It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
I get a kick out of people comparing our gun laws with those of Europe. The laws don't mean shit, it's all about where you are. The U.S. has a violent history! I hate to say it, but it's part of our culture. No nation in Europe has a history like ours. U.S. history is more akin to central and south American countries and thus we share the same burden of violence.
The U.S. is one of the few countries I know that is 1st, 2nd, and 3rd world all in one.
nocturnalThe other issue is gang related violence is really condensed into certain areas my incidences can happen anywhere
Agreed. Im not saying one is more important than the other, Im mostly trying to say theyre different topics that should not be used together to further a cause. If you want to quote mass shooting statistics, leave out gang related violence.
New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Italy, etc....you want me to keep going? Also your post about native culture is stupid and ignorant. Basically shows me your an asshole.
Q.McBrewI get a kick out of people comparing our gun laws with those of Europe. The laws don't mean shit, it's all about where you are. The U.S. has a violent history! I hate to say it, but it's part of our culture. No nation in Europe has a history like ours. U.S. history is more akin to central and south American countries and thus we share the same burden of violence.
The U.S. is one of the few countries I know that is 1st, 2nd, and 3rd world all in one.
MLBNew Zealand, Australia, Canada, Italy, etc....you want me to keep going? Also your post about native culture is stupid and ignorant. Basically shows me your an asshole.
New Zealand-4.471 million (2013)
gun ownership-22.6 per 100 citizens
intentional homicide rate- 1 per 100k
Australia-23.13 million (2013)
gun ownership-21.7 per 100 citizens
Intentional homicide rate- 1 per 100k
Canada-35.16 million (2013)
gun ownership-30.8 per 100 citizens
Intentional homicide rate- 2 per 100k
Italy-59.83 million (2013)
gun ownership-11.9 per 100 citizens
intentional homicide rate- 1 per 100k
Unites States-318.9 million (2014)
gun ownership-112.6 per 100 citizens
Intentional homicide rate- 5 per 100,000 citizens
(keep in mind that the USA is 5x larger than Italy)
Brazil-200.4 million (2013)
gun ownership-8 per 100 citizens
intentional homicide rate- 25 per 100,000 citizens
Venezuela-30.41 million (2013)
gun ownership-10.7 per 100 citizens
intentional homicide rate- 54 per 100,000 citizens
Switzerland-8.02 million (2014)
gun ownership-45.7 per 100 citizens
intentional homicide rate- 1 per 100,000 citizens
I dont know, maybe I'm an asshole, but there is literally no correlation between gun ownership and intentional homicide rate anywhere in the world. Blaming guns as the cause of violence is about as ignorant as It gets.
There is a difference between wars and loose canons. For instance: Quantrill's raid vs. Napoleonic Wars. Sure Napoleonic wars were more violent, but shit like Quantrill's raid is pervasive throughout American history. The Napoleonic wars ended and there was peace. The violence in the U.S. has never subsided.
MALEPRIVILEGENew Zealand-4.471 million (2013)
gun ownership-22.6 per 100 citizens
intentional homicide rate- 1 per 100k
Australia-23.13 million (2013)
gun ownership-21.7 per 100 citizens
Intentional homicide rate- 1 per 100k
Canada-35.16 million (2013)
gun ownership-30.8 per 100 citizens
Intentional homicide rate- 2 per 100k
Italy-59.83 million (2013)
gun ownership-11.9 per 100 citizens
intentional homicide rate- 1 per 100k
Unites States-318.9 million (2014)
gun ownership-112.6 per 100 citizens
Intentional homicide rate- 5 per 100,000 citizens
(keep in mind that the USA is 5x larger than Italy)
Brazil-200.4 million (2013)
gun ownership-8 per 100 citizens
intentional homicide rate- 25 per 100,000 citizens
Venezuela-30.41 million (2013)
gun ownership-10.7 per 100 citizens
intentional homicide rate- 54 per 100,000 citizens
Switzerland-8.02 million (2014)
gun ownership-45.7 per 100 citizens
intentional homicide rate- 1 per 100,000 citizens
I dont know, maybe I'm an asshole, but there is literally no correlation between gun ownership and intentional homicide rate anywhere in the world. Blaming guns as the cause of violence is about as ignorant as It gets.
There is...you fucking know there is, but you can't help but seeing an AR15 as an extension of your cock so of course you are going to react that way. Seriously just think about it with a simple common sense.
The fact that you have to actually take a course in this country and learn about firearm safety. Then you have to send all the paper work off and get it approved to even have the basic license.
Then after all that even when you do buy your firearms you have to register them. Then on top of that all firearms are maxed to 5 rounds. Some firearms are illegal to own because they really are just made for milliary and police use. Then if you want a hand gun or other weapons you have to jump through more hoops to those weapons. Also it is illegal to sell used weapons as well.
You honestly think all that does nothing? Even if the wrong people do get their hands on guns ( which sometimes happens...no system is perfect) the damage isn't as terrible as if someone had a fully automatic weapon and exstended magazines. You ever try to kill large groups of people with a bolt action rifle or a .22 caliber rifle?
Post stats all you want or you could just use common sense and have just a little think about it.
Guns are tools in Canada. That is how I was raised with fire arms. As a result the firearms that I have used and owned were mostly used for hunting and sometimes skeet shooting. Guns in the USA are worshiped. Using them makes you think they give you power over other people. Makes some people believe they are tougher then they are. But it all doesn't matter because people like you believe that guns keep people safe. Not as a tool to take life. Your still an idiot and I feel sorry for you.
Q.McBrewThere is a difference between wars and loose canons. For instance: Quantrill's raid vs. Napoleonic Wars. Sure Napoleonic wars were more violent, but shit like Quantrill's raid is pervasive throughout American history. The Napoleonic wars ended and there was peace. The violence in the U.S. has never subsided.
Perhaps you missed the entirety of the 20th century, especially the first half.
MLBThere is...you fucking know there is, but you can't help but seeing an AR15 as an extension of Seriously just think about it with a simple common sense.
Then if you want a hand gun or other weapons you have to jump through more hoops to those weapons. Also it is illegal to sell used weapons as well.
You honestly think all that does nothing? Yes
and have just a little think about it.
Guns in the USA are worshiped. Using them makes you think they give you power over other people. Makes some people believe they are tougher then they are. But it all doesn't matter because people like you believe that guns keep people safe. Not as a tool to take life. Your still an idiot and I feel sorry for you.
you are right, guns do not keep people safe, but they do even the playing field. There is a reason they are called equalizers.
what other kind of nonsense do canadians believe about Americans?
nocturnalSo why make any laws if criminals don't follow them? Cut down the number of gun that can be bought at a garage sales and you can cut down the amount that will be stolen and sold. Not saying ban all guns as everyone also thinks when I say gun control gun control isn't banning them.
The issue of gun control is getting pretty exhausting at this point. When any violence for that matter takes place one should question the motive not solely the tool used. In the case of this particular shooting radical Islam was the motive. We should be examining why people are being radicalized and the belief behind their action. No one is forcing people to be radicalized they are choosing to out of free will.
For the larger pool of gun violence in America, most of these crimes are committed by those who are not allowed to legally own a gun. Establishing more laws and gun control does nothing to reduce the pool of criminals who are committing violent crime with guns. That is my issue with gun control.
If it is illegal to buy a gun via private sale, what is to stop criminals from buying them underground or stealing others legally purchased firearms? No background check can prevent that.
Guns aren't the issue. People with no respect for life and are willing to cause harm to innocent people is the issue. We have a culture problem here in America coupled with a Radical Islam problem around the globe.
I find it very coincidental that when people are in times of trouble and their safety is feared they call those who have guns to protect them but are against law abiding citizens from protecting themselves as well as others. You may or may not have opposed concealed carry I haven't read enough of your posts but the majority of pro gun control advocates are opposed to concealed carry.
If California had more sensible gun laws maybe one of these people could have stopped or limited the death toll of this shooting. There is no guarantee this would have had an effect because there is no way to prove this but if I was in a room with an active shooter I would much rather have the OPTION of firing back than sitting there and praying I don't get gunned down at point blank range trapped in a room. If people don't want to carry that is totally fine and acceptable but at least give people the ability to defend themselves because the police aren't omnipresent.
No intelligent person would ever be afraid of visiting Utah, yet gun ownership is over 50%
violence has everything to do with culture/perspective and nothing to do with guns.
Exactly, people are blaming the guns! It’s as if we have dehumanized gun violence and instead humanized guns. One has to first understand where gun violence is most prevalent, we have to read over statistical figure more carefully in order to better understand the crux of the cause. Too much misinformation and exaggeration. 55% of Americans think gun-related crime has increased, while only 12% of Americans think gun-related crimes has decreased, when it has decreased dramatically from the 1980’s so hasn’t gun homicides.
And what’s up with this craze about banning an AR-15, its a fucking subset of a rifle. Rifles CAUSE ONLY 3.5% OF GUN-RELATED HOMICIDES!! The question is, why pinpoint the sub-set of a rifle, why? Tell my why? Back it up with facts? There’s obviously another agenda going on.
MLBThere is...you fucking know there is, but you can't help but seeing an AR15 as an extension of your cock so of course you are going to react that way. Seriously just think about it with a simple common sense.
The fact that you have to actually take a course in this country and learn about firearm safety. Then you have to send all the paper work off and get it approved to even have the basic license.
Then after all that even when you do buy your firearms you have to register them. Then on top of that all firearms are maxed to 5 rounds. Some firearms are illegal to own because they really are just made for milliary and police use. Then if you want a hand gun or other weapons you have to jump through more hoops to those weapons. Also it is illegal to sell used weapons as well.
You honestly think all that does nothing? Even if the wrong people do get their hands on guns ( which sometimes happens...no system is perfect) the damage isn't as terrible as if someone had a fully automatic weapon and exstended magazines. You ever try to kill large groups of people with a bolt action rifle or a .22 caliber rifle?
Post stats all you want or you could just use common sense and have just a little think about it.
Guns are tools in Canada. That is how I was raised with fire arms. As a result the firearms that I have used and owned were mostly used for hunting and sometimes skeet shooting. Guns in the USA are worshiped. Using them makes you think they give you power over other people. Makes some people believe they are tougher then they are. But it all doesn't matter because people like you believe that guns keep people safe. Not as a tool to take life. Your still an idiot and I feel sorry for you.
this was probably to most poorly written piece of incoherent trash ive ever read.
Wis_Skier_23The issue of gun control is getting pretty exhausting at this point. When any violence for that matter takes place one should question the motive not solely the tool used. In the case of this particular shooting radical Islam was the motive. We should be examining why people are being radicalized and the belief behind their action. No one is forcing people to be radicalized they are choosing to out of free will.
For the larger pool of gun violence in America, most of these crimes are committed by those who are not allowed to legally own a gun. Establishing more laws and gun control does nothing to reduce the pool of criminals who are committing violent crime with guns. That is my issue with gun control.
If it is illegal to buy a gun via private sale, what is to stop criminals from buying them underground or stealing others legally purchased firearms? No background check can prevent that.
Guns aren't the issue. People with no respect for life and are willing to cause harm to innocent people is the issue. We have a culture problem here in America coupled with a Radical Islam problem around the globe.
I find it very coincidental that when people are in times of trouble and their safety is feared they call those who have guns to protect them but are against law abiding citizens from protecting themselves as well as others. You may or may not have opposed concealed carry I haven't read enough of your posts but the majority of pro gun control advocates are opposed to concealed carry.
If California had more sensible gun laws maybe one of these people could have stopped or limited the death toll of this shooting. There is no guarantee this would have had an effect because there is no way to prove this but if I was in a room with an active shooter I would much rather have the OPTION of firing back than sitting there and praying I don't get gunned down at point blank range trapped in a room. If people don't want to carry that is totally fine and acceptable but at least give people the ability to defend themselves because the police aren't omnipresent.
Guns are not the problem people are the problem where these guns. Where do you think these illegal guns are coming from from? From so many guns that are in circulation.
Reduce the number of guns in circulation reduce the number of people that died.
nocturnalGuns are not the problem people are the problem where these guns. Where do you think these illegal guns are coming from from? From so many guns that are in circulation.
Reduce the number of guns in circulation reduce the number of people that died.
so how are people supposed to buy and sell used firearms? How are you proposing to reduce the number of firearms in circulation other than through gun confiscations.
The problem lies in the fact that we have a violent culture here in America. People need to be held accountable for their actions as opposed to grabbing for all the guns. Unless guns start killing people themselves it's the people you need to focus on not the gun. I don't see why that's such a hard concept for you to grasp
MLBThere is...you fucking know there is, but you can't help but seeing an AR15 as an extension of your cock so of course you are going to react that way. Seriously just think about it with a simple common sense.
The fact that you have to actually take a course in this country and learn about firearm safety. Then you have to send all the paper work off and get it approved to even have the basic license.
Then after all that even when you do buy your firearms you have to register them. Then on top of that all firearms are maxed to 5 rounds. Some firearms are illegal to own because they really are just made for milliary and police use. Then if you want a hand gun or other weapons you have to jump through more hoops to those weapons. Also it is illegal to sell used weapons as well.
You honestly think all that does nothing? Even if the wrong people do get their hands on guns ( which sometimes happens...no system is perfect) the damage isn't as terrible as if someone had a fully automatic weapon and exstended magazines. You ever try to kill large groups of people with a bolt action rifle or a .22 caliber rifle?
Post stats all you want or you could just use common sense and have just a little think about it.
Guns are tools in Canada. That is how I was raised with fire arms. As a result the firearms that I have used and owned were mostly used for hunting and sometimes skeet shooting. Guns in the USA are worshiped. Using them makes you think they give you power over other people. Makes some people believe they are tougher then they are. But it all doesn't matter because people like you believe that guns keep people safe. Not as a tool to take life. Your still an idiot and I feel sorry for you.
Personally if an attacker had an automatic rifle they would be much less accurate. Sure they could spray more bullets but if they aren't hitting anything whats the point. Either way whens the last time a mass shooting was committed with an automatic weapon. A shotgun with buckshot would be way more lethal due to the multiple projectiles fired with one shot and you can afford to be less accurate due to the shot patter.
I'd agree with your second statement that guns makes people feel more powerful than they are. There's a certain group that comes to mind for this.....Gangbangers!
Guns do keep people safe contrary to your narrow-minded assessment. What do you think protects the President and what do police use to defend themselves as well as the public? You guessed it....GUNS!
Guns are the ultimate equalizer to those trying to inflict harm upon innocent people. I am sure that pastors wife in Indiana who was raped and murdered in her own home wished she had practiced and kept a firearm at quick access. She doesn't get a second chance though.
Not sure if that’s a credible graph or if it even presents the correct statistics.
Nevertheless, there are other cultural, political, and socioeconomic factors that far outweigh gun ownership as predictors of gun violence, and that both sides in this debate potentially have valid points. In some situations, the presence of guns may deter violent crime. In others, it may enable violent crime.
Maybe gun control is less important to curing the modern epidemic of mass-shootings than improving access to and understanding of mental healthcare, susceptibility towards environment and wealth inequality.
Seriously, those memes are absolutely idiotic and in every case misleading. Deliberately so. For example, the last one leaves a bunch of words out of the text of the thing.
"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."
Basic principles of legal interpretation require that you not omit parts of a provision when you're trying to rely on it.
This is a hard conversation that no one wants to have because everyone's nicely sequestered in their ideological bunkers, but the good points that are available to be made in support of gun ownership are buried under the laughably stupid rhetoric you're attempting to propogate in meme form. I read those and immediately think, "if this stuff reflects the substance of what you think about this issue, you're not capable of thinking about it seriously, and aren't worth listening to until you've developed the capacity to do so".
J.D.Seriously, those memes are absolutely idiotic and in every case misleading. Deliberately so. For example, the last one leaves a bunch of words out of the text of the thing.
"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."
Basic principles of legal interpretation require that you not omit parts of a provision when you're trying to rely on it.
This is a hard conversation that no one wants to have because everyone's nicely sequestered in their ideological bunkers, but the good points that are available to be made in support of gun ownership are buried under the laughably stupid rhetoric you're attempting to propogate in meme form. I read those and immediately think, "if this stuff reflects the substance of what you think about this issue, you're not capable of thinking about it seriously, and aren't worth listening to until you've developed the capacity to do so".
So in other words you have completely ignored everything else that has been presented because of some memes? You know what the purpose of a meme is and so do the rest of us so why are you wasting your time explaining that they are laughably stupid? You've basically said nothing and have made no contribution to the discussion because you don't like some memes. Well that's kind of the point. Maybe you should try reading instead of listening...
J.D.Seriously, those memes are absolutely idiotic and in every case misleading. Deliberately so. Not sure what is misleading about a quote from Reagan...
"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." Ya no shit, it's a meme...
Basic principles of legal interpretation require that you not omit parts of a provision. You sound so pretentious
This is a hard conversation that no one wants to have because everyone's nicely sequestered in their ideological bunkers, but the good points that are available to be made in support of gun ownership are buried under the laughably stupid rhetoric you're attempting to propogate in meme form.
The best part about this is the the memes I posted support both sides of the argument.
Q.McBrewI get a kick out of people comparing our gun laws with those of Europe. The laws don't mean shit, it's all about where you are. The U.S. has a violent history! I hate to say it, but it's part of our culture. No nation in Europe has a history like ours. U.S. history is more akin to central and south American countries and thus we share the same burden of violence.
The U.S. is one of the few countries I know that is 1st, 2nd, and 3rd world all in one.
SFBthis was probably to most poorly written piece of incoherent trash ive ever read.
Guess you've never reread any of your posts, then.
MALEPRIVILEGEreduce number of guns, increase number of crimes
Not a good conclusion. It's painfully obvious that you can't draw a correlation between these two variables.
MALEPRIVILEGE
I think this one is going against your point...
I'm pretty ambivalent on gun control. I understand why gun owners or enthusiasts are defensive against the gun control nuts that scream and shout about taking guns. My problem is with the fact that there is a law on the books that says something along the lines that the government cannot fund any study that looks into the effects of gun control. That stifles any conversation that could be had on the subject. I'm sure there's something that can be done (because the answer a la Jeb!: "things happen" is not good enough), but with research forbidden, how can we ever know what's really going on?
Witness Sally Abdelmageed, who works at the Inland Regional Center and witnessed the shooting in San Bernardino, was interviewed live via telephone by CBS Evening News the day the massacre happened.
"The news anchor begins 'She saw the attackers enter the building, and we spoke to her by phone.'
'We saw three men dressed in military attire,' she says. 'I couldn't see his face, he had a black hat on... black cargo pants on, the kind with zippers on the side... He had a huge assault rifle a lot of ammo...
She continues, 'They opened up the door to building then he starts to, you know, shoot all over into the room – that's the room we have conferences in...
'I called 911 and I just hid under my desk..
'As I was talking to the dispatch, we went into my manager's office and locked the doors..'
'Mrs. Abdelmageed, can you describe to me in as much details as you can what did the gunman look like?' the CBS anchor asks.
'I couldn't see his face, he had a black hat on. All I could see was a black hat, black long-sleeved shirt... He had extra ammo. He was probably ready for something, to reload – I don't know know...
'I just saw three, dressed exactly the same. They looked like they were athletic build, and um, they appeared to be tall...'
'You're certain that you saw three men?' the news anchor asks.
'Yeah,' she replies, as she continues to describe the THREE WHITE MEN, their muscular build, etc.
After she leaves the line, the anchor insists 'and of course we've just learned that one of the suspects was actually a woman.'"
MALEPRIVILEGEWitness Sally Abdelmageed, who works at the Inland Regional Center and witnessed the shooting in San Bernardino, was interviewed live via telephone by CBS Evening News the day the massacre happened.
"The news anchor begins 'She saw the attackers enter the building, and we spoke to her by phone.'
'We saw three men dressed in military attire,' she says. 'I couldn't see his face, he had a black hat on... black cargo pants on, the kind with zippers on the side... He had a huge assault rifle a lot of ammo...
She continues, 'They opened up the door to building then he starts to, you know, shoot all over into the room – that's the room we have conferences in...
'I called 911 and I just hid under my desk..
'As I was talking to the dispatch, we went into my manager's office and locked the doors..'
'Mrs. Abdelmageed, can you describe to me in as much details as you can what did the gunman look like?' the CBS anchor asks.
'I couldn't see his face, he had a black hat on. All I could see was a black hat, black long-sleeved shirt... He had extra ammo. He was probably ready for something, to reload – I don't know know...
'I just saw three, dressed exactly the same. They looked like they were athletic build, and um, they appeared to be tall...'
'You're certain that you saw three men?' the news anchor asks.
'Yeah,' she replies, as she continues to describe the THREE WHITE MEN, their muscular build, etc.
After she leaves the line, the anchor insists 'and of course we've just learned that one of the suspects was actually a woman.'"
A few other eyewitness said they also saw three tall, muscular Caucasian men shooting.
The news even reported that the third shooter was detained and the next day we here nothing about it.
Q.McBrewbro seriously like the most ignorant response.
A challenge for everyone here. Name one period in U.S. history that wasn't punctuated by violence.
“American life has always been characterized by violent conflict, involving virtually every sector and group at some time.” Joseph Himes jr
You made a claim that no European country has a violent history like ours. Have you ever opened a history book? There are countries in Europe that have been riddled with violence for literally hundreds of years. What the fuck lol
Wis_Skier_23so how are people supposed to buy and sell used firearms? How are you proposing to reduce the number of firearms in circulation other than through gun confiscations.
The problem lies in the fact that we have a violent culture here in America. People need to be held accountable for their actions as opposed to grabbing for all the guns. Unless guns start killing people themselves it's the people you need to focus on not the gun. I don't see why that's such a hard concept for you to grasp
Then by your logic the reason for divorce is marriage. Such a simple and easy to understand concept.
Iets break this down I'm a crazy person and I shoot you but it's my fault so let's take me away. You're left with a gun and you don't get shot, great. Now let's look at this realistically you can't take people away. So situation two I'm a crazy person and I shoot you. Now lets take away the gun prior to this incident, because I didn't pass a background check. I can no longer shoot you much more realistic and feasible. I don't see why that's such a hard concept for you to grasp.
You're arguing with me that mentally unstable people should have the right to own a gun. That's what you're arguing.
BombogenesisYou made a claim that no European country has a violent history like ours. Have you ever opened a history book? There are countries in Europe that have been riddled with violence for literally hundreds of years. What the fuck lol
Put your money where your mouth is.
Name one point U.S. history when there wasn't violence or civil unrest.
Name one European country with a comparable history.
Conservatives have also done a great job of demonizing gun control. They pretty much scared all the gun owners into thinking "oh shit they're gonna take my guns"
THEDIRTYBUBBLEAmericans have an unhealthy fetish with firearms. And conservatives love to skim over that "well regulated" part of the second amendment.
Who are you to say it is unhealthy? What credentials do you hold?
A well regulated militia doesnt mean well regulated guns. Do you not know what a militia was considered at the time? Are you not aware that "well regulated" at the time meant in working order.
If you want to hold an opinion, make sure it's an educated one. Not just some rhetoric you stole from someone else.
Americans have guns, if you don't like it, get a visa and leave. It's fairly easy these days.
"We begin this analysis by examining how the term "regulate" was used elsewhere in the Constitution. In every other instance where the term "regulate" is used, or regulations are referred to, the Constitution specifies who is to do the regulating and what is being "regulated." However, in the Second Amendment, the Framers chose only to use the term "well regulated" to describe a militia and chose not to define who or what would regulate it.
It is also important to note that the Framers' chose to use the indefinite article "a" to refer to the militia, rather than the definite article "the." This choice suggests that the Framers were not referring to any particular well regulated militia but, instead, only to the concept that well regulated militias, made up of citizens bearing arms, were necessary to secure a free State. Thus, the Framers chose not to explicitly define who, or what, would regulate the militias, nor what such regulation would consist of, nor how the regulation was to be accomplished.
This comparison of the Framers' use of the term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment, and the words "regulate" and "regulation" elsewhere in the Constitution, clarifies the meaning of that term in reference to its object, namely, the Militia. There is no doubt the Framers understood that the term "militia" had multiple meanings. First, the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, "the people," had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, "well regulate" themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.
This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb "regulate" the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day). The concept that the people retained the right to self-regulate their local militia groups (or regulate themselves as individual militia members) is entirely consistent with the Framers' use of the indefinite article "a" in the phrase "A well regulated Militia."
This concept of the people's self-regulation, that is, non-governmental regulation, is also in keeping with the limited grant of power to Congress "for calling forth" the militia for only certain, limited purposes, to "provide for" the militia only certain limited control and equipment, and the limited grant of power to the President regarding the militia, who only serves as Commander in Chief of that portion of the militia called into the actual service of the nation. The "well regula[tion]" of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, "well regula[tion]" referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words "well regulated" referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government's standing army."
MALEPRIVILEGEWho are you to say it is unhealthy? What credentials do you hold?
A well regulated militia doesnt mean well regulated guns. Do you not know what a militia was considered at the time? Are you not aware that "well regulated" at the time meant in working order.
If you want to hold an opinion, make sure it's an educated one. Not just some rhetoric you stole from someone else.
Americans have guns, if you don't like it, get a visa and leave. It's fairly easy these days.
"We begin this analysis by examining how the term "regulate" was used elsewhere in the Constitution. In every other instance where the term "regulate" is used, or regulations are referred to, the Constitution specifies who is to do the regulating and what is being "regulated." However, in the Second Amendment, the Framers chose only to use the term "well regulated" to describe a militia and chose not to define who or what would regulate it.
It is also important to note that the Framers' chose to use the indefinite article "a" to refer to the militia, rather than the definite article "the." This choice suggests that the Framers were not referring to any particular well regulated militia but, instead, only to the concept that well regulated militias, made up of citizens bearing arms, were necessary to secure a free State. Thus, the Framers chose not to explicitly define who, or what, would regulate the militias, nor what such regulation would consist of, nor how the regulation was to be accomplished.
This comparison of the Framers' use of the term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment, and the words "regulate" and "regulation" elsewhere in the Constitution, clarifies the meaning of that term in reference to its object, namely, the Militia. There is no doubt the Framers understood that the term "militia" had multiple meanings. First, the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, "the people," had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, "well regulate" themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.
This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb "regulate" the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day). The concept that the people retained the right to self-regulate their local militia groups (or regulate themselves as individual militia members) is entirely consistent with the Framers' use of the indefinite article "a" in the phrase "A well regulated Militia."
This concept of the people's self-regulation, that is, non-governmental regulation, is also in keeping with the limited grant of power to Congress "for calling forth" the militia for only certain, limited purposes, to "provide for" the militia only certain limited control and equipment, and the limited grant of power to the President regarding the militia, who only serves as Commander in Chief of that portion of the militia called into the actual service of the nation. The "well regula[tion]" of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, "well regula[tion]" referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words "well regulated" referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government's standing army."
nocturnalThen by your logic the reason for divorce is marriage. Such a simple and easy to understand concept.
Iets break this down I'm a crazy person and I shoot you but it's my fault so let's take me away. You're left with a gun and you don't get shot, great. Now let's look at this realistically you can't take people away. So situation two I'm a crazy person and I shoot you. Now lets take away the gun prior to this incident, because I didn't pass a background check. I can no longer shoot you much more realistic and feasible. I don't see why that's such a hard concept for you to grasp.
You're arguing with me that mentally unstable people should have the right to own a gun. That's what you're arguing.
Your marriage comparison doesn't make sense. If you want to relate it to marriage I will lay it out for you. If a husband is a raging alcoholic and is abusive and gets divorced, I would attribute the divorce to the husbands actions not the fact that they got married. Blaming marriage for divorce is the same as blaming guns for killing people, its the actions and intent of the perpetrator which are the problem.
The problem I have with this background check you are proposing is it is too grey and vague to be applied to 300+ million people. I have yet to hear how that is a feasible solution. Couple that with the fact that this regulation would have done nothing to stop the San Bernadino shooters. They bought their rifles from someone else so what is to stop others from doing the same thing when a gun or guns have been purchased already legally by another person.
MALEPRIVILEGESince the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words "well regulated" referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government's standing army."
Thus being the purpose of the 2nd amendment. And as such, do you think it really is applicable and necessary in today's modern society as it is written in the Constitution?
I ask that question because the Constitution is an imperfect document, created by imperfect men during the 18th century. The same men who penned the 2nd amendment also thought it legally permissible to own another human being and later to think that said human being was only worth 3/5 of a white man. Therefore the Constitution is not the ultimate authority on what is right and what ought to be made legal. It grants us certain rights and those rights can and do change over the course of time. To think that any amendment within the Constitution is free from criticism or unable to challenged given certain circumstances of our modern time is ultimately ridiculous (I'm not saying this is your position, I'm just saying it).
The Constitution should reflect sane policy for every generation and we are right to question if 200+ year old sections pertaining to muskets and militias are relevant in today's society, just as we questioned if it was right to Constitutionally own a human being. Just because something is in the Constitution, it does not immediately and necessarily mean that it is the right thing to have happen or do.
