Bring guns to church?

[Eddie_Mac]

The second paragraph.

I think it did.

The Commissioner of police determines if you fail to meet standards of mental or physical fitness. You’d have to ask them how this process works, but I assume that if you found it reasonable it would be acceptable. I assume that you wouldn’t want a license issued to someone whom you believed to be mentally unfit.

You fill in the forms yourself. It’s then checked to make sure you haven’t lied.

The state police in this case enforce it.

It’s a state matter in this case. The license is issued by the state police.For 12 moths. The renewed upon application. Assuming you have been a good boy and haven’t been beating your wife up or robbing banks in the interim.

In any case, in what way would you restrict ownership of guns? You obviousLy wouldn’t want just anyone to have them, so how would you do it. Let’s find some common ground.

We will have to disagree on the answered question.

In what way would I restrict ownership of guns?

Felons under indictment. Felons on parole. Once off parole, they can own them. The right to self defense does not expire for people who have served their time and debt to society.

Mental patients treated in the same manner as felons. If their mental disorder has caused them to harm someone they cannot own a firearm. Mental disorders are a slippery slope. What types of disorders and associated therapies and drops cause problems?

In my world there would be few prohibitions to owning firearms, but then in my world the government would be operated differently, doctors, lawyers, and other professionals who deal with problems would all be ethical and moral, and courts would mete out true justice and mercy when it is warranted. There would not be justice for a price. (Lawyaers would not be allowed to serve as legislators either. Lawyers who make laws is a recipe for disaster, sand it exists today.) There would be no “war on drugs”, no “asset forfeiture”, no “no knock” warrants, and cops could not lie to you to entrap you into an arrest. In my world, lying to obtain a conviction or district attorneys or judges who convict someone using false evidence or hiding evidence, or convict an innocent person would go to prison to serve the same sentence as the wrongfully convicted. True justice.

In my world, people would act responsibly when they see something odd or wrong instead of keeping their faces buried in their smart phones gawking at FB or tweeting with celebrities.Not like those in idiots in Cincinatti who received tweets from a lunatic who told them he was going to commit suicide by cop. They told police later they thought his messages were awesome and cool. The lunatic called 911 and reported a man with a gun. He murdered the LEO that responded. The LEO had a wife and three children. In my world the ones who did not report the lunatic would serve his sentence in jail.

There is lots more to what is going on in our world than the crazies with guns. Crazies kill with any weapon they have and the victims are just as dead. Our efforts would be put to better use by focusing on other issues than wasting time determining if good honest freedom loving moral people are sane enough to buy a firearm.

 

[Sarcelle]

You are right. It is only a stop gap measure which might not reduce violent crime in the end. It is only a tool designed to hold those people who have gifted guns to the insane responsible for their actions. So I guess we have to go to the root cause and strip away gun rights across the board. How else can we protect children in schools who are being gunned down and the worshippers in churches who are being murdered. Why give guns to blind people and those who are insane?

So in response to the shooting tragedies you propose to take away the right of say Eddie Mac to own a gun? If that isn’t a hysterical reaction, I don’t know what is.

You think criminals give any consideration to the law? Weapons will always be available via the black market.Your proposed measure does not solve the problem and will in all likelihood make it worst.

 

[Gorgias]

No. Only those who make an application for a gun license.

You realize the scope of what you’re asking, don’t you? Of course, an evaluation at time X doesn’t imply anything about a person’s mental state at time X+n… so you’re really asking for evaluations each time a person applies to purchase a firearm! There isn’t sufficient capacity in the system for such an undertaking – let alone the question of who will pay for all these evaluations…

I’m assuming that you wouldn’t want people who have numerous convictions for violence or those with serious mental problems owning a gun.

This is already the system in place.

And guess what? It doesn’t stop mass murders in the U.S. … :nope:

I guess we can agree on this. All we need to do is make sure that the criteria is fair enough so that it doesn’t exclude people who don’t fit into these categories.

The problem isn’t the ‘criteria’, I would assert. The problem is that such a system, if it were tasked with halting mass murders (at the very least), would have to predict ‘likely offenders’. In other words, such a system would, de facto, be required to curtail the Constitutional rights of citizens, and be required by law. So… what you’re asking is that we repeal the 2nd Amendment… right?

Now it won’t serve the discussion at all if you now insist on giving examples of how any given system might not work.

Then again, if you think the whole problem is in the too hard basket, then say so. Or if you are happy with the current situation, then say so.

Cute.

No: discussing the ways in which such a system would fail is irrelevant, since it’s not the implementation that’s at issue, it’s the design and intent of such a system that’s the question.

No: it’s not that it’s ‘too hard’, it’s that its unconstitutional.

No: ‘happy with the current situation’ is simply an attempt at shaming me or baiting me into saying something inappropriate. Nice try.

 

[LongingSoul]

The problem isn’t the ‘criteria’, I would assert. The problem is that such a system, if it were tasked with halting mass murders (at the very least), would have to predict ‘likely offenders’. In other words, such a system would, de facto, be required to curtail the Constitutional rights of citizens, and be required by law. So… what you’re asking is that we repeal the 2nd Amendment… right?

Well not really. The constitutional right is dependent on the ‘militia’ being ‘well regulated’. You seem to be arguing for little, limited or no regulation. It really seems that lots of people are fighting against the conditions of the constitution as the basis for the right to own a gun.

 

[Tomdstone]

So in response to the shooting tragedies you propose to take away the right of say Eddie Mac to own a gun? If that isn’t a hysterical reaction, I don’t know what is.

So you call it hysterical when someone wants to protect innocent children from being slaughtered and innocent people going to church from being gunned down. Well - your ad hominem argument fails because I am not buying into any laws which have the result of making it easy to target and gun down children. I think it is more important that innocent children be free to play and live rather than have mentally disordered and insane people possess semi-automatic weapons which could be used to gun them down.

 

[Sarcelle]

So you call it hysterical when someone wants to protect innocent children from being slaughtered and innocent people going to church from being gunned down. Well - your ad hominem argument fails because I am not buying into any laws which have the result of making it easy to target and gun down children. I think it is more important that innocent children be free to play and live rather than have mentally disordered and insane people possess semi-automatic weapons which could be used to gun them down.

Your solution of denying guns across the board to everyone does not make it any harder to gun down children. In fact it is ineffective. What good is law if it does not work? What it does is punish the majority for the crimes of the few.

People who are determined to commit homicide will not let laws stop them. Guns will always be available.
These mentally disordered and insane people can always get guns through illegal means.

More children are killed in car accidents. Should we take away the right to cars too?

 

[Tomdstone]

Your solution of denying guns across the board to everyone does not make it any harder to gun down children. In fact it is ineffective. What good is law if it does not work? What it does is punish the majority for the crimes of the few.

People who are determined to commit homicide will not let laws stop them. Guns will always be available.
These mentally disordered and insane people can always get guns through illegal means.

More children are killed in car accidents. Should we take away the right to cars too?

It can be made more difficult for the insane and others to get guns and ammunition to murder children. I support stricter application laws to this effect. I reject your argument that this is a hysterical solution.

 

[Sarcelle]

It can be made more difficult for the insane and others to get guns and ammunition to murder children. I support stricter application laws to this effect. I reject your argument that this is a hysterical solution.

Okay fair enough. You can reject it. This is a free country after all.

Now tell me what is your solution to making it harder for the criminally insane from getting weapons?

 

[LongingSoul]

Is there more to the second amendment than the one sentence?

“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.”

This alone provides for something that is unrecognisable in today’s argument.

It begins by establishing that

1. a militia which is essentially a peoples army, that is…
2. well regulated, which clearly requires very good checks, balances and accountability and it’s focus being…
3. the security of the free State. So the common good is the goal.

What is argued by the pro gunners here is for an

1. unregulated or little regulated
2. individual first defense for the purpose of

3.* his own security* and perhaps anyone who personally matter to him.

You’ve got the whole thing so out of whack that you are arguing against the 2nd amendment!

A militia with the security of the state as its goal, would be organising defense of the vulnerable first and foremost one would think. Putting armed guards around schools, churches and family hubs in the community. Where are the militia protecting the common good with their guns?? All tucked up in bed caring only about themselves it seems.

 

[Eddie_Mac]

Well not really. The constitutional right is dependent on the ‘militia’ being ‘well regulated’. You seem to be arguing for little, limited or no regulation. It really seems that lots of people are fighting against the conditions of the constitution as the basis for the right to own a gun.

At the time the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, “well regulated” meant WELL TRAINED and EQUIPPED.

The word regulated did not have anything to do with rules and laws.

The part that has to do with laws is “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”

lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

This concept of the people’s self-regulation, that is, non-governmental regulation, is also in keeping with the limited grant of power to Congress “for calling forth” the militia for only certain, limited purposes, to “provide for” the militia only certain limited control and equipment, and the limited grant of power to the President regarding the militia, who only serves as Commander in Chief of that portion of the militia called into the actual service of the nation. The “well regula[tion]” of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, “well regula[tion]” referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

In multiple decisions the Supreme Court has stated that the Constitution and BOR must be interpreted in the language of the day to determine intent. This is why I when I hear that the Constitution and BOR is a living document I get really annoyed.

 

[LongingSoul]

This concept of the people’s self-regulation, that is, non-governmental regulation, is also in keeping with the limited grant of power to Congress “for calling forth” the militia for only certain, limited purposes, to “provide for” the militia only certain limited control and equipment, and the limited grant of power to the President regarding the militia, who only serves as Commander in Chief of that portion of the militia called into the actual service of the nation. The “well regula[tion]” of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, “well regula[tion]” referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

So on carefully reading that, (which seems like a hugely conjectural interpretation of the sentence)… do you belief the gun owners of the US are battle ready with the level of training to be ‘effective and formidable’ against the ‘governments standing army’?

What sort of militia training do all the gun owners do in preparation for an attack by the regular army? Do you have a plan or is it just everyone will run through the streets shooting randomly at the regular soldiers with their tanks and grenades and highly trained intelligence experts?

Is the plan a secret between all US gun owners that we just aren’t privy to?

 

[LongingSoul]

In multiple decisions the Supreme Court has stated that the Constitution and BOR must be interpreted in the language of the day to determine intent. This is why I when I hear that the Constitution and BOR is a living document I get really annoyed.

But wouldn’t that also mean that ‘government’ and ‘army’ of the day have to be considered as significant to the intent of the amendment. It was devised when the ‘government’ was under the control of foreign imperialists and the ‘army’ had foreign loyalties. That would make sense that Americans would want that safeguard in place.

Today you can’t be President unless you’re American born. The government and army are made up of true blue Americans. What kind of situation would mean that the government en masse and its army en mass, would turn on ‘the American people’. They are the American people.

If the amendment has to be interpreted in the language of the day to determine intent… the conditions that warranted it in that day are also integral to its relevance. Those conditions simply don’t exist in modern America.

 

[Eddie_Mac]

So on carefully reading that, (which seems like a hugely conjectural interpretation of the sentence)… do you belief the gun owners of the US are battle ready with the level of training to be ‘effective and formidable’ against the ‘governments standing army’?

What sort of militia training do all the gun owners do in preparation for an attack by the regular army? Do you have a plan or is it just everyone will run through the streets shooting randomly at the regular soldiers with their tanks and grenades and highly trained intelligence experts?

Is the plan a secret between all US gun owners that we just aren’t privy to?

There are millions of veterans in the country. Hundreds of thousands of them fresh from the middle east wars.

I am a veteran.

When we enlisted we took an oath to defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Many of us still honor our oath.

There are no secret plans. The government has lists. Many of us are on multiple lists.

I am a Catholic man who loves his Church, loves his family, loves his country, and loves his state. I have my priorities in place. I am a Knight of Columbus. My wife and I lead the parish’s Respect LIfe committee.

Most gun owners do not do militia training. Militia’s have a bad reputation because of all the bad actors that have used the name militia over the years. Most states have militias. Texas has one that reports to the governor. It is not the National Guard. I am not a member.

I am an Oath Keeper. Google it.

Google III% (three capital i)

That will get you started. It will answer some of your questions.

 

[LongingSoul]

When we enlisted we took an oath to defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Many of us still honor our oath.

There are no secret plans. The government has lists. Many of us are on multiple lists.

Unfortunately it doesn’t answer any of my questions. You say that the ‘governments’ army swears to defend against ‘domestic’ enemies? The militia who have the right to guns because they have an equally solemn duty to defend against the ‘government’ armies. Does that mean that you consider yourself part of the ‘government’ army or the ‘militia’. I doubt that you could have any genuine loyalty to either side considering your government military history.

So the militia is armed because of the threat from the ‘government’ army but you are part of the government army. Which side would you take in battle?

 

[Brendan]

But wouldn’t that also mean that ‘government’ and ‘army’ of the day have to be considered as significant to the intent of the amendment. It was devised when the ‘government’ was under the control of foreign imperialists and the ‘army’ had foreign loyalties. That would make sense that Americans would want that safeguard in place. .

Actually, the Constitution was ratified in 1788, which was 5 years after the end of the war. The 2nd Amendment did not come about until 1791

 

[Brendan]

Is there more to the second amendment than the one sentence?

“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.”

This alone provides for something that is unrecognisable in today’s argument.

It begins by establishing that

1. a militia which is essentially a peoples army, that is…
2. well regulated, which clearly requires very good checks, balances and accountability and it’s focus being… .

Here was what was required of the milita in 1792, the year after the ratification of the 2nd Ammendment

Each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia…[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack

Note that the requirements were for the person to obtain for themselves arms, even BEFORE even being called into service.

The equivalent today would be for every adult male to go out and buy an assault rifle similar or better than what the military had. They had to purchase ammo, to practice with it regularly in local groups at the local rifle range and be ready in case the local Mayor called them up for service

THAT was what was meant by a well regulated milita.

And that is the same model that the Swiss use today. Except the Swiss government issues an assault rifle to each man, plus 200 rounds of ammo. They are expected to practice with it regularly and be ready to be called up. After they reach age 45, they can even purchase their rifle from the government.

If you think that the US has a gun culture, they Swiss have us beat hands down

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1566715.stm

 

[Bradski]

…in AUS. the police, airforce and certain branches of defense are put through an examination to precludes certain people. I believe the airlines are pretty strict about psych evaluations also. You just don’t want people with instabilities to be responsible for equipment and machinery that can be turned on others with deadly effects.

Good point. Would anyone want a mentally unbalanced man at the controls of an aircraft? Obviously not. Yet people seem to baulk at the idea of similar controls on the same sort of people owning a gun.

Notwithstanding that it seems that the German guy who flew the passenger jet into the Alps was being treated for a mental disorder but his doctor (more than one I heard) did not, or was not allowed, to release information about him due to patient confidentiality. So yeah, there are problems in any system, but only a fool would say there should be no restrictions whatsoever.

More children are killed in car accidents. Should we take away the right to cars too?

Don’t know where you come from, but where I come from it’s not easy getting a driving licence. It’s, how shall I put this, well regulated (albeit no-where as strict as gun licenses).

…so you’re really asking for evaluations each time a person applies to purchase a firearm! There isn’t sufficient capacity in the system for such an undertaking – let alone the question of who will pay for all these evaluations…

No, only when they apply for a license. You are re-assessed every 12 months. You will be re-assessed if you apply for a different licence (if you already have one that allows target shooting weapons and you want to apply for one that allows a shot gun). And how do you know there isn’t capacity to do this? Do you have any info? There is more than enough capacity in our system to do it and on the assumption that there are an equivalent amount of state and federal employers per head of population in the States as there are in Australia, then it won’t be a problem.

This is already the system in place.

Then extend it to gun shows and make everyone apply for a license. That way, all guns, in theory, will eventually be registered and the police will have a record of who owns what. You can still own the damn things and polish them every week, shoot holes in cans or take them to the local Deli if you think you’ll get mugged.

Here’s a question: Who, reading this thread, has a gun and has not got a license? And if not, why not?

 

[GEddie]

But wouldn’t that also mean that ‘government’ and ‘army’ of the day have to be considered as significant to the intent of the amendment. It was devised when the ‘government’ was under the control of foreign imperialists and the ‘army’ had foreign loyalties. That would make sense that Americans would want that safeguard in place.

Today you can’t be President unless you’re American born. The government and army are made up of true blue Americans. What kind of situation would mean that the government en masse and its army en mass, would turn on ‘the American people’. They are the American people.

If the amendment has to be interpreted in the language of the day to determine intent… the conditions that warranted it in that day are also integral to its relevance. Those conditions simply don’t exist in modern America.

The second amendment was not written during the Revolution, but roughly ten years after it ended.

The American Government was no longer led by foreign imperials. There was not a standing army, yet, but there were American troops. Not British redcoats.

The conditions prevailing then are not the same as those prevailing now (for one thing, we have 100X more population), but they are comparable.

ICXC NIKA

 

[LongingSoul]

Actually, the Constitution was ratified in 1788, which was 5 years after the end of the war. The 2nd Amendment did not come about until 1791

It was at the time the imperialist nations were sailing all over the place colonising lands. The British were busy in Australia and in Canada and the Spanish and Dutch were all around looking to be the boss of everyone. In that climate, it makes sense for the US to have a threatening clause embedded in the laws of the day. Those conditions don’t apply today.

 

[LongingSoul]

Each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia…[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack

Is that what happens today in the US? Are there organised exercises and plans made in the event of a government army attack? If not… why? Are you just using that requirement as an excuse to own a gun for your own personal privilege without really caring about the defense of the American people against the government?

And that is the same model that the Swiss use today. Except the Swiss government issues an assault rifle to each man, plus 200 rounds of ammo. They are expected to practice with it regularly and be ready to be called up. After they reach age 45, they can even purchase their rifle from the government.

If you think that the US has a gun culture, they Swiss have us beat hands down

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1566715.stm

The Swiss model is nothing like the US. The assault rifles are not permitted to be used for personal armed defense without very serious extenuating circumstances. They have a program of accountability that far exceed that of the US. Here is a letter received in response to a query from a member of the SSAA in Aus.

ssaa.org.au/research/1999/1999-12-07_swiss-response-self-defense-with-military-arms.html

Switzerland with their strict conditions, are a very safe country. The US has a massacre at very regular intervals for resisting any sort of regulation.