The Gun Control Debate Thread

[Larry]

Not a whole lot of information about what the shooter was doing. Not enough in that article to say whether this was attempted mass murder or simply spraying into a crowd to make a point.

Still, even if it's only the latter, the Good Guy seems completely justified, and it's certainly possible that he saved a life (or maybe re).

[TheGreatBuzz]

Yea I was just posting it for the 'good guy with a gun" crowd.

Edited July 1, 2016 by TheGreatBuzz

[herrmag]

Not a whole lot of information about what the shooter was doing. Not enough in that article to say whether this was attempted mass murder or simply spraying into a crowd to make a point.

Still, even if it's only the latter, the Good Guy seems completely justified, and it's certainly possible that he saved a life (or maybe re).

What defines mass murder?  Rather, what defines mass murder attempt? 

Edited July 1, 2016 by herrmag

[twa]

What defines mass murder?  Rather, what defines mass murder attempt? 

 

well he was charged with multiple counts of attempted murder...if they are gonna classify three as a mass shooting he certainly is a attempted mass shooter

[Larry]

What defines mass murder?  Rather, what defines mass murder attempt?

Intent to kill.

Which granted, certainly isn't THAT far away from "firing at random into a crowd".

If it's not attempted murder, it's certainly close. It's just a potentially picky point. Not that important.

[TheGreatBuzz]

I think the question was more relating to the "mass" part.

[stevenaa]

"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."

 

The people were the militia.   Note that it doesn't say until such time as a militia is unnecessary, or until such time that food can be provided through mass production and hunting is no longer a necessity.     The framers understood a well armed populace was the best guarantee against physical government abuse. 

 

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

 

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

 

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

 

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

 

 

I'm a supporter the second amendment as read to guarantee individual rights to gun ownership,  more specifically the limitation on government to restrict ownership.  However,  I'm not a card carrying NRA member who has no sense of understanding that things change over time.   I'll never support any legislation that prevents my right to own a firearm except under some well defined,  stringent exceptions:

 

 

Commit a felony-lose the right

Convicted of domestic violence,  or while on trial for it-  lose the right

On a no fly list-  lose the right.  But we need processes to expediently correct mistakes in who is listed

We need a way to restrict the mentally sick from gun ownership.  See the Texas nut lady.   Long history of mental health issues.  tragic

We need stiff penalties for children getting access to firearms.  

 

 

I'm fine with more thorough background checks and reasonable wait times.  I'm fine with mandating that personal sales be recorded.  I'm fine with requiring a licensing program for gun ownership.  None of those infringe on my right to own a gun.  

[TheGreatBuzz]

I'm probably going to lose some street cred as the local gun nut here but where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does it say the purpose of the 2nd is to keep our own government from being tyrannical? Is see that used so often. Some one want to provide a link?

[Larry]

The people were the militia.  

First, I note your use of the past tense.

But second, I also note that Congress has the power to establish rules for "the militia". I suspect this included establishing rules for their weaponry, it's use, when it shall be carried, and under what circumstances, and so forth.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that Congress has the power to establish rules for determining WHO IS IN "the militia".

[Bang]

Wanna provide the definition of militia back when the Constitution was written? Or do you like to continue to try to change the meaning based on your opinion? Funny how the SC can rule on abortion and everyone accepts it as settled law but when they rule over and over and over and over on the 2nd Amendment it just means try again.

 

It's pretty obvious english.. there's only three words and each are very explicitly defined.

"Well regulated" is pretty obvious.

it means "well regulated".

 

Militia is also clearly defined in the english language and that makes it's intent obvious.. since this very clearly defined word was the word chosen.

 

Neither exist right now. The only well regulated militias we have for defense of state are national guard units.

That is a well regulated militia.

the regulations we have now are thought to be inadequate by a majority of the population. the notion of militia for necessary security of state is out the window.. folks are now convinced they are intended for defending themselves FROM the state.

 

Not even knowing if your neighbor owns a gun or not ...  well, yeah, that could seem like a regulated militia to someone who had no idea what any of the very simple english words mean. No organization of any militia units at all..  doesn't fly as a well regulated militia. It is the exact opposite.

 

the main advocates for gun ownership have erased these three words, and turned people into drones who will feign such ignorance as to claim to not be able to interpret them.

the main advocates for gun sales want as little regulation as they can squeeze.. nd if they could get it down to zero regulation, they would in a heartbeat.

 

I bet a dollar that the founders never intended "well regulated militia" to mean "Buy as many as you can carry, RIGHT NOW before your country comes to get you!"

"course there's no way to prove it, but i'm pretty confident in my dollar.

 

~Bang

Edited July 1, 2016 by Bang

[stevenaa]

You all are quick to dismiss "the people".  It does not limit "the People"  to the group belonging to the militia. It is clear the intent is that the militia is "the people"    As in "We, the people"   There is no ambiguity in that statement.   "the people" as a phrase is only used a couple times and each time in the context of individual rights.    The amendment in no way implies that a militia of select people will be formed, and just those people will not have their right to arms infringed. 

 

Mason makes this quite clear, and as a key person to the Bill of Rights,  I think I'll trust his opinion. 

 

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

 

This is from Mason draft:

 

17. That the People have a Right to keep and to bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free State; that Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the Circumstances and Protection of the Community will admit; and that in all Cases, the military should be under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power.

 

 

You can read the Amendment in a vacuum and assign any meaning that fits your agenda.  But the framers intention is quite clear. 

The People are to be armed as the best defense against governmental power.

 

 

I do think the argument can be made regarding the training and discipline of said militia(The People)  I think it's well within the governments right(arguably at the state level)   to enforce training as a requirement of ownership and really that should be done to fulfill the spirit of the amendment IMO  I find it interesting that the "trained to arms" qualifier was left out of the final amendment. 

[Bang]

I'd accept required training & certification as a definition for a militia in this sense.

 

 

"the people" is too broad to be defined as a well regulated militia in my mind. The terms do not mean the same thing at all.

 

~Bang

[PeterMP]

First, I note your use of the past tense.

But second, I also note that Congress has the power to establish rules for "the militia". I suspect this included establishing rules for their weaponry, it's use, when it shall be carried, and under what circumstances, and so forth.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that Congress has the power to establish rules for determining WHO IS IN "the militia".

 

In 1792, able bodied white males between 18-45 years old.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

Edited July 1, 2016 by PeterMP

[Larry]

You all are quick to dismiss "the people". It does not limit "the People" to the group belonging to the militia. It is clear the intent is that the militia is "the people" As in "We, the people" There is no ambiguity in that statement. "the people" as a phrase is only used a couple times and each time in the context of individual rights. The amendment in no way implies that a militia of select people will be formed, and just those people will not have their right to arms infringed.

Ah, got it. That whole "militia" clause was a mistake. They just picked that word when they really meant this other word. Because they're really the same. (But you want to use the other one). Edited July 1, 2016 by Larry

[Bang]

 

In 1792, able bodied white males between 18-45 years old.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

it says they can be conscripted into the local militia,, not that they are the militia on their own.

 

" It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. (This was later expanded to all males, regardless of race, between the ages 18-54 in 1862)"

 

So which is the local militia company? Sounds to me like something that is regulated and at the very least recognized as such.

if all the male gun owners between 18 and 45 were now conscripted to report to their local militia company, where would they go?

 

Jimbo's house?

 

to reinforce what i said a few posts ago..  the final word on these acts seems to be this one.

"It was superseded by the Militia Act of 1903, which established the United States National Guard as the chief body of organized military reserves in the United States."

 

 

~Bang

Edited July 1, 2016 by Bang

[tshile]

given what we've seen from the modern day 'militia' in this country, i'd advise being careful requiring that one be a member to have the right to gun ownership.

 

could be a careful what you wish for situation.

[Bang]

lol,, i read you loud and clear tshile.

I just bring it up because we clearly do not follow the provision of the amendment,

I'm not for banning guns, but I'm also very anti-bull****.

 

 

(I would also say that even if they are crazy, those militias are at least adhering to the definition of the word.) 

 

~Bang

Edited July 1, 2016 by Bang

[tshile]

lol,, i read you loud and clear tshile.

I just bring it up because we clearly do not follow the provision of the amendment,

I'm not for banning guns, but I'm also very anti-bull****.

 

~Bang

 

right, and i'm not really married to either side of the militia argument. i see both intents.

 

but there seems to be some people who see requiring membership to a well regulated, organized militia as some sort of hurdle that will at least in part get them closer to the gun control/gun ban they so desperately seek.

 

people in this country (for the most part) that own guns, love their guns, and will not give them up. i would be willing to consider a serious bet that all this would do is cause the number of militias in the country to increase 1000x times, overnight.

 

and then you're going to have a bunch of people with guns, meeting up and hanging out together, where there will invariably be someone who is actually crazy there, allowing the crazy gun owner mentality to spread.

 

do you want more people dressing in fatigues doing anti-government drills with weapons? that doesn't really fit my idea of the modern responsible, trained gun owner.

 

in fact, when i think of the people i see/know of doing that... they're pretty much the people i want to take guns away from...

Edited July 1, 2016 by tshile

[Popeman38]

It's pretty obvious english.. there's only three words and each are very explicitly defined.

"Well regulated" is pretty obvious.

it means "well regulated".

 

Militia is also clearly defined in the english language and that makes it's intent obvious.. since this very clearly defined word was the word chosen.

 

Neither exist right now. The only well regulated militias we have for defense of state are national guard units. WRONG

That is a well regulated militia.

the regulations we have now are thought to be inadequate by a majority of the population. the notion of militia for necessary security of state is out the window.. folks are now convinced they are intended for defending themselves FROM the state.

 

Not even knowing if your neighbor owns a gun or not ...  well, yeah, that could seem like a regulated militia to someone who had no idea what any of the very simple english words mean. No organization of any militia units at all..  doesn't fly as a well regulated militia. It is the exact opposite.

 

the main advocates for gun ownership have erased these three words, and turned people into drones who will feign such ignorance as to claim to not be able to interpret them.

the main advocates for gun sales want as little regulation as they can squeeze.. nd if they could get it down to zero regulation, they would in a heartbeat.

 

I bet a dollar that the founders never intended "well regulated militia" to mean "Buy as many as you can carry, RIGHT NOW before your country comes to get you!"

"course there's no way to prove it, but i'm pretty confident in my dollar.

 

~Bang

So basically a really long-winded "No, I don't know what militia meant but here is why my opinion is closer to what the founding fathers meant than yous" reply.

 

Any able-bodied male between 18 and 45 was the militia. Not a National Guard member or Reserve member (those would be professional soldiers since they receive formal military training). No matter how many times you (or anyone else) want to push the Reserves and National Guard as a militia, you are wrong. There is a reason they are called the {insert state name} National Guard and not the {insert state name} State Militia. 

 

Militias were expected to provide their own firearm (either rifle or sidearm, or both). If the purpose of the 2nd was to stand up the National Guard, why wouldn't the founders express the right of the state to keep and bear arms? I mean, the National Guard keeps the arms that the Guardsman use securely locked in an arms room (a vault that is alarmed and monitored by MP/local police), so clearly and logically that can't support the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Let me know the next time you see a National Guardsman keeping his automatic (3 round burst) M16 and M249, M240B, M203, M9 and any other individual firearms at home when they aren't drilling (I only included individual weapons, and not crew-served weapons).

 

A militia is a body of civilians who arm themselves. In the United States, a "real" militia has been demonized as domestic terrorists even though very few have ever created armed conflict. Any gathering of people with "scary" looking weapons who meet on a regular basis to train end up on FBI watch-lists, labeled as crazy domestic terrorists, and looked down upon by folks. That is closer to the Founding Father's definition of a militia than anything you offered. 

 

You want me to tell you where to send your dollar?

[pjfootballer]

[Bang]

What militia means is pretty easy.

even for an idiot like me who barely escaped the 4th grade, dictionaries are easy to find.
A militia may be made up of civilians, but it is to be 'well organized'. 
And to me, that means at the absolute very least you should know which militia you belong to,, or where to report if called upon by the various militia acts.

 

I think you should read up to Peter's comment and then the after... the US defined "militia" in this regard in 1903.

It also shows in his link that the males between 18-45 could be CONSCRIPTED.. (ie: "forced")  to their local militia company when called, so something of the sort actually existed..  and then in 1903, was defined by law as the national guard.
(I would assume that today if such dire need occurred, we'd be instructed to get our gun and report  our local Nat'l guard armories.)

The purpose of the second was not to stand up TO the National guard, but as defined by the US, to become the national guard.

In fact, the "National guard" wasn't even defined until well after the second was written, and even the earliest militias on the continent were designated by units
"The first colony-wide militia was formed by Massachusetts in 1636 by merging small older local units, and several National Guard units can be traced back to this militia. The various colonial militias became state militias when the United States became independent. "

This does not at all read to be the chaotic practice we have now, but a much more controlled and organized envronment..

 and in 1903 it went the last step to say that the National guard is the recognized state militia, and even state defense forces fall under their command.

 

 (i would say it is definitely a correct assumption to make that it also means to protect ourselves from our own if it becomes tyrannical. but mostly i think it is intended for foreign invaders. In the old days we weren't the only nations within our current borders. Potential foreign enemies were not far away. nowadays, i think we're unassailable in regard to foreign invading forces.)

 

it is interesting how we will adhere to law and interpret it when convenient,, but when the law also defines what the militia is, well then it's just 'wrong'.

 

My dollar is still here.
 

 

 

~Bang

Edited July 1, 2016 by Bang

[Rudechain]

Wanna provide the definition of militia back when the Constitution was written? Or do you like to continue to try to change the meaning based on your opinion? Funny how the SC can rule on abortion and everyone accepts it as settled law but when they rule over and over and over and over on the 2nd Amendment it just means try again.

Well a dictionary from that time would sure be helpful.  Is 1755 close?

 

 

 

http://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/?p=9727

 

 

 

Milítia. n.s. [Latin.] The trainbands; the standing force of a nation.

Let any prince think soberly of his forces, except his militia be good and valiant soldiers. Bacon's Essays, № 30.

The militia was so settled by law, that a sudden army could be drawn together. Clarendon.

Unnumbered spirits round thee fly,

The light militia of the lower sky. Pope's Rape of the Lock.

 

Johnson, Samuel. "Militia." A Dictionary of the English Language: A Digital Edition of the 1755 Classic by Samuel Johnson. Edited by Brandi Besalke. Last modified: January 5, 2013. http://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/?p=9727.

[stevenaa]

Uh, no,.

What militia means is pretty easy.

even for an idiot like me who barely escaped the 4th grade, dictionaries are easy to find.

A militia may be made up of civilians, but it is to be 'well organized'. 

And to me, that means at the absolute very least you should know which militia you belong to,, or where to report if called upon by the various militia acts.

 

I think you should read up to Peter's comment and then the after... the US defined militia in this regard in 1903.

It also shows in his link that the males between 18-45 could be CONSCRIPTED.. (ie: "forced")  to their local militia company when called, so something of the sort actually existed..  and then in 1903, was defined by law as the national guard.

The purpose of the second was not to stand up TO the National guard, but as defined by the US, to become the national guard.

In fact, the "National guard" wasn't even defined until well after the second was written, and even the earliest militias on the continent were designated by units

"The first colony-wide militia was formed by Massachusetts in 1636 by merging small older local units, and several National Guard units can be traced back to this militia. The various colonial militias became state militias when the United States became independent. "

This does not at all read to be the chaotic practice we have now, but a much more controlled and organized envronment..

 and in 1903 it went the last step to say that the National guard is the recognized state militia, and even state defense forces fall under their command.

 

it is interesting how we will adhere to law and interpret it when convenient,, but when the law also defines what the militia is, well then it's just 'wrong'.

 

My dollar is still here.

 

 

 

~Bang

Uh no.  The principal authors of the Bill of rights clearly defined what militia meant at the time it was written.  We can argue the semantics of what it means now, or what it was defined to mean in 1903,  but that has nothing to do with the meaning at the time it was written, or the clear intent from the words of those involved in writing it.    It was absolutely meant to provide an armed populace as a deterrent against the government.  How can Masons own words be construed to mean anything else?  How about Madison's words? He had a little something to do with the penning of the Bill of Rights. 

 

 

“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

― James Madison

 

 

“The constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”

― Alexander Hamilton

 

 

 

The words of the authors themselves make the intent and reason of the 2nd amendment crystal clear.   Making it out to be anything other than what they themselves stated is revisionist. 

Edited July 1, 2016 by stevenaa

[tshile]

this thread is a flat circle

Edited July 1, 2016 by tshile

[Burgold]

 

 

 

“The constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”

― Alexander Hamilton

 

Mind you, you realize you are quoting a man who died in an illegal duel who would have been alive if he followed the gun laws of the day.