Another Devastating School Shooting: Uvalde, Texas

@hightor,

People can not pretend the world beyond their understanding does not exist.

That is a bigger problem.

0 Replies

Ron Johnson Literally Blames Uvalde Shooting on ‘CRT’ and ‘Wokeness’

Quote:

When assault weapons are used in a mass shooting, 6x as many people are shot.

2 Replies

@hightor,

Just like all the lies, the gaslighting and denialism isn't nearly as frustrating to me as just how effective it is

0 Replies

I've read one story claiming that the cops felt it was not worth risking themselves because the victims are Mexicans. Waiting to see if it has any substance.

0 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

...the Constitution does not grant an individual right to bear arms, as the amendment clearly mentions a "militia"....

It also says:

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Personally, I don't want the government to be the only ones with guns. I want the ability to defend myself and my family and also to oppose the government if it ever becomes tyrannical.

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Quote:

It also says:

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

But you left out the context, the part about the militia. "Bearing arms" is a military reference. The idea was that we'd have no standing army, and that trained militia members would have their weapons at home ready to respond when necessary. Given the clausal construction of the amendment, courts can interpret those words in more than one way — and already have.

Quote:

Personally, I don't want the government to be the only ones with guns.

But I'm not suggesting that people be completely disarmed. Most gun owners behave responsibly. I'm suggesting limiting the types of weapons available to civilians.

Excluding the military and a few law enforcement agencies there aren't really that many government officials who carry weapons. It's not members of the government who are slaughtering schoolchildren with assault-styled weapons. The government isn't buying guns in one state and reselling them across state borders. The government isn't killing citizens in drive-by shootings. The government isn't marketing military lookalike weapons to teenagers.

2 Replies

@hightor,

You cannot look at the statement, even as just part of a sentence:

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

and claim that it means that people cannot have guns or that they can only have puny guns.

As to your description of things the government isn't doing, I think you need to add the word "now."

3 Replies

@Brandon9000,

READ THE REST PF THE AMENDMENT, WHICH ALL YOU GUN LKOONIES CONVENIENTLKY IGNORE. The 2ndA is clearly about WE,LL-REGULATED MILITIAS. Militias were not just some guy with a gun, They were organized and run by goernments, in britain and during our revolution. They were under the conrrol of some brasnh of ther government. the founding fathers did not trust standking armies, since the Brit army was under the control of the autocratic king. so after the rev, they organized defense under militias, which local governments controlled. Tnhey were NOT, REPEAT NOT, Just any loony who could get a musket., let alone an AR15. For two centuries, that's the way the 2A was read, until right wing wackos and the NRA packed SCOTUS and reinterpreted it to suit the mass murder kprone among us. iT NER MEANT OR WAS MEANT TO MEAN WHAT ALL THE GUN LOONIES INSIST FALLALKCIOUSLY IT WAS.

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

amont the recent mass shooters was one guy who went out and legally bought an ar15 and later that fay used it to shoot up a hos[ptial and kilmurser his doctor. that clealy was not for self defense or opposing a tyrannnical government. that is the bsasic problem. guns are clealy being used in increasing numbers for murder which clealy the 2ndA does not apply to and are unacceptable in any civilized society. which arguably is no longer a description of the usa.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Quote:

...they can only have puny guns.

"Puny"? What's "puny" about a 30-06, a 12 gauge shotgun, or a .357 revolver? Why would a civilian need battlefield weapons?

Quote:

As to your description of things the government isn't doing, I think you need to add the word "now."

I think "ever" is a better choice.

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

You cannot look at the statement, even as just part of a sentence:

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Even in its most recent, conservative/libertarian reinterpretation of the Second Amendment through its ruling on District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court of the United States made clear that, "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

READ THE REST PF THE AMENDMENT, WHICH ALL YOU GUN LKOONIES CONVENIENTLKY IGNORE. The 2ndA is clearly about WE,LL-REGULATED MILITIAS. Militias were not just some guy with a gun, They were organized and run by goernments, in britain and during our revolution. They were under the conrrol of some brasnh of ther government. the founding fathers did not trust standking armies, since the Brit army was under the control of the autocratic king. so after the rev, they organized defense under militias, which local governments controlled. Tnhey were NOT, REPEAT NOT, Just any loony who could get a musket., let alone an AR15. For two centuries, that's the way the 2A was read, until right wing wackos and the NRA packed SCOTUS and reinterpreted it to suit the mass murder kprone among us. iT NER MEANT OR WAS MEANT TO MEAN WHAT ALL THE GUN LOONIES INSIST FALLALKCIOUSLY IT WAS.

What are all these capital letters? The Supreme Courts throughout history have seemed to believe that the phrase about militias is just an example of why guns are needed. You'll note that no founder ever suggested making guns illegal.

It's not reasonable to look at a sentence containing the phrase:

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

and claim that it means that citizens cannot own guns or can only own puny guns.

Quite apart from the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence makes it clear that bad governments must be replaced and if this one ever becomes dictatorial, an armed citizenry will make it easier to do that.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

amont the recent mass shooters was one guy who went out and legally bought an ar15 and later that fay used it to shoot up a hos[ptial and kilmurser his doctor. that clealy was not for self defense or opposing a tyrannnical government. that is the bsasic problem. guns are clealy being used in increasing numbers for murder which clealy the 2ndA does not apply to and are unacceptable in any civilized society. which arguably is no longer a description of the usa.

What are the stats on people who used guns to protect their safety or that of their families?

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Quote:
...they can only have puny guns.

"Puny"? What's "puny" about a 30-06, a 12 gauge shotgun, or a .357 revolver? Why would a civilian need battlefield weapons?

A semi-automatic weapon would, for example, be helpful if one were the victim of a home invasion or needed to oppose a dictatorial government.

hightor wrote:

Quote:
As to your description of things the government isn't doing, I think you need to add the word "now."

I think "ever" is a better choice.

Are you saying that the government won't "ever" abuse its power? Really?

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

You don't see me advocating citizen ownership of atomic bombs or fighter planes.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

The RELEVANT stat is the 20,000 or so people every year whko use largely legally acquired guns to commit killings that are in no way related to self or family protection or homee defense, ie. used in now ay justified by the NRA=inspired scoyus judicial activist reinterpretation of the second amendment,, not to memton the hundred thousand or so people injured by guns every year similarly not protected by the second amendment. Gin zealots ignore the obvious. Guns were inescapably invented to kill. That is their purpose,and it's heir actual use all too often, andit wil always be so, and nothing in the constitution jusstifies how they are ACTUALLY USED.

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Quote:

A semi-automatic weapon would, for example, be helpful if one were the victim of a home invasion...

I doubt it. If your possession of a weapon is so ineffectual a deterrent that you expect to be a victim I'd say you're better off beefing up your electronic home security system.

Quote:

... or needed to oppose a dictatorial government.

You'll have to explain how this would actually work. Would you join a militia? Shoot IRS agents? Threaten government officials with guns? I don't know what you'd expect to accomplish; it seems so grandiose. Hell, I brought this point up before and our old friend Finn averred that he'd willingly "man a foxhole". I almost told him that I'd already started digging trench works.

Quote:

Are you saying that the government won't "ever" abuse its power?

Of course not. But when I look at deaths by non-military gun violence in this country the federal government lags way behind in the body count. The government hasn't killed kids in classrooms or sprayed hi-vel ammo into nightclubs. It hasn't conducted drive-by shootings. It hasn't marketed assault-style weapons to teens and mentally disturbed people.

you wrote:

As to your description of things the government isn't doing, I think you need to add the word "now."

I'd have understood you better if you'd said "yet" instead of "now". The government hasn't ever done these things but, of course, I don't what any future government will do. The thing is, I don't see individual possession of firearms doing much to deter threats to democracy. The biggest danger I foresee is not the government itself threatening individual freedom, but instead, giving a platform to demagogues who inspire the people to engage in repressive and anti-democratic behavior.

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Good. Add assault weapons to your list.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

The RELEVANT stat is the 20,000 or so people every year whko use largely legally acquired guns to commit killings that are in no way related to self or family protection or homee defense, ie. used in now ay justified by the NRA=inspired scoyus judicial activist reinterpretation of the second amendment,, not to memton the hundred thousand or so people injured by guns every year similarly not protected by the second amendment. Gin zealots ignore the obvious. Guns were inescapably invented to kill. That is their purpose,and it's heir actual use all too often, andit wil always be so, and nothing in the constitution jusstifies how they are ACTUALLY USED.

Right, the Constitution just says that they have the right to guns. Crimes should be dealt with by prosecuting the criminals and ameliorating the situations that lead them to be as they are. I'll request a second time that you give me the statistics on people who protect themselves and their families with guns.

0 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Quote:
A semi-automatic weapon would, for example, be helpful if one were the victim of a home invasion...

I doubt it. If your possession of a weapon is so ineffectual a deterrent that you expect to be a victim I'd say you're better off beefing up your electronic home security system.

Quote:
... or needed to oppose a dictatorial government.

You'll have to explain how this would actually work. Would you join a militia? Shoot IRS agents? Threaten government officials with guns? I don't know what you'd expect to accomplish; it seems so grandiose. Hell, I brought this point up before and our old friend Finn averred that he'd willingly "man a foxhole". I almost told him that I'd already started digging trench works.

Quote:
Are you saying that the government won't "ever" abuse its power?

Of course not. But when I look at deaths by non-military gun violence in this country the federal government lags way behind in the body count. The government hasn't killed kids in classrooms or sprayed hi-vel ammo into nightclubs. It hasn't conducted drive-by shootings. It hasn't marketed assault-style weapons to teens and mentally disturbed people.

you wrote:
As to your description of things the government isn't doing, I think you need to add the word "now."

I'd have understood you better if you'd said "yet" instead of "now". The government hasn't ever done these things but, of course, I don't what any future government will do. The thing is, I don't see individual possession of firearms doing much to deter threats to democracy. The biggest danger I foresee is not the government itself threatening individual freedom, but instead, giving a platform to demagogues who inspire the people to engage in repressive and anti-democratic behavior.

To respond to several of your statements, first of all, if 4 armed people invade your home, you'll do much better with a semi-automatic rifle than with a hand gun or no gun.

As to opposing a dictatorial government, here's a quiz. Would the citizens of a dictatorship find it easier to rebel against it if they did have guns or if they'd been disarmed?

As for your repetition that you don't see the government committing certain atrocities, that doesn't mean we don't have to be prepared for the possibility. The Declaration of Independence points out that it is the right and duty of citizens to throw out bad governments.

1 Reply

Another Devastating School Shooting: Uvalde, Texas

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know