Another shooting, another 10 youth killed, and where is the Republican reaction?

[Kulindahr]

I remember that line of reasoning from one or more threads in the past. I can’t recall how the theory was developed and put forth as a matter of fact. Please remind me.

It really boils down to the concept of having a right to the weapons you can use: the individual right thus applies to, as was a frequent phrase, the common arms of the ordinary soldier -- in other words, the arms an individual soldier kept on his person. But just as groups of soldiers "kept" weapons they served together, so there is a corporate-sort of right to crew-served weapons.

By the time of colonial New England, the corporate right had come to rest on local governments, or in larger towns on distinct local militia groups (effectively in the name of the local government) (this, BTW, is how there came to be so many cannon on so many courthouse lawns; the cannon belonged to the towns and were frequently displayed as a symbol of the town's readiness/resources). It was extended also, as I noted, to weapons appropriate for the defense of property substantial enough to require employee's capable of defending said property (a right that also came with responsibility; merchant ships so armed could be called upon for defense of the port where they were registered [and theoretically at least of a port where they might be at harbor in a time of trouble, though I don't know of any instance when that occurred], though not for offensive actions without "letters of marque and reprisal" which authorized the vessel to profit from its offensive activity).

Bullets are actually relatively small missiles.

I imagine that so-called “smart bullets” are not regarded as crew-served weapons. At any rate (and perhaps looking forward technologically), it makes me wonder if measuring what specific type firearm devices citizens have the right to carry should be determined according to what members of the military carry.

A distinction I'm still looking into may apply here: the difference between "keep" and "bear". It seems that "keep" referred to civilian use, rather than to storage; it can be rendered "own and use". "Bear", however, referred more to actual military activity, whether as a soldier or militia member. If a constable got together a group of armed citizens to pursue brigands, it could be referred to as "bearing" arms; if to deal with a more substantial threat to a community, it was almost always "bear" arms; if as official militia activity, it was always "bear" arms.

To "keep", then, seems to have been to some degree skewed toward what was useful in civilian functions, but that can't be a hard and fast rule because a quality weapon for defense of one's home back then was also a quality weapon for military purposes (as far as I know, no one attempted to draw any line until the Miller case, where SCOTUS defined the Second Amendment as covering militarily useful weapons and denied its protection to anything else).

Were I a bit more awake I could venture an argument that citizens ought not "keep" arms that would be a danger to the public if used for civilian purposes (e.g. carbines with rounds that can puncture walls and kill beyond the scene visible to the shooter [though that is dependent on circumstances unrelated to the firearm as well; for example, in the near future it is almost certain to be possible to make all housing bullet-proof against all common individual firearms]), but that same argument would have to extend to the police as well (and some judges have so extended it, holding police departments liable when SWAT rounds penetrated the walls of houses [sometimes more than one wall!] and done harm to innocents). Weapons more powerful than that, especially under the Miller interpretation would be allowed to civilians as members of the militia but not for everyday use, and thus would have to be stored at an "arsenal" (recall that the Revolutionary War began when British Regulars marched to seize such arsenals). We might today regard gun clubs and/or shooting ranges as such arsenals, though again it's not clear where such things would fit into the militia concept in the first place (unless of course they were required to be owned and operated by a recognized militia unit).

Given that a rail gun can now be made via 3-D printing, and given that the Constitution's authorization of government oversight in the area of weaponry is put in the terminology and concept of militia(s), that situation needs addressing. It wouldn't hurt at all to have a commission of some sort determine the limits of what are the "common arms of the individual soldier" in this day and age, and set out a system whereby weapons going beyond that would have to be kept at a secure storage facility of a recognized militia organization.


Just BTW, that a militia was government-recognized did not make it subservient to even the state government, let alone the federal; the militia was at heart a local creature, aimed at upholding the rights ad privileges of the local people. The farther away the government level, the less call it had on the militia (we still recognize that in that state governors can refuse the call-up of up to [IIRC] half of their National Guard units if there is a state of emergency in their state, and can even order the recall of enough to make half if an emergency occurs... though I would expect the Pentagon to scream like a stuck pig if that latter authority ever got exercised!).

 

[Kulindahr]

Bullets are actually relatively small missiles.

I imagine that so-called “smart bullets” are not regarded as crew-served weapons. At any rate (and perhaps looking forward technologically), it makes me wonder if measuring what specific type firearm devices citizens have the right to carry should be determined according to what members of the military carry.

On the "smart bullets", those are fascinating. There are different kinds; for some the shooter has to be able to see the target and aim well, but then once he pulls the trigger and doesn't have to worry about it because the moment he was sighted in the hit is guaranteed (sort of like fighter plane missiles). Then there's a kind which senses motion, so a shooter can fire in the general direction of a moving target and the bullet will "chase" that target and hit. Another kind goes for human body heat; those can be fired around a corner at a target that isn't even visible to the shooter!

There's talk about a version that would be crew-served in a sense; it would rely on sensing equipment to locate a human (or other) target behind a wall and decide how to hit that wall and continue on to strike the target. For example, a terrorist could be hiding in a building, but sensor equipment can determine his location through sound, heat, etc.; the operator would aim at the computer-determined location and fire; the bullet would follow the path chosen by the computer, which might be through a window, down a hall, up a stairway and through a closet wall to strike from behind... scary, really. Given such weapons, all our liberties would be a matter of the attitude of those in authority toward we the people -- not an encouraging prospect, given the disdain politicians on both sides have for ordinary voters.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

The same argument could be made to say kids shouldn't play football and no one should drive cars: because some people aren't safe with them doesn't mean we take them away from everyone.

A major point of America was "that every man be armed". The Founding Fathers agreed on that, Federalist and anti-Federalist both. So they put a provision in the Constitution to manage the situation. That liberals ignore that and want to add more and more laws that have no effect tells me that all the talk of loving the Constitution is just hot air -- liberals love the Constitution no more than does Dick Cheney.


BTW, your last line is despicable in its falsehood: guns kept me from being assaulted with deadly intent, kept a gal I know from being rape, and kept a group of kids from being molested -- and those are just the situations in my own life. To say that "a gun adds nothing" is to prefer that I have been assaulted, the gal have been raped, and the kids molested.

What I find funny here is that you are replying to a post about a story that contradicts an earlier argument you were making in this thread. That armed citizens have better accuracy.

Then comes the irony in the fact that you mentioned multiple times in this thread that the reaction from "liberals" is emotional. Yet your last paragraph here shows that you have also emotionally reacted the arguments that you don't agree with.

Also your need to twist what people are saying and constantly need to make sleight remarks is getting tired. Suggesting that because someone disagrees with you is suggesting that you should be assaulted, a woman should be raped and the kids be molested is ridiculous and serves no purpose in the discussion. And that act right there is despicable, that you have turned these traumatic situations into an argument piece.

 

[TX-Beau]

The same argument could be made to say kids shouldn't play football and no one should drive cars: because some people aren't safe with them doesn't mean we take them away from everyone.

A major point of America was "that every man be armed". The Founding Fathers agreed on that, Federalist and anti-Federalist both. So they put a provision in the Constitution to manage the situation. That liberals ignore that and want to add more and more laws that have no effect tells me that all the talk of loving the Constitution is just hot air -- liberals love the Constitution no more than does Dick Cheney.


BTW, your last line is despicable in its falsehood: guns kept me from being assaulted with deadly intent, kept a gal I know from being rape, and kept a group of kids from being molested -- and those are just the situations in my own life. To say that "a gun adds nothing" is to prefer that I have been assaulted, the gal have been raped, and the kids molested.

It's already constitutional to REGULATE firearms. PERIOD. End of silly smokescreen.

It's ALREADY CONSTITUTIONAL to REGULATE!

 

[Kabluey]

And yet liberals keep proposing things that will have no effect.

BTW, just as a comment on how impossible disarming criminals will be, it's now possible to use a 3D printer to make a personal rail gun -- no ammunition purchases necessary with it, since it can shoot finishing nails (among other things). It's darned close to silent, too.

Their proposals already work in the rest of the developed world, of which the USA is only one third.

When guns are made illegal, possession is the crime and confiscation ensures gun availability is low.
Heck, most of the rest of the developed world was smothered in guns following world war two.

 

[Kulindahr]

What I find funny here is that you are replying to a post about a story that contradicts an earlier argument you were making in this thread. That armed citizens have better accuracy.

The post to which I responded didn't address the fact that police shoot innocent people between five and eleven times as often as regular armed citizens.

Do you deliberately twist things or is it a reading comprehension issue?

Then comes the irony in the fact that you mentioned multiple times in this thread that the reaction from "liberals" is emotional. Yet your last paragraph here shows that you have also emotionally reacted the arguments that you don't agree with.

Also your need to twist what people are saying and constantly need to make sleight remarks is getting tired. Suggesting that because someone disagrees with you is suggesting that you should be assaulted, a woman should be raped and the kids be molested is ridiculous and serves no purpose in the discussion. And that act right there is despicable, that you have turned these traumatic situations into an argument piece.

There's nothing emotional in my last paragraph. It's just facts: the people arguing for disarmament are in fact stating that people in the sort of situations I and those others I know were in should be assaulted, raped, or molested, because they are saying that people in those situations should not be able to have the very thing that kept us safe -- a gun.

By the most pessimistic figures, guns protect people far more often than they kill people -- restrict "people" to law-abiding citizens, and it's even more so, since a large number of killings (of ANY shootings) in the US is criminals shooting criminals. So the argument to disarm people is an argument in favor of being being unable to protect themselves.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

The post to which I responded didn't address the fact that police shoot innocent people between five and eleven times as often as regular armed citizens.

Do you deliberately twist things or is it a reading comprehension issue?

No I am capable of reading and understanding the meaning of words. The only one with that problem here is you. Since you have consistently put words into people's mouths this whole thread in order to try and bring down other people's arguments.

There's nothing emotional in my last paragraph. It's just facts: the people arguing for disarmament are in fact stating that people in the sort of situations I and those others I know were in should be assaulted, raped, or molested, because they are saying that people in those situations should not be able to have the very thing that kept us safe -- a gun.

By the most pessimistic figures, guns protect people far more often than they kill people -- restrict "people" to law-abiding citizens, and it's even more so, since a large number of killings (of ANY shootings) in the US is criminals shooting criminals. So the argument to disarm people is an argument in favor of being being unable to protect themselves.

All of this is a lie.

 

[frankfrank]

True talking point: "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

But, also true: The Second Amendment mentions a "well regulated" militia...some people want no regulation at all, no more regulation than going somewhere to buy ice cream.

It's not unconstitutional to restrict heavy ordnance from the public, regardless of the definition of militia. That does not restrict The People from arming themselves with rifles or handguns, either, which satisfies the Second Amendment. "Well regulated" includes (by my interpretation) laws which restrict firearms from people who are incapable of responsibility, such as grade-school children or a diagnosis of mental instability or issues which would make if dangerous to public safety to allow a person to be armed.

After all, alcoholic beverages are barred from minors, and people who cannot have a driver's license if they don't pass the test which confirms their ability and responsibility. Nobody says these regulations are onerous or unreasonable.

Barring felons who have committed gun crimes from having firearms is not unreasonable, as they have proven that they have a strong propensity for misusing a lethal weapon against others. This type of practice is used on drivers who have accumulated DUI offenses, as well as restricting where sex offenders can live (such as not within one-half mile of a school, etc. - something which I also consider to be unconstitutional, for that matter). Guns misused deliberately can be lethal very quickly.

 

[thewiz]

The post to which I responded didn't address the fact that police shoot innocent people between five and eleven times as often as regular armed citizens.

Police are called upon to intervene in numerous situations, often being provided insufficient or outright manufactured information. Even with more than 1.1 million people (almost 800,000 in sworn positions), about 500 people are killed by police each year. Of that 500, some are "suicide by police" in which the person wishes to die but can't on their own so they create the condition to be shot, some are criminals and have committed a crime that qualifies for use of deadly force, and some are truly innocent. However, let's look at the number of people killed by guns -- something you seem to ignore -- and we find about 33,000 killed each year.

I feel much safer with guns in the hands of police than in the hands of civilians (http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...mericans-killed-guns-1968-all-wars-says-colu/)

The article points out that more have been killed by guns in the US since 1968 than have been killed in every war fought by the United States since its founding. So much for the well-regulated militia.

 

[Kulindahr]

True talking point: "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

But, also true: The Second Amendment mentions a "well regulated" militia...some people want no regulation at all, no more regulation than going somewhere to buy ice cream.

"Well-regulated" in the Second Amendment has nothing to do with "regulation" in today's meaning. It means "made very regular", or in other words "trained like the Regulars". The British Regulars weren't called that because of lots of regulation, they were called that because of lots of training, quality training so they were dependable. "Regulate" then meant "make regular", in the same meaning doctors use the term today: "well-regulated" bowels wouldn't be bowels that have lots of regulations, but bowels that are healthy and consistent.

So to get a well-regulated militia, you don't pass regulations making it hard to get guns -- that's contrary to the main clause, that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" -- or limit the kinds of guns people can have (according to Miller, after all, the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to have weapons of military use); rather, you employ the Article I Section 8 authority to provide for the discipline of the militia, which is to say training. It could also extend to safe and secure storage requirements for all arms not in use (remember just how many firearms get into the hands of criminals and mass shooters because other people didn't store them safely and securely when they weren't using them!).

It's not unconstitutional to restrict heavy ordnance from the public, regardless of the definition of militia. That does not restrict The People from arming themselves with rifles or handguns, either, which satisfies the Second Amendment. "Well regulated" includes (by my interpretation) laws which restrict firearms from people who are incapable of responsibility, such as grade-school children or a diagnosis of mental instability or issues which would make if dangerous to public safety to allow a person to be armed.

After all, alcoholic beverages are barred from minors, and people who cannot have a driver's license if they don't pass the test which confirms their ability and responsibility. Nobody says these regulations are onerous or unreasonable.

Barring felons who have committed gun crimes from having firearms is not unreasonable, as they have proven that they have a strong propensity for misusing a lethal weapon against others. This type of practice is used on drivers who have accumulated DUI offenses, as well as restricting where sex offenders can live (such as not within one-half mile of a school, etc. - something which I also consider to be unconstitutional, for that matter). Guns misused deliberately can be lethal very quickly.

Your suggestions of prohibited persons matches those of the Founders rather well, and for essentially the same reason: some were judged incompetent for arms, due to being incapable of being "well-regulated" and thus not suitable for enrollment in the militia. The difference is that for the Founders and Framers, the decision of who was incompetent was not one belonging to the central government, or to any laws or rules, but to the militia itself, i.e. the local people who knew the particular individuals, specifically the officers of the local militia. Restoration of keeping arms was made the same way, not by going to court but by petitioning the militia.

We have something of a blind spot these days in this respect, that we pretty much lump all public systems of authority into government; the Founders, however, had no problem with independent structures of authority, ones that could tell the national and even state government to go fish -- a great example is the original meaning of "trial by jury", where the jury was the highest authority, not the judge; the jury had the authority to decide the law was wrong in a particular case, or that applying it would be unjust (what's called "jury nullification" these days), thus serving as a check and balance against arbitrary governmental use of laws. The militia was one such structure, its authority not derived from government but directly from the people, and holding the power to refuse government orders that were determined to be unjust.

 

[Kulindahr]

Police are called upon to intervene in numerous situations, often being provided insufficient or outright manufactured information. Even with more than 1.1 million people (almost 800,000 in sworn positions), about 500 people are killed by police each year. Of that 500, some are "suicide by police" in which the person wishes to die but can't on their own so they create the condition to be shot, some are criminals and have committed a crime that qualifies for use of deadly force, and some are truly innocent. However, let's look at the number of people killed by guns -- something you seem to ignore -- and we find about 33,000 killed each year.

I feel much safer with guns in the hands of police than in the hands of civilians (http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...mericans-killed-guns-1968-all-wars-says-colu/)

The article points out that more have been killed by guns in the US since 1968 than have been killed in every war fought by the United States since its founding. So much for the well-regulated militia.

When seconds count, the police are minutes away. The police could not have helped me against assault, or my gal friend against rape, or the youth group under my care from the molester -- that took people in the spot, armed. To say that we should not have been armed is to say we should have been assaulted, raped, and molested -- and that those outcomes would be better for society than allowing the involved law-abiding citizens to be armed.

Taking guns away from regular citizens can't pass constitutional muster even without the Second Amendment: that approach penalizes on the order of a third of the population in order to deal with something less than 0.0001% of the population, and thus is not narrowly tailored by any measure, nor is it non-intrusive. But requiring gun training IS narrowly tailored, because it's tailored to the portion of the militia who have chosen to be armed; even if ALL citizens were required to get firearms safety and handling training, it would pas the test because all of us are the militia.

The Constitution is not on the side of disarmament at all -- but it is firmly on the side of training, and even of sifting out who is incompetent of using arms if that is done within the militia model (or narrowly tailored to exclude those who have proven themselves dangerous). Why liberals despise the Constitution on this point rather than taking up the authority it gives and running with it I don't know. I would love to see a gun-owning, firm supporter of the Second Amendment Democrat introduce a new Militia Act that would include a comprehensive mental health system (to determine who among the mentally ill is and is not fit to keep arms), require safe and secure storage of all firearms not in use, and require twice-yearly training of all those in the militia who are armed (with funding for that training); and include oversight of those doing the training in this way: that when some armed citizen pulls a stupid stunt like trying to shoot out the tires of a vehicle of fleeing criminals, whatever instructor signed off on the carry permit would be investigated to determine if it was a failure of training or just some boob who despite training didn't get it. [Can we get Jim Webb back?]

 

[Kabluey]

When seconds count, the police are minutes away. The police could not have helped me against assault, or my gal friend against rape, or the youth group under my care from the molester -- that took people in the spot, armed. To say that we should not have been armed is to say we should have been assaulted, raped, and molested --

Funnily enough, I can't recall a single situation I've been in during my lifetime where a gun would have solved the situation. Not one. No rapes, no assaults, no molesters, nothing.

I can't decide whether your tales are tall, or whether you're proving that places with armed citizens are incredibly dangerous compared to everywhere in the world I've traveled.