We've also moved the goalposts on what is and what is not "impaired". My little suggestions move the goalposts a little. There's also a lot of wiggle room on defining the well maintained militia.
True, but that isn't the point. When I hear folks like you bring up the militia, I wonder if you've actually read the text. Does it make the right to bear arms contingent upon a well-regulated militia? It doesn't.
It seems to me that if the term well-regulated actually means well drilled or up to some sort of organizational standard (as opposed to the idea that it really meant government regulation of the arms themselves) then what is possibly in conflict in the wording and our world of today is the need for a greater level of an organized militia (which I guarantee some on the Left won't like at all; it's going the wrong way by strengthening the people relative to the government) and not to take away the guns. The argument could be framed that the problem with the wording is not the right to have the guns, it's that we all should take part in some sort of mandatory training. It's just a thought. I don't know that the construction of the sentence is designed as an "If this, then that, otherwise no that" type of right. I'm not a lawyer.
MADD also gave us the stupid open container law making it illegal to drink while riding, which has had no discernible statistical impact on reducing drunk driving. I will also some studies have shown that MADD’s impact is greatly overstated and the reduction in drunk driving has not been as significant as generally presented.
I have said it before on this board, but if you want to see what the founder’s intended by the second amendment, look at the civil war and even the american revolution. The citizens had their own weapons and were able to organize themselves through their states/colonies into militias capable of waging war. The probable meaning of the second amendment is that citizens have the right to carry what a normal foot soldier would carry in order to organize themselves in times of rebellion or invasion. Since almost no one on either side wants people to have grenades and fully automatic weapons, Scalia invented the “self-defense” meaning which protected gun ownership, but would not justify automatic weapons and grenades. The truth is, America probably needs to amend the second amendment as the vast majority (i mean 90%+) does not want its original meaning. I believe most Americans (probably not 90%, but most) are comfortable with the Scalia definiton of self-defense and that should probably be the starting point. Anyway, the second amendment is truly a curious case as it is fiercely debated yet neither side actually advocates for its probable original meaning.
Ditto. I used to be pro-MADD. When it came to toughening the laws and shaming real drunks who were hurting people, I was all for it. However, once they got their serious agenda enacted and moved on to lowering the BAC to .08 and the stupid-*** open container law, they lost me. Furthermore, when the Texas Supreme Court gutted the Dram Shop Act with their ridiculous Duenez ruling and MADD shrugged it off, they pretty much showed me how useless they are.
My take is that they meant an organized local militia that could be called up if need be and that would call itself up if George Washington started tweeting like... [never mind]. Anyway, I think these jokers in Starbucks with their AR-15 on their strap like they're a Navy Seal is not what the Founders had in mind. I foresee no movement at all in any effort to take away any gun that's already got an owner.
I always felt that life as an imperialist with the pesky indigenous tribes and wild critters roaming around along with the lack of a local grocery store necessitated being well-armed and able to handle your business. Then you add in the idea that a central depot of weapons to be accessed only in times of insurrection or war would be wholly impractical and stupid. It's better to be armed on the spot when the S hits the fan which I believe still applies today.
I'm not big on owning an AR-15. I'm not in that world so the arguments are over my head in terms of need. I really think it's more the absolute distrust that exists between conservatives and liberals. Statesmanship and bi-partisan agreements seem to be from a bygone era except when someone flies a plane into one of our buildings. It's a battle for control and to give even an inch is only seen as enabling a new and more advantageous staging ground for further advancement on the hidden agenda of extremism.
I think you meant freedom fighters. Okie isn't skilled in importing pictures of natives fighting terrorism since 1492.
Yes, that would fit. I don't have any loyalty to the European imperialists of long ago. For that and other reasons I'm just not as impressed with Europeans as other people seem to be. It's a nice place to visit but the powder keg still exists in some ways. I don't take up for them because they were white and I don't engage in self-loathing because they were white. It's just history to me. Every piece of land has had more than one owner. We're supposedly civilized now and most of the lines on the map now have international recognition and I don't feel the need to point to old maps to justify political arguments (such as illegal immigration from Mexico and their right of return). The US has a history and it's good to know about it but I don't really know what to do with it other than not to make stupid or ignorant comments about what happened. I watched King of Kings and The Greatest Story Ever Told over the weekend. That Jesus fella' said a mouthful. If I try to honor those words then what happened hundreds of years ago by the hand of the imperialists doesn't mean anything to me or anyone who I come into contact with. It's on me to act right...
This is so profoundly true. No one can control if they were born rich or poor, male or female, tall or short, white, black, etc. Everyone should focus treating each other as individuals and trying to do right by one another.... but good luck with that!
It is very difficult. We are in a new era of judging each other via Twitter. Lots of finger pointing going on. I'm as susceptible to it as anyone else but I'm trying my best not to do that. Certainly we all must step up when it is obvious that harm is being done to someone else and of course that involves judgment on some level. But it has gone past obvious transgressions these days as our thoughts and words are being attacked and twisted at will... I'll just keep trying to pull that plank out of my eye and leave your speck to you...
But I don't believe that many gun control advocates will accept that minimizing is the goal. I think that if we enact these provisions, they will have minimal impact. a) because there are already many weapons out there, b) you can do the same kind of damage with a well timed assault in a crowd at a concert or football game with a couple of semi-auto handguns. If we enact these provisions, there will still be a school shooting in the future. When this school shooting happens, gun control advocates won't say "whew, at least it isn't happening as much as before"...They will say "We didn't go far enough last time, now let's take away pistols (and then all rifles, and so on)"
The problem is anti-gun control people also reject minimizing as a goal and say if there is a shooting that proves any and all regulations do not work. Simply put, we have a problem where neither side will come to the middle and compromise.
I think the majority of rational people on both sides would. That's the key. As it stands now like 85% of gun owning households support universal background checks. Yet, the NRA fights it. Talk about low hanging fruit and a PR win for the organization that supports marksmanship and the responsible ownership of firearms. You guys act like since none of these changes will work then we need to all arm ourselves. Those who own stock in the gun industry would concur with that assessment.
I agree it's low hanging-fruit but what is their stated reason for opposing universal background checks? You know there are some folks on the right who want what is known as "Constitutional Carry" which means no permit is needed to open carry because the Constitution covers it as a right.
Would that include background checks first for whatever it is we deem to be necessary (mental illness, prior felonies, etc)?
Know which gun sales don't currently have a requirement for a background check? -Person to person gun sales. The so-called gun show loophole as I understand it is that you can sell a personal weapon without a background check. Even though I am sure there are dealers who illegally sell weapons without a background check, I am against requiring background checks on personal gun sales. Just enforce the existing laws and prosecute dealers who illegally sell weapons.
So it's fine to take away the gun rights of all us folks who had nothing to do with the shooting, but asking the students to use clear backpacks? Oh no, that is taking away *their* rights and that is no good:
I am against any and all restrictions on gun ownership by the government. Government has already *plainly* shown that it cannot responsibly mete out such restrictions.
If I sell a gun to you, I should be able to prove that, at the time of the sale, I took reasonable steps to validate that you were in fact able to purchase a gun. We might take it a step further and require a gun dealer to process all firearm sales - like a notary public. If I sell a gun to Barry Switzer and he goes and shoots up a bar and it turns out that he shouldn't have been sold said gun, then I'm legally liable for his damages. Not criminally but financially. Get some skin in the game and accountability will follow.
13 states already have Constitutional Carry. Several other states have a modified version on CC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_carry
While I would not personally want clear backpacks if I were a student (especially if I were a female student), I agree it is kind of ridiculous if any of the gun protesting students are also protesting clear backpacks.
Are they protesting clear backpacks? A few stated their opinions which many questioned and some conservative media outlets salivated over.
It has been proposed in Texas and went down to defeat basically because the bill's advocates/lobbyists acted like pricks and had some stupid PR stunts. As a former legislative staffer, I can tell you that it is very hard to screw up a pro-gun bill in the Texas Legislature. It's like screwing up a pro-gay city ordinance in San Francisco. That was mostly true even when Democrats ran the House, and that's especially true with the GOP in charge, because voting against a pro-gun bill on the floor is the closest thing to a career-ending vote as you'll ever see in a Republican primary.
If the media salivates over Davig Hogg calling gun owners "sick f***ers" and accusing Marco Rubio of taking blood money so the NRA can "sell more guns," then it seems fair to point out that it's hypocritical of him to claim that requiring clear backpacks is a violation of his "first amendment rights." It's also fair to criticize the gun movement's poster boy for not knowing what the first amendment covers.
