TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 7 of 25 FirstFirst ... 234567891011121722 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 175 of 623

Thread: The Gun Thread About Guns And Gun Related Gunnery

  1. #151
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2007
    Location: LosAngeles: Between Amusements
    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.
    Somehow the 1st half of the sentence is always ignored by those promoting gun owner rights. I have never met anyone who owns a gun and can tell me which well regulated Militia they belong to. All I'm saying is that the idea of a little sensible regulation seems more directly supported in the 2nd amendment text than does the right to own whatever weapon humankind can come up with to better kill each other.

  2. #152
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    I can get on board with this as long as they also raise the age for voting or joining the military to 21
    https://www.facebook.com/WRALTV/vide...b0&pnref=story

  3. #153
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by LarryG View Post
    Somehow the 1st half of the sentence is always ignored by those promoting gun owner rights. I have never met anyone who owns a gun and can tell me which well regulated Militia they belong to. All I'm saying is that the idea of a little sensible regulation seems more directly supported in the 2nd amendment text than does the right to own whatever weapon humankind can come up with to better kill each other.
    here is Penn & teller explaining it
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4zE0K22zH8

    that said

  4. #154
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2007
    Location: LosAngeles: Between Amusements
    I'm more with Supreme Court Justice Stevens on this subject: "When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated by its drafters or is encompassed within its terms." It seems abundantly clear that you should not ignore the bit about a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State. That phrase is there for a reason, and that reason is to set the context for the right to bear arms. The framers no more wanted nut jobs running around with guns than we do. So they set the right within the overall purpose of protecting the security of the state. In modern terms, the well regulated militias are the police and the military. And if you join one of them, you have the right to bear arms. Remember, this was written before the establishment of a regular army and local police forces, so we used local militias, regulated by the states, for that purpose. We no longer have these militias. We have the armed forces and the police instead.
    Last edited by LarryG; 26th Feb 2018 at 12:17.

  5. #155
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Have there been any instances in US history where armed civilians have successfully fought the government? Or are there any instances where guns would have made a difference? For example, when Japanese-Americans were rounded up and thrown in camps, would it have helped if they had guns and resisted the tyranny of the government? Would they be hailed as heroes today? Or would the civil rights movement have been better off going the way of Malcolm X and armed resistance?
    Last edited by Starker; 26th Feb 2018 at 12:40.

  6. #156
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    If the government wants to crush an uprising and just bomb it then there is no use to militia weapons.

    But any sensible government wants to rule over people, not annihilate them, so yes it's a legit reason to arm oneself from that POV.

  7. #157
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2007
    Location: LosAngeles: Between Amusements
    Consider Waco and the Branch Davidians 25 years ago. Without their arsenal, they could still be alive today.


  8. #158
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    The backlash to that incident is a big part of why a number of other wackos are not only alive but free.

  9. #159
    Member
    Registered: Oct 2001
    Location: 0x0x0
    Quote Originally Posted by LarryG View Post
    ..... We no longer have these militias. We have the armed forces and the police instead.
    You mean like the 4 Broward County Sheriff's Office deputies that waited outside the school and did nothing to stop the shooter? The same officers who were given fair warning back in November from a relative of the shooter that there was a school shooter in the making and they couldn't even be bothered to write up a report. The relative begged the cops to take his gun away. The FBI who dropped the ball and the 39 times BCSO responded to the shooters home over a period of seven years?

  10. #160
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    I find it profoundly weird when gun control opponents bring up the fact that the police were apparently asked to take away his gun (without a conviction etc.) and didn't. Are they for the government taking away people's guns or not?

  11. #161
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Quote Originally Posted by SlyFoxx View Post
    You mean like the 4 Broward County Sheriff's Office deputies that waited outside the school and did nothing to stop the shooter?
    Implying that a "well regulated militia" or self appointed citizen with a gun could have done better?

  12. #162
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    I honestly have no idea what SlyFoxx was implying, or even if he was trying to imply anything. But a self-appointed citizen with a gun attempting to right what he perceived as a wrong was precisely the problem in this case, and many others.

  13. #163
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Qantas
    Quote Originally Posted by Tocky View Post
    Right. Guns didn't exist before the revolution. We didn't have to hunt for daily sustenance. We didn't have to fight the French or Indians. All the second amendment did was codify what already existed. It would never have occurred to them to ban hunting weapons. They had to have those to survive. The north even let the south keep those at the end of the Civil War. That lingered in our culture until the current day when it has been perverted by little boys in men's bodies going pow pow with maximum firepower and maximum ammunition.
    I doubt that there were a large proportion of hunters at the time of the revolution. If you look at population density statistics from the 1800 census, most people were living well away from the frontier.

    But that doesn't really matter. The 2nd Amendment wasn't enacted to codify a frontier lifestyle. As you alluded to, there was already a right to keep arms. The 2nd Amendment was enacted to appease anti-Federalists who saw in the federal system a potential return to the tyranny they just broke away from. They had lived through George III's attempt to disarm the colonies and keep a standing army here to impose a sort of martial law.

    When I was a kid there were hunters everywhere you looked and nobody locked their doors. We left that. We are now in the age of not being able to control anything about guns. Oh there were stupid folks who pointed guns at you. There are always stupid folks. But the Texas clock tower was an anomaly in the news. Lot's of things changed our culture from Schwarzenegger movies to gangsta inurement. But what stops our doing ANYTHING about it? Gun nuts and the NRA. You can't do even the most simple things because it might infringe on Bubba Shootemups right to FREEDOM!

    Well a lot of these shootings are done with guns designed to kill the most and Bubba might decide he needs a grenade launcher next. Why not? I'm sure the NRA will support it and there will be some rationalization dreamed up to support it. After all, if you outlaw grenade launchers, only outlaws with have them.
    When I was a kid, nobody locked their doors and kids were free to roam the neighborhood, within reason of course. I used to walk about 3/4 mile to go to school. I started hunting when I was 14, but that was somewhat uncommon. In my suburban high school class of ~580, there were only a handful of us. More than half of households owned guns back then, but my perception growing up was that schools were safe aside from an occasional playground injury during recess.

    Now I have kids, and I live in a neighborhood where we don't bother to lock the door a lot of the time, and kids are free to roam the neighborhood, as long as they are old enough to get out of the road in a hurry when a speeding soccer mom flies by. I live a mile from an elementary school, and see some of the older kids walking to school. Hunting is uncommon, but I still hear shots around dawn on the opening days of deer season every year. The number of households with guns is down a little bit compared to when I grew up. And I still feel the schools are safe for my children.

    My perception when growing up was that school shootings were very rare. So I was surprised when I read the list I posted earlier in the thread. It turns out there were plenty of school shootings back when I was growing up that I just never heard of, presumably because the death toll was too small for it to make the national news (we only got about 30 min a day back then).

    Columbine changed everything. Unlike most previous school shooters, they weren't targeting certain individuals based on a perceived grievance, like a teacher, principal, or former girlfriend. They were going to take vengeance on the whole school. And the extent of their planning and preparations was like nothing before (or since). The other thing that made Columbine a turning point was the immense amount of public attention in the aftermath. They raised the bar for mass murder. If you're a sick fuck who really wants to be infamous, there was a new standard.

  14. #164
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Qantas
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    Have there been any instances in US history where armed civilians have successfully fought the government? Or are there any instances where guns would have made a difference? For example, when Japanese-Americans were rounded up and thrown in camps, would it have helped if they had guns and resisted the tyranny of the government? Would they be hailed as heroes today? Or would the civil rights movement have been better off going the way of Malcolm X and armed resistance?
    The two best examples are the American Revolution and the Texas Revolution. Both successful. And then there was the American Civil War, which was not successful. There are also smaller examples such as the Utah War, where the state's resistance was strong enough to force a negotiated settlement with the federal government.

  15. #165
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Well, if you put it that way, all wars are fought by armed civilians.

  16. #166
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Only one of those examples was in the context of a modern, fully industrialised war. The practical ability of a citizen army or even a state milita being effective against the US military or even a police response is a fantasy.

    The Second Amendment does not protect the right for just anyone to own any type of gun in any number. To ignore the first part of the amendment is to ignore all of it.

  17. #167
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Well, it could happen with the help of other countries, like it happened in the American Revolutionary War.
    Last edited by Starker; 27th Feb 2018 at 10:08.

  18. #168
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Qantas
    Quote Originally Posted by LarryG View Post
    I'm more with Supreme Court Justice Stevens on this subject: "When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated by its drafters or is encompassed within its terms." It seems abundantly clear that you should not ignore the bit about a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State. That phrase is there for a reason, and that reason is to set the context for the right to bear arms. The framers no more wanted nut jobs running around with guns than we do. So they set the right within the overall purpose of protecting the security of the state. In modern terms, the well regulated militias are the police and the military. And if you join one of them, you have the right to bear arms. Remember, this was written before the establishment of a regular army and local police forces, so we used local militias, regulated by the states, for that purpose. We no longer have these militias. We have the armed forces and the police instead.
    The right to keep and bear arms didn't originate with the 2nd Amendment. We inherited it from English common law, along with most other things enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights does not grant rights, it just calls out some explicit limits on government power. In fact, the Federalists argued it was unnecessary because the rights were already part of common law. The package of amendments were created as a compromise to appease anti-Federalists enough to get the Constitution ratified. The 2nd Amendment in particular was Madison's way to back up a promise that the Federalists weren't going to disband the state militias.

    There is also a difference between being necessary for the security of a free state and protecting the security of the state. In the context of the writing of the 2nd Amendment, a free state refers to one of the states in the union, and "free" means freedom from a federal government gone tyrannical.

    Police forces are not militias and never have been. And local police forces have existed since the founding of the colonies.

    The United States military is also not a militia. Under current law, we have three kinds of armed forces: the US military services, the organized militia, and the unorganized militia. The organized militia consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia. The unorganized militia is every other able-bodied male citizen between 17 and 45.

    The concept of an "unorganized militia" seems anachronistic today. Originally, the militias were organized and regulated by the states, and all the federal government could do is call upon them for national defense. During the War of 1812, a few states refused to commit their militias to anything other than defense of their state. After several revisions of law, we ended up with a National Guard, which is jointly organized, funded, provisioned, and regulated by the states and the federal government. With the formation of the National Guard, the states gave up some control over their militias. But we still recognize the existence of an unorganized militia (a reserve or latent militia) that is not under the control of the federal government.

  19. #169
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by Pyrian View Post
    Yeah; the 2nd amendment was about protecting individual state-regulated militias that haven't existed in a rather long time.
    Quote Originally Posted by LarryG View Post
    Somehow the 1st half of the sentence is always ignored by those promoting gun owner rights. I have never met anyone who owns a gun and can tell me which well regulated Militia they belong to.
    I've said before and I'll say again that I don't consider the 2nd Amendment hallowed, immutable script, but the argument that the 2nd Amendment was intended to cover government-run militias is a bad argument.

    In 18th-century English, the phrase 'well-regulated' meant 'in functioning order', and I can dig up references to things like 'well-regulated clocks' if you like where it's clear that they're not talking about any sort of government regulation. As well, the militia was codified by the Militia Acts less than a decade later to specify all white, able-bodied, land-owning males of fighting age. The requirements of race and land ownership were later dropped, and the Acts formed the basis for Selective Service.

    What it means, in context, is that the population was expected to be armed to the teeth to defend against both foreign and domestic enemies, be it an invader or their own government, and to that end the federal government was specifically prohibited from restricting ownership of military-grade weaponry. It was written in a different time, maybe it's outdated and needs to be changed, and there is a mechanism for performing exactly that- but the claim that the 2nd Amendment has been twisted beyond its original intent is bunk. If anything, it's been eroded.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pyrian View Post
    And if it's hard to get them where you are, well, it's easy to pick them up across state lines.
    Nitpick: It's illegal to buy a long arm from an FFL out of state that would be illegal in your place of residence, it's illegal to buy a handgun from an FFL out of state altogether, and it's illegal to buy a firearm through private sale from a resident of another state. I've never seen any research to indicate that this is a common method of circumventing the restrictions in states with stricter gun laws.

    You are correct about the NFA process on destructive devices, I talked a little bit about it earlier in the thread.

  20. #170
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Qantas
    Regardless of whether it's illegal, gun tracing shows that firearms are crossing state lines in a black market trade.

  21. #171
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Black market trade, yes. 'My state is too restrictive so I'll just hop the border and legally buy whatever I want', no, which was my understanding of what Pyrian was saying.

  22. #172
    Moderator
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: Wales
    A constitutional lawyer on the 2nd amendment starting at 28:10. (I know how to set the start for 18s but damned if I can work out 28 minutes and 10 seconds.)

    I know CNN has its own slant but I found it interesting and learnt quite a bit, hopefully things that are true.



  23. #173
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    I meant it was easy, not necessarily legal, sorry if that wasn't clear.

  24. #174
    Member
    Registered: Oct 2001
    Location: 0x0x0
    There seem to be people that think the 2nd Amendment is somehow antiquated. That now we have police, military and other armed federal agencies and that THEY have the guns so the average Joe doesn't need one. I pointed out that a fat lot of good the 4 BCSO officers did hiding, guns drawn behind their car in the parking lot while some nut was shooting up the place.

    Contrast that with the action of (civilian) Stephen Willeford last (IIRC) November in Texas. The First Baptist Church shooting in Sutherland Springs. After hearing shots he grabbed his AR-15 and a handful of bullets ran from his house without putting on shoes. Found and confronted the shooter, exchanged fire successfully hitting the dirt bag who jumped into his truck and sped off. Willeford flagged down a male motorist and the two gave chase eventually catching up to the dirt bag and held him at gun point until authorities arrived. As I recall Willeford is an NRA instructor.

    If you want to hear the whole anecdote...


  25. #175
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Qantas
    Nit picking here: The shooting was over and the shooter walked out of the church and that's when Willeford fired on him. And Willeford didn't catch him and hold him at gun point. During the car chase, the shooter ran off the road into a ditch and shot himself. Yeah, it's still heroic though.

    To me, the Sutherland Springs massacre is not an example of how an armed civilian can prevent a mass shooting. It's an example of how a failure in the background check system can lead to a mass shooting. The shooter was convicted in an Air Force court martial of domestic assault. That should have popped up in the background check and disqualified him, but the Air Force never entered a record of the conviction into the federal database. He had also previously applied for a license to carry and was rejected. He shouldn't have been able to buy the guns he used in the shooting.

    I'm also curious to know how many gun carrying vigilantes saved lives by using their weapons versus how many unnecessarily shot or killed someone: like George Zimmerman, or Bernhard Goetz, or these guys.

Page 7 of 25 FirstFirst ... 234567891011121722 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •