Newtown School Shootings

[Hooahguy]

Bearing in mind gun regulation during the time of the founding fathers and it clearly states about state militia, American's typically think the 2nd amendment means something other than what it actually means.

To quote,

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.

There seem to be two parts to this: the militia part and the gun-owning part.

Now, back then, the militia was just regular townfolk like the Minutemen with no real training. And back then, there were no National Guard armories, they kept their weapons at home, so back then it would make sense for the two to go hand in hand.

Though today, well, people will interpret it as they will.

[rvg]

Bearing in mind gun regulation during the time of the founding fathers and it clearly states about state militia, American's typically think the 2nd amendment means something other than what it actually means.

You have no expertise on the U.S. Constitution to state whether the "typical" American is correct or not.

I must say that I'm rather fed up with people living across the pond telling us Americans what our own Constitution is supposed to mean.

[Papewaio]

You have no expertise on the U.S. Constitution to state whether the "typical" American is correct or not.

I must say that I'm rather fed up with people living across the pond telling us Americans what our own Constitution is supposed to mean.

Is the Consitution infallible?

[rvg]

Is the Consitution infallible?

The fallibility of the U.S. Constitution is contingent upon the will of the American people. Nothing else and nobody else matters in this regard.

[Papewaio]

The fallibility of the U.S. Constitution is contingent upon the will of the American people. Nothing else and nobody else matters in this regard.

Well based on that criteria, I suggest you get a bigger boat arsenal.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You have no expertise on the U.S. Constitution to state whether the "typical" American is correct or not.

I must say that I'm rather fed up with people living across the pond telling us Americans what our own Constitution is supposed to mean.

Well, it was written by Englishmen, not Americans.

The principle in question concerns the use of Foreign mercenaries to enforce Executive power, and the mustering of troops by the elected assembly, rather than the use of Royal retainers - I don';t think there's anything in that amendment that points towards the right to form private "militias", quite the opposite.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You should see that the point is that a citizen-army protects the state, which is not the same as an individual toppling the state.

For God's sake - if you want to have guns enforce the same rules on civilians as you do on the military.

[rvg]

Well...

There we go again... yet another armchair Constitutional expert has come to enlighten the savages.

Our right to bear arms has been repeatedly affirmed by the highest court of the land. Your input is thus irrelevant. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

[Xiahou]

What we should really have is gender control, rather than gun control. Virtually all spree killers are men. Almost all violent crime is perpetrated by men. Therefore, less men = less violent crime.

Who's with me?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There we go again... yet another armchair Constitutional expert has come to enlighten the savages.

Our right to bear arms has been repeatedly affirmed by the highest court of the land. Your input is thus irrelevant. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Have you ever considered that the "Right to Bear" arms is only justified and affirmed, but not defined?

I'd wager I have a better grasp of the Enlightenment philosophy that underpins your Constitution than you do.

[rvg]

Have you ever considered that the "Right to Bear" arms is only justified and affirmed, but not defined?

It's defined just fine by the Federal and State laws.

I'd wager I have a better grasp of the Enlightenment philosophy that underpins your Constitution than you do.

Wager or not, paid professionals i.e. the SCotUS over the course of the centuries were very clear and very consistent on what the right to bear arms means, and what constitutes an infringement of that right. Who are you compared to those people? Who are you to contradict them?

[PanzerJaeger]

Wow. I visited the local gun store this afternoon to pull the trigger (pun intended) on a SCAR-H, as it is the only 'modern sporting rifle' currently available on the market that I do not own and I do want to risk missing out if the authoritarians get their way. The lines were incredible. I've never seen anything like it. The gun I dropped $2500 on eight hours ago is now going for $3500 and higher on auction sites.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Wow. I visited the local gun store this afternoon to pull the trigger (pun intended) on a SCAR-H, as it is the only 'modern sporting rifle' currently available on the market that I do not own and I do want to risk missing out if the authoritarians get their way. The lines were incredible. I've never seen anything like it. The gun I dropped $2500 on eight hours ago is now going for $3500 and higher on auction sites.

I'm going into South Shore Sportsman first thing to put money down on an M&P 15 tomorrow. Not a single store on LI has any AR lowers or full rifles. I don't know it will ever come in, but it's a necessity. Buy one now if you ever want one. Most stores didn't even have Ruger m-14's in stock - which are a staple.

[ICantSpellDawg]

What we should really have is gender control, rather than gun control. Virtually all spree killers are men. Almost all violent crime is perpetrated by men. Therefore, less men = less violent crime.

Who's with me?

I wish that they would just try all of these things at once. Maybe somebody would do something. Erosion of rights is the way forward for them. They'll get to that in time

[ICantSpellDawg]

Have you ever considered that the "Right to Bear" arms is only justified and affirmed, but not defined?

I'd wager I have a better grasp of the Enlightenment philosophy that underpins your Constitution than you do.

Which right is specifically defined rather than merely affirmed in our bill of rights?

Honestly, I'd say that "Infringement" as it is meant is clearly occurring. "Act so as to limit or undermine".


People couldn't say lewd things in public at the nations foundation.

[Catiline]

It's defined just fine by the Federal and State laws.


Wager or not, paid professionals i.e. the SCotUS over the course of the centuries were very clear and very consistent on what the right to bear arms means, and what constitutes an infringement of that right. Who are you compared to those people? Who are you to contradict them?

It's been clear and consistent on individual rights since 2008. It's only if you willfully misread the 2nd amendment that you can separate the right to bear arms from the well regulated militia.

But hey, you've got a couple of handwritten versions of the clause with some wonky punctuation to go on trying to justify it, so knock yourselves out.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well, it was written by Englishmen, not Americans.

The principle in question concerns the use of Foreign mercenaries to enforce Executive power, and the mustering of troops by the elected assembly, rather than the use of Royal retainers - I don';t think there's anything in that amendment that points towards the right to form private "militias", quite the opposite.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You should see that the point is that a citizen-army protects the state, which is not the same as an individual toppling the state.

For God's sake - if you want to have guns enforce the same rules on civilians as you do on the military.

Well regulated from that time meant well equipped. The whole militia part (and the founders considered all adult men to be part of the militia) displays their reasoning behind the right. It is not a prerequisite (that people must be in an official state militia to bear arms) for the right. The Supreme Court of the United States agrees with me. You are wrong.

Every one of the foreigners opining on how our constitution doesn't mean what we Americans have decided, legally and as a society, it means, is wrong.

The idea that this tragedy requires legislative action is a fallacy in itself. While the nation has seen more mass shootings lately (ie: three) than usual, their extreme rarity should preclude any broad policy shift. Not every tragic loss of life requires the federal government to wrap society in another layer of bubble wrap.

This is very true, and a point that bears repeating. The government should not be a parent, not least because it can not be. There is risk in life.

But alcohol isn't explicitly designed to kill people, where as hand guns and assault rifles explicitly and solely are.

Yes, some guns are designed to be effective at killing people. But if someone is trying to kill you, such a tool is exactly what you want. Guns make it much easier for people to defend themselves from acts of evil.

It's only if you willfully misread the 2nd amendment that you can separate the right to bear arms from the well regulated militia.

Please do go on about how you better understand the legal history than SCOTUS does.

CR

[Catiline]

Urgh.

Regulated means equipped according to rules. It doesn't mean just equipped.

It's been comprehensively demonstrated that guns simply make it much more likely you'll get shot. Statistically they don't defend you, all they do is escalate situations.

We should have one prohibition back, and that's the 'No gun debates @ .org' one.

[Papewaio]

How long would it take to get the law changed that weapons are deemed unlawful? Wouldn't it take weeks to months to get it through, signed off and even then it would have a set start date before being in effect.

Isn't it a case of drumming up artificial scarcity (a common marketing technique) to create demand and push up margins?

[Catiline]

It's nearly Xmas Pape - don't you want a SCAR under the tree? They're running out you know.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I really don't get why people feel the need to defend the current constitutional interpretation. The originalist interpretation is is that we need people to be armed because we need a militia for protection. We don't need a militia anymore, thus we don't need to guarantee everyone a gun. That's what the damn thing says. Arguing that the right to bear arms is tied to the natural right for an individual's self defense is an argument that stands on its own. Trying to pretend that that argument is what the 2nd Amendment argues is revisionist like a vast amount of other SCOTUS rulings.

The interpretation was made to fit the current argument by pro-gun groups, not the other way around.

EDIT: You thanked this post Catiline, but I want to make this clear, this is not an anti-gun post.

[rory_20_uk]

It appears Americans kill as many as expected, although given the rates of killings and gun ownership are so disperate from civilised countries there is some potential for error.

The most important thing is Americans concentrate on killing each other and give the rest of the world a break.

[ICantSpellDawg]

There is scarcity right now because it couldn't have come at a worse time. Most of the stores may have been sold out of these things to begin with for christmas. panzer said that he wants a gun and happened to be at a store that was packed. In ny, where I live, we have democratic assembly, democratic governor and republicans like Pete King on gun control. Act now or forever hold your peace. New legislation here will be the end of the ar15. Who knows, maybe this will kick start the economy. A lot of these sales may not have happened.

[rvg]

The most important thing is Americans concentrate on killing each other and give the rest of the world a break.

You have your monarchy, we have our guns. Let's keep it that way. After all, we don't go around suggesting that you get rid of the Monarchy, even though a good rifle is far more useful than a good king.

[Greyblades]

You have your monarchy, we have our guns. Let's keep it that way. After all, we don't go around suggesting that you get rid of the Monarchy, even though a good rifle is far more useful than a good king.

Well that's just silly.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Which right is specifically defined rather than merely affirmed in our bill of rights?

Honestly, I'd say that "Infringement" as it is meant is clearly occurring. "Act so as to limit or undermine".


People couldn't say lewd things in public at the nations foundation.

Yes, but what is being infringed - what is the right to bear arms? Is it an unrestricted right, or is it in fact a limited right? You don't think that the right to life is infringed by judicial execution, do you? Is the right to personal liberty infringed by prison?

If they were you would consider them repugnant, but I know you don't.

Something to consider - this "Right to bear arms" does not define the type of arms borne, it can be interpreted several ways. One interpretation would be that the members of Congress and the public should not be required to surrender their swords when entering the chamber or in the presence of the President, as we are in England. Or, you could interpret it as the right to own a tank and rocket artillery.

Well regulated from that time meant well equipped. The whole militia part (and the founders considered all adult men to be part of the militia) displays their reasoning behind the right. It is not a prerequisite (that people must be in an official state militia to bear arms) for the right. The Supreme Court of the United States agrees with me. You are wrong.

Nope - "Well Regulated" means regularly mustered and trained by the Civil Authorities - in ~1800 the standard arm was a musket, so a militia could equip itself, more or less, provided it purchased muskets of acceptable quality and the correct bore size.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well that's just silly.

It's also not true, at all - one good King is infinitely more valuable than one good rifle, and the Americans are always telling us we should be a Republic like them because it is teh awesome.

[Ronin]

I know I have suggested this here before, but since it is clear that you people can´t come to an understanding about what some strangely worded phrase from 2 centuries ago means, may I suggest that you...I don´t know.....write a new one?

sit down and write in plain English what you mean....(use pencil)

this would save a lot of time in future discussions, it is surely worth the investment.

[Greyblades]

It's also not true, at all - one good King is infinitely more valuable than one good rifle, and the Americans are always telling us we should be a Republic like them because it is teh awesome.

I know, a good king can be better than a good gun, even better than a good president because he has spent his entire life being trained to rule, he has his entire life to do good on his country and isn't distracted with popularity contests every 4 years, a good president has 8 years maximum to get what he wants done, spent his life learning to appeal to people instead of doing the job he's supposed to do, has to spend time working on his PR and all his efforts can be undone by enough votes by the opposition. Unfortunately for every good king there's a bad king, and a bad president can be offset and kicked out of office a lot easier. Personally I kinda wish constitutional monarchy allowed the monarch to advise parliament more, would be good to have a long term perspective to compliment the elected official's short term perspectives.

[rvg]

It's also not true, at all - one good King is infinitely more valuable than one good rifle

Valuable and useless. Rifles are useful. Constitutional monarchs aren't.

and the Americans are always telling us we should be a Republic like them because it is teh awesome.

Can you point out a backroom conversation where we were urging you to abolish monarchy?

[Greyblades]

One good king can create an empire that stretched from Greece to India in under 30 years, What can one good gun do that can compare?