I really cannot think of a reason that the US would need a citizen militia in the current world. Perhaps if there was a dramatic reduction in the size of the US military such that the militia’s were an integrated part of the military. Is that what the conservatives are suggesting? Or are they suggesting that they would take up arms against their own military?
[quote=“Tempo Gain”][quote=“Chris”]
The 2nd Amendment has to do with government-regulated militia, and grants the right to bear arms to members of such militia.[/quote]
No it doesn’t. It grants the right to bear arms to everyone because a well-regulated militia is necessary.[/quote]
No it doesn’t. It grants the right to bear arms to those who belong to such a government-organized and -regulated militia.
In my opinion, you’re misinterpreting simple English. Has your interpretation ever had the force of law behind it? As far as I know the obvious reading of the meaning of the amendment in the English language has always prevailed.
If we start twisting the meaning of the constitution to make it fit what we want at the moment as opposed to what it actually says, we’re really setting ourselves up for problems.
A militia is supposed to be trained. From the view of someone from an area of the world where there have been many anti government uprisings, revolutions and counter revolutions, you don’t just hand and Dick and Joe an AK 47 and they become GI Joe’s. That’s why they have training camps in the jungles. Problem is what happens afterwards, very few from the ones who jumped into the rivers and dodged bullets and skipped landmines receives training in running a country.
Why can’t there be a reasonable limit on weapons? 13 arms is too much. How about grenade launchers? I bet they have limits on those even in countries where they use those to down planes? Why would anyone need an assault rifle? Why are there not like licenses for heavy weapons based on ability, like they do for cars? Like, you go from car to SUV to bus to six wheeler. Not everyone that can drive a car drives a plane, so why can anyone buy armour piercing bullets? Big power, big responsibility and all that jazz.
Read that the family of one of the victims of the movie theater massacre brought a lawsuit against the Internet seller for selling the deadly rounds… lost the suit based on the right to sell whatever they want on the Interweb to anyone, and now must pay, adding insult to injury. This breach is logic is mindboggling.
Any kind of restriction in gun ownership would be a start, but the US gun lobby is adamant people have the right to do whatever the hell they want with these dangerous weapons. And the mass shootings, murders, suicides and accidental deaths continue. Very sad.
I was living in the UK at the time of the Dunblane massacre, and the voices protesting the gun ownership bans following that were small and largely ignored. You could not look at the class photo of the children who died and understand why someone would object to banning home ownership of guns.
For the benefit of those vague on causality and thus unable to interpret statistics properly:
[quote=“rowland”]For the benefit of those vague on causality and thus unable to interpret statistics properly:
nationalreview.com/article/4 … ma-america
Isn’t it interesting that the National Review article only looks at the couple of findings that support it’s views. The more thorough, and more numerous studies, finding the opposite conclusions, don’t even get a mention. Funny that.
[quote=“cfimages”][quote=“rowland”]For the benefit of those vague on causality and thus unable to interpret statistics properly:
nationalreview.com/article/4 … ma-america
Isn’t it interesting that the National Review article only looks at the couple of findings that support it’s views. The more thorough, and more numerous studies, finding the opposite conclusions, don’t even get a mention. Funny that.[/quote]
What’s needed is a study of studies. Lots of studies of studies, then a study of the studies of studies. The more steps we’re removed from the facts on the ground, the closer we get to whatever it is gun grabbers think of as truth.
By the way, I’ve discovered there are those on this site who talk of “mountains of studies” that they can’t produce when challenged. So, I have to wonder if you’re bluffing.
Another possibility is that there are studies that you think support your point but they actually don’t, and you just misunderstand them. For example, the one alluded to in the article linked above, that one Forbes writer trumpeted and another Forbes writer demolished. That happens a lot when people don’t understand data analysis as well as they think they do.
As a national standard, not just in certain places. And limit of amounts, like if you cannot have 20 dogs, you cannot have 20 assault rifles. For starters.
Whole lot of derp from the gun grabbers here. And they get defensive when I try to make it empirical.
[quote=“rowland”][quote=“cfimages”][quote=“rowland”]For the benefit of those vague on causality and thus unable to interpret statistics properly:
nationalreview.com/article/4 … ma-america
Isn’t it interesting that the National Review article only looks at the couple of findings that support it’s views. The more thorough, and more numerous studies, finding the opposite conclusions, don’t even get a mention. Funny that.[/quote]
What’s needed is a study of studies. Lots of studies of studies, then a study of the studies of studies. The more steps we’re removed from the facts on the ground, the closer we get to whatever it is gun grabbers think of as truth.
By the way, I’ve discovered there are those on this site who talk of “mountains of studies” that they can’t produce when challenged. So, I have to wonder if you’re bluffing.
Another possibility is that there are studies that you think support your point but they actually don’t, and you just misunderstand them. For example, the one alluded to in the article linked above, that one Forbes writer trumpeted and another Forbes writer demolished. That happens a lot when people don’t understand data analysis as well as they think they do.[/quote]
The most comprehensive study, which is the one that conservative politicians in Australia like to mention, is this one.
Here’s a “study of studies” seeing as you mentioned it.
cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content … g_2011.pdf
Also points to many studies showing the law to be beneficial, and discusses some of the flaws in those finding the opposite.
But it doesn’t matter. You’ve made up your mind. And America has long decided that life is cheap, and regular gun deaths are just a part of life. Collateral damage, if you like.
If only parents were allowed to carry guns, this could’ve been avoided. Isn’t that how the line goes?
If only we armed all the children, this kind of shooting could have been prevented.
Why shouldn’t they have to take a competency test for a license? Why shouldn’t there be a waiting period for purchasing guns? Why shouldn’t that gun license (and guns) be revoked if they have a history of something like domestic violence or some other violent form of behavior?
There is a big difference between grabbing every gun as the right is portraying and putting in some legislation that takes guns out of the hands that are most likely to use it to kill someone. So far the conservatives have put forth zero ideas that stop people from killing people (with guns). If you want to use that line then start telling me how you prevent people from killing people (with guns)?
As I recall, the line is that people sometimes give them as gifts, so don’t need to know how to shoot them themselves.
There is a two-day waiting period.
That’s what they check for in the two-day window – violent misdemeanor or felony convictions.
Well, more people are killed by knives than by shotguns and rifles nowadays, and Conservatives don’t have an answer to that, either. They do have some ideas on how to stop people from killing people generally, but few of them seem to be effective deterrents. I think Pinker pointed out in one of his books that one of their “solutions” – making state executions faster – might actually lead to more murder, not less.
Beyond the Constitutional matter, which is really a legislative entanglement (I mean, the document has been amended before!), there’s the broader legal question about how US law should regard the responsibility of citizenry. Should US law hold that people are free to do however they please, but must bear full responsibility for the harm they cause others if they do? Or, should US law hold that people are not to be trusted with certain powers because they pose an increased risk of harming other people? You don’t get pretty results either way, if either is executed to the letter.
In the former, the state will just have to trust you not to detonate the fertilizer bombs that you make in your garage, but can’t arrest you for just making them as a hobby.
In the latter, the state will have to approve your purchases of things as small as your kitchen utensils, because they carry an increased risk of harming yourself or others.
So, the US has done what it is (or at least had been) good at doing. It negotiated some middle ground that let us continue to bear arms, but not automatic assault rifles, etc. That follows in a proud tradition of American compromises. Some are crazy only in distant hindsight, but they were only made sane by future compromises of the same kind, and I have no reason to suspect that God himself will come down and set the guidelines for a stars-and-stripes Utopia. So, it’ll probably be another compromise that’ll get us out of this craziness. I would go for a form for repealing the Second Amendment in exchange for closing all federal regulatory bodies in product testing (Friedman explains why), but that’s just me.
What’s absolutely ridiculous, however, is to patronize the US population or its governmental servants as unthinking on this matter. The precedents set by backing down from either side are terrible, so we’re going to have to live with trade-offs, and that implies collateral damage on both ends (because regulation also harms us, only not in ways that make prime-time news).
Ehophi - you missed
Not all states waiting periods. 4 states and DC have waiting periods for all firearms and 5 more have waiting periods for handguns and/or assault weapons. 41 states have no waiting period. Gun deaths are considerable lower in those states. That isn’t a coincidence.
I don’t care if it is gifted. Someone should be able to show competency to possess a gun.
They are only looking at criminal history on the initial purchase (if they look at all). Once you have a firearm they no longer look. Canada requires a license to be renewed every 5 years and they look again at your past. That is a big difference. In addition to that there are so many holes in the background check that many that should be ineligible still pass the background check.
Rowland has become the Bob Roberts of Forumosa.
Wooooo! Everybody got guns!
if you want to be cynical, nothing will happen unless massacres like these happen in gated communities of the rich. what do people care when it’s nowheresville. that’s other people’s problems. just like the drug or crack problem is the ghetto black’s problem (even though of course the drug problem permeates up to the rich and powerful ie there’s cocaine for the rich and shit for the not).