|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Rahvin,
... Ammunition would no longer be legal. ... Something along this line might be the most viable solution. In Sweden IIRC each person is issued a gun and ammunition and have to account for any ammo used. Make hunting rifle ammo available in single shot mode, with license to purchase, background checks etc. with ammo to be marked and accounted for before next purchase. Pistols could be single shot mode and only one round at a time -- you don't need more for self protection. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi hooah212002, et al,
I mean, all of you who think this tragedy justifies more strict gun control need to grapple with the fact that this tragedy happened in the state with the second-strictest gun control laws in America; the state with the fourth-lowest rate of gun ownership; the state with no "shall-issue" concealed-carry law; the state where assault rifles are banned. Isn't calling for more gun control at this point the same as observing that tax cuts ruined the economy, and therefore the answer is more tax cuts? Then maybe the laws aren't strict enough? Connecticut is a small state, small enough that you can travel to New York, Massachusetts and Rhode Island all in one day. Obviously strict laws in one state do not protect anyone from people acquiring guns etc in neighboring states or any state that can be reached with a short drive. The issue is not the strictness in one area, but the universality of the laws in all areas. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Rahvin,
Except that this would do nothing for shootings where a legally owned firearm is taken by an unauthorized individual for a rampage, like is the case in most school shootings. Accountability does nothing for murder-suicides, either. It's a good idea, but it would require a lot of bureaucracy for little reward. Make it illegal to own ammunition, and gun collectors can have their collections. Require a license and a special permit to posses up to 6 bullets (with background checks & make sure no-ones doubling up) and you can go hunting or have the illusion of "self-protection" ... not a complete solution, but better than now. Yes people will still be killed, but harder to go on a rampage with only 6 shots. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Theodoric,
... read the Constitution.
quote: Those militias are run by the individual states, who are responsible for setting\appointing the various ranks of individuals, with supplies from the feds for arms. Today these militias are the state run National Guard units. You want to bear arms? Join the National Guard. You want to play with big guns? Join the National Guard. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : subtitleby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Percy
Saw this on facebook
another way to look at it ... Enjoy?by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Faith
Message 104: Yes, the PEOPLE, not an army run by the state, the PEOPLE. "Well regulated" implies you don't arm people with a history of violence or mental disorder, and they need some organization and training, ... And the constitution clearly states that the regulation, organization and training are functions for the states, not mobs of self-appointed people.
... The National Guard is not what the founders had in mind. But it is what the state run militias are. They are doing the duties layed out in the constitution for the militias.
Did you read any of the quotes in my post, or that article at the end? I generally ignore the second hand opinions of people who try to revise things to suit their personal agendas, and rely instead on the original documents when forming my opinions ... in this case the constitution. For instance you can go to an on-line version of the current constitution (with amendments) at: http://congressionalconstitutioncaucus-garr.../...nstitution and you can search the text for "militia" ... with these results:
quote: This does not mean that people bearing arms are the Militia. The duties set for the Militia are those presently being done by the National Guard, and there is no other body that does this, ergo the National Guard is de facto the Militia as envisaged by the founders. That is what the constitution tells me.
See peek for message as posted, see Message 197 for more complete version. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : duplicate post delayed by dinner partyby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Faith
This is a more complete response than was posted prematurely in Message 143:
Message 104: Yes, the PEOPLE, not an army run by the state, the PEOPLE. "Well regulated" implies you don't arm people with a history of violence or mental disorder, and they need some organization and training, ... And the constitution clearly states that the regulation, organization and training are functions for the states, not mobs of self-appointed people.
... The National Guard is not what the founders had in mind. Curiously, it does not matter what the founders "had in mind", as if that could honestly be perceived at this date: what matters is what the constitution and subsequent laws say. We trust the Constitution to state the consensus of what the founders had in mind, including the ability of the constitution to be amended. The state run National Guards today are the state run militias. They are currently doing the duties laid out in the constitution for the militias.
Did you read any of the quotes in my post, or that article at the end? I generally ignore the second hand opinions of people who try to revise things to suit their personal agendas, and rely instead on the original documents when forming my opinions ... in this case the constitution. For instance you can go to an on-line version of the current constitution (with amendments) at: http://congressionalconstitutioncaucus-garr.../...nstitution and you can search the text for "militia" ... with these results:
quote: This does not mean that people bearing arms are the Militia or that they will be accepted into a properly formed and designated militia according to the constitution. This does mean that the various self-styled "militias" that have formed in various states, but which are not operated or controlled by those states, are NOT militias as envisaged in the constitution (and thus by the founding fathers), and are more likely to have been regarded in much the same way as John Brown, as an insurrection (should they attempt any armed action), with the duty of the properly formed militias to "suppress Insurrections". The duties set for the Militia in the constitution are presently being performed by the National Guard, and there is no other body that does this, ergo the National Guard is de facto the Militia as envisaged by the founders. That is what the constitution tells me, in very simple words. Then, just for more completion of information, I look up the duties of the National Guard: National Guard (United States) - Wikipedia
quote: Note the reference to "National Guard militia members" and that the "traditional state militias were redefined and recreated as the "organized militia" — the National Guard, via the Militia Act of 1903". This too, is easy to understand language: the state militias have become the National Guard, pure and simple, with additional duties to suit modern needs that were not envisaged\conceived\considered by the founding fathers (eg -- terrorism, etc)
Of course it's very hard to tell what matters to people here. Do they care what the Amendment says at all? I ... Or is the Constitution just an antiquated meaningless document that we should throw out? Which is it. Some even say both, so irrational are people on this topic. The constitution is a living document, imho, that has the flexibility to adapt to new times and issues, hence the inclusion of the process to amend it. The constitution also leaves the final voice on interpretation to the Supreme Court, which is why gun control issues get to that level in the process of making new laws. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added linkby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Sorry Faith, but it seems you are wrong on this.
See Message 197 for a more complete version of the post you replied to (Message 143), which includes information about the National Guard formation from the militias, in compliance\conformance\accordance with the constitution.
including a long well documented article about the English history that the Second Amendment built on, and about the thinking of the Constitutional framers as they wrote the amendment. Somebodies second hand opinion rather than the actual constitution statements or the statements of laws regarding the National Guard. I'll believe the actual documents over anyones opinion any day.
We can misread the documents today because we put current meanings into phrasings that they didn't intend. They were building on a history of which we are today largely ignorant. So can your purported experts.
The "militia" DID comprise "the WHOLE body of the people." Curiously, I'm rather certain that our founding fathers did not think women, children, elderly, infirm and insane people would be required to be part of the militias. Quite obviously this is a completely false and made up fabrication:
quote: There is no statement anywhere in the constitution that calls for the wholesale calling up of every individual citizen, rather the militia is referred to as a separate group\body of people where various individuals can rather obviously be excluded because of issues of involving organization, training and discipline, just for starters.
It's unfortunate they didn't leave that specific wording in the final draft but it has to be because they assumed it and not because it didn't reflect their thinking. ... OR, amusingly, it is NOT included because that is NOT what they thought. Wanting it to be there does not make it so. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added linkby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi crashfrog, just a few points of order:
... The US already has a military for domestic defense, ... The armed forces of the US are prohibited from action inside the US, as this function is set aside for the militia in the constitution, and has been taken over by the National Guard when they evolved out of the militias, as part of their duties. You will note that it is the Governor of the states that call out the National Guard to respond to riots, etc. ... because he is the one in charge of the state's militia.
No, it means "organized", orderly. Not really ... orderly comes under "disciplined", while organized here clearly means set up in an organization, with levels of leadership, in a nested hierarchy of command and responsibility, etc. and where the officers etc are appointed by the various states, per the constitution. Such officers do NOT appear in self-appointed mob militias. Amendment II does NOT define what the militia is -- that is already covered within the constitution. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi again crashfrog
... Again the point of the Second Amendment is not to establish a militia, but to prevent the government from disarming the people. ... ... and it does not specify what those arms are. It does not say machine guns or canons. And it does not prevent the states from passing gun control laws, a position upheld by the Supreme Court.
... It's fundamentally ahistorical to suggest that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to reserve arms only to the military. That's absurd - the military doesn't need a Constitutional amendment to be armed, that's implied in the notion of being the military. ... And the constitution draws a line between military and militia (now the National Guard), and it says that the feds provide the arms for the militia. Obviously anyone in the militia (National Guard) has the right to bear and operate (under appropriate conditions) the arms provided by the federal government. This does not mean that the average citizen has a right to carry a bazooka into downtown New York city (intentional hyperbole).
The Second Amendment preserves an individual right to keep and bear arms ... But not for just any purpose any individual happens to think up, for the specific purpose of being able to form a well regulated militia. You want to bear arms? Join the National Guard.
... and enjoins the government from broadly disarming the general populace. That's been supported by 200 years of jurisprudence. And yet, curiously, in many states there are regulations that prohibit the possession of guns in or near schools (and other places). These laws have been passed through the Supreme Court, so obviously there is an error in your blanket statement\thinking: there can be restrictions established by the states. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi xongsmith,
Hmmm...I don't seem to recall Alabama Governor George Wallace calling out the National Guard during the Civil Rights demonstrations. Seems they were called out by Washington, D.C.? and yet ... Little Rock Nine - Wikipedia
quote: and ... LBJ Sends Federal Troops to Alabama - HISTORY
quote: So it was the failure of the governors to call out the National Guard to preserve order that precipitated the federalization of the guard by the presidents. The National Guard units are under the jurisdiction of the states unless - and until - they are federalized. Federalization was intended to be a temporary thing, in a time of need. This basic process that separated the militia\guard units and federal military units has been woefully overreached with Schrubbia's calling up and using the guard for foreign invasions. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : clrtyby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi NoNukes,
Just when I think it can't get more bizarre
... apparently some states have done so. ... Out of curiosity, which ones? Texas? Arizona? Is ALEC\NRA involved? http://thearizonasentinel.com/...aw-will-other-states-follow Sounds like an ALEC\NRA kind of bill ... it will be interesting to see if this holds up.
... The constitution does reserve the power to create, train, and regulate militias to the States. and the authority to appoint the officers that maintain order within the militias. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Tempe 12ft Chicken,
Just a point of clarification:
Except that is not the case, since many gun enthusiasts know how to reload their own shell casings. In fact, there is even a wikihow page explaining exactly the steps to do so. All an individual would have to have to replenish ammunition is a small bag of shell casings. The rest can be put together pretty simply. The shell casing is not ammunition, what is put inside it is. That is what would be banned. Empty shells don't shoot anything. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Kofh2u
Go figure. Ever heard of the Coincidental Correlation (post hoc ergo propter hoc) logical fallacy?
quote: The crime rate in America is almost nil except for inner city America where the murders take place and the WELFARE SYSTEM incubates fatherless kids whio never recognize authority figures thereafter. What makes "inner city America" different from other parts of the city? Employment? Salaries? Would not poverty wages or less logically cause both and increase in welfare and crime? Further discussion should be a new topic. This is not related to gun control. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : off topic by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Rahvin,
That's rather the point. Crashfrog has no idea how well firearms survive from the Revolutionary War. He can't, because the data required to calculate such a thing does not exist. Therefore he cannot claim that the existence of some Revolutionary guns demonstrates the "durability" of firearms. There is also the issue of the number of crimes\murders committed with Revolutionary guns for his argument to have a point in this debate. Else it is just more gish gallop. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024