OT Mass shooting, 22 dead, 60 injured

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Stevenson said:
Sure. Specifically, the way the Supreme Court has interpreted and ruled on the 2nd Amendment is seriously fucked up.

Happy to get into it if you want, but it will bore everyone here. Suffice it to say that the Court has had to ignore both the words of the Second Amendment, and ignore the meaning of even strict construction, to get to the place where it is today. The founders never thought all guns should be available to everyone. Read the Federalist Papers.

So yeah, sorry, I'm not just some dummy with no reason for what I said.
Click to expand...
But all guns aren't available to everyone, and not many people are advocating for that to be the case.
 
Stevenson said:
OK @SharpeScooterShooter, since you came here to the OT Forum, it's your turn to defend your position.

The 2nd Amendment reads, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

You're a strict constructionist, right? Please tell me what militia the maniac in Maine was part of.

Oh, right. None. Then he had no "right" to own a gun. Disagree? Then please explain why he had a constitutional right to bear arms. Cite your sources.
Click to expand...
But that's very clearly not what that means.

At the time, the "militia" were the people during war time. That's obviously why the terms were used interchangeably.

"Well regulated" at the time meant to be capable and functioning at a high level.

The "well regulated" "militia" referenced were infantry that could be quickly formed of normal citizens (ie. not required to be enlisted) without the need of regular soldiers.

This very clearly means that the average law abiding citizen should have the right to own and operate arms equivalent to the standard regular infantry soldier of the time.

Since you brought it up, an excerpt from the federalist papers , showing they specifically did not want the militia to be required to report to instructed training regularly, but be well equipped so they could train on their own.

To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purposes of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country… to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise, and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.).
Click to expand...

According to that, they very clearly wanted the people to be armed with equivalent equipment of standard infantry and have the right to transport and practice with them so they could be as capable as possible on their own. And for the government to offer training to all once or twice per year to help maximize the effectiveness of that training.

It also explicitly shows that "well regulated" wasn't intended to mean under government control, but rather, highly capable.

This means (or at leas, it would lead one to believe) they actually put a lot of thought and effort into the 2nd amendment, to make it incredibly concise.

The Constitution doesn't restrict the power of the people. It restricts the power of the government.

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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
crandc said:
Fucking coward. Shoots unarmed people and children in a bowling alley but offs himself rather than face consequences.
Click to expand...
He was probably hoping he'd be killed in the act. Many of these are suicides as well.
 
Last edited:
Phatguysrule said:
But that's very clearly not what that means.

At the time, the "militia" were the people during war time. That's obviously why the terms were used interchangeably.

"Well regulated" at the time meant to be capable and functioning at a high level.

The "well regulated" "militia" referenced were infantry that could be quickly formed of normal citizens (ie. not required to be enlisted) without the need of regular soldiers.

This very clearly means that the average law abiding citizen should have the right to own and operate arms equivalent to the standard regular infantry soldier of the time.

Since you brought it up, an excerpt from the federalist papers , showing they specifically did not want the militia to be required to train regularly, but be well equipped so they could train on their own.



According to that, they very clearly wanted the people to be armed with equivalent equipment of standard infantry and have the right to transport and practice with them so they could be as capable as possible on their own. And for the government to offer training to all once or twice per year to help maximize the effectiveness of that training.

It also explicitly shows that "well regulated" wasn't intended to mean under government control, but rather, highly capable.
Click to expand...

Explained much better than I, but intent was the same.
Thank you.
 
The man in the surveillance shots does not look like Robert Card. It might be the lens/angle or whatever.

But has a mass shooter ever evaded police, let alone gone on to do another shooting and evade police? Then he goes into a dumpster and shoots himself?
 
SharpeScooterShooter said:
There are millions of automobiles out there and people have used them to plow down people in crowds in an attempt to mass kill. People use them to ram others in road rage incidents. Should we ban cars?
its about the same percent of car owners who use them for nefarious, evil intent to mame/kill other humans, so lets ban cars too!
Click to expand...

Automobiles, owners, and drivers are extremely regulated. Much greater than guns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RR7
SlyPokerDog said:
Automobiles, owners, and drivers are extremely regulated. Much greater than guns.
Click to expand...
I can legally buy, own, and possess an automobile without a license, permit, or background check.

Gun owners are more heavily regulated than car owners.

People are only restricted or punished for illegal use of automobiles.
And there is no right to bear automobiles in the US Constitution.
 
Last edited:
SlyPokerDog said:
Automobiles, owners, and drivers are extremely regulated. Much greater than guns.
Click to expand...

Are they? Can you expand on that? How so? You mean like seatbelts, or all guns require a safety switches?
Or what it takes to get a drivers license vs a gun permit?
Im not sure I agree with you Sly.
 
beast crnjo said:
But those were hidden snipper attacks, a bit different than the variety where someone waltzes into a public place. And this guy did it twice in one night supposedly.
Click to expand...
Solid point.
They found a suicide note to the guy's son at the Maine shooter's house the day before they found his body. So he almost certainly expected to die.
 
Phatguysrule said:
But that's very clearly not what that means.

At the time, the "militia" were the people during war time. That's obviously why the terms were used interchangeably.

"Well regulated" at the time meant to be capable and functioning at a high level.

The "well regulated" "militia" referenced were infantry that could be quickly formed of normal citizens (ie. not required to be enlisted) without the need of regular soldiers.

This very clearly means that the average law abiding citizen should have the right to own and operate arms equivalent to the standard regular infantry soldier of the time.

Since you brought it up, an excerpt from the federalist papers , showing they specifically did not want the militia to be required to report to instructed training regularly, but be well equipped so they could train on their own.



According to that, they very clearly wanted the people to be armed with equivalent equipment of standard infantry and have the right to transport and practice with them so they could be as capable as possible on their own. And for the government to offer training to all once or twice per year to help maximize the effectiveness of that training.

It also explicitly shows that "well regulated" wasn't intended to mean under government control, but rather, highly capable.

This means they actually put a lot of thought and effort into the 2nd amendment, to make it incredibly concise.

The Constitution doesn't restrict the power of the people. It restricts the power of the government.
Click to expand...
The Federalist Papers are nothing more than a series of opinions written by men who leaned more toward a republic rather than a democracy. They are NOT laws. They were also written when we did not have a standing army....or at least a permanent one. 250 years later, a militia is no longer needed in America, as we have one of the larger standing armies in the world. There is no justifiable need for unfettered gun ownership whatsoever, jump through all the rhetorical hoops you choose to. Nowhere in the 2nd Amendment does it say "gun ownership without restrictions of any kind". Nowhere. Every other constitutional amendment has been open to interpretation to adjust for the times. Yet the Second Amendment has been deemed untouchable, no matter what. Seems like a lot of people in this country compensating for sexual inadequacy and/or incredibly low self esteem via gun ownership.......and if that pisses gun owners off, sorry, not sorry.............
 
UncleCliffy'sDaddy said:
The Federalist Papers are nothing more than a series of opinions written by men who leaned more toward a republic rather than a democracy. They are NOT laws. They were also written when we did not have a standing army....or at least a permanent one. 250 years later, a militia is no longer needed in America, as we have one of the larger standing armies in the world. There is no justifiable need for unfettered gun ownership whatsoever, jump through all the rhetorical hoops you choose to. Nowhere in the 2nd Amendment does it say "gun ownership without restrictions of any kind". Nowhere. Every other constitutional amendment has been open to interpretation to adjust for the times. Yet the Second Amendment has been deemed untouchable, no matter what. Seems like a lot of people in this country compensating for sexual inadequacy and/or incredibly low self esteem via gun ownership.......and if that pisses gun owners off, sorry, not sorry.............
Click to expand...
I am well aware of that. But I was replying to a comment that was attempting to use the federalist papers as evidence of what people at that time thought.

I was simply pointing out that the federalist papers support the idea that the founders intended every American to have the right to own and operate infantry equivalent firearms for the reasons stated.

Nobody in this thread suggested that we should allow everyone "gun ownership without restrictions of any kind".

That is a straw man argument.

If you would like to update the Constitution there is a process for doing that. It requires 3/4 of the states to agree to a constitutional convention.

Good luck with that.

Or for the Supreme Court to rule that way. They have revisited and updated how the 2nd amendment should be interpreted multiple times. I'm not disagreeing with that (even though you appear to be claiming it hasn't happened?)

But people are clamoring for greater restrictions than the supreme court or the constitution allow.

A huge portion of the population doesn't want that.

And if that pisses off people who don't like gun owners, I guess

sorry, not sorry.............
Click to expand...

the-office-karen-filippelli.gif
 
Last edited:
Phatguysrule said:
I am well aware of that. But I was replying to a comment that was attempting to use the federalist papers as evidence of what people at that time thought.

I was simply pointing out that the federalist papers support the idea that the founders intended every American to have the right to own and operate infantry equivalent firearms for the reasons stated.

Nobody in this thread suggested that we should allow everyone "gun ownership without restrictions of any kind".

That is a straw man argument.

If you would like to update the Constitution there is a process for doing that. It requires 3/4 of the states to agree to a constitutional convention.

Good luck with that.

Or for the Supreme Court to rule that way. They have revisited and updated how the 2nd amendment should be interpreted multiple times. I'm not disagreeing with that (even though you appear to be claiming it hasn't happened?)

But people are clamoring for greater restrictions than the supreme court or the constitution allow.

A huge portion of the population doesn't want that.

And if that pisses off people who don't like gun owners, I guess



the-office-karen-filippelli.gif
Click to expand...

Using 236 year old papers that aren't law and an outdated interpretation of the constitution are also strawman arguments. They can be just as easily refuted and have been.

The second amendment was written because at the time the people were the militia. We didn't have the military we do today. If there was a war you grabbed your guns and joined in. The second amendment was written to assure this at the time, not so small dicked men could over compensate. It's outdated and wrongly interpreted.
 
Chris Craig said:
Using 236 year old papers that aren't law and an outdated interpretation of the constitution are also strawman arguments. They can be just as easily refuted and have been.

The second amendment was written because at the time the people were the militia. We didn't have the military we do today. If there was a war you grabbed your guns and joined in. The second amendment was written to assure this at the time, not so small dicked men could over compensate. It's outdated and wrongly interpreted.
Click to expand...
How so? I was responding to somebody who used them to support their argument.

What they are is a look inside the minds of the founding fathers and what thier mindset was regarding "well regulated" and "militia". Which is how I used them.

If you're going to get on somebody for using straw man arguments I'd suggest going afte the person who brought it up.

It is correctly interpreted by all available measures.

We have the ability to change it. We don't have the will to change it.
 
Phatguysrule said:
How so? I was responding to somebody who used them to support their argument.

What they are is a look inside the minds of the founding fathers and what thier mindset was regarding "well regulated" and "militia". Which is how I used them.

If you're going to get on somebody for using straw man arguments I'd suggest going afte the person who brought it up.

It is correctly interpreted by all available measures.

We have the ability to change it. We don't have the will to change it.
Click to expand...

And you used them to support your's. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. The founders had a totally different meaning in mind for the second amendment when they wrote the constitution.

You said yourself at the time it meant something different, people were the militia then. This amendment was how they secured the military presence. Now, the people themselves are no longer directly the militia. Well regulated militias are no longer needed and are outdated terms. Because we have a different form of military, the interpretation of the amendment should be modified to fit to current standings as others have.

The people have the will. Those in office just refuse to hear it.
 
Chris Craig said:
And you used them to support your's. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. The founders had a totally different meaning in mind for the second amendment when they wrote the constitution.

You said yourself at the time it meant something different, people were the militia then. This amendment was how they secured the military presence. Now, the people themselves are no longer directly the militia. Well regulated militias are no longer needed and are outdated terms. Because we have a different form of military, the interpretation of the amendment should be modified to fit to current standings as others have.

The people have the will. Those in office just refuse to hear it.
Click to expand...
That's false. The US had a military in 1775. Over a decade before the constitution was drafted.

Don't try to re-write history to support your point of view. You're better than that.
 
Phatguysrule said:
That's false. The US had a military in 1775. Over a decade before the constitution was drafted.

Don't try to re-write history to support your point of view. You're better than that.
Click to expand...
We did not have a standing/formal military at that time. We were still trying to form a country. The army was all voluntary, and very difficult to find (and keep) volunteers beyond their original enlistment. After the war, Congress did not particularly want a standing army (or navy). Or at least large ones. The citizenry was expected to participate in the common defense if the need arose. Not so much anymore......
 
Phatguysrule said:
That's false. The US had a military in 1775. Over a decade before the constitution was drafted.

Don't try to re-write history to support your point of view. You're better than that.
Click to expand...

It's not false. I'm rewriting nothing. The Continental army was pretty exclusively volunteers and very haphazard. It still relied heavily on soldiers to provide their own weapons from home. A well regulated militia was still much in need then.

Now we don't rely on civilians to bring their own guns with them to war.
 
Chris Craig said:
It's not false. I'm rewriting nothing. The Continental army was pretty exclusively volunteers and very haphazard. It still relied heavily on soldiers to provide their own weapons from home. A well regulated militia was still much in need then.

Now we don't rely on civilians to bring their own guns with them to war.
Click to expand...
The 2nd amendment was clearly intended as much for defense against the standing army as it was against foreign attacks. Otherwise they wouldn't have included the "free state" in the language.

The first regular U.S. fighting force, the Continental Army, was organized by the Second Continental Congress on June 14, 1775.

It's the force that successfully fought off the British (yes, as a part of the alliance and with the help of militia). And service in the US military has been voluntary for virtually all of US history.

This is all very clear by the wording of the 2nd Amendment. And is supported when you read the statements made by the founding fathers at the time.

The Supreme Court has revisited this numerous times and agreed. Over half of the states in the country also agree.
 
UncleCliffy'sDaddy said:
We did not have a standing/formal military at that time. We were still trying to form a country. The army was all voluntary, and very difficult to find (and keep) volunteers beyond their original enlistment. After the war, Congress did not particularly want a standing army (or navy). Or at least large ones. The citizenry was expected to participate in the common defense if the need arose. Not so much anymore......
Click to expand...
Then they would have changed the 2nd amendment upon institution of the "real standing army".

That didn't happen. And it hasn't happened even though it's been revisited by the Supreme Court numerous times since WW2.

And more states are expanding gun rights every year. Nearly 3/4 of states have strengthened gun rights since then. 7 states in the last 5 years alone.

There is nothing to support these claims that the 2nd amendment is somehow being misinterpreted.
 
Phatguysrule said:
The "well regulated" "militia" referenced were infantry that could be quickly formed of normal citizens (ie. not required to be enlisted) without the need of regular soldiers.
Click to expand...

You make an intelligent argument. But here is where we differ I guess: A militia means, well, a militia. It does not mean everyone of every stripe gets to own a gun.

That clause is in the Constitution for a reason. The only way the SC gets away with current interpretation is by ignoring those 4 words - a "well-regulated militia." You yourself quote the Federalist Papers - "and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.)"

Assemble who? The well-regulated militia. Was that nut in Maine called up twice a year for training? No. Is anyone? No.
 
Stevenson said:
You make an intelligent argument. But here is where we differ I guess: A militia means, well, a militia. It does not mean everyone of every stripe gets to own a gun.

That clause is in the Constitution for a reason. The only way the SC gets away with current interpretation is by ignoring those 4 words - a "well-regulated militia." You yourself quote the Federalist Papers - "and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.)"

Assemble who? The well-regulated militia. Was that nut in Maine called up twice a year for training? No. Is anyone? No.
Click to expand...
The nut in Maine was (I believe) an army reserve and was probably called up twice per year. I believe he was also a firearms instructor.

The fact that he thought they should offer training once or twice per year to maximize the effectiveness of their own training doesn't change anything. I agree with him 100% and have said so many times.

We should definitely be offering refundable tax credits for people to get gun safety training once or twice per year.

*Edit*
Just to add. The training would be incredibly important for getting an idea of the skill level and reliability of the the people if needed. For example, you'd want these people to understand muzzle discipline to reduce the risk of friendly fire in the ranks.

It would almost certainly reduce the number of civilian firearm accidents as well as firearms theft.

And I guarantee you, nobody wants to invade the US with 50-100 million gun owners and 400 million guns (even without our military)
 
Last edited:
Stevenson said:
You make an intelligent argument. But here is where we differ I guess: A militia means, well, a militia. It does not mean everyone of every stripe gets to own a gun.

That clause is in the Constitution for a reason. The only way the SC gets away with current interpretation is by ignoring those 4 words - a "well-regulated militia." You yourself quote the Federalist Papers - "and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.)"

Assemble who? The well-regulated militia. Was that nut in Maine called up twice a year for training? No. Is anyone? No.
Click to expand...
And to more specifically address your point. The very clear meaning of "militia" by the people who wrote the Constitution was "civilians". The people. They specifically included "well regulated" to make it clear the general population of a free country should be highly capable as infantry as a check on any and all tyrannical threats, including government power (either foreign, or domestic).

"Well regulated militia" at the time of the writing of the constitution meant "well armed and infantry capable citizen population".

And they specifically did not want them having to live military lives or be a part of paramilitary groups we think of as "militia" today.

And nothing has changed that would make a well armed and trained citizen population less of a check on tyranny today.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top