- Posts: 4394
Tactical Experts Destroy the NRA's Heroic Gunslinger Fantasy
Desolous wrote:
Jamie Stick wrote: (words)...but I know that here in America there's this idea that gun ownership is a fundamental right thanks to the Constitution.
which is a distortion of the text. the actual words are "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."
a militia. a well regulated one, at that. johnny six pack or joe blow or whoever is not a militia. the forefathers did not intend everybody and their dog to own and operate a firearm. nor should they.
Gun ownership is a fundamental right, it's not just an idea. Unfortunately Johnny Six Pack and Joe Blow and whoever else are by law supposed to own and operate firearms, they're suppose to train together in military tactics and they in their local militia can regulate themselves however they feel the need to based upon their own local issues whether they are down at the border, defending their community against criminal elements, or whatever it may be however benign or extreme.
George Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights, said: "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people." Likewise, the Federal Farmer, one of the most important Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution, referred to a "militia, when properly formed, [as] in fact the people themselves."
Recently the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this view, finding that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right held by the "people," -- a "term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution," specifically the Preamble and the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Thus, the term "well regulated" ought to be considered in the context of the noun it modifies, the people themselves, the militia(s).
There is no doubt the Framers understood that the term "militia" had multiple meanings. First, the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, "the people," had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, "well regulate" themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.
This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb "regulate" the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day). The concept that the people retained the right to self-regulate their local militia groups (or regulate themselves as individual militia members) is entirely consistent with the Framers' use of the indefinite article "a" in the phrase "A well regulated Militia."
The "well regula[tion]" of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, "well regula[tion]" referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words "well regulated" referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government's standing army.
It is an absolute truism that law-abiding, armed citizens pose no threat to other law-abiding citizens. The Framers' writings show they also believed this. As we have seen, the Framers understood that "well regulated" militias, that is, armed citizens, ready to form militias that would be well trained, self-regulated and disciplined, would pose no threat to their fellow citizens, but would, indeed, help to "insure domestic Tranquility" and "provide for the common defence."
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm
I know there are many ways that people interpret the Constitution. Obviously today things are very complicated and this topic is very touchy to a lot of people because of the tragedies that have happened and will continue to happen.
America's moral compass is truly F'd and that's why we have these problems. The greed and corruption is on par with that of Russia if not worse, it's just here we have wolves in sheep clothes and there they're just wolves. The drugs and psychotic behavior is ridiculous, so yes it makes sense to at least have background checks and documentation of firearms transfers.
Desolous wrote: i think a good example would be switzerland, khaos. as i understand, and feel free to research this, they have a very high per capita ownership of guns there. perhaps even mandated military training? of which i am in favor, of course.
but they dont have weekly mass shootings. the guns are regulated. the ammo too i believe. the citizens themselves are not so bellicose and hooah hooah as we americans seem to be.
they are well regulated. it can happen. why not here?
EDIT: i am also in favor of rigorous mandatory gun safety training, plays into the military training aspect. as in, 'you dont pass guns 101, you dont get a gun legally.' gun owners liability insurance is probably going to happen in some states, there is already talk of that.
the bottom line is, we cannot continue to have mass shootings and not do anything about it. that isnt working. do we wait til every single one of us has been affected by a mass shooting to act? or can we have enough compassion and reason to not have to wait that long?
I agree with you that there should be mandatory safety training, if not military training as well. But safety training would only prevent accidents, and military training would just make everyone that much better at using firearms. Yeah in many states you can buy guns from other people without a background check or documentation, it's a problem and should be dealt with but you know the background check has proven to not be so reliable. I think that if fully implemented it would prevent people who because of their history shouldn't own guns from acquiring them legally but honestly they'll just find it elsewhere or another means to fulfill their intention.
I don't necessarily have a problem with filing ATF 4473s and registration just because I know the government doesn't have the man power necessary to confiscate as many people fear they will do. But even with any new regulations and laws there are still so many millions of guns out there, is it really going to matter? The situation sucks because yes people have easy access to firearms and at anytime how do you know someone who was perfectly sane one day is not going to flip out and do something crazy? So next the government is going try to ban magazines and semiautomatic weapons, regulate ammo purchasing and have a permitting or background check process, which in theory could work but there's going to be a huge backlash against it and if they do end up trying to confiscate well there'll just be chaos.
Even with the spate of of shootings that has captured the US media our Murder rate is down 49% since 1993 and continues to drop.
Every law abiding gun owner could stack their guns on the porch for collection tomorrow and it would not make a difference. The gangs, criminals and terrorists will still have them.
Prohibition didn't work in the 20's.
War on drugs? Heroin is readily available.
AK's are illegal in France. Didn't stop it.
California's strict gun laws? Those rifles don't look California legal.
Mexico has some of the strongest gun laws in the world. Only one gun store in the country, in Mexico City, run by the military. Almost no one can make a purchase. Tons of guns available.
185,000 background checks performed this Black Friday.
What can you do about that.
Stop selling guns tomorrow? Just pissing in the wind.
They can't enforce the laws and requirements they have on the books.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
Desolous wrote: i think a good example would be switzerland, khaos. as i understand, and feel free to research this, they have a very high per capita ownership of guns there. perhaps even mandated military training? of which i am in favor, of course.
but they dont have weekly mass shootings. the guns are regulated. the ammo too i believe. the citizens themselves are not so bellicose and hooah hooah as we americans seem to be.
they are well regulated. it can happen. why not here?
A couple of reasons.
1) Sheer population. The numbers are way different.
2) Diversity. "Give me your weary, sick, downtrodden,etc." We have a melting pot of cultures, backgrounds, belief systems,economies, etc. Illegals Terrorist cells. The term "American" is not as clear cut as "Swiss".
Your trying to apply what happens in one area to another when you are at a site where you cannot generalize anything across the board.
Please.
While I commend Switzerland on there accomplishment, you cannot really try to make the comparison between there and here.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
Population of USA. 322,014,853
Please Log in to join the conversation.
Astroturf and Manipulation
Please Log in to join the conversation.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
- OB1Shinobi
-
- Offline
- Banned
-
Phortis Nespin wrote: I love these people that attack the people and not the problem. Don't be a puppet for the liberal bullshit.
Astroturf and Manipulation
liberals are people too!!
i really appreciate this tedtalk
its been obvious that this is going on for a long time, i mean a really long time, like COINTELPRO and the like, but, good luck explaining that to "intelligent" people who know better than to buy in to silly conspiracy theories (which is exactly what she said)
i dont understand why you specify LIBERAL bullshit - as conservatives are quite well known to employ deception and manipulation and fear mongering for their own agendas
i felt that her point was much more to imply that we are all being divided and manipulated by CORPORATE SPONSORED bullshit, which is quite a different kind of bullshit
to the broader issue of mass shootings, to which this discussion will return every time, the question is, imo, why do they happen to begin with?
one way of answering that question might be to look into individual cases and review what the shooters themselves say, and what the people who knew them and associated with them say?
heres one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVpcCpkF0Nk
also here are the journals of the columbine shooters
eric harris
http://www.acolumbinesite.com/eric/writing/journal/jindex.html
dylan klebold
http://www.acolumbinesite.com/dylan/writing/journal/jindex.html
not every instance gives a great deal of clear insight but some do
EDIT
you can find many of the journal entries in easier to read formats - i have in the past
one thing i belive is relevant is the fantasy of being a kind of celebrity-after-the-fact
i think that feeling contemptuous and resentful of people is a major theme
arrogance is recurring
feelings of isolation and rejection are others
"mental illness" is a recurring theme in the lives of people who go on these rampages
im sure there is still much i am missing
but imagine such people not having guns, and finding more subtle ways to punish the world around them for the durations of their lives
the issue is not the guns, it is "what poisons people into doing these things?"
People are complicated.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
the issue is not the guns, it is "what poisons people into doing these things?"
Assuming in all cases it is an outside influence.
Some people will simply do bad things for the sake of doing so.
If we cannot find in all cases, the poison, we need better ways of vetting those damaged enough that they shouldnt have them, ever.
As I said, the numbers will never be 0, but less is progress.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
'Oh, there's too many guns. We can't do it, its impossible. We'll just have to suck it up and get shot in herds randomly just about every day in random locations by random people.'
Khaos, I guess you are excused here. But to you who call yourself Jedi, I am disappointed in this viewpoint. Defeat. Acceptance of the terrible status quo.
Next, your precious second amendment rights do not trump my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Let's get that straight. These are terror attacks, emboldened and enabled by the above mentioned acquiescence, and premature defeat.
And You are partly culpable. Each and every time. Because you accept it. You allow it. You oppose serious change. And in the case of Fox quote unquote news junkies and the like spewing hate and falsehoods, even more so culpable, to the point of actual criminality.
There will be change. It is the only constant in life. And in the world I see, many decades from now, my grandkids will wonder at how we allowed just everyone to own a gun or at least get their hands on one, and then use it any way they wish. And I say this as a trained and decorated former soldier: most of you civilians are simply not qualified to own and or operate a firearm. In my professional opinion.
I want to be on the right side of history. I want to be for right, for justice. I want to act as a Jedi should. And allowing these things to continue is simply not it. And you have to ask yourself, each of us does, 'what would a Jedi do here'?
Please Log in to join the conversation.
This place is tense in December.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
- Wescli Wardest
-
- Offline
- Knight
-
- Unity in all Things
- Posts: 6458
Khaos wrote: Must be the holiday season.
This place is tense in December.
Over the years I have discovered that people tend to have very strong emotional reactions to certain topics. This being one of them.
I know that Dec is one of the times of year when depression tends to be highest for many people.

Please Log in to join the conversation.