The Reality of Gun Control

a reply to: TheRedneck

Could you imagine if suddenly the government would force for children to be taught in schools how to properly use a gun and for what situations?...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

THere are shooting teams in 4H. But I don't think they have school sponsored shooting, unless its archery. Colorado may have more stuff like that. My nieces graduated in Denver, and were going to some school that had all sorts of cool extra curricular things, and I seem to remember something rifle related.

Somewhat related: Until the revolver was invented, the plains Comanche typically didn't use guns. The accuracy of a 1700's era rifle from horseback was pretty rotten, and they won a lot of battles by just sticking to bow and arrow. They terrorized the plains states and the Chihuahuan desert from horseback, killing entire battalions of mounted soldiers with just bows and arrows.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Yes, accuracy and higher rate of fire was with the bowmen. Only until the Henry repeating rifle proliferated was the firearm a force multiplier in those areas.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Well, the thing is the gun was a major advantage to the nations in the northeast (Iriquois, Algonquin, etc). In the wide open prairie, it just was no match for the bow.

That said, I could imagine your average bow hunter could unleash a shocking amount of bloodshed inside of night club if about 200 hogs were let loose and the door closed.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

That is madness. Think of the piglets!

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The Mongolians also had insane bow skills. Interesting that some share a lineage with the plains indigenous Americans.

youtu.be...

youtu.be...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

There would be a massive uproar against the very thing that would help the problem.

I remember talking to a guy several years ago after the schools started the DARE program. He was livid! How dare they teach his kid to avoid drugs! Just outlaw the drugs!

Maybe you make a good point. Maybe we need to start the education with the adults...

TheRedneck

a reply to: aorAki

I would argue that your insinuation that that is a bad thing is patently absurd...Having a higher firearm related mortality rate could be a good thing if it's the right people proving their mortality.

That statement alone is a loaded statement, are more officers killing more civilians with firearms, are more people committing suicide? Are more gang bangers going after each other with illegal firearms or are more citizens losing it and killing people randomly?

If more citizenry are arming themselves and legally protecting themselves that adds to the firearm mortality rate, that IMO, is a good thing. Hopefully, that will give those who would deprive others of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness pause before attempting to do so.

Jaden

a reply to: AMPTAH

LOL. They came into the job knowing what the rules were and swearing an oath to uphold them. They don't get to say, but but but, it would easier if we could just ignore those things and do THIS instead...

Sorry it don't work that way. What they choose to do is just ignore the rules and hope that people don't do anything about them ignoring the rules. Eventually though, history has repeatedly shown that people will only put up with that for so long before they do something about it.

Jaden

When it comes right down to it, when the 2nd amendment was written, people were running around with one shot flintlock pistols and muskets, and they were meant to be used by local militias to protect against corrupt government, i doubt they foresaw assault rifles that can empty a clip of 25 rounds in less than 5 seconds... the argument that rifles are needed to protect homes and families is just silly, they are called assault rifles not protection rifles.

im all for the right to bear arms but there needs to be a system in place to prevent unstable people and idiots from acquiring them.

The 2nd amendment needs to be amended, stop civilians from legally obtaining assault weapons or high caliber weapons only, but that will never happen.

Every time there is a massacre, the sales of guns rise, so do the profits of the companies rise with it along with the stock price which means that these scumbags actually make money every time some crazy flucktard decides to go on a murder spree, which is the defining reason why any kind of gun control will never happen... it's all about the Benjamins.

a reply to: Ph03n1x

Wrong, when the second amendment was written we had just broken free from a government that had trampled on the liberties of the people and had denied the citizenry arms in order to do so.

The second amendment was assurance that this new fledgling government wouldn't do the same as they were trying to get more states to join in a federation of states. The point was NOT to allow people to hunt (that was a given and more often done with traps than rifles) It was not to allow people to protect their homes from intruders or animals, (that was another given) It and the other amendments was intended to prevent the new government from going house to house and collecting ARMS. That includes pikes, swords, cannons, etc some of which were FAR more damaging than modern semi auto rifles, and preventing the citizenry from being able to stand against a government that could otherwise encroach and usurp authority that was not given to them.

Read the Declaration of Independence to get an idea of where they were coming from. The key phrase in the D of I was "the consent of the governed" The very foundation of our form of government is predicated on authority derived TO the govt. FROM The People.

The govt does not get to decide on a whim that they can take whatever authority they want.

Jaden

p.s. What do you think a 10 inch explosive canon ball launched into the side of the building in Orlando would've done to occupants?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Indigo5

You just seem to have somewhat of a chip on your shoulder when it comes to the NRA. We do apparently agree on this point: people are free to support lobbyist organizations of their choice, whether we agree with them or not.

Nothing personal, but I think you are using the "chip on your shoulder" expression incorrectly.

I once backed the NRA...now I think they are idiots. I won't bore you with the details of how Wayne LaPierre has led the NRA off course from it's original intent and direction...but any examination of their changing rhetoric and policy over the last couple decades is pretty easy to spot.

As to what the courts have determined: I again refer you to the US Constitution, Amendment 2. "Shall not be infringed." Whether or not those judges who decided to ignore that part of the document they swore to uphold is an act of treason is a subject for another thread.

What to do with someone who holds out their OWN INTERPETATION of the 2ND amendment as Gods mandate? Perhaps in a dictatorship or monarchy that would fly, but alas you are in a democracy that employs a judicial branch to interpret constitutional issues.

I have made an error, and thank you for calling out my ignorance. Mateen did indeed use a magazine-fed rifle. I was under the false impression that he used something more akin to a traditional "hunting rifle."

If it had been a hunting rifle vs. the Sig Sauer MCX, originally designed for Special Operations forces...He would have had nowhere near the death toll.

You do make a point from a practical perspective on the use of high-capacity magazines. Yet, there'should that pesky Constitution again. Why not just amend it and it can say whatever we want it to say?

So ...you believe "Arms" to be unrestricted without "regulation"??? Machine guns OK? RPG Launchers? Explosives?


What did the founders have in mind for "Arms"?...it's a big word by todays technology...but a word that should not be limited by your definition?

Simply put forth an amendment that restricts the reference to "arms" to not include certain weapons that the vast majority of the people agree with. It'll pass quickly. The only problem getting an amendment passed is when the people do not want it.

I think the 2nd amendment is fine the way it is. As is Article III of the constitution..."The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution"

The US Constitution is a living document..."Speech" now includes campaign money and the internet...etc. etc.

"Arms" can be be defined to accommodate technology in modern terms. The founding fathers did not conceive of Nuclear Weapons.

And finally, let me point out that 'suspended' is double-speak for 'denied but we might give it back.' In the case of rights,

it is not the FBI's to take for any time or to give back. It is a right and cannot be denied without due process: a court of law.

You remain confused here...Due process works both ways. Courts determine whether "Due Process" takes to long...The FBI can and should afford "Due Process"...but Dylan Roof in NC circumvented "Due Process" when the law the GOP and NRA fought for allowed him to buy the gun because he did not receive the denial (due to felony conviction) within 72 hours.


What you are arguing for is NO "Due Process"...Neither notifying the FBI that a terrorist suspect is purchasing guns nor affording them opportunity or time to explain to the courts why that purchase should be denied.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Indigo5

...but alas you are in a democracy...

Umm, the US is not and has never been a democracy. The US government is a constitutional republic.

The founding fathers did not conceive of Nuclear Weapons.

And nuclear weapons aren't considered arms by most rational people. Arms imply a personal fighting weapon, not something that need to be transported and delivered with specialized vehicles.

...allowed him to buy the gun because he did not receive the denial (due to felony conviction) within 72 hours.

How long should it take to run a background check? Cops can do it within minutes of pulling someone over but the Feds need over 3 days? And if the FBI had enough evidence they would have/should have arrested him and brought their evidence to court, not just arbitrarily deny rights because they had unfounded suspicions.

originally posted by: thov420
a reply to: Indigo5


"The founding fathers did not conceive of Nuclear Weapons"

And nuclear weapons aren't considered arms by most rational people. Arms imply a personal fighting weapon, not something that need to be transported and delivered with specialized vehicles.

You can't have it both ways...be a literalist with the constitution and then start arguing definitions as being subject to who you consider "rational people"?

"Arms" is used everyday to describe Nuclear Weapons...in treaties, public debates and in policy ...ever hear of the "Arms race"...and yet the founders didn't foresee Nuclear "arms".

So yes...we can apply rational thought as to what the founders INTENT was...Did they foresee or intend fully automatic machine guns whilst using the word arms? Cannons? Flint-locks? RPG Launchers? Semi-Automatic rifles with large capacity magazines? Swords? General explosives?

The SCOTUS is final authority for determining the same...NOT your opinion or your definition...not the NRAs...but the SCOTUS..
Article III of the constitution..."The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution"

a reply to: Indigo5

I feel like I came across kind of hostile when I replied to your post and if you took offense to that, I apologize.

The word "theory" is used everyday even though common usage vs scientific usage makes a huge difference. Arms according to Black's Law Dictionary:

What is ARMS?

Anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands, or uses in his anger, to cast at or strike at another.

Unless you're talking suitcase nukes, nobody takes a nuclear weapon into his hands; in anger, hopefully the only people able to use nukes are dictators and terrorists, presidents/prime ministers/etc. should have a second key right?

There were already self-loading rifles and "high-capacity" magazines before the Revolutionary War. I want to believe that the FF took great deliberation into the words they chose, but I really don't know. I'm willing to admit the founding documents (Federalist papers and Anti-federalist papers and probably things I don't even know about) are on my to read list at the moment.

And finally, any response to points 1 and 3 of my post?

a reply to: Indigo5

Nothing personal, but I think you are using the "chip on your shoulder" expression incorrectly.

Really? I thought I used it correctly. In any case, I do personally agree that the NRA has changed course, which makes me happy I have never been a member.

What to do with someone who holds out their OWN INTERPETATION of the 2ND amendment as Gods mandate? Perhaps in a dictatorship or monarchy that would fly, but alas you are in a democracy that employs a judicial branch to interpret constitutional issues.

Again, really? What do you think "not infringed" means?

So ...you believe "Arms" to be unrestricted without "regulation"??? Machine guns OK? RPG Launchers? Explosives?

According to the words in the Constitution, yes. Which is why I said that a common-sense amendment would easily pass.

What did the founders have in mind for "Arms"?...it's a big word by todays technology...but a word that should not be limited by your definition?

Ahhhh, it finally makes sense! You're redefining my words! No wonder you can't understand my points.

If I type "gun" you read "bomb." Or "assault weapon." Or maybe "dandelion."

If I type "shall not" you redefine it as "can if we want to." Or maybe "should not." Or maybe "will surely."

Gee, that must be great! You can make my posts say anything you want them to say, because you get to define what words mean. Here, all these years, I have shackled myself to dictionaries... so many wasted years. Let me try this out:

You remain confused here.

Let's see now. I hereby redefine "confused" as meaning "completely and totally correct." "Remain"... that now means "always have been." "Here" obviously means "on all issues."

Wow, thank you very much! But I really don't think anyone, even me, is always right. It's a nice compliment, though.

(In all seriousness, if you want to redefine words, we have nothing to continue on. I don't debate across language barriers, and especially not self-imposed made-up barriers.)

TheRedneck

a reply to: Indigo5

Did they also foresee computers, snap chat, twitter, facebook, fiber optic internet, printing presses capable of millions of copies day?

So should we have limited free speech ? I mean come on, we need common sense information reform! No one needs 1gbs internet service or automatic assault printing presses. We can only have free speec on old hand crank flat bed presses, how many pages do you need to print in a day? Think about the children!

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Indigo5

Nothing personal, but I think you are using the "chip on your shoulder" expression incorrectly.

Really? I thought I used it correctly. In any case, I do personally agree that the NRA has changed course, which makes me happy I have never been a member.

Had to look it up...You are correct in that the most common definition is "holding a grudge or grievance"..so my bad. For some reason I always thought it meant having something to prove, where ego had been wounded or challenged. Like the younger brother of a baseball star had a chip on their shoulder...alas, kind of happy to be wrong here and thanks for teaching me something new. I think in my childhood I conflated the definition with Robert Conrad "Pappy" of bah-bah blacksheep daring the audience to knock the battery off his shoulder in an ever-ready commercial. We construct definitions in less that accurate ways Lets see if we can both remain objective and learn new things?

Again, really? What do you think "not infringed" means?

Thats the thing...You are asking me personally for a definition vs. what the courts prescribe? Or what the founders intended?

I am a big fan substantiating evidence and logic...so let's do this...let's search for a dictionary contemporary to the time the 2nd amendment was written and check out what the definition was when it was written? Get a sense of "intent"?

Dictionary of the English language by Samuel Johnson (1768, 3rd edition) & 1792 edition
Link

To Infringe:
To Violate, to break laws or contracts

To Regulate:
To adjust by rule or law

Militia: The trainbands, the standing force of a nation

Keep in mind there was enormous opposition at the time to the USA having a "Standing Army"...even now the constitution requires approval by congress to fund it every two years..I'd have to double check, but I think that is still accurate.

Trainbands (Wikipedia): Trainbands were companies of militia in England or the Americas, first organized in the 16th century and dissolved in the 18th. The term was used after this time to describe the London militia. In the early American colonies the trainband was the most basic tactical unit. However, no standard company size ever existed and variations were wide. As population grew these companies were organized into regiments to allow better management. But trainbands were not combat units. Generally, upon reaching a certain age a man was required to join the local trainband in which he received periodic training for the next couple of decades. In wartime, military forces were formed by selecting men from trainbands on an individual basis and then forming them into a fighting unit.

So...
""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."

Regulated means to adjust by rule or law, militia means local forces, well trained and to be sourced by the Military in times of war and infringed means to violate or break law or contract.

So yes...the right to bear arms can not be violated..that promise can not be broken..but yes it also required formal training (which was mandated at the time) and yes it was subject to adjustment "by rule or law".

Ahhhh, it finally makes sense! You're redefining my words! No wonder you can't understand my points.

If I type "gun" you read "bomb." Or "assault weapon." Or maybe "dandelion."

??? I thought you were defending the 2nd amendment? I am not debating your personal definitions? Why would I?

The 2nd states "Arms" not "guns".

If I type "shall not" you redefine it as "can if we want to." Or maybe "should not." Or maybe "will surely."

This is not what I have said at all? But perhaps it is a more defensible place of snark for you? albeit not an honest place?

(In all seriousness, if you want to redefine words, we have nothing to continue on. I don't debate across language barriers, and especially not self-imposed made-up barriers.

To the contrary ...

I seem to be the only one in this discussion actually providing definitions for words...and contemporary to the founders I might add vs. personal opinions of what you "believe" them to mean.

originally posted by: SM2
a reply to: Indigo5

Did they also foresee computers, snap chat, twitter, facebook, fiber optic internet, printing presses capable of millions of copies day?

So should we have limited free speech ?

Yes...the SCOTUS determines the limits on rights in the constitution based on founders intent.

Child Pornography receives no first amendment protections.

a reply to: Indigo5

Sorry, the way that you are bastardizing the living document analogy is just WRONG...

There is ONE and ONLT one way in which the COTUS is a living document. 2/3rds of both houses and 3/4ths of the people... Or a duly called constitutional convention. Those are the ONLY ways in which it is a living document.

This NEO version of just twisting it to mean whatever you need to do what you want, IS NOT what the COTUS is in any way and going too far with that will merely result in another D of I being issued...

Jaden