Tragedy in San Bernadino

[sirs]

Let us know when you plan to return to the adults' table, regarding this subject

[Plane]

The only solution gun nuts have is to remove all bans on guns and have everyone packing heat.
This would cause even MORE shootings. 

Where is the logic?

Why would there be anything but another decrease in violence ?

If you see more sharks , you know that there are fish being eaten by sharks.

But a shark must eat, a gun has no need to shoot.

Every murderer in the US that needs a gun for his business has one already, making him travel further for his next one or shell out more money for it will cause no reduction now or in the future.

There must be more than thirty percent of us that have no gun at all, and well over sixty percent of us that spend time in gun free zones. This is a vulnerable population that could easily be less vulnerable.

Perhaps arming everyone would require training everyone , which might take so much time and resources as to be problematic, lets call arming everyone a long term aspiration.

But Congress could very quickly enact law to the effect that anyone wishing to maintain a "gun free" zone should be required to keep a bond to repay damages to the injured in shooting sprees.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Arming everyone? That is insane.

A law requiring a bond posted for all gun free zones?  You, of course, realize that this would include schools and churches?  This has zero chance of passage. Imagine the government demanding that the Roman Catholic Church pay for insurance for declaring their church a gun free zone.


There are a lot of people with bad tempers who get frustrated for no good reason. Parking lots and freeways would become scenes of  anger based shootings.

There are too many guns to confiscate them. There are too many gun nuts to spy on  them all. There is no solution that passing a law could remedy. We will just have to accept that we will lose a person a day or so as a sort of blood sacrifice to maintain an outdated and pernicious decision of those idiot judges who have misinterpreted the Second Amendment. The general population is NOT any sort of "organized militia".

We have learned how to put up with dangerous bathtubs and automobiles. This nonsense will continue for the forseeable future.

[sirs]

We will just have to accept that we will lose a person a day or so as a sort of blood sacrifice to maintain an outdated and pernicious decision of those idiot judges who have misinterpreted the Second Amendment. The general population is NOT any sort of "organized militia".

Wrong again.  Consistent with the rest of the Bill of Rights, and with clear verbage, the general population is precisely part of our "militia".  It's not required to be "organized".  It simply exists in the form of......wait for it......"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It doesn't get much clearer than that

[kimba1]

Isnt this a rare occurance? We've getting a giant wave of attack and this maybe the second muslim involve attack I recall.

[sirs]

Rare occurence for a possible "Jihadist attack", vs other attacks which had different motives?  Hard to say at the moment, since we still don't have a clear motive for this Muslim husband & wife couple.  Hasan's attack on an Army Base was obviously Jihadist motivated.  I think there were other failed attacks that were Jihadist driven

What we do know, is that 2 very devout Muslims (possibly to the point of being radicalized), for whatever reason, left a Christmas party, only to return, to kill as many as they could within that Christmas party.  Now we just need to find all the rest of the puzzle pieces

[Xavier_Onassis]

Why do you suppose they put the words "organized militia" into the second amendment?
Ornamentation?

[sirs]

Because, lingustics professor, when you note the commas, the wording is clear....the security of this nation does include the need for regulated (not organized) militia.  But on top of that need, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 

That's completely consistent with the rest of the Bill of Rights, that are specific to .... wait for it....INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS of this country.  As in the general population.  The wording makes it clear that SCOTUS ruled properly

[Xavier_Onassis]

We should pass an amendment to erase that stupid comma.
It is possibly a bit of fly shit.

[sirs]

Regardless of your feelings, the text remains consistent with the rest of the Bill of Rights.....that of an individual's right to;
Freedom of Speech
Freedom of Religion
Freedom to own/carry firearms
Freedom from unlawful searches/seizures
Freedom from incriminating oneself

etc, etc, etc, etc....ALL of which are individual freedoms, i.e. "the general population"

[Plane]

Why do you suppose they put the words "organized militia" into the second amendment?
Ornamentation?

That is the justification of the whole amendment, the shall not be infringed is the active part.


Do you think it is true that a well regulated militia is a good idea?

[Xavier_Onassis]

I was a perhaps  good idea in 1790 with the weapons that were available in 1790.

It is not a good idea now, with the weapons that are available now.

[sirs]

Why?  It's the same concept.  In fact, as Plane pointed out, back in the 1790's we had the SAME firearms as the military.  Not the case now is it.  So.....are you supporting Plane's idea that we be allowed to have the same military firearms as the military?

Bottom line is that the amendment itself is specific to "the general population", just as every other Bill of Rights' amendment is specific to.  A well regulated militia is simply the needed cherry on top, towards maintaining the freedoms we hold and have died for

[kimba1]

As a government employee the word well regulated gives me pause. I support and critisize it. Potential backfire may occur

[sirs]

Boy, ain't that the truth, when you consider the exponential examples of just how "regulated" the Government demonstrates itself to be