captainmorgan
Well-Known Member
Well it looks like doctors,nurses and patients in hospitals will need to be armed immediately,another problem solved.
Yesterday's Mass Shooting.
- Thread starter Unclebaldrick
- Start date
City Council is the first step..it all starts at local level..first city, then state gig, then you guessed it. Time to squash it now. Referendum.
One door in and same door out..time to drain the lake.
Susan Smith | Murderpedia, the encyclopedia of murderers
Susan Smith is an American woman sentenced to life in prison on July 27, 1995 for murdering her children in Union, South Carolina on October 24, 1994.
murderpedia.org
That was one suggestion when Susan Smith drowned her kids in a lake.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Suddenly I don’t want to go for a shot.
I had thought of LUXURY TAX..I totally agree that there us action we can take without getting rid of 2A because that would never, ever happen..might as well be realistic.
I swear if they would have used a period instead of comma after 'militia' in 2A Amendment, it would have changed the meaning.
Please check it and I'm curious if you agree.
I got my 4th shot yesterday; because fentanyl is so rampant here people dying Smoke Shop was handing out RX Narcan for free- 2 lives I can save if I need to..I'm my own pharmacy.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Which of the three commas, two of which are supernumerary today? (oops; you did specify) Better not to punctuate there.
In eighteenth-century usage, the first clause is strictly explanatory and not at all conditional. Imposing modern usage is not honest.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
America's gun manufacturers are coming out with medical models, such as the doctor's special 9mm. Setting up defensive positions in the hallways would be helpful too and new models of body armor and helmets in white are coming soon. If you are gonna have military weapons on the streets in America, then dress for the occasion, war.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
This is the 2000's and well regulated militia doesn't mean "can shoot good". Your story about the meaning and intent when the 2A was written -- it sounds very much like other gobbelty gook coming from the red side.
A link from a reputable source on the subject would be appreciated.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
SE Cupp: Congress won't fix mass shootings, but I know who could
44,730 views Jun 2, 2022 In this week's episode of "Unfiltered," SE Cupp argues that it's up to law-abiding gun owners like her, not Congress, to stop mass shootings.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Here’s what I got.
What Is a 'Well Regulated Militia,' Anyway?
Gun control advocates love to hate District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 case in which the Supreme Court recognized that the Second Amendment protects
reason.com
It is not cut&dry, and I acknowledge that usage, as well as the needs of a society in a way the Framers could not have anticipated, have changed and not just a little.
Add to this that the last two years have shown a cultural shift that became obvious: “a man and his musket” has transformed to groups of LARPing Klansmen with black rifles chatting up equally fascist cops. Repellent.
So I am ambivalent and a bit agonized. The Constitution was written with some glaring holes. “Every man was created equal” unless you were chattel, a pesky Native or female.
So consider me playing devil’s arvocate on the general principle of unintended consequences, but on the bottom line uncertain and capable of being convinced in the direction of less guns. The epidemiology of gun possession is sort of compelling.
Last edited:
tangerinegreen555
Well-Known Member
The 18th century 2nd Ammendment was referring to the 18th century weapons available at the time and the 18th century 13 state population at the time.
Hard to have a mass shooting with a musket.
It's hard to hit a turkey with a musket.
I just can't wrap my head around 18th century laws applied to 21st century weapons.
Then again, the political system is run by money and lobbiests who only want more power and money and only see their own narrow picture of reality.
When 70% of the people support things like gun control, women's abortion rights or marijuana legalization...and 30% (or less) can control the majority...seems like an American political apartheid where the minority rules the majority.
And people keep getting shot daily...
Hard to have a mass shooting with a musket.
It's hard to hit a turkey with a musket.
I just can't wrap my head around 18th century laws applied to 21st century weapons.
Then again, the political system is run by money and lobbiests who only want more power and money and only see their own narrow picture of reality.
When 70% of the people support things like gun control, women's abortion rights or marijuana legalization...and 30% (or less) can control the majority...seems like an American political apartheid where the minority rules the majority.
And people keep getting shot daily...
Therefore, it's either us or Social Media..it's gone unregulated and helped to almost destroy our country.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
It comes down to whether you think the US constitution is a living document or a dead one. If it is alive it responds to stimuli and is capable of change through interpretation by the SCOTUS as well as, by the usual mechanisms for gross changes. Federalist judges are big on the intentions of the founders, as if they were divine or something and Jesus wrote the fucking thing. Well according to the founders, arms were black powder driven and single shot with a half a minute between reloads for a fast shooter and there were no primers, they came many years later. So I suppose these originalists would approve of a federal law restricting firearms to these parameters. However the 2nd was for military purposes and militaries use modern arms, a wild variety and arms are not just guns when it comes to military matters. Clearly the federal government can regulate arms, since they already do.Here’s what I got.
What Is a 'Well Regulated Militia,' Anyway?
Gun control advocates love to hate District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 case in which the Supreme Court recognized that the Second Amendment protects
It is not cut&dry, and I acknowledge that usage, as well as the needs of a society in a way the Framers could not have anticipated, have changed and not just a little.
Add to this that the last two years have shown a cultural shift that became obvious: “a man and his musket” has transformed to groups of LARPing Klansmen with black rifles chatting up equally fascist cops. Repellent.
So I am ambivalent and a bit agonized. The Constitution was written with some glaring holes. “Every man was created equal” unless you were chattel, a pesky Native or female.
So consider me playing devil’s arvocate on the general principle of unintended consequences, but on the bottom line uncertain and capable of being convinced in the direction of less guns. The epidemiology of gun possession is sort of compelling.
The US constitution is not a suicide pact and some people's interpretation of the 2nd would make it one. A bombs are arms too
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Addendum.
My one soapbox is my insistence that any restrictive gun laws apply evenly to ALL civilians. Even (especially!) the ones in uniforms displaying pseudomilitary ranks. I’ve seen ads for extra super tacticool AR derivatives labeled “law enforcement only”. I find the “police exemption” corrupt.
Same goes for body armor. I empathize with police privilege on that; after all they have a dangerous job (unless you’re Uvalde PD apparently). But I’d like to see a flipside that hasnt been clear lately: with privilege comes increased responsibility. This tends to be blurred when cops get off in court because their colleagues conspired to perjure themselves because thin blue line. I remember whose motto translates as “my honor is named Loyalty”.
My one soapbox is my insistence that any restrictive gun laws apply evenly to ALL civilians. Even (especially!) the ones in uniforms displaying pseudomilitary ranks. I’ve seen ads for extra super tacticool AR derivatives labeled “law enforcement only”. I find the “police exemption” corrupt.
Same goes for body armor. I empathize with police privilege on that; after all they have a dangerous job (unless you’re Uvalde PD apparently). But I’d like to see a flipside that hasnt been clear lately: with privilege comes increased responsibility. This tends to be blurred when cops get off in court because their colleagues conspired to perjure themselves because thin blue line. I remember whose motto translates as “my honor is named Loyalty”.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
A living one. But there is an express procedure for amending it, unlike where you live. I don’t want to see the process abridged or circumvented, both of which are built into your thesis on the matter.
I believe that federalism is a big part of the problem. States’ rights are the fortress of oppressive law, and in my opinion an impediment to much-needed liberalization. But they seem to attract a sort of religion associated with confederate resentment that currently permeates the GOP, with consequences that are not good unless youre rich, white, male, straight and evangelical.
Last edited:
Billy the Mountain
Well-Known Member
I agree wholeheartedly except the point about police having a dangerous job.
I'm fairly certain it's not even in the top 10 according to OSHA
Roofers, loggers, construction, agriculture, fishing, pilots, truck drivers, and others are more dangerous jobs statistically speaking
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Context. Except for military pilots, none of those professions carries an increased risk of gunshot.