Notice From My Cold Dead Hands...... (1 Viewer)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
Click to expand...

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
Click to expand...
http://yarchive.net/gun/politics/regulate.html


Excerpt from:
A Text-Book of Astronomy, by George C. Comstock (This astronomy book was first published in 1901.)

With the general introduction of clocks and watches into use about a century
ago this kind of solar time went out of common use, since no well-regulated clock could keep the time correctly . The earth in its orbital motion around the
sun goes faster in some parts of its orbit than in others, and in consequence
the sun appears to move more rapidly among the stars in winter than in
summer, moreover, on account of the convergence of hour circles as we go
away from the equator, the same amount of motion along the ecliptic
produces more effect in winter and summer when the sun is north or south,
than it does in the spring and autumn when the sun is near the equator, and as
a combined result of these causes and other minor ones true solar time, as it is
called, is itself not uniform, but falls behind the uniform lapse of sidereal time
at a variable rate, sometimes quicker, sometimes slower. A true solar day
from noon to noon, is 51 seconds shorter in September than in December
Click to expand...
 
Phatguysrule said:
I've advocated for better gun safety education.

But far more children are killed by their own parents every year than are killed by all accidental firearm deaths. Gun range or not.
Click to expand...
This again has little to do with the problem at hand.
Sorry but this is starting to sound like you are a bit over the top. Gun Safety education is only good for those that choose to use it.
Using a statement about more children being killed by their parents when it is a known FACT that the leading cause of deaths of children is guns and is no longer auto accidents seems again disingenuous at best.
If you were a lawyer pleading this case you would have been thrown out of the court by now.
 
Phatguysrule said:
I've advocated for better gun safety education.

But far more children are killed by their own parents every year than are killed by all accidental firearm deaths. Gun range or not.
Click to expand...

So, not enough children are killed in school shootings for it to matter?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RR7
Chris Craig said:
So, not enough children are killed in school shootings for it to matter?
Click to expand...
Do children who are killed by their parents not matter? Why aren't we talking about that? It happens far more regularly in far greater numbers, consistently every single year.

All children matter. It seems logical to apply more focus on preventing the greatest number of casualties with with the fewest barriers as possible, does it not?

There is no constitutional right preventing us from helping children or defending them in schools.
 
Phatguysrule said:
Do children who are killed by their parents not matter? Why aren't we talking about that? It happens far more regularly in far greater numbers, consistently every single year.
Click to expand...

Every day 3 kids are murdered using guns in the US and 2 more die of gun inflicted suicides so it makes a ton of sense to restrict access to guns as much as possible to protect the kids. It is not the only measure that is needed - but it is clear that guns, given the ease they can cause death are a big issue that can help reduce these numbers - so education, and proper gun restrictions are required when guns are the #1 cause of kid death in the USA. Does not matter if it is parents that cause this death or someone else, and no-one is claiming that without guns there would be no kids deaths, since parental abuse is responsible for 44% of kids deaths at home - neglect is a big problem as well, but it is pretty clear that kids can not exist without parents but they can exist without guns, so this argument that more kids are killed by parents than in schools is a red herring.

Education by itself is not going to solve this, and unfortunately, when we compare child intentional injuries in the US compared to the rest of the western world, we are up by a factor of 3 - and it would be absurd to assume that the ease of access to tools that can cause harm that are in the US are not a big part of the problem.

Phatguysrule said:
There is no constitutional right preventing us from helping children or defending them in schools.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Time to fix that outdated problem and bring it up to date. Portions of this document are out of date and out of touch with reality - and this is what we need to work to fix. Everything else, unfortunately, is just band aid on the real problem. The 2nd amendment is a relic of the 18 century that needs to be updated and proper definitions of what constitutes arms and what constitutes regulation needs to happen.
 
Fairly-Hard said:
This again has little to do with the problem at hand.
Sorry but this is starting to sound like you are a bit over the top. Gun Safety education is only good for those that choose to use it.
Using a statement about more children being killed by their parents when it is a known FACT that the leading cause of deaths of children is guns and is no longer auto accidents seems again disingenuous at best.
If you were a lawyer pleading this case you would have been thrown out of the court by now.
Click to expand...
Lol, I've made proposals that would have actually prevented this kid from buying guns legally, and give every person he tried to obtain guns from a very simple way to verify if he were legally allowed to own one.

He threatened a school shooting when he was 17. That should have prevented him from buying Firearms pending his appeal and proof that he were not a threat.

With my proposal, he would have had his ID marked, and anybody he tried to get a gun from would have known that he was a dangerous individual, and their own freedom would be at risk by providing him with firearms.

Who has a problem preventing people who threaten school shootings from buying guns? Nobody. Who is going to oppose such legislation which doesn't impact law abiding citizens? Very few people.

Your proposal requires an amendment to the constitution which is pretty much impossible in our current political climate. It would be political suicide for Republicans to allow it. Huge numbers of Republicans would stop showing up to vote. And the politicians know that.

You're trying to make this an emotional knee jerk reaction which further drives a wedge between left and right. I'm trying to find common ground that I believe could actually be enacted this election cycle with very little resistance.
 
andalusian said:
Every day 3 kids are murdered using guns in the US and 2 more die of gun inflicted suicides so it makes a ton of sense to restrict access to guns as much as possible to protect the kids. It is not the only measure that is needed - but it is clear that guns, given the ease they can cause death are a big issue that can help reduce these numbers - so education, and proper gun restrictions are required when guns are the #1 cause of kid death in the USA. Does not matter if it is parents that cause this death or someone else, and no-one is claiming that without guns there would be no kids deaths, since parental abuse is responsible for 44% of kids deaths at home - neglect is a big problem as well, but it is pretty clear that kids can not exist without parents but they can exist without guns, so this argument that more kids are killed by parents than in schools is a red herring.

Education by itself is not going to solve this, and unfortunately, when we compare child intentional injuries in the US compared to the rest of the western world, we are up by a factor of 3 - and it would be absurd to assume that the ease of access to tools that can cause harm that are in the US are not a big part of the problem.
Click to expand...
I'm not suggesting no restrictions. I'm suggesting restrictions that there is actually political will to enact and is far simpler to enforce. And that even republican states would likely be willing to enforce.

Exactly. Time to fix that outdated problem and bring it up to date. Portions of this document are out of date and out of touch with reality - and this is what we need to work to fix. Everything else, unfortunately, is just band aid on the real problem. The 2nd amendment is a relic of the 18 century that needs to be updated and proper definitions of what constitutes arms and what constitutes regulation needs to happen.
Click to expand...
This is not going to happen. It would be political suicide for Republicans to allow it and they know that. A huge chunk of their base would simply stop showing up.

It would take a constitutional convention, which would require 38 states to approve. There are currently nearly that many states which support permitless carry and open carry, including the 7 more which joined their ranks in the last year alone.

The CDC has said there are between 500k and 3 million defensive gun uses every year in the US.

How many more kids would die if there were no guns for people to defend themselves?

How long would they have to wait for police to come defend them?

We need to be more logical about this. Emotional responses are not typical good decisions.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RR7
@Phatguysrule is right on this. Anybody that thinks there is a chance we would repeal the 2nd amendment any time soon (next 10 years?) is smoking crack.
 
Fairly-Hard said:
Knee jerk reaction would be something after say the first 10 or 15 school shootings. Unfortunately we are way past "Knee Jerk".
Here's a list of the school shooting in the 21st century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

It might have been considered Knee Jerk after Thurston High School.

Not now it ain't.
Click to expand...
So that's about... 25 deaths per year? You don't think suggesting a constitutional amendment to restrict the rights of every American because of 25 deaths per year is knee jerk?

Not only is it a knee jerk reaction, it is a flight of fantasy. Republicans are not going to allow a constitutional convention for risk of something they don't like happening.

The majority of states support the 2nd ammendment as it currently stands. And we need 3/4 of the states to want it changed.
 
Phatguysrule said:
How many more kids would die if there were no guns for people to defend themselves?
Click to expand...

Less than what currently die if we had the same kinds of gun restrictions that other western, first world countries have, based on comparative data.

I doubt that we will see an amendment anytime soon, but we are fooling ourselves if we think anything other than removing the easy access to death machines is going to make any reasonable change, we have hundreds of years of experience showing it is not so. As such, doing the long work to fix that real problem (too easy access to death tools) is well worth the work, even if it is going to take a while. It took us 90 years to abolish slavery and another hundred years to end segregation, which unfortunately shows you how bad the protections on the constitutions have really been for the US.

The problem is clear, and I am all for small fixes to solve whatever we can, but we can not use these to limit the work on fixing the real problem and trying to restrict these tools from the hands of the unqualified. As such discussion of the problems of the 2nd amendment in it's current form need to continue to happen over and over again until it is fixed and brought up to date.
 
andalusian said:
Less than what currently die if we had the same kinds of gun restrictions that other western, first world countries have, based on comparative data.
Click to expand...
I've actually posted those numbers. The increased gun control in those countries didn't make much of a difference. They still have mass killings. Sometimes with guns. The UK has actually seen a fairly severe increase in intentional homicides... And they didn't have many mass shootings or as much violent crime or murder before those gun control measures.

They have had lower rates since WW2 because they were forced to have better social services, which resulted in far better Gini Coefficient that the US. Universal Healthcare, Universal Education, vastly superior social safety nets and judicial systems.

andalusian said:
I doubt that we will see an amendment anytime soon, but we are fooling ourselves if we think anything other than removing the easy access to death machines is going to make any reasonable change, we have hundreds of years of experience showing it is not so. As such, doing the long work to fix that real problem (too easy access to death tools) is well worth the work, even if it is going to take a while. It took us 90 years to abolish slavery and another hundred years to end segregation, which unfortunately shows you how bad the protections on the constitutions have really been for the US.

The problem is clear, and I am all for small fixes to solve whatever we can, but we can not use these to limit the work on fixing the real problem and trying to restrict these tools from the hands of the unqualified. As such discussion of the problems of the 2nd amendment in it's current form need to continue to happen over and over again until it is fixed and brought up to date.
Click to expand...
I have proposed restricting access to these tools from the unqualified (children and dangerous individuals). There is no need to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens in order to do that as effectively as possible. In fact, the push to do so prevents movement on other fronts that could actually be enacted in the near term.

And no, I don't believe the Constitution has been bad for this country. It just didn't offer enough clear protections.
 
Phatguysrule said:
So that's about... 25 deaths per year? You don't think suggesting a constitutional amendment to restrict the rights of every American because of 25 deaths per year is knee jerk?

Not only is it a knee jerk reaction, it is a flight of fantasy. Republicans are not going to allow a constitutional convention for risk of something they don't like happening.

The majority of states support the 2nd ammendment as it currently stands. And we need 3/4 of the states to want it changed.
Click to expand...

It's getting pretty tiresome and irksome to see you continue to minimize the death of school children.
 
Phatguysrule said:
I've actually posted those numbers. The increased gun control in those countries didn't make much of a difference. They still have mass killings. Sometimes with guns. The UK has actually seen a fairly severe increase in intentional homicides... And they didn't have many mass shootings or as much violent crime or murder before those gun control measures.
Click to expand...

And I have shown that even after these increases, they still have a 1/4 of the murder killings that we have and a fraction of the mass killings, which shows you that what they did was an optimization as they never had the absurd number of fire-arms per capita that we have.


They have had lower rates since WW2 because they were forced to have better social services, which resulted in far better Gini Coefficient that the US. Universal Healthcare, Universal Education, vastly superior social safety nets and judicial systems.
Click to expand...

Do not disagree with any of that, but even before their gun control they never had more than 1 firearm per citizen, as the US has. They (and Australian) went from around 0.3 to 0.15, we are at 1.2 - a whole different ballgame.

I have proposed restricting access to these tools from the unqualified (children and dangerous individuals). There is no need to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens in order to do that as effectively as possible. In fact, the push to do so prevents movement on other fronts that could actually be enacted in the near term.
Click to expand...

I do not disagree with that. background checks are the easiest way to remove these tools from the unqualified.

And no, I don't believe the Constitution has been bad for this country. It just didn't offer enough clear protections.
Click to expand...

I think the US's checkered past on racism, slavery and equal rights compared to other first world countries show where the constitutions difficulty of adjusting to the modern world has made the most harm. It does not change the fact that it has very good portions as well and clearly was made in good faith for the population. It has just been protected in a way that is very harmful to updates to changing conditions, unfortunately.
 
Chris Craig said:
Most people here are not suggesting that.
Click to expand...
I didn't suggest most people were.
But what most people are suggesting will likely require a constitutional amendment to overcome the Supreme Court and resistance from most of the states...

What I have suggested does not. So I am suggesting that we make the changes we can realistically make as soon as possible.
 
Last edited:
andalusian said:
And I have shown that even after these increases, they still have a 1/4 of the murder killings that we have and a fraction of the mass killings, which shows you that what they did was an optimization as they never had the absurd number of fire-arms per capita that we have.
Click to expand...
I contend that this difference has much more to do with our lack of social services and poor judicial system than anything else. And we don't need a constitutional convention to address those issues.

Do not disagree with any of that, but even before their gun control they never had more than 1 firearm per citizen, as the US has. They (and Australian) went from around 0.3 to 0.15, we are at 1.2 - a whole different ballgame.
Click to expand...
This isn't something that I think we have much control over.

I do not disagree with that. background checks are the easiest way to remove these tools from the unqualified.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Universal background checks will not happen. We should limit guns to only people who can prove they are law abiding citizens, and mark the ID of every restricted person. This way there is no limitation or inconvenience to law abiding citizens, and no potential for a database of gun owners (which the republicans will also not ever allow).

I think the US's checkered past on racism, slavery and equal rights compared to other first world countries show where the constitutions difficulty of adjusting to the modern world has made the most harm. It does not change the fact that it has very good portions as well and clearly was made in good faith for the population. It has just been protected in a way that is very harmful to updates to changing conditions, unfortunately.
Click to expand...
Our system is very slow moving, I agree 100%. She's a big barge and she changes direction incredibly slowly.
 
Phatguysrule said:
So that's about... 25 deaths per year? You don't think suggesting a constitutional amendment to restrict the rights of every American because of 25 deaths per year is knee jerk?

Not only is it a knee jerk reaction, it is a flight of fantasy. Republicans are not going to allow a constitutional convention for risk of something they don't like happening.

The majority of states support the 2nd ammendment as it currently stands. And we need 3/4 of the states to want it changed.
Click to expand...
You keep saying and telling yourself that but I'm here to tell you that might be changing faster than you think.
Majority of states is not the majority of the people. Majority of the people want gun laws to change. Red States are turning Blue much quicker than people realize.
I for one will continue to say major changes need to be made. I will not quit saying that until they are made. I know plenty of people who oppose changes but the number i know who want change overwhelmingly outnumber those who don't. Not science just the way i see it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RR7
Fairly-Hard said:
You keep saying and telling yourself that but I'm here to tell you that might be changing faster than you think.
Majority of states is not the majority of the people. Majority of the people want gun laws to change. Red States are turning Blue much quicker than people realize.
I for one will continue to say major changes need to be made. I will not quit saying that until they are made. I know plenty of people who oppose changes but the number i know who want change overwhelmingly outnumber those who don't. Not science just the way i see it.
Click to expand...
You keep arguing as though somebody in here is for no changes.

I don't think anybody here has opposed changes.
 
Chris Craig said:
It's getting pretty tiresome and irksome to see you continue to minimize the death of school children.
Click to expand...
How is stating the actual numbers even close to minimizing the death of school children?

I have proposed solutions to help protect school children. I obviously would not have done so if I did not care about them.

I will say this. It's getting pretty tiresome and irksome seeing your emotional and argumentative responses to what I keep trying steer toward a logical and noncombative policy discussion.

I have let it go, as I understand this is an emotionally charged time. But as a mod, I would think you'd exercise a bit more self control. You don't get to freely imply that I don't care about these kids just because you disagree with my opinion on the solution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top