Last Vegas strip shooting: More than 20 dead, 100 injured after gunman opens fire near Mandalay Bay

[ivwshane]

Militia back then effectively meant EVERY able bodied man.

That is why the founders saw fit to interchange the two words, "militia" and "people", in the 2A. There was no distinction back then. Civilians were militia.

No they didn't. The word militia appears multiple times in the constitution (I've already linked to all of its uses in this very thread. I'm guessing your blinders caused you to miss it) and in all cases it is used to describe an army that is controlled by the state for the purpose of the state to defend itself from foreign and domestic attacks (such as rebellions and insurrections) and to be called on by the president to do the same at the national level when needed.

 

[sandorski]

So, everyone can own an "Arm" for the purpose of a need of a "Militia". Where does it say anything about carrying said arm on your person and/or shooting people on your Property?

If everyone owned an AR15 or even a full auto gun of some sort, but they were stored in some local Armory, these issues would be much less of concern.

 

[mdram]

So, everyone can own an "Arm" for the purpose of a need of a "Militia". Where does it say anything about carrying said arm on your person and/or shooting people on your Property?

If everyone owned an AR15 or even a full auto gun of some sort, but they were stored in some local Armory, these issues would be much less of concern.

bear, as in have on your person

 

[sandorski]

bear, as in have on your person

Fair enough.

 

[Bird222]

And, by the rules of the English language, which Thomas Jefferson was very familiar with, that entire clause is subordinate to 'A well regulated Militia'.



I just did. Well regulated. That specifically states that it should be regulated.

My reading of that doesn't say anything about the federal or state government is responsible for regulating arms. In fact it switches from talking about the militia to the people. Now don't think I think the amendment is unlimited because I don't. I don't think any of them are unlimited. But what some people are suggesting is going too far.

 

[ivwshane]

My reading of that doesn't say anything about the federal or state government is responsible for regulating arms. In fact it switches from talking about the militia to the people. Now don't think I think the amendment is unlimited because I don't. I don't think any of them are unlimited. But what some people are suggesting is going too far.

What are people suggesting that is going to far?

 

[mdram]

What are people suggesting that is going to far?

registration

 

[imported_tajmahal]

What are people suggesting that is going to far?

That elitist jerks like yourself seem to think the average American of this time and at the founding of our Republic is too stupid to read the words of the Constitution and comprehend in a sensible fashion what they say. That we need elitist little jerkoffs to tell us what our own Constitution means. That until and unless you tell us what it "really" means we just can't decipher it. Get off your fsking high horse.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Nope, 'being necessary to the security of a free State' and 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms' are inferior clauses. The sentence should be able to be read without it. In that case the sentence reads: A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed. Everything else is additional information not critical to the understanding of the main point of the sentence.

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.

Can, and probably should, be read: Being necessary to the security of a free State the right of the people to keep and bear Arms as a well regulated Militia shall not be infringed.

Then I can argue, rightfully, that the first part of that sentence is no longer true. The security of a free State is no longer dependent on the right of the people to form a militia, making the entire amendment false.

"A well regulated militia shall not be infringed" makes no sense.

How does one infringe upon a militia?

That interpretation is also inconsistent with the writing of rest of the bill of rights.

"congress shall make no law abridging...the right of the people to peaceably assemble"

"the right of the people to be secure in their persons....shall not be violated...."

And so on.

I'm not going to diagram the 2A, but its a worthwhile exercise to realize that "the right shall not be infringed" is the core idea of the sentence. It can both stand alone by itself and actually makes sense.

Like all other rights, the 2A is not unlimited, and SCOTUS has ruled as such. Such a right is also useless if the government is the one in charge of storing your firearms for you (e.g. National guard).

 

[SMOGZINN]

That elitist jerks like yourself seem to think the average American of this time and at the founding of our Republic is too stupid to read the words of the Constitution and comprehend in a sensible fashion what they say. That we need elitist little jerkoffs to tell us what our own Constitution means. That until and unless you tell us what it "really" means we just can't decipher it. Get off your fsking high horse.

Yeah, we don't need to listen to no smart people! We done know it!

 

[ivwshane]

That elitist jerks like yourself seem to think the average American of this time and at the founding of our Republic is too stupid to read the words of the Constitution and comprehend in a sensible fashion what they say. That we need elitist little jerkoffs to tell us what our own Constitution means. That until and unless you tell us what it "really" means we just can't decipher it. Get off your fsking high horse.

You don't have to believe me and my interpretation of what the 2nd amendment means, you can read multiple supreme court interpretations, all of them before the 2008 ruling.

Its not my fault you are too stupid to understand that.

Btw, you aren't an average American. Most Americans favor gun control.

 

[ivwshane]

"A well regulated militia shall not be infringed" makes no sense.

How does one infringe upon a militia?

That interpretation is also inconsistent with the writing of rest of the bill of rights.

"congress shall make no law abridging...the right of the people to peaceably assemble"

"the right of the people to be secure in their persons....shall not be violated...."

And so on.

I'm not going to diagram the 2A, but its a worthwhile exercise to realize that "the right shall not be infringed" is the core idea of the sentence. It can both stand alone by itself and actually makes sense.

Like all other rights, the 2A is not unlimited, and SCOTUS has ruled as such. Such a right is also useless if the government is the one in charge of storing your firearms for you (e.g. National guard).

The second was enshrining a states right, the right to protect itself from foreign and domestic attacks like rebellions and insurrections. You are also conflating the bill of rights with amendments. Though they hold equal weight you cannot tie them together in terms of meaning and relationship.

You appear to be another Nutter who thinks the 2nd was meant to keep the government in check despite the constitution and history showing that insurrections and rebellions were to be stopped by the government.

 

[mdram]

You don't have to believe me and my interpretation of what the 2nd amendment means, you can read multiple supreme court interpretations, all of them before the 2008 ruling.

Its not my fault you are too stupid to understand that.

Btw, you aren't an average American. Most Americans favor gun control.

and i guess we have no firearm regulations?

 

[Commodus]

Nothing you wrote changes anything in regards to what reality is. And reality is that there have been regulations and restrictions on both guns and tobacco, and I would argue MORE limitations put on guns. If you think an 18 year age limit, having commercials that help educate, and not being able to advertise on TV / radio, and sin tax are all that can be done and you're willing to accept almost a half a million deaths a year (41k of those INNOCENT victims) then it is hard to argue for more regulations on the already regulated guns that do FAR less harm to society.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUM1r_444CY

You guys talk about how powerful guns are, but what you miss is that dead is dead. Whether it is a .22 or .50BMG, get hit with one in a vital area it likely won't matter which one it is. Maybe an open vs. closed casket, but likely dead either way.

Overall gun crime is dropping and has significantly since the 90's. That trend is continuing, and I'd like to see it continue. Things like this grab headlines, but statistically are a drop in the bucket (I know it sounds cold to put it like that, but just speaking in statistics there).

I find it highly ironic that you're eager to show how much more we can regulate tobacco (and I agree there's more that can be done), but when guns come up there's a mysterious magic wall that appears. Nope. Can't do anything more. The laws we have are absolutely fine.

In some ways, that's the problem. It's that there are deaths that are likely avoidable through tighter gun regulation, but there's a whole legion of people who immediately throw their hands up and act as if nothing can be done... or worse, pay politicians to pretend nothing can be done.

I'm not concerned about gun caliber, nor did I ever say I did; I know that being shot in a vital area with a low-caliber round is worse than being hit in the arm with a high-caliber round. Rather, it's more about things like firing rates and magazine capacity. And of course, there are peripheral things we can do, such as stricter background checks and reviewing the kind of criminal activity that strips someone of their gun rights.

 

[Bird222]

What are people suggesting that is going to far?

Banning bump stocks for one (keep in mind I don't own one and don't have any desire to own one). I'm about data. The stats on people getting killed this way are just way too low. I'm not for creating new laws based on that.

 

[Denly]

Hmm, like Canada? Or Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Norway, France? Aside from France it’s not overly burdensome to own magazine fed semi automatic rifles in these countries.

I don't know if it is "burdensome" but it sure is very expensive, safety class cost $150+, gun club membership $400+ per yr and there are very few of them. The gun it self is cost 2-3 times more than US.

And most importantly people(80%) don't care about guns, for those that care enough are mostly for hunting or recreational.

 

[ivwshane]

and i guess we have no firearm regulations?

You quoted me but that quote has absolutely nothing to do with what you wrote.

 

[ivwshane]

Banning bump stocks for one (keep in mind I don't own one and don't have any desire to own one). I'm about data. The stats on people getting killed this way are just way too low. I'm not for creating new laws based on that.

Lol, you might want to consult the NRA on that one.

If every regulation looks unreasonable to you, then you just might be the unreasonable one.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Lol, you might want to consult the NRA on that one.

If every regulation looks unreasonable to you, then you just might be the unreasonable one.

What?! He didn't have a knee-jerk reaction to a single incident? He must be unreasonable!

 

[Puffnstuff]

"A well regulated militia shall not be infringed" makes no sense.

How does one infringe upon a militia?

That interpretation is also inconsistent with the writing of rest of the bill of rights.

"congress shall make no law abridging...the right of the people to peaceably assemble"

"the right of the people to be secure in their persons....shall not be violated...."

And so on.

I'm not going to diagram the 2A, but its a worthwhile exercise to realize that "the right shall not be infringed" is the core idea of the sentence. It can both stand alone by itself and actually makes sense.

Like all other rights, the 2A is not unlimited, and SCOTUS has ruled as such. Such a right is also useless if the government is the one in charge of storing your firearms for you (e.g. National guard).

Its obvious he's never studied law much less Constitutional law.

 

[ivwshane]

What?! He didn't have a knee-jerk reaction to a single incident? He must be unreasonable!

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[pmv]

Not questionable to me. Do you oppose the death penalty ?

On the whole, I do. Though I'm not completely hard-line about it (it's not like I'm a Christian, so I don't think life is sacred), I just think in practice it doesn't help matters.

And, indeed, one reason I don't like it is becuase it's so defeatist - just accepting we are going to produce lots of unreformable sickos and have to keep culling them.

In any case, it's not really relevant - it's hardly the same as people gunning each other down on the street based on vague moral criteria. At least, it's not supposed to be, if it's administered properly.

 

[pmv]

Can, and probably should, be read: Being necessary to the security of a free State the right of the people to keep and bear Arms as a well regulated Militia shall not be infringed.

I'm not convinced that's what it is supposed to mean.

I was thinking more...

Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, and because you need an armed populace familar with arms in order to be able to form a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

But really I think the writers of the Constitution should have been way more careful with their prose style, considering the importance of the document they were writing. The second amendment seems to have too many commas and a missing implied explantory clause.

 

[Bird222]

Lol, you might want to consult the NRA on that one.

If every regulation looks unreasonable to you, then you just might be the unreasonable one.

I didn't say every regulation looks unreasonable to me. I'm not an NRA member and they don't necessarily represent my views and they definitely don't on the bump stock issue.

 

[ivwshane]

I didn't say every regulation looks unreasonable to me. I'm not an NRA member and they don't necessarily represent my views and they definitely don't on the bump stock issue.

A reasonable person would say that if the NRA supports something then its probably not an unreasonable restriction. But that's what most reasonable people would think.