Coward Murders Children in Florida

[Derpy Hooves]

the people form the militia. but since we are omitting parts we dont like, ill just omit the part with the people. see, easy.

And those people have the right to keep and bear arms

[Toho]

And those people have the right to keep and bear arms

If the people form a militia to protect the sovereignty of their state.
Or at least that's what the constitution says.

[Aexodus]

I mean, the constitution's just the founding document of America, like

[Infidel144]

If the people form a militia to protect the sovereignty of their state.
Or at least that's what the constitution says.

Are you asserting that the Constitution grants "the people" a right to keep and and bear arms only if "the people" so doing form a militia?

[Toho]

Are you asserting that the Constitution grants "the people" a right to keep and and bear arms only if "the people" so doing form a militia?

Thats what I understand from:

"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."

[Infidel144]

Thats what I understand from:

"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."

I will grant your premise ad arguendo; define "militia".

[Toho]

I will grant your premise ad arguendo; define "militia".

Well its in the constitution. It seems the writers felt putting "a well regulated militia" was important enough to mention otherwise they would not have put it there.

As for how I define it? Its not my job nor my interpretation that's the question here but what Congress and the US federal government considers what a Militia is.
However apparently the current the Militia Act of 1903 seems to be the most recent interpretation of Militias in the united states.
Seen here:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

Once we have that definition it becomes a question of what they meant as "Well Regulated".
Is it the first class? Or maybe both classes and if both are all citizens between the ages of 17 to 45 considered a militia voluntary or not OR is it some kind of private organization membership that is required to be considered part of the Militia.
Its up to congress or the supreme court to define what these terms mean, how far it goes and whats acceptable under the constitution.

However what is undeniable is that these three words are just as important as this bit:
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."Which seems to be the only section 2nd amendment advocates completely ignore the rest.
You either second amendment or not. You can't pick and choose what you don't like. Its not a religion but law.

[Pontifex Maximus]

It's impossible to ferret out the true meaning behind the 2nd Amendment by purely analyzing the text of the 2nd. You must read some Federalist Papers and have some understanding of the historical context. Bear in mind writs were granted to merchant vessels to obtain cannons under the auspices of the 2nd Amendment.

[Toho]

It's impossible to ferret out the true meaning behind the 2nd Amendment by purely analyzing the text of the 2nd. You must read some Federalist Papers and have some understanding of the historical context. Bear in mind writs were granted to merchant vessels to obtain cannons under the auspices of the 2nd Amendment.

I agree with that but I think its undeniable that the second amendment was not a simple text which allowed every single american of all ages allowed to carry weapons for personal protection. Whatever these weapons may be.

The text makes very clear statements like Regulated Militia. People. Right to arms and protection of a free state.
Nothing about hunting, personal protection from criminals and so on.

Otherwise the second amendment would have said this:
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Rather than
"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."

My problem with the 2A supporters is not the 2A itself but their one dimensional interpretation of it.
Why are there more hoops to jump through required for tanks or explosives? Why can't the American purchase surface to air missiles? Tactical nukes and so on?
Should these red tapes be applied to all weaponry or should they be removed all together?
Maybe every gun owner should belong to a Militia as stipulated in the constitution?

The constitution is clear. This is all necessary to the security of a free state.
When the American Government becomes tyrannical and F-35 are dropping bombs on rebellious cities or M1 Abram Tanks are rolling down the streets a little AR-15 is not going to do .
That's the whole argument isn't it? To defend the country from tyrannical forces.

The point I am making the second amendment was not made to protect yourself from couple of street thugs. Otherwise they would have mentioned it (IE the right to protect one's family from harm).
This is a long winded way to make the point that banning the AR-15 or attachments that allow it become much more deadlier without stringent controls is not that absurd.
Is there a national gun registry that tracks every sale of a weapon?
Are there audits?
I doubt it.

Certainly these are not new concepts as stringent controls are applied when trying to purchase tanks or explosives... so why not apply the same logic to fire arms?
And if this logic is nonsensical then remove it and allow every person to purchase explosives.
Afterall to stop a bad guy with a kilogram of C4 is a good guy with a kilogram of C4.

Right?

EDIT:

Additionally.
Lets think of this in terms of future weaponry and we already see their developments in progress.

What about armed tiny drones?
What about combat robots?
What about Railguns?
What about laser weapons?
What about exo-suits?

These are all weaponry that can happen in the foreseeable future.
Imagine the capability of the government of deploying millions of armed drones to kill human targets.
What about railguns that can shoot through you and 5 concrete walls behind you as well.
Or laser weapons that vaporize you on the spot.
Exo skeletons that give you the mobility and strength of a dozen men.

Do these fall under the second amendment? If not how can the citizenry ever protect itself from a tyrannical government.
If these weapons are allowed... how will they be regulated if at all?

[Cyclops]

Hmm...
How Australia just became a ‘national security state’
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.09af9612d5cd

Edward Snowden says Australia undertaking 'dangerous' mass surveillance of citizens; criticises metadata laws
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-0...gerous/6456938

Surveillance in Australia: Who’s watching the watchers?
https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/nati...nce-australia/

https://www.google.com/search?source....0.z6p8hAS1N2w


Are you referring to the 2014 Heritage Economic Freedom Index?
"One of America’s best known conservative thinktanks has named Australia as the world’s third most free economy, outranking the US after the debut of Obamacare."
https://www.smh.com.au/world/austral...115-hv8hr.html

We lack the Intelligence infrastructure to spy on our own citizens, there is simply nothing on the scale of the FBI, let alone the vastly larger NSA. Cool headlines though. I like the bit about Snowden having a clue about Australia.

The freedom index thing is from the Economist in the UK. Its silly but less silly than the idiot chant some US people give about "FREEEEEEEDDOOMMM and GUNS!!ZOMG they want our GUNS!"

The right to firearms, Cyclops.

Its never been a right in my country. Firearms have been regulated since Federation, and perhaps since settlement. Its never prevented us from being free. Ownership of firearms in my country is widely regarded as a privilege, one shooters take very seriously.

Well May is a bit out there but Turnbull seems nice enough. They're certainly not conservative by American standards, however. Remember that it was a "conservative" government that disarmed Australia. The Right in most countries is to the left of the Democratic Party.

Sorry this is a very banal point, and I'm well aware of the lack of real alternatives in US politics. I am aware it was John Howard who instituted (with widespread consultation) gun controls largely to reassure a worried public. I don't know any shooters who were disarmed, they all still have guns, they just sold back some of the ones that worried nervous Nelly types. I get the impression you have no idea what actually happened here.

They're all the same though aren't they? They live with 24-hour armed security, even though a firearm is more likely to harm than defend you. They must be insane! I hope you guys disarm parliament soon (unless you want MPs to die).

Are you attempting mockery? That's pretty sad, schools are getting shot up and you're trying some comedy line to prove...what? Our leaders don't get shot dead, our schools rarely get shot up. Our solutions may not suit the US but whatever you're doing it ain't working.

If the people form a militia to protect the sovereignty of their state.
Or at least that's what the constitution says.

Its the US business how they interpret their constitution. its been interpreted various ways in the past but currently the courts have ruled this way. I may not respect it but I'm no lawyer, and not a US citizen either so I have no say over their laws. If they want it that way they should have it.

There's other countries with fairly easy access to guns that don't have the US' gun death problems, so the problem isn't an amendment.

[Heathen Hammer]

2 SWAT Officers Suspended After Running In At Parkland Massacre

Well, that's the "big government" that should be protecting you. Sounds like Americans are better off sticking to their firearms, since government is simply incapable of defending its citizens.

[Toho]

2 SWAT Officers Suspended After Running In At Parkland Massacre

Well, that's the "big government" that should be protecting you. Sounds like Americans are better off sticking to their firearms, since government is simply incapable of defending its citizens.

Are you ever actually going to participate in the debate or just ramble on rhetoric?
Just let me know and this will be the last time we speak.

[PointOfViewGun]

2 SWAT Officers Suspended After Running In At Parkland Massacre

Well, that's the "big government" that should be protecting you. Sounds like Americans are better off sticking to their firearms, since government is simply incapable of defending its citizens.

Are you saying its less likely for a regular citizen to chicken out of a shooting compared to law enforcement agents?

[Toho]

Are you saying its less likely for a regular citizen to chicken out of a shooting compared to law enforcement agents?

If you read the article its about swat agents reprimanded by going to the school shooting scene by not following the chain of command.
Which is understandable.

The last thing police need are random people in civilian clothes carrying around weapons in an active shooting scene.
People already get shot by police in random encounters due to the police officer fearing the suspect carrying a weapon... I can't even imagine the show at a school shooting if dozens of civilians are carrying weapons and playing at rambo (the best case scenario by NRA standards).

[PointOfViewGun]

If you read the article its about swat agents reprimanded by going to the school shooting scene by not following the chain of command.
Which is understandable.

The last thing police need are random people in civilian clothes carrying around weapons in an active shooting scene.
People already get shot by police in random encounters due to the police officer fearing the suspect carrying a weapon... I can't even imagine the show at a school shooting if dozens of civilians are carrying weapons and playing at rambo (the best case scenario by NRA standards).

I thought he was criticizing the SWAT for not taking action to argue that the law enforcement doesn't want to protect citizens. Gotcha. So, two team members acted out of command and they're being reviewed for their action which seems to be normal procedure. Well, are we surprised the pro-gun side clings to such weak straws? No.

[sumskilz]

I agree with that but I think its undeniable that the second amendment was not a simple text which allowed every single american of all ages allowed to carry weapons for personal protection. Whatever these weapons may be.

The text makes very clear statements like Regulated Militia. People. Right to arms and protection of a free state.
Nothing about hunting, personal protection from criminals and so on.

Otherwise the second amendment would have said this:
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Rather than
"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."

Notice though, that it doesn't grant any right, but protects a right assumed to exist. In the American English of the time, the term "militia" didn't mean what people usually think of it to mean today.

See here:

1580s, "system of military discipline," from Latin militia "military service, warfare," from miles "soldier" (see military). Sense of "citizen army" (as distinct from professional soldiers) is first recorded 1690s, perhaps from a sense in French cognate milice. In U.S. history, "the whole body of men declared by law amenable to military service, without enlistment, whether armed and drilled or not" (1777).

In fact, that is still its meaning according to US law:

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States...

In Federalist No. 29, Alexander Hamilton argues that it's futile to train the entire citizenry, the best that can be done is to meet once or twice a year to make sure everyone is armed:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

In Federalist No. 46, James Madison argues that the raising of a standing army would not be a threat to liberty because such an army would face an armed citizenry, this being in contrast to Europe where the governments don't trust their citizens to be armed:

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

Perhaps more telling of the intentions of the time, is the following record:

A motion was made and seconded, that the report of the Committee made on Monday last, be amended, so far as to add the following to the first article therein mentioned, viz.: "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions."

Debates and proceedings in the Convention of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, held in the year 1788, and which finally ratified the Constitution of the United States.

As you can see that turned into more than just the one amendment, but note the initial wording of the proposal. Congress may not "prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms". Of course this is not law itself, just context from which to understand intent.

[Gaidin]

2 SWAT Officers Suspended After Running In At Parkland Massacre

Well, that's the "big government" that should be protecting you. Sounds like Americans are better off sticking to their firearms, since government is simply incapable of defending its citizens.

Do you know the difference between SWAT and normal police?

[Magnum_Opus]

Stop implying that guns aren't a factor in firearm violence. Because that's ultimately what the slogan "guns don't kill people. people kill people" stands for.

1. Guns cause the problem of gun violence, yet they do not adequately deter it.
2. Guns do not protect you from a tyrannical government.
3. Guns are an instrument of death.

But go ahead and keep telling me how the gun itself isn't the problem. Just like cigarettes don't cause lung cancer. It's the people smoking who are responsible. Apply this sort of logic to any harmful object and see how far it gets you. Cars aren't the problem, drivers are. Meth isn't the problem, druggies are. Nukes aren't the problem, bad governments are. This line of logic is idiotic and unsustainable.

Hence why common sense dictates we regulate cigarettes, alcohol, cars, firearms, nukes, and all other manners of harmful objects. How we regulate each substance is different but they are regulated nonetheless with specific goals in mind. Guns are somehow an exception. Gun registries exist only to take firearms away as Nazis seize power. Ammunition control only exists to disarm the populace in a subversive way. Gun-free zones only exist to make liberal sheep easier to shoot. Have I missed anything?

Wrong or misleading.

1. Gun control effects responsible citizens more than they effect criminals, thus gun control effects the deterrent more than it effects the perpetrator. Secondly, guns deter all crimes, not just gun-related ones, as most criminals don't want to get killed.

2. Guns do protect you from a tyrannical government, owing to the fact that it's an impossibility for a state to effectively fight a war against its own citizens. Firearms are not just a means to fight tyranny, but the psychology and mentality associated with gun ownership means people are more likely to resist tyranny. Tyrants need widespread corporation of their populace to stay in power.

3. This and your first sentence just show your naivety. Guns kill people, so they're inherently bad? I guess things would be hunky dory if all weapons were to disappear - wrong the world would fall apart because there would be no way to maintain peace, current societal structures would fall apart because power could be taken by a bunch of physically strong men. The relative peace of the 21st century as compared to the incessant warfare of all times previous is due to the massive bloody toll the wars of the 20th century took on humanity, and the threat that nuclear confrontation would bring. The sentiment expressed that blame should be placed on murderers and not on inanimate tools seems to have completely escaped you. Or rather, the whole concept of personal responsibility seems completely alien to you in the first place, since you seem to believe that smokers are the victims of inanimate tobacco plants.


Indeed, firearms could be regulated in a way to prevent their abuse (this could be done in other ways than federal regulation), problem is that gun grabbers don't respect the second amendment and if you give them an inch they will take a mile. So if gun owners want to keep their guns at all, any sort of compromise is a bad idea.


By the way, why do people call mass murderers "cowards"? I hardly think that killing a bunch of people knowing the certainty that you yourself will get killed or imprisoned for a very long time is cowardly in any way. The people who call them cowards are probably just subconsciously lashing out at the killers who defy the current social order, since they themselves are too cowardly or impotent to do so in any dimension.

[Gaidin]

By the way, why do people call mass murderers "cowards"? I hardly think that killing a bunch of people knowing the certainty that you yourself will get killed or imprisoned for a very long time is cowardly in any way. The people who call them cowards are probably just subconsciously lashing out at the killers who defy the current social order, since they themselves are too cowardly or impotent to do so in any dimension.

Yup. Shooting a bunch of children and teenagers. Very brave.

[Aexodus]

Mass murder is the coward's way out, they try to deal with their problems (mental ones) by lashing out violently, and with tragic consequences. It takes more courage to talk to someone than pick up a gun.