Texas school shooting

I can't help thinking that thoughts and prayers aren't working.

TolpuddleSartre:
I can't help thinking that thoughts and prayers aren't working.

How can they when God is a myth.

Humans do those awful things, and humans need to do stuff if they are to stop. Wishful thinking by the NRA is no use.

Mind you, it was not as bad as the recent massacre of Palestinians - also a result of wishful thinking.

...R

The nra isn’t thinking wishfully, they and the gun lobby are ready to take action to ensure every American has a gun. Going to pick mine up to today. Never owned a gun before but the guy on the phone assured me In not required to get training. I’m going to set it up on the counter... should be out of the reach of my kids, right?

#wildwest

Do the background checks include asking you which well-regulated militia you are affiliated with?

TolpuddleSartre:
Do the background checks include asking you which well-regulated militia you are affiliated with?

The k-k-k-kalashnikov ?

...R

TolpuddleSartre:
Do the background checks include asking you which well-regulated militia you are affiliated with?

Federalist Papers 28
https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-28
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance."

Federalist Papers 29
https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-29
"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

Federalist Papers 46
https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-46

"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."

Clearly, the founders wanted every citizen armed. The debate was whether to allow states to have their own organized army; the states won in order to prevent a federal government run amock.

So, what the Hell have you all been doing for the last 240 years?

(That stuff looks like it was written as a make-work, for lawyers, by lawyers. That never goes well)

Referring to Reply #5 ...

I find that stuff extraordinarily interesting. I spent all my working life as a civil servant (in Ireland) involved at times in drafting and in understanding laws and I have for a long time thought that the words of the US Constitution

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.

were intended to facilitate the ordinary man to defend himself against the state but I had never heard anyone apply that interpretation and (alas) I never bothered to do any research myself.

However it still does not endear me to the NRA, nor to the idea that guns should be widely available. It seems to me that when people feel the need to take the law into their hands for political reasons they are able to procure weapons even when owning such weapons is entirely illegal and even though they would not normally have had weapons prior to their disenchantment.

...R

Interesting, it clearly says “well regulated” milita.....

seems even they knew the country needed gun control.

However it still does not endear me to the NRA, nor to the idea that guns should be widely available. It seems to me that when people feel the need to take the law into their hands for political reasons they are able to procure weapons even when owning such weapons is entirely illegal and even though they would not normally have had weapons prior to their disenchantment.

No way. There is no way an adam lanza or this last fool would be capable of obtaining a gun on the black market. They were emotionally weak wannabees nervous with the tools whose mommies and daddies had collections of guns. On the black market, these guys get jumped and there money stolen if they try to get a gun illegally. They aren’t of the street.

Qdeathstar:
#wildwest

Qdeathstar:
Interesting, it clearly says “well regulated” milita.....

Not anymore. Scalia essentially won the "throat clearing / comma" argument. We are, literally, left with...

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The logical next step to Scalia's argument is to interpret "not be infringed" as "no law nor regulation".

It's an amendment.

Basically it says "Hey guys, we're not perfect and we got the original draft wrong. Here's a modification".

The 18th was repealed - what's so special about the 2nd?
The situation that was present when the amendment was set no longer exists.

(I think the NRA lost the argument when they banned guns at their recent convention)

Qdeathstar:

However it still does not endear me to the NRA, nor to the idea that guns should be widely available. It seems to me that when people feel the need to take the law into their hands for political reasons they are able to procure weapons even when owning such weapons is entirely illegal and even though they would not normally have had weapons prior to their disenchantment.

No way. There is no way an adam lanza or this last fool would be capable of obtaining a gun on the black market. They were emotionally weak wannabees nervous with the tools whose mommies and daddies had collections of guns. On the black market, these guys get jumped and there money stolen if they try to get a gun illegally. They aren’t of the street.

Sorry for repeating all of the above but I reckon you have taken what I was trying to say completely out of context.

When I said "people feel the need to take the law into their hands for political reasons" i was referring to a group of people rebelling against the Government - not some lunatic with a personal grievance against his/her school or workplace.

...R

sorry, Robin. I honestly couldn’t make sense of the first part of the sentence. It makes more sense now.

@Coding badly, then wtf.

Qdeathstar:
@Coding badly, then wtf.

Is that meant to be a question or an exclamation?

Both, at the same time. Like So.

WTF!?

A federal judge opined the second comma split the amendment into two distinct clauses. The judge went on to insist the first half was essentially a "throat clearing". In a Supreme Court ruling, Scalia, and his cohorts, agreed. The first half is an "introduction" for the second half. The first half has no practical meaning. The highest court in our land has claimed (not a majority ruling) that this is the only practical part of the second amendment...

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You might argue, "Well, it was not a majority ruling so it does not count." History has shown that to be a hollow argument.

TolpuddleSartre:
...
(I think the NRA lost the argument when they banned guns at their recent convention)

I think that was unbelievably hypocritical, the American constitution says nothing about guns being banned in the presence of any individuals.

Interestingly gun related injuries decline when NRA conventions are on presumably because lots of gun toters are off the streets;

I am not anti-gun, but it seems obvious to me that having them too readily available is going to lead to problems. Shooting somebody either deliberately or by accident is just too easy.

I'm obviously not a lawyer, as can be seen by my previous contribution to this argument.

Why is my interpretation wrong?

Quote

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/5/1791.

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

Note the date.

I'm a Brit, so feel free to throw stones. We were at war ( on and off) during this period.

1/ The purpose of this amendment (it seems to me) was to provide a quickly mobilisable civil army to repel foreign invasion.

And in view of eg the later battle of Baltimore, 1812, perhaps a good precaution.

Allan