Once again, a school, a shooter....and we do the drill yet again.....

[CdnCarrie]

This latest young man’s family had him in a mental facility, had his guns taken away and monitored his communications yet it still happened. As much as it’s not popular to say, sometimes I think severely disturbed people need to be locked up for the protection of the innocent. The past couple of years we have seemed to care more about the rights of criminals than the protection of society. Crazy people are let out of jail after numerous violent offenses, we have cashless bail and police officers are discouraged arresting criminals then to have progressive DAs set them free.

Do they know how he got the gun? Sounds like they were doing all the right things and aware of his issues.

 

[jalapeno_pretzel]

Great news! New bi-partisan legislation to address some of these issues was actually recently passed, and signed into law by the president. We've been debating what can be done and resigned to inaction, when really something (finally) has been done. Called the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.

I only learned about this when I hear back from one of my state senators that I wrote yesterday. Includes a lot of elements we've been talking about, especially the mental health and school services funding. Maybe I vaguely remember hearing some of this. Might have been overshadowed by other things going on at the time.

https://www.everytown.org/what-is-the-bipartisan-safer-communities-act/

I'm hopeful that positive changes will come out of this.

 

[Disneychick13]

2nd amendment:
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.

The phrase “a well regulated militia” is a prefatory clause, a “why” to the operative clause “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” which is the actual solution/action needed.

You have to read it as such to get the full scope of the intention of the 2nd amendment. The second part of the amendment (the operative clause) is the important part here. The founding fathers thought that a well regulated militia (not a formal military, but the totality of all able bodied men in the population) was integral to the newly formed nation. So the “why’ leads to the solution……giving all people the right to keep and bear arms. And that right shall not be infringed. So just saying “militia” totally misses the point. You have to look at the context, grammatically speaking, that it was written in.

 

[mrodgers]

Again it’s like a different language. Your perspective is so foreign to me.

Yeah, I assume you are not in the US. Other countries' politics and way of life is foreign to me too.

 

[mrodgers]

And yet you ignore the "well regulated militia" part.

The need for a "well regulated militia..." is recognized, but does not state as the reason. The rule the government must govern on is the right to bare arms must not be infringed. Recognizing that the militia is a necessity for a free state is not a rule, it is recognition of a reason the right to bare arms must not be infringed by our government. The 2A comes from how the US just fought and revolutionized against a government that did not represent them, but oppressed and was tyrannical against the people. The founding fathers put the 2A in there to ensure we are not subject to that again and have a means to defend against it. No one ignores it.

 

[Moliphino]

The need for a "well regulated militia..." is recognized, but does not state as the reason. The rule the government must govern on is the right to bare arms must not be infringed. Recognizing that the militia is a necessity for a free state is not a rule, it is recognition of a reason the right to bare arms must not be infringed by our government. The 2A comes from how the US just fought and revolutionized against a government that did not represent them, but oppressed and was tyrannical against the people. The founding fathers put the 2A in there to ensure we are not subject to that again and have a means to defend against it. No one ignores it.

When they wrote it, a civilian militia actually could stand a chance against the military. Not really the case now.

 

[gmi3804]

When they wrote it, a civilian militia actually could stand a chance against the military. Not really the case now.

Maybe not. The US Department of Defense travel booking platform still has Braniff listed in the drop-down flight search menu.

 

[kdonnel]

When they wrote it, a civilian militia actually could stand a chance against the military. Not really the case now.

Are you sure?

There are multiple modern day examples of the US (Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Korea, Somalia, Bosnia, Croatia, Lebanon, Cambodia) military fighting for years against a lightly armed local population and not making any headway.

 

[CdnCarrie]

The need for a "well regulated militia..." is recognized, but does not state as the reason. The rule the government must govern on is the right to bare arms must not be infringed. Recognizing that the militia is a necessity for a free state is not a rule, it is recognition of a reason the right to bare arms must not be infringed by our government. The 2A comes from how the US just fought and revolutionized against a government that did not represent them, but oppressed and was tyrannical against the people. The founding fathers put the 2A in there to ensure we are not subject to that again and have a means to defend against it. No one ignores it.

I guess my other question is why are people obsessed with 2A scared of? They all seem so scared of their government. Why would someone live where they are so scared of their government unless they didn't have a choice. I find it very odd and very sad.

 

[sam_gordon]

I guess my other question is why are people obsessed with 2A scared of? They all seem so scared of their government. Why would someone live where they are so scared of their government unless they didn't have a choice. I find it very odd and very sad.

@mrodgers gave a detailed example of why he keeps guns in this thread.

Guns are not kept JUST because people are "scared" about the government.
Some enjoy shooting them.
Some have them for protection (human or animal).
Some use them to hunt.
Some have them for sentimental reasons (ie: handed down from generation to generation)

 

[CdnCarrie]

@mrodgers gave a detailed example of why he keeps guns in this thread.

Guns are not kept JUST because people are "scared" about the government.
Some enjoy shooting them.
Some have them for protection (human or animal).
Some use them to hunt.
Some have them for sentimental reasons (ie: handed down from generation to generation)

Those make sense.
But often when taking about the militia piece they seem rather paranoid about their government.
Really comes off as if they are scared.

 

[kdonnel]

Those make sense.
But often when taking about the militia piece they seem rather paranoid about their government.
Really comes off as if they are scared.

The militia wakos are a tiny edge case that the anti gun side likes to bring to the forefront and magnify as though it is the majority of gun owners.

 

[PollyannaMom]

Let me ask this... if the gun is the reason these things are happening, why hasn't @kdonnel or @mrodgers gone on a shooting rampage? I mean, the gun causes the situation, right?

I'm not the one you quoted, but, like others have said, I am impressed with how civil this discussion has been kept - with people on both side feeling like they can ask questions and hope to understand each other more.


I don't think the guns themselves cause the shootings, and I definitely don't think all gun-owners are potential mass shooters.

But I do think that the more guns that are out there, the easier is it is for people affected by the host of other problems (lack of preventative care in mental health, bullying, social media, you name it... that we also have to work on) to get ahold of them in order to carry out harm.

This a problem with so many facets, I just think the more sides we can chip away at it from, the better.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I guess my other question is why are people obsessed with 2A scared of? They all seem so scared of their government. Why would someone live where they are so scared of their government unless they didn't have a choice. I find it very odd and very sad.

Those make sense.
But often when taking about the militia piece they seem rather paranoid about their government.
Really comes off as if they are scared.

What’s “odd” and “sad” to me is that people can be so naive. I’m not a big fan of guns myself but I certainly understand Americans’ rights to keep them, and why they would want to - perhaps today more so than ever.

 

[CdnCarrie]

But I do think that the more guns that are out there, the easier is it is for people affected by the host of other problems (lack of preventative care in mental health, bullying, social media, you name it... that we also have to work on) to get ahold of them in order to carry out harm.



This. 100%.

 

[Aladora]

@mrodgers gave a detailed example of why he keeps guns in this thread.

Guns are not kept JUST because people are "scared" about the government.
Some enjoy shooting them.
Some have them for protection (human or animal).
Some use them to hunt.
Some have them for sentimental reasons (ie: handed down from generation to generation)

Totally valid reasons for wanting to keep guns but here is my question.

If the 2A ensures your (by "your" I mean Americans) right to bear arms in the formation of a well armed militia, then are those reasons are not illegal reasons to keep guns under the 2A?

By this I mean, working under the correct assumption that the 2A exists, and that it specifically states: "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." This means that it grants the right to keep and bear arms for the specific purpose of forming a well regulated militia but it does not cover the right to keep and bear arms for the reasons you listed above. It does not cover the right to keep and bear arms because you like shooting them, for protection against humans or animals, for hunting, or because they are family heirlooms.

So, if someone is saying that the 2A is something that should not be changed and that it is a right that must not be infringed on, then how can one justify having guns for any purpose other than the one single purpose outlined in it?

Not sure if that makes sense, my husband is fighting a cold and kept me up most of the night so I might be a bit less coherent than normal.

 

[sam_gordon]

Totally valid reasons for wanting to keep guns but here is my question.

If the 2A ensures your (by "your" I mean Americans) right to bear arms in the formation of a well armed militia, then are those reasons are not illegal reasons to keep guns under the 2A?

By this I mean, working under the correct assumption that the 2A exists, and that it specifically states: "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." This means that it grants the right to keep and bear arms for the specific purpose of forming a well regulated militia but it does not cover the right to keep and bear arms for the reasons you listed above. It does not cover the right to keep and bear arms because you like shooting them, for protection against humans or animals, for hunting, or because they are family heirlooms.

So, if someone is saying that the 2A is something that should not be changed and that it is a right that must not be infringed on, then how can one justify having guns for any purpose other than the one single purpose outlined in it?

Not sure if that makes sense, my husband is fighting a cold and kept me up most of the night so I might be a bit less coherent than normal.

If I understand you, you're saying the 2A says the ONLY reason to keep and bear arms is to have a Militia. I personally don't read it that way. I read it as:
A militia (granted, well regulated, but that's a different issue) is needed to keep the security in a free state. Therefore, the government can not keep people from having weapons.

Since the people need weapons to keep up the militia, you're not going to be able to keep them from doing other things (hunting, protection, etc).

And, think about how many people used guns for hunting in 1776. Do you really think the FF thought that should be illegal?

 

[Aladora]

If I understand you, you're saying the 2A says the ONLY reason to keep and bear arms is to have a Militia. I personally don't read it that way. I read it as:
A militia (granted, well regulated, but that's a different issue) is needed to keep the security in a free state. Therefore, the government can not keep people from having weapons.

Since the people need weapons to keep up the militia, you're not going to be able to keep them from doing other things (hunting, protection, etc).

And, think about how many people used guns for hunting in 1776. Do you really think the FF thought that should be illegal?

I understand your reading of the 2A but if you take it exactly as it is written, then the only right that it ensures is the right to keep and bear arms for the specific purpose of a well regulated militia. And yes, I am also ignoring the "well regulated" part of it!

No, I don't think the FF thought that hunting should be illegal but do you honestly think that they thought about the types of guns that would be available in the 21st century?

I am not a constitutional lawyer, nor am I American so I find this discussion quite interesting. I looked into the list of prohibited weapons here in Canada and the list is pretty long.

This graphics shows the 3 different classes of weapons and their legality in Canada. You are legally allowed to have weapons such as rifles and shotguns, although some of them are restricted or prohibited. Handguns are restricted and can only be used for target practice, as part of a collection, or in some limited circumstances allowed in connection with a lawful profession.

 

[VandVsmama]

I guess my other question is why are people obsessed with 2A scared of? They all seem so scared of their government. Why would someone live where they are so scared of their government unless they didn't have a choice. I find it very odd and very sad.

I own guns for protection of myself and my family.

 

[CdnCarrie]

I own guns for protection of myself and my family.

Yes I get that. My dad use to own guns but they were locked in the basement so of no help if we had a intruder.
However I was more referring the the militia vs government thing we often hear about in relation to the US and the 2A.