gun control rant thread

SVreX wrote: Any other theories on how he got to be such an accurate sniper?

Without knowing details of just how it all happened inside the school, he didn't necessarily have to be an accurate sniper.

Ian F wrote:

N Sperlo wrote: The Second Amendment Text: 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. If any of our rights should be infringed upon, so may all the others. Lose one, lose all.

The problem with the 2nd amendment is we can't go back in time and ask the writers what the hell they meant since it can be taken in a few different ways, depending on how a person wants to read it. "Well regulated militia..." or "shall not be infringed." I don't see this debate coming to any sort of conclusion within my lifetime.

To read the 2nd amendment as referring to anything other than an individual right (such as a collective right for the states to have their own National Guard units) would require redefining the phrase "the people.". This could have grave implications for the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 8th amendments. Should those be treated as collective rather than individual rights too?

But it also says "the people" shall be "well regulated"...

SVreX wrote: But it also says "the people" shall be "well regulated"...

And as I mentioned, the standard definition for regulated when referring to troops back then involved training or discipline, not rules. Random scheisse I've found with it in context.

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.

That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troops always ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions.

The civilians already had better firearms than the military at that time anyway, your average farmer in the days of the founding typically carried a flintlock gun of superior quality and workmanship when compared to muskets that had to be produced en masse in years prior to the industrial revolution. The 2nd Amendment was written when your gun-wielding civilian had the equivalent of an M60 machine gun, and the armies of the world were issued Ruger Mini-14s.

SVreX wrote: But it also says "the people" shall be "well regulated"...

Splitting hairs, but it says a "well regulated militia.". Regardless, collective rights interpretation doesn't make sense, especially when you look at the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. The 1st and 4th clearly refer to individual rights and use the term "the people," whereas parts mentioning rights left to the states elsewhere in the Bill of Rights use the term "the states." If the 2nd amendment referred to a right left to the states, why would they use the term "the people" instead of "the states?"

SVreX wrote: But it also says "the people" shall be "well regulated"...

I E36 M3 every morning like clockwork

Good info and background on interpreting the 2nd Amendment: http://www.virginiainstitute.org/publications/primer_on_const.php#c3

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

SVreX wrote: But it also says "the people" shall be "well regulated"...

I E36 M3 every morning like clockwork

I've been sitting here reading this stuff on my favorite message boards for the last few days and I'm about to blow a gasket. I just need to go away for a while.

patgizz wrote: someone forgets an "and" and their whole post is "full of misinformation" - all the while the entire post is personal experience and opinion, which inherently can not be misinformation. the second ammendment is clear as mud, and people pick the meaning they want it to mean when using to argue for or against gun control. some say it means arm the people to the hilt others say it means a well organized militia has the right to keep and bear arms. others say it was written in a different era when england was attacking from the right, native americans were attacking from the left, occasionally france got their panties in a bunch and attacked from the top, and spain attacked once in a while from the bottom, and that we should ignore it completely nobody will ever get along. you could be a total redneck spouting BS and have people follow you to the end of the earth as long as you talked about freedom and 'Murica, or you could state your case eloquently and have people wanting to tie you up and shoot you because you think it means something else. but like most conversations involving politics or guns or whatever other issues we have to deal with, someone is always there to rebut you no matter what.

Interesting how you stereotyped your two people in that scenario.

In reply to racerfink:

Didn't you know all gun collectors are rednecks?

Fueled by Caffeine wrote: Can I ask you a serious question, one that really drives at the heart of my anti NRA feelings? Why do you believe that I want to hide " all the dangerous toys"? I don't. I love target shooting and skeet, especially black powder. They make big booms.

Historically speaking that's how it always ends up. Starts with the big scary guns, then snowballs to to registering BB guns and banning pointy knives, or hearding people into cattle cars. While you don't want to hide "all the dangerous toys", others, those with political power do.

There a shooting last night in San Antonio, TX.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Police-investigate-gunfire-at-movie-theater-4122668.php
Two injuries, no deaths. Apparently some guy who was angry at a coworker

We had two separate shootings in the same day in Alabama. People are going batE36 M3 insane.

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/12/alabama_police_kill_2_gunmen_s.html#incart_river_default

JoeyM wrote:

wbjones wrote:

Uncoiled wrote: North Carolina requires all of those except number 1.

there have been several lists ... so which are you referencing ?

My impression was that he was referencing my original list, and that he was referring to what I called "type certification"; i.e. showing proficiency with the weapon you will carry.

You are correct. The original list.

mpolans wrote: To read the 2nd amendment as referring to anything other than an individual right (such as a collective right for the states to have their own National Guard units) would require redefining the phrase "the people.". This could have grave implications for the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 8th amendments. Should those be treated as collective rather than individual rights too?

Again, this is YOUR interpretation. And in your mind, it is absolutely clear-cut and indisputable. And believe me, I totally see that interpretation and don't disgree. My point, however, is there are many who DO disgree and thus we have an arguement that will take decades to be resolved...

I think there is a difference between adult-on-adult gun violence or assault with a deadly weapon and young people obtaining weapons with the intent to kill large number.

I'd gather to say that most "common" gun violence has nothing to do with mental illness, gang/drug related violence is fueled by "thug" culture, and school shooting like this one are a mix of mental illness, idolization of big military guns, and wanting notoriety in death.

We need a law that keeps the names of public shooters secret, and spreading those names by media outlets results in a fine. We need to send a message that if your going to attempt to do something like, you will go down in history nameless. Forgotten.

In terms of regulation vs. the second amendment.

Many of the amendmants seem quite firm and clear, yet they also have regulation with them.

Free speech? Yes, but there are limits- you can not slander, and you can't harm others with your speech. I think it's funny that this is regulated quite a bit (with hate speech), and IMHO, this is more of a basis of freedom than guns- yet Amendment 2 is much much more contended than part of 1.

Freedom of regligion- you have it, yet it's also partially regulated. There are some laws that set limits on what a religion is- so that benefits of that can be seen. Again, freedom of religion is far more important in a free society than guns should be- and there are laws for it.

voting right- another biggie for a free society. Yet we regulate that one, and the SC just allowed some restrictions for the ability to vote. Proof of citizenship, sure- but it is a restriction.

Search and seizure- if you live close to a border, you may be shocked to find that some rather intrusive search and siezure laws apply to you. Even with that, we are subjected to searches as we board planes, applied by the government.

I could go on, but there are so many of the rights that are laid out in the Consitution and the Bill of Rights that are regulated beyond the simple words which are vital to a free society, yet when we talk about guns- nobody can touch that right....

As for the "reason"- against an oppressive government. Well, recent uprisings in very oppressive countries should point out that freedom of speech, religion, and search and seizure are far more important in fighting oppression than guns will- people stood up and talked against an armed government, and WON.

Then the whole "gun's don't kill, people do"- sure, it's true. But what kind of weapon other than an assult rifle is capable of killing 28 people that quickly? I don't think a knife is going to wipe out a classroom of kids.

Smart regulation is reasonable.

JoeyM wrote: There a shooting last night in San Antonio, TX. http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Police-investigate-gunfire-at-movie-theater-4122668.php Two injuries, no deaths. Apparently some guy who was angry at a coworker

Thats an every day occurrence in this neighborhood. No one cares enough to report it to the media when its a bunch of gang members.

alfadriver wrote: what kind of weapon other than an assult rifle is capable of killing 28 people that quickly?

Tyler Durden: Did you know that if you mix equal parts of gasoline and frozen orange juice concentrate you can make napalm?
Narrator: No, I did not know that; is that true?
Tyler Durden: That's right... One could make all kinds of explosives, using simple household items.
Narrator: Really...?
Tyler Durden: If one were so inclined.

alfadriver wrote: what kind of weapon other than an assult rifle is capable of killing 28 people that quickly?

Springfield XDm 9mm with nicely placed shots. Thats less than two magazines.

N Sperlo wrote:

alfadriver wrote: what kind of weapon other than an assult rifle is capable of killing 28 people that quickly?

Springfield XDm 9mm with nicely placed shots. Thats less than two magazines.

A 10lb bag of nails, gasoline and a _______.

A 100lb keg of chlorine from the pool store and a couple gallons of __.

Killer BEES!

I have friends that have never seen a gun, and friends that I would be banging on their door when the zombie outbreak hits.

It feels like everything I read is an all-or-nothing debate. "Criminals will get guns one way or another", so should we just drop it and sell them at Speedway gas stations? No. I don't think ANYTHING is black or white (except maybe child abuse), but shades of grey. Gun control won't stop these incidents, but it might help prevent a few. And even a few is worth having to jump a few more hoops to buy 10 more automatic weapons?

I'll admit I've never even fired a real weapon (even after 6 years in the Navy - two chances were both blown by circumstances) but it's on my bucket list. I've never been in favor of strict gun control or banning them, but when people say "well anything can be a weapon - gun, tire iron, knife, sword, wooden stake" only one of those things is solely for killing.

Guess I'm mostly venting because my mom's an elementary school teacher, and passing schools this morning with cops in every parking lot got me thinking about it again. One last question - if the 2nd amendment was intended to keep the people armed as well as the government, where's my tank and nuclear weapon??

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

N Sperlo wrote:

alfadriver wrote: what kind of weapon other than an assult rifle is capable of killing 28 people that quickly?

Springfield XDm 9mm with nicely placed shots. Thats less than two magazines.

A 10lb bag of nails, gasoline and a _____________. A 100lb keg of chlorine from the pool store and a couple gallons of ________. Killer BEES!

A small spray canister of _-, also known as fuming _- ____-.