Recommended Posts

William:

The Second Amendment of the American Bill of Rights states:

As passed by the Congress:

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.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

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.
[8]

That there is a range of opinion on what exactly it means is another thing.

The 2nd amendment refers to 'a well-regulated militia'; are we to pretend that there is no debate or discussion about this -- that it has been settled forevermore in both the minds and habits of all Americans.

I am surprised that you would pull this phrase out as having some stand alone meaning.

* The use of the commas and the use of the phrase "the people" is critical to any understanding of this part of the American Bill of Rights.

In the landmark decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), this distinction was clearly and completely examined, analyzed and decided.

In the underlying opinion of SILBERMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.Judge of the District Appellate Court, in 478 F. 3d 370 - Parker v. District of Columbia, he noted that:

[T]he Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to ensure that the people would have the ability to defend themselves against a potentially oppressive federal government, which had just been given the authority to maintain a national standing army in Article I of the Constitution. But, the drafters of the Constitution having provided for a `District . . . [to] become the Seat of the Government of the United States,' and having given Congress `exclusive' authority both to legislate over this District and to exercise control over `the Erection of Forts, Magazines, [and] Arsenals . . .,' surely it was not intended for the protection afforded by the Second Amendment to apply to an entity that had been created to house the national seat of government. In other words, there is no reason to believe that the First Congress thought that the federal seat of government needed to be protected from itself when the Second Amendment was adopted.

I will have more on this later.

Essentially, and respectfully William, you are fundamentally incorrect in your reading of the Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights.

A...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 649
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

William:

If you are referring to the Bushmaster Carbine that the shooter used in Newton Conn. by your phrase "the weapon,"

The weapon. A military-style weapon that fires automatic rounds from removable clips.

that statement is also inaccurate.

A...

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the cost of trying to stop every instance of violence/insanity? Carol appears to be willing to force others to pay quite a high price.

The weapon. A military-style weapon that fires automatic rounds from removable clips.

Are you confusing fully automatic weapons and semi-automatic ones? I've hunted with semi-automatic weapons with removable clips.

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

William:

The Second Amendment of the American Bill of Rights states:

Dude, I already posted this up-thread. And to be honest, I don't care what you have to say to me about my incorrectitude or whatnot. It is irrelevant to 'solutions' and to the issue of semi-automatic weapons.

I would of course, be interested in you giving a 'solution' (aside from Brant's improvements) or arguing for the status quo.

In the meantime, oh how keerazy sounds Lindsay Perigo? A titanic performance:

We are witnessing the climax of cretinism, the zenith of zombie-ism, the apogee of airheadery,precisely because of the concerted attack on reason from all sides. The plunge from Mario Lanza to Ke$ha -- and far worse headbanging caterwauling than hers -- is testament to the anti-reasonists' success. The contrasting symbolism of Mario Lanza and Adam Lanza is testament to the enormity of the anti-reasonists' destruction. No, millions don't worship Adam the way millions once worshipped Mario -- but millions embrace a culture that glorifies the kind of deed Adam Lanza recently perpetrated.

Added:

If you are referring to the Bushmaster Carbine that the shooter used in Newton Conn. by your phrase "the weapon,"

The weapon. A military-style weapon that fires automatic rounds from removable clips.

that statement is also inaccurate.

How tantalizing. Maybe you could tell us what is known about 'the weapon' ... I may be inaccurate to describe it as a military-style weapon that fires automatic rounds from removable clip, but your response did not show us how.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you confusing fully automatic weapons and semi-automatic ones? I've hunted with semi-automatic weapons with removable clips.

I don't know. What do you know about the weapon? If I am mistaken or inaccurate in describing the weapon, well, let us get more accurate and precise about the gun used to kill the children. Adam no doubt will issue a technical cut and paste.

In the meantime, from the Atlantic:

Connecticut Chief Medical Examiner Wayne Carver revealed to the world that the primary weapon used on the Sandy Hook school victims was not a handgun but rather a long gun, a Bushmaster .223 assault rifle, a formidable killing machine eschewed by most hunters, unwieldy for self-defense, similar to weapons used by our soldiers in Afghanistan and the weapon of choice of the Beltway snipers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you see that SOLO's Doug has admitted to liking Barry Manilow as a kid? And he seems to still be very upset that other guys "got the chicks."

Speaking of which, if Doug were to flip out and go on a killing spree, would it surprise you, or would you think, "Yeah, I guess that I should have recognized the signs"?

Come to think of it, I'm actually kind of surprised the SOLOpsists aren't praising the shooter. That's Pigero's normal hateful tack -- to try to find a way to mimic Rand's nutty defense of Hickman and her condemnation of society.

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam tells us that this statement is inaccurate (though not yet how): "The weapon. A military-style weapon that fires automatic rounds from removable clips."

Here's some specifications and promotional video from online gun marketer Cheaper than Dirt:

Manufacturer: Bushmaster 90289
Item: 13230
UPC: 604206072252

Bushmaster M4A3 Patrolman Semi Automatic Carbine .223 Remington/5.56x45mm NATO 16" M4 Barrel 30 Rounds Black M4 Collapsible Buttstock Black Anodized Finish.

One of Bushmaster's most popular carbine models, the M4 type features a distinctive military barrel profile and six position telescoping buttstock - great for 3 Gun Match shooting, home defense and law enforcement use. The Bushmaster A2 & A3 type Patrolman's carbines are modeled after the M4 type carbines, but with additional barrel length to make them legal for sale to individual officers. Features a chrome-lined barrel, birdcage flash suppressor, A3 upper receiver with picatinny rail, and removable carry handle and rear sight. Shipped with a 30 round magazine, carrying sling, and operating and safety instruction manual. One year Bushmaster warranty.

Specifications and features:
Bushmaster M4A3 Patrolman semi-automatic carbine
.223 Remington/5.56x45mm NATO
16" M4 profile barrel with M203 cut
1:9" twist with 6 grooves & lands
30 round magazine
A3 upper receiver with picatinny rail and removable carry handle
Two piece, plastic handguards
7075 T6 aircraft-grade aluminum upper & lower receiver
Manganese phosphate-coated
Hard-anodized mil-spec finish
Black M4 collapsible buttstock
Accepts all M16 and AR-15 magazines
34.75" overall length
6.7 lbs unloaded

http://youtu.be/Bjw0uKcpGW0

is this the gun you refer to, Adam, or another one?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you confusing fully automatic weapons and semi-automatic ones? I've hunted with semi-automatic weapons with removable clips.

I don't know. What do you know about the weapon? If I am mistaken or inaccurate in describing the weapon, well, let us get more accurate and precise about the gun used to kill the children. Adam no doubt will issue a technical cut and paste.

Fully automatic weapons are capable of releasing a spray of multiple rounds with one squeeze of the trigger -- the bullets keep shooting as long as the trigger is held back. Semi-automatic weapons, on the other hand, fire only one round per squeeze of the trigger, and automatically load another round for the next squeeze. Semi-automatic weapons are legal for use in hunting, where fully automatic ones are not. Anti-gun nuts often like to cause confusion about the difference between the two, and try to give the impression that they are attempting to ban fully automatic weapons when they're actually going after semi-automatic ones.

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you see that SOLO's Doug has admitted to liking Barry Manilow as a kid? And he seems to still be very upset that other guys "got the chicks."

I did not see that. I hope he doesn't hold that against Barry Manilow. It is uncertain how many chicks were got by Barry.

Doug's relationships with women are complicated, I imagine. He comes from a PUA milieu, which is indicative. That he hasn't been laid in a while seems obvious. That he really has a bone to pick with the Collective Them, that's also obvious.

Speaking of which, if Doug were to flip out and go on a killing spree, would it surprise you, or would you think, "Yeah, I guess that that should have recognized the signs"?

I would be shocked and horrified if Doug went on a killing spree. I would be quite surprised too. I think he is all mouth. His threats to beat the shit out of Jason Quintana were telling.

But it is creepy to hear him justify/explain earlier mass killings of the recent past to Problems With The Bitches.

Come to think of it, I'm actually kind of surprised the SOLOpsists aren't praising the shooter. That's Pigero's normal hateful tack -- to try to find a way to mimic Rand's nutty defense of Hickman and her condemnation of society.

Not so surprising that there is a paucity of empathy for anyone involved. It is like bickering after a sport game, as if no corpses were a result ...

Here's Doug in all his splendour, after having IDed Lanza's mother as a crazy anarchist:

Oh goodness, the damage that damaged mothers do. This is what happens when men, masculinity and fatherhood are undermined.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to post
Share on other sites

Fully automatic weapons are capable of releasing a spray of multiple rounds with one squeeze of the trigger -- the bullets keep shooting as long as the trigger is held back. Semi-automatic weapons, on the other hand, fire only one round per squeeze of the trigger, and automatically load another round for the next squeeze.

So the error in my description of the weapon was to mix up the automatic-reload of the cartridge, and leave the impression of a machine-gun. Thanks.

screen%20shot%202012-12-17%20at%2011.59.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, and the problem is that many people want to ban certain guns because of how they look. They look like a "machine-gun" and are therefore labeled to be a dangerous "assault rifle." Give the same gun a traditional wooden stock and they're not upset. There are a lot of uninformed people whose concerns come down to nothing but an issue of cosmetics.

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why didn't the Bill of RIghts simply say: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The there is the ninth amendment argument. The right of the people to self defense is clear yet is not enumerated. If people have the right to self defense, then it follows they have the right to secure the means for self defense. From which it can be inferred that they have the right to secure firearms for their own defense.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been banned from SOLO, sob sob.

red_button.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so Pigero reminded you that you owed him your Objections to Objectivism, and then immediately after you provided them, he employed his standard maneuver of banning you for not acting "in good faith"? Hilarious. He pulled the same lame "good faith" thing on me.

Btw, would you happen to know if Doug and Pigero are dating? With Doug's admitted bad luck with and resentment for "chicks," and Pigero's apparent current adoration of a dunce like Doug, I'm starting to wonder if the whole thing could be explained by Pigero's being lovestruck and his having talked dopey Doug into discovering the benefits of batting for the other team.

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

FWIW, my interpretation is that this means individuals may bear arms, and the government can't prevent people in a given area from forming a militia. This was back when we didn't have a standing army. However, the words "well regulated" imply something. Regulated, by whom? It hardly matters today, but still this is an amendment, not a statute. If you want to change it, you need another amendment. Otherwise, what's the use of having a Constitution?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent article on the current issue of "mass shootings," by John Fund in NRO on line...

He begins by explaining the "stats" on mass shooting in the US in terms of the year when the most occurred:

In fact, the high point for mass killings in the U.S. was 1929, according to criminologist Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections.

Incidents of mass murder in the U.S. declined from 42 in the 1990s to 26 in the first decade of this century.

The chances of being killed in a mass shooting are about what they are for being struck by lightning.

Continuing, this statement surprised me, I wonder what Angela [Xray] knows about this...

Until the Newtown horror, the three worst K–12 school shootings ever had taken place in either Britain or Germany**.

He then goes to bi-bifurcating the issues that are raised by the Conn. shootings:

First, the mental-health issue. A lengthy study by Mother Jones magazine found that at least 38 of the 61 mass shooters in the past three decades “displayed signs of mental health problems prior to the killings.” New York Times columnist David Brooks and Cornell Law School professor William Jacobson have both suggested that the ACLU-inspired laws that make it so difficult to intervene and identify potentially dangerous people should be loosened.

Next, he supports John Locke intense study of the Batman theater shooting and the fact that gun-free zones are where all of the shootings occur.

The one exception was the Gifford shooting in Arizona at the Congress on the Corner supermarket parking lot shooting:

Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive. “Guns are already banned in schools. That is why the shootings happen in schools. A school is a ‘helpless-victim zone,’” says Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff. “Preventing any adult at a school from having access to a firearm eliminates any chance the killer can be stopped in time to prevent a rampage,” Jim Kouri, the public-information officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, told me earlier this year at the time of the Aurora, Colo., Batman-movie shooting. Indeed, there have been many instances — from the high-school shooting by Luke Woodham in Mississippi, to the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo. — where a killer has been stopped after someone got a gun from a parked car or elsewhere and confronted the shooter.

I spoke with Lott after the Newtown shooting, and he confirmed that nothing has changed to alter his findings. He noted that the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund#

A...

** April 26, 2002: Robert Steinhaeuser, 19, who had been expelled from school in Erfurt, Germany, kills 13 teachers, two former classmates and policeman, before committing suicide.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I generally agree with your post, Adam, we don't know that any signage had anything to do with the chosen target.

--Brant

Brant:

Agreed. However, the pattern does show a tendency to pick "soft targets."

Makes sense to me. However, I am thinking logically. I diseased, sick, or, evil mind might, or, might not, calculate those percentages into their choice of a target.

A...

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I generally agree with your post, Adam, we don't know that any signage had anything to do with the chosen target.

--Brant

Brant:

Agreed. However, the pattern does show a tendency to pick "soft targets."

Makes sense to me. However, I am thinking logically. I diseased, sick, or, evil mind might, or, might not, calculate those percentages into their choice of a target.

A...

Signage is one thing, soft target another. If you're so crazy to kill children, signage is nothing, maybe.

--Brant

like I said

Link to post
Share on other sites
Excellent article on the current issue of "mass shootings," by John Fund in NRO on line... He begins by explaining the "stats" on mass shooting in the US in terms of the year when the most occurred:
In fact, the high point for mass killings in the U.S. was 1929, according to criminologist Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections. [....]

1929 was during Prohibition, and was the year of the St. Valentine's Day massacre (7 killed). Is Duwe including gang-land slayings in his sums?

Ellen

Link to post
Share on other sites

18264_10151190105457613_1975744218_n.jpg

I gather this photo is for real. It's quite shocking, but thinking about it a bit, in Israel they know there are armed nut-cases nearby who want nothing more than to kill as many people, children included, as possible. Knowing they can't change that context with the stroke of a pen, they deal with it on a more practical level.

Wait a minute, this is different from the situation in the USA how?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard to believe, but here's credit where due, hat tip to Knucky on OO:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/man-attempts-to-open-fire-on-crowd-at-movie-theater-armed-off-duty-sheriffs-deputy-drops-him-with-one-bullet/

Can't beat the timing, huh? One of the earliest entries in the comment section warmed my cockles:

"this story is a lie. The huffington post is not reporting it"

So I just checked, and yep, there's nada, zip, pas un mot about this on HP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent article on the current issue of "mass shootings," by John Fund in NRO on line... He begins by explaining the "stats" on mass shooting in the US in terms of the year when the most occurred:

In fact, the high point for mass killings in the U.S. was 1929, according to criminologist Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections. [....]

1929 was during Prohibition, and was the year of the St. Valentine's Day massacre (7 killed). Is Duwe including gang-land slayings in his sums?

Ellen

Ellen:

In my reading of the introduction, he specifically mentions the St. Valentine's Massacre. Therefore, it appears that he does include those types of incidences as within the criteria of "mass murder."

http://www.amazon.com/Mass-Murder-United-States-History/dp/0786431504

A...

Link to post
Share on other sites

It turns out that the deadliest mass murder in a school in the U.S. was committed using dynamite. Therefore dynamite should not exist.

The fallacy of the excluded middle?

Does this rhetoric suggest that there are only two alternatives: one being the status quo** and the other being a wholesale confiscation of all firearms from civilians?

Maybe the solution is to really crack down on all freedoms. People should be locked into their homes, and they should need permission and official state escorts to leave their homes. They should be handcuffed at all times when out in public, and their homes should be subject to unannounced searches by police at any time, without warrant.

This is more of the same: imagine an insane 'solution' to a problem, a 'solution' obviously impractical. If that solution can't happen, then status quo.

But you don't live here, Daunce. And as I have tried to hint at, unless you are American, I don't really think you can understand why this matters so much to us, or how complicated it actually is.

PDS has done more than hint. I don't believe that unless one is American one can never understand those Americans who are steadfast against any 'un-American' interpretation of the second amendment ...

That the 2nd amendment matters very much to (some/most/all) Americans is one thing. That there is a range of opinion on what exactly it means is another thing.

The 2nd amendment refers to 'a well-regulated militia'; are we to pretend that there is no debate or discussion about this -- that it has been settled forevermore in both the minds and habits of all Americans. Decoupling the right to bear arms from reference to a militia (be it well-organized/regulated), it still leaves the lawfulness of regulation/management of firearms open to argument.

I asserted upthread that there would be no change in American gun laws in the aftermath of the slaughter by semi-automatic. I will amend that assertion to this: there will be a discussion in Congress that proposes new federal laws against possession of semi-automatic (assault) weapons.

There will be gnashing of teeth and titanic feats of sophistry, and it will come to naught.

I would also say it is bad form to keep picking at a wound--one that we Americans feel some sense of shame about but realize is, largely, the price of freedom we cherish, and now see under assault by the usual suspects who hate to "waste a crisis"--that hasn't had a chance to even begin to heal, let alone produce a scab. And then I would remind you that this is an issue that is not solved through feelings and glibness.

Why is it bad form 'to keep picking at' this wound? There is no other wound that is off-limits to picking in a free society. And the very rhetorical device used to shame discussion? While PDS chastises Daunce for wound-picking and a lack of citizenship, Americans of many stripes are having wild discussions outside these precincts. Why should Daunce be charried for raising the same issues being raised across the board in the US today? Just because OL is not posting links or excerpts of that discussion doesn't mean that it is not occuring -- Daunce says little that is not currently featured in the mainstream and subsidiary media. Have all those Americans urging 'something be done' to control assault weapons become non-American also?

The best take on PDS's evocation of The Americans is this: "It is complicated" ...

So, is there any chance whatsoever that new regulations will be enforced against semi-automatic assault weapons?

I doubt it very much (although several senators of the usual ilk will be tabling just such regulation ...).

In the end, for some folks that we respect (like PDS) the issue boils down to the price you pay for gun freedom.

What about the murder weapon, anybody?

Bushmaster .223-caliber: lightweight with a high capacity, it also is popular with law enforcement and the military, and is commonly seen at shooting competitions. Two men convicted in a series of sniper killings in the Washington, D.C.-area in 2002 used a Bushmaster .223-caliber rifle that they fired from the trunk of a car at randomly picked victims. Some models have a detachable magazine that can hold up to 30 rounds. The medical examiner in Connecticut said it appeared all the children and school staff were shot with the same high-powered rifle, some repeatedly, some at close range.

afp-us-sniper-weapon-bushmaster-4_3_r560

WSS:

There may be, as you say, a "range of opinion" on what the 2nd Amendment says, but there is only one opinion that matters: the United States Supreme Court, and that Court has spoken. Under case law going back 200+ years, the Supreme Court determines the contours and meaning of our Constitution.

To talk about the 2nd Amendment as though it is a recommendation, subject to change depending on the headlines, is a waste of energy. The corollary that comes to mind are the pro-Life folk (here, Canada, anywhere else) decrying the abortion rate in this country as an example of how fucked up American society is. Interesting, but irrelevant, in light of that pesky Roe v. Wade decision.

As I said up-thread, all those Americans urging that something be done are not being "un American", as you formulate it: but they are being promiscuous with their constitutional inheritance. They are willing to piss it away, in fact. Whether Daunce is making the same arguments, or not, is beside the point. I suspect she is making many of the same arguments, but with less ill intent than the hucksters in this country, who would love nothing more than to have a constitutional convention to make sure there are "no more shootings" as a pretext to fundamentally alter this country.

And yes, it is complicated. Complicated from a psychological, historical, and constitutional standpoint. That's why quips and feelings and headlines won't do the trick here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Excellent article on the current issue of "mass shootings," by John Fund in NRO on line... He begins by explaining the "stats" on mass shooting in the US in terms of the year when the most occurred:
In fact, the high point for mass killings in the U.S. was 1929, according to criminologist Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections. [....]
1929 was during Prohibition, and was the year of the St. Valentine's Day massacre (7 killed). Is Duwe including gang-land slayings in his sums?

Ellen

Ellen: In my reading of the introduction, he specifically mentions the St. Valentine's Massacre. Therefore, it appears that he does include those types of incidences as within the criteria of "mass murder." http://www.amazon.com/Mass-Murder-United-States-History/dp/0786431504'>http://www.amazon.com/Mass-Murder-United-States-History/dp/0786431504 A...

Adam,

I read the material available for viewing on Amazon from the Introduction -- I just skimmed the last few pages since I have to leave for an appointment. I can't tell from that if Duwe is going to include such killings as the St. Valentine's Day example in his stats. I think that a breakdown of figures into types would be needed to give one useful figures on prevalence. The example Duwe starts by discussing was in the 60s and described as "[a crime which] could have happened to anyone, for the victims were strangers to Speck, seemingly killed at random for no apparent reason." That's different from gang members deliberately killing "business" rivals. I can't tell if Duwe proceeds to find incidents earlier than the 60s comparable to the Speck -- and then the Texas sniper -- examples.

Ellen

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now