• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

SLD

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2001
Messages
3,804
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker
View attachment 39090

You tell yourself it doesn’t happen around here. It’s other parts of the country that this happens. I drive home this evening and there’s a shit load of cops sheriffs and ambulances outside a neighborhood church. Two dead and one injured. About three blocks from my house. Fuck. In a church. Dude just walks in to a “boomer potluck” dinner and starts shooting. I know people who go there and am friends with many of the victims friends. Surprised I don’t know the victims. Pathetic. So many Christians worship guns more than they worship Jesus.

It’s a really sad day here. I’m just stunned. Utterly stunned.
And today in "Only in America", 2 dead, 1 wounded, this doesn't count as a mass shooting.
Since it happened in a church, Foxnews will play it up for sure. But then they’ll find out it was one of them liberal churches and it will be never mind.
It's been reported that the shooter is a 71 year old man who occasionally attended services at the church.

Boomers go wild!
70, and he was also a federal gun dealer with a history of illegal conduct: https://www.al.com/news/2022/06/chu...ned-by-federal-agents-about-missing-guns.html

Yeah. Talked to someone who knew him. Always been an odd person. And it’s 3 dead now.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,356
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
article said:
The ATF report said agents found 86 firearms in Smith’s possession compared to 97 on his official dealer’s record. Smith failed to record the disposition of some firearms, the report said. He also failed to record the address of gun buyers, the report said.

So he’s selling guns to people that he’s not recording…

and so they sent him a letter.

My personal focus on “gun control” is coming down hard and NOW on sellers and compliance to the law. I don’t think this requires legislation, but rather the executive will to enforce.

So many deaths, including during crimes of robbery or gangs that use guns, would be eliminated by this ALREADY THE LAW enforcement.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,712
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
article said:
The ATF report said agents found 86 firearms in Smith’s possession compared to 97 on his official dealer’s record. Smith failed to record the disposition of some firearms, the report said. He also failed to record the address of gun buyers, the report said.

So he’s selling guns to people that he’s not recording…

and so they sent him a letter.

My personal focus on “gun control” is coming down hard and NOW on sellers and compliance to the law. I don’t think this requires legislation, but rather the executive will to enforce.

So many deaths, including during crimes of robbery or gangs that use guns, would be eliminated by this ALREADY THE LAW enforcement.
You send a letter first because it's probably just a simple mistake.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,543
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,543
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Eric Michael Garcia on Twitter: ".@AOC tells me ..." / Twitter
.@AOC tells me she is worried about the criminalization in the gun framework: “particularly, the juvenile criminalization, the expansion of background checks into juvenile records, I want to explore the implications of that and how specifically i’s designed and tailored.” 1/

“After columbine, we hired thousands of police officers into schools and while it didn’t prevent many of the mass shootings that we’ve seen now, it has increased the criminalization of teens in communities like mine.” 2/2

When I asked if she was worried if the mental health aspects would increase stigmatization, she said “absolutely. Because what people are blaming on mental health are really deeper issues of violent misogyny and white supremacy. And while there are mental health issues..”3/

“Attenuated like the deep isolation that we see with a lot of these folks, at the end of the day, we’re not addressing—there are some issues like the boyfriend loophole being closed,” she says. “The connection between domestic violence, and masa shootings, et Cetera.”

STBull on Twitter: "@EricMGarcia @AOC Have you ever considered talking to someone who’s actually getting things done rather than just talking about the problems on social media and undermining Democrats’ progress? Might be a good use of your time." / Twitter
noting
Rep. Lauren Underwood on Twitter: "It’s more important than ever that students are able to access mental health care and support in school.
I secured $111 million, a nearly 700% increase, for school-based mental health programs so young people have the tools they need to thrive." / Twitter


The Recount on Twitter: "Rep. @AOC on Senate's gun reform framework: "I'm disappointed to hear a focus on increased criminalization & juvenile criminalization instead of really having the focus on guns. But the background checks provision is encouraging. So I think we really need to look at the text." (vid link)" / Twitter
 

atrib

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
2,149
Location
Columbia, SC
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Gun Sellers Stoke Fears to Boost Weapon Sales - The New York Times - "The number of firearms in the U.S. is outpacing the country’s population, as an emboldened gun industry and its allies target buyers with rhetoric of fear, machismo and defiance."
Even though helmets and body armor would make a heck of a lot more sense for self-defense.
Guns and ammo have been in short supply for a long time. While 5 years ago you could get a significant discount on retail prices for popular handguns, today you will pay retail or higher, and probably consider yourself lucky if you can find the model you want. And prices of ammo have gone through the roof - basic FMJ 45acp ammo in boxes of 100 or 200 used to sell for $0.20 to $.35 per round just 3 years ago, while today you will pay $.70 to $.90 per round. The manufacturers literally cannot keep up with the demand. Some of that may be due to the impact of Covid, but in large part, it is because a lot of people are buying more and hoarding ammo and guns fearing these may be banned. It is like the toilet paper fiasco, only it goes on forever.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,366
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Uvalde police officers waiting outside a pair of Robb Elementary school classrooms where kids and teachers were trapped with a gunman didn’t try to open the door to save them, according to a new report.
Citing an unnamed law enforcement source close to the case, San Antonio Express-News said surveillance footage shows that officers did not try to open the door that led to the classrooms a single time in 77 minutes. The 18-year-old shooter ultimately killed 21 people, including 19 kids on May 24 and was shot dead by border patrol agents who stormed the classroom.
The report is the latest in a series of damning revelations about the police response to the mass shooting, which survivors and politicians have described as cowardly and negligent.
Uvalde has hired a private law firm in an effort to suppress body camera footage and other records surrounding the mass shooting, Motherboard reported last week. In a letter, the city’s private lawyer argued it should be exempted from releasing records in part because they include “highly embarrassing information” and may cause “emotional/mental distress.”
As many as 19 cops stood in the hallway outside the connecting classrooms while the rampage took place. Police initially said the gunman had locked the door and that they were waiting for keys. However, the source speaking to San Antonio Express-News said that while authorities may have assumed the door was locked—the doors are designed to lock automatically once closed—a malfunction means it may have been open the entire time, but officers didn’t try it.
The source also said the cops had access to a tool called a “halligan” that could have crowbarred a locked door open.
 

Tigers!

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
3,068
Location
On the wing waiting for a kick.
Basic Beliefs
Bible believing revelational redemptionist (Baptist)
Uvalde police officers waiting outside a pair of Robb Elementary school classrooms where kids and teachers were trapped with a gunman didn’t try to open the door to save them, according to a new report.
Citing an unnamed law enforcement source close to the case, San Antonio Express-Newssaid surveillance footage shows that officers did not try to open the door that led to the classrooms a single time in 77 minutes. The 18-year-old shooter ultimately killed 21 people, including 19 kids on May 24 and was shot dead by border patrol agents who stormed the classroom.
The report is the latest in a series of damning revelations about the police response to the mass shooting, which survivors and politicians have described as cowardly and negligent.

Uvalde has hired a private law firm in an effort to suppress body camera footage and other records surrounding the mass shooting, Motherboard reported last week. In a letter, the city’s private lawyer argued it should be exempted from releasing records in part because they include “highly embarrassing information” and may cause “emotional/mental distress.”
If the footage is embarrassing to the police, tough.
The release may cause further distress to families but they are already distressed.
As many as 19 cops stood in the hallway outside the connecting classrooms while the rampage took place. Police initially said the gunman had locked the door and that they were waiting for keys. However, the source speaking to San Antonio Express-News said that while authorities may have assumed the door was locked—the doors are designed to lock automatically once closed—a malfunction means it may have been open the entire time, but officers didn’t try it.
The source also said the cops had access to a tool called a “halligan” that could have crowbarred a locked door open.
Cowards.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
The majority of shoots were fired at 11:37 AM. The timestamp of officers in the hallway is 11:52 or so.

The new video footage isn't helping the Uvalde PD look remotely competent or remotely honest. Dealing with a mass shooting incident can't be easy. However, they did take some pretty picks indicating they had SWAT training. Granted, who knows what that actually consisted of. IE receiving the weapons from Government funding and no actual training or competent (refresher?) training? After all, Uvalde, Texas isn't ever going to have a guy with a semi-automatic weapon killing people. What are the odds? Almost no small town in America ever have that happen (except the few that do).

Hard to tell if they killed the shooter sooner whether anyone's life could have been saved. Certainly the nightmare the children who weren't dead could have ended quicker. The trouble seems to expand for the Uvalde PD when Border Patrol gets there, ready to go, and they are held back.

This is going to be a tragic what did they know, when did they know it, and when did they purposefully conceal or lie about it to the public thing. The tragedy should be the deaths of the children, not the apparent incompetent reaction by the police force.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,706
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
The tragedy "should be" whatever people find tragic. It doesn't make people insensitive to the deaths of children to ask why the adults in their community failed to protect them. These kids didn't die because of some random natural event, they died because a lot of the people responsible for their care made decisions that got them killed. Some of those people are now doubling down and saying "we will make all those same decisions again. No number of dead children is too many as the price for our 'rights'." And you think we shouldn't find that tragic? It's tragic.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,543
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment - POLITICO Magazine - "The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun. Today, millions believe they did. Here’s how it happened." - May 19, 2014
“A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum.

Twenty-five years later, Burger’s view seems as quaint as a powdered wig.

Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home. In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise. Why such a head-snapping turnaround? Don’t look for answers in dusty law books or the arcane reaches of theory.
Instead,
The National Rifle Association’s long crusade to bring its interpretation of the Constitution into the mainstream teaches a different lesson: Constitutional change is the product of public argument and political maneuvering. The pro-gun movement may have started with scholarship, but then it targeted public opinion and shifted the organs of government. By the time the issue reached the Supreme Court, the desired new doctrine fell like a ripe apple from a tree.
Then going into the history around the 2nd Amendment.

The Federalists wanted a strong central government, but the Anti-Federalists didn't.
The foes worried, among other things, that the new government would establish a “standing army” of professional soldiers and would disarm the 13 state militias, made up of part-time citizen-soldiers and revered as bulwarks against tyranny. These militias were the product of a world of civic duty and governmental compulsion utterly alien to us today. Every white man age 16 to 60 was enrolled. He was actually required to own—and bring—a musket or other military weapon.

On June 8, 1789, James Madison—an ardent Federalist who had won election to Congress only after agreeing to push for changes to the newly ratified Constitution—proposed 17 amendments on topics ranging from the size of congressional districts to legislative pay to the right to religious freedom. One addressed the “well regulated militia” and the right “to keep and bear arms.” We don’t really know what he meant by it. At the time, Americans expected to be able to own guns, a legacy of English common law and rights. But the overwhelming use of the phrase “bear arms” in those days referred to military activities.

There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
So it was over most of the US's history, with the courts upholading laws on everything from where gunpowder could be stored to who could carry a gun.
Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia. As the Tennessee Supreme Court put it in 1840, “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.”
Then the National Rifle Association.
The NRA was founded by a group of Union officers after the Civil War who, perturbed by their troops’ poor marksmanship, wanted a way to sponsor shooting training and competitions. The group testified in support of the first federal gun law in 1934, which cracked down on the machine guns beloved by Bonnie and Clyde and other bank robbers. When a lawmaker asked whether the proposal violated the Constitution, the NRA witness responded, “I have not given it any study from that point of view.” The group lobbied quietly against the most stringent regulations, but its principal focus was hunting and sportsmanship: bagging deer, not blocking laws. In the late 1950s, it opened a new headquarters to house its hundreds of employees. Metal letters on the facade spelled out its purpose: firearms safety education, marksmanship training, shooting for recreation.
But in a 1977 meeting, some activists did the "Revolt at Cincinnati". "Activists from the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms pushed their way into power."

This activist revolt was followed by tax revolts and the Sagebrush Rebellion against Interior Department land policies.
Politicians adjusted in turn. The 1972 Republican platform had supported gun control, with a focus on restricting the sale of “cheap handguns.” Just three years later in 1975, preparing to challenge Gerald R. Ford for the Republican nomination, Reagan wrote in Guns & Ammo magazine, “The Second Amendment is clear, or ought to be. It appears to leave little if any leeway for the gun control advocate.” By 1980 the GOP platform proclaimed, “We believe the right of citizens to keep and bear arms must be preserved. Accordingly, we oppose federal registration of firearms.” That year the NRA gave Reagan its first-ever presidential endorsement.

Today at the NRA’s headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia, oversized letters on the facade no longer refer to “marksmanship” and “safety.” Instead, the Second Amendment is emblazoned on a wall of the building’s lobby. Visitors might not notice that the text is incomplete. It reads:

“.. the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The first half—the part about the well regulated militia—has been edited out.
Then about the individual-rights interpretation, "If one delves into the claims these scholars were making, a startling number of them crumble."

"In the end, it was neither the NRA nor the Bush administration that pressed the Supreme Court to reverse its centuries-old approach, but a small group of libertarian lawyers who believed other gun advocates were too timid."

Then some lessons that left-wing activists can learn from the NRA's triumph. Like patience and there being no substitute for political organizing. "Before social movements can win at the court they must win at the ballot box."

"But even more important is this: Activists turned their fight over gun control into a constitutional crusade." and "Deep notions of freedom and rights have retained totemic power."

So it may be hard to reassure the gun nuts that they can keep their guns if they are well-behaved.

"Liberal lawyers might once have rushed to court at the slightest provocation. Now, they are starting to realize that a long, full jurisprudential campaign is needed to achieve major goals."

That's true of political movement building in general.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,543
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
How Often Do Police Stop Active Shooters? - The New York Times
Out of 433 US mass-shooting attacks over 2000 - 2021:
  • 249 - ended before the police arrive
    • 185 - the attacker...
      • 113 - left the scene
      • 72 - committed suicide
    • 64 - a bystander...
      • 42 - subdued the attacker
      • 22 - shot the attacker
        • 12 - ordinary person
        • 7 - security guard
        • 3 - off-duty cop
  • 184 - ended after the police arrive
    • 131 - the police...
      • 98 - shot the attacker
      • 33 - subdued the attacker
    • 53 - the attacker...
      • 38 - committed suicide
      • 15 - surrendered

2011 - 2021: 13, 21, 19, 20, 20, 20, 31, 29, 30, 40, 61

“It’s direct, indisputable, empirical evidence that this kind of common claim that ‘the only thing that stops a bad guy with the gun is a good guy with the gun’ is wrong,” said Adam Lankford, a professor at the University of Alabama, who has studied mass shootings for more than a decade. “It’s demonstrably false, because often they are stopping themselves.”

...
“The actual data show that some of these kind of heroic, Hollywood moments of armed citizens taking out active shooters are just extraordinarily rare,” Mr. Lankford said.

In fact, having more than one armed person at the scene who is not a member of law enforcement can create confusion and carry dire risks. An armed bystander who shot and killed an attacker in 2021 in Arvada, Colo., was himself shot and killed by the police, who mistook him for the gunman.

It was twice as common for bystanders to physically subdue the attackers, often by tackling or striking them. At Seattle Pacific University in 2014, a student security guard pepper sprayed and tackled a gunman who was reloading his weapon during an attack that killed one and injured three others. The guard took the attacker’s gun away and held the attacker until law enforcement arrived.

When a gunman entered a classroom at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte in 2019, a student tackled him. The student was shot and killed, but the police chief said the attack would have had a far worse death toll had the student not intervened.

...
Why attackers stop themselves is a hard thing to know, but Mr. Lankford, after studying shooters for years, has some guesses. One is that sometimes, shooters plan for a dramatic confrontation with the police that does not happen. Another possibility, he said, is that the reality of their actions sets in.

I like this comment from "Reader": "The good guy with a gun is a myth only seen in TV westerns." Some people seem to imagine some Hollywood-Western sort of confrontation, where the two sides face each other and get out their guns.

JS:
If you tell me that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun (as Wayne LaPierre said after the Columbine shooting), I'll tell you you're watching too much television.

BTW, less than a year after Columbine, LaPierre went on safari in Botswana where he was unable to kill an elephant at point-blank range. He first wounded it and then fired three shots at it as it lay on the ground but still did not kill it. Read about it in the April 27, 2021 edition of the New Yorker - article by Mike Spies. The article includes a video of LaPierre's inept butchery of the elephant; it had to be finished off by the safari guide.

DeepSouthEric:
The Rambo fantasy too many people carry has to be one of history's greatest absurdities. Talk about playing too many video games...

The data shows that even trained officers, when returning fire under duress, miss their target badly 9 of 10 times. So, our trained police launch nine errant bullets for every one that hits.

Now, imagine your random citizen trying to take down a shooter in a crowd. Oy...
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,359
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
Yeah, so instead of lobbying to amend it to fit changing times they ignore it entirely in order to sell guns for-profit to consumers that are only interested in defending themselves rather than the state. If the federal government decided one day that state rights don't matter (seems like we're already there with the SCOTUS overturning state gun laws) there'd be no militia to keep them in check. Only a bunch of disorganized pussies waving guns at one other. The NRA is our savior indeed.
 

prideandfall

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
2,102
Location
a drawer of inappropriate starches
Basic Beliefs
highly anti-religious agnostic
If the federal government decided one day that state rights don't matter (seems like we're already there with the SCOTUS overturning state gun laws) there'd be no militia to keep them in check. Only a bunch of disorganized pussies waving guns at one other. The NRA is our savior indeed.
well true, but the federal government hasn't given a shit about state's rights since probably... 1784 or so.

the notion that any population can rise up in armed conflict against its own government (in a geographically centralized landmass with an established civil and military infrastructure) is fucking absurd, and it always has been.

the 2nd amendment exists for the sole reason that it was a concession to slave owning states who wanted the ability to have private arsenals of weapons to keep their slave populations in check. that's it. that's why the 2nd amendment exists. any other explanation or excuse is a lie made to try to cover up for the fact that it's just there so slave owners can shoot at their property when it tries to get uppity.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,359
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
Wow, never heard that take before. I was always under the impression it was written with the purpose of giving the states the right to defend their territory from any threat to the state (including the Federal Government if that were to happen). You've got my head popped right now.
 

prideandfall

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
2,102
Location
a drawer of inappropriate starches
Basic Beliefs
highly anti-religious agnostic
Wow, never heard that take before. I was always under the impression it was written with the purpose of giving the states the right to defend their territory from any threat to the state (including the Federal Government if that were to happen). You've got my head popped right now.
this isn't solely out of my ass btw.



TLDR:
when the US was being founded, they needed each territory that would become a state to agree to unify.
the southern states were adamant that the law allow them to have private gun arsenals for the purposes of keeping down slave rebellion.
since the natural inclination of the original founding would have been to follow the model of the rest of the world at the time which was extremely limited private weapon ownership, and mass weapons only being available to governments, they were worried that a federal armed response to a slave revolt wouldn't be fast enough and the entire system would come down.

the 2nd amendment was created to appease them and is worded the way that it is to basically say that slave patrols are fine to keep their own arsenals.
 
Last edited:

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,359
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
Bruh. That's wild. I'm not surprised given America's history but that's some wild shit.

Edit: I'll be looking into this but as of this moment my view of the second amendment has changed.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,366
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Wow, never heard that take before. I was always under the impression it was written with the purpose of giving the states the right to defend their territory from any threat to the state (including the Federal Government if that were to happen). You've got my head popped right now.
It's true. Originally the 2nd was "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free Nation, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Southern slave holding states objected. Their militias were the slave patrols. They didn't want the federal government to be able to call their slave patrols into action in other states leaving them defenseless against slave revolts.

So it was agreed to change the 2nd to "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" which was then ratified.

Heh, ninja'd by P&F.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,359
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
I can't believe I missed this detail in all my years as an all-things written by white people on history hater. That would be my character on Dave Chapelles Blackzilla & Playa Haters' Ball.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,706
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
I think different segments of the colonial public wanted their private arsenals for various reasons. There was also considerable tension in the North, the western Applachians, and the Ohio River valley, between the invading settler population and the lawful inhabitants of the land. Continued violence in the supposed wake of the "French and Indian War", even as special taxes were being demanded to recuperate the Crown for its supposed defense of those territories, was one of the motivating sticking points against King George for many inhabitants of the northern colonies, hence some of the bigoted language in the Declaration and the attitude of the Constitution regarding the Indian nations. I have a copy of a letter from one of my pioneer ancestors not long after the war, lamenting the need to arm her sons when they went on errands for fear of Indian attacks, a proviso which she clearly saw as necessary but not very pious when the errand was church.

This is not to say that the slave patrols weren't a part of this. The politics of the early Republic were not monolithic by any means.

Bottom line, the new government saw it as in its interest to have a heavily armed population, without whose contributions it might have fallen to a federal military or foreign mercenaries to keep the peace, a task that would have been both impossible to accomplish and extremely unpopular with the citizens. Forced disarmaments of Tory families were also a major source of criticism of the Revolutionary government during the war; this amendment could be seen as kind of a peace token in that regard.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,884
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Company towns were also controlled by armed thugs, north and south. Can’t be making those illegal!
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,712
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
How Often Do Police Stop Active Shooters? - The New York Times
Out of 433 US mass-shooting attacks over 2000 - 2021:
  • 249 - ended before the police arrive
    • 185 - the attacker...
      • 113 - left the scene
      • 72 - committed suicide
    • 64 - a bystander...
      • 42 - subdued the attacker
      • 22 - shot the attacker
        • 12 - ordinary person
        • 7 - security guard
        • 3 - off-duty cop
  • 184 - ended after the police arrive
    • 131 - the police...
      • 98 - shot the attacker
      • 33 - subdued the attacker
    • 53 - the attacker...
      • 38 - committed suicide
      • 15 - surrendered

2011 - 2021: 13, 21, 19, 20, 20, 20, 31, 29, 30, 40, 61

“The actual data show that some of these kind of heroic, Hollywood moments of armed citizens taking out active shooters are just extraordinarily rare,” Mr. Lankford said.

In fact, having more than one armed person at the scene who is not a member of law enforcement can create confusion and carry dire risks. An armed bystander who shot and killed an attacker in 2021 in Arvada, Colo., was himself shot and killed by the police, who mistook him for the gunman.

It was twice as common for bystanders to physically subdue the attackers, often by tackling or striking them. At Seattle Pacific University in 2014, a student security guard pepper sprayed and tackled a gunman who was reloading his weapon during an attack that killed one and injured three others. The guard took the attacker’s gun away and held the attacker until law enforcement arrived.

Just because they were twice as likely to be jumped as shot doesn't make shooting the attacker extraordinarily rare. Most mass shootings occur in areas where people aren't allowed to be armed in the first place. In my book, 10% is not "extraordinarily rare".
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,366
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist

Journalists in Uvalde are stonewalled, hassled, threatened with arrest​

A month after 19 children and two educators were killed at Robb Elementary School, a picture is emerging of a disastrous police response, in which officers from several law enforcement agencies waited for an hour outside an unlocked classroom where children were trapped with the attacker. But journalists who have flocked to Uvalde, Tex., from across the country to tell that story have faced near-constant interference, intimidation and stonewalling from some of the same authorities — and not only bikers claiming to have police sanction.

Journalists have been threatened with arrest for “trespassing” outside public buildings. They have been barred from public meetings and refused basic information about what police did during the May 24 attack. After several early, error-filled news conferences, officials have routinely turned down interview requests and refused to hold news briefings. The situation has been made even more fraught by the spider’s web of local and state agencies involved in responding to and investigating the shooting, some of which now blame each other for the chaos.

Gifted link -> https://wapo.st/3HZaPx0
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,884
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Reports are that the shooter was a white male with long black hair. Lunatic? Incel? Boogaloo boy?
Been reading that he’s Magat, been at Trump rallies, raised by Trumpsucking 2A zealots … not that it has anything to do with being a mass murderer killing random people in a democratic area…
Prob’ly just another innocent white victim of mental illness caused by the existence of black people or Hillary.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Reports are that the shooter was a white male with long black hair. Lunatic? Incel? Boogaloo boy?
Been reading that he’s Magat, been at Trump rallies, raised by Trumpsucking 2A zealots … not that it has anything to do with being a mass murderer killing random people in a democratic area…
Prob’ly just another innocent white victim of mental illness caused by the existence of black people or Hillary.
Are you still talking about this? It was time to move on once the bodies got cold. FREEDOM!!!!
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,957
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
Bottom line, the new government saw it as in its interest to have a heavily armed population, without whose contributions it might have fallen to a federal military or foreign mercenaries to keep the peace, a task that would have been both impossible to accomplish and extremely unpopular with the citizens. Forced disarmaments of Tory families were also a major source of criticism of the Revolutionary government during the war; this amendment could be seen as kind of a peace token in that regard.

I wouldn't say that the goal was a heavily armed population. It had more to do with gun technology at the time. Militias depended on muzzle-loading weapons, which meant that it took time to reload them. For a military force to be effective with muzzle loaders, it needed to keep up a constant barrage of musket balls. Typically, units formed three rows of shooters. That allowed sufficient time for reloading to take place while one line was always stepping forward and firing. Hence, the need for a well-regulated militia. Coordinated firing was essential.

The two major threats at the state level were slave revolts and attacks from Indians, but militias were also depended upon to stop other rebellions by citizens opposed to, say, taxes on whiskey. The problem with a federal army wasn't just disarmament, but a state becoming too reliant on a federal standing army to protect them from perceived local threats. If abolitionists controlled the federal government, they might not allow federal troops to be used to put down slave rebellions. States needed their own armies to guarantee their security.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,706
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Bottom line, the new government saw it as in its interest to have a heavily armed population, without whose contributions it might have fallen to a federal military or foreign mercenaries to keep the peace, a task that would have been both impossible to accomplish and extremely unpopular with the citizens. Forced disarmaments of Tory families were also a major source of criticism of the Revolutionary government during the war; this amendment could be seen as kind of a peace token in that regard.

I wouldn't say that the goal was a heavily armed population. It had more to do with gun technology at the time. Militias depended on muzzle-loading weapons, which meant that it took time to reload them. For a military force to be effective with muzzle loaders, it needed to keep up a constant barrage of musket balls. Typically, units formed three rows of shooters. That allowed sufficient time for reloading to take place while one line was always stepping forward and firing. Hence, the need for a well-regulated militia. Coordinated firing was essential.
You honestly believe that the reason for that admonition in the Constitution was to provide formation advice? Why would that be a legal question?
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,957
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
Bottom line, the new government saw it as in its interest to have a heavily armed population, without whose contributions it might have fallen to a federal military or foreign mercenaries to keep the peace, a task that would have been both impossible to accomplish and extremely unpopular with the citizens. Forced disarmaments of Tory families were also a major source of criticism of the Revolutionary government during the war; this amendment could be seen as kind of a peace token in that regard.

I wouldn't say that the goal was a heavily armed population. It had more to do with gun technology at the time. Militias depended on muzzle-loading weapons, which meant that it took time to reload them. For a military force to be effective with muzzle loaders, it needed to keep up a constant barrage of musket balls. Typically, units formed three rows of shooters. That allowed sufficient time for reloading to take place while one line was always stepping forward and firing. Hence, the need for a well-regulated militia. Coordinated firing was essential.
You honestly believe that the reason for that admonition in the Constitution was to provide formation advice? Why would that be a legal question?

That isn't what I said. The expression "well-regulated" was likely a reference to the type of training needed to make a group of soldiers with muzzle loaders an effective fighting force. Without that training, they would not be as effective. It's not about a specific formation but about training. That would be a legal question, because originalists are supposed to base their understanding of the text in its historical context. There are other words to support this interpretation. If it had been intended as a right to keep and bear arms for personal self defense, there would have been no need for the reference to a militia. This was about keeping and bearing arms in the context of a militia. The plain language is pretty obvious. Breach-loading weapons may have existed at the time, but they weren't standard equipment for militias. Modern guns are all breach-loading and don't require the shooter to take the time to load ammunition down the muzzle. That's an important fact to take into account when interpreting the meaning of that particular amendment, because legislative language does not normally embellish the wording with details irrelevant to the intent of the regulation or law. IOW, it tends to be parsimonious, since a group of framers negotiate the wording. It was about a perceived need of militia trainees in that particular era. There is nothing in the amendment about personal use, although the Heller decision extended the meaning to cover that implied interpretation. Weapons could be "kept", but not necessarily at home. That is what armories were used for. Nothing in there about restrictions or lack thereof on private ownership. State governments could have imposed standards on the type of guns to be used by the militia.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,710
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Bottom line, the new government saw it as in its interest to have a heavily armed population, without whose contributions it might have fallen to a federal military or foreign mercenaries to keep the peace, a task that would have been both impossible to accomplish and extremely unpopular with the citizens. Forced disarmaments of Tory families were also a major source of criticism of the Revolutionary government during the war; this amendment could be seen as kind of a peace token in that regard.

I wouldn't say that the goal was a heavily armed population. It had more to do with gun technology at the time. Militias depended on muzzle-loading weapons, which meant that it took time to reload them. For a military force to be effective with muzzle loaders, it needed to keep up a constant barrage of musket balls. Typically, units formed three rows of shooters. That allowed sufficient time for reloading to take place while one line was always stepping forward and firing. Hence, the need for a well-regulated militia. Coordinated firing was essential.
You honestly believe that the reason for that admonition in the Constitution was to provide formation advice? Why would that be a legal question?

That isn't what I said. The expression "well-regulated" was likely a reference to the type of training needed to make a group of soldiers with muzzle loaders an effective fighting force. Without that training, they would not be as effective. It's not about a specific formation but about training. That would be a legal question, because originalists are supposed to base their understanding of the text in its historical context. There are other words to support this interpretation. If it had been intended as a right to keep and bear arms for personal self defense, there would have been no need for the reference to a militia. This was about keeping and bearing arms in the context of a militia. The plain language is pretty obvious. Breach-loading weapons may have existed at the time, but they weren't standard equipment for militias. Modern guns are all breach-loading and don't require the shooter to take the time to load ammunition down the muzzle. That's an important fact to take into account when interpreting the meaning of that particular amendment, because legislative language does not normally embellish the wording with details irrelevant to the intent of the regulation or law. IOW, it tends to be parsimonious, since a group of framers negotiate the wording. It was about a perceived need of militia trainees in that particular era. There is nothing in the amendment about personal use, although the Heller decision extended the meaning to cover that implied interpretation. Weapons could be "kept", but not necessarily at home. That is what armories were used for. Nothing in there about restrictions or lack thereof on private ownership. State governments could have imposed standards on the type of guns to be used by the militia.
So, the issue here is that the federal government gave a right to the states that the states abused.

The abusive states just declared the whole state a militia and minimized requirements.

Sounds like the federal government must define "militia" legally, and crack down on illegal militias.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,957
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
So, the issue here is that the federal government gave a right to the states that the states abused.

The abusive states just declared the whole state a militia and minimized requirements.

Sounds like the federal government must define "militia" legally, and crack down on illegal militias.

There is a whole mythology surrounding the interpretation of "militia" wrt the 2nd amendment. The NRA would have us believe that all military-aged citizens belong to it. Strictly speaking, our modern National Guard is a creation of the early 20th century. Before that, National Guard units and Militia units had been treated separately by state governments. Nowadays, a few states still maintain militias separate from their National Guard units, but they don't play much of a role. The modern National Guard has superseded them and is thoroughly under federal control.

My point is that weapons technology had a lot to do with what "well-regulated" actually meant in the 18th century. Breach-loading weapons weren't even invented until the early half of the 19th century, so reloading rifles was a big deal. Jacketed bullets and semiautomatic weapons came much later. Even in the Civil War, soldiers were still mostly using muzzle loaders. A few had breach-loading rifles, which could be reloaded much more quickly. So it was really necessary for people to practice using the weapon a lot and to learn how to use it in coordination with others. Nowadays, the term "well-regulated" tends to have the sense "well-organized" rather than "well-trained".

But what does a gun have to do with being well-organized? Any angry teenager can learn to use a modern military-style assault weapon and reload it quickly with high capacity magazines. Not a lot of training is necessary, just Youtube videos, web sites, and chat rooms to show them the basics. It wouldn't be that simple, if they needed to load powder, wadding, and ball down the barrel every time they had to fire the weapon.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,706
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
That isn't what I said. The expression "well-regulated" was likely a reference to the type of training needed to make a group of soldiers with muzzle loaders an effective fighting force. Without that training, they would not be as effective. It's not about a specific formation but about training.
If that was the intent, it was never followed; the states never maintained permanent militias with ongoing training regimes, to my knowledge. Actually, the nation struggled to fund even the temporary associations they tried to levy, in the early years. They owed huge debts to their existing veterans, and raising militias to combat enemies internal or external proved a massive and persistent problem until the Civil War era.

There is nothing in the amendment about personal use, although the Heller decision extended the meaning to cover that implied interpretation. Weapons could be "kept", but not necessarily at home. That is what armories were used for. Nothing in there about restrictions or lack thereof on private ownership. State governments could have imposed standards on the type of guns to be used by the militia.
It's clear enough that military, not personal recreational use, is the intended focus of this Amendment; I think we agree on that much. I do think most communities assumed a store of weapons at home, though. This is implied by the documents I've read from the time, which due to my genealogy addiction, is more than a few. I think most frontier households had arms in the home and used them regularly (though more for animal defense than human). Perhaps less true of urban populations. But even the cities weren't really organized the same way they are now, especially not where coercive force was concerned. Most communities had no formal police or military structure beyond local voluntary organizations that functioned more like clubs than armies. If an actual war started, the state or nation paid you on a defined contract and assumed the cost of training alongside the year-and-day of your service. You could be conscripted without your consent, but not for longer than your term of service, and only in an emergency situation.

I also don't think the organization of the militia is as such the purpose of the Second, since that would be superfluous; the main document already establishes the right of the Congress to oversee the creation and regulation of the militias. The Bill of Rights is about personal, not institutional rights. I do not think it is credible therefore to assert that this Amendment was only meant to apply to collective armories; personal gun ownership has to have been its intended target. But I do agree that the use of arms they were thinking about was participation in the militias, not hanging out at the shooting range with the boys, shooting primary schoolers for the lulz, or collecting guns for their own sake.

Honestly, I think the entire country would be better off following the model of some of European nations in which all adult citizens have mandatory firearm training and perhaps the responsibility to maintain a government-provided rifle, but otherwise have fairly limited and clearly regulated gun rights beyond what is necesary to maintain the citizen militia / conscription readiness. But the immovable our citizens are already heavily armed, and public opinion is not in favor of such a system.

EDIT TO CLARIFY: I'm not in favor the so-called Originalist approach to interpreting the Constitution in the first place. It sets up a self-contradictory situation in which the document itself clearly attempts to describe a democracy, but is interpreted in such a way as to over-ride democratic opinion in favor of oligarchic rule by a nine person Court and their self-interested "interpretation" of the whims of ghosts. The law should reflect the desires and understanding of the people who are currently living and can express their own opinions, not the desires of deceased men whose hypothetical opinion on present situations can only be guessed at. The Founders were not unanimous in their opinions nor inflexible in changing them; using their sepulchres the foundation of law is inherently doomed to inconsistency.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,957
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
That isn't what I said. The expression "well-regulated" was likely a reference to the type of training needed to make a group of soldiers with muzzle loaders an effective fighting force. Without that training, they would not be as effective. It's not about a specific formation but about training.
If that was the intent, it was never followed; the states never maintained permanent militias with ongoing training regimes, to my knowledge. Actually, the nation struggled to fund even the temporary associations they tried to levy, in the early years. They owed huge debts to their existing veterans, and raising militias to combat enemies internal or external proved a massive and persistent problem until the Civil War era.

There is nothing in the amendment about personal use, although the Heller decision extended the meaning to cover that implied interpretation. Weapons could be "kept", but not necessarily at home. That is what armories were used for. Nothing in there about restrictions or lack thereof on private ownership. State governments could have imposed standards on the type of guns to be used by the militia.
It's clear enough that military, not personal recreational use, is the intended focus of this Amendment; I think we agree on that much. I do think most communities assumed a store of weapons at home, though. This is implied by the documents I've read from the time, which due to my genealogy addiction, is more than a few. I think most frontier households had arms in the home and used them regularly (though more for animal defense than human). Perhaps less true of urban populations. But even the cities weren't really organized the same way they are now, especially not where coercive force was concerned. Most communities had no formal police or military structure beyond local voluntary organizations that functioned more like clubs than armies. If an actual war started, the state or nation paid you on a defined contract and assumed the cost of training alongside the year-and-day of your service. You could be conscripted without your consent, but not for longer than your term of service, and only in an emergency situation.

I also don't think the organization of the militia is as such the purpose of the Second, since that would be superfluous; the main document already establishes the right of the Congress to oversee the creation and regulation of the militias. The Bill of Rights is about personal, not institutional rights. I do not think it is credible therefore to assert that this Amendment was only meant to apply to collective armories; personal gun ownership has to have been its intended target. But I do agree that the use of arms they were thinking about was participation in the militias, not hanging out at the shooting range with the boys or collecting guns for their own sake.

Honestly, I think the entire country would be better off following the model of some of European nations in which all adult citizens have mandatory firearm training and perhaps the responsibility to maintain a government-provided rifle, but otherwise have fairly limited and clearly regulated gun rights beyond what is necesary to maintain the citizen militia / conscription readiness. But our citizens are already heavily armed, and public opinion is not in favor of such a system.

All very well, but not much of what you said had anything to do with the Second Amendment. It is often called the most poorly worded language in the Constitution, but I don't believe that. It was very carefully worded--succinct and to the point. Given how weapons were understood at the time, reloading them was a major aspect of using them effectively. The Militia Act of 1792 was informed by that understanding of the Second Amendment. Technology quickly rendered the original sense of a "well-regulated militia" obsolete. After the Civil War, breach-loading weapons could be reloaded quickly and easily. Before that, not so much. More experience and training was needed to operate them effectively. All kinds of bad things could happen if soldiers didn't reload properly. Some soldiers even reloaded twice, forgetting that they had already stuffed powder, wadding, and ball down the barrel. It was only in the Civil War that bayonets began to be used offensively in warfare. Before that, they were largely defensive weapons. Why? Slow muzzle-loading weapons couldn't always be reloaded in time.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,710
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
That isn't what I said. The expression "well-regulated" was likely a reference to the type of training needed to make a group of soldiers with muzzle loaders an effective fighting force. Without that training, they would not be as effective. It's not about a specific formation but about training.
If that was the intent, it was never followed; the states never maintained permanent militias with ongoing training regimes, to my knowledge. Actually, the nation struggled to fund even the temporary associations they tried to levy, in the early years. They owed huge debts to their existing veterans, and raising militias to combat enemies internal or external proved a massive and persistent problem until the Civil War era.

There is nothing in the amendment about personal use, although the Heller decision extended the meaning to cover that implied interpretation. Weapons could be "kept", but not necessarily at home. That is what armories were used for. Nothing in there about restrictions or lack thereof on private ownership. State governments could have imposed standards on the type of guns to be used by the militia.
It's clear enough that military, not personal recreational use, is the intended focus of this Amendment; I think we agree on that much. I do think most communities assumed a store of weapons at home, though. This is implied by the documents I've read from the time, which due to my genealogy addiction, is more than a few. I think most frontier households had arms in the home and used them regularly (though more for animal defense than human). Perhaps less true of urban populations. But even the cities weren't really organized the same way they are now, especially not where coercive force was concerned. Most communities had no formal police or military structure beyond local voluntary organizations that functioned more like clubs than armies. If an actual war started, the state or nation paid you on a defined contract and assumed the cost of training alongside the year-and-day of your service. You could be conscripted without your consent, but not for longer than your term of service, and only in an emergency situation.

I also don't think the organization of the militia is as such the purpose of the Second, since that would be superfluous; the main document already establishes the right of the Congress to oversee the creation and regulation of the militias. The Bill of Rights is about personal, not institutional rights. I do not think it is credible therefore to assert that this Amendment was only meant to apply to collective armories; personal gun ownership has to have been its intended target. But I do agree that the use of arms they were thinking about was participation in the militias, not hanging out at the shooting range with the boys, shooting primary schoolers for the lulz, or collecting guns for their own sake.

Honestly, I think the entire country would be better off following the model of some of European nations in which all adult citizens have mandatory firearm training and perhaps the responsibility to maintain a government-provided rifle, but otherwise have fairly limited and clearly regulated gun rights beyond what is necesary to maintain the citizen militia / conscription readiness. But the immovable our citizens are already heavily armed, and public opinion is not in favor of such a system.

I'm not in favor the so-called Originalist approach to interpreting the Constitution. It sets up a self-contradictory situation in which the document itself clearly attempts to describe a democracy, but is interpreted in such a way as to over-ride democratic opinion in favor of oligarchic rule by a nine person Court and their self-interested "interpretation" of the whims of ghosts. The law should reflect the desires and understanding of the people who are currently living and can express their own opinions, not the desires of deceased men whose hypothetical opinion on present situations can only be guessed at. The Founders were not unanimous in their opinions nor inflexible in changing them; using fanciful portrayals of what their sepulchres demand as the foundation of law is inherently doomed to inconsistency.
And my point is, it seemed that the 2nd was aimed at keeping the federal government from controlling the arming policies of the states so as to prevent federal control of munitions.

It's a right specifically granted to the states which they then abused by not actually regulating "the militia" at all.

And now we have a bunch of militias, really more terrorist cells, which are unregulated and running amok.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,957
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
And my point is, it seemed that the 2nd was aimed at keeping the federal government from controlling the arming policies of the states so as to prevent federal control of munitions.

It's a right specifically granted to the states which they then abused by not actually regulating "the militia" at all.

And now we have a bunch of militias, really more terrorist cells, which are unregulated and running amok.

Again, I think that you make the mistake of thinking that "well-regulated" meant "well-governed" or "well-controlled". But why would personal ownership of a weapon be relevant to that sense of the expression? It made more sense if the authors were thinking of soldiers that could reload quickly and fire in a coordinated pattern. That is, the sense of "well-regulated" they intended was more probably "well-trained" in using single-shot muskets that took time to reload.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
And my point is, it seemed that the 2nd was aimed at keeping the federal government from controlling the arming policies of the states so as to prevent federal control of munitions.

It's a right specifically granted to the states which they then abused by not actually regulating "the militia" at all.

And now we have a bunch of militias, really more terrorist cells, which are unregulated and running amok.

Again, I think that you make the mistake of thinking that "well-regulated" meant "well-governed" or "well-controlled". But why would personal ownership of a weapon be relevant to that sense of the expression? It made more sense if the authors were thinking of soldiers that could reload quickly and fire in a coordinated pattern. That is, the sense of "well-regulated" they intended was more probably "well-trained" in using single-shot muskets that took time to reload.
I thought Jarhyn made a good point, but when you look at the text, it is explicitly talking to individual rights. The Bill of Rights was originally meant to protect the States and People from the Federal Government. But if the 2nd Amendment was enumerating the responsibility of gun ownership to the states, it is oddly worded. Additionally, gun ownership wasn't all too controversial in a country with a frontier and very rural.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,710
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
And my point is, it seemed that the 2nd was aimed at keeping the federal government from controlling the arming policies of the states so as to prevent federal control of munitions.

It's a right specifically granted to the states which they then abused by not actually regulating "the militia" at all.

And now we have a bunch of militias, really more terrorist cells, which are unregulated and running amok.

Again, I think that you make the mistake of thinking that "well-regulated" meant "well-governed" or "well-controlled". But why would personal ownership of a weapon be relevant to that sense of the expression? It made more sense if the authors were thinking of soldiers that could reload quickly and fire in a coordinated pattern. That is, the sense of "well-regulated" they intended was more probably "well-trained" in using single-shot muskets that took time to reload.
I thought Jarhyn made a good point, but when you look at the text, it is explicitly talking to individual rights. The Bill of Rights was originally meant to protect the States and People from the Federal Government. But if the 2nd Amendment was enumerating the responsibility of gun ownership to the states, it is oddly worded. Additionally, gun ownership wasn't all too controversial in a country with a frontier and very rural.
More, "in the interests of the functions of a well ordered militia (specifically not 'army'), the federal government shall not tell the states how they shall arm the militia and warehouse it's weapons."

What I see as happening is the states saying "ok, well, neither will we, so SUCK IT! Everybody is militia!"
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
I thought Jarhyn made a good point, but when you look at the text, it is explicitly talking to individual rights. The Bill of Rights was originally meant to protect the States and People from the Federal Government. But if the 2nd Amendment was enumerating the responsibility of gun ownership to the states, it is oddly worded. Additionally, gun ownership wasn't all too controversial in a country with a frontier and very rural.
More, "in the interests of the functions of a well ordered militia (specifically not 'army'), the federal government shall not tell the states how they shall arm the militia and warehouse it's weapons."

What I see as happening is the states saying "ok, well, neither will we, so SUCK IT! Everybody is militia!"
But was there that issue back then? Adversity between Feds and States over firearms? Regardless, the Articles of Confederation stated:
Articles of Confederation said:
No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.
Reading the 2nd Amendment in context with the text of the Articles of Confederation does muddy the waters.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,706
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
The federal government does have direct control over state militias, though. This has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights, but Article 1 of the Constitution itself:

Clause 16. 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.

This was later "interpreted" to apply to a national standing army, but its original intent is pretty obvious in the context of this discussion: ultimately, Congress has direct control in all matters pertaining to war, including the drawing and organization of state militias, at least in any matter of collective national defense.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,359
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
Zoinks! There you have it, folks. It's time we start kicking down doors for those guns. It's not a complete loss, we'll leave you a National Guard recruitment pamphlet.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,710
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
I thought Jarhyn made a good point, but when you look at the text, it is explicitly talking to individual rights. The Bill of Rights was originally meant to protect the States and People from the Federal Government. But if the 2nd Amendment was enumerating the responsibility of gun ownership to the states, it is oddly worded. Additionally, gun ownership wasn't all too controversial in a country with a frontier and very rural.
More, "in the interests of the functions of a well ordered militia (specifically not 'army'), the federal government shall not tell the states how they shall arm the militia and warehouse it's weapons."

What I see as happening is the states saying "ok, well, neither will we, so SUCK IT! Everybody is militia!"
But was there that issue back then? Adversity between Feds and States over firearms? Regardless, the Articles of Confederation stated:
Articles of Confederation said:
No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.
Reading the 2nd Amendment in context with the text of the Articles of Confederation does muddy the waters.
There didn't need to be an issue. At the time, they had no reason to think that this was a bad arrangement of just leaving it loose, and trusting states to organize as they were able.

As ZiprHead points out, later clarification was forthcoming.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,359
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
There didn't need to be an issue. At the time, they had no reason to think that this was a bad arrangement of just leaving it loose, and trusting states to organize as they were able.

My understanding is the culture was a bunch of Europeans doing the whole get rich or die trying thingamabob. They didn't foresee that half of America would change goals centuries later.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,749
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
So, the issue here is that the federal government gave a right to the states that the states abused.

The abusive states just declared the whole state a militia and minimized requirements.

Sounds like the federal government must define "militia" legally, and crack down on illegal militias.

There is a whole mythology surrounding the interpretation of "militia" wrt the 2nd amendment. The NRA would have us believe that all military-aged citizens belong to it. Strictly speaking, our modern National Guard is a creation of the early 20th century. Before that, National Guard units and Militia units had been treated separately by state governments. Nowadays, a few states still maintain militias separate from their National Guard units, but they don't play much of a role. The modern National Guard has superseded them and is thoroughly under federal control.

My point is that weapons technology had a lot to do with what "well-regulated" actually meant in the 18th century. Breach-loading weapons weren't even invented until the early half of the 19th century, so reloading rifles was a big deal. Jacketed bullets and semiautomatic weapons came much later. Even in the Civil War, soldiers were still mostly using muzzle loaders. A few had breach-loading rifles, which could be reloaded much more quickly. So it was really necessary for people to practice using the weapon a lot and to learn how to use it in coordination with others. Nowadays, the term "well-regulated" tends to have the sense "well-organized" rather than "well-trained".

But what does a gun have to do with being well-organized? Any angry teenager can learn to use a modern military-style assault weapon and reload it quickly with high capacity magazines. Not a lot of training is necessary, just Youtube videos, web sites, and chat rooms to show them the basics. It wouldn't be that simple, if they needed to load powder, wadding, and ball down the barrel every time they had to fire the weapon.
I disagree.

I understand ‘well regulated’ in the time and context of the writing of the second amendment to mean “under the strict control of the authorities”.

It had little to do with organisation, and nothing to do with training; It is an admonition against militias that don’t act as loyal servants of the properly elected and constituted government - anarchists, rebels, and cultists.

The writers of the second amendment were probably particularly concerned about the possibility of pro-English militias who might seek to overturn their revolution, and separatists who might seek to break up their new country.

This interpretation is certainly a better fit with my understanding of the way that the English language has changed since the C18th.

Organisation is a more modern fetish, which arose from the industrial revolution; Training would at the time have been referred to using language such as “well drilled” - “regulated” specifically meant “commanded by legitimate authority”, and again, other meanings for the word commonly used today derive from the rise of the machines, that hadn’t yet occurred when the second amendment was penned.

The pre-industrial world was a very different place, and many new concepts that arose during the industrial revolution co-opted words that had previously been used quite differently. “Regulated” is certainly one such word. In a military context, it’s a reference to what today would be called “communication, command and control” - the ability of the central authority to direct the actions of individual units in the field.
 
Top Bottom