Mass shooting at Pulse Nightclub in Orlando Florida: Political Discussion [SPLIT]

[Kulindahr]

Article II (The Executive branch), Sec. 2, Clause 1

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

POTUS should call them to fight ISIL. Operation Human Shield.

Given current federal law that would mean instituting a draft into the National Guard and then sending the Guard to fight. Given federal court rulings, that would mean a random draft, since we are all members of the militia.

OTOH, state governors can call up the militia in their states. I keep thinking Texas' governor should call up militia to secure the border, starting with those currently armed, starting with those who practice regularly.
That, BTW, is one of the aspects of the militia concept that Wayne La Pierre is unwilling to face: the responsibility that is the flip side of the right.

 

[Kulindahr]

The founders did not yet realize that they needed to defend against liberals as well as wild animals and attacking Native Americans. They regarded the need to hunt game and defend their families was too obvious to need spelling out. The recitation about militia is introductory. The operative portion of the Amendment is unambiguous; the right to keep bear arms shall not be infringed.

They also considered the right of armed self-defense as too obvious to spell out. Since that was forgotten, Heller served to incorporate it into the basic understanding of the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[KaraBulut]

The Founding Fathers understood, and millions of Americans agree, that the best way to protect lives is that potential victims be allowed to be armed.

There's now over 300 millions guns in the United States for about 330 million people. Close to 100 people die from gunshots every day- someone dies from a gunshot wound every 16 minutes in the US.

So, how many more guns will be needed before the protection begins? Another million? Another 100 million?

 

[Kulindahr]

Well then, I guess that every person should be able to get a machine gun too.

You ammosexuals are always sounding the same nonsensical note.

No one talks about taking away guns...only restricting what civilians should need to own.

Or making them go through background checks.

Under the meaning of the language the Framers use,d yes, citizens should be able to own the latest in military technology.

The problem, is not that the technology has changed, it is that Americans have become more reliant on government and less responsible about taking care of themselves. If we can no longer allow citizens to own the latest military presonal arms, it is not because of a failure in the Amendment, but because of a failure in Americans.


BTW, use of the term "ammosexual" reveals the immaturity of the user, not anything about the people allegedly described.

 

[Kulindahr]

Article I (Legislative), Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To ...provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress....

That's precisely where we should be looking. It doesn't allow for depriving law-abiding citizens of their choice of arms, but it does allow for requiring responsible use and training. It's exactly why we need a new Militia Act, which could among other things require secure storage of all arms not in use.

 

[Kulindahr]

Do your homework. You might want to start with Google. I did it a long time ago and discovered that the founders didn't need to defend against anyone. They were protecting their own asses. There were many rewrites. The Amendment is sufficiently vague that it can be interpreted in many different ways. That's why the 'militia' bit is completely ignored these days. It wasn't an introduction. It was a prerequisite.

But it's easy to forget that, and it's why no government is willing to clarify it. They know it would be political suicide to even think about it.

From the history of the ratification, the "'militia bit'" is precisely an introduction.

It's also evident that they were concerned about defending citizens' rights against the central government as well as about the possibility of renewed war against Britain, which wasn't really trusted to honor the treaty (especially since there were many Americans not interested in living up to the States' obligations under that treaty).

 

[Kulindahr]

The second amendment was written at the same time as the early development of what would eventually become parts of America's police force. This was well before the creation of city police.

Prior to the second amendment, the word 'police' wasn't used in the USA, instead marshall, sheriff and militia described civilians employed by the state.

No, "militia" was always grounded in the people, not in the state. The state could employ the militia, but the militia was always a creature of the people. That's evidenced not only in the history of the concept in Britain, but in the fact that many of the early militias in the colonies had no connection to government whatsoever, and when they did it was to local government.

The militia concept entails the right of insurrection against tyranny; it is part of a system of checks and balances meant to restrain government excesses.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: NRA is responsible for the Orlando killings

and other countless killings.
When is the NRA going to get sued by class action and make it bankrupted ??

When there's so little respect for rights that the courts become a tool for persecuting people.

 

[Kabluey]

That's precisely where we should be looking. It doesn't allow for depriving law-abiding citizens of their choice of arms, but it does allow for requiring responsible use and training. It's exactly why we need a new Militia Act, which could among other things require secure storage of all arms not in use.

Arguably the best trained citizens would be those who have served.
Why is it that on average, military veterans are more likely to engage in gun related crimes than other citizens?
mobile.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/us/13vets.html

Shouldn't their training prevent misuse by your reckoning?

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: NRA is responsible for the Orlando killings

I believe the NRA, as well as Firearm manufacturers, are exempt from lawsuits.

Only the same way all manufacturers are exempt: from misuse of their products. They are just as liable for flaws as anyone else.

 

[Kabluey]

No, "militia" was always grounded in the people, not in the state. The state could employ the militia, but the militia was always a creature of the people. That's evidenced not only in the history of the concept in Britain, but in the fact that many of the early militias in the colonies had no connection to government whatsoever, and when they did it was to local government.

The militia concept entails the right of insurrection against tyranny; it is part of a system of checks and balances meant to restrain government excesses.

The militia system existed in English colonies and England prior to police forces.

That is to say the concept is archaic, like night carts are.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: NRA is responsible for the Orlando killings

Not the NRA which is the lobbying arm of US gun manufacturers.

But you are correct, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act provides industry exemption to US gun manufacturers for any crimes committed with the products they manufacture, market and sell.

That law merely gives them the same status as all other manufacturers of products, since the courts were being used to persecute companies for things they hadn't done.

For a comparison, the sort of lawsuits it blocks would be parallel to suing gay bars for the medical costs of AIDS victims, or the manufacturers of fertilizer for damages resulting from people using it to make bombs.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: NRA is responsible for the Orlando killings

Well,
I've heard they are "very powerful" and bad, therefore why not bankrupt them out of business ?
And NRA is longer exist.

So you would approve of religious groups bankrupting gay organizations by using lawsuits? Because that's exactly what you're proposing: that people who don't like something be allowed to sue organizations which support what they don't like out of existence.

Maybe the KKK should be allowed to sue black colleges out of existence....

 

[Kabluey]

So you would approve of religious groups bankrupting gay organizations by using lawsuits? Because that's exactly what you're proposing: that people who don't like something be allowed to sue organizations which support what they don't like out of existence.

Maybe the KKK should be allowed to sue black colleges out of existence....

It wouldn't matter if the NRA was sued out of existence, that would be fruitless.
The NRA, like other lobbyists will be funded on a needs-must basis by its sponsors with limited retained funds and no liabilities placed on gun manufacturers.

It could be sued for all it's worth and shut down. That wouldn't stop gun manufacturers from sponsoring a new gun lobbyist in its place.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: NRA is responsible for the Orlando killings

Ten things you probably didn't know about the NRA:

While African Americans were being terrorized by the Ku Klux Klan, where the Klan were sometimes aided by local law enforcement, the NRA setup charters to help train local African American communities to be able protect themselves. The most prominent case being in 1960 in Monroe, N.C. where the local National Association for the Advancement of Colored People head Robert Williams also chartered an NRA Rifle Club that successully defended an assault on one of their leader's homes by the KKK without casualties.

See the rest: https://mic.com/articles/23929/10-surprising-facts-about-the-nra-that-you-never-hear#.oXWmSnJFt

Yes. The NRA was instrumental in making the Deacons for Defense, without which Martin Luther King would have failed, a reality. The NRA has supported more than a few First Amendment lawsuits over the years as well.

Really, it's only been since the PR company Wayne La Pierre is a tool of was hired that the NRA has become such a right-wing and racist organization.

 

[Kulindahr]

You and the activist, right wing majority on the Supreme Court ignore one of the oldest rules of statutory interpretation. The rule, known in Latin as Noscitur a Sociis, a thing is known by its associates, holds that an ambiguous word or passage in a law or contract takes its meaning from the other words and provisions accompanying it.

You do not quote the second amendment accurately here because you leave out the comma between "arms" and "shall." There are four separate clause in the second amendment, which does make it ambiguous. Thus, the final clause, "shall not be infringed," takes its meaning from the preceding three clauses. The full text is:



We all know that the right-wing majority on the Supreme Court is result driven, and they do not care about the actual text unless it supports the result they want.

There's nothing ambiguous about the main clause in the Second: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Separating a single clause with a comma was common then, though not now. There are actually only two clauses in the Amendment, not four.

One need only diagram the sentence to see that.

 

[Kulindahr]

This New Yorker article helped me better appreciate the right to bear arms argument. An educational read, and brief:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment

I quote:

Except the courts found no such thing; in fact the Second was listed as an individual right along with the rest quite regularly. The militia clause was only taken to trump the people clause when southern states wanted to keep free blacks in oppression by refusing to allow them to be armed.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Florida Gay Club PULSE has been attacked with injuries, and possible hostage situation.

The CIA disagrees with you.:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ooter-omar-mateen-isis-pulse-nightclub-attack

I quote:

That doesn't even address what she said.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Florida Gay Club PULSE has been attacked with injuries, and possible hostage situation.

So I can say that the Muslim guy who's been my friend for 25 years who is utterly accepting of my gayness and always has been, his absolute welcome is Islamic?

Let's not massively oversimplify for the sake of pointless vilification. Even if - which is not the case, that all Muslims were terrorists, no one gets anywhere by reductivist recrimination.

Nor does this address what she said.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Florida Gay Club PULSE has been attacked with injuries, and possible hostage situation.

Yeah, there's a bunch of Christians who teach inclusion and acceptance, and there are Jews who do also, and I would say that there are Muslims who are no less Muslim because you insist they are homophobes when they are not, and nor is their religion. You don't get to decide what is Islam and what is Christianity for all of them.

In the end you need to ask yourself what you want. Do you want Muslim homophobes to stop being homophobes? Do you simply want to vilify? What is the point of your statements?

I usually don't say this in here because no one in here is usually trying to change things, but if you want less Muslim homophobes, your strategy in talking about them is wanting.

Yes, Islam is culturally homophobic; it's hard to make the case it is religiously so -- at least if you stick to the actual text rather than encrustations.