17 More Dead Kids

[Seamus Fermanagh]

"well-regulated militia" found yourself!

Btw, can't you remove or change the second amendment? Most countries can alter the constitution with 2/3rd of the vote in parliament or so. With 80% of the people wanting stricter controls, an actually representative congress should have the votes. Germany passed universal marriage in a similar fashion last year. Of course that necessitates that the USA are actually a democracy and not an oligarchy.

I'm a bit of a Constitutional purist, as you have probably gathered.

The second amendment does indeed state: "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."

18th Century grammar, spelling, and capitalization were more of an art then a rigid process back then. Nevertheless, the capitalizations of Militia, State, and Arms probably indicate some degree of emphasis. Modern US English would render the sentence with only one comma after the word State without capitalization, using italics or bolding any word for which some degree of extra emphasis was intended.

Most of the pro gun control crowd prefers to emphasize the first of the four clauses, "a well regulated militia" which to them implies that arms should be the province of the state government, who regulates the militia, and that citizens of that state should have a right under the aegis of their membership in this militia to keep and to bear arms. These gun control advocates assert that, as the National Guard and Air National Guard now function as the regulated portion of a state's militia (regulated by the UCMJ and under the leadership of the state's executive save when federalized), the arms under their control should fulfill the amendment's directive for security and that the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms by non-militia is not so protected.

Numerous states have passed laws declaring all of their adult citizens to be part of the militia, thus obviating that argument.

The so far predominant interpretation holds that the central point of the amendment is embodied in the third and fourth clauses, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," as this portion of the sentence contains the subject and verb, which in English are deemed to be the dominant element for the generation of meaning in a sentence.

Pro-2nd amendment folks view this, therefore, as a clearly individual right that cannot be infringed by government, that the people (any sane adult citizen) should be able to keep and bear arms as their resources and preferences admit. To this side of the argument, the well-regulated militia and the security of the state are the product of an armed citizenry that cannot be "trumped" by a federal government because they keep and bear arms that can provide them the means to oppose such decisions as they feel are so tyrannical as to be broadly opposed (one dissenter would not be able to stop anything) and to warrant the use of force (opposition would require the risk of your own life).

Real purists assert that, as the arms referenced at the time were military grade (or nearly so), there should be no restrictions whatsoever on the types, numbers, and efficacy of the arms kept and borne by any sane adult citizen. This end of things suggests that pretty much ALL efforts to restrict arms of any sort or in any manner is unconstitutional.

As to changing the Constitution, there are two paths. The only one used thus far is by passing a further amendment. Such an amendment requires a joint resolution passed by 2/3 majority in both houses of the US Congress with said amendment then requiring ratification by 3/4 of the State legislatures of the respective states. This is how all of our amendments have thus far been promulgated.

The second choice is for 2/3 of the State legislatures to demand amendments or changes via the paneling of another Constitution convention. Such a convention could, with the historical precedent of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, not only consider and adopt amendments (the original mission of the Philadelphia convention was to improve the Articles of Confederation) but could propose an entirely new Constitution. Regardless, this would also have to be ratified by 3/4 of the State legislatures.


EDIT:

It should be remembered that the 2nd amendment is part of the Constitution and is concerned with governmental powers and limitations thereunto. It is not about hunting or target shooting or even defending one's home or person.

Were that the reason for the right to keep and to bear arms, there would be little or no reason for assault weapons, 12+mm ammo, crew-served weapons, explosives or the like. Hunting and home defense are far better accomplished with a shotguns, or with rifles of less than 10mm bore. Even the effectiveness of handguns can be questioned, as a shotty is far less likely to miss, especially in semi-trained hands.

But the amendment is NOT about that, it is a check on the power of government.

[Husar]

The SIMPLE federal law was passed with 393 vs. 226 votes and so passed as a simple law only needs a simple majority (>50%). If they had attempted a change of the constitution they would have needed a 2/3rd majority and using the same numbers - failed.
That that is seen as a legal problem is explained e.g. here too:

So what? I didn't want to derail the topic to a discussion about how solid some German law is because none of that is relevant to how US politicians can't even make a shaky law with partisan support when it comes to an issue like gun control where plenty of US citizens wish for such a change. IIRC the restrictions on gun ownership or stricter screening before a purchase do not require a constitutional change in the US given that they've had plenty of restrictions and controls before.

If DevDave and his interpretation were correct, then children should be able to buy guns at age 4...

As to changing the Constitution, there are two paths. The only one used thus far is by passing a further amendment. Such an amendment requires a joint resolution passed by 2/3 majority in both houses of the US Congress with said amendment then requiring ratification by 3/4 of the State legislatures of the respective states. This is how all of our amendments have thus far been promulgated.

The second choice is for 2/3 of the State legislatures to demand amendments or changes via the paneling of another Constitution convention. Such a convention could, with the historical precedent of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, not only consider and adopt amendments (the original mission of the Philadelphia convention was to improve the Articles of Confederation) but could propose an entirely new Constitution. Regardless, this would also have to be ratified by 3/4 of the State legislatures.

Well, yes, that makes a change incredibly unlikely.Even if you could get the 2/3rds majorities, you'd probably fail with the 3/4th of states. But could a further amendment overwrite another amendment? I don't think so. Aren't there even people who say older amendments trump the newer ones?

Either way I can see how certain human values can be valid for centuries, but as far as technological gadgets, and that includes weapons, are concerned, setting a certain very generic law in stone seems like a bad idea. I get why it was done back then when technological changes were still relatively slow. But imagine in the late 1980s they had passed an amendment that said every computer with 100Mhz or more can only be owned by the military... The US would be a technological backwater country now (or have a VERY large commercial arm of the military )...
The technological difference between a musket and an AR-15 should be quite obvious. One can kill two people at 100m in less than five seconds, the other can't even be reloaded in five seconds and has more inaccuracy than accuracy at 100m.

It should be remembered that the 2nd amendment is part of the Constitution and is concerned with governmental powers and limitations thereunto. It is not about hunting or target shooting or even defending one's home or person.

Were that the reason for the right to keep and to bear arms, there would be little or no reason for assault weapons, 12+mm ammo, crew-served weapons, explosives or the like. Hunting and home defense are far better accomplished with a shotguns, or with rifles of less than 10mm bore. Even the effectiveness of handguns can be questioned, as a shotty is far less likely to miss, especially in semi-trained hands.

But the amendment is NOT about that, it is a check on the power of government.

For an outsider the last sentence seems laughable since the people collecting all the guns appear the least concerned about checking the power of a tyrannical government, and I largely consider the US an oligarchy by now anyway. I'm not questioning the good intentions of the amendment, I'm questioning the practical use of it today. It's not just about how much more powerful the government's weapons are today, it's about how easy it has become to manipulate these militia gun owners into supporting a more tyrannical approach and opposing the more democratic ones. The hardcore gun community has obviously been following fake news since at least the election of Obama and they still haven't realized it. If anything could have actually saved the US it would probably have been a decent education system. A fool with a gun is just an instrument of the tyrant in the information age.

It sounds harsh but it's actually quite sad.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Well, yes, that makes a change incredibly unlikely.Even if you could get the 2/3rds majorities, you'd probably fail with the 3/4th of states. But could a further amendment overwrite another amendment? I don't think so. Aren't there even people who say older amendments trump the newer ones?

Purposefully difficult. They wanted it changeable, but not at a whim. We've adopted 27 amendments, 17 of those after the "Bill of Rights." One amendment specifically repealed a previous amendment, so it is possible to amend an amendment so to speak (since, having been ratified, the previous amendment is deemed part of the whole text, the whole text being amenable as per Article V of the Constitution). While some may try to assert that previous amendments "supersede" later amendments, the history of the Constitution and its amendments does not support this. Once amended, it is the amended text that embodies the mandate of the Constitution, not the preceding version.

Either way I can see how certain human values can be valid for centuries, but as far as technological gadgets, and that includes weapons, are concerned, setting a certain very generic law in stone seems like a bad idea. I get why it was done back then when technological changes were still relatively slow. But imagine in the late 1980s they had passed an amendment that said every computer with 100Mhz or more can only be owned by the military... The US would be a technological backwater country now (or have a VERY large commercial arm of the military )...
The technological difference between a musket and an AR-15 should be quite obvious. One can kill two people at 100m in less than five seconds, the other can't even be reloaded in five seconds and has more inaccuracy than accuracy at 100m.

It is not a law, but a mandated limitation on the Government's authority, something a government cannot do.

Had we found enough idiots in Congress and 3/4 of the legislatures to promulgate such an amendment we would have deserved the backwater status such a limitation would beget. That's why it is hard to change the Constitution; so that some damn foolish opinion of the moment is unlikely to be included as part of our governance. It does not always work (IMnsHO) as the 16th and 18th amendments indicate. We've only repealed the latter unfortunately.

As to the tech difference between a musket and an AR-15, you are correct in the practical day-to-day differences embodied. Almost all technologies of the 20th century and later represent orders of magnitude improvements in capability over those available in the latter 18th.

But the point is the amendment allowed private citizens to possess weaponry which, if used in concert by a group of like minded persons in a cause they felt strongly enough to take up arms over, COULD pose a credible counterbalance to the power and weaponry available to the central government. Then, that was the musket and the cannon. Now, it is the semi-automatic rifle, the grenade launcher, etc.

Your argument about the enhanced lethality of firearms today is based on the assumption of personal individual use. As I noted in the previous post, AR-15s for personal defense or hunting and the like ARE the wrong tools. They greatly increase the potential for some individual to harm more people through their misuse than would the weapons of Washington's era. In that you are correct and if the amendment were truly about personal weapons use for reasonable purposes then it would be obvious that firearm restrictions would be needful.

The second amendment is not, at its core, about an individual's misuse of such weaponry but about the viability of the citizenry cowing or defeating a government that has become oppressive through their concerted action.

For an outsider the last sentence seems laughable since the people collecting all the guns appear the least concerned about checking the power of a tyrannical government, and I largely consider the US an oligarchy by now anyway. I'm not questioning the good intentions of the amendment, I'm questioning the practical use of it today. It's not just about how much more powerful the government's weapons are today, it's about how easy it has become to manipulate these militia gun owners into supporting a more tyrannical approach and opposing the more democratic ones. The hardcore gun community has obviously been following fake news since at least the election of Obama and they still haven't realized it. If anything could have actually saved the US it would probably have been a decent education system. A fool with a gun is just an instrument of the tyrant in the information age.

It sounds harsh but it's actually quite sad.

This is a much more telling argument you put forward. Far too many of the persons who are acquiring firearms to be ready to take on a tyrannical government are insipid racists [that may well be redundant] or egotists who seek some sense of 'power' to salve their own self-doubts. Some of that community has been suffering from crania-inserted-rectally-syndrome for so long that they would not recognize valid news that just happened to support an opposing point of view even if it were printed on fine stationery and stapled to their gonads. I have decried self-chosen ignorance before, I will continue to do so, I will die having failed to alter the thinking of more than a few on this issue.

The damnable problem is that we have, on the whole, an excellent system for education wherein virtually anybody -- even from the most disadvantaged district -- can acquire education and earn degrees etc. As set up, the onus is on the individual to seek that education. Too many in my culture (and it is usually even worse in urban co-cultures) don't really care about education, or care about acquiring diplomas and degrees more than they do about actually learning anything. And yes, this renders far too many of them into fools and a fool with a gun is as likely to become the unknowing tool OF tyranny as they are to successfully oppose it. That comment of yours was NOT overly harsh, though it is indeed quite sad.

So, if you care to argue that the 2nd amendment, given the reality of our current existence and the vector we are on, SHOULD be amended, then that is a far more elegant argument.

Far too many gun control advocates just want to dismiss the 2nd amendment as outdated, or suggest that if the Founders had an inkling of how deadly weapons would become they would never have advocated such. As I have argued here, I believe that taking that approach to opposing the 2nd is specious, as it was never about personal firearm use per se in the first place. It was always about the ability of the citizenry to oppose the deadly force available to the government with a level of deadly force close enough in equivalency so as to serve as a check against government oppression. In that sense, I believe it to be no more outdated than is the 1st amendment or 4th amendment, which speak to equally important limitations on the powers of government to protect the rights of the individual against oppression.

Still, if you are of the opinion that government oppression is, and will remain, such a remote and unlikely occurrence that the right to keep and bear arms is functionally superfluous to prevent tyranny, and/or you feel that the ownership of high end weaponry is a source of tyranny, THEN you would be fully justified in arguing for a repeal or editing of the 2nd amendment. As noted above, assault style weaponry, multi-hundred rpm cyclic firearms, and 12.7mm ammunition is not needful for personal use for hunting and self defense.

[Pannonian]

Is there a US equivalent of Hansard that allows us to see exactly what arguments were being made at the time the 2nd amendment was debated?

[Montmorency]

I think the Hybrid interpretation of the 2nd Amendment I linked early in the thread, treating all clauses as co-equal (as we do for the other Amendments), is the more suitable and historically-responsive reading than the Scalia/NRA reading that has been promulgated since Reagan.

Although less unified than the individual and collective models, several
academics and theorists have suggested that the Second Amendment creates a
right somewhere between individual and collective approaches.5
This article advocates for a variant of this middle ground. The hybrid right herein presented
is neither completely individual nor completely collective. Rather, this article
will demonstrate the theory that the Second Amendment creates an individual
right to be a part of the collective militia group. The Second Amendment does
not create an individual right to own weapons for seemingly any lawful
purpose, as the individual rights theorists advocate, nor does it merely create a
right for states to raise and arm militias, as the collective rights theorists
advocate. Instead, the hybrid model places the right to insist that the state be
allowed to maintain an armed, well-regulated militia with the individual
citizens themselves.

You can't call yourself a Constitutional purist if 'all the text of the Constitution is equal, but some text is more equal than other'.

[Husar]

Purposefully difficult. They wanted it changeable, but not at a whim. We've adopted 27 amendments, 17 of those after the "Bill of Rights." One amendment specifically repealed a previous amendment, so it is possible to amend an amendment so to speak (since, having been ratified, the previous amendment is deemed part of the whole text, the whole text being amenable as per Article V of the Constitution). While some may try to assert that previous amendments "supersede" later amendments, the history of the Constitution and its amendments does not support this. Once amended, it is the amended text that embodies the mandate of the Constitution, not the preceding version.

Yes, when I said almost impossible I meant given the status quo. If a lot of conservative voters were to get someone else elected because they really want change in that direction (making the NRA donations useless or even counterproductive for getting into office), then there could be a change. But I guess even the people who are for a slightly harsher procurement do not care enough to replace their candidate over it.

Your argument about the enhanced lethality of firearms today is based on the assumption of personal individual use. As I noted in the previous post, AR-15s for personal defense or hunting and the like ARE the wrong tools. They greatly increase the potential for some individual to harm more people through their misuse than would the weapons of Washington's era. In that you are correct and if the amendment were truly about personal weapons use for reasonable purposes then it would be obvious that firearm restrictions would be needful.

The second amendment is not, at its core, about an individual's misuse of such weaponry but about the viability of the citizenry cowing or defeating a government that has become oppressive through their concerted action.

But that's really neither here nor there, because that very same amendment is used to justify the personal use. And it's not quite why I made the point. I made the point because I wanted to say that the founding fathers could not foresee the abundance of such weapons and their devastating use in civilian life back when they made the constitution. So as with many other old documents, one has to ask how useful the document is now that the circumstances are completely changed.

But if the document is really about the use against the government, then it should be no problem at all to mandate that the guns need to be safely locked away where children cannot access them (and adults cannot just grab them quickly in a heated fight). That children cannot use them or buy them. That only trustworthy, upstanding citizens can buy them and so on. You know, like in many European countries for example. Except that you might keep somewhat more lethal stuff around with the given restrictions. The difference between needing a second to grab the gun from a drawer and five minutes to get it from a gun locker in the cellar or garage is not very relevant when it comes to fighting the government, but can make someone cool down a bit before he shoots his wife for example.

The damnable problem is that we have, on the whole, an excellent system for education wherein virtually anybody -- even from the most disadvantaged district -- can acquire education and earn degrees etc. As set up, the onus is on the individual to seek that education. Too many in my culture (and it is usually even worse in urban co-cultures) don't really care about education, or care about acquiring diplomas and degrees more than they do about actually learning anything. And yes, this renders far too many of them into fools and a fool with a gun is as likely to become the unknowing tool OF tyranny as they are to successfully oppose it. That comment of yours was NOT overly harsh, though it is indeed quite sad.
[...]
Still, if you are of the opinion that government oppression is, and will remain, such a remote and unlikely occurrence that the right to keep and bear arms is functionally superfluous to prevent tyranny, and/or you feel that the ownership of high end weaponry is a source of tyranny, THEN you would be fully justified in arguing for a repeal or editing of the 2nd amendment. As noted above, assault style weaponry, multi-hundred rpm cyclic firearms, and 12.7mm ammunition is not needful for personal use for hunting and self defense.

Well, I'm not sure about the school system, education is a tough subject because one person's science is another person's indoctrination. In my case I was at a school that prides itself for it's humanism and we were even taught about some press photo changes to put politicians in a better light for example. So certainly not an evil government agenda, more of a think for yourself, consider the facts, be aware kind of education. But even that has been turned upside down by people who think that "think for yourself" means you have to question every fact or knowledge that is publicly available, as in medicine is a fraud, the entire press is fake, schools turn you into sheeple (some of them may actually do that nowadays) and the government consists of lizard people anyway.

In Germany we require a minimum of 10 years of education by a government-approved school, otherwise the police may drag a child to school. Not a perfect system either, but I guess fewer people fall through the cracks.
In the US it often sounds like the only way to get a good education is to have a lot of money to spend on it since the public schools are often underfunded and highly problematic, so I'm not sure if everybody really has a good chance.

As for the functionality of arms to defeat tyrannic government, it would seem unlikely. A nation-wide strike might be scarier for the government. The development of crowd control weaponry, that is basically designed to make a large crowd of people unable to act anymore, I'm not sure a few personal firearms would be of much use. It'*s hard to aim a gun at a government agent while a sound cannon is turning your brain into pudding. The government doesn't even need deadly force to keep a lot of people in check if you consider such new and "under development" technology plus drones and so on. Robocop may end up being the one oppressing the people in the future. The means to produce him are already owned by the ones controlling the government.

Maybe better than giving the people ownership of peashooters and bigger peashooters would be giving them more actual control over the government and to that end distributing the wealth more equally. There's not just one way to stop a tyranny from developing and the current way the US employs is clearly failing.

[Montmorency]

To sensationalize something I said a few posts ago: Gun nuts are the bad guys with guns.\

EDIT: Meanwhile, gun rights may be gaining popularity in the Czech Republic, putting it in conflict with the EU. An attempt at amending the constitution to increase gun rights narrowly failed recently. Something to follow.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_la...Czech_Republic
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...wnership-laws/

[spmetla]

In the US it often sounds like the only way to get a good education is to have a lot of money to spend on it since the public schools are often underfunded and highly problematic, so I'm not sure if everybody really has a good chance.

Most public schools give a good chance for success but the major factor is the drive of the individual student. Part of the success of the private school system is that parents putting kids in those schools care about education to some extent. Whether or not the student has that personal drive there is probably more of an emphasis by those parents that they better not waste the money spent on the private school.
I did public schools from 2nd grade on and went to my state university (University of Hawaii at Manoa). My experience was mostly good, my opinion of my fellow students has up to university been rather low. There were no shortage of students that had their parents drive them hard or were rewarded for good grades by extra allowance and as a result did well. Sadly most students were just doing the minimum to pass or to get into their first choice college. If students wanted help getting scholarships, wanted to attend Advanced Placement (AP) or Honors classes those were available but enough that could have attended chose not to just so they could get easy As and Bs in lower level courses.

Changing our attitude toward education is certainly overdue but how to do that in such a decentralized system in which the federal government has very little say in what is taught or what the standards are.

[Fragony]

It should be perfectly fine to be mediorcre at everything, it's just too much to ask from someone to be good at everything.

[ConjurerDragon]

It should be perfectly fine to be mediorcre at everything, it's just too much to ask from someone to be good at everything.

mediocre

[Fragony]

mediocre

English isn't my first language can I please make mistakes, I can make mistakes in 8 languages how about you

[ConjurerDragon]

English isn't my first language can I please make mistakes, I can make mistakes in 8 languages how about you

Exactly, as it is too much to ask from someone to be good at everything and it should be perfectly fine to be mediocre at everything. Just as you wanted and you are already living your dream. I did not even expect that you writing mediocre wrong was a mistake but a public statement to emphasize your view on society and learning

[Fragony]

It was really just a mistake but I like the way you conjure

[Husar]

Most public schools give a good chance for success but the major factor is the drive of the individual student. Part of the success of the private school system is that parents putting kids in those schools care about education to some extent. Whether or not the student has that personal drive there is probably more of an emphasis by those parents that they better not waste the money spent on the private school.
I did public schools from 2nd grade on and went to my state university (University of Hawaii at Manoa). My experience was mostly good, my opinion of my fellow students has up to university been rather low. There were no shortage of students that had their parents drive them hard or were rewarded for good grades by extra allowance and as a result did well. Sadly most students were just doing the minimum to pass or to get into their first choice college. If students wanted help getting scholarships, wanted to attend Advanced Placement (AP) or Honors classes those were available but enough that could have attended chose not to just so they could get easy As and Bs in lower level courses.

Changing our attitude toward education is certainly overdue but how to do that in such a decentralized system in which the federal government has very little say in what is taught or what the standards are.

You're preaching to the wrong one here, I was and still am a terrible student if you take any common measure such as grades or speed of completion. I still don't think that my education was a failure. I don't think that an education that is 90% memorizing things by force, having a lot of stress and rushing through as fast as possible to make as much money as possible raises wise voters. What it does is raise a lot of (but not only) selfish people who burn out at age 40 and realize at age 60 that they only worked 60 hours a week to make others rich as the next financial meltdown evaporates their entire private retirement fund.
And yes, a decentralized education system is weird, but somehow it is usually still centralized enough that the schools and teachers cannot just improve on their teaching because some bureaucracy tells them how to do it. Or that's how it seems to be here.

It should be perfectly fine to be mediorcre at everything, it's just too much to ask from someone to be good at everything.

Actually, I fully agree with you here. It's the same as with everybody being able to become rich. Mediocre is where most people are, so if everybody is a millionaire, butter will cost ten thousand of whatever currency you're using. It's the same with schools. If everybody gets an A, then the guy trying to find the best people to hire will only see a lot of mediocre people and it becomes impossible to stand out in a positive way. In absolute terms it can still be a good thing as everyone will likely meet the standard that is required, it's just that it leads to people raising the standard over time. With money that's called inflation. In the Middle Ages it made you a social elite to be able to read and write, today it's the bare minimum.
That said it is not and should not be wrong to excell or to achieve more, but it should also be perfectly fine to be average or even below average because the only way that noone can be below average is if noone is above it either...it's called mathematics.

[Fragony]

It's part of the problem I think, not the guns but the pressure. America is a pretty competitive place with some things, not all can cope with that. It must feel pretty bad to not have a date at prom-night for example. In another highly competitive country, Japan, I forgot what it's called but they simply lock theirselves up in their room to never get out of it again. Be all you can be is nonsense, there is no need to excell, ok will do The only talent I have is kissing, that's good because I like kissing. Pretty good dancer as well.

[Husar]

It's part of the problem I think, not the guns but the pressure. America is a pretty competitive place with some things, not all can cope with that. It must feel pretty bad to not have a date at prom-night for example. In another highly competitive country, Japan, I forgot what it's called but they simply lock theirselves up in their room to never get out of it again. Be all you can be is nonsense, there is no need to excell, ok will do The only talent I have is kissing, that's good because I like kissing. Pretty good dancer as well.

Half an agreement. You can't just take the guns entirely out of the picture. It's not like capitalist European countries are entirely uncompetitive or don't put pressure on people. And the higher pressure in the US does not explain an increase in gun deaths per pop that is one-hundred-fold or thereabouts.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well, I'm not sure about the school system, education is a tough subject because one person's science is another person's indoctrination. In my case I was at a school that prides itself for it's humanism and we were even taught about some press photo changes to put politicians in a better light for example. So certainly not an evil government agenda, more of a think for yourself, consider the facts, be aware kind of education. But even that has been turned upside down by people who think that "think for yourself" means you have to question every fact or knowledge that is publicly available, as in medicine is a fraud, the entire press is fake, schools turn you into sheeple (some of them may actually do that nowadays) and the government consists of lizard people anyway.

In Germany we require a minimum of 10 years of education by a government-approved school, otherwise the police may drag a child to school. Not a perfect system either, but I guess fewer people fall through the cracks.
In the US it often sounds like the only way to get a good education is to have a lot of money to spend on it since the public schools are often underfunded and highly problematic, so I'm not sure if everybody really has a good chance.

Oh heavens, if only throwing money at the problem would work. THAT is something yanks know how to do.

One case in point is the District of Columbia. Of our 51 states (we seem to count DC, but not PR or AS or the American Pacific Islands for these lists), the District is 50th in quality of education but 3rd in spending per pupil (and that includes Alaska, which is #2, where they have to pay bonus money to get teachers to go or to stay). While there are some poorer states such as Louisiana wherein you could argue our schools are underfunded, that is mostly not the case.

I'm pretty sure a lot of them are MIS-funded and I am certain that what we are doing in many of our urban population centers is not the right mix of funding and doctrine. We are not doing a good job, on the whole, of encouraging education in some of those population groups.

Throwing more money at education will not matter until we are throwing it at the correct targets within that milieu.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Is there a US equivalent of Hansard that allows us to see exactly what arguments were being made at the time the 2nd amendment was debated?

I think this fellow's book has a pretty good listing of the contemporaneous sources available in his table of contents, but I did not see the texts in a search aside from Federalist 46 and some of the 1813 SCOTUS decision. The latter is almost a 25 year gap from the Constitutional Convention.

[Fragony]

Half an agreement. You can't just take the guns entirely out of the picture. It's not like capitalist European countries are entirely uncompetitive or don't put pressure on people. And the higher pressure in the US does not explain an increase in gun deaths per pop that is one-hundred-fold or thereabouts.

Guns can't be taken out of the equation, but they are available here is well. I was horrible to some when I was at school, I didn't even realise it, people who are picked laugh when they are really crying, lots of harmless jokes can accumilate. But I'm fooling myself if I just don't admit I have been really cruel. There is no defence against it, I really regret being like that but it's too late for apoligies. That kind of behaviour should be noticed earlier, I think I wouldn't have been like that if I understood what I was doing.

[Montmorency]

Oh heavens, if only throwing money at the problem would work. THAT is something yanks know how to do.

One case in point is the District of Columbia. Of our 51 states (we seem to count DC, but not PR or AS or the American Pacific Islands for these lists), the District is 50th in quality of education but 3rd in spending per pupil (and that includes Alaska, which is #2, where they have to pay bonus money to get teachers to go or to stay). While there are some poorer states such as Louisiana wherein you could argue our schools are underfunded, that is mostly not the case.

I'm pretty sure a lot of them are MIS-funded and I am certain that what we are doing in many of our urban population centers is not the right mix of funding and doctrine. We are not doing a good job, on the whole, of encouraging education in some of those population groups.

Throwing more money at education will not matter until we are throwing it at the correct targets within that milieu.

Isn't looking at averages and per-capita spending misleading? What's the distribution of the spending? Could DC be skewed toward a number of very rich schools?

I went to a public high school that is endowed more like a University than a typical high school. It's not the norm.

But it is right to say that well-funded schools alone can't bolster a penurious, dispirited, and dilapidated community or neighborhood, especially given that so much (most?) childhood education must occur outside, complementarily to, the school. Well-funded schools are necessary but not sufficient.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Isn't looking at averages and per-capita spending misleading? What's the distribution of the spending? Could DC be skewed toward a number of very rich schools?

I went to a public high school that is endowed more like a University than a typical high school. It's not the norm.

But it is right to say that well-funded schools alone can't bolster a penurious, dispirited, and dilapidated community or neighborhood, especially given that so much (most?) childhood education must occur outside, complementarily to, the school. Well-funded schools are necessary but not sufficient.

Expenditures were for public schools; as was quality.

DC has been in a bad quality rut for decades despite the money. That is true in more places than just DC.

I was just pointing out to Husar that money was clearly not, in and of itself, the problem. That was not a "code" by me to suggest spending less on education. There may be yahoos like that out there, but not my man here.

[Montmorency]

Expenditures were for public schools; as was quality.

DC has been in a bad quality rut for decades despite the money. That is true in more places than just DC.

I was just pointing out to Husar that money was clearly not, in and of itself, the problem. That was not a "code" by me to suggest spending less on education. There may be yahoos like that out there, but not my man here.

I was referring to public. My challenge was about the distribution of spending within the public school system (between districts, within districts), beyond the thread scope.

On-topic, what is your opinion of the hybrid formulation that the Operative Clause ("the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed") specifies an individual right operative within the purpose specified in the Prefatory Clause ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State")? In other words, an individual right to participate in defense of the collective. Don't confuse this with the "collective" interpretation where the militia is conceived in terms of its bureaucratic organization, which then maintains the right to dole out weapons to members. In this hybrid reading, a robust right to bear arms for any personal purposes such as sport or protection does not emerge from the 2nd Amendment (though one could argue something from the 9th Amendment).

While keeping in mind that it is incorrect to simply identify "militia" with "everybody", as pointed out in this article and the words of George Mason. The militia is whoever the state (or State) designates it to be. That it was the whole body of able-bodied men in the Revolutionary era did not imply that the militia could not be specified some other way in the future - indeed, that's exactly what some Framers feared in giving the federal government warmaking and mustering powers, that it could directly or indirectly neutralize the sub-federal collective defense. The important bit wasn't that individuals could own guns to resist the federal government, but that militias would not be deprived of the wherewithal (which is, individuals with guns and the opportunity to drill en masse) to resist central oppression.

The real interpretative question today then becomes, how do the purposes and organization of the National Guard affect the protected credible purposes of private gun ownership? A right to keep and bear AR-15s would then seem to be conditioned according to the usefulness of recruits having individual experience with AR-15s, or more broadly an infantryperson's Main Battle Rifle. That's an empirical and doctrinal question, probably not one the courts have encountered, to be investigated and argued. But it's all abstract for the next century, or forever, because the modern jurisprudence is set, and on matters of this breadth it changes grindingly, if ever.


+++
+++
+++


A few weeks ago, I had a thoroughly defeatist resignation toward the "reality" of gun regulation in America. 'It just has to be a low-priority issue, right? Too much to do against too relentless an opposition. So a few thousand extra lives each year are lost or damaged than might otherwise be - it's the price of doing business. Far more lives could be preserved with comprehensive legislation on health care or climate change. Even second-order violence in Mexico and Central America, the very power of the cartels, due to trafficking of American arms, it's not as if Americans will stand up for Mexican lives when they won't for American lives... Guns aren't a pressing issue; let the clingers have 'em. Even if it were available, could I really support expending the massive political capital necessary to launch a few token edicts?'

I have been following the progress of the Parkland/MSD students over the past week. I must admit to feeling uplifted. There's just something about high-school camaraderie. I was a big sack of in comparison.

They are organizing a grassroots movement with millions in donations.

They have stood up to the political class in voice and in person and online.

They are planning a March on Washington on March 24th and a national school walkout on April 20 (hopefully the Women's March people won't dilute the effort with their separate walkout).

They have received the loathsome and entirely routinized far-right conspiracy machine with iron bones.


Emma Gonzalez, David Hogg, Cameron Kasky, Sarah Chadwick, are some of their names.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

No matter how inelegant this metaphor may be under the circumstances, it's the blunt fact of the matter: the Parkland students are the spear's tip of reform. They can really lead the fight, and to great effect.

But time is not on their side.

They are just a few, and now they're returning to school from their mid-winter break. The rest of their lives, and ours, calls. The work will build up, and their attention (and the affirmation from the attention of others) will decline. The summer will be a reprieve, but then they scatter throughout the country, to college, or else remain behind to continue in high school. The world roils elsewhere and everywhere.

Their passion and their faith in each other are their limited assets. The gun maximalists are meanwhile prefigured never to let up in their agitation. Unless the students can get continuous support and input they will be a crack in the wall at best, a flash in the pan at worst. So the first thing is for someone to sustain and encourage them, right?

They gleam now, but without the efforts of their peers and fellows the wood will splinter, the steel crack, the arms grow heavy, and the spirits sour. As the shields to their backs, we cannot allow their will and ardor to be eroded too readily. The work is for a long time, and it's a heavy burden to handle. That's the work of a thousand hands.


We also have to refine the priorities and reveal the long-term goals. The students should understand that improving background checks and raising the minimum purchasing age are peripheral issues, though perhaps worthy on their own. Registration, licensing, and training/certification are the big tickets, and momentum needs to be maintained first through state compacts. Concealed carry is a thorny issue, since this is one of the most active lobbies of habitual gun users; while many of those who aver in the need to provide for their self-defense in this way, and unconstrained, are a little dangerous and unhinged, there is little direct and immediate value in pursuing the matter throughout the states (let alone Congress).

Voluntary confiscation and generous buybacks, with permanent destruction of the mechanism - private activist groups can accomplish this in parallel with the government - will be one of the first critical methods available to reduce gun ownership and concentration. Assuming no significant shifts in the jurisprudence, policymakers will need to craft carefully according to the confines of stare decisis. Semi-automatic ownership can be restricted to some degree, yet likely cannot be banned. But the People have one surefire antidote, and that is by the life-bond of the gun manufacturers to the government. The NRA is just the bodyman of the manufacturers, and should be bypassed entirely. If the DOD and FBI, and with some nudging the local police departments too, could make a show against reckless business practices in their contracting, market corrections would whip the supply-side into some shape. This has precedent; we need commitment.


Keep your eyes on the prize, the program. The Program is nothing less than the continuous reduction of the absolute number of serviceable firearms on American soil, and ultimately the world. If in 50 years there are fewer than 100 million extra-occupational firearms in America (police reform is relevant, but another topic for another day), with the overwhelming majority confined to:

1. Shooting clubs and ranges, for rent on premises
2. Private collections, deactivated or otherwise well-secured
3. Hunters and rural dwellers

Then we may be pleased. We can envision the positive externalities. Gun deaths will decline, yes, but there's more. Guns will preoccupy less of the nation's consciousness. Concealed-carry, whatever other (if any) restrictions we may devise, will wither of its own accord. Criminals will be less reactive and nervous, and police less aggressive and paranoid. Guns will be perceived with less frivolity and mythology, with more caution and respect. Fewer will interpret it as a core aspect of masculinity and Americanism. Fewer will build their identities around guns. This is the feedback that will sustain the politics of regulation.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

So what do I do? I had this post written up over a day ago, but I went to bed and awoke with no special sensation. I even felt a little awkward reading the thing back. I wish I could have a more consistent experience and resolve.

[AE Bravo]

It's part of the problem I think, not the guns but the pressure. America is a pretty competitive place with some things, not all can cope with that. It must feel pretty bad to not have a date at prom-night for example. In another highly competitive country, Japan, I forgot what it's called but they simply lock theirselves up in their room to never get out of it again. Be all you can be is nonsense, there is no need to excell, ok will do The only talent I have is kissing, that's good because I like kissing. Pretty good dancer as well.

I don't buy that. Plus, Japan is different because suicidal personalities don't off themselves at the expense of other people. Judging by how less developed countries are faring in this regard I would add to what others posted that a 1) detoriarating national code of ethics that the country failed to instill in people at a young age and 2) the lack of restraint on the exchange of info in these types of societies play a major role. Social media in the US lacks censorship and is a shyt-posting planet deeply divided by partisan bloc mentalities. Countries with express limitations on press freedoms and access to information are the least likely to be effected by this. I am no expert but it is safe to assume that these shooters spend more time on the internet because they don't have friends at an age where it's unsafe to live without them.

Of course guns too but the immediate answer is a superficial one as well. This is a national-psyche issue.

[Fragony]

We don't disagree. we are basicly saying the same thing. There is a difference of course, in Japan they just shut down, in western countries they want to tear down the world. Common dominater is that some people are really unhappy and simply can't get along with the way of things. Not everybody can stand the cruelty inherent to social interaction, people will always hurt what's vulnerable. That is really a miserable thing to do but it comes kinda naturally. I am guilty of doing that myself, I grew kinder once I realised I really wasn't all that nice to others. I think these things can be stopped before they happen, not always, but everybody knows it if someone doesn't resonate all that well with the way of things and needs some help. Very small gestures of kindness go a long way with someone who is used to cruelty

[drone]

They are planning a March on Washington on March 24th and a national school walkout on April 20 (hopefully the Women's March people won't dilute the effort with their separate walkout).

The stoners will be happy about that second one. "Thanks for supporting our cause!", "Um, yeah, right on man"

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The stoners will be happy about that second one. "Thanks for supporting our cause!", "Um, yeah, right on man"

Are they so stoned that they cannot even recognize that they have already won? All of the remaining dominos will fall soon (and should. Refraining from MJ use should be your choice).

[Husar]

Are they so stoned that they cannot even recognize that they have already won?

In a way the Stoners are winning the "firefights", yes...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Stoner

In 1955, Stoner completed initial design work on the revolutionary AR-10, a lightweight (7.25 lbs.) selective-fire infantry rifle in 7.62×51mm NATO caliber. The AR-10 was submitted for rifle evaluation trials to the US Army's Aberdeen Proving Ground late in 1956. In comparison with competing rifle designs previously submitted for evaluation, the AR-10 was smaller, easier to fire in automatic, and much lighter. However it arrived very late in the testing cycle, and the army rejected the AR-10 in favor of the more conventional T44, which became the M14. The AR-10's design was later licensed to the Dutch firm of Artillerie Inrichtingen, who produced the AR-10 until 1960 for sale to various military forces.[3]


The AR-15 rifle, derived from Stoner's original design.
At the request of the U.S. military, Stoner's chief assistant, Robert Fremont and Jim Sullivan designed the AR-15 from the basic AR-10 model, scaling it down to fire the small-caliber .223 Remington cartridge, slightly enlarged to meet the minimum Army penetration requirements. The AR-15 was later adopted by United States military forces as the M16 rifle.[3][4]

What people want is to get the Stoners off the streets and it seems he may have wanted that, too:
http://www.guns.com/2016/06/20/did-e...-ar-15-design/

In an interview with NBC News, the family of Eugene Stoner said that the inventor of the AR-15 would be horrified to know that his design is being used as a killing machine. The family spoke on condition of anonymity and didn’t make any calls for bans or other changes to U.S. law. They claimed that Stoner was a hunter and skeet shooter, but that he did not own one of his creations and intended it only for military sales.

I know the article goes on making a terrible comparison between civilian massacres and war, but hey, given the URL I'm not surprised.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

In a way the Stoners are winning the "firefights", yes...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Stoner





What people want is to get the Stoners off the streets and it seems he may have wanted that, too:
http://www.guns.com/2016/06/20/did-e...-ar-15-design/



I know the article goes on making a terrible comparison between civilian massacres and war, but hey, given the URL I'm not surprised.

How dare you redirect my joke back to the point of the thread!?! What is the Backroom coming to?

[HopAlongBunny]

A view from Canada:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/flori...ting-1.4552301

Summation: America is doomed to see mass murders, essentially forever

[Fragony]

Alas, another murder with AK's, shooter is only 16, they kill eachother for a pair of Prada's. I don't mind it if criminals kill eachother, Penoza or Mocromaffia, motorgangs, I don't care, but automatic weapens are really easy to get. Just saying.