks for all transfers via FFL; B. Strengthen reporting of mental health and other background check violations to NCIS; C. California style hearing to remove firearms from location if reportable mental event occurred.

2. In return I want CHL supremacy clause. All states that have CHL have to recognize other state's CHL if those persons are in your state; and 2. No limitations on the purchase of ammunition (Certain cities limit hollowpoint ammo which greatly increases the chances of bystanders being hit for why???).

Its common sense compromise.

I think the problem that many responsible gun owners have is that none of the rhetoric actually proposes anything that would curtail the commission of crimes with guns by criminals.

Bingo!

Exalted and something that's definitely more achievable than massed confiscation.

That is the dependent line "Well regulated Militia" Means something to defend the state, which we have, called the National guard.
Individual gun rights are NOT NEEDED.
Also, you need to stop insulting people if you want to be taken seriously. It seems your default is "Your stupid, so im just gonna say it" to people rather then just participate in the conversation with them.

 whembly wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 whembly wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
So if your not actually in the state's well regulated militia you should not have a gun. You have no right to one, turn it in.

Is this wishful thinking or are you trying to argue that we don't have individual rights to guns?

it's the part of the second amendment that is never quoted.

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.

Surely the national guard fits this bill, it's clearly a well regulated militia, so if your not in the guard, you shouldn't have a gun.

regardless, it's an amendment, those can be repealed and changed to fit the times.

this nonsense where more guns will make us safer is insane. there's enough guns for every man, woman, child & fetus to have one. When will there be enough guns that we'll finally start being safe? we've tried more guns, now is the time to try less guns.

Do you understand the full armed and operational "commas" means in the English language?

Here's the 2nd Amendment in it's entirity:
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.

You are incorrect.

And, yes, it can be amended/changed in the future. Good luck with that.

So you're fine with ignoring the problem, see you at the next school shooting then. let's hope its not the school your kids go to.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
That is the dependent line "Well regulated Militia" Means something to defend the state, which we have, called the National guard.
Individual gun rights are NOT NEEDED.
Also, you need to stop insulting people if you want to be taken seriously. It seems your default is "Your stupid, so im just gonna say it" to people rather then just participate in the conversation with them.

I'm curious if you actually know what a dependent clause is. Do you?

Based on this response I think you might need to hit the Google.

 Frazzled wrote:
Under the constitution, SCOTUS wasn't legally incorrect. It took an Amendment to change that. If you feel the Second Amendment is bad, people can attempt to change it. Thats what the Constitution is designed to do.

Yes; this is essentially the crux of the issue and the summary, ultimately. American has a lot of firearms and we enjoy using them, and we're by and large OK with the occasional piles of dead young people that accrue. The second amendment prevents us from significantly changing that paradigm, and there is no political will to change the situation. Everything else is a waste of breath. We offer useless prayers and meaningless lip service, and then we move on barely before the blood is mopped up.

sirlynchmob wrote:
So you're fine with ignoring the problem, see you at the next school shooting then. let's hope its not the school your kids go to.

Sure, all of us are. As Americans, we're OK with that. After all, has there been any meaningful attempt at changing the situation? We keep electing the same people making the same promises. Clearly, we're OK with all of this as a voting population.

Look at this subforum in general and this thread in specific as a useful microcosm of this, really. We're not really talking to each other, and there is no useful exchange of ideas here. Some of these threads are very nearly scripted events, by humans essentially acting as bots.

sirlynchmob wrote:


So you're fine with ignoring the problem, see you at the next school shooting then. let's hope its not the school your kids go to.

You're saying the problem is guns...

I'm saying the problem is the shooter.

But, since you've already advocated for confiscation... what's the point of discussing this? You know that will never happen.

Outside of confiscation, what would've prevented this shooting?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Because it isnt. The Second Amendment maintains the Right for well regulated militia by the state, not by personal people. And because we have our Militia, the national guard, we do not need personal gun ownership.
That and another part of it is "Well Regulated" is something we do not do.

When I can be bothered, I'll start a thread on this on why I believe that the Heller case, and Scalia's ruling, were a complete crock!

Yes, I've been reading my federalist papers, James Madison's notes, and a heap of other stuff!

EDIT: just noticed this thread is spiralling out of control

yes, please as a British non-lawyer, tell us why a Supreme Court Justice was wrong on, well anything outside of dress sense.

For the record, I'm trying to break away from Britain (Scottish independence)

Frazz, SCOTUS was clearly wrong on slavery, so lets pretend that SCOTUS is infallible.

But yes, I will start an appropriate thread on that ruling.

Nobody is saying SCOTUS is infallible, just that their rulings, along with other legal precedents, actually matter in determining what is legal and constitutional. Everyone is free to hold and express their own personal opinion but the opinion of SCOTUS and other courts are the ones that actually legally matter. The idea that SCOTUS rulings are "wrong" based solely on personal opinions is unreasonable because personal opinions are irrelevant in regards to the legal standing of SCOTUS rulings. No matter how vehemently one argues that SCOTUS is wrong it has no bearing on the pratical applications of their ruling. The two aren't on anything close to equal footing so it's a fruitless exercise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:


So you're fine with ignoring the problem, see you at the next school shooting then. let's hope its not the school your kids go to.

You're saying the problem is guns...

I'm saying the problem is the shooter.

But, since you've already advocated for confiscation... what's the point of discussing this? You know that will never happen.

Outside of confiscation, what would've prevented this shooting?

Canada. If we all lived in Canada with sirlynchmob we'd enjoy the utopian existence of a crime free society where nothing bad happens.

People always make the mistake of overlooking what was left out of the 2nd amendment.

James Madison originally included a pacifist clause to allow Quakers to be exempt from militia duty, due to religious objections. This was voted down.

If the 2nd was created with the AIM of focusing on individual ownership, then he would not have bothered with this clause, as Quakers could have chosen their individual right not to own guns.

That he wanted this included shows the clear emphasis on militias...