Texas Church Shooting

[Kulindahr]

^
I'm surprised Canada is so low as you can easily cross the border and avoid check points.
That shows strict gun laws are effective in preventing mass killings.

No, it doesn't -- it shows that Canada is relatively sparsely populated, and that they don't have a "us v. them" attitude toward everything.

 

[Kulindahr]

You and I might think the national guard is sufficient as a definition of a militia, but I doubt it's so for everyone.

Federal law doesn't think it's sufficient, and the original concept didn't, either. The idea that the national guard is exclusively the militia came from the South, because that way they could keep guns in the hands of whites only.

 

[Kulindahr]

Then some people should probably take a dictionary and a few encyclopedias out for a long browse, as the militias people 'wonder aloud' about already exist. No well regulated militia lets someone have a weapon wherever and whenever they want; it's asinine. "I want another militia which I assume will be so loosely jointed so's as to avoid all oversight whatsoever, particularly in the ownership, storage and use of weaponry" was never on the table. I don't generally change definitions just because someone else believes the concept doesn't currently exist on the ground.

Definition of militia

1 a :a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency The militia was called to quell the riot.
b :a body of citizens organized for military service

Ah, the employment of anachronism in support of one's argument. The question is not what some modern dictionary defines the term as, the question is what the Framers meant by it. "b" above approaches it, but "a" is contrary to it -- the militia was the people, exercising the power of the people, and the amendment in question is in a list of rights protected for the people over against the government.

If you look at the Framers, the militia was "the whole people", "all the people", "every man". And what weaponry the militia could have was defined by the act of attempted gun control that set off the American Revolution: rifles and their ammunition, artillery and its ammunition.

And the grammar of the amendment indicates that the people being armed was a minimal condition for having that well-regulated militia. Making it actually well-regulated, which meant disciplined and trained and effective, was left to Congress to provide and the states to carry out. If Congress would get off its ass and do so, a lot could be done.


BTW, from the Framer's concept, the people in the hills in Idaho and elsewhere calling themselves militias are fooling themselves: militias as specific bodies, i.e. organized militias, were community-based, not ad hoc private armies.

 

[Kulindahr]

Unfortunately, it appears that the Air Force dropped the ball on this one:

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen...as_church_shooter_s_domestic_violence_history

That answers a lot of questions that have been going around on Second Amendment sites; the guy shouldn't have been able to buy anything yet he made at least four purchases at stores, if the various articles are correct.

Unfortunately, government officials who fail to do their jobs are immune from any legal action on the part of the citizens they harm -- a notion left over from "the divine right of kings".

 

[Kulindahr]

^
BTW, this isn't the first time a government agency has dropped the ball on this; at least two other mass shooters in the last few years bought guns at stores despite having records that should have prevented it.

 

[rareboy]

^
I'm surprised Canada is so low as you can easily cross the border and avoid check points.
That shows strict gun laws are effective in preventing mass killings.

Yes, our gun laws....which are not really that strict....have kept things in check. But illegal guns, brought in from the US are a problem in cities, and there are still a lot of households where guns used for hunting are too easily accessed by angry guys like the Sunderland Springs shooter.

 

[rareboy]

 

[rareboy]

 

[gsdx]

It's not worth my effort to argue the excuses.

 

[Sausy]

When it's a nutcase white guy, it's said by the gun advocates that there's nothing we can do. No gun laws revisited. Price of a free society. Such bullshit.We're not talking about banning gun ownership or severe restrictions, just basic common sense. In the 1780's, the basic musket took awhile to reload. Now we have fast firing, long lasting firing capacity. Even the Founding Fathers would likely have revised opinions on this if they could see just how guns have changed, and how rabid the most zealous advocates of gun rights have become.

Funny though, when someone with Islamic ties does this, many of those on the right are so outraged they would ban or curtail the rights of those who are Islamic or appear foreign, like Sikhs, in their fury to "do something". Trump is totally without credibility or standing to say anything when his actions made it easier for those with mental illnesses to get guns. To those who say "guns don't kill, people do"...well people sure do like to use guns to kill people with.

And every time there is an incident like this, we have people saying that the shooting victims and there families who call for prayers for those killed or affected by massacres like this. ENOUGH with prayers...let's get proactive and try to mimimize, if not eliminate, these from happening again. I'm no atheist or agnostic(though sometimes I do feel frustration and doubt with the state of our world as screwed up as it is), but it's time conservatives take the old chestnut "God helps those who help themselves" seriously. I believe God , if there is one, would give us the capacity to grow and develop and try to understand our world. If we have free will, or at least the option to make the choices we want for our society, we damn well better start exercising it rather than just leave things up to God. Some people doubt we truly have free will, that every decision is clouded with preconceptions and judgements.... but surely we have some ability to show wisdom and the capacity to learn and grow and make the right choices for ourselves and our communities, don't we?

 

[luckynumbah7]

@Kulindahr,

At most the framers would've left ya with just a hunting rifle and called it a day. And they would've considered that overly generous because of its quick reloading and distance accuracy with the side affect of not exploding in your face. Never even mind the differences in ammunition. You cannot argue original intent when the weapons you're arguing for aren't close in description to the weapons of the framers.

 

[zoltanspawn]

Federal law doesn't think it's sufficient, and the original concept didn't, either. The idea that the national guard is exclusively the militia came from the South, because that way they could keep guns in the hands of whites only.

When was the last time we had a well-regulated militia?

 

[ballcaphair]

I believe that about 70% of us believe in stricter gun control, yet congress does nothing for fear of NRA retribution. It's time to march the whole lot out. We should make them step over and around the bodies of the fallen, including the children on the floors of the churches and the schools. There is blood on their hands and they do not deserve our support. ER is a horrible place for a child to end a study lesson or worship. Their hands are soaked in the blood of innocents.

 

[SeaCore]

Honestly, this probably isn't the shooting to cite for better gun control.
The gun control in place right now should have worked at preventing them from getting a gun. They were supposed to be in a registry for this.

 

[ballcaphair]

^ Surely we do. Let's check our weapons at the door. We can begin.

 

[Kulindahr]

@Kulindahr,

At most the framers would've left ya with just a hunting rifle and called it a day. And they would've considered that overly generous because of its quick reloading and distance accuracy with the side affect of not exploding in your face. Never even mind the differences in ammunition. You cannot argue original intent when the weapons you're arguing for aren't close in description to the weapons of the framers.

They plainly stated that their intent was for the citizens to have the common weapons of the individual soldier, so the original intent applied to today would be actual assault rifles and probably grenades.

The "hunting rifle" bit is a canard; General Washington complained that many of the militia showed up without proper arms, meaning they didn't have the current military firearm. So no, they wouldn't "have considered [a hunting rifle] overly generous".

 

[Kulindahr]

I believe that about 70% of us believe in stricter gun control, yet congress does nothing for fear of NRA retribution. It's time to march the whole lot out. We should make them step over and around the bodies of the fallen, including the children on the floors of the churches and the schools. There is blood on their hands and they do not deserve our support. ER is a horrible place for a child to end a study lesson or worship. Their hands are soaked in the blood of innocents.

Actually a majority of Americans oppose any new gun control, with the exception of the idea of universal background checks -- a topic on which the Democrats are incredible hypocrites, because when the NRA argued for allowing private sellers to use the NICS so they could make sure they weren't selling to a criminal, the Democrats blocked that, thus demonstrating their interest isn't in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals but in exercising government control over everything (and being able to charge a fee for it).

As even Dianne Feinstein has noted, there are no gun laws which could have stopped the Vegas shooting, and that applies here just as well. And given that this case demonstrates that the government isn't even competent to do the job they're supposed to do at present, there is no sensible argument for asking them to do more!

The only "blood on the hands" of the NRA is that of the bad guy who was stopped by an armed citizen. It's pure fantasy to claim that law-abiding people who want violent criminals removed from the streets have any responsibility for what criminals do. What the NRA is guilty of is not demanding that Congress exercise the actual authority the Constitution bestows in Article I Section 8, and move the militia (all of us) at least some steps closer to being "well-regulated" (remembering that the term does not mean burdened with regulations, but disciplined and trained). Trump said this was a matter of mental illness; the NRA claims to have Trump's back -- so Wayne LaPierre ought to be haunting the halls of Congress explaining to anyone he can corner that a community mental health care and support system would bring us closer to a well-regulated militia, because it would put the awareness of people who shouldn't have guns back where it belongs under the militia concept, that being right in people's own neighborhoods with their peers who know them.
For starters.

The NRA is guilty only of the very same thing the Democrats are: ignoring the Constitution in favor of doing things their own way.

 

[Kulindahr]

Honestly, this probably isn't the shooting to cite for better gun control.
The gun control in place right now should have worked at preventing them from getting a gun. They were supposed to be in a registry for this.

The only way to make sure that happens properly is what is being said on gun sites this week, generally by NRA members: being able to hold the person who failed to enter that information where it belonged and who thereby effectively handed this killer his guns, accountable for accomplice to murder. So long as our government officials can't be touched for their failures, they won't care; they'll just carry on and let politicians argue over the dead bodies.

 

[ballcaphair]

Actually a majority of Americans oppose any new gun control, with the exception of the idea of universal background checks -- a topic on which the Democrats are incredible hypocrites, because when the NRA argued for allowing private sellers to use the NICS so they could make sure they weren't selling to a criminal,


The only "blood on the hands" of the NRA is that of the bad guy who was stopped by an armed citizen. It's pure fantasy to claim that law-abiding people who want violent criminals removed from the streets have any responsibility for what criminals do. What the NRA is guilty of is not demanding that Congress exercise the actual authority the Constitution bestows in Article I Section 8, and move the militia (all of us) at least some steps closer to being "well-regulated" (remembering that the term does not mean burdened with regulations, but disciplined and trained). Trump said this was a matter of mental illness; the NRA claims to have Trump's back -- so Wayne LaPierre ought to be haunting the halls of Congress explaining to anyone he can corner that a community mental health care and support system would bring us closer to a well-regulated militia, because it would put the awareness of people who shouldn't have guns back where it belongs under the militia concept, that being right in people's own neighborhoods with their peers who know them.
For starters.

The NRA is guilty only of the very same thing the Democrats are: ignoring the Constitution in favor of doing things their own way.

This, to me, is a partial counting. It should include lobbiests and Republicans. I am not arguing who has the right to have a gun, nor the legality. I am infuriated that there is no honest debate regarding the whole circumstance. A cycling friend casually referred to mass shootings as, "It's an American thing." It seems as though the whole top end will not discuss this issue without a partisan slant. So it makes me angry that we do nothing.

 

[rareboy]