Miami school shooting

[Bacon Is Proof]

frankenstein12 said:

Saw an interesting short video today .

I saw a interesting news article today about an armed teacher injuring a pupil with an accidental discharge.

Interesting, but not surprising as arming teachers is fking stupid.

[frankenstein12]

Gameface said:

shoggoth1 said:

croyde said:

Pro gun mum shot in the back by 4 year old son.

Sorry but had to laugh. The irony.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3484064/Pr...

Err, that was two years ago...

Does anyone know if she's so rabidly pro gun nowadays?

Pretty hard to have a Facebook page called Gun sense when she leaves one on the back seat with her four year old.

A lot of americans are extremely stupid and careless with guns to the extent I have often wondered what the laws and punishment meted out to parents of school shooters who take guns bought by their parents on killing sprees are?

Growing up my dad had a gun which he kept in a safe I did not have access to at home. He rarely ever took it out unless he was going somewhere where it may be needed and sometimes he would take me to a quiet beach and we would have a game of target practice shooting tin cans on the beach etc.

But he would never ever have let me take the gun as a teenager on my own somewhere as if i used it to shoot someone as I was under 18 he felt he would be liable/responsible for my actions whilst in possesion of his gun.

[p1stonhead]

Problem solved for the little kiddies!

https://youtu.be/HlGpaZieHwk

[Saleen836]

p1stonhead said:

Problem solved for the little kiddies!

https://youtu.be/HlGpaZieHwk

Would have liked to have seen it being fired at from a lot closer to be a better representation of what could happen in a clasroom

[Frank7]

Saleen836 said:

p1stonhead said:

Problem solved for the little kiddies!

https://youtu.be/HlGpaZieHwk

Would have liked to have seen it being fired at from a lot closer to be a better representation of what could happen in a clasroom

I take your point that a whack job with a gun(s), who got into a classroom, would be shooting at kids from very close range, but in that test, they were aware of the fact that the shelter was almost certainly bullet proof already, so perhaps Health and Safety decreed that the distance must have been what it was in the test, two preclude ricochets hitting the firers.

[AJL308]

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.

Then surely you must apply that to the whole Constitution?

Freedom of speech would only apply to physical speaking or means of communication available in 1776. So, printing presses only, then?

Freedom of religion would apply to, well, Christianity and little else.

[AJL308]

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.

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)

Then you are reading it incorrectly and without any appreciation of the context in which it was written.

The Amendment mentions the need for a militia. The militia at the time, which has been confirmed by the Courts since, comprised every able bodied man of fighting age. If it was meant to refer to a standing army then it would have said so.

[jmorgan]

Freedom of speech would probably only be for the landed gentry or whatever passes for them in todays society.

[AJL308]

Efbe said:

jmorgan said:

It is something that is twisted to fit the view of today but clearly written when there was no standing army,

agreed.

It was written to enable a standing army.
Quite how this is not obvious to them I don't know.

It wasn't. If it were it would have said. It specifically mentions the militia which is not the same as a standing army - [i]A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It specifically refers to the people and that they can possess and use arms. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights always refers to the people, not the state. The notion that the State needs to recognise it's own 'rights' is ridiculous, surely? The State can do what it likes and if it wants a standing army then it can do. Your argument is even more ridiculous in that, logically, if the 2nd Amendment were repealed then that would necessarily mean that the US armed forces would be immediately unconstitutional.

[AJL308]

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. 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.

Because at the time the 'militia' was every able-bodied man of fighting age. 'Well Regulated' meant well trained and orgnaised.

[AJL308]

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.

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

That has been successfully argued by the State in order to prosecute a gangster in the 1930's. It revolved around possession a sawn-off shotgun. Gangster argued that his possession was lawful due to the 2nd Amendment but was convicted as the court found that a short barrelled shotgun was not a type of weapon likely to be used by military forces.

The Court was actually wrong as shot shotguns were used in the trenches in WW1 but the guy was murdered over some 'business' matter or other before the appeal came to Court.

So, yes, military weapons are specifically covered by the the 2nd Amendment.

[AJL308]

Efbe said:

What does it matter?
The US has clearly misinterpreted the 2A to mean everyone has a right to bear arms, ignoring that this should be to support a militia.

And you are ignoring the fact that the 'militia' essentially comprises everyone.

[p1stonhead]

AJL308 said:

Efbe said:

What does it matter?
The US has clearly misinterpreted the 2A to mean everyone has a right to bear arms, ignoring that this should be to support a militia.

And you are ignoring the fact that the 'militia' essentially comprises everyone.

‘Well regulated’

[kowalski655]

Why isnt the National Guard counted as the militia for 2A purposes? They are well regulated, well armed, they have waaay better stuff than you get at Walmart, they even have planes FFS!
If the NG is there, why does Billy-Bob need an AR-15?

[DurianIceCream]

^ The 2A contains two parts, although both with imperfect grammar.

It starts with saying there is a need for a well regulated militia.

Then it states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Two separate statements.

[AJL308]

p1stonhead said:

AJL308 said:

Efbe said:

What does it matter?
The US has clearly misinterpreted the 2A to mean everyone has a right to bear arms, ignoring that this should be to support a militia.

And you are ignoring the fact that the 'militia' essentially comprises everyone.

‘Well regulated’

Means well trained and organised. It says that it's 'necessary', it doesn't say that you can only keep ad bear arms as part of same nor is that what it implies. The right shan't be infringed so hat people are able to form a militia, they don't need to be in one continually. That is the entire nature of a civilian militia.

[Efbe]

DurianIceCream said:

^ The 2A contains two parts, although both with imperfect grammar.

It starts with saying there is a need for a well regulated militia.

Then it states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Two separate statements.

They are two parts of the same sentence, in which the second supports the first.

^^see what I did there?

It is also (as others have pointed out) a "well regulated militia", which we now know as the nationalguard.

The US supreme court has ruled both ways. AFAIK ruling in my view more often and for much longer that against. Though I don't think this matters at all. It is after all a political interpretation.

For those talking of the context:
"James Madison originally proposed the Second Amendment shortly after the Constitution was officially ratified as a way to provide more power to state militias, which today are considered the National Guard. It was deemed a compromise between Federalists — those who supported the Constitution as it was ratified — and the anti-Federalists — those who supported states having more power. Having just used guns and other arms to ward off the English, the amendment was originally created to give citizens the opportunity to fight back against a tyrannical federal government." https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment...

[frankenstein12]

Ok aside from the arguments about the second amendments lets get back to discussing what went wrong that allowed this nutter to kill a bunch of kids.

New news about Cruz..

https://www.apnews.com/9f92fe777771465b87f6ec828e4...

[Gary C]

AJL308 said:

Efbe said:

What does it matter?
The US has clearly misinterpreted the 2A to mean everyone has a right to bear arms, ignoring that this should be to support a militia.

And you are ignoring the fact that the 'militia' essentially comprises everyone.

And the states really needs one ?

[AJL308]

frankenstein12 said:

Ok aside from the arguments about the second amendments lets get back to discussing what went wrong that allowed this nutter to kill a bunch of kids.

New news about Cruz..

https://www.apnews.com/9f92fe777771465b87f6ec828e4...

What went 'wrong' is US society as a whole. It's not just guns, it's Americans with guns. Lots of places have similar levels of gun ownership but don't have the same problems that the USA does.

The USA is culturally fked up, there seems to be little respect for each other and taking the piss and putting down those seen as less popular seem to be national pastimes. When you have that sort of culture coupled with a crap healthcare system, especially as far as mental health is concerned, then who do you expect? This is the USA's problem though and they seem to be doing sod all to address it.