Do you support the second amendment?

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Killers are no more likely to “take advantage” of a schoolyard target because it is a posted gun free zone than if it wasn’t so designated. Are you thinking that killers will shy away from schools that are not posted gun free for fear of CC private citizens who might shoot them? I don’t think that is realistic.

There is a reason why most of these mass shooters pick a soft target that are gun free. They meet no resistance. They know they have 3 - 5 minutes to do what they want to do before they shoot themselves in response to the arrival of law enforcement. It was fortunate that two good guys with guns showed up at that church in Texas.

Schoolyards will still be soft targets, with or without the gun free zone designation. Do you really think getting rid of that law will make schoolyards less soft? Do you think armed citizens will be stationed around the schoolyards standing guard?

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

LeafByNiggle:

Killers are no more likely to “take advantage” of a schoolyard target because it is a posted gun free zone than if it wasn’t so designated. Are you thinking that killers will shy away from schools that are not posted gun free for fear of CC private citizens who might shoot them? I don’t think that is realistic.

There is a reason why most of these mass shooters pick a soft target that are gun free. They meet no resistance. They know they have 3 - 5 minutes to do what they want to do before they shoot themselves in response to the arrival of law enforcement. It was fortunate that two good guys with guns showed up at that church in Texas.

Schoolyards will still be soft targets, with or without the gun free zone designation. Do you really think getting rid of that law will make schoolyards less soft? Do you think armed citizens will be stationed around the schoolyards standing guard?

Right now, the strategies in place in many schools resemble what was in place at Sandy Hook. Buzzers, locked doors, etc. It doesn’t work against a shooter. I don’t care about the gun free zone signs. I want to be able to defend my kids and myself with more than a yard stick.

 

[casslean]

Well regulated is when a person goes to the range and a friend or neighbor teaches them.
Well regulated is when the Boy Scouts teach kids how to shoot and care for a 22.
Well regulated is when someone teaches their spouse or child how to handle a firearm.

No, no it isn’t.

Regulate: control or supervise (something, especially a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations.

There is nothing in the examples you’ve discussed that would meet the criteria of “well-regulated” because there is nothing to ensure that a consistent and appropriate standard of training is being applied and provided in every circumstance. Would you consider it “well-regulated” if that was the standard for driving? That your neighbour or community group or spouse provide all the training, and there be no further check to see if (a) they were actually capable of providing quality instruction or (b) you were capable of learning?

 

[casslean]

The well-regulated militia WAS part of the CITIZENRY casslean.
It was “well regulated” by THEM.

Maybe it was well-regulated then, when guns meant muskets and the population was a lot smaller. It isn’t well-regulated now, and trying to assert that a right should continue exactly the same as it did three hundred years ago ignores the fact that constitutional documents are meant to be living documents which should grown and change with the populations they are meant to serve. If they don’t do so, they become unwieldy anachronisms that serve no one.

As for the idea that the Second Amendment protects citizens from the government overreach, I don’t see the government overreaching on this one. I see the citizens walking into churches and killing one another. So maybe you need to rethink who you need protecting from.

 

[Vonsalza]

You’ve said it: you want to reduce firearms. In one sense, Cathaholic is right. You don’t want to go into homes and collect firearms. You want to prevent citizens from having them in the first place. It is really more about timing than a different end result.

Jon, there’s an enormous difference between taking something from someone once they have it VS. making it difficult for them to obtain in the first place. This is why grandfathering laws exist.

 

[JonNC]

The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

“On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one which was passed.” -Thomas Jefferson

We can’t use modern definitions to discern the meaning of the text.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

You’ve said it: you want to reduce firearms. In one sense, Cathaholic is right. You don’t want to go into homes and collect firearms. You want to prevent citizens from having them in the first place. It is really more about timing than a different end result.

Jon, there’s an enormous difference between taking something from someone once they have it VS. making it difficult for them to obtain in the first place. This is why grandfathering laws exist.

The effect ends up being the same. People who want to exercise their inherent constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms are prevented from doing so.

 

[casslean]

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. And Jefferson.

 

[JonNC]

Maybe it was well-regulated then, when guns meant muskets and the population was a lot smaller. It isn’t well-regulated now,

If the 2nd amendment refers to muskets, then the 1st amendment refers to the Gutenberg printing press.
The Heller decision puts this to rest as well.

and trying to assert that a right should continue exactly the same as it did three hundred years ago ignores the fact that constitutional documents are meant to be living documents which should grown and change with the populations they are meant to serve. If they don’t do so, they become unwieldy anachronisms that serve no one.

Rights don’t change. They apply the underlying intent to new situations and times. That is why the right to free press and speech includes and is applied to the internet, network television, etc. It is why search and seizure restrictions on government apply to one’s cell phone and computer.
None of the rights protected in the Bill of Rights are now anachronistic, because individual rights are not anachronistic, except perhaps in socialist tyrannies of today. When the argument becomes “you should give up this right”, the argument really is, “you should submit to this new government power over your life.”

 

[Ridgerunner]

I recently read an interesting article. It was based on research done by a couple of Harvard professors. It appears that the great majority of gun crimes are committed by young men, not mass shooters. Mass shooters’ “contribution” to gun crime is miniscule, far less than 1% of all shootings.

What’s interesting is that they found the vast majority of gun crimes occur in a very few areas they refer to as “hot spots”. We might think about Chicago as a “hot spot”, but it isn’t. Nor is any particular neighborhood in Chicago. Most killings occur in very small areas; a particular street corner, a particular bar, a particular apartment building. And even criminal groups aren’t responsible for most shootings. Even in gangs of several dozen members, there are typically only three or four actual “shooters”.

Police know where the “hot spots” are, for the most part, and they mostly know who the “shooters” are. What we as a society don’t seem to manage is control of those spots and that handful of “shooters”, largely because we don’t accept the premise or focus law enforcement on the real “hot spots” and “shooters”.

 

[upant]

. Are you thinking that killers will shy away from schools that are not posted gun free for fear of CC private citizens who might shoot them? I don’t think that is realistic.

concerning certain venues it is generally accepted they are safe zones. but i am certain they will shy away from a school that has an armed cop outside.

 

[JonNC]

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. And Jefferson.

Clearly you’ve neglected to read Heller. In Heller the Court consistently turns to the original meaning of the words and phrases of the time.

Example:

a. “Well-Regulated Militia.” In United States v.
Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939), we explained that “the
> Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in
> concert for the common defense.” That definition comports
> with founding-era sources. See, e.g., Webster (“The militia
> of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies,
> regiments and brigades . . . and required by law to
> attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other
> times left to pursue their usual occupations”); The Federalist
No. 46, pp. 329, 334 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (J. Madison)
(“near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands”);
Letter to Destutt de Tracy (Jan. 26, 1811), in The Portable
Thomas Jefferson 520, 524 (M. Peterson ed. 1975) (“[T]he
militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able
to bear arms”).

In the Heller decision, the Court most certainly agreed with Jefferson on this point.

 

[JonNC]

Move to another country. There are a lot of choices, since the US has a gun death rate 25 times higher than 22 other higher income nations.

A ridiculous argument, in that I could say the same to you. If it is so important to you that only government have arms, there are lots to choose from. I’m quite willing to argue for my rights here.

 

[Cathoholic]

casslean:

.

Maybe it was well-regulated then, when guns meant muskets . . .

.

Does it matter to you that you are just plain wrong here?

“Guns” meant a lot MORE than mere “muskets” back when the U.S.A. was founded.

This is a liberal ANTI-Second Amendment politician talking-point casslean . . . But it is not factual.

Here are many photos (with some historical vignettes) of many pre-Revolutionary War automatic and semi-automatic weapons. What liberals might classify as “assault weapons”.

The 2nd Amendment : For Muskets Only?!

But even so . . . .

As Crowder said.

The founding Fathers did not have iPads and Androids in mind when writing the FIRST Amendment either.

But THAT would not negate our right to free speech.

 

[Cathoholic]

casslean. You also said . . .

.

As for the idea that the Second Amendment protects citizens from the government overreach, I don’t see the government overreaching on this one . . .

.
But its irrelevant what YOU think (It’s always about “me” or my “feelings” with the liberal mindset isn’t it?).

What IS relevant is that the Supreme Court has found many instances of Government over-reach, including in the sphere of Second Amendment Rights.

 

[Cathoholic]

casslean:

.

I see the citizens walking into churches and killing one another. So maybe you need to rethink who you need protecting from.

.

Naturally. You are going to TELL me what I need to “think”. (This is exactly the kind of thing I have been talking about with the “progressive” world view. They are always telling you HOW and WHAT to think. Then attempting to legislate it.)

You forgot to mention that what stopped the illicit bad-guy with a gun, was a licit GOOD GUY with a gun.

I’ve seen videos of police abuse their fire arms too.

Can you conclude from THAT, that we NEED to carry this disarmament principle over against our good and brave and honest police force too?

Or is your principle “selective” to whatever your politics happen to be?

(Action alert for readers of this thread: That’s EXACTLY what SOME of the “progressives” think. They think we should disarm the police too. Turn them into proverbial “British Bobbies”. Except of course of a few of them to guard . . . . (you guessed it) . . . high-level politicians.

These high level guards who have access to fire arms will eventually be stripped of their gun rights too if these guys have their way . . . but only when they retire.)

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafbyNiggle to JonNC (in post 1797) . . . .

.

Schoolyards will still be soft targets, with or without the gun free zone designation. Do you really think getting rid of that law will make schoolyards less soft? Do you think armed citizens will be stationed around the schoolyards standing guard?

.
I can’t tell you what JonNC’s answer is, but I will say it doesn’t matter what I think about “armed citizens” here.

But IF the perps think this is not such a soft target because of possibly armed teachers, or janitors, or secretaries, or whoever (in the sphere of a qualified adult) MAY be concealing and carrying, they might not be so quick to rush into school zones and other gun-free zones (which are soft targets).

And the ridiculous “Gun-Free Zone” signs out in front of the schools deter NONE of the bad guys in my opinion.

.

 

[JonNC]

You presume, apparently, that we don’t. In fact, nothing could be more true than my desire for safe streets, safe communities. That comes from some of the things you mentioned, like a better handle on mental health.
A concerted effort to target criminals and interfere with their access to firearms, and arrest.
Do, let’s work together for these goals

 

[upant]

there is a difference with kids bringing guns to school and an armed and trained staff available to respond to emergencies.

 

[Cathoholic]

IF the perps think (what are now “soft-targets”) are not such a soft target anymore because of possibly armed people . . . because (in the sphere of a qualified adult) people MAY be concealing and carrying, the perps might not be so quick to rush into school zones and other gun-free zones (which are soft targets) and wreak havoc.


Admittedly the Texas Baptist Church has not been reported (to my knowledge anyway) as a “Gun-Free Zone”, and I also admit that bad guys MAY still attack not-so-soft targets, there MAY be a better chance to save lives by ridding many of these public soft-target Gun-Free Zones.


Also concerning the recent Texas massacre, we now are pretty sure it was stopped by good guys with a gun.