Latest School Shooting

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

told you so, the fact someone killed 55 people with them does not matter, to gun owners

And the fact that I mentioned something I would like to see changed that would in no way negatively effects anyone, and your response is to throw the death of 55 innocent people at me even though I had nothing to do with it speaks volumes about you.

 

[sam_gordon]

Sure you can, because anyone with a basic understanding of the English language can understand the first half is basically editorial.

If it said, “The national umbrella parade being necessary to the morale of the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear umbrellas shall not be infringed”, would you argue only those participating in the parade had the right to umbrellas?

From a purely actionable point of view, the 2nd Amendment may as well say, “blah blah blah blah blah, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. I mean seriously, if the 2nd Amendment in its entirety were on a 3rd grade English test followed by the question, “to whom does the right to keep and bear arms belong?”, the only correct answer would be, “the people”.

The militia “could” possibly be called the why, but it is absolutely NOT the who.

Going way back, I seem to remember a sentence needs a subject and a verb. Care to identify both of those for me in the 2nd Amendment? You're using YOUR interpretation of it. I could say it could also be interpreted "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, blah blah blah blah, shall not be infringed."

Now, you want to just focus on the 2nd half? That's fine. But 1) don't claim the second half is the entirety of the amendment and 2) try to define what exactly is an "infringement". Even with the first amendment, there are things you can't say ("fire" in a theater is the normal example), there are times/locations you can't peaceably assemble, and let's not get into what constitutes "establishing a religion".

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Going way back, I seem to remember a sentence needs a subject and a verb. Care to identify both of those for me in the 2nd Amendment? You're using YOUR interpretation of it. I could say it could also be interpreted "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, blah blah blah blah, shall not be infringed."

Now, you want to just focus on the 2nd half? That's fine. But 1) don't claim the second half is the entirety of the amendment and 2) try to define what exactly is an "infringement". Even with the first amendment, there are things you can't say ("fire" in a theater is the normal example), there are times/locations you can't peaceably assemble, and let's not get into what constitutes "establishing a religion".

I’m using everyone’s interpretation IF they’re being honest. Show that sentence in its entirety to anyone who’s never seen it and then ask them to name who has the right to keep and bear arms. If they know English, they will answer, “the people”. And no, your blah blah version doesn’t work because nothing actually happens. You don’t even define that which shall not be infringed.

1) the 2nd half is the only part that matters because it defines a right, and it assigns that right to a specific group (namely, the people). Again, one could argue that the militia is “a reason” or even “the reason” for the amendment. But, at the end of the day, there can be no denying that the right belongs to “the people”. That’s not an interpretation. It’s basic reading comprehension.

2) defining the infringement is the point of the discussion

 

[Planogirl]

I guess that I don't have good reading comprehension because the amendment is not that clear to me. I understand the interpretation that it means "the people" only but others have come up with other meanings with solid arguments supporting those. Sometimes we do see things the way we want them to be.

i can see why gun supporters are so often in a defensive mode though. I kept wondering why none of them seem to come up with good ideas but I can understand the concerns that so many are focused on.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

I guess that I don't have good reading comprehension because the amendment is not that clear to me. I understand the interpretation that it means "the people" only but others have come up with other meanings with solid arguments supporting those. Sometimes we do see things the way we want them to be.

i can see why gun supporters are so often in a defensive mode though. I kept wondering why none of them seem to come up with good ideas but I can understand the concerns that so many are focused on.

But, I’ve onky seen it interpreted other than “the people” by those who are actively trying to discredit the amendment, not those simply reading it. They view the militia comment as their loophole or their “gotcha” moment. But, if you take the politics out of the equation and just read it as a sentence, it’s pretty clear.

Edit: now, if one were trying to determine from this Amendment exactly what the founding fathers envisioned or were hoping to achieve, then yeah that can be very much open for interpretation. That’s why I try to focus not on what they might have meant, and instead on what is actually written.

 

[Hikergirl]

I guess that I don't have good reading comprehension because the amendment is not that clear to me. I understand the interpretation that it means "the people" only but others have come up with other meanings with solid arguments supporting those. Sometimes we do see things the way we want them to be.

i can see why gun supporters are so often in a defensive mode though. I kept wondering why none of them seem to come up with good ideas but I can understand the concerns that so many are focused on.

??? Why because they aren't the same ideas that non gun owners have?

 

[UncleMike101]

Can you name another instance of someone using a bumpstock? For that matter had you even heard of them before that? What about suppressors? I’ll wait while you google it.
It’s not that gun owners are aposed to things just because, it’s that we seem to be the scapegoats. Their are probably 100 million gun owners in America, 1 idiot used a bump-stock.

Exactly..............
Law abiding firearms owners in the U.S. have between 350,000,000 and 600,000,000 firearms, depending on who's statistics you prefer, and at least a couple of trillion rounds of ammunition.
If they were as murderous, bloodthirsty, and dangerous as some people claim, I believe that everyone would be well aware of it.
Once again I'll say;
"It's not the objects."
"It's the people."

 

[Planogirl]

??? Why because they aren't the same ideas that non gun owners have?

I'm not saying that non gun owners do any better. It's always the same though. People just go round and round and never get anywhere. You see it everywhere.

 

[Hikergirl]

I'm not saying that non gun owners do any better. It's always the same though. People just go round and round and never get anywhere. You see it everywhere.

I don't think that has anything to do with a lack of good ideas.

 

[LongLiveRafiki]

Going way back, I seem to remember a sentence needs a subject and a verb. Care to identify both of those for me in the 2nd Amendment? You're using YOUR interpretation of it. I could say it could also be interpreted "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, blah blah blah blah, shall not be infringed."

A sentence includes a subject and a predicate. The subject in the second amendment is "right." "Of the people" is a prepositional phrase that modifies the noun "right." "To keep and bear arms" is an infinitive phrase functioning as an adjective that also modifies the noun "right." The predicate is "shall not be infringed." The basic sentence in the 2nd amendment is "The right shall not be infringed."

The first part of the 2nd amendment is an absolute phrase, consisting of the noun "militia," the adjective "well-regulated," to modify the noun, and the participial phrase, "being necessary to the security of a free state," which also modifies the noun "militia." There is no finite verb, which makes this an absolute phrase rather than a sentence. Absolute phrases generally do give more info to the sentence, but they do NOT change the subject of the sentence, which is, in this case, "right," or the complete subject phrase, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Now, in regards to the contextual importance of including the absolute phrase in the amendment, that can be debated. The sentence beginning with "the right of the people..." can stand on it's own grammatically as a sentence; however, the absolute phrase could be construed as providing some background for the sentence. Still though, an absolute phrase does not change the meaning of the sentence itself.

 

[kamik86]

He may have played them at other people’s house I am not sure. But back then they just didn’t stay on their games 24/7. It seems like now there are so many kids that do nothing else.

True that is a different problem then the games in the first place.

I think to an extent though that it is also just a personality too.

I knew someone that as a kid if he watched cartoons like power rangers or other martial arts style cartoons would try and and recreate things against unwilling kids on the playground. He ended up not allowed to watch anything violent because it gave him ideas. Last I knew he did end up in prison as an adult which doesn't surprise me at all.

The number of other children that watched power rangers and didn't decide to punch anyone however tells me that it was much more about him then it was about the show.

 

[kamik86]

For the changes there is alot of debate on the lines but sometimes I think we need to just start with the things most agree on and then go from there. Trying to fix everything at once is making everyone do nothing.

1) Anyone convicted of a violent crime should not be able to legally own a gun. This means can't register it and can't buy them.
2) Make a national database of violent crimes so that they can't buy guns in other states either.
3) National registration for each gun owned every.... I don't know how often lets go with 2 years, the cost should actually just be what it costs to maintain this database and the people that collect the forms none of that adding cost as a tax bull.
4) Require gun owners to carry a card with their registration information whenever they are carrying their gun.
5) Require all guns to be kept locked when not in use.
6) Just in case it isn't already make it illegal to give or sell a gun to someone on the list that can't have them. This one legitimately does infringe a bit... because now you have to be really careful about private gun sales (you better know that person your selling to since if they are on the list you commited a crime too) this might mean private gun sales almost have to go through a service which is annoying but I think this is the only one on the list that should affect legal gun owners beyond a bit of paperwork.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

For the changes there is alot of debate on the lines but sometimes I think we need to just start with the things most agree on and then go from there. Trying to fix everything at once is making everyone do nothing.

1) Anyone convicted of a violent crime should not be able to legally own a gun. This means can't register it and can't buy them.
2) Make a national database of violent crimes so that they can't buy guns in other states either.
3) National registration for each gun owned every.... I don't know how often lets go with 2 years, the cost should actually just be what it costs to maintain this database and the people that collect the forms none of that adding cost as a tax bull.
4) Require gun owners to carry a card with their registration information whenever they are carrying their gun.
5) Require all guns to be kept locked when not in use.
6) Just in case it isn't already make it illegal to give or sell a gun to someone on the list that can't have them. This one legitimately does infringe a bit... because now you have to be really careful about private gun sales (you better know that person your selling to since if they are on the list you commited a crime too) this might mean private gun sales almost have to go through a service which is annoying but I think this is the only one on the list that should affect legal gun owners beyond a bit of paperwork.

1) violent criminals are already prohibited from purchasing a firearm.
2) a person cannot purchase a firearm in a different state from their own.
3) I don’t support a database.
4) why?
5) how would this be enforced, will inspections occur?
6) it is illegal to knowingly sells firearm to a prohibited person, the problem is identifying that person. As it currently stands I can’t even check the NICS database. I’ve only sold 2 firearms but I personally require a drivers license, that they show a current pistol permit, and sign a bill of sale.

 

[sam_gordon]

The sentence beginning with "the right of the people..." can stand on it's own grammatically as a sentence;

But it's NOT a sentence. Could it stand on it's own? Sure. But it's not.

All I'm saying is the Amendment is not as clear as some would have you believe.

 

[Domo]

I don’t think you can be much clearer than “the people”.

But then they added in the qualifier "militia", which only muddies the water.

 

[LongLiveRafiki]

But it's NOT a sentence. Could it stand on it's own? Sure. But it's not.

All I'm saying is the Amendment is not as clear as some would have you believe.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That most certainly is a sentence, as explained above, as it includes a subject and a predicate. An absolute phrase does NOT make the independent clause it is attached to dependent on it. Had the founding fathers wished to limit the right to bear arms to militia usage, they could have easily said "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" or "When a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The first would have specified that the right to bear arms was solely for the militia, the second would have made the right to bear arms contingent on having a well-regulated militia. But they didn't. The subject of the sentence is not the militia, but the right of the people.

To expound on my point further, if you diagram the 2nd amendment, you can see that, structurally, the first and second parts are separate, because the second is a clause all on it's own.


What I've said in regards to sentence structure has absolutely nothing to do with what anyone would have me believe, as you say. I don't even know what you're trying to infer there. Sentence structure is at the core of our language and is irrespective of politics.

 

[LongLiveRafiki]

But then they added in the qualifier "militia", which only muddies the water.

How is "militia" a qualifier?

 

[rajak73]

I was in vegas, they clearly stated guns not allowed in rooms

Are you trying to tell us that the Las Vegas shooter......broke the law and brought guns in the room?

You do realize that not all gun owners are NRA supporters right,

No they don't realize that, It doesn't fit their thought process.

I don't have a problem with that, but personally the high cap mag ban is just a feel good measure,

I believe everything that I've read that the Parkland shooter had nothing but 10 round mags

I would think most gun owners would insist and welcome firearem training and education

So would this be a one time training or does grandpa at age 88 have to take the class every year because he still owns a shotgun.

6) Just in case it isn't already make it illegal to give or sell a gun to someone on the list that can't have them.

Just a FYI, a known felon had a female buy a gun for him in Georgia and then he in turn killed a police officer in Omaha, Ne with said purchase. Know what the female got for punishment? 6 months probation.

If you want some good reading, google "gaps in background checks" from the Lincoln Journal Star. Article is real informative about what can be on background checks, funny, the mental health advocates don't want the mental health on background checks because it might infringe on their rights, Now tell me again how it's all the NRA.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

But it's NOT a sentence. Could it stand on it's own? Sure. But it's not.

All I'm saying is the Amendment is not as clear as some would have you believe.

Yes, it is.

If one wants to argue the original intent, that is certainly up for debate. But, as written, the Amendment clearly establishes the right to keep and bear arms belongs to “the people”. And unless you think the phrase “the people” is ambiguous, I don’t see how this is so difficult.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Oh, on the subject of restrictions the NRA and other 2nd Amendment supporters would allow: the current instant background check system allows the FBI to put a 3 day hold on any transaction they deem questionable. The NRA has stated they would support that hold becoming automatic for anyone on the no-fly or terror watch lists, which in turn would automatically trigger an FBI investigation.