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.

 Ouze wrote:


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.

I respect you and your intelligence, Ouze, so I'll pose this question in hopes of an honest answer:

What can we do, in 2015 America, that will curtail the gun crimes committed by criminals? If we were able to wave a wand and get rid of all legally registered firearms in the hands of their lawful owners, do you think we'd see a major decrease in gun crime? We obviously would in gun deaths, since around 66% of them come from suicide. But do you believe there is a path we can take that will noticeably affect that downward trend more than we already are?

“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.”
All gun Rights are hinged on whether we have a regulated militia(We do, the National Guard) This was when people would have to be called to arms and provide their own weapons
With the establishment of a National guard and the US Military to protect the state(Whether you read that as States as countries or individual states) individual gun rights are not needed.
Infact, a ready supply of guns, even legally, allows for an easy supply of illegal guns.

 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.

Pretty strong words coming from someone making a general statement based on opinion (tm).

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
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...

Dude... the militias = the people.

The militias is NOT the National Guard. They were established AFTER 1903.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
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...

It doesn't really. It reflects a time in which there was no standing army.

Further, the more you read, the more you'll find that the intent of the 2nd amendment is, at it's heart and soul, to allow the citizenry to defend itself from its government and to guarantee it's freedom from governmental oppression.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Ouze wrote:


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.

I respect you and your intelligence, Ouze, so I'll pose this question in hopes of an honest answer:

What can we do, in 2015 America, that will curtail the gun crimes committed by criminals? If we were able to wave a wand and get rid of all legally registered firearms in the hands of their lawful owners, do you think we'd see a major decrease in gun crime? We obviously would in gun deaths, since around 66% of them come from suicide. But do you believe there is a path we can take that will noticeably affect that downward trend more than we already are?

Yes, Because, less readily available guns means less gun crime
Remember, the gun from Sandy Hook was a legal gun stolen from his mother.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
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...

Well, it doesn't really matter. What matters is how the amendment is currently being interpreted by the Supreme Court; which is to say, supporting a natural right to self-defense unconnected to militia membership. You guys should drop this argument, because it's bad, bad, bad. That ruling just came out, and it's not going to be changed anytime soon, all else being equal.

If you want to reduce the number of firearms in this country*, the 2nd amendment needs to be changed, period, full stop.

*and we don't! not at all.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 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.

Pretty strong words coming from someone making a general statement based on opinion (tm).

Or more on experiance and reading up on the issue itself.

 Frazzled wrote:

 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.

You mistake my intensions Frazz, I'm on your side. I believe that people should have the right to own guns to defend themselves/homes/family. - I'm a libertarian.

But as a historian, and being professional about it, I believe that the 2nd amendment is all about the militias, and not the individual.

You may think it's hard to separate the two strands of thought, but it's possible, and not a contradiction. Lawyers do it all the time.

Professional me: 2nd is for the militias.

Private Citizen me: people should be allowed to own guns.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Yes, Because, less readily available guns means less gun crime
Remember, the gun from Sandy Hook was a legal gun stolen from his mother.

Sure, if you ignore the data that shows us gun crime continues to decrease as the number of guns in legal circulation in the United States continues to increases.

But, you know, pesky facts and things.

 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?

the problem is the massive availability of guns, so when anyone wants to go on a shooting spree there is no limit to the number of guns and the ammo he can buy. Isn't it reassuring to know, in arizona a shooter could post all over the net he's going to go shoot up someplace for weeks. Go to any gun store and walk out with a variety of guns & ammo during his lunch break, then carry out his plan. Or any gun show if it's in town, walk in, buy all the guns you want, go on a shooting spree.

due to the massive availability of guns, the first step is to remove most of the guns.

there has been many rational gun laws suggested, yet after sandy hook the gun sales got less restrictive. There are many countries we can use for examples on rational gun laws and how to implement them.

Less guns have proven to cause less gun violence from mass shootings to suicides.

If america is this supposed greatest country on earth, than surely the can find a viable solution to this problem, instead of ignoring it.

what's your idea on how to stop the next one then? keep selling more guns so the good guys with guns can shoot the wrong person during a car jacking? and if less guns cause less gun violence, than surely it's obvious, more guns cause more gun violence.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


But as a historian, and being professional about it, I believe that the 2nd amendment is all about the militias, and not the individual.

You don't see it as a guarantor of liberty against a potentially oppressive government? Even with the context in which it was written?

I find that really curious.

Except for this y'know
From Stanford
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/november/donohue-guns-study-111414.html

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
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...

No. What your example shows is that people didn't feel the need to add a clause to the amendment exempting Quakers becuase Quakers were already free to choose not to own firearms and/or volunteer for the militia or any other military service. You don't need a pacifist clause to allow people the right to not own firearms or join the militia or military because there is nothing in the 2nd amendment forcing anyone to purchase firearms or join the militia or military.

There are ample examples of the founders explaining the intent of the 2nd amendment.

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

"[I]f 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. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

 cincydooley wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Yes, Because, less readily available guns means less gun crime
Remember, the gun from Sandy Hook was a legal gun stolen from his mother.

Sure, if you ignore the data that shows us gun crime continues to decrease as the number of guns in legal circulation in the United States continues to increases.

But, you know, pesky facts and things.

Yep, the number of the guns in the US has increased as the number of people owning guns has decreased. Pesky facts and all that.

If you truly want guns off the street.

How about offering $1000 per gun?

There's approximately 350,000,000 private guns now... so, let's say our goal is to get 250,000,000 guns off the street costing us $250 Billion.

All without changing existing laws... just, get it off the streets.

You cool with a program like this?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Ouze wrote:


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.

I respect you and your intelligence, Ouze, so I'll pose this question in hopes of an honest answer:

What can we do, in 2015 America, that will curtail the gun crimes committed by criminals? If we were able to wave a wand and get rid of all legally registered firearms in the hands of their lawful owners, do you think we'd see a major decrease in gun crime? We obviously would in gun deaths, since around 66% of them come from suicide. But do you believe there is a path we can take that will noticeably affect that downward trend more than we already are?

Yes, Because, less readily available guns means less gun crime
Remember, the gun from Sandy Hook was a legal gun stolen from his mother.

Said differently, the guns used in Sandy Hook were illegally obtained through murder and theft.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Except for this y'know
From Stanford
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/november/donohue-guns-study-111414.html

Right to carry is a wholly independent issue.

We're talking about violent crime and gun crime vs. gun ownership.

Moooooove em!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

But as a historian, and being professional about it, I believe that the 2nd amendment is all about the militias, and not the individual.

Historically, the militias ARE the individuals.

 -Shrike- wrote:

Yep, the number of the guns in the US has increased as the number of people owning guns has decreased. Pesky facts and all that.

And tell me about the violent crime rate.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 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?

the problem is the massive availability of guns, so when anyone wants to go on a shooting spree there is no limit to the number of guns and the ammo he can buy. Isn't it reassuring to know, in arizona a shooter could post all over the net he's going to go shoot up someplace for weeks. Go to any gun store and walk out with a variety of guns & ammo during his lunch break, then carry out his plan. Or any gun show if it's in town, walk in, buy all the guns you want, go on a shooting spree.

due to the massive availability of guns, the first step is to remove most of the guns.

there has been many rational gun laws suggested, yet after sandy hook the gun sales got less restrictive. There are many countries we can use for examples on rational gun laws and how to implement them.

Less guns have proven to cause less gun violence from mass shootings to suicides.

If america is this supposed greatest country on earth, than surely the can find a viable solution to this problem, instead of ignoring it.

what's your idea on how to stop the next one then? keep selling more guns so the good guys with guns can shoot the wrong person during a car jacking? and if less guns cause less gun violence, than surely it's obvious, more guns cause more gun violence.

There are extensive municipal, state and federal laws that expressly limit what kind of firearms are permitted for sale to private citizens and under what parameters private citizens can own certain types of firearms. Some states also have extensive laws regarding the purchase, sale and ownership of ammunitions. Are you deliberately ignoring these facts or are you unaware of their existence?

As for your concern about people posting things on the internet and then being allowed to purchase firearms, that's a 1st amendment issue not a 2nd amendment issue.

 cincydooley wrote:
...so I'll pose this question in hopes of an honest answer:?

Not ignoring you, but I gotta run. I'll have to get back to you later tonight, assuming this thread is still open.

I think we need a completely separate thread to discuss the 2nd.. We're way the hell OT, which I acknowledge is partially my fault. Sorry Mods.

I will get round to doing it sometime.

 cincydooley wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Except for this y'know
From Stanford
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/november/donohue-guns-study-111414.html

Right to carry is a wholly independent issue.

We're talking about violent crime and gun crime vs. gun ownership.

Moooooove em!

Its not a different issue. If having guns around increases crime rate(Which according to Stanford, a well recognized establishment) then it is proven that guns can cause crime.

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

This is pretty much exactly it.

Someone made a conscious choice to kill people in a pre-meditated fashion, the weapon didn't didn't force him to do it or control his mind or kill people itself.

As has been pointed out before, murder rates are at historic lows. What we have is a problem with people going out and engaging in shock killings. This is a relatively recent phenomenon however. In the time when you order machine guns through the Sears catalog and have the USPS deliver them right to your door, and kids could take their rifle to school so they could go plinking or squirrel hunting after, these things didn't really happen despite guns being far less restricted. Fundamentally, we have a sociological issue where a couple of subsets of the population are feeling increasingly disconnected from society and infuriated for whatever reason, and feel that engaging in these sorts of atrocities makes them relevant and gives them their 15 minutes in the sun as the media goes apeshit over it.

 whembly wrote:
If you truly want guns off the street.

How about offering $1000 per gun?

There's approximately 350,000,000 private guns now... so, let's say our goal is to get 250,000,000 guns off the street costing us $250 Billion.

All without changing existing laws... just, get it off the streets.

You cool with a program like this?

Municipalities and agencies have gun buy back programs numerous times throught out the years. What you typically get are people turning in guns they dont want or guns that are broken. Gun buy back programs only curtail gun ownership and availability in the sense that it's an opportunity for people to dispose of guns that they didn't want in the first place. GIven the cost of guns, ammunition, magazines, holsters, slings, etc. offering only $1000 isn't going to convince many gun owners who deliberately purchased their gun to trade it in for money.

 Vaktathi wrote:
As has been pointed out before, murder rates are at historic lows. What we have is a problem with people going out and engaging in shock killings. This is a relatively recent phenomenon however. In the time when you order machine guns through the Sears catalog and have the USPS deliver them right to your door, and kids could take their rifle to school so they could go plinking or squirrel hunting after, these things didn't really happen despite guns being far less restricted. Fundamentally, we have a sociological issue where a couple of subsets of the population are feeling increasingly disconnected from society and infuriated for whatever reason, and feel that engaging in these sorts of atrocities makes them relevant and gives them their 15 minutes in the sun as the media goes apeshit over it.

Yes, yes yes.

Cincy asked him if I could think of ways that gun control could reduce crime, and sure, we can do some stuff, but ultimately I don't think reducing availability is the problem, or ultimately that we shouldn't be spending our (imaginary, hypothetical) political capital somewhere more useful. I'm not trying to make a nirvana fallacy here: if we can try and reduce spree killings, we should - but, you know, totally avoidable heart diseases kills a hell of a lot more people every year and gets a lot less coverage on CNN. If we're waving magic legislation wands around with the goal of saving lives, there are more fertile fields to plant.

Well regulated a pretty clear definition of the term: http://bearingarms.com/well-regulated/

In short you can self regulate your own militia(which can be a militia of one), that's the point. The whole purpose was a counter to the standing army and self defense. If you have taken hunter safety course, CCW courses, military, police, Appleseed, actual self-training, etc etc courses you are trained enough to own guns according to the definition of this term in how it was used in this. The point was to keep the government from being able to take power away from its citizenry.

"The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it."

"The word militia refers to an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular soldier." The National Guard and reserves are in fact professional troops who go to official training regularly and are deployed regularly and are paid, thus do not fall into the class "militia."

Also the Dick Act of 1902/3 states that all males 18- 45 are eligible to be called up for service thus can be construed as they are in fact militia. While the Dick Act has been more or less effectively been made obsolete by later laws, they never actually straight up repealed it. Furthermore the Selective Service component is still in place along with the draft making any male(females are not part of selective service yet) technically part of the militia.

Prestor Jon wrote:
offering only $1000 isn't going to convince many gun owners who deliberately purchased their gun to trade it in for money.

If its a blanket $1000 per gun, I'm buying as many Cobra 380s as I can afford.

 Ouze wrote:

 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.

I went to a Kraftwerk concert-it was easily the second worst entertainment thing I'd ever been to (die fat old baby boomer German electrosynthesizer nazis die!) and they had a "ROBOT" song for like 12 minutes. I think it had three words in it.