main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Senate Gun Control

Discussion in 'Community' started by Ghost, Dec 14, 2012.

  1. MarcusP2

    MarcusP2 Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jul 10, 2004
    He was carrying an AR-15 rifle concealed? He also missed twice. And the murderer didn't die.
     
  2. LostOnHoth

    LostOnHoth Chosen One star 5

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2000
    I don't know how you can say Australia is ignorant about gun control. We have it so I guess....we mustn't realise we have it....or something?
     
  3. Kimball_Kinnison

    Kimball_Kinnison Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 28, 2001
    Let's break it down. We have two parts here: a noun (militia) and an adjective (well-regulated) that modifies the noun.

    At the time the 2nd Amendment was ratified, the militia was understood to be the whole of the people who were physically able to be called out for defense of the community, state, or nation. George Mason described it thus: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." (See Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788.) In today's law, the militia is defined in 10 USC 311 and 10 USC 312. If you are a man between the ages of 17 and 45 who is either a citizen of the United States, or have declared an intent to become a citizen, then you are a member of the militia of the United States (except for a few narrow exemptions listed at the second link). Simply put, the militia is the people.

    That leads to "well-regulated". At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, the word "regulate" had multiple meanings, as it still does today. The OED provides several uses, contemporaneous to the 2nd Amendment, of the term "well-regulated" in English:
    While the word "regulate" had (and has) multiple meanings, the term "well-regulated" consistently had a meaning of "properly functioning".

    If you put the two together, you get a properly functioning body of the people who can be called upon for defense of the community, state, or nation.

    It's also important to look at the term in the context of entire 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." Even if you argue that "well regulated" means "subject to government regulation", there is no grammatical way that you can read that sentence as saying that it is the right to keep and bear arms that is supposed to be "well regulated". It is the militia, the body of the people, that is supposed to be well-regulated. In that light, we should look at what else the Constitution says about "the Militia", which is mentioned in Article I Section 8:
    Congress was already granted authority to call up the Militia, as well organize, arm, and discipline (i.e. train) them, but Congress was only given authority to govern or control those members of the Militia that are actually called up for service.

    In 1792, Congress exercised that authority to organize and arm the Militia by passing the Second Militia Act of 1792.* Among other things, it provided:
    Each member of the militia was expected to own and have the basic equipment that a typical infantryman would carry, and be well trained in its use. Were the same standard to be applied today, each member of the militia (as defined above in 10 USC 311) would be expected to own a M9 pistol and a M4 carbine, and be acquainted with how to use both.

    Now, it's your turn. If you disagree with my above definition for a "well-regulated militia", then provide your own along with support for why you think that definition is appropriate.

    * The First Militia Act of 1792 was passed a few days before the Second Militia Act, and it dealt with calling up the Militia.
     
    deathraygun and Barbecue17 like this.
  4. slightly_unhinged

    slightly_unhinged Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 28, 2014
    Not compared to heart disease but compared to other high income nations?

    [​IMG]

    You guys are a bit of a standout.

    But hey, maybe we're all killing each other with knives instead? London can be a bit stabby, after all...

    http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interactive/2011/oct/10/unitednations-development-data

    But wait... isn't there an immediately obvious pattern on that map showing significantly lower per capita murder rates for countries with gun control? With the murder rate in the US more than four times greater than the UK and Australia, and about five times greater than most of Europe?

    Sure, there are anomalies like the Swiss. Because they used to keep their weapons after compulsory military service, they have a high rate of gun ownership but they're civilised enough to keep the damned things locked up at home.

    As for mass shootings, the last one we had here was... well, never. I believe you had about 160 such incidents between 2000 and 2013? (excluding drug/gang related shootings). I believe these resulted in over 1000 people dead and many others wounded?

    I don't pretend to have the answers for a nation where gun ownership is already the norm but for goodness sake don't point at nations where we do have controls in place and call us ignorant.

    We're already plagued by diabetes and obesity from adopting your hideous diet and your television has turned us into a nation of dribbling morons. Carrying guns around is an element of 'freedom' you can jolly well keep to yourselves.
     
    ShaneP, Draconarius, 07jonesj and 4 others like this.
  5. Jabbadabbado

    Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 1999
    You're welcome.
     
  6. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    Kimball, what was the intent behind the well-regulated militia?
     
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  7. Jabbadabbado

    Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 1999
    I can answer that: the intent was to prevent municipal governments from requiring trigger locks for stored handguns.
     
    Ender Sai likes this.
  8. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    Well the wording is this, right?

    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.

    Inherent is that this it's a two way obligation; the state will not infringe on the right of Americans to own more guns than is sensible or practical and in return the people form militias to keep the state free.

    I'm wondering;

    Like third world barbarians you execute your people.
    You have crippling economic inequality.
    You have a police force, which through delegation act as de facto arms of the state, and is victimising one racial group to breaking point.
    You have revelations that your government spies on you.

    Much of this is in the last few years. We can go back to other events - national guard being called in during Civil Rights protests, Watergate, Iran-Contra.

    At what point will these well-hung regulated militia put down their masturbatory aids firearms and fulfill their end of the bargain?
     
  9. Fire_Ice_Death

    Fire_Ice_Death Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2001
    Never. They fantasize about armed revolution daily, but it's only when a Democrat is in the White House that they get that funny feeling in the crotch that something must be done...next Tuesday. And to think, Americans made a bigger stink over the Alien and Sedition act and that was pretty limited in scope. These are much worse but as long as we've got football and the circle jerk that is, 'We're the greatest country on Earth,' we'll do nothing.
     
    Rogue1-and-a-half likes this.
  10. Jedi Ben

    Jedi Ben Chosen One star 9

    Registered:
    Jul 19, 1999
    Yup and that Death Star superlaser is just for home defence after all! You don't need an Uzi when you have a planet-destroying superlaser.
     
  11. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    I love that argument; I need these guns for self-defence. No. You do not. You like them. Stop pretending otherwise.
     
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  12. Jedi Ben

    Jedi Ben Chosen One star 9

    Registered:
    Jul 19, 1999
    I always liked this Far Side cartoon:

    [​IMG]
     
  13. LostOnHoth

    LostOnHoth Chosen One star 5

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2000
    Unfortunately this ridiculous "self defence" argument has been given judicial legitimacy by the SCOTUS when it became apparent to the Court that the militia argument was completely silly and so a new basis for the right to bear arms had to be found. Enter "self-defence".
     
    Jabbadabbado likes this.
  14. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    I love that; it's this kind of petty, child-like greed that they masked with the typical veneer of high-minded ideals in practice. Instead of recognising the entire premise was flawed, they just invented a new one, which of course was their intent all along as they had amazing crystal ball technology.
     
  15. Kimball_Kinnison

    Kimball_Kinnison Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 28, 2001
    If you actually read the opinion in Heller, they covered quite a bit of the history of the militia, demonstrating that it is not some government-sponsored force, but consists of the people themselves.

    Traditionally, the militia was the first line of defense that a community had. We saw that in action in Ferguson, where armed citizens banded together to help protect each other against looters and rioters. We saw that among the Korean community during the 1992 LA riots.

    Self defense and the militia have always been closely related. It wasn't something invented out of thin air in Heller.
     
  16. LostOnHoth

    LostOnHoth Chosen One star 5

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2000
    Oh I've read it. But this is something I am happy to agree to disagree about :)
     
    Ender Sai likes this.
  17. Kimball_Kinnison

    Kimball_Kinnison Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 28, 2001
    If you want to disagree with it, all I ask is that you provide your legal and historical basis for disagreeing. Simply saying "Australia doesn't do it that way" doesn't work, because we aren't talking about Australian law.

    The "militia" collective rights argument was always a flimsy one. Even the seminal case using that argument, Miller vs US, didn't rule that the right to keep and bear arms was a collective right. What it held was that the government could regulate arms that weren't of the type that soldiers would use, and then they remanded the case to the lower courts because there was no evidence in the record that a short barreled shotgun was in common use by the military (even though they were very common in WWI, known as trench guns). On remand, the case was dismissed as moot because Miller was found dead before the Supreme Court ruling was even issued. (Incidentally, Miller was never represented at the Supreme Court. Only the government presented their arguments because Miller couldn't afford to pay his lawyer at that point.)
     
  18. Fire_Ice_Death

    Fire_Ice_Death Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2001
    The 2nd amendment was a stupid part put into our constitution due to the ever-present fear of founders of being invaded....aaand they were right in 1812. Now...it's kind of antiquated and it's leading to a rot within our culture where we value guns more than people despite guns having one purpose: to kill. Oh and shoot targets on the weekend. So two purposes: to kill and train to kill. And I don't really blame the mentally ill for finding a solution to their troubles in a gun, it's easily available and if you can't buy one yourself then you can always steal it.
     
  19. Kimball_Kinnison

    Kimball_Kinnison Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 28, 2001
    If you think that it is stupid, anachronistic, or unnecessary, then work to get it repealed. Don't just ignore it, because it is still the supreme law of the land.
     
  20. Fire_Ice_Death

    Fire_Ice_Death Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2001
    I think I feel like most people that hate guns: we hate it, but the hill folk will do their damnedest to fight it so why bother? Also the other issue is that both liberals and conservatives like guns. No, I'll just hope my future descendants are more evolved in the future than US society is now. Sorry, I see gun owners as one step up from cavemen and given the barbary and viciousness I've personally seen from gun owners...I'm right.
     
  21. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    That doesn't make it right KK, it makes it a law that benefits a number of special interest groups who will spend countless dollars to ensure there's no change as it interrupts their income stream.
     
  22. wall of sick

    wall of sick Jedi Padawan star 3

    Registered:
    Sep 9, 2014
    i do not hate gruns. but i do hate the hruman race.
     
  23. LostOnHoth

    LostOnHoth Chosen One star 5

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2000
    I agree with the minority decision in Heller. You disagree with the minority and agree with the majority. I disagree with the majority. Glad we sorted that out.
     
  24. EmpireForever

    EmpireForever Force Ghost star 8

    Registered:
    Mar 15, 2004
    So I saw a video online somewhere about police officers being shot and how this is awful, and it is, but it got me thinking. In which states might this be a problem? The video I watched was bemoaning the violence against police officers in Florida. In Florida, 51% of police deaths (just deaths, mind you. Not injuries, or even just reported gunfire), according to odmp.org (Officer Down Memorial Page), are due to gunfire. I wondered if this might have something to do with their lenient gun laws, so I looked up the stats for the top 5 strictest gun law stats, and the top 5 most lenient.

    States with the most lenient laws averaged 60% of police deaths due to gunfire, the highest being Oklahoma with 68%(327 of 479), but all of them were over 50%. States with the strictest laws averaged 35%; their highest was CA with 45%(714 of 1578--A more comparable state population-wise would be TX, with 1073 of their 1832 fallen officers being attributed to gunfire). In fact, in all of the states with comparable death rates, the stricter states have a smaller percentage (e.g. Massachusetts Vs Louisiana).

    Even with the crime-ridden cesspools of Los Angeles and New York City, CA and NY's percentages were lower than "freer" states TX and FL.


    Anyway.
     
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  25. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

    Filter the table so it shows highest to lowest.

    The US rates 13th highest.

    Behind Honduras, Venezuela, El Salvador, Jamaica, Swaziland, Guatemala, Colombia, South Africa, Brazil, Panama, Uruguay and Mexico.

    Of course, this list doesn't take into consideration key factors like: Exceptionalism, manifest destiny, how angels wrote the Constitution, the level of Freedom per person, and Jesus.

    So there's no shame in being shoulder to shoulder with these states on insane crime rates. In fact, thinking that so many people have been killed for their evil ways, righteously punished, I might have a bit of a stiffy. Not because I need guns to get off, but because... look over there!