Fine Figure of a Man
Member
Wrong
The primary reason for the 2A is to defend against a tyrannical government, which was fresh in the memory of the founders.
My thoughts on 2A application, and avoiding shootings.
- Thread starter mshootnit
- Start date
- Status
The primary reason for the 2A is to defend against a tyrannical government, which was fresh in the memory of the founders.
MidRoad
Member
I see your concept but when you said federally mandated you lost me. Also having them under lock and key to be inspected by the government whenever........ That's just letting them in your home whenever they damn well please for an "inspection". Sounds like you're inviting in the very thing you are afraid to happen..... I'll pass thanks.
MidRoad
Member
Wouldn't be to keen on the idea of only those who have served can vote....for example a fella that got in a car accident and lost both his legs at 16, or some one born with bad asthma, or is blind....they can't serve...but they SHOULD have a say in who is running their country.
We do have well-regulated militia composed of citizen soldiers commonly known as the National Guard.
AlexanderA
Member
"Well regulated" in the 18th century meant that they were "well disciplined." That was an aspirational standard. In actual practice, the old universal militia was anything but well disciplined. They would arrive -- reluctantly -- at the annual militia muster on the courthouse lawn, which would quickly turn into a drunken party. This is why, by the 1830's, the universal militia was abolished and its place taken by new, far more effective "volunteer" militias (which were the units that ended up fighting the Civil War). (And the private arms of the universal militia were replaced by arms allotments from the federal government, which went to the states and then to the units.) The universal militia -- the "2nd Amendment militia" -- remains as a historical relic and as the theoretical underpinning of the universal RKBA.
Last edited:
AlexanderA
Member
Not even close. The National Guard in no way resembles the universal "2nd Amendment militia." It's just a branch of the standing army, which the Founders were suspicious of.
BSA1
member
I think you need to go take some college classes in early American history, Civics and the Constitution including The Federalist Papers and The Bill of Rights.
HRC, Feinstein and Bloomberg love your proposal. With Federal armed troops living in our neighborhoods they can learn who own guns so they can easily disarm their neighbors when ordered to by the Federal Government.
This is one of the original reasons for the 3rd Amendment (which is fortunately not used today);
"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
While this is generally understood to mean private homes there is not much real difference in having armed Federal soldiers living next door. In our country military arms and equipment are keep on secure military bases and armories. Soldiers are prohibited from taking their government issued weapons home with them.
Last edited:
As I read the “....the right of the people ... shall not be infringed.”, I still cannot help interpreting that phrase as a declaration of an unchallengeable absolute. Whether one wants to argue the militia are the people, are not the people, separate groups, etc. - to me, the militia language doesn’t change the absolute that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be questioned - very direct declaration. The “people” is the preamble authority declaring their rights, not the “militia” - the right of the “people” is very clear language to me - I do not read that the militia affects or defines that right in any way, it simply helps define the supporting rational for that right but does not in any way qualify that right.
Dr. Sandman
Member
Wow. What a terrible incident. My thoughts and prayers are with all the victims and their families.
I do not support the OP's idea. God gives us the right to bear arms, and I am against all efforts to qualify that right. Plus, I do not think that it will help. As you all know, the guns are here. So is the ammo and the mags. Enough for one hundred years of horrible violence.
The appearance of these shooters in the last 20 years must have a complex cause. Desensitization to violence via movies, shows and video games is a problem. Lack of respect for life is a problem. These shooters all show a lack of love, which is a huge problem. Erosion of the family unit, kids raised with no Dad, a problem. And then there are the guns...
So you want a discussion, MSHOOT? Ok. Here is my proposed effort to ameliorate the problem:
1. I love the idea of the parents of the children at school organizing a defense of the school. I would take off work a few days a year to do this, as would many other parents I know. The devil is in the details, but this is a great idea. Guns may or may not be involved. Screening of personnel would be essential.
2. I asked my own 8 year old what happens at their school if somebody comes in and starts shooting. He says that they turn off the lights in the classroom and they all huddle in the corner and wait for the police. I was almost in tears hearing this come out of his mouth as it really does put into perspective how real the threat is and how defenseless the kids are. We could work on the defenslessness. Each classroom needs a shotgun locked up in there that the teacher can point at the door. I would also be in favor of the kids receiving training with regard to guns and possibly having guns for the kids in the classroom, too. This may be especially relevent for older, high school type kids. One could even make this part of gym class and have the best 3 marksman get the 3 extra guns that are locked up with the teachers shotgun. We must work on the defenslessness of the school. I realize that some of these ideas are kind of "out there", but I assure you that making the school less defenseless is a good idea, and letting the kids take part in their own defense is a good idea, especially older kids with firearm training.
3. We have to encourage families to stay together. I am in favor of crushing penalties for Dads that leave. I am in favor of getting rid of welfare benefits that encourage single parent familes. These families need to teacher their kids right from wrong. Take a page from Ronald Regan and "Trust, but verify" what your kids do and write when online.
4. Hollywood Liberal types want to help? Great. Stop making horrible, violent movies and video games. And parents? Stop consuming said movies and video games. This type of violence on our big screens must become socially unacceptable, and fast. And stop saying "ass" on tv, too. The Hollywood Liberals must be exposed for the hypocrits that they are.
5. We need to make sure that EVERY KID feels the love. This needs to start with education in school. There needs to be some clique busting activity going on. Each student at school should have respect for the others. Bullies and "popular kids" must be identified and dealt with in a way that gently corrects their behavior. Psycho kids get identified and appropriatly treated/removed as needed.
So far, that is all that I have.
Dr. Sandman
I do not support the OP's idea. God gives us the right to bear arms, and I am against all efforts to qualify that right. Plus, I do not think that it will help. As you all know, the guns are here. So is the ammo and the mags. Enough for one hundred years of horrible violence.
The appearance of these shooters in the last 20 years must have a complex cause. Desensitization to violence via movies, shows and video games is a problem. Lack of respect for life is a problem. These shooters all show a lack of love, which is a huge problem. Erosion of the family unit, kids raised with no Dad, a problem. And then there are the guns...
So you want a discussion, MSHOOT? Ok. Here is my proposed effort to ameliorate the problem:
1. I love the idea of the parents of the children at school organizing a defense of the school. I would take off work a few days a year to do this, as would many other parents I know. The devil is in the details, but this is a great idea. Guns may or may not be involved. Screening of personnel would be essential.
2. I asked my own 8 year old what happens at their school if somebody comes in and starts shooting. He says that they turn off the lights in the classroom and they all huddle in the corner and wait for the police. I was almost in tears hearing this come out of his mouth as it really does put into perspective how real the threat is and how defenseless the kids are. We could work on the defenslessness. Each classroom needs a shotgun locked up in there that the teacher can point at the door. I would also be in favor of the kids receiving training with regard to guns and possibly having guns for the kids in the classroom, too. This may be especially relevent for older, high school type kids. One could even make this part of gym class and have the best 3 marksman get the 3 extra guns that are locked up with the teachers shotgun. We must work on the defenslessness of the school. I realize that some of these ideas are kind of "out there", but I assure you that making the school less defenseless is a good idea, and letting the kids take part in their own defense is a good idea, especially older kids with firearm training.
3. We have to encourage families to stay together. I am in favor of crushing penalties for Dads that leave. I am in favor of getting rid of welfare benefits that encourage single parent familes. These families need to teacher their kids right from wrong. Take a page from Ronald Regan and "Trust, but verify" what your kids do and write when online.
4. Hollywood Liberal types want to help? Great. Stop making horrible, violent movies and video games. And parents? Stop consuming said movies and video games. This type of violence on our big screens must become socially unacceptable, and fast. And stop saying "ass" on tv, too. The Hollywood Liberals must be exposed for the hypocrits that they are.
5. We need to make sure that EVERY KID feels the love. This needs to start with education in school. There needs to be some clique busting activity going on. Each student at school should have respect for the others. Bullies and "popular kids" must be identified and dealt with in a way that gently corrects their behavior. Psycho kids get identified and appropriatly treated/removed as needed.
So far, that is all that I have.
Dr. Sandman
I just always thought it interesting that we as a nation have pretty much disregarded the "well regulated militia" part. To me that is obviously separate from the national guard, and so I was interested in the best way to apply that.
I will act as a harbinger when I say, and I firmly believe, that if these school shootings continue, the future of the 2A is bleak. I am a father of 2 and please believe me when I say that these kids' minds are being influenced heavily by friends, teachers, and social media. There will come a day when enough support (not mine, thank you) will be there to actually change the US Constitution. This will be accelerated by our new "plugged in" youth using social media. It may also be accelerated by folks in the gun rights camp who do nothing to prevent the attacks. So we have to do something.
The intent of this thread is to initiate thoughtful discussion. As posters we need to work on discussing ideas and not personalizing the debate. IE it is not about the poster it is about their ideas.
I may or may not fully endorse ideas I have posted, but I certainly do want folks to think about them. Maybe thinking outloud, take that for what it is worth, and don't let it ruin your day. Blow me off, and go have some coffee or soup or whatever. Admittedly flawed may be my suppositions.
I will act as a harbinger when I say, and I firmly believe, that if these school shootings continue, the future of the 2A is bleak. I am a father of 2 and please believe me when I say that these kids' minds are being influenced heavily by friends, teachers, and social media. There will come a day when enough support (not mine, thank you) will be there to actually change the US Constitution. This will be accelerated by our new "plugged in" youth using social media. It may also be accelerated by folks in the gun rights camp who do nothing to prevent the attacks. So we have to do something.
The intent of this thread is to initiate thoughtful discussion. As posters we need to work on discussing ideas and not personalizing the debate. IE it is not about the poster it is about their ideas.
I may or may not fully endorse ideas I have posted, but I certainly do want folks to think about them. Maybe thinking outloud, take that for what it is worth, and don't let it ruin your day. Blow me off, and go have some coffee or soup or whatever. Admittedly flawed may be my suppositions.
Discussion should be kept to the ideas rather than the poster. I.E. it is irrelevant what a person has read but rather it is relevant how stated ideas may or may not conform or relate to such reading material.
Navy_Chief
Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2017
- Messages
- 44
You have some interesting ideas that I could easily get behind.
1. This topic came up on one of the other discussion groups I participate it, it was framed as who would be willing to take time off work to volunteer as a guard at local schools. The response was overwhelmingly positive, I don't have kids in school anymore and would still be more than happy to spend a few days a month at the local schools as volunteer security. This needs to be under the assumption that I am not going to do this unarmed to work as a human shield in the event that the unthinkable happens.
2. You might be getting a little far out there with the shotguns stored in the rooms and student security shooters, but on the track of allowing teachers who are willing to and are comfortable and competent concealed carriers to carry a concealed weapon at work.
3. This is a huge topic that I am not sure how to approach as a nation, but you are absolutely correct that we need a return to family values and actual parents involved in their children's lives. This in and of itself would help with some of the issues with young children playing violent video games like Grand Theft Auto and Call to Duty. I allowed my teenagers to play the Call to Duty series, they quickly lost interest in the online multiplayer versions of the game because "they are tired of listening to 8-10 year olds scream profanities while playing the game" this would clearly indicate that there are a large number of young children that are effectively being raised to do whatever the hell they want as long as they leave mommy and daddy alone to their own self absorbed interests.
4. This is a huge issue for me, I am sick and tired of seeing hollywood and the actors and actresses make millions on millions of dollars on action shootem up movies while they proclaim to be anti gun to the public while surrounded by their private armed security detail.... There is an interesting read here (https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/jan/20/firearms-company-para-usa-liam-neeson-gun-control) on some of the industry at least starting to stand up to the hypocrisy.
5. This is the area where society completely failed the most recent shooter in Florida, if the community had acted like a community and ensured that he was taken care of this entire event could have been prevented. However it was easier to ignore the problem, expel him from school, and let him fall through the cracks with no support group to become what he did. The local police, social services, and the FBI also completely failed to do anything about him despite numerous interactions with he police and being reported to the FBI twice by name. There needs to be some serious accountability among the leadership of these organizations, I would not object to changes of negligent homicide being brought against them if there is sufficient evidence (which there already seems to be).
I'll rephrase.
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), SCOTUS held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes....
Nothing in the ruling indicates that the Constitution requires the maintenance of a "well regulated militia."
As you know, I am a teacher; as such I can speak for my experiences. Keep in mind that different districts these districts have to respond to the parents and the community. Many of your ideas are either being done, or are extremely hard to implement. I do not mean this as an attack on your ideas, only to look at them in the context of issues that would arise.
. . . and here I am saying teachers should be allowed, with proper agreed on and accessible, training and certification, be allowed to have firearms. You are taking it a big step further when you say required. I would be concerned. Do I think every teacher should carry a firearm? No, some are clearly not qualified. However, in conversations, those who are clearly unqualified seem to be quick to self select and choose not to carry a firearm. In no way would I support "district may require." However, that is a long way from "District must not forbid." It is even further from the situation that many teaches have, which is, "district may not allow."
Ah yes, that fabled villain, the deadbeat dad. Nearly all cases of fathers not paying child support are due to poverty, not evil nature. Sure, there are some, and people love to trot them out as part of a demand to further impoverish fathers whose wives have left them and taken the kids. Yes, there are some cases. However, having worked as a CPS investigator before going into teaching, I saw an incredible number of cases of the father being left and essentially, no regard for the impact that her choices had on the children.
It was interesting, in conversations with a Chinese friend, in China the children belong to the fathers family. in the US they belong to the mother (except in NA cases, where they belong to the tribe). I am not saying that either is better; but often, what we see as the only way is more a reflection of the culture than it is being the only way (and this is way off tangent for a gun board). I do agree with the importance of intact families and feel that maintaining intact families should ge a clearly stated, and funded, national objective. Yes, i said funded, it is another case of pay now or pay more later.
First, I am in in agreement. there is no question that the repeated images and violent participation dos increase participation, and tolerance for, further violence. The is a significant body of research and text in this area. I am pretty sure Malcolm Gladwell discusses this in Outliers (I could have the book wrong, there are several in this genre).
But, implicit are two courses of action, The first is to rapidly make a major cultural change, I don't see that as likely. The other is a restriction on "free speech." While I would like to see the first, I think the second is more likely to work.
Agreed, and we do pretty well in this regard. There are programs in place and they work pretty well. Are they perfect? No, only God is perfect (or, if you are not big on God, "Plato's Ideal"). Yes, we do identify and work with high need students.
Back to the point, can we do better, of course. Even though perfection is not attainable, we must continue to strive for it. Yes, I think we need to look at Utah's "district cannot forbid" stance toward armed teachers. However, that should include training and certification that is accessible and achievable.
Screening, as you mention, would be a problem. I cannot see many parents wanting to undergo the various background checks. Further, not all would pass. In addition, in many states, if they are regularly at the school, interacting with students, there would be additional certification and in-service requirements.
. . . and here I am saying teachers should be allowed, with proper agreed on and accessible, training and certification, be allowed to have firearms. You are taking it a big step further when you say required. I would be concerned. Do I think every teacher should carry a firearm? No, some are clearly not qualified. However, in conversations, those who are clearly unqualified seem to be quick to self select and choose not to carry a firearm. In no way would I support "district may require." However, that is a long way from "District must not forbid." It is even further from the situation that many teaches have, which is, "district may not allow."
Ah yes, that fabled villain, the deadbeat dad. Nearly all cases of fathers not paying child support are due to poverty, not evil nature. Sure, there are some, and people love to trot them out as part of a demand to further impoverish fathers whose wives have left them and taken the kids. Yes, there are some cases. However, having worked as a CPS investigator before going into teaching, I saw an incredible number of cases of the father being left and essentially, no regard for the impact that her choices had on the children.
It was interesting, in conversations with a Chinese friend, in China the children belong to the fathers family. in the US they belong to the mother (except in NA cases, where they belong to the tribe). I am not saying that either is better; but often, what we see as the only way is more a reflection of the culture than it is being the only way (and this is way off tangent for a gun board). I do agree with the importance of intact families and feel that maintaining intact families should ge a clearly stated, and funded, national objective. Yes, i said funded, it is another case of pay now or pay more later.
First, I am in in agreement. there is no question that the repeated images and violent participation dos increase participation, and tolerance for, further violence. The is a significant body of research and text in this area. I am pretty sure Malcolm Gladwell discusses this in Outliers (I could have the book wrong, there are several in this genre).
But, implicit are two courses of action, The first is to rapidly make a major cultural change, I don't see that as likely. The other is a restriction on "free speech." While I would like to see the first, I think the second is more likely to work.
Agreed, and we do pretty well in this regard. There are programs in place and they work pretty well. Are they perfect? No, only God is perfect (or, if you are not big on God, "Plato's Ideal"). Yes, we do identify and work with high need students.
Back to the point, can we do better, of course. Even though perfection is not attainable, we must continue to strive for it. Yes, I think we need to look at Utah's "district cannot forbid" stance toward armed teachers. However, that should include training and certification that is accessible and achievable.
Fine Figure of a Man
Member
I don't doubt your intent, the problem is you started with a post that reveals a misunderstanding of the second amendment. Your proposals are in direct violation of the second amendment and sound frightening to me.
Federal agents with the authority to search someones home anytime they wish?
The government dictating who can have what for self defense?
Scanning cards, yearly background checks, does this sound alright to you?
Please study some history, it has all happened before and the results have been unpleasant.
jamesjames
Member
When I found the paper on Colonial gun laws and posted the link in post #21, I was assuming many would follow the post and read the paper. I should know better.
The takeaway from reading through all the colonial gun laws is to understand the context and origin of 2A:
[conclusion] "...the Colonial statutes [concerning gun laws] were not laissez-faire; there were many obligations concerning the ownership and carrying of guns adopted for the public good. Neither were they restrictive, at least for whites (with the exception of Catholics in Maryland). There were, it is true, some severe restrictions on firearms ownership in Colonial America, but they applied only to people who were not trusted to be loyal members of the community, particularly Indians and blacks. For the vast majority of people, who were considered loyal members of the community, gun ownership was not only allowed, it was an obligation."
Colonial gun laws and 2A are a double-edged sword (forgive the metaphor). Only people who could be trusted with the right could keep and bear arms. But those that met the standard were relied upon for the common defense and enjoyed all the rights (and responsibilities) of a full citizen.
The takeaway from reading through all the colonial gun laws is to understand the context and origin of 2A:
[conclusion] "...the Colonial statutes [concerning gun laws] were not laissez-faire; there were many obligations concerning the ownership and carrying of guns adopted for the public good. Neither were they restrictive, at least for whites (with the exception of Catholics in Maryland). There were, it is true, some severe restrictions on firearms ownership in Colonial America, but they applied only to people who were not trusted to be loyal members of the community, particularly Indians and blacks. For the vast majority of people, who were considered loyal members of the community, gun ownership was not only allowed, it was an obligation."
Colonial gun laws and 2A are a double-edged sword (forgive the metaphor). Only people who could be trusted with the right could keep and bear arms. But those that met the standard were relied upon for the common defense and enjoyed all the rights (and responsibilities) of a full citizen.
We have the most powerful and costly military apparatus the world has ever seen, therefore, we do not need any kind of well-regulated militia for maintenance of free state. If we hand 50% of what we have now no country would invade us, but we need what we have because our world empire would collapse. What I mean is China would replace us as the most powerful country in the world and put an end to our world leadership which would not be acceptable to us. When people ask me why I enjoy guns I don't hide behind the Second Amendment and tell them my grandpa and pa hunted and I enjoy the same activity. Turkey season is almost upon us something to look forward to.
Last edited:
What do you care what he studies? Do you even know him?
Debate the merit of idea, don't go after the OP
TomJ
Contributing Member
The 2A already guarantees me the right to keep and bear arms. Why on earth would I trade a right I currently am guaranteed under the Constitution for what would become a privilege, under the condition that I meet some arbitrary criteria that can change with the political winds?
Fine Figure of a Man
Member
The OP's ideas have been tried in the past. History is a great teacher for those who want to learn.
Ever heard this;
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
I believe it to be true.
Others say "Ignorance is bliss". Maybe it is, in the short term.
TomJ
Contributing Member
One other thought regarding this. I can not think of another right that's guaranteed under the Constitution which people need to constantly defend. Take out the right to bear arms and insert the right to free speech, religion, etc. and tell people they need to meet some politician's list of demands before they can exercise those rights, and see what the reaction is. A common tactic by the anti's is to make us feel we're somehow doing something wrong by exercising our 2A rights. Forcing us to earn a right that's already ours by serving in some type of militia is a non starter. OP, if you feel you haven't "earned" your 2A right, by all means go ahead and enlist or do whatever you need to do to make yourself feel like you earned that right. The other thing you and others that point to guns as the problem forget is the number of attacks that are committed with bombs, trucks, etc. Your suggestion will do nothing to stop those bent on mass killings, other than disarm lawful gun owners, making it more difficult for us to protect ourselves and our loved ones.
AlexanderA
Member
Here's the question -- What are "arms"?
The Militia Clause actually broadens the right, because it makes clear that we are talking about military arms and not merely ordinary civilian arms. In other words, "the people" (that's you and me) are supposed to be as well armed as the standing army. That's pretty much the rationale of the Miller case (1939), in which the Supreme Court could find no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun was part of the equipment of the military. (Under that rationale the outcome would have been different if the item in question had been a machine gun rather than a sawed-off shotgun.)
Justice Scalia's opinion in the Heller case really muddled the waters because he considered the Militia Clause to be a nullity. This set the cause of gun rights backward, IMO. The Supreme Court should have built on the Miller case, not nullified it. RKBA advocates welcomed the Heller case when the decision was handed down, but I think they'll come to regret it, if they haven't done so already.
(Under the Heller rationale, AR-15 rifles can easily be outlawed because, although they are common-use military weapons (albeit modified), they are, by some definitions, not civilian weapons. Anyway, this is the trend in the lower court decisions that follow Heller.)
Last edited:
Grammatically it reads like this:
"No one can stop people from having arms, it is their right"
"Because as a free state we need them to be able to form militia" (militia as an organized group of armed civilians)
It does NOT read like this
"In order to bare arms you must be a part of a government controlled militia"
That is the complete opposite of the intention.
https://www.prageru.com/videos/gun-ownership-right
----
Also never mind the lawyer word play, no other rights matter if you cannot defend them and defend yourself.
"No one can stop people from having arms, it is their right"
"Because as a free state we need them to be able to form militia" (militia as an organized group of armed civilians)
It does NOT read like this
"In order to bare arms you must be a part of a government controlled militia"
That is the complete opposite of the intention.
https://www.prageru.com/videos/gun-ownership-right
----
Also never mind the lawyer word play, no other rights matter if you cannot defend them and defend yourself.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
