So, why are guns necessary?

[rvg]

You can't deny that the Russians were some of the most heavily armed people on earth before the commies took over...

This is mostly incorrect.
Cossacks, yes, those guys were armed to the teeth, Siberian frontiersmen, yes. Everybody else -- hell no.

[PanzerJaeger]

It should be noted that the shooter did not use an 'assault rifle'. Reports yesterday to the contrary were blatant efforts by select media organizations to create a false narrative. In any event, I do not really understand the fascination with assault rifles among the fearful sheeple that push gun control. As has been mentioned, pistols are far less expensive and more concealable, and are thus used in upwards of 95% of gun related crimes. Of course, if one is ignorant enough to believe that a gun ban would work in the US, one likely doesn't have a complete understanding of the situation.

[Lemur]

It should be noted that the shooter did not use an 'assault rifle'. Reports yesterday to the contrary were blatant efforts by select media organizations to create a false narrative.

FWIW, the AR-15 ID is reported to have come from a local Fox affiliate, which was grabbing info off police scanners and putting it out without secondary (confirming) sources. Bad reporting. Not a "blatant effort by select media to" blah blah blah.

Rather, it was cops on the radio saying it was an AR-15, and a local news station repeating it without confirming.

Also, I'd be cautious about using the term "sheeple." It's kind of a marker for conspiracy nuts. As in, it's one of their go-to words. You don't want to throw discredit on an argument through a simple word choice.

-edit-

Didn't follow this story closely, but it appears "senior law enforcement officials" were also announcing the AR-15 as a weapon. So ... yeah. Media conspiracy is kinda off the table as a talking point. Sorry. "Despite statements on Monday from senior law enforcement officials — which were widely reported in the news media, including in The New York Times — that an AR-15 had been found at the scene, no such gun has been found. The authorities say they do not believe the gunman used one."

"regulated" means equipped and the founders protected our right to have a serious arsenal and be equipped

Can't find any etymological source that confirms that "regulated" had this meaning in the 18th century. It certainly doesn't mean that today. Your source?

In fact, glancing at the etymology of the word, it has derived directly from synonyms for "control," which puts it in line with today's meaning. Here's a source.

"[F]rom Late Latin regulatus, past participle of regulare 'to control by rule, direct,' from Latin regula 'rule' (see regular). Meaning 'to govern by restriction' is from 1620s."

[Papewaio]

And I thought a well regulated militia had a high fibre diet.

[ICantSpellDawg]

FWIW, the AR-15 ID is reported to have come from a local Fox affiliate, which was grabbing info off police scanners and putting it out without secondary (confirming) sources. Bad reporting. Not a "blatant effort by select media to" blah blah blah.

Rather, it was cops on the radio saying it was an AR-15, and a local news station repeating it without confirming.

Also, I'd be cautious about using the term "sheeple." It's kind of a marker for conspiracy nuts. As in, it's one of their go-to words. You don't want to throw discredit on an argument through a simple word choice.

-edit-

Didn't follow this story closely, but it appears "senior law enforcement officials" were also announcing the AR-15 as a weapon. So ... yeah. Media conspiracy is kinda off the table as a talking point. Sorry. "Despite statements on Monday from senior law enforcement officials — which were widely reported in the news media, including in The New York Times — that an AR-15 had been found at the scene, no such gun has been found. The authorities say they do not believe the gunman used one."


Can't find any etymological source that confirms that "regulated" had this meaning in the 18th century. It certainly doesn't mean that today. Your source?

In fact, glancing at the etymology of the word, it has derived directly from synonyms for "control," which puts it in line with today's meaning. Here's a source.

"[F]rom Late Latin regulatus, past participle of regulare 'to control by rule, direct,' from Latin regula 'rule' (see regular). Meaning 'to govern by restriction' is from 1620s."

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq59-5.htm

Most regulations in the 18th century were not merely rules and punishments for soldiers, but also standards of minimal armament and food/supplies. Either way, this wording is in the prefatory clause and is not binding on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. I am not someone who believes that background checks are unconstitutional, or even permits for carrying weapons outside of your home, but I do recognize that most attempts to push these winnable strategies are Trojan horses; attempt to poison the tree and disarm most, and subsequently all Americans. The ulterior motive is clear. Most people who push these things would disarm all law abiding Americans if they could get away with it. I am reluctant to accept any amount of poison from the enemy.

Lemur, as an example, if you and I were going to negotiate on an increase in oversight on gun sales, we would probably increase individuals ability to attain carry permits - with proper training or law abiding background. I would talk to you and agree to a compromise. I trust that your agenda isn't to disarm me, but to come to a better result. I don't believe most people have a fair and reasonable agenda. You might, but unfortunately there are too many who would piggyback on your good diplomacy to nail us to the wall. Plus, no co promise has ever been suggested, merely a brutal war of attrition where we must simply lose in order for them to win. Compromise is when both of us win.

Also, to illustrate my point of trustworthiness in negotiation - I will never again by an insurance policy from Allstate, because the company is untrustworthy. I will, however, buy insurance policies from countless other insurers because either a)they ARE trustworthy or b) they are not known to be untrustworthy.
Democratic leadership cannot be trusted on this issue at this time. At another time? Perhaps - when we hold the Executive and one of the 2 houses, compromise may be in our interest.

[Lemur]

Most regulations in the 18th century were not merely rules and punishments for soldiers, but also standards of minimal armament and food/supplies.

Yes, and the rules defining these minimums were called ... regulations. Sorry, man, but calling your re-definition a "stretch" is an insult to elastic.

I am reluctant to accept any amount of poison from the enemy.

If you define reasonable people who have slightly different takes on governance your "enemy," then ... what will you call people who actually want to harm you? Exaggeration, overstatement, and a tendency to the melodramatic ... this leaves you rather boxed-in.

Also, I think we're all clear that you are using a Nexus 7 with Tapatalk 4. You might want to look at a way to turn that notification off.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yes, and the rules defining these minimums were called ... regulations. Sorry, man, but calling your re-definition a "stretch" is an insult to elastic.


If you define reasonable people who have slightly different takes on governance your "enemy," then ... what will you call people who actually want to harm you? Exaggeration, overstatement, and a tendency to the melodramatic ... this leaves you rather boxed-in.

Also, I think we're all clear that you are using a Nexus 7 with Tapatalk 4. You might want to look at a way to turn that notification off.

I can't. Also, read my edited post. There should be about 4 notifications of tapatatatatalk usage

Edit: yes I can, thank you, it is now off. But I am using tapatalk, and I'm on my nexus 7, btw

[Xiahou]

Yes, and the rules defining these minimums were called ... regulations. Sorry, man, but calling your re-definition a "stretch" is an insult to elastic.

Frankly, if you substitute "equipped" for "regulated" in the amendment, it makes alot more sense.

How does the uninfringeable right to bear arms help to constitute a well regulated militia? However, if you take it to mean a well equipped militia- the dependent clause makes sense.

It's an interesting thought- but largely irrelevant since it is a dependent clause.

[Lemur]

Frankly, if you substitute "equipped" for "regulated" in the amendment, it makes alot more sense.

Only if you have a preconceived notion of what you want the Second Amendment to mean.

If you read the language for what it is, rather than what you think it ought to mean, it's pretty clear. "Well-regulated" means under some sort of organization and control, rather than a bunch of angry dudes in a mob. The founders' intent is pretty clear in this case. They want the state protected, and they want it done by a "well-regulated militia," as opposed to a disorganized bunch of shooters. (And it's clear from letters and speeches of the time that the founders were leery about having a standing army, so the "well regulated militia" was clearly being posited as an alternative to a permanent military force.)

"The distinction between a well regulated Army, and a Mob, is the good order and discipline of the first, and the licentious and disorderly behaviour of the latter."—George Washington, August 25, 1776

"The irregular and disjointed State of the Militia of this Province, makes it necessary for me to inform you... your first object should be a well regulated Militia Law."—George Washington, January 24, 1777

"The devising and establishing of a well regulated militia, would be a genuine source of legislative honor... carrying to its full energy the power of organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia; and thus providing, in the language of the constitution, for calling them forth to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions."—George Washington, Address to Congress, November 19, 1794

[Papewaio]

Meh, if you are going to have a tool then proper training is necessary.

As for minimizing casualties I would add in better designed buildings ie multiple safe escape routes, OH&S training and proper mental health care.

[ajaxfetish]

Can't find any etymological source that confirms that "regulated" had this meaning in the 18th century. It certainly doesn't mean that today. Your source?

In fact, glancing at the etymology of the word, it has derived directly from synonyms for "control," which puts it in line with today's meaning. Here's a source.

"[F]rom Late Latin regulatus, past participle of regulare 'to control by rule, direct,' from Latin regula 'rule' (see regular). Meaning 'to govern by restriction' is from 1620s."

Confirming that the OED does not include a definition for "regulated" meaning well equipped. If it had had such a sense, I'd expect their editors to have found evidence of it. Here's the two they do have:

1. Properly controlled, governed, or directed; subject to guidance or regulations. Also: adjusted in response to, or in order to conform to, a principle, standard, set of circumstances, etc. Freq. with modifying word, as badly-, best-, ill-, well-regulated, etc.

†2. Of troops, an army, etc.: properly organized; formally constituted into a professional body. Also fig. and in figurative contexts. Obs. Cf. regular adj. 7.

As for why guns are necessary? I'm not strong enough to throw a bullet at lethal velocity. I need a little help.

[PanzerJaeger]

FWIW, the AR-15 ID is reported to have come from a local Fox affiliate, which was grabbing info off police scanners and putting it out without secondary (confirming) sources. Bad reporting. Not a "blatant effort by select media to" blah blah blah.

Rather, it was cops on the radio saying it was an AR-15, and a local news station repeating it without confirming.

Also, I'd be cautious about using the term "sheeple." It's kind of a marker for conspiracy nuts. As in, it's one of their go-to words. You don't want to throw discredit on an argument through a simple word choice.

-edit-

Didn't follow this story closely, but it appears "senior law enforcement officials" were also announcing the AR-15 as a weapon. So ... yeah. Media conspiracy is kinda off the table as a talking point. Sorry. "Despite statements on Monday from senior law enforcement officials — which were widely reported in the news media, including in The New York Times — that an AR-15 had been found at the scene, no such gun has been found. The authorities say they do not believe the gunman used one."

Humble pie isn't any better with milk. My mistake and thank you for the correction. With media outlets jumping to post things like this [http://www.mediaite.com/online/ny-da...ooting-cover/], it's hard not to believe an agenda is being driven in the face of facts and rationality.