25
   

Deadly shooting on Oregon college campus

 
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 12 Oct, 2015 09:16 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
Standing military should have standing military weapons. No one else needs them. A rifle/shotgun/pistol is all the fire arm a citizen has the right to. I've seen some of our militias and they certainly do not need access to missiles of any sort.

The Second Amendment says otherwise.
McGentrix
 
  0  
Reply Mon 12 Oct, 2015 09:25 am
@oralloy,
We'll just have to disagree on that one.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 12 Oct, 2015 09:30 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
We'll just have to disagree on that one.

The Framers were very clear on their intent for the Second Amendment. They wanted to ensure that the militia had unfettered access to advanced weaponry so that it would remain an effective fighting force.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Oct, 2015 09:34 am
@McGentrix,
That's a very odd interpretation of this sentence. Some people just don't understand simple English, I guess.

I suppose this dispute could be resolved by looking into the motivations of those who wrote the 2nd amendment, as documented in their letters etc. Another way is to learn English.
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 12 Oct, 2015 09:38 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

That's a very odd interpretation of this sentence. Some people just don't understand simple English, I guess.

I suppose this dispute could be resolved by looking into the motivations of those who wrote the 2nd amendment, as documented in their letters etc. Another way is to learn English.


It's funny that you are complaining about someone else understanding simple English with that statement. What is "this sentence" referring to? The 2nd amendment? I'd say that they have a perfect understanding of English and explained it quite well.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 12 Oct, 2015 09:39 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
That's a very odd interpretation of this sentence. Some people just don't understand simple English, I guess.

Straightforward English readings might lead you astray. Much more important is the actual legal intention.


Olivier5 wrote:
I suppose this dispute could be resolved by looking into the motivations of those who wrote the 2nd amendment, as documented in their letters etc.

Yes! Even better yet, as documented by their actual debate speeches regarding the Constitution and Second Amendment.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Mon 12 Oct, 2015 09:41 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
The second amendment is there. Period. We have that to deal with that. But how?

You could try and implement it, ie enlisting all those who want to own a gun in a mandatory (and well organized) state militia.

Another way to "deal" with the 2nd amendment, beside implementing both parts of the sentence and not just one, would be to register all gun owners and regulate the ammo they can buy in a given period. Give them enough to practice and defend themselves but not enough to go on a shooting spree.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Oct, 2015 09:42 am
@McGentrix,
Obviously you don't have a perfect understanding of English yourself...
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 12 Oct, 2015 09:48 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
Another way to "deal" with the 2nd amendment, beside implementing both parts of the sentence and not just one, would be to register all gun owners and regulate the ammo they can buy in a given period. Give them enough to practice and defend themselves but not enough to go on a shooting spree.

The amount needed to practice and defend yourself is *greater* than the amount needed to go on a shooting spree.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Mon 12 Oct, 2015 10:04 am
@oralloy,
Probably right that the math does not work in my favor here.

Still, controlling ammo sales would help project a general concern for human life. For a European like me, it's a bit odd to see booze regulated more closely than bullets... Having millions of rounds cheaply available at the nearest supermarket can only send the message that human life is expendable. These ammos are designed to kill people.... The same odd priorities are at work in the movie family rating system. Kids below 13 can be exposed to much violence but God forbid that they see a nipple.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Oct, 2015 10:07 am
@Olivier5,
Made me laugh re that post on p. 30. But then I stopped laughing..
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Oct, 2015 10:19 am
@ossobuco,
It'd be fun to send to boot camp anyone wanting to tot a gun. Just to teach them a little discipline... :-o)
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 12 Oct, 2015 10:24 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
It'd be fun to send to boot camp anyone wanting to tot a gun. Just to teach them a little discipline... :-o)

Non-militiamen have the right to carry self-defense guns in public.

Militia membership is for the heavy weapons.
farmerman
 
  5  
Reply Mon 12 Oct, 2015 10:57 am
@oralloy,
Remember, its a "well regulated" not a "Well armed" militia. We already limit ownership of severl types of weapons and the district courts have upheld that.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 12 Oct, 2015 11:45 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Remember, its a "well regulated" not a "Well armed" militia. We already limit ownership of severl types of weapons and the district courts have upheld that.

The term "well regulated militia" meant that the militia in question had trained enough that they were capable of fighting as a single coordinated unit instead of fighting as a bunch of uncoordinated individuals.

The purpose of the second half of the Second Amendment is to ensure the militia's unfettered access to advanced armaments.

No court has ever issued a ruling limiting the weapons of the militia, and no court ever will. Rulings dealing with non-militiamen are entirely different.

The only real limit is that the Second Amendment only covers individual weapons. Tanks and fighter jets aren't covered.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 12 Oct, 2015 11:46 am
@Olivier5,
Still, controlling ammo sales would help project a general concern for human life.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Sure it does just like making it a jailing offense to have ammo alone in Mexico and the drug gangs run wild killing who they feel like including cops and judges and just your average unarmed Mexican citizens.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Mon 12 Oct, 2015 11:54 am
@farmerman,
Of course I am however if you would take away the large homicide rate of our poor black citizens living in the inner cities where armed gangs are allowed to rule our homicide rate even with all our guns is roughly the sames as the EU nations.
0 Replies
 
saab
 
  3  
Reply Mon 12 Oct, 2015 11:59 am
Ordenary people with plenty of guns are militia.
What do you need them for in USA of today? For guerrilla warfare ?
Against whom?
A whole bunch of men, women and more or less kids running around shooting at anything moving - that certainly would be the worst militia one could think of.
Guerilla warfare also means you have to know your area very very well and be able to move around without being seen or heard. Good guerilla warfare can usually not be concored.
But gun nuts - God save me for them if things really get serious.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 12 Oct, 2015 12:09 pm
@saab,
saab wrote:
What do you need them for in USA of today?

Why do Freedom Haters always go on and on about "need"?

We're free here in America. Need is irrelevant.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  4  
Reply Mon 12 Oct, 2015 12:16 pm
@saab,
saab wrote:

Ordenary people with plenty of guns are militia.
What do you need them for in USA of today? For guerrilla warfare ?
Against whom?
A whole bunch of men, women and more or less kids running around shooting at anything moving - that certainly would be the worst militia one could think of.
Guerilla warfare also means you have to know your area very very well and be able to move around without being seen or heard. Good guerilla warfare can usually not be concored.
But gun nuts - God save me for them if things really get serious.


Part of the tea party / radical right narrative is that 'the people' have to be ready to rise up and fight against Uncle Sam when he starts behaving like jackbooted Nazis and comes for their guns and freedom. This narrative never addresses how 'the people' armed with whatever they could get from legal and illegal gun sellers would be able to stand against a multi billion dollar arsenal that includes among many other things drone warfare, fighter jets, and tactical nukes. Not to mention a standing fighting force of over 1.5 million troops if you include Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard (not that those would all be used in a domestic fight). And leave aside the couple million more military reserves and National Guard.
But yeah - that's the harebrained hazy mixture of fear and anger they sell to their masses - "We gotta be able to fight against the oppressive Federal Gubmint!"
 

Related Topics

Drumsticks - Discussion by H2O MAN
nobody respects an oath breaker - Discussion by gungasnake
Marksmanship - Discussion by H2O MAN
Kids and Guns by the Numbers - Discussion by jcboy
Personal Defense Weapons (PDW) - Discussion by H2O MAN
Self defense with a gun - Discussion by H2O MAN
It's a sellers market - Discussion by H2O MAN
Harrisburg Pa. Outdoor Show "Postponed" - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/16/2024 at 10:01:06