Can we have a rational discussion about guns and why the typical arguments for gun control and its implementation won't work?

[lovinthehd]

Regarding the 2nd Amendment, it says:

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.

A very oddly worded sentence, to say the least, and constructed in the typically negative orientation of the Bill of Rights; focusing on what the federal government can't do. I know that power-hungry, government-control-over-everyone-and-everything so-called "liberals" want to interpret the 2nd Amendment as applying solely to "well-regulated Militia", but, that's not reflective of good English grammar. This sentence, however annoying, is clearly a very carefully constructed statement. Looks like a three-humped camel designed by a committee to me. Personally, if I were constructing that sentence I would have inserted the word "and" after the second comma for clarity, but there's no reasonable way to interpret this sentence as only applying to state militias.

Then there's the "well regulated" aspect....it is a hell of a sentence and one of the reasons we need to update things....but we're unlikely to ever get such a major change to the constitution/amendments done these days.

 

[mtrycrafts]

.... The second amendment speaks to militias, i.e. informal armies on a local level still sanctioned by local government, ...

I think historians would interpret militias as our present National Guard units run by the state governor, not each county or city setting one up.

 

[cpp]

The businesses that have a very hard time filling positions could increase the salary. Isn't that how supply and demand is supposed to work in a free market?

But how does that limit "guns, this has nothing to do with gun control.

 

[cpp]

sad, presure treated lumber isn't worth a rats ass these days .........

Got that right, but its all ya got and I'm not using particle board.

 

[Old Onkyo]

Denzel

I watched some videos where Denzel Washington was asked about his thoughts on some of the current problems and he said "It starts in the home- take care of your own house. They don't lock up seven year-olds, but at 13, my friends and I were doing things that could have gotten us in real trouble. Where are their parents? Where are their grandparents?". He went on to say that he was the only one of the three in his group who had a father in his life and that his parents steered him in a different direction- one friend did about 23 years in prison while the other did more than 25 years. He has spoken at several graduation events and some of the things he said really make sense- I'm paraphrasing, but it was basically "Make goals. Make goals for the distant future, for the not so distant future, for tomorrow and for today". He also told one group of grads "If you fall, and you will, get up. If you fall seven times, get up eight times".

I think the cities that are having the worst problems did a terrible job of preventing this. I know Milwaukee and far less about the others but here, the local government has done everything in its power to keep minorities in small areas of the city, as if that will make the city look good. Well, that has failed miserably, from a public perspective point and from actually seeing its condition. I seriously doubt the mayor sees more than the areas between his house and City Hall and that's only if he chooses to look. I have seen and heard nothing from him about the condition WRT roads, trash strewn around and piling up along fences, the homeless who stand at street corners with signs asking for money and stating that they're homeless, but I have heard him ask about where felons get their guns and that shows a serious lack of knowledge.

Denzel huh? I guess that settles it. “You mean you don’t want him to shut up and act?”

 

[Swerd]

Regarding the 2nd Amendment, it says:

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.

A very oddly worded sentence, to say the least, and constructed in the typically negative orientation of the Bill of Rights; focusing on what the federal government can't do. I know that power-hungry, government-control-over-everyone-and-everything so-called "liberals" want to interpret the 2nd Amendment as applying solely to "well-regulated Militia", but, that's not reflective of good English grammar. This sentence, however annoying, is clearly a very carefully constructed statement. Looks like a three-humped camel designed by a committee to me. Personally, if I were constructing that sentence I would have inserted the word "and" after the second comma for clarity, but there's no reasonable way to interpret this sentence as only applying to state militias.

I don't see anything about that sentence as complicated or difficult to understand.

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.​

I understand it to say this:

​

Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

For much of US history it was interpreted as just that, until the Supreme Court made it's highly controversial ruling on the District of Columbia vs. Heller in 2008.

Some history:

• US Constitution became effective in March, 1789
• A regular, standing army was first created by Congress later in September 1789. It was very small, one regiment.
• The Second Amendment ratified in 1791
• The Militia Act of 1792 provided for the organization of state militias, an act that expired after two years.
• The Militia Act of 1795 made it permanent. (This Act was later modified in 1862 and again in 1903.)
• Prior to US independence, Colonial militias and later State militias relied on private citizens (militiamen) using their own privately owned weapons. No standing army existed until the creation of the Continental Army was created in 1776, and disbanded in 1784.
• As requested by several states during the Constitutional ratification debates, the Second Amendment reflected the lingering resentment over the widespread efforts of the British to confiscate the colonists' firearms at the outbreak of the Revolutionary War.

I think it's quite easy to understand the Second Amendment as pertaining to "well regulated Militias". It did not require any interpretation of unusual or contorted language or grammar to understand it's meaning – prior to 2008. That's when the Supreme Court used contorted logic to extend the Second Amendment by ruling that …

… the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to keep and bear arms", that the "right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution", also stating that the right was "premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)." They also noted that though the right to bear arms also helped preserve the citizen militia, "the activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia." The court determined that handguns are "Arms" and concluded that thus they may not be banned by the District of Columbia.

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Irvrobinson]

I don't see anything about that sentence as complicated or difficult to understand.

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.​

I understand it to say this:

​

Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

For much of US history it was interpreted as just that, until the Supreme Court made it's highly controversial ruling on the District of Columbia vs. Heller in 2008.

Some history:

• US Constitution became effective in March, 1789
• A regular, standing army was first created by Congress later in September 1789. It was very small, one regiment.
• The Second Amendment ratified in 1791
• The Militia Act of 1792 provided for the organization of state militias, an act that expired after two years.
• The Militia Act of 1795 made it permanent. (This Act was later modified in 1862 and again in 1903.)
• Prior to US independence, Colonial militias and later State militias relied on private citizens (militiamen) using their own privately owned weapons. No standing army existed until the creation of the Continental Army was created in 1776, and disbanded in 1784.
• As requested by several states during the Constitutional ratification debates, the Second Amendment reflected the lingering resentment over the widespread efforts of the British to confiscate the colonists' firearms at the outbreak of the Revolutionary War.

I think it's quite easy to understand the Second Amendment as pertaining to "well regulated Militias". It did not require any interpretation of unusual or contorted language or grammar to understand it's meaning – prior to 2008. That's when the Supreme Court used contorted logic to extend the Second Amendment by ruling that …

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I think it’s impossible to have an unbiased view of that amendment that interprets the right of the people to bear arms as just supporting the existence of state militia. Your interpretation is, IMO, wishful thinking.

 

[Old Onkyo]

I don't want this to become a 'Democrat vs Republican' thing, I would like to see reasoned comments and responses without turning to insults.

I have mentioned that Milwaukee is an example of a badly-run city but even if the city leaders have the best of intentions behind them, some people don't care and will do what they want, when they want and they don't care if it's illegal.

This happened late Sunday evening and it's the kind of event that can occur when people who shouldn't have access to guns, do. If you listen, it sounds like automatic gunfire at times and those weapons are already heavily regulated/taxed and access is much more difficult than most other guns.

Over 300 shots fired at Midtown Center gathering, injuring two, capping violent weekend in Milwaukee

Several people fired over 300 shots around 11:30 p.m. Sunday in the packed parking lot, injuring two men, 21 and 23.

www.jsonline.com

My thoughts on what will help to decrease needless gun deaths-

- More/better care for people with mental illness
- The courts need to prevent access to guns and remove guns from people who have made threats (see the link about the casino shootings at the bottom)
- The Courts need to grow a set and hold people with violent past when they're arrested for violent crimes
-People need to accept the fact that they know someone with mental illness and that care is needed- lose the stigma
- People who are afraid of guns need to realize that guns do nothing on their own and while the fear may be justified, these people shouldn't be in a position to make policy regarding them but could/should be part of the overall discussion.
-People need to stop getting attention when spewing information that's not accurate and they need to be corrected when they get that attention because it mis-informs others, often leading to a frenzied response.

Oneida Casino shooting: Three dead, including gunman; one person seriously injured

None of this needs to happen- people have to stop resorting to violence as one of their first reactions to anger.
[/QUOTE

Like many have said, it all starts at home. A sorry upbringing by parents that just don't care, or feel the world owes them something well in most cases the children will have a life of drugs, crime, prostitution, gangs to end up in a lot of cases living out of a box looking for that next meal and some acceptance by someone, be it a pimp, gang leader or a peer group bent to crime. There is no political party associated with this as its been going on all over the world since the beginning of time. A shame as some kids, young kids are killed each year and by people that are as sane as we are. Gang violence or pure hate against a race be it black, Asian, white, Hispanic its doesn't mater. IF guns were off the streets, well other means of violence to induce hate is readily available at your hardware or feed store. My family remembers the OK Federal building bombing by two guys in a rented truck loaded with ammonium nitrate fertilizer mixed with about 1,200 pounds of liquid nitromethane and 350 pounds of Tovex. They killed 168 people and injured over 680. So it doesn't have to be guns but our political system seems to forget that. . People have be run over by trucks, cars, planes blown up in the air, or crashed planes into buildings causing the deaths of thousands .

 

[TankTop5]

How do you know that? All I need to do is think back to January 6 and the non-law abiding citizens pulling a bullshit coup? They're good guys? Good grief. The second amendment speaks to militias, i.e. informal armies on a local level still sanctioned by local government, not these nutjobs like the pussy boys or whatever they call themselves. We have to start of course with the manufacture of the weapon and strict controls beginning there....which we just don't have generally. We sell more guns as a nation than anyone. We need a more uniform and informed approach to gun ownership, not dissimilar to cars. You one of these numbnuts who shouts "free dumb" while "hunting" with your assault weapons?

You do know only one guy had a handgun during the Capital raid, the rest had pepper spray and others random homemade weapons.

I can do this all day long...

 

[TankTop5]

I think historians would interpret militias as our present National Guard units run by the state governor, not each county or city setting one up.

No they wouldn’t. America was never intended to have an Army and the only constitutional branch of the military was the Navy.

Individuals were to be well armed so that they could form a militia if required. The founding fathers were well educated and intentional with their words. There are also other writings and letters that back up these facts.

 

[Irvrobinson]

No they wouldn’t. America was never intended to have an Army and the only constitutional branch of the military was the Navy.

Not correct. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 12. The Army Clause.

 

[TankTop5]

Not correct. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 12. The Army Clause.

We’re both right, Congress has the power to raise an army but only for two years. Again America was never intended to maintain a standing army, only a Navy. Citizens are the defense force of the United States Constitutionally and that means we are supposed to have military grade weapons. The Brits had it right during WWII, individual towns had bake sales and fundraisers to buy Spitfires for Great Britain.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

While USA has problems, so has other countries as well. News outlets are predominately focused on the mass murder shootings but most guns death and injuries are not caused by them. Of course mental problems are an important factor in gun related deaths and injuries, it's not the only one. Children playing with loaded guns is not due to mental issues, for the most part, for instance.

Mental Health Conditions and Substance Use: Comparing U.S. Needs and Treatment Capacity with Those in Other High-Income Countries

A Commonwealth Fund analysis comparing U.S. mental health care to 10 other high-income countries finds that Americans are among the most likely to report problems accessing or affording mental health treatment. Other countries do a better job of integrating mental health into primary care...

www.commonwealthfund.org

Commonwealth Fund - Bias and Credibility

LEFT-CENTER BIAS These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording

mediabiasfactcheck.com

Trell, I think you misunderstood me. I didn't make my point solely blaming lack of sufficient and/or affordable mental health. There must be a very good reason why so many homeless also suffer from mental issues - Correlation is quite simple - our society had let these people down. Spit out and left out on the street and No - typical conservative mentality - they just need to pull themselves out doesn't apply here - they simply can't without help.

The article you listed just reinforces my point that among developed countries we are in pretty bad shape, but this doesn't even take into accord its affordability that much.

There are many reasons for gun violence - mental health is just one of them.
What is already mentioned here above few times, there are SERIOUS foundational issues here (mostly due to underfunded federal agencies) that just making knee-jerk tougher gun selling rules ain't going to fix much.

It has to be all of the above solutions - Family, Health, Education, and only then controls.

 

[Trell]

But how does that limit "guns, this has nothing to do with gun control.

Nothing at all, I'll gather, but I responded to the first part of your post, though.

 

[GO-NAD!]

You do know only one guy had a handgun during the Capital raid, the rest had pepper spray and others random homemade weapons.

I can do this all day long...

During the assault, sure. How about right before and after, despite a ban on carrying firearms in the area of the protest cum insurrection?
Capitol Protesters Were Armed With Variety of Weapons - FactCheck.org

Before and after the storming of the Capitol, NBC News reported, police seized a dozen firearms, including an assault rifle, and thousands of rounds of ammunition from seven people attending the rally for President Donald Trump in Washington, D.C. Other weapons included a crossbow, a stun gun and 11 Molotov cocktails.

Since you have all day...

 

[GO-NAD!]

We’re both right, Congress has the power to raise an army but only for two years. Again America was never intended to maintain a standing army, only a Navy. Citizens are the defense force of the United States Constitutionally and that means we are supposed to have military grade weapons. The Brits had it right during WWII, individual towns had bake sales and fundraisers to buy Spitfires for Great Britain.

Are you saying that the existence of the US Army, which has been around for over 200 years, is unconstitutional? No matter how you parse the second amendment, how you get "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" to mean "we are supposed to have military grade weapons" is a big stretch.

One - having the right to bear arms does not make them compulsory.
Two - when the amendment was written, there wasn't much difference between civilian and "military grade".

I'm at a loss as to what bake sales and Spitfires have to do with the discussion.

 

[Swerd]

I think it’s impossible to have an unbiased view of that amendment that interprets the right of the people to bear arms as just supporting the existence of state militia.

That's an indirect way of saying that there are two equally valid points of view, hence the controversy. I don't believe that at all.

The 2nd Amendment was primarily about a 'well regulated Militia'. It openly said so. This was the commonly accepted view throughout US history, as established and supported by repeated court rulings. This was changed in 2008 by the US Supreme Court, as led by justices who claimed to be 'strict constructionists'. To claim that a 'well regulated Militia' has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment requires a radical reconstruction of the 2nd Amendment.

Your interpretation is, IMO, wishful thinking.

It was only the NRA's wishful thinking combined with intense political lobbying since the late 1970s that brought on this controversy.

 

[GO-NAD!]

What’s the point in more controls? It only affects law abiding citizens and has zero effect on criminals, why in the world would you want to screw with the good guys? The 2nd says we can have guns, it doesn’t mention explosives and friggin lasers, I think your imagination is running wild. You have a personal emotional based opinion that doesn’t rely on facts.

The only thing I support is mental health laws, period!

The second amendment says "arms", not "guns", and arms range from a trench knife to a thermonuclear device. It's quite clear that the right is not absolute, as there are regulations applying to arms of all sorts. So, if there are some regulations, there can be more regulations.

Court cases enabling some restrictions and striking down others look like so much Solomonic baby-dividing...

 

[TankTop5]

Are you saying that the existence of the US Army, which has been around for over 200 years, is unconstitutional? No matter how you parse the second amendment, how you get "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" to mean "we are supposed to have military grade weapons" is a big stretch.

One - having the right to bear arms does not make them compulsory.
Two - when the amendment was written, there wasn't much difference between civilian and "military grade".

I'm at a loss as to what bake sales and Spitfires have to do with the discussion.

First, yes the US Army is unconstitutional but so are a lot of things. The purpose of individuals being armed was so that we could raise militias and an army if needed. What would you like them armed with, muskets, that’s willful ignorance!

The bake sale reference was to illustrate how the people came together to provide the country with military equipment.

 

[Alex2507]

... the US Army is unconstitutional but so are a lot of things. The purpose of individuals being armed was so that we could raise militias and an army if needed. What would you like them armed with, muskets, that’s willful ignorance!

So the army is unconstitutional and you owning a nuclear device is how we should be handling national security?