Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
abrasivesaint

Mass Public Shootings

Recommended Posts

seeing as how i doubt Dayton and El Paso will be the last of them, figured we should have one thread for them all..

 

Just saw this..

 

edit: turns out the dude was on cocaine, booze, and anti-anxiety medications.. 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/15/us/dayton-shooter-drugs-cocaine/index.html

 

double edit: i only gave it that title as i figured we would specifically be talking about those shooting incidents. Doesn’t mean that’s all that can be discussed obviously. From what i’ve gathered mass shootings usually get lumped into 3 categories. Family, Gang Violence, Public. 

Edited by abrasivesaint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.

Damn, maybe they should make cocaine illegal so people don't get all wired up and go on murder sprees...

 

*derp*

 

Oh wait...

  • Like 1
  • LOL! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, abrasivesaint said:

For the record, i hated that i used a CNN link. I cringed. I died a little on the inside.  

LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I've often found interesting is that the Second Amendment talks about a well regulated militia, but this seems to have turned into a bit of a free-for-all instead. As in the NRA and many supporters of the constitution argue that they should have free access to whatever they want and there doesn't seem to be a regulated militia but just a section of the populace that is heavily armed.

 

I also wonder how workable the theory is of the armed populace keeping the govt honest as well given that many of the people who argue for the upholding of access to firearms by way of Second Amendment are also the people who complain that the govt is already tyrannical and the greatest murderer of citizens. IF that's the case, hasn't the Second Amendment failed?

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not argue against or for gun regs. I'm more interested in the arguments that people make and how they hold up under scrutiny, which leads me to another argument:

 

Mass shootings and terror attacks gain far more prominence in the social consciousness than they should. Far more people are killed and injured by handguns than long arms and rifles but there is a focus on combat style weapons and their regulation. Very few people are killed in terror attacks but tens of thousands are killed in car accidents, by way of domestic violence, alcohol fueled crime, etc. etc. Yet the reaction to mass shootings and terrorism is hugely disproportionate and seems to miss the more likely threats to society. Why?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think about the number of people killed in mass shootings, which is admittedly small but remember these are human lives we’re talking about. Add that number to the number of people killed in homicides, people shot by police for either having, or looking like they have a gun. Now compare that, to the number of people killed by governments, the US government alone averages a pretty hefty number of domestic civilians shot, a number of enemy combatant firearm related deaths, innocent civilians shot every year, friendly fire incidents, we haven’t even gotten to cluster bomb deaths yet. Governments of all types are statistically one of the leading causes of high velocity lead projectile deaths worldwide Nobody kills more.

 

People say humans are too unpredictable, and flawed to be trusted with guns. So they think the government should be the only one to have guns, but I disagree. We’d all be better off the other way around, if only civilians had access to guns if our goal is truly reducing the numbers of deaths from firearms. Getting caught up in the psychological, and emotional impact of the gun debate can blind you to an even more grave reality.

 

We live in a time where I can order a milling machine for bitcoin, feed it some blank chunks of metal, and download a few DIY guns files and boom, I’m armed. DIY firearms is one of the most rapidly advancing technologies I've been following over the last 3 years, really interesting stuff.

 

Bottom line is I think every person has a responsibility in insuring their own safety. I don’t own or carry a gun myself. I've owned carried 2 in my life, both of them were 100% illegal when I was a teenager. Making the decision myself to not carry now, I’m the one responsible if I’m ever in a situation where I need one, and don’t have one.

 

A gun is an invaluable tool in insuring your safety. To me it’s kind of sexist to take away a women’s best means to protect themselves from larger, more powerful men who are much more aggressive and prone to violence. To me it’s classist to take away that right from poor person who’s much more likely to have a “legitimate” need to carry a gun than most people, but not have the funds or time to jump through the massive regulatory hurdles we're putting in place.

 

Sure, I’d be happy if nobody on earth had guns (especially the government), but I know for a fact, 100% that a gunless society will never exist unless we somehow wipe ourselves off the face of the earth.  Any attempt to create one tends to insure that only the government, and criminals will have guns (not the good people). I think either every sane, non violent individual should have the right to own a gun, or nobody should. Giving that exclusive right to a small group of bad people with, and without official titles doesn’t make sense, and I think history would agree.

 

It doesn’t matter to me how I, or anyone else interpret's the meaning of the 2nd amendment to the constitution, or how much weight to give the words “well regulated militia”,  or my personal favorite “shall not infringe”. I don’t need the 2nd amendment and the resurrected ghost of a founding father to tell me right from wrong. It would be very rude of me to walk up to my neighbors house, or a house hundreds of miles away, knock on that door and demand they give up their guns. Demand they never buy any more, sell any more, or outline what kind are too scary looking, and what kind I’m comfortable with allowing them to own, or sell. It’s a pompous notion that disregards liberty.

 

A cowardly notion considering I’m not brave enough to even make that demand myself over the telephone, and I’d just outsource that work to a cop who has little regard for the lives of law breakers, all from the comfort of my voting booth. I’m all for decentralization, perhaps you and your neighbors get together and decide to ban guns in your community and everyone voluntarily agrees to it, that’s what's up and I wouldn't mind checking out an open house on your block, possibly voluntarily agreeing myself. But it's basically shitting down the throat of freedom to flirt with forcing my neighbors to my vision for society without their consent. and a violation of the non aggression principal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

Mass shootings and terror attacks gain far more prominence in the social consciousness than they should. Far more people are killed and injured by handguns than long arms and rifles but there is a focus on combat style weapons and their regulation. Very few people are killed in terror attacks but tens of thousands are killed in car accidents, by way of domestic violence, alcohol fueled crime, etc. etc. Yet the reaction to mass shootings and terrorism is hugely disproportionate and seems to miss the more likely threats to society. Why?

The after effects of 10,000 years of inter tribal warfare on our DNA, our minds and emotions are designed to think in terms of warfare on a chemical level in our brains. Logic, and the ideals of non-violence often tend to be put aside as emotions peak, as evidence by our actions.

Edited by Mercer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians." - George Mason

 

(George Mason is who actually authored the Bill of Rights for anyone that doesn’t remember fundamental American History)

 

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

 

United States Code Title 10, § 246 defines the “militia” as follows: “The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.”

 

————————

 

Militia argument is disingenuous to anyone that takes three seconds to google the actual legal definition of Militia, not to mention actually read the debates and writings of the legislation as it was presented and ratified. 

 

Militia refers to a state of readiness, more than it does to specific people. The meaning of the word has changed a bit over time, but the spirit of the law is clearly documented and actually defined. 

 

Anyone that would use this as an argument for gun control either has not bothered reading its historical context and legal precedent or is grasping at straws since there’s zero left to the imagination when it comes to “shall not be infringed”. Probably both. 

  • Like 1
  • Props 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That seems to have missed the part that I was interested in - "well regulated".

 

I'm not going to go read the arguments made around the historical legislation but the law that you've posted up there doesn't seem to align well with the current reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's arguable. If we were ever invaded or provoked properly,  I'm sure the civilian population here would be quite formidable and tough to occupy/rule over. I assert that although it's unlikely to occur, any occupying force attempting to rule over the US population would soon find out it's a much more costly endeavor to rule over the population (irregular warfare) than actually defeating the military.

 

Most of our "militia" or the people who describe themselves as such are garbage, but some of them are pretty bad ass. I concede the combined effect of every individual here (not describing themselves as militia) but willing to lay it all down isn't quantifiable, but I'm willing to bet it's a lot more than you think it's worth, or give us credit for as a populous. Some of these people don't get out much, and aren't as vocal but trust me they're everywhere when you get to know us, especially if you signal you share the same values. Where do you think all these millions of guns are going? 0.001% might make the news, or get used in a crime, the rest are doing exactly what the founding fathers intended.

Edited by Mercer
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again,  it’s all defined if you look it up. At that time it was literally civic duty as an American to have own a serviceable firearm. This was legally required. Further, you were expected to maintain a state of readiness as well. Those in violation were subject to fines, lines and possible imprisonment. 

 

Unsure why or how anyone can interpret well regulated as National Guard considering this was written as states themselves were being officiated. The USA didn’t even have a standing army, let alone anything remotely approximating the National Guard or anything similar. 

 

And as stated previously, none of this is subject to interpretation. You can literally read the minutes to the debates, as well as  published editorials by the actual legislators that authored all of this that specifically explains every bit of context. It’s how they garnered support to get people on board since the people were voting to put new laws (rules) in place after having shed blood to run independence. They had absolute autonomy and freedom, so getting them on board to establish new rules was not an easy process. It literally took years to ratify the US Constitution and only way they could pass it was with the inclusion of a National Bill of Rights. Previous to this, each colony (with I believe one exception) already had their own Bill of Rights, implementer shortly after the War of Independence. It was a direct action based upon what they just fought for and won (at great expense). They were exceptionally weary of a new ruler, which is why there’s so many heavy hitting quotes from the founding fathers in regards to government. They recognized it was a necessary evil in order to flourish as a nation and the entire US Constitution was intended to be rules applied to how government can conduct itself and not rules a laced on its people. The Bill of Rights is simply the first 10 Amendments and are a declaration of inalienable Rights. It did not grant them, it very clearly stated that they were exist, followed by the rest of the amendments that dictated restrictions on government as to how it was to operate she conduct itself. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mercer said:

That's arguable. If we were ever invaded or provoked properly,  I'm sure the civilian population here would be quite formidable and tough to occupy/rule over. I assert that although it's unlikely to occur, any occupying force attempting to rule over the US population would soon find out it's a much more costly endeavor to rule over the population (irregular warfare) than actually defeating the military.

 

Most of our "militia" or the people who describe themselves as such are garbage, but some of them are pretty bad ass. I concede the combined effect of every individual here (not describing themselves as militia) but willing to lay it all down isn't quantifiable, but I'm willing to bet it's a lot more than you think it's worth, or give us credit for as a populous. Some of these people don't get out much, and aren't as vocal but trust me they're everywhere when you get to know us, especially if you signal you share the same values. Where do you think all these millions of guns are going? 0.001% might make the news, or get used in a crime, the rest are doing exactly what the founding fathers intended.

Again, legally... You are the militia. Same was “anarchist” has become a bastardized term with little resemblance to the political ideology is describes (according to most social understanding), same has occurred with “militia”. 

 

I just posted the actual legal definition for militia. As an American you are required to be militia, which again, describes a minimal state of readiness. Well regulated means that besides owning a serviceable weapon and serving when called, you’re also expected to know how to fight. 

 

Ive posted in other threads links to the books that go into very specific detail on the subject. Not some dip shit lawyers opinion, but books that compile the actual articles and legal documents that predate the Bill of Rights that we’re reference and discussed by the founding fathers that drafted all this stuff. Really it’s sad how uninformed we’ve become as a nation that so few people understand any of this. We argue endlessly about it, when all the answers are sitting there collecting dust. We listen to agenda driven bullshit and take MSM taking points as gospel when in reality they obfuscating the truth at best and spreading misinformation at worst. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if I agree. I believe forced conscription is slavery IMO. There must be consent. I can see myself choosing to fight as I'm not a pacifist and believe in the concept of deadly force in self defense. I can't see myself personally, or by proxy punishing my neighbor for not fighting. I may choose to voluntarily dissociate with them as their morals are not in line with my own, but as for placing those requirements and enforcing them, I'm personally not on board. Concessions objection is a legitimate right IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mercer said:

Not sure if I agree. I believe forced conscription is slavery IMO. There must be consent. I can see myself choosing to fight as I'm not a pacifist and believe in the concept of deadly force in self defense. I can't see myself personally, or by proxy punishing my neighbor for not fighting. I may choose to voluntarily dissociate with them as their morals are not in line with my own, but as for placing those requirements and enforcing them, I'm personally not on board. Concessions objection is a legitimate right IMO.

That’s your opinion, but that’s not how this was setup. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s one of the better explanations on the subject, as he actually takes the time to contextualize the subject.

 

————————-

 

2A - The Question:

 

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, 1789: “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.”

 

We talk about the “right of the people” to “bear arms” all the time. But we don’t often talk about the “well regulated militia” part that precedes it. So, what is it about? Is this militia still relevant to us today? Can we just ignore it? If unnecessary, does the lack of a need for the militia make the whole Second Amendment null and void?

 

Background:

 

Our founders had just fought a war with one of the greatest powers in the world. In the mid 1780s, British forces were considered the best of the best. But our founders hadn’t joined a war with a “foreign power.” They had fought a war with their own government in order to separate from it and start anew. This was because we Americans felt England had violated our very rights as Englishmen.

 

As our Declaration of Independence notes:

 

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

 

As far as we were concerned, our English governors had begun a systematic attempt to change our rules for “light and transient causes.” That same British government was also using the force of arms to compel us to observe her wicked rule.

 

The founders also were experts on history and in their deliberations let history be their guide. By their reading of history governments used the force of arms held by their standing armies to oppress the people far more often than they ever did for benevolent ends.

 

To prevent that penchant for tyranny the founders came up with a novel idea. Instead of having a large, standing army, they’d rely on an armed populace organized in para-military organizations generally under the auspices of the state governments and not the federal. That way, the federal government can’t usurp undue power as the states and the people themselves would be able to stop such a thing.

 

But, the Second Amendment was also written to prevent the states from turning tyrannical. After all, the amendment centers its attention on both “the militia” and “the people” not the state or government. The rights are conferred on the individual militia members (not the state) and the people (again, not the state).

 

So, who is the “militia”? None other than we, the people.

 

That was later codified under the Militia Act of 1792 which holds in part that the militia is made up of “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States” who “shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia.” Naturally once the Thirteenth Amendment made African Americans free and equal citizens, the “white” part was made invalid.

 

What the Left Says:

 

When the left tries to address the clause at all–and they don’t often bother with it–they find the whole idea of a militia to be a useless artifact.

 

The left scoffs at the idea that our current standing army might be turned against us. The militia is now unnecessary and that, they say, makes the whole Second Amendment null and void. As a writer on Alternet says, “the entire legitimate rationale for the 2nd Amendment has been obliterated.”

 

So, the left claims that a well regulated militia is no longer necessary for “the security of a free state.”

 

Another argument the left pursues is that the founders just couldn’t understand that technology would advance until we’d have machine guns that can cut down dozens of men in seconds. The founders only had muskets that took “twenty minutes to load.” This technological blindness also makes the Second Amendment null and void.

 

There is also some focus on the “regulated” part. The left expects that “regulated” is a means to impose regulations (i.e. rules, laws) on the militia.

 

Some want to use the “well regulated” part of the Amendment to serve their gun-banning ways, as well. One argument goes that until there is a properly, “regulated” militia created, then guns can obviously be taken away from people until and if said militia is organized and put into operation. In fact, this argument goes that if there is a militia that isn’t “regulated,” then it is actually a threat to the nation. Once again, they say this is proof that guns must be taken away from Americans.

 

For decades, the left has argued that if guns are at all guaranteed for Americans it is a “collective right” not an individual right. They maintain that the “well regulated militia” clause pertains to a group of men, not the individuals. Without the “well regulated militia” the individual citizen has no use for the firearm under the Second Amendment. The first precedes the latter and without the first the latter is null.

 

Lastly, many on the left just dismiss the whole argument. The Constitution isn’t a fixed thing, after all. It is a “living document.” The Constitution is “a work in progress” and we can change it any time we want. So, why bother getting into the tall weeds on this? It’s outdated, we don’t have to be held to it, let’s just eliminate it. We should abandon that old White men’s document and make our own rules whenever we want to.

 

What the Right Says:

 

The right doesn’t often discuss the militia aspect of the Amendment, either, to be sure. But a proper refutation of the left’s points above is generally made when they do.

 

The right notes that the idea that we can just accept our military as forever harmless to we, the people, is absurd. Ben Shapiro made the argument perfectly on CNN saying, “They may not turn on me. They may not turn on my children. But the fact is this, history is replete with democracies going tyrannical. It has happened. It happened in France in the 19th century. It happened in Spain in the last century. It happened in Germany. It happened in Italy. It happened in Japan.”

 

The left says that the founders weren’t smart enough to understand technology would change and science would create better and more lethal ways to kill. This is, of course, nonsense. Our founders were men of science and even in their day scientific discoveries were mounting. This line of reasoning holding that the founders were not smart enough to know technology would advance is a red herring, not an argument.

 

But let’s think of this a second way. The Second Amendment affirms a right that exists for the people. If we are to say, however, that changing technology materially alters the meaning of the right, then we are necessarily saying that advances in technology supersedes our rights! This would be a dangerous contention.

 

The left says the “regulated” part pertains to laws and, therefore, we can nearly regulate guns out of existence using this power. This, of course, obviates usage of the English language of the period.

 

The Federalist Papers (Number 29, Alexander Hamilton) gives us our clue as to what “well regulated meant.”

 

“The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.”

 

So, “well regulated” really meant “properly functioning.” It didn’t have anything to do with setting rules and laws for the militia. They also commonly imagine that doing the “regulation” should be done on a federal level where the founders expected the militias to be organized at the state level and not under federal control.

 

As to the individual vs collective right claim, libertarians and conservatives both say that the Constitution obviously confers the right to own a gun on the individual. Lately, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed with this individual right.

 

Lastly, we all know that those of the right of center generally assume the Constitution to be the law of the land, a fixed document that only has to be read, not constantly “interpreted” in new and unusual ways.

 

The Future:

 

The recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court (Heller and McDonald) have thrown a bone in the left’s argument that the Second Amendment is only a “collective right.” From these two momentous decisions, courts are revisiting strict gun laws across the country. This will continue and many more cases will likely head toward the SCOTUS for debate. We will also see states and federal laws written to push the envelope.

 

Commentary:

 

Several things need to be pointed out. Firstly the founders did not want to exclude any standing, national army. After all, the army is taken care of elsewhere in the Constitution. The militia was supposed to exist concurrently with the standing army but operate separately.

 

Secondly, the founders expected that the right to self-protection was an inalienable right given to us by God. After all, without the power to protect ourselves and our property–and the sanctity of personal property is key, here–we were not free men. Those that must look to others for protection of life, liberty, and property are beholden to someone else and, therefore, not free men.

 

In this light, Thomas Jefferson was adamant in his drafts of the Virginia Constitution of 1776: “No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”

 

You see, the founders based a lot of their ideas of the law on the ideas of an English lawyer named William Blackstone whose works were widely reprinted in the colonies.

 

Here is what Blackstone said about being armed in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, Vol. 2, 1765: “…since it is impossible to say, to what wanton lengths of rapine or cruelty outrages of this sort might be carried, unless it were permitted a man immediately to oppose one violence with another. Self-defence therefore, as it is justly called the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away by the law of society…”

 

I mention this to explain why the founders did not include in the Constitution any language that specifically notes the individual’s rights. It was taken as granted and therefore unnecessary to reiterate in a document they were trying to make as concise as possible.

 

So, in modern terms, you cannot take away from a man the right to self-defense on either the micro or macro level. This hardbound natural right codified by Blackstone led Supreme Court Justice Joseph story to put it in clearer terms where it concerns the purpose of the militia: “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms,” Story wrote, “has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

 

Thirdly, the founders also located power over the military/militias in four places to further prevent its tyrannical use. Congress regulated all branches of the military, but the president was the ultimate commander of that military, yet the states were placed over the militias when not in federal service. Finally, the individual citizens were in control of their firearms never to be disarmed.

 

As founding father Samuel Adams said during Massachusetts’s convention to Ratify the Constitution: “That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”

 

One last point needs clarification and that is the discussion of muskets vs today’s arsenal.

 

The word “bear” meant to be able to carry or hold. In some parlance of the time “bear” even meant to be able place in one’s coat. This necessarily restricts the sort of arms we are talking about as it means we are talking about an arm that is operated by one person, not a team of men.

 

Certainly the founders meant Americans to “bear” military grade arms. One cannot be a member of a para-military group using small caliber plinkers and varmint guns. In their day arms meant military weapons. Muskets, pistols, even swords were “arms.” Cannons, land mines, and ships of war, however, were the “weapons of mass destruction” of the founder’s era. They never expected that the people had any right to those weapons of war. Such weapons of mass destruction are more properly, then and now, called ordnance as opposed to arms. It is also why the Navy is dealt with elsewhere in the Constitution.

 

This means that when the left taunts you by saying, “what, did the founders think you should have a rocket launcher, a jet fighter plane or a nuclear weapon?,” they are revealing their ignorance, not making a valid argument. The founders meant for the people to have military grade rifles and pistols. They excluded ships of war and cannons so by logical extension modern ordnance would similarly fall outside the rights of the Second Amendment.

 

So, no, the founders would NOT have thought we had a right to a nuclear weapon.

 

In conclusion, the Second Amendment clearly gives an individual a right to firearms, those firearms can be military grade, they can and should be expected to be used for both personal protection and to prevent government from become tyrannical by arranging themselves into para-military groups, and the government has no right whatever to take your firearms away from you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of all the authors around for the first enlightenment, and American revolution Thomas Paine translates perfectly into modern context, and is probably in line most with my own personal values on many subjects. Here's his take on arms.

 

Quote

The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.

 

The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside.

 

And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong.

 

The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, this is the absolute authoritative book on the subject. This is not at all opinion or interpretation. This a compendium used in the last SCOTUS decision that compiled every historical document by both sides of the 2A debate that was in any way referenced by the founding fathers leading up to the ratification of the bill of Rights, with specific focus on 2A. 

 

The Origin of the Second Amendment: A Documentary History of the Bill of Rights in Commentaries on Liberty, Free Government & an Armed Populace 1787-1792 https://www.amazon.com/dp/0962366439/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_BEbwDbNR1GR31

 

This is the companion book in which the author attempts to filter and interpret the first book, since it’s a pretty massive tome. 

 

The Founders' View of the Right To Bear Arms: A Definitive History of the Second Amendment https://www.amazon.com/dp/0962366471/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_XIbwDbN8J2SXA

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mercer said:

Out of all the authors around for the first enlightenment, and American revolution Thomas Paine translates perfectly into modern context, and is probably in line most with my own personal values on many subjects. Here's his take on arms.

 

 

Thomas Paine was a primary influence. This is noted in many of the articles and debates of that time. He’s heavily referenced / discussed in the two books I just posted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Possible anarchist, as opposed to minarchist not sure. I bet he'd love reading Rothbard though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Friend sent me this recent article... 

 

Gun Sellers Are Sneaking Onto Facebook’s Booming Secondhand Marketplace - The Wall Street Journal

https://www.wsj.com/articles/gun-sellers-are-sneaking-onto-facebooks-booming-secondhand-marketplace-11566315198

 

Would like to call attention to the highlighted text and point out how absolutely disingenuous this is, which should point out how misinformed (or more likely), biased the author and source are. 

 

For starters, there's no hint, let alone reference to where they acquired the facts behind the statement highlighted. There's no central repository / database for this type of detail and its literally impossible, even using circumstantial metrics, to have an inkling of how many guns might or might not be sold privately. Further, they do mention accurately, that an FFL is required for private sales across state lines. A little hazy (IMO) whether its clear that the FFL process for a private sale is identical in every way to a commercial gun sale, with the sole exception of who owns and profits from the sale. In terms of legal process, it is completely identical. Further, they don't bother to mention (never actually ever see them mention), that a gun used in a crime gets sent to a lab for ballistics analysis, then tracked to a manufacturer, which then pulls details on what FFL it was sold to, that in turn pulls and hands overt the slip for who bought it, including their copy of the NICS approval, which then means that LEO is knocking on your door. 

 

As such this system is self policing since only a retard would sell to a stranger without using an FFL and get caught holding the back when the gun question turns up in a crime. Only time a person would skip the FFL step would be selling to a well known individual, since they can easily point fingers at who was in possession of the gun being asked about. Using an FFL for a private sale is as simple as a local google search for neighborhood FFL's or gun shops, then calling to ask how much they charge for FFL checks on private sales. I've done this many, many times with several FFLs across several states and it usually costs $10 - $25 per transaction and often they won't charge more if there's more than one gun being transferred. Once you'd done a couple, they usually charge even less and sometimes won't charge at all since you're usually buying ammo and other stuff off them at the same time.

 

I never, ever see this mentioned and this is Federal law, not state, so its the same nation wide.

 

Just thought I'd add to the discussion since even notable MSM like the Wall Street Journal aren't above biased or poorly researched / written journalism.

 

--------------

 

To reignite this thread... How many people can provide a convincing argument that adding more laws to the thousands on the book already or even an outright ban of all guns would have any meaningful impact on gun crimes when the state and federal penal system is utterly incapable of keeping drugs out of jails / prisons and incapable of insuring the safety of those within their custody at even the most super max secure facilities?

 

Where there's a will, there's a way and reality is at least in the USA, you're legally responsible for insuring your own safety. Cops carry guns always... Most are just out on patrol interacting with regular people until, they aren't. How's it any different for people going about their day dealing with other people, until suddenly they aren't? Agreed the chances are slim of needing a gun to protect yourself, though it seems to be trending towards it becoming increasingly more useful a tool to have. Does the stat need to get to the point that you're twice as likely to get raped or assaulted than to get in a car accident, before people begin to realize the value of a tool that might help equalize a situation in which your life or that of a loved one or someone near you might be in extreme danger?

 

Sucks that guns exist at all, but you'd have to be an idiot to now realize that evil is a part of the human condition and that like any other insurance (or tool for that matter), better to have one and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

 

Welcome anyone to provide a non-emotional counter point because I genuinely have a tough time understanding the position of people that think that hanging up a sign that states the area is a gun free zone has any sort of effect on someone that is already hell bent on breaking far more significant laws. Or how making up new laws might make the problem going away, when the king of all laws is to not assault / kill someone else.

 

FullSizeRender.thumb.jpeg.27a55b57c902d2472270fff71e145dd4.jpeg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the main thing that makes public mass shootings differ from the numerous other ways Americans die is it is simply intentional mass murder..

 

Car accidents are isolated incidents. It’s not like every couple weeks one dude is jumping in a car and causing 20 deaths and 20 injuries in single intentional “accident,”  because that wouldn't be an accident. Cars also have various means of protecting the occupants, obviously they don’t always work. There’s some level of control and consent here. 

 

Domestic situations usually, not always but usually, end when the murderer kills the family and then offs themselves. 

 

Handgun violence is largely attributed to gang violence, of course innocent people catch the brunt of that as well. Also comes with some level of control and consent. 

 

Drug overdoses are almost explicitly consent based. You buy heroin, you know you can OD. 

 

There’s no outbreak of diseases that wipe out 40 healthy people in a matter of minutes every couple weeks. Sure many people die of the flu every day, they’re usually elderly, infant, or of incredibly poor health... 

 

The point is most means of our human death come with some degree of consent, or natural cause. Meaning, we all know we could die when we get in a vehicle, or on an airplane, even if we don’t consciously acknowledge it every time we do. Everyone knows gang life comes with a price. Everyone knows poor health doesn’t end well... and so on. 

 

There is enough ways we can die on a day to day basis, people don’t want to have to worry that someone is going to lay down fire inside a bar, music fest, or a supermarket every time they go outside to enjoy or carry on everyday life.

 

I mean the next time you buy tickets to a concert do you want to agree to terms and conditions that someone could shoot the place up? Replace all mass shooting incidents with bar fires, venue fires, and so on. Do you not think there would be serious crackdown on safety code and regulation?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's only a coincidence those sexy ass Koalas got chlamydia right after my first visit to Australia. 

  • Props 1
  • LOL! 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...