Miami school shooting
Discussion
zoom star said:
I always thought you could let them have the guns that were available at the time when the constitution was written.
Any guns made or designed after the amendment, sorry, you have to fill out and go through major security checks, like here.
The internet and broadcast media didn't exist in 1776, does that mean the first amendment doesn't apply to those media?Any guns made or designed after the amendment, sorry, you have to fill out and go through major security checks, like here.
red_slr said:
Actually its a good point.
Here an 18 year old cant own a semi automatic rifle in .223 but in the US he can, totally legal.
In Florida an 18 year old cant drive at 3am down the motorway with 3 of his mates in the back pissed off their heads.
I guess they would say our high death rate for young drivers is our own fault for not having proper laws in place!!
And yet their rate of deaths per mile is approximately twice ours.Here an 18 year old cant own a semi automatic rifle in .223 but in the US he can, totally legal.
In Florida an 18 year old cant drive at 3am down the motorway with 3 of his mates in the back pissed off their heads.
I guess they would say our high death rate for young drivers is our own fault for not having proper laws in place!!
Personally I think it's a combination of factors, of which easy availability of guns and gun culture is just a part. The "haves" (Be that money or popularity.) in the US are king, and the "Have nots" are nothing, and this drives a resentment that leads to crime and in some cases like these a desire for revenge. Guns are a great leveller where "might is right" prevails.
Dr Jekyll said:
zoom star said:
I always thought you could let them have the guns that were available at the time when the constitution was written.
Any guns made or designed after the amendment, sorry, you have to fill out and go through major security checks, like here.
The internet and broadcast media didn't exist in 1776, does that mean the first amendment doesn't apply to those media?Any guns made or designed after the amendment, sorry, you have to fill out and go through major security checks, like here.
should the average US citizen be able to buy a nuclear weapon?
DurianIceCream said:
JuniorD said:
But sat in the middle of your 9 grade math class on the second floor of Hill Valley High School, you and your 20 classmates are not going to be massacred by a unhinged school mate driving a Toyota Prius or with Butch the bulldog hidden up his coat.
Perhaps not, but plenty of school age children are killed in crashes involving their newly licences classmates driving a car, badly. Many things available to the public have the potential to and do kill. Doesn't lead to militant motorists sending death threats to survivors of crashes like gun nuts seem compelled to do.
Efbe said:
Dr Jekyll said:
zoom star said:
I always thought you could let them have the guns that were available at the time when the constitution was written.
Any guns made or designed after the amendment, sorry, you have to fill out and go through major security checks, like here.
The internet and broadcast media didn't exist in 1776, does that mean the first amendment doesn't apply to those media?Any guns made or designed after the amendment, sorry, you have to fill out and go through major security checks, like here.
should the average US citizen be able to buy a nuclear weapon?
You know, just in case the gubbmint comes a callin.......
jmorgan said:
Efbe said:
Dr Jekyll said:
zoom star said:
I always thought you could let them have the guns that were available at the time when the constitution was written.
Any guns made or designed after the amendment, sorry, you have to fill out and go through major security checks, like here.
The internet and broadcast media didn't exist in 1776, does that mean the first amendment doesn't apply to those media?Any guns made or designed after the amendment, sorry, you have to fill out and go through major security checks, like here.
should the average US citizen be able to buy a nuclear weapon?
You know, just in case the gubbmint comes a callin.......
However if they want to be complete idiots, then they can misinterpret it as; everyone can have weapons, in which case, tanks, drones, lasers, nukes, rpgs and death cats are all fair game (death cat = angry cat you throw to someone)
Efbe said:
well personally I read the gun rights amendment completely differently than the US legal system, in that it clearly reads to me the US has a right to an army that has weapons.
It doesn't say that at all. It says that because militias (as opposed to standing armies) are necessary, citizens must be allowed to bear arms. It may well have been intended to mean bear arms as part of a militia, but that isn't what it says.
Dr Jekyll said:
Efbe said:
well personally I read the gun rights amendment completely differently than the US legal system, in that it clearly reads to me the US has a right to an army that has weapons.
It doesn't say that at all. It says that because militias (as opposed to standing armies) are necessary, citizens must be allowed to bear arms. It may well have been intended to mean bear arms as part of a militia, but that isn't what it says.
"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."
A militia is necessary (i.e. army) for which the people need guns for. Note the comma in the middle, not the word "and"
Which makes complete sense to the context of why it was written, to allow the US to form their own armed militia.
Otherwise why would it walk about making a militia and non-militia people getting guns. That would not make sense.
Efbe said:
o it says...
"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."
A militia is necessary (i.e. army) for which the people need guns for.
Which makes complete sense to the context of why it was written, to allow the US to form their own armed militia.
Otherwise why would it walk about making a militia and non-militia people getting guns. That would not make sense.
If it meant an army it would say an army, it says a militia because it means a militia. In doesn't talk about non militia people having guns, it talks about people in general having arms so they can form a militia when required. The concept of the right of the people to bear arms goes back to English law (under Henry II I think) and refers to individuals having a weapon available not to the government having a permanent army."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."
A militia is necessary (i.e. army) for which the people need guns for.
Which makes complete sense to the context of why it was written, to allow the US to form their own armed militia.
Otherwise why would it walk about making a militia and non-militia people getting guns. That would not make sense.
You could actually argue that the constitution only protects the right to bear military firearms such as fully automatics assault rifles and doesn't cover civilian guns such as hunting rifles and shotguns.
Edited by Dr Jekyll on Friday 9th March 11:32
Dr Jekyll said:
Efbe said:
o it says...
"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."
A militia is necessary (i.e. army) for which the people need guns for.
Which makes complete sense to the context of why it was written, to allow the US to form their own armed militia.
Otherwise why would it walk about making a militia and non-militia people getting guns. That would not make sense.
If it meant an army it would say an army, it says a militia because it means a militia. In doesn't talk about non militia people having guns, it talks about people in general having arms so they can form a militia when required. The concept of the right of the people to bear arms goes back to English law (under Henry II I think) and refers to individuals having a weapon available not to the government having a permanent army."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."
A militia is necessary (i.e. army) for which the people need guns for.
Which makes complete sense to the context of why it was written, to allow the US to form their own armed militia.
Otherwise why would it walk about making a militia and non-militia people getting guns. That would not make sense.
The US courts have judges the second amendment to mean both ways.
in 1939, in the supreme court: "in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."
They agreed with me. The right for arms is there to support the militia.
it was 70 years later in 2008 that the district of columbia had a different opinion: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
Supreme court or district of columbia, which do you prefer? IMO it matters little. The amendment, which is one sentence talks about the need for a militia, which required the right to bear arms. Therefore it is incredibly obvious that the arms are there to support the militia, and offers no support to those wanting arms but not supporting a militia.
Dr Jekyll said:
You could actually argue that the constitution only protects the right to bear military firearms such as fully automatics assault rifles and doesn't cover civilian guns such as hunting rifles and shotguns.
in 2016 it was ruled that "all instruments that constitute bearable arms," are included in the second amendment, which goes back to my previous point, of why not able to have nukes?Edited by Dr Jekyll on Friday 9th March 11:32
^^^
which is why I am incredibly glad the UK does not have a constitution to be misinterpreted and argued over like the people that wrote it were receiving the undeniable word of god or something!
Efbe said:
difference between militia and army? not a lot. Militia is your army reserves in today's money.
Reservists are not full time soldiers. It's describing a situation as in Switzerland where civilians who may be called up are permitted to have weapons. I'm not saying it requires uncontrolled gun ownership or any arms held outside the 'well regulated militia' But it is clearly not saying 'the federal government is allowed to have an army'. Dr Jekyll said:
Efbe said:
difference between militia and army? not a lot. Militia is your army reserves in today's money.
Reservists are not full time soldiers. It's describing a situation as in Switzerland where civilians who may be called up are permitted to have weapons. I'm not saying it requires uncontrolled gun ownership or any arms held outside the 'well regulated militia' But it is clearly not saying 'the federal government is allowed to have an army'. What I am saying is that it is giving the right to bear arms to support a militia. not just a general right to bear arms. If it meant this, then it would not mention a militia.
To be more exact of who the militia are it is talking about, the modern equivalent being the national guard. Which is exactly what James Madison was trying to promote.
Efbe said:
in 2016 it was ruled that "all instruments that constitute bearable arms," are included in the second amendment, which goes back to my previous point, of why not able to have nukes?
^^^
which is why I am incredibly glad the UK does not have a constitution to be misinterpreted and argued over like the people that wrote it were receiving the undeniable word of god or something!
^ I hadn't read that 2016 ruling so I went looking for it and found this Reddit explanation, which seems reasonable. Arms are things in common use that you can carry on your person. ^^^
which is why I am incredibly glad the UK does not have a constitution to be misinterpreted and argued over like the people that wrote it were receiving the undeniable word of god or something!
https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/...
---
Also earlier I think you wrote about the interpretation of the Dist. of Columbia being that civilians, not in an organised fighting group, could bear arms. That was DC vs Heller and it was the interpretation of the supreme court, rather than the interpretation of DC.
As a side point, having an unwritten constitution provides at least as much scope for argument
DurianIceCream said:
This statement comes out every time. It was old in 1960 and it's still as untrue as in 1960.
So what is the primary designed use of firearms? I grew up on a farm, and even in the UK we had quite a few firearms of various descriptions. We used them to kill things. I'm just asking because it seems a lot of weapons are bought in the US for self-defence or hunting, i.e. bought with the intention of killing something. Cars are very rarely procured with that use in mind.
^ Target shooting.
Target shooting has many, many disciplines. Many target guns are unsuited to trying to kill things, it is not their primary purpose and they are unsuited for that purpose. Some target guns are also good at killing things, but if they are bought for target, then target is their primary purpose.
Target shooting has many, many disciplines. Many target guns are unsuited to trying to kill things, it is not their primary purpose and they are unsuited for that purpose. Some target guns are also good at killing things, but if they are bought for target, then target is their primary purpose.
DurianIceCream said:
^ Target shooting.
Target shooting has many, many disciplines. Many target guns are unsuited to trying to kill things, it is not their primary purpose and they are unsuited for that purpose. Some target guns are also good at killing things, but if they are bought for target, then target is their primary purpose.
Would you say that the majority of weapons in the US are bought for?Target shooting has many, many disciplines. Many target guns are unsuited to trying to kill things, it is not their primary purpose and they are unsuited for that purpose. Some target guns are also good at killing things, but if they are bought for target, then target is their primary purpose.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff