Welcome to Thunderdome

Troy wrote: I guess that's kind of my point. "Well regulated" and "militia" are in the first sentence of the 2nd Amendment. But are ignored or dismissed. No problem with whatever historical context "bear arms" meant, though. No problem taking that and running with it to the extreme and ignoring the rest.

Well regulated didn't mean under the control of government. It meant competent or trained. That's why full time soldiers were referred to as "regulars" in their day. We can read the Federalist and papers and see the reasons for including the first amendment. That doesn't mean it didn't apply to art. Just wasn't the reason for it. I actually think the founders would be disturbed that the federal government has access to weapons that the citizen doesn't. People only need to look at what just happened with England to understand what they meant by each of the amendments in the Bill oi Rights.

Vince wrote:

Troy wrote: I guess that's kind of my point. "Well regulated" and "militia" are in the first sentence of the 2nd Amendment. But are ignored or dismissed. No problem with whatever historical context "bear arms" meant, though. No problem taking that and running with it to the extreme and ignoring the rest.

Well regulated didn't mean under the control of government. It meant competent or trained. That's why full time soldiers were referred to as "regulars" in their day. We can read the Federalist and papers and see the reasons for including the first amendment. That doesn't mean it didn't apply to art. Just wasn't the reason for it. I actually think the founders would be disturbed that the federal government has access to weapons that the citizen doesn't. People only need to look at what just happened with England to understand what they meant by each of the amendments in the Bill oi Rights.

Little foggy on my Revolutionary history, but I'm still pretty sure the "regulars" were formed from militias and backed and founded by the Continent Congress, our fledgling government.

It'll get rubberstamped when the hearing is rescheduled. Because guns are awesome, even if you're senile but weed is deadly even if you have a sickness eased by its effects.

Troy wrote:What now? Padding? We are talking about people, right? When the government is fighting to allow people with mental problems access to guns, and people with mental problems are using them above any other method to kill themselves, why are we subtracting this like it doesn't matter?

Japan has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and at least at one time, one of the highest suicide rates. There's no causality between access to a firearm and suicide. There is only causality between access to a firearm and suicide by firearm.

Troy wrote:Little foggy on my Revolutionary history, but I'm still pretty sure the "regulars" were formed from militias and backed and founded by the Continent Congress, our fledgling government.

No, they were founded by the states. There was much debate on if the federal government should even be allowed to have a standing army. That's why even today the national guard of the various states are activated in war time. The states didn't want there to be only a federal army and end up in the same situation they'd just fought a war to get out of. Each state had their own standards on who was and was not a militia member. For most states it was every able male of a certain minimum age. So everyone.

Vince wrote:

Troy wrote:Little foggy on my Revolutionary history, but I'm still pretty sure the "regulars" were formed from militias and backed and founded by the Continent Congress, our fledgling government.

No, they were founded by the states. There was much debate on if the federal government should even be allowed to have a standing army. That's why even today the national guard of the various states are activated in war time. The states didn't want there to be only a federal army and end up in the same situation they'd just fought a war to get out of. Each state had their own standards on who was and was not a militia member. For most states it was every able male of a certain minimum age. So everyone.

I need some backing on this. Not saying you're lying, just not finding anyone creating "regulars" other than the Continental Congress.

Wikipedia has:

The Continental Army was established by a resolution of the Continental Congress on June 14, 1775. The Continental Army, under the command of George Washington, was created to coordinate the military efforts of the 13 Colonies in their rebellion against British rule.

Vince wrote:

Troy wrote:What now? Padding? We are talking about people, right? When the government is fighting to allow people with mental problems access to guns, and people with mental problems are using them above any other method to kill themselves, why are we subtracting this like it doesn't matter?

There's no causality between access to a firearm and suicide. There is only causality between access to a firearm and suicide by firearm.

I'll never compare Japan to America society. That culture is so foreign to us I'm not even going to attempt it.

But as to link between access to guns and suicide in American households, I thought a few studies did do this. Here's one from Harvard after a quick search:

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magaz ... d-suicide/
and
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/03/guns-s ... ard-study/

Troy wrote: I think at the end of the day I asses it as a threat to myself and my family.

It's already been pointed out there are much more likely ways for you and your family to get killed, so why would you worry about guns more than you do the other things?

GORDON wrote: It's already been pointed out there are much more likely ways for you and your family to get killed, so why would you worry about guns more than you do the other things?

Because guns make it far, far easier for crazy and depressed motherfuckers to take other people with them. Can they stab a few folks on the way out with a knife? Sure. But probably not as many.

Leisher wrote: Yep, that's why it's important to protect the 2nd amendment..."hunting".

Now that I'm off my phone ...

Check the Penn and Teller Bullshit episode on the 2nd amendment. Anyhow, the main gist of it is a couple things:

1) from a practical standpoint ... for immediate personal protection when shit gets real. My problem here is that back in the day, a "firearm" meant barely better than flintlock guns and maybe a few cannons. It's a perfect example of something that we've let sit and stagnate for centuries so it's no longer jiving with the present day ... much like the fucking third amendment that follows. Getting a gun should be vetted at least as hard as getting a driver's license, preferably a lot harder. How well that vetting process goes determines exactly what type of gun you get. If you're a loon, you get one arquebus and nothing else.

2) from a philosophical standpoint ... "If we, your government, fuck up badly enough, you can shoot us." The issue I have with that is there's no way you're going to tell me the citizenry have a fucking prayer of ever pulling off a successful rebellion again unless the regular military is handing out their gear like candy or it becomes legal for a private citizen to own every weapon, explosive, firearm, etc. that the gov't can own.

Troy wrote:

Vince wrote:

Troy wrote:What now? Padding? We are talking about people, right? When the government is fighting to allow people with mental problems access to guns, and people with mental problems are using them above any other method to kill themselves, why are we subtracting this like it doesn't matter?

There's no causality between access to a firearm and suicide. There is only causality between access to a firearm and suicide by firearm.

I'll never compare Japan to America society. That culture is so foreign to us I'm not even going to attempt it.

But as to link between access to guns and suicide in American households, I thought a few studies did do this. Here's one from Harvard after a quick search:

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magaz ... d-suicide/
and
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/03/guns-s ... ard-study/

Sorry, all this study is showing is that people that commit suicide are more likely to be gun owners. To say that owning a gun makes you suicidal is kind of retarded. Much more likely that people that are a bit paranoid are more likely to own a gun AND off themselves. But all in all not relevant at all to the second amendment. If you want to ban something because people use it poorly, the internet would be a much better place to start.

Troy wrote:

Vince wrote:

Troy wrote:Little foggy on my Revolutionary history, but I'm still pretty sure the "regulars" were formed from militias and backed and founded by the Continent Congress, our fledgling government.

No, they were founded by the states. There was much debate on if the federal government should even be allowed to have a standing army. That's why even today the national guard of the various states are activated in war time. The states didn't want there to be only a federal army and end up in the same situation they'd just fought a war to get out of. Each state had their own standards on who was and was not a militia member. For most states it was every able male of a certain minimum age. So everyone.

I need some backing on this. Not saying you're lying, just not finding anyone creating "regulars" other than the Continental Congress.

Wikipedia has:

The Continental Army was established by a resolution of the Continental Congress on June 14, 1775. The Continental Army, under the command of George Washington, was created to coordinate the military efforts of the 13 Colonies in their rebellion against British rule.

From here

When Washington assumed command, the Continental Army truly was not even an army. Rather, it was a loosely and poorly coordinated band of militias and citizen-soldiers under control of the individual states. There were no established protocols for exercising coordinated authority, for supplying and feeding the troops, for transportation, or any other of the myriad tasks necessary for a field army. Because eighteenth century communication was very poor and maddeningly slow, gaining the Continental Congress' required approval for anything took long periods of time. Under these conditions fighting the powerful British army was a gargantuan task.

So while all these militias were under a central control (obviously needed for a war), they were colonial state militias. If I recall, a lot of them used their own guns as well.

To see the usefulness of having the 2nd amendment in wartime, simply look at the military career of Sgt. York. The government didn't make him a legend. His growing up shooting did.

Malcolm wrote:

GORDON wrote: It's already been pointed out there are much more likely ways for you and your family to get killed, so why would you worry about guns more than you do the other things?

Because guns make it far, far easier for crazy and depressed motherfuckers to take other people with them. Can they stab a few folks on the way out with a knife? Sure. But probably not as many.

"crazy people" applies to everything, everywhere. Cars, knives, pointy sticks, bare hands, syringe full of AIDS. Worrying about them having guns still makes no sense in the big picture, when it is still a relatively minor risk.

GORDON wrote: Worrying about them having guns still makes no sense in the big picture, when it is still a relatively minor risk.

Most other things aren't alleged to be 100% Constitutionally guaranteed. Old, blind people don't have the inalienable right to drive a car, but insane, crazy, old, blind people do get to own as many boomsticks as they like. "Crazy" doesn't need to be permanent. It might be two dudes pissed off at a traffic accident or sporting event. I don't know if you've been to a political rally lately, but crazy is pretty fuckin' regular.

Cars, knives, pointy sticks, bare hands, syringe full of AIDS.

I just covered cars. They're given out with far too much leniency. Knives, pointy sticks, and bare hands aren't going to drop multiple targets at 30 yards. As for AIDS, I don't think the sell that in every corner pawn shop just yet.

GORDON wrote: Worrying about them having guns still makes no sense in the big picture, when it is still a relatively minor risk.

Well, I guess worrying about transgendered people using bathrooms other than their birth gender makes no sense in the big picture since studies show it presents a relatively minor risk for assault.

And is also not constitutionally guaranteed as a defense against government tyranny, and is very off the topic.

I just looked at some news/opinion sites for the first time today.... it is amusing to me that the right is using the imagery of the left... Katy Griffon holding trumps severed head, that Julius Caesar/Trump assassination, etc.... as a "Liberal culture of violence that led to today's shooting."

Single standards are a bitch.

https://twitter.com/PoliticalShort/stat ... 1825386496

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

NY Times even went back to the Gifford's shooting in 2011 and stated in an editorial as fact that the Sarah Palin ads with targets on congressional districts motivated Loughner (which the FBI investigation showed no link), they are claiming there is no such clear link to imagery this time as in the last case.

I'll be honest, I thought the Republicans had no chance of keeping the house in '18. The behavior of the press and the whacko supporters of the left here might actually end up with Republicans winning more seats. I've been to the point where I'm about done with the Republicans, but this from the press is as clear a danger to the Republic as anything Trump is doing.

I apologize for the delay in responding to you. I also want to note that I've read nothing past this, so if something got covered, my bad.

I guess that's kind of my point. "Well regulated" and "militia" are in the first sentence of the 2nd Amendment. But are ignored or dismissed. No problem with whatever historical context "bear arms" meant, though. No problem taking that and running with it to the extreme and ignoring the rest.

I don't ignore that opening part, but I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you implying that individuals shouldn't have guns and only citizen run militias that are regulated should have them?

What now? Padding? We are talking about people, right? When the government is fighting to allow people with mental problems access to guns, and people with mental problems are using them above any other method to kill themselves, why are we subtracting this like it doesn't matter?

Because they don't matter for the debate. People who commit suicide are going to do it no matter what. Do guns make it more convenient? Of course, but that doesn't mean eliminating guns is going to save those lives. Robin Williams used a belt, should we ban those?

Besides, the majority of those suicides are done using handguns and shotguns, which aren't the ones the anti-gun people want to ban. You know, unless they're lying and their eventual goal is to ban ALL guns, in which case the NRA looks justified in fighting every ban no matter how illogical.

I think at the end of the day I asses it as a threat to myself and my family. The current government wants me to believe that Islamic Terrorism is the worst thing out there right now. But when I take the number at the end of your gun deaths equation, and compare it to deaths related to Islamic terrorism, only one of them seems like a threat to me.

I get it. We don't disagree in the slightest regarding wanting to protect our loved ones. I agree that gun violence is more likely to affect your family than terrorism, although the facts behind said terrorism isn't something that should be ignored. However, I think gun violence, like terrorism, gets overblown. (Neither are even close to the top 10 killers in this country.)

The vast, vast majority of gun violence happens in inner cities. That's stuff that will never affect your family, and more importantly, would NOT be affected by ANY gun ban. Ask drug users... The legit shootings that could be prevented if we banned all guns are the nut jobs that shoot up schools, churches, work places, etc. Now that's only IF they didn't know how to reach out to the streets to illegally obtain one. And we've seen how they falsify those numbers. Somebody got shot four blocks from a school? Add that to the stats! A murder suicide at a school that was between a wife and her estranged husband? School shooting! Not saying they don't happen, but why do they need to pad the numbers?

By the way, school shootings happen around the world, including countries where guns are banned, so...

I talked about the mental health stuff, but let me point out something else: The MSM. Ask yourself why you know who shot up Columbine or Sandy Hook. Why do you know so much about them? Because our MSM made them legends. What is it that suicidal people usually want? Attention. To matter.

Even by banning guns, we're still just treating a symptom and not the disease.

It's like religious terrorism. You don't stop that by eliminating explosives, you stop it by eliminating religion.

Anyway, I know it sucks to lose people. I don't want to die because some mentally disturbed asshole wanted to get on the evening news so he decides to shoot up a restaurant. I don't wish that fate on anyone. However, I also don't want to give up a right under the guise of safety. And make no mistake, it's a bullshit claim. Banning guns would hurt legal citizens FAR more than it would hurt criminals. Would it stop a mass shooting or two? Absolutely. But would it stop mass murder? Hell no. You think suicidal assholes wouldn't learn to make suicide vests? They wouldn't think to plow their cars into crowds of people? They wouldn't be able to get guns if they really wanted to? They couldn't stab a bunch of people? Etc.

I care about things that actually seem threatening to me. Heaven forbid I try to make this argument though, because the response is an ingrained, STRICT interpretation of (only 1/2) an amendment from 1791.

And what if, what if our government decided we didn't deserve to have other rights a decade or two after taking away our guns? What then? That document from 1791 still look stupid?

Also, why aren't you on the pulpit slamming your fist down regarding drunk drivers, distracted drivers, the lax regulations of what you and loved ones eat, etc? You know, things astronomically more likely to harm you and yours...

If they would stop blatantly using hunting as a crutch, I'd stop bringing it up. You aren't properly exercising your "Sportsmen's Heritage" unless you shoot Bambi with a silenced M16 loaded with armor piercing bullets.

Tell the anti-gun folks to stop fighting to ban ALL guns and the NRA won't have to fight every stupid battle like silencers and armor piercing bullets.

GORDON wrote:

Troy wrote: I think at the end of the day I asses it as a threat to myself and my family.

It's already been pointed out there are much more likely ways for you and your family to get killed, so why would you worry about guns more than you do the other things?

Exactly.

Because guns make it far, far easier for crazy and depressed motherfuckers to take other people with them. Can they stab a few folks on the way out with a knife? Sure. But probably not as many.

Actually, YOU'RE a bigger threat to my family because you're a drinker. Shouldn't we ban all alcohol and drugs? By the way, as I said to Troy, you think these idiots won't figure out suicide vests, driving their cars into crowds, etc? Just because guns are "convenient" doesn't mean they should be banned. Also, a ban wouldn't mean these psychos wouldn't have access to guns or do you think school shooting that happen in countries where guns are banned happen because they're pointing their fingers and shooting? And those are countries that don't have millions of guns like our country.

Check the Penn and Teller Bullshit episode on the 2nd amendment.

I've already seen it several times.

Malcolm wrote: 1) from a practical standpoint ... for immediate personal protection when shit gets real. My problem here is that back in the day, a "firearm" meant barely better than flintlock guns and maybe a few cannons. It's a perfect example of something that we've let sit and stagnate for centuries so it's no longer jiving with the present day ... much like the fucking third amendment that follows. Getting a gun should be vetted at least as hard as getting a driver's license, preferably a lot harder. How well that vetting process goes determines exactly what type of gun you get. If you're a loon, you get one arquebus and nothing else.

I have NO ISSUE with making it difficult to buy a gun if you have mental issues, you want it immediately, etc. I'm strictly talking about the complete ban of all guns.

Malcolm wrote: 2) from a philosophical standpoint ... "If we, your government, fuck up badly enough, you can shoot us." The issue I have with that is there's no way you're going to tell me the citizenry have a fucking prayer of ever pulling off a successful rebellion again unless the regular military is handing out their gear like candy or it becomes legal for a private citizen to own every weapon, explosive, firearm, etc. that the gov't can own.

It's about defending your home and your own family, but yes it's also about marching on Washington. Your reasoning here requires a MASSIVE stretching of the imagination where the military completely aligns with the government. Remember, the 2nd amendment isn't about using those guns, just their existence.