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

[CdnCarrie]

It's a little sexist to assume that gun owners are just men.

It's a little sexist to assume that all craft store customers are women. Works both ways.

 

[mrodgers]

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

You think that the US military, which are made up of the citizens of this country, would take up arms against their own people? You think they would go against their oath to the Constitution to side with the tyrannical government and shoot citizens?

This argument/statement is always brought up. The military is not the deceitful, evil, oppressive politicians. I just don't think things would go that way. If the people get to the point they feel they need to exercise the 2A right to it's fullest, I don't think it would be against military personnel.

Everyone says, "but they have tanks and A-10's." Yeah, but does Joe or Nancy (names used simply because they are current) know how to fly an A-10? I doubt that.

 

[mrodgers]

@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)

Not scared about the government. Scared about what the government can become.

The 2A keeps the power of the government in check somewhat. Take the defense ability away from the people, and it could go a different way very easily. It's as much to do about saying, "Hey, you represent us, remember? Of the people, by the people, and for the people and you politicians are shying away from that" than it is thinking the people are actually going to take up arms against said politicians and government.

 

[sam_gordon]

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.

I *TOTALLY* disagree with that reading.

"Needing to cook pasta, the right of the people to have a stove, shall not be infringed." So everyone is allowed to have a stove so they can cook pasta, right? If they cook eggs on the stove, that would be illegal?

 

[mrodgers]

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.


View attachment 714442

See Disneychick's post earlier. A decent explanation grammatically (and of her own interpretation,) better than I could do, and I posted just after she did, which she expressed it far more intelligently than I did. Assuming here with "chick" in the name, female.

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.

 

[CdnCarrie]

Not scared about the government. Scared about what the government can become.

The 2A keeps the power of the government in check somewhat. Take the defense ability away from the people, and it could go a different way very easily. It's as much to do about saying, "Hey, you represent us, remember? Of the people, by the people, and for the people and you politicians are shying away from that" than it is thinking the people are actually going to take up arms against said politicians and government.

Still such an odd concept. It's sad you have to be scared about what your government could become. Sorry you feel that way.

 

[Aladora]

I *TOTALLY* disagree with that reading.

"Needing to cook pasta, the right of the people to have a stove, shall not be infringed." So everyone is allowed to have a stove so they can cook pasta, right? If they cook eggs on the stove, that would be illegal?

Apologies, instead of the word "ensures" I should have used "enumerates". As in, the only reasons for the right to bear arms is listed as "a well regulated militia"

But an even more interesting question (although I find this discussion quite fascinating btw) is why is the rate of school shootings in the USA so much higher than other countries. I posted numbers way up-thread, counting only school shootings since 1989 where there was at least 1 fatality, your rate is 30 times that of Canada's. When you add back in all school shootings regardless of whether there were any fatalities, that rate changes to more than 60 times.

Your population is 10 times ours so if the rates were comparable, we should expect to see rates around 10 times ours, adjusted for population but we obviously do not.

Oh, and in case anyone was wondering why I picked the seemingly random year of 1989 to start the comparison, it is because in December 1989 Canada had the deadliest school shooting in our history, the Ecole Polytechnique massacre where 14 young women were killed merely because they were women studying mechanical engineering. It is an event that many of us remember each and every December 6th. I was 17 when it happened and my sister was 20, we were both right around the same age as the victims.

Just wanted to post that because 1989 seems like a pretty random year to pick!

 

[MamaBelle4]

You think that the US military, which are made up of the citizens of this country, would take up arms against their own people? You think they would go against their oath to the Constitution to side with the tyrannical government and shoot citizens?

This argument/statement is always brought up. The military is not the deceitful, evil, oppressive politicians. I just don't think things would go that way. If the people get to the point they feel they need to exercise the 2A right to it's fullest, I don't think it would be against military personnel.

Everyone says, "but they have tanks and A-10's." Yeah, but does Joe or Nancy (names used simply because they are current) know how to fly an A-10? I doubt that.

What?

The military HAS taken up arms against it's own citizens.

The Whiskey Rebellion and the Battle of Blair mountain both spring to mind. And I know there were more instances, I just can't think of them offhand.

 

[sam_gordon]

But an even more interesting question (although I find this discussion quite fascinating btw) is why is the rate of school shootings in the USA so much higher than other countries. I posted numbers way up-thread, counting only school shootings since 1989 where there was at least 1 fatality, your rate is 30 times that of Canada's. When you add back in all school shootings regardless of whether there were any fatalities, that rate changes to more than 60 times.

Darn good question. BUT, as was pointed out earlier in the thread, how many of the "school shootings" happened because of a disagreement between two people? Or happened to happen on school property, not because it was a school, but just because that's where the incident happened? I'm not stating it very well, another poster did very well earlier in the thread (I don't feel like going through 14 pages to find it, sorry).

I think there's a lot of mental issues (not the right term, but all I can come up with right now) that make people want to defend themselves to an extreme. Is that worse in the US?

I'm not explaining myself very well, sorry.

 

[CdnCarrie]

Battle of Blair mountain

something similar here - Winnipeg General Strike of 1919.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Still such an odd concept. It's sad you have to be scared about what your government could become. Sorry you feel that way.

It's never as easy as that. FWIW there are a lot of countries and territories out there that have reason to distrust governments, we all know the British held over the years so much of the world among other countries that are completely obvious and somehow you think those in the U.S. is alone in being wary of what a government could become. Much of our ideology has come from wanting out of a British control. That has shaped and formed through the centuries how we are. As I understand it while Canada exists fully independent and yet part of a Commonwealth with an ultimate allegiance to the British monarchy. You quite literally may not ever understand how a country may not to enable checks and balances to themselves in a way we have but you can find other countries out there that give a viewpoint of wanting out and full independence, there's plenty of that not just from the British monarchy but from various other countries.

And to bring in a different perspective while Brexit can be seen as controversial, confusing, perhaps deliberately misleading in certain consequences to it it was a region (for lack of a better term) removing themselves from a larger governing body in order to enact various measures not all that different from issues arising in the U.S.

 

[Moliphino]

What?

The military HAS taken up arms against it's own citizens.

The Whiskey Rebellion and the Battle of Blair mountain both spring to mind. And I know there were more instances, I just can't think of them offhand.

Kent State.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I decided to passively read this thread and wait to respond until at least some further details came out although I admit I'm having trouble following the back and forth discussion about 2nd amendment rights

A background check denied a purchase from a licensed dealer although the reasons are unknown (from what I read) behind the denial.

Like articles I've read I have to give props to the family, they were not passive parents or enabling parents like you often see in situations like this. They tried their darndest.

While it is often quoted it's also often not explicitly known about mental illness this is a case where it was known. I am really hoping for more information on the timeline for issues arising, timeline of mental facilities stays such as age, length of time, conditions in which he was there as well as conditions for leaving (voluntary vs involuntary mean a lot, court ordered vs not mean a lot), etc.

 

[Disneychick13]

It’s important to keep in mind, those who question the meaning/text of the 2nd amendment: it has stood the test of time (over 200 years!); it has stood through Supreme Court challenges over time with majority liberal leaning justices and conservative ones; if you think you are the 1st to think “well it says militia” I assure you that you are not and it has stood up to those arguments (again over the entire history of the constitution and numerous court challenges). It is not going anywhere unless there is a constitutional amendment to make that so. Since the “why” reason is not exclusive, it doesn’t even matter; “ the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” is all that matters. It’s really pretty absolute.

 

[NotUrsula]

The right to keep and bear arms is one thing, but nowhere does the Constitution say that we have the right to do so anonymously. Licensing access to *certain classes* of weapons is no different that licensing operating certain classes of vehicles: you are a danger to your fellow man if you cannot competently operate them in a safe manner, so your community has a legitimate interest in documenting that you can indeed be trusted to do so, and that you have a responsibility to make sure that the weapon does not fall into the wrong hands. Right now, the only motor vehicle you can legally operate without a license in most states is a maximum 49cc motor-scooter, and there is a safety reason for that. The public safety interest in regulating large-caliber weapons is analogous to that.

Technically, 2A guarantees the right to bear "arms". It does not specify firearms. You could also defend yourself with a crossbow or a pike if it came down to it, though case law has held that it should be interpreted as firearms as a broad class. (Still, if you have the untrammeled right to own and use a bow and arrows, your 2A right is technically secure. And remember, in 1781, what the militias mostly existed to defend against was Indian attack, so archers. At the time, a good crossbow was much more accurate and deadly than a typical musket. With a musket in unskilled hands, you were lucky if you could hit the side of a barn at 50 yds.)

The business of the "well-regulated Militia" is a double-edged sword when discussing 2A. If you say that using the weapon for militia purposes is the only reason for having it, then you have a certain standard for what kind of weapon it should be, but you would definitely need to register as a member of that militia; how else would someone know to call you if you are needed? (Even in 1781, you needed a list of who was available and competent to be able to drill and train the militia and call them out effectively when needed.) If, however, you claim that the weapon is needed for other things, then there is a vested public safety interest in regulating what kind of firearm it is, what it is used for, who has access to it, and whether or not those people can be trusted to be unlikely to use that weapon to commit a crime. It does not unduly infringe the basic right described in 2A to limit what kinds of firearms are universally available to all citizens.

And FWIW, we have a well-regulated militia; it's the National Guard. That's why it exists. Legitimate militias have been officially regulated on the state (then colony) level since before Independence. The law that created the National Guard 10 U.S.C. § 246.

My own feeling is that I am fine with allowing untrammeled legal access to any type of portable weapon that was readily available in 1781, and also to modern long guns that have limited range, stopping power, and repeating speed. Beyond that margin (which I'm also fine with letting military experts determine in detail), I want the working guns, the live ammunition, and their owners & operators to be licensed, registered, and universally taxed. (For those wondering, we already do tax long guns; the proceeds are used to fund the bureaucracy of game management in this country, and we've been doing that for over 100 years. If that's a compelling public interest, then I think that our interest in preventing the frequent massacre of schoolchilden certainly also qualifies.)

I think that arguing that the Founding Fathers could not imagine modern advances in gun technology is a red herring, because even at that time, custom gunsmiths were studying and experimenting with the possibilities of repeating guns and multi-barrel guns. Then, as now, these weapons were special and very expensive, but not beyond the dreams of engineers of the time. (See "volley guns", which were invented in the 15th century, and the Puckle Gun, which was created in the early 1700s, though that one needed a crew to operate.) I think that the Founding Fathers didn't specifically mention such technology because they logically thought that such weapons would always be special-purpose and too expensive for the average person to wish to purchase.

What actually would have been beyond the scope of the Founding Fathers' imagination is our current communication and information storage technology, and the way that we now attempt to treat the mentally-ill. The idea that criminals and radical idealogues could communicate and organize at the speed and scale that they can now without the authorities finding out would have seemed to belong to the realm of magical thinking. Also, they would have thought that permanently confining the mentally-ill (as long as conditions were clean and food was adequately provided) was absolutely humane and logical, and also the community's responsibility if the family could not afford to arrange it. Thus they would have reasoned that limiting gun access because of regularly needing to defend against mentally-ill adults wouldn't have been a need at all.

PS: About the idea that registration and mandatory training is expensive and thus an undue burden for the poor man who wants to own a gun. I call nonsense on that. We don't give guns out for free except to serving soldiers, so if you as a civilian want a gun for non-criminal purposes, you buy the one you can afford, and that includes the cost of necessary extras. If you intend to buy a gun you intend to buy ammunition, which also isn't free; the cost of the gun itself is never the only expenditure involved in gun ownership. A gun not properly cared for is dangerous and eventually useless, so there is ongoing supply cost in cleaning and conditioning it as well. If you can afford that, then you can afford paperwork and training.

 

[mrodgers]

Still such an odd concept. It's sad you have to be scared about what your government could become. Sorry you feel that way.

The country of the US has a little bit of history, very very recent history of that at the time they wrote the Constitution.

 

[mrodgers]

What?

The military HAS taken up arms against it's own citizens.

The Whiskey Rebellion and the Battle of Blair mountain both spring to mind. And I know there were more instances, I just can't think of them offhand.

I don't know anything about those. I'm going to read about that later tonight. Thanks for giving me some history to read.

 

[Aladora]

Darn good question. BUT, as was pointed out earlier in the thread, how many of the "school shootings" happened because of a disagreement between two people? Or happened to happen on school property, not because it was a school, but just because that's where the incident happened? I'm not stating it very well, another poster did very well earlier in the thread (I don't feel like going through 14 pages to find it, sorry).

I think there's a lot of mental issues (not the right term, but all I can come up with right now) that make people want to defend themselves to an extreme. Is that worse in the US?

I'm not explaining myself very well, sorry.

I'll be quite blunt, the reasons I limited the comparison to those reported as "school shootings" was because of the sheer numbers that would have resulted had I opened it up to a more broad definition. There are literally too many entries on all the lists to go through and see if it was a disagreement between 2 people or just happened to occur on school property.

I don't think anyone here has an answer to my question, nor do I think that there is one single answer out there. All I can say is that the history of gun violence in the USA is statistically so far above many other countries that most people will look to those other countries and ask "what are they doing right that we are not?"

There are many things in the USA that are great, heck we are all here on these forums because of our love for Disney, but your relationship to guns is one that I just don't think I will ever understand. Well, that and the fact that you guys still use Imperial measuring systems...I really don't get that!

 

[MamaBelle4]

I don't know anything about those. I'm going to read about that later tonight. Thanks for giving me some history to read.

Obviously not related to the thread but the Battle of Blair Mountain is fascinating.

 

[TLSnell1981]

I just retired after teaching for 30 years. The number of "loners" has increased exponentially -- and kids with "anxiety" has increased as well. In general, kids seem to have "buddies" with whom they chat in class -- but not good friends like they had back when I was a new teacher. In general, kids don't talk to one another, don't hang around after school together, and have lesser social skills than they did back when I was a new teacher. Lots of kids sit alone at lunch (often a whole table is "sitting alone" together) watching this-or-that on their phones; I have come upon kids hiding in various spots around the building rather than going to lunch.

This is all very concerning.

Yes, a speaker at an Active Shooter Drill suggested that each of us consider our spot in the school and determine how we would behave if we were alone our room when a shooter came in ... and how we would protect our students. Every one of us had multiple things "at the ready" ... all legal things but things that could be used in case of a shooter. But WHY is this an individual teachers' responsibility?

One of my teaching colleagues had one of the worst possible situations occur: This was 25-30 years ago, but a student in her classroom pulled out a gun. (All the trainers have told us, if the gun is IN YOUR CLASSROOM, you just don't have good choices.) In her case, the student sat quietly at his desk, as if he didn't know what he should do with the gun. She told the other students to leave the room -- I doubt they needed much encouragement. She left the room. The student stayed in the room and killed himself. I honestly don't know if I could've handled it as well as she did.

Absolutely. It's part availability of guns, part mental illness, part lack of parenting and social media. It's part violence on TV, in video games and music. It's lots of anger and disconnectedness from others.

BUT I don't want guns to be taken away ... used properly, guns are useful. We shoot nasty coyotes on our land -- they definitely want to hurt my dogs, and they might even come after my small nieces, nephews and grandson.

My brother (ex-military) carries a gun while he works, and THREE TIMES pulling out that gun has prevented him from being robbed (maybe worse). Once at a gas station, once at his office late-late at night, once on a remote job site. He jokes that bad guys with bad intentions can run like Usain Bolt when he pulls out that gun. My brother is an example of positive gun ownership ... and he's the majority.

Having said that, I think gun ownership laws are too lax. I have to renew my driver's license every few years -- but once I own a gun, it's mine for life. Similarly, my husband owns a bunch of guns. If he dies, they're mine, even though I've never been vetted as a safe gun owner.

Agree. People are complex. Their choices aren't based upon any one issue.

Just to be difficult, I'll point out that we did have Get-Under-Your-Desk-Because-Russia-Is-Going-To-Bomb-Us drills when I was in elementary school in the early 70s. I was very afraid during those drills and genuinely expected that one day it would happen.

All human beings have values - we, the majority, just don't like some people's values.

For example, "Get what you want at any cost, and if someone gets hurt, too bad for the weak" IS a value. "If someone insults you, hit him, shoot him, make him bleed" IS a value. "People of this race deserve to be shot" IS a value. "Drugs are okay -- anyone who says otherwise just doesn't want us to have any fun" IS a value.

The vast majority of us don't agree with these values, but they ARE still guiding principles that some kids hold these close to their hearts.

I've been going to Active Shooter Trainings in school for probably a decade (as I said, I just retired, so I haven't been to one this year), and something the speaker told us: The most common school is not a Columbine-type angry student in the halls shooting indiscriminately. Rather, the most common shooting occurs in the parking lot after school; it occurs between 2-4 people who know each other /hate each other /are specifically targeting one another. More often than not, drugs are involved. So those numbers are kinda misleading. Don't get me wrong -- even one shooting is too many, and it's entirely possible that your innocent honors student could be injured /killed just by being in that same parking lot. But recognize what is the most common "school shooting".

Other things I learned /really stuck with me from those trainings:
- We hear about school shootings -- in part because we have a deep-seated belief that school /children should be safe -- but most shootings happen in businesses. Last year we had a shooting at the grocery store right by my school -- it was exactly what I've been told is "the most common school shooting" -- a couple thug-kids who had a beef over drugs, and one ended up shot twice. The really bad thing: he came back to school meaner than ever, as if he were thinking, "I've been shot now. I'm one of the real tough guys." He learned nothing from the experience.

- The trainers emphasized to us that if we're in a business place and a shooting happens, we should not try to exit through the main door -- though it is human nature to try to do so. Chances are the shooter is at the main door. He says run through the back /through the employee areas -- for example, at a grocery store, go into the area where they keep all the crates. He said we should seriously look at the places we shop often and think, "What would I do? Where would I go?" I thought this to be excellent advice.

- The trainers emphasized that if the police are there, taking charge of the situation, DO NOT have a phone in your hand. They emphasized that even the police are on edge during this type of situation, and a phone can "flash metal" and look like a gun. The police are on the lookout for a shooter trying to blend in with the victims, and you do not want to look like you're holding a gun -- in a split second, that could get you shot by a police officer. He says, once the police are there, put your hands in the air so it's clear you're not a danger. I would not have thought that on my own.

To be fair I also give part of the blame to our school systems. Not all but way too many think they should teach our children values.