TargetTalk

2 versions,
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]

I'm just throwing another oar in the water here concerning a modern Shays Rebellion....

The "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007" was conceived,
passed the House but never passed the Senate.
In reality, state governors have the right to call out their national guard, and, as has happened
in Little Rock, request emergency assistance from the Federal government. The Little Rock
riots caused Eisenhower to command US troops to restore the peace in Little Rock, which was done.
In a civil insurrection, there are procedures, even if the state governor hesitates, as happened
in Mississippi, when Katzenbach called Attorney General Robert Kennedy, who ordered federal
intervention.
I think the civil rights arena offers solid legal footholds for federal intervention.

http://libertylawsite.org/2013/01/06/se ... kg.twitter

Another really great article that explains why controlling the "supply side" won't work.

Gerard wrote:

FredB wrote: The second brings up an aspect of mass killings that I had never thought of as potentially important
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2 ... s/1566084/

FredB's quoted USAToday article wrote: There are few things a culture does as important as raising children. We can't continue to fail half of them.

Never thought of as potentially important? Have another look at my post from 6:41pm today, just a few posts up, where I rant about the importance of healthy family and community. Do you just want to take pot shots at me for being a 'bickering Canadian' or will you actually read what I have to contribute and take it at least slightly seriously?

USAToday isn't exactly a shining beacon of journalism, but it is good, I agree, to see the failures to serve our children, perhaps especially our sons well in the USA and I'll add in Canada as well. Too many boys here are still turning to violence against each other and against women. We must do a better job as parents. And that should be a HUGE part of this discussion. Focusing on personal jabs and misleading comments about each other's motives or 'hidden agendas' is not going to help anything.

Gerard, Gerard, Gerard,

1. Unfortunately it seems that you are seriously humor deprived - so sad.

2. The aspect of mass killings that I had not previously considered was that they are all committed by boys and men. I was not referring to your point about families.

3. I think you must be aware that your posts often tend to ramble; they can be very difficult to slog through. So you need to cut your loyal readers some slack there.

Regards,
FredB

Isabel1130 wrote:http://libertylawsite.org/2013/01/06/se ... kg.twitter

Another really great article that explains why controlling the "supply side" won't work.

Great article! And I love the irony (not mentioned in the article) that the left wing wants to control guns with a discredited supply-side solution, while the right wing wants to steer the economy with a discredited supply-side solution. Maybe what we really need is supply-side theory control.

FredB

BenEnglishTX wrote: As a former standup comic, I understand the pain of passing up an opportunity when someone hands you a straight line on a silver platter but...well...just...please, not this time. OK?

I wasn't going to pounce, as I do, despite what some here seem to think, try to offer arguments in aid of furthering this discussion. From my irrelevantly Northern perspective it seems all too often the trends in the US are echoed here in Canada within some interval, that timespan seemingly shortening as the Internet has superceded the older routes of slow absorption into your culture. The 'American Dream' is still alive, if not well, still attractive for too many non-Americans. A lot is good about that dream, but a lot is also clearly very wrong, and we might see better results in attempting to resolve and mend what's wrong if the discussion can be inclusive rather than merely insular navel-gazing.

FredB wrote:

Isabel1130 wrote:http://libertylawsite.org/2013/01/06/se ... kg.twitter

Another really great article that explains why controlling the "supply side" won't work.

Great article! And I love the irony (not mentioned in the article) that the left wing wants to control guns with a discredited supply-side solution, while the right wing wants to steer the economy with a discredited supply-side solution. Maybe what we really need is supply-side theory control.

FredB

Have to say Fred, I see no relationship between this article and Austrian school economic theories. A market economy is by definition, a "supply side" economy. What are you advocating instead?

Gerard wrote:I wasn't going to pounce,...

Well, I didn't think you would, on that particular bit. But it sure has to be tempting to a bunch of folks.

BenEnglishTX wrote:Well, I didn't think you would, on that particular bit. But it sure has to be tempting to a bunch of folks.

I understand of course, but don't see it quite like that. A lot of people around the English-speaking world at least are really rather concerned about many of the more destructive or dehumanizing aspects of exported American culture. Media violence and desensitization are especially popular themes here and in the UK and elsewhere, and it's plain this is also on the table as Biden is apparently meeting tomorrow with members of the video game industry, along with activist groups not on the NRA side of the argument. As I hope I've stated clearly before this, I'm not at all interested in blaming video games and Hollywood movies for violence in the culture at large. That's the NRA's stance apparently, which I find more than a little disingenuous (surely they're not THAT stupid!) and a dangerous attempt to side-track the debate. Media producers do need to be accountable to some basic code of ethics, not everything which is possible is necessarily right to display in games and movies kids might consume, but to call these the source is to overlook so many failures in education and community-building.

While I can't speak for anyone else, it's tempting to suggest that most thinking people outside the US are genuinely worried about these mass-shootings and want to be part of the solution, want to see something change such that fewer to none of these tragedies will happen some day. And of course the variety of opinions on just what it might take to make that possible is just as diverse outside your country as inside it, with the bonus of not being quite so close to the issue (as no other country shares the rate of gun violence among civilians on display in the USA) and so perhaps better situated to comment with something like objectivity.

FredB wrote:Gerard, Gerard, Gerard,

1. Unfortunately it seems that you are seriously humor deprived - so sad.

No, just truly failed to notice the humour. Sorry FredB. I'm actually something of a clown; a by-product of much of my youth having been spent being a punching bag for bullies owing to my being a stick insect of a kid and a reluctance to hit anyone. Comedy helped me out of more than a few situations. I've not really expected to see much of it in this discussion however, and perhaps that's a failing on my part generally. We do have to remember to laugh, or risk losing our humanity.

FredB wrote:3. I think you must be aware that your posts often tend to ramble; they can be very difficult to slog through. So you need to cut your loyal readers some slack there.

Just as someone here recently said to me in a PM related to this discussion, I too am not one to use a dozen words when a thousand will suffice. And yeah, it's easy to get lost in the meanderings now and then... sorry, but I do try to keep on track. Got a lot of flack from teachers for that in school. Handing in a 10,000 word essay when 500 were requested makes for some awkward moments spent justifying the verbiage. And it's not just because I'm a fast typist. During my first year as a user of Pocket PC devices (had one long before owning a 'proper' computer) in 2000/2001 I contributed more than half a million words to various, now mostly defunct Pocket PC discussion forums... with a stylus and character recognition input panel. Wore out a few resistive screen overlays (fatal to each device), especially the lower centre where the lowercase characters were to be written. Seems I'm something of an expressing opinions addict, though back then more than 95% of my output was in aid of explaining technical solutions to less expert users. Got myself a glass MVP trophy from Microsoft to show for it by 2009, somewhat belatedly and good for a belly laugh.

I'll try, really, to trim it a bit. Sorry.

I find your post quite interesting. First, you come out with something eminently sensible, to wit:

Gerard wrote:I'm not at all interested in blaming video games and Hollywood movies for violence in the culture at large. That's the NRA's stance apparently, which I find more than a little disingenuous (surely they're not THAT stupid!) and a dangerous attempt to side-track the debate.

and then follow up with something that seems, well, right out of left field:

Gerard wrote:...it's tempting to suggest that most thinking people outside the US are genuinely worried about these mass-shootings and want to be part of the solution, ...

Really? I would never have supposed such a thing. When Norway had their big 77-victim mass shooting in 2011, it would have never occurred to me to offer Norway advice. Condolences and prayers, yes, but only they can understand the nuances of their cultural landscape well enough to carry on any meaningful discussion of the causes and potential cures. That's purely my opinion, of course, and perhaps it simply reflects the cultural myopia of which the USA is often accused.

Gerard wrote:...(as no other country shares the rate of gun violence among civilians on display in the USA)...

Now, that's one I'll have to research. My impression is that the statement is flat-out wrong but I can't research it at the moment. Lightning is moving in and the power grid in my neighborhood is beyond substandard. The longer I leave my machine on, the greater the chance I'll lose it. I'll return to this, later.

BenEnglishTX wrote:and then follow up with something that seems, well, right out of left field:

Gerard wrote:...it's tempting to suggest that most thinking people outside the US are genuinely worried about these mass-shootings and want to be part of the solution, ...

Really? I would never have supposed such a thing. When Norway had their big 77-victim mass shooting in 2011...

Different perspectives I guess. I followed a lot of discussion from several countries, a couple in Europe and of course in Canada and the US, along with Norway's own relatively scant English news media and slightly more abundant social media. And what I recall reading was a whole lot of suggestions, right up there and sometimes out in front of the expressions of empathy. Admittedly a number of comments along the lines of 'see, Norway has gun violence too and look at their Socialist state and compare it to our American freedoms!' That was a bit much. And such comments weren't only from Americans to be fair, but the preponderance were. Many were questioning the lack of a potential life sentence for Brevik for instance, and many more insisting that the death penalty was the only way to go. As someone who is normally strongly opposed to that recourse, I felt that his presented a rare instance where it might be justified as it seemed plain enough that there's no curing such deep-seated hatred as he carries. I've little doubt, though I hope to be proven wrong, that when he's eventually released he will do more damage unless he's monitored 24/7 by a personal policeman.

Norway's problems are complex, as in any region. To claim some sort of superior knowledge or perspective would be absurdly presumptuous. But we must try, and I see a lot of people doing just that around these situations. A lot of folks here in Canada's various channels online are still very busy soul-searching, with only the usual trolls writing off the whole USA, or jumping right aboard the NRA publicity bandwagon and shouting MORE GUNZ!

BenEnglishTX wrote:

Gerard wrote:...(as no other country shares the rate of gun violence among civilians on display in the USA)...

Now, that's one I'll have to research. My impression is that the statement is flat-out wrong but I can't research it at the moment. Lightning is moving in and the power grid in my neighborhood is beyond substandard. The longer I leave my machine on, the greater the chance I'll lose it. I'll return to this, later.

Keep your head and your hard drives low and away from plumbing and wiring to be sure! Yikes.

If I am in error, forgive me, but I rather doubt the statement above is far from the mark if not completely accurate. I should perhaps specify more clearly my terms; by 'gun violence among civilians' I most certainly do NOT mean gang warfare, such as has been getting so much worse in Mexico over the last 10 years of the 'war on drugs,' which has been caused primarily by preposterously out of touch US-defined laws and fed by US money (the customers are primarily American) and guns (making many gun dealers and manufacturers much richer). What I referred to was civilian-on-civilian gun injuries and deaths, as in mass shootings, spousal attacks, home invasions/defenses, robberies in stores/banks, etc. The waters may get a little bit murky here, when comparing say to Afghanistan where a lot of non-military but no less militant people are exchanging gunfire - and I'm not counting that here unless someone thinks we should be getting side-tracked by a discussion of US interventions abroad. Nor should somewhere like Sudan be included, again unless we're talking about Chinese and other foreign intervention in a country's internal politics over oil money. South Africa does have a lot of gun violence, but the vast majority involves highly organised gangs primarily involved in kidnapping and inter-gang warfare, with the vast majority of the civilian public on the other hand being far too poor to even contemplate owning a luxury item like a gun. Most violence there uses somewhat sharper or hotter implements of destruction than the gun.

So my point was to do with the tool used in wreaking violence in a culture. And I'm hardly the first to point out that the gun, especially those capable of rapidly discharging numerous bullets in a short period, is by far better suited to maximizing casualties when civilian-on-civilian violence is expressed than is any other weapon available to civilians. The notable, if rare exceptions (I can think of only a couple of US-domestic cases - pardon my ignorance - which are the Oklahoma City bombing and the 1920's school bombing) are high explosives, used here and there on a small scale but not statistically relevant in this discussion I think. And it's been pointed out, especially by the NRA, that there's no practical way yet to stop a determined bomber working alone. There are just too many ways to make a powerful explosive. Communications monitoring (further extended under the 5-year renewal of FISA last month) seems the best bet there, and it doesn't touch the lone bomber in most cases.

william:

You, and all the judges who used the first part of the Second Amendment as the controlling part of the sentence, need to return to grade school English class and learn to diagram a sentence.

The Amendment is comprised of a main clause, (the second part of the sentence) which can stand on it's own as a sentence because it has the necessary subject, object, and verb, and subordinate clause.

The first part of the Amendment is called a "subordinate clause", that is a clause which cannot stand on it's own due to the lack of the three basics of a sentence (subject, object, and verb), and which is meant only to add clarity some part of the main clause

In the English language (at least as used in the US), the main clause is most important. Uninformed, or ignorant, or evil people sometimes twist the meaning of sentences for their own purposes.

That is what has been done by the various courts you mention.

Pat McCoy wrote:william:

You, and all the judges who used the first part of the Second Amendment as the controlling part of the sentence, need to return to grade school English class and learn to diagram a sentence.

The Amendment is comprised of a main clause, (the second part of the sentence) which can stand on it's own as a sentence because it has the necessary subject, object, and verb, and subordinate clause.

The first part of the Amendment is called a "subordinate clause", that is a clause which cannot stand on it's own due to the lack of the three basics of a sentence (subject, object, and verb), and which is meant only to add clarity some part of the main clause

In the English language (at least as used in the US), the main clause is most important. Uninformed, or ignorant, or evil people sometimes twist the meaning of sentences for their own purposes.

That is what has been done by the various courts you mention.

Pat is absolutely correct about this particular sentence, but not about subordinate clauses in general, which can have subjects and verbs. A good example of such clauses is the typical "whereas" clause preceding a resolution (e.g. "Whereas I wrote this posting hastily, I must revise it."). The subordinate clause may provide the reasoning for something, but the meaning of the main clause takes precedence.

All the other first 10 amendments use "the people" to refer to all the people covered by the Constitution. It's always boggled my mind how judges could interpret this particular "the people" to mean a subset of all the people. The framers of the Constitution/Bill of Rights were quite competent writers. If they had wanted to limit the RTKBA to the militia, all they would have had to do was write simply "The right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But that's not what they wrote.

FredB (former university English and composition teacher)

Gerard:

You might find this article interesting.

United States ranking 28th in murder rate.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... d-list[url][/url]

that means there are 168 other countries that have a lower gun death rate per capita then the USA.
643 gunshot deaths since sandy hook.

BenEnglishTX wrote:

TraLfaz wrote:How would you like it if the the rest of the world thought that they knew better than you and were trying to push there agenda onto you... (?)

Ending punctuation changed because I assume you meant this as a rhetorical question.

There is a problem with that, however. The question isn't rhetorical, the answer isn't unimportant, and no one from the USA should ever ask it in a forum with any sizable contingent of international visitors. We really don't have an admirable record when it comes to pushing our agenda on other nations.

I truly hope this topic doesn't get sidetracked into that discussion. That would be not just severely off-topic but a substantial embarrassment to all the U.S. citizens on the board. I'm in no mood to have the near-infinite list of sins committed by my government in this arena read back to me.

To our readers in other nations - Restraint? Please? As a former standup comic, I understand the pain of passing up an opportunity when someone hands you a straight line on a silver platter but...well...just...please, not this time. OK?

Well yes, America doesn't exactly hold back on the B52s when it comes to reorganising the rest of the world according to their ideas...

But this is a general discussion with input from many countries, if you guys could leave off the "you're insulting the constitution suggesting gun regulation might help" knee-jerk response to any proposal then we can all get along.

Gun control people do not want to "get along". They want to use the tyranny of government to violently force their ideology on others. Freedom loving self defense advocates just want to be left alone.
If you want to "get along" keep your sticky fingers off my guns and out of my pocket.
The Australian who criticizes our B52 probable has ancestors who appreciated our B 24s and B25s and few US troops.

The only true solution to the worlds misery is the intake and acceptances of Bible Doctrine. How dare I even suggest this. To a advocate "thou shall not murder" just has no pace in this discussion. To advocate and teach "love thy neighbor" to the murder of Sandy Hook is too off the wall and would violate his civil rights.
The only true solution is pass more laws. Surely that wouldn't violate anyone civil rights.

Raymond odle wrote:The only true solution to the worlds misery is the intake and acceptances of Bible Doctrine.

Is this the same Bible which gave us the Dark Ages, The Crusades and the Catholic Church?

Lets stick to the subject of gun legislation eh?

JamesH wrote:...this is a general discussion with input from many countries, if you guys could leave off the "you're insulting the constitution suggesting gun regulation might help" knee-jerk response to any proposal then we can all get along.

Clearly the goal is to get along while having an enlightened discussion from all quarters. I'm glad we agree on that.

However, I don't believe I've made any comments taking particular umbrage at insults to our Constitution.

It's my belief that our Constitution should be honestly criticized, regularly, by anyone who thinks they have a better idea. The document has stood the test of time, changing slowly but remaining a pretty solid foundation for our government. The most egregious insults to the Constitution tend to come from our elected representatives every time they choose to propose or pass legislation that violates it, something they knowingly do far too often.

Now, as concerns the Second Amendment, it is a major problem for anyone who wants to propose any sort of new regulation (by the common, modern definition of that word).

However, Wayne LaPierre of our NRA definitely opened the door in a recent interview to measures that would make the current background check system more accurate. Not all states report the disqualifying mental status of their residents for inclusion in the background check database. Those that do provide the information frequently do a poor job. That's certainly something that could be improved and I doubt any serious opposition to it could arise unless (and we've seen such far too often in the past) the small print throws in extra provisos that go beyond an honest attempt to properly enforce the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Personally, I find some of the best thinking on the "guns are bad" side of the equation comes from people who want to stick to the Constitution and go through the process of dumping the 2nd entirely. At least they tend to be intellectually honest in their approach and transparent in their motivations.

ATM, U.S. gun owners are a bit twitchy on the subject because the only bill that's been promised to be introduced comes from someone who has been quite clear in the past about her desire to simply ban all guns. That bill, however, hasn't been introduced yet and no one has seen the text. All we've got is a summary from the web site of the woman promising to introduce it. The summary is an overreaching abomination clearly designed to serve as a bargaining position. If I read the summary right, for example, Pardini SPs, Walther GSPs, and similar pistols would be outright banned, immediately. Of course, no one really knows since the text isn't available yet. The only thing that's truly clear is that, however civil we might be here on TT, in our Congress we're going to face powerful opponents who are bat-shit crazy on the subject and immune to reason. When you've dealt with that situation for long enough, it's easy for nerves to become frayed.

In light of that, I pledge to earnestly try to keep my knee under control during the course of the conversation here. :-)