Miami school shooting
Discussion
Dr Jekyll said:
Efbe said:
RobDickinson said:
DurianIceCream said:
The second amendment protects the right to bear arms. Ammunition is an integral part of bearing arms, so the second amendment protects the right to obtain ammunition.
"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."What part of well regulated or militia was this 19 year old shooter involved in?
All proponents of guns in the US are very very quick to quote half of the amendment whist just as quick to wilfully ignore the other half.
To me it is saying the country needs a militia. May be the use of the word militia has changed, but I thought that meant a civilian force, not governmental. But it seems to me to be saying the militia should have the arms, was there a militia at the time that couldn't have arms?
I suppose the circumstances around why the amendment was ... well amended would help me too, but tbh too tired to google it now
I asked it, because my reading of the amendment is that the right to bear arms is for the militia, which is the US army. That the people have the right to keep and bears arms, forming the US military.
It certainly is one sentence. the first part of it is a fact, upon which the second part supports, therefore the two parts are inextricably linked. I find it very hard to interpret that it could say the US needs a militia and independently from this point, that all US people have the right to arms, rather than the US needs a militia for which the US people have a right to keep/bear arms for.
As someone pointed out on here, that this was written before the US had a standing army seems to confirm my interpretation of this (pretty poor) amendment.
red_slr said:
It has been debated at the highest level in the US what the wording means and each time they come back with the same answer that the current understanding is the correct one.
The highest level in the US is Mr Trump. it's not that high!Even so...
RobDickinson said:
Which is purely a political decision, based on political appointments to legal positions.
Ultimately they can erase it but only with overwhelming support which they'll never get.
What he said.Ultimately they can erase it but only with overwhelming support which they'll never get.
Just because they hold senior positions in the US doesn't mean they are right. It doesn't even mean they have an IQ over 90 or could think their way out of a paper bag!
But is my interpretation wrong?
Because if it isn't, then there is your way out of this mess, just have someone at a senior level pointing this out!
frankenstein12 said:
Youre right. Lets not discuss possible real world actual solutions and continue with the fantasy ideas that will never hapen meaning kids will keep being killed.
It isn't fantasy. In case you hadn't noticed, there's a significant increase in knife crime in the capital, fuelled by young men feeling the need to be tooled up to feel safe. It's why the solutions proposed by the NRA are met with derision here. It simply won't work. stanwan said:
frankenstein12 said:
Youre right. Lets not discuss possible real world actual solutions and continue with the fantasy ideas that will never hapen meaning kids will keep being killed.
It isn't fantasy. In case you hadn't noticed, there's a significant increase in knife crime in the capital, fuelled by young men feeling the need to be tooled up to feel safe. It's why the solutions proposed by the NRA are met with derision here. It simply won't work. In the US guns are a part of life which isnt going to change. Sitting on one side of the fence or another and refusing to compromise means nothing will happen.
Trump says arm teachers with open or concealed carry. There are people for and against that (personally i against that). It just is not smart or sensible hence my suggesting a midway compromise where the teachers have access to guns but are not permitted to carry them unless there is an active shooter.
It is either that or permanent armed guards with machine guns posted at schools across the US and for it to be effective you would need at least two armed guards per school.
Or the final alternative is Do Nothing and just argue that guns in schools are good or guns in schools are bad and spend so much time arguing that you also fail to discuss other important issues like actual gun control, mental health work etc.
frankenstein12 said:
London is a different problem.
In the US guns are a part of life which isnt going to change. Sitting on one side of the fence or another and refusing to compromise means nothing will happen.
Trump says arm teachers with open or concealed carry. There are people for and against that (personally i against that). It just is not smart or sensible hence my suggesting a midway compromise where the teachers have access to guns but are not permitted to carry them unless there is an active shooter.
It is either that or permanent armed guards with machine guns posted at schools across the US and for it to be effective you would need at least two armed guards per school.
Or the final alternative is Do Nothing and just argue that guns in schools are good or guns in schools are bad and spend so much time arguing that you also fail to discuss other important issues like actual gun control, mental health work etc.
Let me get this straight. You're basically saying limiting the supply/availability of guns is not really an option, so the alternatives look like arming more people. That's just broken. Really broken. Why can't people see the screamingly obvious answer hereIn the US guns are a part of life which isnt going to change. Sitting on one side of the fence or another and refusing to compromise means nothing will happen.
Trump says arm teachers with open or concealed carry. There are people for and against that (personally i against that). It just is not smart or sensible hence my suggesting a midway compromise where the teachers have access to guns but are not permitted to carry them unless there is an active shooter.
It is either that or permanent armed guards with machine guns posted at schools across the US and for it to be effective you would need at least two armed guards per school.
Or the final alternative is Do Nothing and just argue that guns in schools are good or guns in schools are bad and spend so much time arguing that you also fail to discuss other important issues like actual gun control, mental health work etc.
gavsdavs said:
frankenstein12 said:
London is a different problem.
In the US guns are a part of life which isnt going to change. Sitting on one side of the fence or another and refusing to compromise means nothing will happen.
Trump says arm teachers with open or concealed carry. There are people for and against that (personally i against that). It just is not smart or sensible hence my suggesting a midway compromise where the teachers have access to guns but are not permitted to carry them unless there is an active shooter.
It is either that or permanent armed guards with machine guns posted at schools across the US and for it to be effective you would need at least two armed guards per school.
Or the final alternative is Do Nothing and just argue that guns in schools are good or guns in schools are bad and spend so much time arguing that you also fail to discuss other important issues like actual gun control, mental health work etc.
Let me get this straight. You're basically saying limiting the supply/availability of guns is not really an option, so the alternatives look like arming more people. That's just broken. Really broken. Why can't people see the screamingly obvious answer hereIn the US guns are a part of life which isnt going to change. Sitting on one side of the fence or another and refusing to compromise means nothing will happen.
Trump says arm teachers with open or concealed carry. There are people for and against that (personally i against that). It just is not smart or sensible hence my suggesting a midway compromise where the teachers have access to guns but are not permitted to carry them unless there is an active shooter.
It is either that or permanent armed guards with machine guns posted at schools across the US and for it to be effective you would need at least two armed guards per school.
Or the final alternative is Do Nothing and just argue that guns in schools are good or guns in schools are bad and spend so much time arguing that you also fail to discuss other important issues like actual gun control, mental health work etc.
Initially in the immediate aftermath of the shooting the NRA and gun owners seemed supportive when Trump said he was going to ban bump stocks and look at better gun control.
Now after the anti gunners and liberals have actively started campaigning against and targetting the NRA and the companies it works with and gun owners they have gone back to their previous position of refusing to compromise and are stating they are against banning bump stocks or better gun control and that instead more guns is better.
In simple terms initially before the anti gun lobby really got rolling there was a chance to make a change with the cooperation of gun owners and the NRA now that opportunity is gone.
On the plus side it does seem Trump has set his mind to banning bump stocks and to putting more control on guns regardless of the NRA's position and hopefully he will follow through.
As the phrase goes. Baby steps.
frankenstein12 said:
gavsdavs said:
frankenstein12 said:
London is a different problem.
In the US guns are a part of life which isnt going to change. Sitting on one side of the fence or another and refusing to compromise means nothing will happen.
Trump says arm teachers with open or concealed carry. There are people for and against that (personally i against that). It just is not smart or sensible hence my suggesting a midway compromise where the teachers have access to guns but are not permitted to carry them unless there is an active shooter.
It is either that or permanent armed guards with machine guns posted at schools across the US and for it to be effective you would need at least two armed guards per school.
Or the final alternative is Do Nothing and just argue that guns in schools are good or guns in schools are bad and spend so much time arguing that you also fail to discuss other important issues like actual gun control, mental health work etc.
Let me get this straight. You're basically saying limiting the supply/availability of guns is not really an option, so the alternatives look like arming more people. That's just broken. Really broken. Why can't people see the screamingly obvious answer hereIn the US guns are a part of life which isnt going to change. Sitting on one side of the fence or another and refusing to compromise means nothing will happen.
Trump says arm teachers with open or concealed carry. There are people for and against that (personally i against that). It just is not smart or sensible hence my suggesting a midway compromise where the teachers have access to guns but are not permitted to carry them unless there is an active shooter.
It is either that or permanent armed guards with machine guns posted at schools across the US and for it to be effective you would need at least two armed guards per school.
Or the final alternative is Do Nothing and just argue that guns in schools are good or guns in schools are bad and spend so much time arguing that you also fail to discuss other important issues like actual gun control, mental health work etc.
Initially in the immediate aftermath of the shooting the NRA and gun owners seemed supportive when Trump said he was going to ban bump stocks and look at better gun control.
Now after the anti gunners and liberals have actively started campaigning against and targetting the NRA and the companies it works with and gun owners they have gone back to their previous position of refusing to compromise and are stating they are against banning bump stocks or better gun control and that instead more guns is better.
In simple terms initially before the anti gun lobby really got rolling there was a chance to make a change with the cooperation of gun owners and the NRA now that opportunity is gone.
On the plus side it does seem Trump has set his mind to banning bump stocks and to putting more control on guns regardless of the NRA's position and hopefully he will follow through.
As the phrase goes. Baby steps.
I think the mood amongst many Americans is changing (including that of some gun owners) - they don't view the NRA in the same way they did this time last year. Their stupid comments about a god given right to carry guns has turned some gun owners against them. (According to friends & colleages in both Atlanta and Washington DC). They don't think the NRA respresent the views of the average gun owner any more.
Your post seems to suggest that unless the NRA approve of a change in the law it won't happen. That may have been the case previously, but I don't think that's the case any more.
rscott said:
frankenstein12 said:
gavsdavs said:
frankenstein12 said:
London is a different problem.
In the US guns are a part of life which isnt going to change. Sitting on one side of the fence or another and refusing to compromise means nothing will happen.
Trump says arm teachers with open or concealed carry. There are people for and against that (personally i against that). It just is not smart or sensible hence my suggesting a midway compromise where the teachers have access to guns but are not permitted to carry them unless there is an active shooter.
It is either that or permanent armed guards with machine guns posted at schools across the US and for it to be effective you would need at least two armed guards per school.
Or the final alternative is Do Nothing and just argue that guns in schools are good or guns in schools are bad and spend so much time arguing that you also fail to discuss other important issues like actual gun control, mental health work etc.
Let me get this straight. You're basically saying limiting the supply/availability of guns is not really an option, so the alternatives look like arming more people. That's just broken. Really broken. Why can't people see the screamingly obvious answer hereIn the US guns are a part of life which isnt going to change. Sitting on one side of the fence or another and refusing to compromise means nothing will happen.
Trump says arm teachers with open or concealed carry. There are people for and against that (personally i against that). It just is not smart or sensible hence my suggesting a midway compromise where the teachers have access to guns but are not permitted to carry them unless there is an active shooter.
It is either that or permanent armed guards with machine guns posted at schools across the US and for it to be effective you would need at least two armed guards per school.
Or the final alternative is Do Nothing and just argue that guns in schools are good or guns in schools are bad and spend so much time arguing that you also fail to discuss other important issues like actual gun control, mental health work etc.
Initially in the immediate aftermath of the shooting the NRA and gun owners seemed supportive when Trump said he was going to ban bump stocks and look at better gun control.
Now after the anti gunners and liberals have actively started campaigning against and targetting the NRA and the companies it works with and gun owners they have gone back to their previous position of refusing to compromise and are stating they are against banning bump stocks or better gun control and that instead more guns is better.
In simple terms initially before the anti gun lobby really got rolling there was a chance to make a change with the cooperation of gun owners and the NRA now that opportunity is gone.
On the plus side it does seem Trump has set his mind to banning bump stocks and to putting more control on guns regardless of the NRA's position and hopefully he will follow through.
As the phrase goes. Baby steps.
I think the mood amongst many Americans is changing (including that of some gun owners) - they don't view the NRA in the same way they did this time last year. Their stupid comments about a god given right to carry guns has turned some gun owners against them. (According to friends & colleages in both Atlanta and Washington DC). They don't think the NRA respresent the views of the average gun owner any more.
Your post seems to suggest that unless the NRA approve of a change in the law it won't happen. That may have been the case previously, but I don't think that's the case any more.
frankenstein12 said:
No I am not saying it is merely up to the NRA approving a change but the NRA are a part of the bigger picture and most importantly they "own" a number of politicians/political parties and as such it would be easier to make changes if they were on side rather than using their bought influence to stop policy change.
I think the NRA's influence will decline - they've gone beyond what many US citizens consider reasonable with their recent statements. The NRS's funding is reducing - several of their large corporate associates have cut ties with them.
And if it turns out that Russian money was being funneled through the NRA to Trump's campaign, that'll be the end of them politically.
It’s pretty clear that this incident will be closed out with a couple of bandaids. Banning bumpstocks, even though I could make on in my garage easily, and banning sale of assault rifles to under 21 year olds, even if the Sandy Hook shooter used his mum’s weapons.
A long way to go in politics and many more deaths before the idea of only allowing yanks simple hunting rifles and cowboy revolvers becomes reality.
A long way to go in politics and many more deaths before the idea of only allowing yanks simple hunting rifles and cowboy revolvers becomes reality.
rscott said:
frankenstein12 said:
No I am not saying it is merely up to the NRA approving a change but the NRA are a part of the bigger picture and most importantly they "own" a number of politicians/political parties and as such it would be easier to make changes if they were on side rather than using their bought influence to stop policy change.
I think the NRA's influence will decline - they've gone beyond what many US citizens consider reasonable with their recent statements. The NRS's funding is reducing - several of their large corporate associates have cut ties with them.
And if it turns out that Russian money was being funneled through the NRA to Trump's campaign, that'll be the end of them politically.
frankenstein12 said:
London is a different problem.
In the US guns are a part of life which isnt going to change. Sitting on one side of the fence or another and refusing to compromise means nothing will happen.
Trump says arm teachers with open or concealed carry. There are people for and against that (personally i against that). It just is not smart or sensible hence my suggesting a midway compromise where the teachers have access to guns but are not permitted to carry them unless there is an active shooter.
It is either that or permanent armed guards with machine guns posted at schools across the US and for it to be effective you would need at least two armed guards per school.
Or the final alternative is Do Nothing and just argue that guns in schools are good or guns in schools are bad and spend so much time arguing that you also fail to discuss other important issues like actual gun control, mental health work etc.
All those will do is move the issue, someone with intent will work around it. There is only one option and until that is embraced, rpthis will keep happening. In the US guns are a part of life which isnt going to change. Sitting on one side of the fence or another and refusing to compromise means nothing will happen.
Trump says arm teachers with open or concealed carry. There are people for and against that (personally i against that). It just is not smart or sensible hence my suggesting a midway compromise where the teachers have access to guns but are not permitted to carry them unless there is an active shooter.
It is either that or permanent armed guards with machine guns posted at schools across the US and for it to be effective you would need at least two armed guards per school.
Or the final alternative is Do Nothing and just argue that guns in schools are good or guns in schools are bad and spend so much time arguing that you also fail to discuss other important issues like actual gun control, mental health work etc.
They managed to ban small sharp stuff on aircraft because terrorist but they will keep bad people armed because good old boys.
So the claim CNN scripted the questions asked at their Town Hall session turns out to be fake news.
The student was asked to repeat an earlier statement of his ,but wanted to make a longer speech which didn't fit the format.
So he released doctored emails to back up his claim he'd been tolls what to say. Unfortunately CNN released the originals which prove he wasn't being entirely accurate...
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/375401-cnn-relea...
The student was asked to repeat an earlier statement of his ,but wanted to make a longer speech which didn't fit the format.
So he released doctored emails to back up his claim he'd been tolls what to say. Unfortunately CNN released the originals which prove he wasn't being entirely accurate...
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/375401-cnn-relea...
rscott said:
frankenstein12 said:
No I am not saying it is merely up to the NRA approving a change but the NRA are a part of the bigger picture and most importantly they "own" a number of politicians/political parties and as such it would be easier to make changes if they were on side rather than using their bought influence to stop policy change.
I think the NRA's influence will decline - they've gone beyond what many US citizens consider reasonable with their recent statements. The NRS's funding is reducing - several of their large corporate associates have cut ties with them.
And if it turns out that Russian money was being funneled through the NRA to Trump's campaign, that'll be the end of them politically.
Likewise the companies working with them were siimply companies that gave discounts to their members such as airlines car rental companies etc. There are lots of gun and weapons associated companies who will not abondon the NRA and who offer benefits that are "worthwhile" to NRA members.
As to the further fantasy about NRA funneling money to Trump people really need to move on from the Russia Trump collusion fantasy which has been pretty much disproven. Every time there is apparent collusion between Trump and Russia the investigation turns up evidence leading to the democrats, FBI, Clinton etc.
frankenstein12 said:
rscott said:
frankenstein12 said:
No I am not saying it is merely up to the NRA approving a change but the NRA are a part of the bigger picture and most importantly they "own" a number of politicians/political parties and as such it would be easier to make changes if they were on side rather than using their bought influence to stop policy change.
I think the NRA's influence will decline - they've gone beyond what many US citizens consider reasonable with their recent statements. The NRS's funding is reducing - several of their large corporate associates have cut ties with them.
And if it turns out that Russian money was being funneled through the NRA to Trump's campaign, that'll be the end of them politically.
Likewise the companies working with them were siimply companies that gave discounts to their members such as airlines car rental companies etc. There are lots of gun and weapons associated companies who will not abondon the NRA and who offer benefits that are "worthwhile" to NRA members.
As to the further fantasy about NRA funneling money to Trump people really need to move on from the Russia Trump collusion fantasy which has been pretty much disproven. Every time there is apparent collusion between Trump and Russia the investigation turns up evidence leading to the democrats, FBI, Clinton etc.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff