You do realize how silly it sounds to complain about the non-existence of a thread when you or anyone else were perfectly capable of starting such a thread yourself? In any event, I didn’t realize that there was an “equal time” rule requiring that every time there’s a thread about a mass murder in the USA committed by an angry white man, there also has to be one about a mass murder in the USA committed by an angry Muslim, for purposes of “political balance.” Unfortunately, there have been an awful lot of the former in this country of late.
romani, sometimes people do start threads on news items. But often posters will only post to a thread started by a well known member on the thread (such as you). I’ve posted stuff on various things in the news and people never really post to my threads. A couple of them were because there was already a thread going, though. But just saying.
Anyway.
Re the second amendment – Do supporters contend that the founders would have been OK with weekly massacres in American cities? That a gun is more sacred than the lives of movie-goers, Bible-studiers, and little schoolchildren? Or are those people mere collateral damage, a regrettable price which must be paid to preserve the rights of unhinged nutcases who wish to own and use a piece of death-dealing metal, rights which must not be abridged in even the smallest way?
Of course, some might say that the movie-goers, Bible-studiers, and little schoolchildren had rights too, maybe even the right not to be blown away as they went about their daily lives. Details.
^^^ No, but the Founding Fathers also may not have approved of a national military, women’s rights, certainly not gay marriage, and a whole host of other things that our country has now. Voting rights for non-property owners? Are you kidding?
The point of the people bearing arms was so that they could have local militias, but not a huge national army like England did because the military suppressed the people. And of course to fight the Indians, hunt food, and other such needed things. The gun in that day was probably considered as much a tool as it was a weapon. Now, since few people hunt for food in America except as a hobby, its use as a weapon is its prominent feature. And it is featured in almost every thriller movie, in countless video games, etc. If you only saw a gun used as something to shoot a deer for supper or to fight Redcoats and Indians with, you likely would never thing of walking in and just shooting at random people because that’s not what it was meant for. But if you see games where it’s alright to shoot people and movies dramatizing and glorifying people who shoot guns at other people without national defense causes, that might change one’s perspective a bit. And if that person is already mentally unstable to begin with…
… AND has a gun… That’s the difference between us and every other country where angry men play violent video games, and watch violent movies, and are mentally unstable. Those guys can’t their hands on a real gun.
We no longer have local militias as our national defense.
ETA – Oh, and people don’t die from women’s rights and gay marriage. But I take your point. Time has moved on, and our constitution has been interpreted to accommodate changing circumstances which the founders could never have imagined. Why then is the Second Amendment frozen in 1791?
“The point of the people bearing arms was so that they could have local militias,”
Which we have now in the form of the each state’s National Guard. If I was on SCOTUS, that would be my interpretation of the 2nd, not that everyone has the right to bear arms.
^^^ It’s both, I believe. And the National Guard isn’t exactly like the militia. I think in the local militia, virtually every man and his son would serve. Almost every family had a part in it, except for maybe if someone was a widow or if the man of the family was too old to fight. Another underlying reason, although not stated, may have been because they wanted the people to have guns so that another revolution was possible in the event the government became too corrupt. Without guns, would we have won the Revolution? Of course not. To them, freedom was something that they knew had to be fought for in one way or another. War was one of the ways, and guns were necessary for that to happen. Obviously, this was before tanks, fighter aircraft, and bombs. In order to keep that premise of a people able to fight the government, people would have to be allowed to own and operate those things, like they would guns in that day. Clearly that is not going to happen, however…
This makes me so angry. I just heard some talking head say that “nothing objectionable” appeared on Houser’s “quick” background check. Perhaps that’s part of the problem - background checks should be more thorough and more detailed. After all, we’re talking about selling guns, not cantaloupes.
oh but wait - we can’t change gun laws. If we could, it would have happened after Sandy Hook.
Mine too, eb. Second amendment fanboys gloss over the inconvenient term “well-regulated,” which certainly describes the Guard and certainly does NOT describe, say, the free-lancers who are “protecting” recruiting offices.
At the very very least, “well-regulated” means exactly what it says: that the constitution permits regulation of gun ownership. But don’t take my word for it. Ask Antonin Scalia.
The militia of the Revolutionary War was needed because the US had no standing army. We now have a standing army including a home guard. So tell me again why every man and his son need a gun to fight a war that ended almost 250 years ago?
Newsflash: it’s not 1776 any more. This argument that civilians need to be armed in order to defend against tyranny of the guv’mint is just laughable. If the guv’mint wanted to take over – whatever that means – don’t you think they’d have done it by now? They have armored tank divisions, bombers, drones, chem/bio/nuclear weapons. What good is a semi-automatic against all of that? Sorry, but this right wing fantasy of black helicopters and FEMA camps and other guv’mint bogeymen is just that – fantasy, and a ridiculous one at that.
I mentioned the Chattanooga shootings in the military recruit thread. Fwiw. Had a hometown connection too.
“And the National Guard isn’t exactly like the militia. I think in the local militia, virtually every man and his son would serve”
We’ve evolved enough as a society that we don’t need every person to serve now - but hey, if one wants to play soldier, enlist in one’s state’s Nat’l Guard or join the US military.
Some states have organized militias, but I don’t really know what they do.
The 2nd Amendment : “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.”
Notice the commas please.
Well regulated means trained. Right of the people refers to an individual right.
Do you have any family who are in the military or who have served in the last , say, 20 years? Do you have any direct experience with the military? Have you been on a base recently? ( I was on one last week).Based on that rather ignorant and quite offensive comment, I am guessing no.
^^ I’m a veteran and I know plenty of vets and active duty military who agree with that statement.
Enlistment isnt what it used to be. They are not taking those who want to “play soldier”. Thats nonsense.
I spent time with about 550 new recruits last weekend. These were young fellows (infantry) who wanted to serve their country, earn a living to help their family, potentially access the GI BIll to further their education. They were very polite, respectful young kids away from home. Didnt meet any who seemed to be there because they “wanted to play soldier”. And if you are a vet, you know its not something easy to “play at”.
@Dragonflygarden I see the commas. With the commas it means this: A militia was necessary. There was no standing army, so civilians were the militia. The militia should be regulated.
One of those things is no longer true in 2015.
“Do you have any family who are in the military or who have served in the last , say, 20 years?”
Not in the last 20 years but my father served in WWII, as did all my uncles - and my cousin’s husband was in Vietnam - shot down in a helicopter and killed.
Sorry you found my comment offensive, but that’s your problem, not mine.
@LasMa I see you skipped over the main clause; “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”