School shooting in Nashville!!

Uh....except for one glaring omission: Criminals have all kinds of guns, including assault weapons.
That's why decent law-abiding people need them, too.
I won't try to defend myself or my loved ones with anything less than a criminal has.
Remember that armored car heisting gang that outgunned the police back somewhere around 1987 ? Think it was in Texas. Or Philly? Anyway, that was revolutionary. Police across the country got upgrades real quick.
 

Second 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.​

You are ignoring that pesky little comma. Without it, you would be correct to view it as a collective right as in militia. However... that little comma breaks that amendment into two separate pieces. In order to have a well regulated militia, your citizens would have to possess and bear arms. Let's not forge how this amendment came about. We had just overthrown a tyrannical government and therefore the founding fathers wanted to be sure that we would always be prepared should the need arise again.
It was that comma that the Supreme Court used, in part, in part to support stronger rights to gun ownership. But it's interpretation is debatable, see below. And you are right things looked very different to people just after the American Revolution, which may have gone differently without individual gun ownership.

Really knowing what the founding fathers meant by the amendment and how to interpret it in todays world isn't easy and will probably always be questioned and debated.

While the D.C. Circuit Court focused only on the second
comma, the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution actually has three:
“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.” The 2–1 majority of judges held that the meaning turns
on the second comma, which “divides the Amendment into two
clauses; the first is prefatory, and the second operative.”
The court dismissed the prefatory clause about militias as not
central to the amendment and concluded that the operative clause
prevents the government from interfering with an individual’s right
to tote a gun.

Needless to say, the National Rifle Assn. is very
happy with this interpretation. But I dissent. Strict constructionists,
such as the majority on the appeals court, might do better to interpret the 2nd Amendment based not on what they learned about
commas in college but on what the framers actually thought about
commas in the 18th century.

The most popular grammars in the framers’ day were written by
Robert Lowth (1762) and Lindley Murray (1795). Though both are
concerned with correcting writing mistakes, neither dwells much
on punctuation. Lowth calls punctuation “imperfect,” with few precise rules and many exceptions. Murray adds that commas signal a
pause for breath. Here’s an example of such a pause, from the Constitution: “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in
one Supreme Court” (Article III, Section 1). But times change. If a
student put that comma in a paper today, it would be marked
wrong.

The first comma in the 2nd Amendment signals a pause. At first
glance, it looks like it’s setting off a phrase in apposition, but by the
time you get to the second comma, even if you don’t know what a
phrase in apposition is, you realize that it doesn’t do that. That second comma identifies what grammarians call an absolute clause,
which modifies the entire subsequent clause. Murray gave this ex
ample: “His father dying, he succeeded to the estate.” With such
absolute constructions, the second clause follows logically from the
first.

So, the 2nd Amendment’s second comma tells us that the subsequent clauses, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
not be infringed,” are the logical result of what preceded the
comma: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of
a free State.” The third comma, the one after “Arms,” just signals a
pause. But the ju[dg]es repeatedly dropped that final comma altogether when quoting the 2nd Amendment – not wise if you’re arguing that commas are vital to meaning.

But that’s just my interpretation. As the D.C. Circuit Court decision shows us, punctuation doesn’t make meaning, people do.
And until a higher court says otherwise, people who swear by punctuation will hold onto their commas until they’re pried from their
cold, dead hands.


A Constitutional Conundrum of Second Amendment Commas
https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2167&context=facpubs
 
Just looking at Pew Research. There were 45,222 total gun deaths in 2020

Only 513 of these deaths were "mass shootings" defined as four or more deaths.

Unlike some of you, I don't think most of these 45,222 deaths were caused by mentally ill people.

This idea to try and round up anyone you, or your neighbors don't define as "normal," is more frightening
to me than the number of murders.

Thorough background checks are a PITA for buyers, but they're SO necessary. There are states that don't include a complete mental health background because of patient confidentiality. Which is utterly ridiculous and obviously potentially deadly.
I think it's the back ground checks that are ridiculous. Of course they conflict with patient confidentiality. The biggest problem with treating severe mental illness is getting the ill person to understand that they need help and should go to a psychiatrist.

People with schizophrenia, in particular, are paranoid so they are afraid to get help because they think the government will start to control them. These background checks would prove them right! Just imagine having every yahoo selling guns at the flea market knowing who is seeing a psychiatrist in their town. Would it prevent gun deaths ? NO! What it would do is prevent mentally ill people from getting care.

Statistics show that people with severe mental illness who are seeing a doctor and taking medication are actually less likely to be violent than the average person. It's the sick people who aren't seeing a doctor who are dangerous and background checks wont show this.

The NRA just loves having us voting for background checks, it keeps us distracted while they sell just as many guns.
 

“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong.”

H. L. Mencken

The shootings are a symptom of a very sick society. Too much hate, too much division, too many people told they are victims. Removing the guns will not fix the problem.
 
The biggest thing wrong with owning a gun in the US is that it’s FAR TOO EASY to get them legally.
Ronni you're in the good postion of being an incomer to the USA.. living there for a long time, learning the culture, but having been born and raised in Australia where the gun laws are the same as the rest of the world basically... and can see precisely the comparisons
 

“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong.”

H. L. Mencken

The shootings are a symptom of a very sick society. Too much hate, too much division, too many people told they are victims. Removing the guns will not fix the problem.
"A very sick society". True. As I already wrote, in Czechoslovakia the people are requested by the government to buy and carry guns. And there are no mass shootings.
 

“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong.”

H. L. Mencken

The shootings are a symptom of a very sick society. Too much hate, too much division, too many people told they are victims. Removing the guns will not fix the problem.
Do you really think Americans are that much sicker than Canadians or Japanese or any other country? Yes we have division and anger and hate, but so does every society since the Garden of Eden. They just didn't all have guns to act out their feelings.
 
Do you really think Americans are that much sicker than Canadians or Japanese or any other country? Yes we have division and anger and hate, but so does every society since the Garden of Eden. They just didn't all have guns to act out their feelings.
No I don’t think Americans are any less angry or hateful than the rest of society. You just all have guns so you can deal with all the ‘other’ angry and hateful members of ‘your’ society.
The rest of us DO NOT have guns to ‘act out our feelings.’ That’s basically the only difference I know of.
 
No I don’t think Americans are any less angry or hateful than the rest of society. You just all have guns so you can deal with all the ‘other’ angry and hateful members of ‘your’ society.
The rest of us DO NOT have guns to ‘act out our feelings.’ That’s basically the only difference I know of.
I actually agree with this.. for example, take them away from guns.. ie the American tourists here in the UK that I have personally met, and those I've worked with have just been a joy..very much more positive in their attitude than the average Brit tbh... however there is going to be a certain section of American society who are angry..as there are everywhere... the only exception is that they have access to guns.. and instead of working out their feelings in a non violent way.. it's too easy to grab the gun...
 
Waukesha, Wisconsin - 5 dead, 40 injured, attacker used an SUV.

Oklahoma City - 168 dead, (19 of whom were children) - fertilizer & fuel oil.

I'm afraid if there's an unshaken belief Shangri-la can be obtained by banning weapons that, in one form or another, have been around for about 1,000 years, rather than addressing the 'root cause' in the mistaken belief of "No guns, no killings", and that potential perpetrators will just say "Oh well, I'll volunteer at an animal shelter instead", reality will be a shocker.
 
I just hear Gayle King (CBS news anchor) talking about how we love our children so much we've padded all the playground equipment, but we don't do anything about guns, the number one cause of death for American children.

I was nodding my head.

Then she looked in the camera and said, '"I'm not talking about you responsible gun owners."

Right there's the problem.

Every gun owner thinks he's a responsible owner. Too many politicians and new anchors are afraid of offending those responsible owners. They all hang onto a childish belief that we can tell the good guys from the bad guys, and simply not sell guns to the bad guys.

And all the gun owners value their own selfish right to own guns over the lives of children.
 
We don't need a "constitutional amendment." What we need is a SCOTUS that's not dominated by religious nuts and that can think logically. If you look at the rationale for some of their decisions, it's the definition of "legislating from the bench." They twist the Constitution to fit their twisted ideology.

These religious nuts shouldn't even be allowed on the court. They violate the 1st Amendment that prohibits forcing religious views on the people.
"Religious nuts." 3 senior citizens and 3 young children dead in a Christian school. It is not a leap to call it a hate crime. There is too much hatred, even here on this forum.

Eradicate the hatred from the human heart and you won't have to worry about the guns.

Btw, the mother of the shooter is now being characterized as an online gun control activist, yet her offspring had 7 guns. Irony or rebellion?

As to the comments from around the world, I will just say that I'm happy you are there too and I have no ill will because you think you have the answers, but I don't consider your comments on this topic. It's nice to have an opportunity to feel superior but everyone knows that your countries also have problems and I hope you will overcome them.

Have a great day!
 
Waukesha, Wisconsin - 5 dead, 40 injured, attacker used an SUV.

Oklahoma City - 168 dead, (19 of whom were children) - fertilizer & fuel oil.

I'm afraid if there's an unshaken belief Shangri-la can be obtained by banning weapons that, in one form or another, have been around for about 1,000 years, rather than addressing the 'root cause' in the mistaken belief of "No guns, no killings", and that potential perpetrators will just say "Oh well, I'll volunteer at an animal shelter instead", reality will be a shocker.
Okay. What have you got there, 173 deaths? How do you think that makes a point against 45,000 gun deaths per year since Tim McVeigh used his fertilizer? No one ever said that we'd all live forever if we banned guns, just that we could cut down violent deaths by the thousands. Why isn't that a good idea?
 
Waukesha, Wisconsin - 5 dead, 40 injured, attacker used an SUV.

Oklahoma City - 168 dead, (19 of whom were children) - fertilizer & fuel oil.

I'm afraid if there's an unshaken belief Shangri-la can be obtained by banning weapons that, in one form or another, have been around for about 1,000 years, rather than addressing the 'root cause' in the mistaken belief of "No guns, no killings", and that potential perpetrators will just say "Oh well, I'll volunteer at an animal shelter instead", reality will be a shocker.
659 years. I got curious.
 
As to the comments from around the world, I will just say that I'm happy you are there too and I have no ill will because you think you have the answers, but I don't consider your comments on this topic.
I value their comments very much, because, if we weren't so defensive, we could learn from their examples about what to do about gun violence. Their moves to make guns illegal in most cases, seems a lot more doable than eradicating hate from the human heart.
 
https://abcnews.go.com/US/116-people-died-gun-violence-day-us-year/story?id=97382759

"So far in 2023, 9,870 people have died from gun violence in the U.S, as of March 27, according to the Gun Violence Archive – which is an average of more than 114 deaths each day.

Deaths by suicide made up the vast majority of gun violence deaths this year – 57.9%, the nonprofit gun violence tracker reports. There's been an average of about 67 deaths by suicide per day in 2023." End quote.


Plus - criminal activity may have been responsible for one or two fatalities.
 
659 years. I got curious.
https://historycooperative.org/the-history-of-guns/

When Were Guns Invented?
The history of guns rides right along with the evolution of our armies and play a key role in changing the way wars were fought. This dates back to the early days of the 10th century and all the way up to modern times. During this time guns have experienced intense technical advances and economic developments that have increased the practicalness and also the lethality of guns.

The First Gun
The first gun and gunpowder are widely regarded, although still disputed, to come from China during the 10th and 9th centuries, respectively. In the 10th century, the Chinese invented “Fire-spurting lances” which consisted of a bamboo rod or a metal rod to hold the gunpowder or the “huo yao”, which means fire-chemical.
 


Back
Top