Mass shooting Boulder Colorado

[HomerJS]

the government has a long history of abusing its power. how do we protect against it?

I typed more, but trying to stay more on topic. trying to keep politics out of it a bit, and focus on constitutional law and government in general.

How about as a start ensuring EVERY eligible person has the right to vote and it should be made easier not harder. Start with electing the right people. The last 4 years should have taught us that.

Ensuring government doesn't abuse power is not solvable in the context of 2A because it implies 2A remedies when things don't go your way. We learned that Jan 6th.

Your question is complicated because there are so many ways that can happen. Narrow down the question and I will address.

 

[herm0016]

How about as a start ensuring EVERY eligible person has the right to vote and it should be made easier not harder.

agree.

Start with electing the right people. The last 4 years should have taught us that.

and the next 4 and the next 4 and the next 4.... just different issues that you agree with the power or not.

Ensuring government doesn't abuse power is not solvable in the context of 2A because it implies 2A remedies when things don't go your way. We learned that Jan 6th.

this is the same argument as " we cant do anything about it because blah blah and therefore we wont propose anything within the bounds of the laws, only extream measures that get our base riled up."

Your question is complicated because there are so many ways that can happen. Narrow down the question and I will address.

its complicated, that's my point. we have spent years electing people that only want to get reelected and these kind of issues are what get them reelected, why would you ever work to solve an issue that, if solved, takes away your leverage. I have been voting against all incumbents for a while.

 

[thilanliyan]

the government has a long history of abusing its power. how do we protect against it?

I've never understood this argument. No matter which gun a citizen has, the government's is bigger...you'll lose every time. Might have worked back in the 17th century but not anymore.

Maybe if people didn't elect politicians out of fear (of the "other") they wouldn't be afraid of that gov't abusing its power. The US is one of the last places I would feel afraid of the gov't...North Korea, Iran, China, etc on the other hand...that I can understand.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Yep.
For me, I'm not sure there was any particular point in time, but at some point it hit me that "shall not be infringed" is not synonymous with "cannot be regulated".
We regulate rights all the time for the common good.

Er, did you by any chance finally read the actual 2nd Amendment, you know where it literally starts with "A well regulated..."

Still blows my mind that they use that text to claim anyone including a single person is a militia but somehow that means they can't be regulated. And its the motherfucking strict wording Constitutionalist assholes (like Scalia) that did/do that too.

 

[Zorba]

so we should decide what constitutional rights people are allowed to exercise based on a decision that a government employee makes based not on past actions but on some perceived future "guilt" ?

4th, 5th, 14th, etc...

interesting about HIPPA, had not thought of that angle. I have always advocated for a better background check system. i would support more data feeding into it. maybe part of the reason for less data is the stigma around mental illness. we just need to keep in mind, that all lists need some kind of appeal process included with any list of names the government keeps.

"Well regulated..."

But I agree there should always be a proper appeals process, just like there should be retesting as well.

But I'm very sick of this whole idea that the only right that is infinite is gun ownership, while at the same time we are destroying the right to vote.

I agree that you'd have to figure out the 14th, but of the law clearly spells out the process and it's followed correctly I'd think that would meet the 14th. Not sure how the 4th would come into play on prescreening, the 4th is completely tossed out when using any number of other rights.

 

[Muse]

There's too much me me me in our society. Well, it hasn't affected me, so.. who cares. Is it just not sad enough to see these senseless killings continue to occur?

It does affect you. I realize it's not safe out there and it affects my behavior. It bothers me, the gun violence. I pay attention, don't pretend it's not happening. It bothers me that kids nowadays are on edge, thinking every door banging, locker slamming could be a gun shot. That a maniac with a gun might be around every corner. I didn't have to feel that way going to school. It bothers me that kids are going through that.

I do not disagree that there's way too much me me me going on, that's spot on. TBH I think they should melt down all the guns and force everyone to live without them. If you're found with a gun in my world, your next residence for the next 5 years is a penitentiary.

 

[herm0016]

I've never understood this argument. No matter which gun a citizen has, the government's is bigger...you'll lose every time. Might have worked back in the 17th century but not anymore.

that's not the argument I was making, the one i was making is that the government does not have a good track record protecting peoples rights, all of them. like voting.

Maybe if people didn't elect politicians out of fear (of the "other") they wouldn't be afraid of that gov't abusing its power. The US is one of the last places I would feel afraid of the gov't...

that's called privilege. The fact you have not had the government threaten or take something from you unjustly. think about how someone that has been a part of the foster care system looks at that, or someone who has had the IRS come after them for something stupid, or people in the criminal justice system for possesing a little weed, or.. ... list goes on and on.

 

[thilanliyan]

that's not the argument I was making, the one i was making is that the government does not have a good track record protecting peoples rights, all of them. like voting.


that's called privilege. The fact you have not had the government threaten or take something from you unjustly. think about how someone that has been a part of the foster care system looks at that, or someone who has had the IRS come after them for something stupid, or people in the criminal justice system for possesing a little weed, or.. ... list goes on and on.

Okay, I understand what you mean now.

I still don't agree that the US gov't is that scary, compared to others like China, Russia, etc. In the US at least there is a chance of actual justice, not sham justice like in those countries if the gov't doesn't like you. Yes there will be cases where the gov't may be overbearing (with some recourse for you) but I'd much rather have that than what's available in some other countries.

I live in Canada myself and I know I don't have to fear the gov't putting me in jail or whatever for no reason or disagreement...and I'd feel (nearly) the same if I lived in the US. Having been born in a 3rd world country, I know it can be worse than my current circumstances.

 

[MrSquished]

 

[herm0016]

Okay, I understand what you mean now.

I still don't agree that the US gov't is that scary, compared to others like China, Russia, etc. In the US at least there is a chance of actual justice, not sham justice like in those countries if the gov't doesn't like you. Yes there will be cases where the gov't may be overbearing (with some recourse for you) but I'd much rather have that than what's available in some other countries.

I live in Canada myself and I know I don't have to fear the gov't putting me in jail or whatever for no reason or disagreement...and I'd feel (nearly) the same if I lived in the US. Having been born in a 3rd world country, I know it can be worse than my current circumstances.

just because we may be "better" in that reguard does not mean that we don't have issues or cant improve.

 

[thilanliyan]

just because we may be "better" in that reguard does not mean that we don't have issues or cant improve.

No doubt, and how would restricting gun ownership further prevent progress in other areas like voting rights?

Gun legislation is just meant to reduce cases like this topic, not take away other rights.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Er, did you by any chance finally read the actual 2nd Amendment, you know where it literally starts with "A well regulated..."

Still blows my mind that they use that text to claim anyone including a single person is a militia but somehow that means they can't be regulated. And its the motherfucking strict wording Constitutionalist assholes (like Scalia) that did/do that too.

Context is key. My understanding is that "well regulated", as written then, would be translated in modern english to "well trained".

 

[MtnMan]

Allowed to buy a gun with a previous conviction of violent assault? The system failed. Just like it did with Dylan Roof, the church shooter in Charleston SC.

 

[HomerJS]

agree.

and the next 4 and the next 4 and the next 4.... just different issues that you agree with the power or not.


this is the same argument as " we cant do anything about it because blah blah and therefore we wont propose anything within the bounds of the laws, only extream measures that get our base riled up."


its complicated, that's my point. we have spent years electing people that only want to get reelected and these kind of issues are what get them reelected, why would you ever work to solve an issue that, if solved, takes away your leverage. I have been voting against all incumbents for a while.

By the right people I mean honest people, not referring to stance on issues. Trump was completely corrupt, crooked and dishonest. We abused power to the ultimate trying to overturn a legitimate election. Obama is basically an honest person and wouldn't try to completely overturn the Constitution. Every politician tries to amass power but a quality individual will mitigate the chance of abuse. AFAIC this is one of the best ways to curb abuse.

I mentioned 2A because you brought it up in the context of government abuse of power. My only point was to separate them.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Big surprise, an Islamic terrorist kills Americans and the leftist retards call for gun bans. Makes as much sense as most the dumb ass shit they do.

 

[Amol S.]

Big surprise, an Islamic terrorist kills Americans and the leftist retards call for gun bans. Makes as much sense as most the dumb ass shit they do.

↑↑↑↑↑Just ignore and move on. ↑↑↑↑↑

 

[HomerJS]

Big surprise, an Islamic terrorist kills Americans and the leftist retards call for gun bans. Makes as much sense as most the dumb ass shit they do.

Big surprise Taj only frets about terrorism when the person isn't white. BTW - idiot, you do know his religion had NOTHING to do with the shooting. But why let a few facts get in the way of your stupidity.

 

[Dave_5k]

Context is key. My understanding is that "well regulated", as written then, would be translated in modern english to "well trained".

And that, as far as I can tell, was complete wholesale invention of Scalia / gun lobby.
There are dictionaries scanned from 1755 / 1785 / early 1800's of the English language, and the definition of "regulated" has not materially changed in 200 years. Well directed meant being subject to rules (primary definition) or direction.

1755: to Regulate:
1) To Adjust by rule or method.
2) To direct.
e.g. 2: Regulate the patient in his manner of living.

Example from 1755/1785 reprint of Samuel Johnson's dictionary.

 

[jman19]

Big surprise, an Islamic terrorist kills Americans and the leftist retards call for gun bans. Makes as much sense as most the dumb ass shit they do.

To be fair, the "leftists" call for gun bans when white terrorists kill Americans too.

 

[MrSquished]

To be fair, the "leftists" call for gun bans when white terrorists kill Americans too.

You are talking to someone who has less class than my curbside trash.

 

[Fenixgoon]

And that, as far as I can tell, was complete wholesale invention of Scalia / gun lobby.
There are dictionaries scanned from 1755 / 1785 / early 1800's of the English language, and the definition of "regulated" has not materially changed in 200 years. Well directed meant being subject to rules (primary definition) or direction.

1755: to Regulate:
1) To Adjust by rule or method.
2) To direct.
e.g. 2: Regulate the patient in his manner of living.

Example from 1755/1785 reprint of Samuel Johnson's dictionary.

The example given uses definition 2. So a well regulated militia would be a well directed (trained) one.
Though debating this between us seems like a moot point since we agree further regulation is necessary!

 

[GoodRevrnd]

And that, as far as I can tell, was complete wholesale invention of Scalia / gun lobby.
There are dictionaries scanned from 1755 / 1785 / early 1800's of the English language, and the definition of "regulated" has not materially changed in 200 years. Well directed meant being subject to rules (primary definition) or direction.

1755: to Regulate:
1) To Adjust by rule or method.
2) To direct.
e.g. 2: Regulate the patient in his manner of living.

Example from 1755/1785 reprint of Samuel Johnson's dictionary.

If it did mean well trained, seems constitutionally you could make people participate in regular certification to maintain the right. However, the comma structure reads to me such that "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," is providing the reasoning. "the right of the people..." clause is the meat of it--essentially you wouldn't be able to maintain a well regulated militia without the peoples' right to arm. That said, it is inconsistent to provide additional justification when other amendments generally don't.

 

[Mai72]

where... where was jesus?

btw, keeps those prayers coming. Like that will fix what happened.

 

[pmv]

If it did mean well trained, seems constitutionally you could make people participate in regular certification to maintain the right. However, the comma structure reads to me such that "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," is providing the reasoning. "the right of the people..." clause is the meat of it--essentially you wouldn't be able to maintain a well regulated militia without the peoples' right to arm. That said, it is inconsistent to provide additional justification when other amendments generally don't.

The arguments over the literally-interpreted _meaning_ of that text does my head in. My first thought is that the issue is, it just isn't very well written. At least to a layman and modern English speaker, it's not clear _what_ it means. At the
minimum there are just too many commas in that sentence. By the standards of contemporary English it's tough to work out how to parse it, because of those extraneous commas. It's just not a well-formed 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." is just poor English. It's not a proper sentence, it's a list of sentence-fragments.

I mean, why not "Because a well-regulated militia is essential to the security of a free state, and because an armed populace familiar with the use of firearms are necessary to form such a militia, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"? (If that was what was meant, why not say that?).

That aspect of the gun argument seems to me to say something about the nature of written constitutions. The meanings of words, and norms about sentence construction, change over time. One thought is, maybe if you are going to have a constitution you need to employ some special kind of formal logic notation? But, then again, even that could change in meaning.

Or you get the 'intentionalist' stuff, where you go back and pore over other things that were said or written by those who wrote it, and try and debate and analyse and with great effort and much arguing and gnashing of teeth decide what they 'really' meant. But that seems little different from having a religion, turning those guys into infallible prophets, and, frankly, it seems a bit mad, as a basis for deciding what to do _now_. Why does it matter precisely what was in the heads of people who died long ago and had no knowledge of the modern world?

So in the end, it makes me wonder what does a written constitution really bring to the party? It seems as if it just comes down to questions of who has power, in the here-and-now, so how is that any different to if you didn't have a written constitution? Perhaps the same could be said about laws, but laws tend to be updated and modified with relative ease, not treated as Holy Writ. Constitutions seem to have more in common with religious texts, arguing over them seems similar to arguing over the meaning of the Koran or the Bible.

 

[Jaskalas]

I am okay with honoring the 2A by allowing single shot bolt action rifles. Anything else and ownership should require professional training and vetting. With periodic check ins and evaluations.