Every day, 20 US Children Hospitalized w/Gun Injury (6% Die)

[dimreepr]

the road to perdition is paved with good intentions.

 

 

This aphorism only works when not backed up with action.

 

 

No I think Trump is a misogynistic jerk with the temperament of a 5 year old. But why even ask?

 

 

 

I didn’t, read again.

[overtone]

Many?

I saw one and it's somewhere between dubious and invalid.

You saw many. You don't recognize them because you don't know what a militia is. It's especially difficult to recognize the absence of something (Latin America, Caribbean islands, black communities in the US) when you don't recognize the presence of it (white communities in the US, in particular).

 

I live in a counter-example.

One counter example is enough to destroy the assertion that something is necessary.

You don't, as even a brief review of the history of your country since 1776 (attend to the security and freedom of the various subsidiary and outlying areas) may persuade you to consider at least hypothetically.

 

 

 

I hope you also appreciate that by leaving the constitutional recognition of and individuals natural human right to keep and bear arms in place, that all of those regulations you wish for will be challenged. Recent history indicates that many will fail that challenge. Those that pass that challenge will not likely produce the results you are seeking.

If you don't cooperate with the reasonable people who want these regulations - which is a large majority of the American public on "both sides" - eventually you will end up with regulations written in cooperation with the unreasonable people who did. I predict that the fact that these regulations will not achieve their aims will be small and petty satisfaction next to the inconvenience and general hassle of the fact that they will be the law, and apply to you, and pass Constitutional muster, and so forth.

 

Reasonable people are not going to tolerate the Cliven Bundys and "open carry" shitheads and hospitalized children of dumbasses who treat firearms as toys indefinitely. There are too many guns in this country to allow this much slipshod in their handling. They are going to do something about it, and being reasonable they will cooperate with whomever they have to in gettin' 'er done. And don't kid yourself - there's a lot of room for these people to operate within the Constitution.

Edited September 13, 2015 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

 

You don't, as even a brief review of the history of your country since 1776 (attend to the security and freedom of the various subsidiary and outlying areas) may persuade you to consider at least hypothetically.

 

OK, if this isn't a free state, what can't I do (note that if I lived in Texas I wouldn't be able to buy glassware so, legal restrictions of freedoms can't count).

For the distinction to be meaningful, you need to demonstrate that I miss out some sort of freedom (other than tautologically) from not being allowed to have a gun and that freedom would need to be granted to me in the US because I am allowed one.

 

In what way are the citizens of teh US more free than those of the UK?

Edited September 13, 2015 by John Cuthber

[MonDie]

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/10/school-shootings-since-newtown-_n_5480811.html

Extrapolating, that's around 4 shootings per month.

I'm reading about how Marilyn Manson was tenuously (or outright falsely) connected with the Columbine shooters, and the band was often banned from playing. The issue returned when, seven years later, they finally got a shooter who was a Manson fan. Some people really hate that first ammendment!

Shooter Asa Coon was 14.

He was his only fatality.

[overtone]

You don't, as even a brief review of the history of your country since 1776 (attend to the security and freedom of the various subsidiary and outlying areas) may persuade you to consider at least hypothetically.

 

OK, if this isn't a free state,

Never said it wasn't. It was the security of the freedom in your State that was at issue - the actual wording of the Constitution, remember?

That's what you claimed, after all - not that you were free, but that your freedom was secure despite the fact - or claim, anyway - that your population was not well armed enough to form a militia at need.

That is, you deny that the following applies to you: "An unarmed people is subject to slavery at any time".

I invited you to review your history since 1776, attending to such side matters as the freedom of those of your people who were Scots, or Irish, or American, or Indian. And also the recent history of Latin America, various Soviet peoples, black and red citizens of the US and Canada and Australia, that kind of thing.

Edited September 14, 2015 by overtone

[MonDie]

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/10/school-shootings-since-newtown-_n_5480811.html

Oh wow!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

 

I counted for each year.

 

2000: 4

2001: 4

2002: 2

2003: 3

2004: 4

2005: 3

2006: 8

2007: 3

2008: 10

2009: 6

2010: 8

2011: 8

2012: 12

2013: 26

2014: 40

2015: 16 so far, or 2 per month

 

Public mass shootings have suddenly become more common.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/mass-shootings-increasing-harvard-research

[John Cuthber]

Never said it wasn't. It was the security of the freedom in your State that was at issue - the actual wording of the Constitution, remember?

That's what you claimed, after all - not that you were free, but that your freedom was secure despite the fact - or claim, anyway - that your population was not well armed enough to form a militia at need.

That is, you deny that the following applies to you: "An unarmed people is subject to slavery at any time".

I invited you to review your history since 1776, attending to such side matters as the freedom of those of your people who were Scots, or Irish, or American, or Indian. And also the recent history of Latin America, various Soviet peoples, black and red citizens of the US and Canada and Australia, that kind of thing.

Oh, I see, the free state is the one where slavery and guns were allowed. But the UK ,where slavery was never legally permitted, and guns are restricted, isn't free.

Well, I'm glad we got that sorted out.

 

You seem to miss the point that,even with your guns, if you were actually up against the state, your best hope would be to be an outlaw at grave risk of death at any second when the drone found you.

Strictly speaking, that's not slavery- but it's not freedom either.

 

But I already pointed that out and you think you would win against an army that spends more than the next dozen or so put together. I don't think that's a viewpoint I can sensibly make any headway against.

[waitforufo]

If you don't cooperate with the reasonable people who want these regulations - which is a large majority of the American public on "both sides" - eventually you will end up with regulations written in cooperation with the unreasonable people who did. I predict that the fact that these regulations will not achieve their aims will be small and petty satisfaction next to the inconvenience and general hassle of the fact that they will be the law, and apply to you, and pass Constitutional muster, and so forth.

 

It doesn't really matter what I do. Have all the cooperative meetings and write all the "reasonable" regulations you want. The NRA, not a member by the way, and people like Alan Gottlieb, not a member of his groups either, will challenge each regulation in court. Sure it might take time for them to find someone with standing, a good case, and who is willing to cooperate, but when they do, they will sue. How long were the "reasonable" regulations in effect In DC before Heller? How long were the "reasonable" regulations in place in Chicago before McDonald? Years if not decades if I recall correctly. They have good highly paid lawyers. They won in DC and Chicago didn't they?

 

I would however love to hear what these "reasonable" regulations might be. We are on post 581 now and I haven't seen any yet. Not that we haven't had quite a bit of productive debate. I have enjoyed many or your posts.

 

What have we learned? First that the second amendment is easily understood by anyone. We have leaned that "well regulated" does not mean controlled by government. That the militia exists and and can be brought to duty quickly because we have an armed populous. The the public health is served because the militia protects the security of our free state. That our government must recognize our natural human right to bear arms and not infringe upon this right. We also learned that our right to keep and bear arms was recently clarified by the Supreme Court to be an individual right that permits all citizens to own firearms for personal protection.

 

What we have yet to here are "reasonable" regulations that are in keeping with the above understanding. Let's hear them. We should all find it enjoyable to play NRA lawyer to see if we can pick them apart. If we can do it, believe me the NRA will sure figure out a way.

[moth]

is organized crime a militia? What About narco-terrorists or regular terrorists? What is the difference between a militia and an armed mob?

 

Edit:

The point I'm trying to make is that it seems hypocritical to claim constitutional protection for a conspiracy to overthrow the federal government.
Once the "militia" starts shooting, they are criminals and legal targets.
Is Heller v. DC more about home defense or militias?

Edited September 15, 2015 by moth

[Endy0816]

Minimum biometric locks. Best of both worlds. You can have your weapon sitting on your nightstand and not have to worry about one of your children handing his friend your shotgun. Thankfully I only ended up giving my friend a shiner, but you know, the situation could have turned out differently.

Edited September 15, 2015 by Endy0816

[MonDie]

I would however love to hear what these "reasonable" regulations might be. We are on post 581 now and I haven't seen any yet. Not that we haven't had quite a bit of productive debate. I have enjoyed many or your posts.

I proposed a gun safety test for gun owners. Maybe it could just be for people with minors in the home.

I posit that gun safety is often neglected because it doesn't seem urgent, and when an accident finally happens it's too late.

Minimum biometric locks. Best of both worlds. You can have your weapon sitting on your nightstand and not have to worry about one of your children handing his friend your shotgun. Thankfully I only ended up giving my friend a shiner, but you know, the situation could have turned out differently.

I considered that too, but what would it cost? Isn't the gun really just the poor man's home security system?

[Arete]

I considered that too, but what would it cost? Isn't the gun really just the poor man's home security system?

 

Or medication... who seriously feels that threatened that they need a loaded gun at the ready in their own home without suffering from some sort of diagnosable for of paranoia?

Edited September 15, 2015 by Arete

[iNow]

In addition to the above ideas like biometric locks: Annual tests of competence and training refreshers on safety as prerequisite for ownership license to be renewed. Mental health and addiction screening before purchase is allowed. Ammunition storage limited to central lockers at places like gun ranges (wherein 5-10 rounds can be kept in the home for "emergencies"). Ammunition purchase subject to the same checks and background requirements as the firearms themselves. Mandated safes and subsidies to those who cannot afford them. Tighter requirements for homes with children. You know, other simple things too, like universal background checks and limitations on private sale and gifting.

 

There are tons of improvements readily available on this issue. The intractable part of this problem is not a lack of improvement options, but instead is a lack of good faith and moderation from (what I can only describe as) uncompromising gun extremists.

[MonDie]

accidental discharge

Edited September 15, 2015 by MonDie

[waitforufo]

First, thank you for your proposals. Now lets hear you play NRA lawyer and pick them apart. You know, simple things like the people in the United States are permitted to own weapons in ordinary military use (Miller). Do military weapons have biometric locks? Would your proposals impact the effectiveness of the militia, once called upon? Also, people have the right to use firearms for self defense (Heller, McDonald) and locks ans safes reduce the self defense effectiveness of firearms thereby diminishing there rights. Finally, that tests are simply a means to intimidate people from exercising there rights and infringes on people who fail. Don't forget the you won't be going up against someone participating on a blog for entertainment. You will be going up against the best lawyers money can buy.

 

With regard to biometric locks, I have never seen one for sale. It is my understanding that the primary group interested in effective biometric weapons locks are the police. The police don't want their weapons used against themselves or the public. The police represent one of the largest firearms markets world wide. So where are they? You might as well propose that people can only own phasors set permanently to stun. Finally, do firearm safety devices actually make firearms safer, or are they too a source of firearms accidents?

[MonDie]

Finally, that tests are simply a means to intimidate people from exercising there rights and infringes on people who fail.

The tests aren't intimidation; they serve a clear purpose.

They infringe on those who aren't motivated to study the material - that should qualify as child neglect anyway!

Even the mentally dull should eventually pass with enough study.

[dimreepr]

First, thank you for your proposals. Now lets hear you play NRA lawyer and pick them apart. You know, simple things like the people in the United States are permitted to own weapons in ordinary military use (Miller). Do military weapons have biometric locks? Would your proposals impact the effectiveness of the militia, once called upon? Also, people have the right to use firearms for self defense (Heller, McDonald) and locks ans safes reduce the self defense effectiveness of firearms thereby diminishing there rights. Finally, that tests are simply a means to intimidate people from exercising there rights and infringes on people who fail. Don't forget the you won't be going up against someone participating on a blog for entertainment. You will be going up against the best lawyers money can buy.

 

With regard to biometric locks, I have never seen one for sale. It is my understanding that the primary group interested in effective biometric weapons locks are the police. The police don't want their weapons used against themselves or the public. The police represent one of the largest firearms markets world wide. So where are they? You might as well propose that people can only own phasors set permanently to stun. Finally, do firearm safety devices actually make firearms safer, or are they too a source of firearms accidents?

 

 

 

This militia/self defence argument is beyond pathetic in this modern era.

 

Firstly, the militia, if formed, would be completely/hilariously outgunned; much like a spud gun is against a bow or any other legitimate weapon

 

Secondly, in order for self defence to be effective one would need a firearm to be armed and ready at a moment’s notice, which statistically would be far more dangerous to an innocent than any aggressor.

 

Stop hiding behind the law and, so called, rights to appease your fear of losing your guns; if you’re a sane responsible gun owner, why not just accede to a simple test and back ground check to prove it?

Edited September 15, 2015 by dimreepr

[MonDie]

Mental health and addiction screening before purchase is allowed.

Can psychological evaluation still work if the patient is motivated to feign sanity?

Testing for substance abuse is smart. Higher rates of it in BPD (borderline) and ASPD (antisocial). Substance abuse includes alcoholism, but, sadly, any "reasonable" regulation will probably focus on illicit drugs.

Edited September 15, 2015 by MonDie

[waitforufo]

The tests aren't intimidation; they serve a clear purpose.

They infringe on those who aren't motivated to study the material - that should qualify as child neglect anyway!

Even the mentally dull should eventually pass with enough study.

Many States and Counties in the US required people to take literacy tests in order to vote. Since people have the right to vote, such testing is forbidden. They are in large part forbidden because of the biases of the testers.

 

 

This militia/self defence argument is beyond pathetic in this modern era.

 

Firstly, the militia, if formed, would be completely/hilariously outgunned; much like a spud gun is against a bow or any other legitimate weapon

 

Secondly, in order for self defence to be effective one would need a firearm to be armed and ready at a moment’s notice, which statistically would be far more dangerous to an innocent than any aggressor.

 

Stop hiding behind the law and, so called, rights to appease your fear of losing your guns; if you’re a sane responsible gun owner, why not just accede to a simple test and back ground check to prove it?

The militia is a reality in law in the United States. Your or my opinion of the militia is meaningless.

The Supreme Court has ruled that US citizens have the right to own firearms for self defense. Your or my opinion of this self defense right is meaningless.

I'm not hiding behind the law. The law is what it is. I'm not afraid of losing my guns. I live in the United States and have guaranteed rights that shall not be infringed.

I would have no problem passing such a test. What right does the government have in requiring me to take one? Where is the government so empowered?

Edited September 15, 2015 by waitforufo

[dimreepr]

What right do you have in refusing such a test?

 

 

Edit/ Besides hiding behind the law?

You think a gun is more important than a life? What could be more pitiable?

Edited September 15, 2015 by dimreepr

[John Cuthber]

 

Or medication... who seriously feels that threatened that they need a loaded gun at the ready in their own home without suffering from some sort of diagnosable for of paranoia?

To be fair, if you have been lied to long enough, consistently enough and often enough you might believe it.

It's like kids believing in Santa Claus.

[waitforufo]

What right do you have in refusing such a test?

 

 

Edit/ Besides hiding behind the law?

In the United States, the government can only do what it is empowered to do by the constitution. The people can do as they choose with the exception of things forbidden by the constitution or by constitutionally acceptable laws.

 

I live by the rule of law. Don't you? You may live by some higher calling. In the United States we call that religion. Check the first amendment about my guaranteed freedom regarding religion.

[dimreepr]

The first amendment means I'm free to call you an idiot for believing in the second, without you killing me.

And in my world belief is just an extension of religion.

 

You may believe you have the right to bear arms but how is that different to religion?

[Arete]

The people can do as they choose with the exception of things forbidden by the constitution or by constitutionally acceptable laws.

 

But there are plenty of regulations and restrictions on the second amendment:

Assault weapons bans

High capacity magazine bans

Gun bans for domestic violence offenders

Permits required for concealed carry

Gun free school zones

Automatic weapons ban

Gun free zones in airports and public buildings

etc

 

So to say that any limit on second amendment rights is unconstitutional would seem to fly in the face of current legislature.

[MonDie]

Many States and Counties in the US required people to take literacy tests in order to vote. Since people have the right to vote, such testing is forbidden. They are in large part forbidden because of the biases of the testers.

Initially, courts held that literacy tests weren't necessarily unconstitutional. Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 expressed this sentiment, although it did overturn the "grandfather clause" which basically exempted caucasians from testing. However this was insufficient to prevent ethnic discrimination, which is why the Voting Rights Act of 1965 banned (literacy) tests in "covered jurisdictions" that were specific targets of the legislation.

 

Regardless I would recommend that the test and study material are available in all major languages.