Hostage situation taking place now in Orlando. [50+ dead, suspect killed]
916 replies, posted
[QUOTE=gastyne;50508723]Was this isis dude part of a well regulated malitia?[/QUOTE]
I've been wondering about this recently.
Often times Americans, and others, say that everyone has the "right to keep and bear arms" but never mentioning the "well-regulated militia" bit. Are all American citizens part of a "well-regulated militia" or what the fuck is the reasoning/explanation between interpreting the constitution as such, so that quite literally every citizen has the right?
Starpluck, Pantz fucking Master, or anyone who thinks they know, go ahead and enlighten me.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50509002]I think Starpluck just looked at the bottom of the reply and saw "Go choke on a bag of dicks and go fuck yourselves."
Shamefully, that's exactly what I did, and probably what other people did. They reported him without reading the wall of text.[/QUOTE]
That's not shameful. You should hear out other people's arguments but you also have an obligation to make your arguments as clear and succinct as possible. That post is pretty much the opposite of a well-reasoned, non-hostile, readable argument.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;50509106]I've been wondering about this recently.
Often times Americans, and others, say that everyone has the "right to keep and bear arms" but never mentioning the "well-regulated militia" bit. Are all American citizens part of a "well-regulated militia" or what the fuck is the reasoning/explanation between interpreting the constitution as such, so that quite literally every citizen has the right?
Starpluck, Pantz fucking Master, anyone who thinks they know, go ahead and enlighten me.[/QUOTE]
Judicial precedent has largely interpreted it as a right to bear arms, with the 'militia' part being secondary, with this arrangement becoming more pronounced from the 1990s onwards.
[QUOTE]Justice Scalia, writing for the Court in Heller: "In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the 'natural right of self-defence' and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right":
'Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation! And the acquisition of Texas may be considered the full fruits of this great constitutional right...
Nowhere else in the Constitution does a "right" attributed to "the people" refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention "the people," the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase "the militia" in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the "militia" in colonial America consisted of a subset of "the people"— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to "keep and bear Arms" in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as "the people".'[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;50509106]I've been wondering about this recently.
Often times Americans, and others, say that everyone has the "right to keep and bear arms" but never mentioning the "well-regulated militia" bit. Are all American citizens part of a "well-regulated militia" or what the fuck is the reasoning/explanation between interpreting the constitution as such, so that quite literally every citizen has the right?
Starpluck, Pantz fucking Master, or anyone who thinks they know, go ahead and enlighten me.[/QUOTE]
Wikipedia has a good section on this.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Meaning_of_.22well_regulated_militia.22[/url]
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;50509106]I've been wondering about this recently.
Often times Americans, and others, say that everyone has the "right to keep and bear arms" but never mentioning the "well-regulated militia" bit. Are all American citizens part of a "well-regulated militia" or what the fuck is the reasoning/explanation between interpreting the constitution as such, so that quite literally every citizen has the right?
Starpluck, Pantz fucking Master, or anyone who thinks they know, go ahead and enlighten me.[/QUOTE]
While no expert on the US constitution, my understanding is that when the constitution was written "well regulated" meant "well equipped" or "well maintained".
[QUOTE=waxrock;50509015]I mean, honestly I skipped to the end too. But the "you will [U]never[/U] defeat us" bit kinda throws a wrench in that.
Anywho, it's hard to say what the proper solution to this is, but it sure as hell isn't "moar guns".[/QUOTE]
I read the whole essay.
I think his point is also that doing away with guns isn't a good idea either.
Not gonna pretend that I know the solution but I have seen plenty of bad ideas come from both pro and anti gun sides.
IMO half the money/attention focused on guns would be put to far better use if it was focused on the underlying causes and research.
These losses are tragic but we shouldn't change a system until we are absolutely certain that what we are replacing it with is better then is gonna actually work/be better.
Besides do you really trust the current US government to implement a new system effectively without tainting the rights of US citizens and causing adverse effects? I would rather wait for the next election to address these issues.
Its a terrible thing to say but in the grand scheme of things the current reaction and proposals are larger then the problem they intend to solve.
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/mass-shootings-in-america/[/url]
According to this we have 870 victims in the USA from mass shootings. This is with a definition of mass shootings that I am sure will probably prompt some people to disagree so that number is arguably lower from some peoples perspective ( do you consider 4 dead people a mass shooting?)
If you wanted to save lives you would be far better off adding 1% tax to all gun related products and you could probably save far more lives then you could ever save by banning guns. That is if you use that tax money to fund injured families and other noble goals.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50509123]Judicial precedent has largely interpreted it as a right to bear arms, with the 'militia' part being secondary, with this arrangement becoming more pronounced from the 1990s onwards.[/QUOTE]
It's strange how anyone can read well-regulated malitia can bear arms and read that as everyone can use guns all the time everyone everywhere with little to no regulation.
It's so hypocritical of some people who say they believe in the 2nd amendment but still don't want it to be well regulated.
[QUOTE=sb27;50508488]Messed up people getting their hands on things they should have never been allowed to get their hands on in the first place.[/QUOTE]
Dude was a security guard, right? And had a chl? That's two serious background checks, if Florida is anything like Texas. Unless you want to restrict Muslims from owning guns-their right as Americans, plus that would be bigoted as hell- I don't see what reasonably could have been done.
[editline]13th June 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;50508721]Then I dont understand the purpose of background checks. Are they for just convicted felons?[/QUOTE]
Felons, those convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors, and people who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;50508662][Media]https://twitter.com/LovedayM/status/742102198767616000 [/media][/QUOTE]
My friends on the us watch list for yelling "allahu akbar" while playing project reality.
[QUOTE=Evanstr;50509406]My friends on the us watch list for yelling "allahu akbar" while playing project reality.[/QUOTE]Is he really now?
[QUOTE=waxrock;50509015]I mean, honestly I skipped to the end too. But the "you will [U]never[/U] defeat us" bit kinda throws a wrench in that.
Anywho, it's hard to say what the proper solution to this is, but it sure as hell isn't "moar guns".[/QUOTE]
Apparently JumpinJackFlash has never heard of a predator drone, which is really all the government needs to throw a wrench into his little 21st-century minuteman delusions.
In any case, it's people like him and the NBA who are responsible for shutting down ANY discussion on gun rights, whether it could lead to productive legislation that could help remedy the situation or not.
[QUOTE=1nfiniteseed;50509424]Apparently JumpinJackFlash has never heard of a predator drone, which is really all the government needs to throw a wrench into his little 21st-century minuteman delusions.
In any case, it's people like him and the NBA who are responsible for shutting down ANY discussion on gun rights, whether it could lead to productive legislation that could help remedy the situation or not.[/QUOTE]
Ah, so that's why there are no insurgents left in Afghanistan or Pakistan.
[QUOTE=gastyne;50509167]It's strange how anyone can read well-regulated malitia can bear arms and read that as everyone can use guns all the time everyone everywhere with little to no regulation.
It's so hypocritical of some people who say they believe in the 2nd amendment but still don't want it to be well regulated.[/QUOTE]
They do want it to be 'well-regulated' as it was originally meant. In 18th century English, 'well-regulated' meant 'well-equipped' or 'properly functioning'. Interpreting that to mean 'subject to government control' is applying the modern definition of the word, unintended by the writers.
Also wtf Starpluck, I didn't think flaming [i]ISIS[/i] was against the rules.
[QUOTE=gastyne;50509096]I still don't see why anyone can just go and buy guns in the usa.
If you seriously don't care about people dying left and right all the time then I have as much respect for you as the terrorists that commit these vile crimes.
If you want to put an end to this type of voilence, there is only one solution, heavy restrictions on gun availability or even banning.
I'd be in favor of banning it but I know that it wont happen what with all the crazy gun nuts you guys have running around shooting things.[/QUOTE]
Gun bans don't magically make the guns go away. You'd have to violate a constitutional right, and forcibly remove property from everyone. Good way to get people killed. The US is saturated with guns, and that must be taken into consideration when deciding gun policy. You can't restrict access to bad guys with a law, because guns would be easy to get, and you can't restrict access to everyone, because guns would still be easy to get. Now all you've done is piss everyone off and made sure that the only ones that had them were the ones with criminal intent anyway.
[QUOTE=gastyne;50509167]It's strange how anyone can read well-regulated malitia can bear arms and read that as everyone can use guns all the time everyone everywhere with little to no regulation.
It's so hypocritical of some people who say they believe in the 2nd amendment but still don't want it to be well regulated.[/QUOTE]
Not even CCL holders can take guns everywhere. There are a lot of public establishments where guns are prohibited. (not that it stops someone intent on murder, anyhow)
[QUOTE=OvB;50509465]Gun bans don't magically make the guns go away. You'd have to violate a constitutional right, and forcibly remove property from everyone. Good way to get people killed. The US is saturated with guns, and that must be taken into consideration when deciding gun policy. You can't restrict access to bad guys with a law, because guns would be easy to get, and you can't restrict access to everyone, because guns would still be easy to get. Now all you've done is piss everyone off and made sure that the only ones that had them were the ones with criminal intent anyway.
Not even CCL holders can take guns everywhere. There are a lot of public establishments where guns are prohibited. (not that it stops someone intent on murder, anyhow)[/QUOTE]
Germany and Switzerland are saturated with guns as well, we still aren't allowed to use them anywhere but designated shooting ranges and within licensed societies yet we have way less shootings.
The US has about 1 mass shoting every day ffs
[QUOTE=download;50509429]Ah, so that's why there are no insurgents left in Afghanistan or Pakistan.[/QUOTE]
I don't think I should have to tell you how al qaeda's operational capacities were utterly crippled by drone strikes.
Leave aside that we're not talking about insurgents who were born and raised in warzone environments, we're talking about American militiamen. You want to see what they're capable of, look at that ranch in Oregon.
This is all besides the topic at issue, though.
[QUOTE=OvB;50509465]Not even CCL holders can take guns everywhere. There are a lot of public establishments where guns are prohibited. ([B]not that it stops someone intent on murder, anyhow)[/B][/QUOTE]
Not that it stops anyone. Public establishments or even government buildings and offices saying "no guns please" is pretty redundant, in America of all places too.
[QUOTE=gastyne;50509167]It's strange how anyone can read well-regulated malitia can bear arms and read that as everyone can use guns all the time everyone everywhere with little to no regulation.
It's so hypocritical of some people who say they believe in the 2nd amendment but still don't want it to be well regulated.[/QUOTE]
Because they are literally two distinct concepts. It's been covered in court several times that the second amendment has two clauses: the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and the necessity of a well regulated militia. The right to keep and bear arms is not dependent upon the presence or membership in a well regulated militia at all.
[QUOTE=bitches;50508587]not that the fucking gun nuts will ever understand the difference between simple self defence pistols and mass murder weapons[/QUOTE]
Let me just remind you that the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_shooting"]worst school shooting in American history[/URL] was committed with a pair of [I]handguns[/I]. In fact, the exact pistols used were a .22 target shooting pistol, and a Glock 19, one of the most popular self-defense pistols in the United States.
Don't give us this shit about gun nuts when you don't know what you're talking about. Scapegoating assault weapons isn't going to solve mass shootings- you already have plenty of evidence for that considering the San Bernardino shooter used a California-legal non-assault-weapon rifle.
[QUOTE=Killuah;50509500]Germany and Switzerland are saturated with guns as well, we still aren't allowed to use them anywhere but designated shooting ranges and within licensed societies yet we have way less shootings.
The US has about 1 mass shoting every day ffs[/QUOTE]
And the United States is a much larger, more culturally diverse nation than Germany and Switzerland. We have more major cities than either of them combined, all with a very dense population, that has been formed over decades of hot race relations, poverty, etc. Crime is much more abundant in general due to these factors. We have an extremely violent gang scene in a lot of these cities due to the crime and poverty. Outside of the urban environment you have people in the rural areas that still hunt and cherish their guns and 2nd amendment like no other. Not to mention the country is covered in guns from decades of keeping them.
It's simply impossible to compare the USA to Switzerland. It's a bad example because the situation is a lot more complicated here than a tiny European nation that has less people than some of our urban areas. The Chicago metropolitan area has more people than all of Switzerland.
Don't misinterpret this as defending the gun violence problem we have. I'm just saying these people that say [I]"Well Switzerland did it, Why can't those silly Americans???"[/I] haven't thoroughly looked at the cause of it.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;50509551]Not that it stops anyone. Public establishments or even government buildings and offices saying "no guns please" is pretty redundant, in America of all places too.[/QUOTE]
The Bar was a "gun free zone" fyi, lot of good that did.
Maybe someone on a terrorist watch list that tries to buy a gun should be surveyed by the FBI for awhile? Or maybe have to take a mental health assessment? If the FBI asked his ex-wife about him it seems like it could of been avoided.
[QUOTE=Morgen;50509770]Maybe someone on a terrorist watch list that tries to buy a gun should be surveyed by the FBI for awhile? Or maybe have to take a mental health assessment? If the FBI asked his ex-wife about him it seems like it could of been avoided.[/QUOTE]
Background checks have to be rejected or approved by a certain number of days else they're automatically approved.
[QUOTE=Morgen;50509770]Or maybe have to take a mental health assessment?[/QUOTE]
Is that not a thing by default to get a permit?
[QUOTE=OvB;50509465]Gun bans don't magically make the guns go away. You'd have to violate a constitutional right, and forcibly remove property from everyone. Good way to get people killed. The US is saturated with guns, and that must be taken into consideration when deciding gun policy. You can't restrict access to bad guys with a law, because guns would be easy to get, and you can't restrict access to everyone, because guns would still be easy to get. Now all you've done is piss everyone off and made sure that the only ones that had them were the ones with criminal intent anyway.
Not even CCL holders can take guns everywhere. There are a lot of public establishments where guns are prohibited. (not that it stops someone intent on murder, anyhow)[/QUOTE]
Sure you can't just get rid of guns, but it's clear that a change is needed whether people like it or not - a US born extremist isn't a 'bad guy' until he buys a gun and proceeds to kill people.
Calling it criminal intent undermines the situation, this is a whole twenty leagues above robbery and gang violence and 'bad guys'.
[QUOTE=download;50509777]Background checks have to be rejected or approved by a certain number of days else they're automatically approved.[/QUOTE]
Approval by default seems pretty uhhh...fail deadly gotta say. When you're meant to be checking if a person can be trusted to own a lethal weapon, an object that has the single purpose of destroying things, perhaps you shouldn't assume they're fit to wield it by default.
I get that the agencies that handle this might have a lot of shit going on at once, leading to excessive waiting for a background check, but just falling back to "nah it's cool" seems backwards as fuck.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;50509818]Approval by default seems pretty uhhh...fail deadly gotta say. When you're meant to be checking if a person can be trusted to own a lethal weapon, an object that has the single purpose of destroying things, perhaps you shouldn't assume they're fit to wield it by default.
I get that the agencies that handle this might have a lot of shit going on at once, leading to excessive waiting for a background check, but just falling back to "nah it's cool" seems backwards as fuck.[/QUOTE]
That argument raised is that a de-facto ban could be made by delaying background checks for a very long time or indefinitely.
[editline]13th June 2016[/editline]
Looking it up the transfer is automatically approved 5 business days plus Saturday after the application.
[editline]13th June 2016[/editline]
It's completely automated so it in theory should take long to check all of the national records.
All the people on the internet right now claiming that this proves that islam is a threat are fucking idiots.
Jesus Christ have some fucking decency and don't go "hmm a new mass shooting how do I use this to further my anti-muslim agenda?".
My thoughts go out to all the families and loved ones of the victims, acts like these just leave me speechless. What is there to gain from killing a bunch of innocent people?
[QUOTE=Kristviljan;50510089]All the people on the internet right now claiming that this proves that islam is a threat are fucking idiots.
Jesus Christ have some fucking decency and don't go "hmm a new mass shooting how do I use this to further my anti-muslim agenda?".
My thoughts go out to all the families and loved ones of the victims, acts like these just leave me speechless. What is there to gain from killing a bunch of innocent people?[/QUOTE]
How dare someone consider the motives for an attack that left fifty people dead! Maybe people, you know, might actually be concerned about these attacks and what is causing them, and aren't simply for seemingly no reason whatsoever pushing an 'anti-Muslim agenda'?
This is really sad [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/36514358[/url]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.