NRA - Put Armed Good Guys In All Schools

[Occupied Deutschland]

Possession of a gun excludes one from being a 'good guy' now?
...
Huh.

Party at my place later.

Remember, the bad guys have the best parties.

Alright!
I'll bring the kitten and puppy-head pudding!

[Galloism]

The Second Amendment
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.

Why do Americans always ignore the first half of this amendment? To me it reads that you have the right to keep and bear arms as a member of the state militia. It doesn't state ownership of arms. Doesn't mention bullets, body armor. If you want to be part of the military, you should have and carry weapons.
I call BS on those who say this gives Americans the right to buy as many weapons as they think they need for private use.

The Supreme court ruled.

D.C. vs Heller

Read and be educated.

[Poorisolation]

Maybe that nice psychiatrist from Ft. Hood could administer the tests. The one currently on trail for shooting 42 people, 13 of whom died.
The best way to end gun violence is to make it extremely difficut to get a gun. Period.

Ok, and since we have a constitutional right to guns, how are you going to make it extremely difficult to get a gun without the courts striking it down?

Theories. I'm genuinely curious.

First apply the following statement:

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

Then define "A well regulated militia" and "the people"

If we assume a militia in this context refers to an organised and disciplined body of citizens organised for either national or community defence then we can proceed to examine what is meant by well regulated.

If we define " The People" to refer to the citizens of the United States we find that in fact nothing is mentioned at all in the provision under discussion about individual gun ownership in fact ownership is never mentioned.

What you have is a provision that would be quite happily satisfied by allowing the States and the Federal Government as acknowledged and sovereign representatives of "the people" under the Constitution of the United States to form and administer armed bodies of Citizens charged with defence and/or law and order functions. These bodies would be under the provision required to be "well regulated" such regulations would likely include codes of conduct and treatment for all of their personnel and provisions for the record keeping, storage, transport and use of their arms. They would not be allowed to bar citizens who met their standards of physical and mental fitness on the basis of religious persuasion, gender or sexual orientation as the "rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", however they may of course be regulated so such stipulations as for example an off duty police officer being required to log his weapon in to the station armoury would be valid given the above wording.

The key point about the Second Amendment is that it refers to the people as a collective and at no points mentions individuals.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Ok, and since we have a constitutional right to guns, how are you going to make it extremely difficult to get a gun without the courts striking it down?

Theories. I'm genuinely curious.

First apply the following statement:

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

Then define "A well regulated militia" and "the people"

If we assume a militia in this context refers to an organised and disciplined body of citizens organised for either national or community defence then we can proceed to examine what is meant by well regulated.

If we define " The People" to refer to the citizens of the United States we find that in fact nothing is mentioned at all in the provision under discussion about individual gun ownership in fact ownership is never mentioned.

What you have is a provision that would be quite happily satisfied by allowing the States and the Federal Government as acknowledged and sovereign representatives of "the people" under the Constitution of the United States to form and administer armed bodies of Citizens charged with defence and/or law and order functions. These bodies would be under the provision required to be "well regulated" such regulations would likely include codes of conduct and treatment for all of their personnel and provisions for the record keeping, storage, transport and use of their arms. They would not be allowed to bar citizens who met their standards of physical and mental fitness on the basis of religious persuasion, gender or sexual orientation as the "rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", however they may of course be regulated so such stipulations as for example an off duty police officer being required to log his weapon in to the station armoury would be valid given the above wording.

The key point about the Second Amendment is that it refers to the people as a collective and at no points mentions individuals.

The first and fourth only mention 'the people' as a collective as well.

Clearly INDIVIDUALS don't have a right to freedom of speech or protection from unwarranted search and seizure. Only collective groups.

[Communist Winnipeg]

The Second Amendment
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.

Why do Americans always ignore the first half of this amendment? To me it reads that you have the right to keep and bear arms as a member of the state militia. It doesn't state ownership of arms. Doesn't mention bullets, body armor. If you want to be part of the military, you should have and carry weapons.
I call BS on those who say this gives Americans the right to buy as many weapons as they think they need for private use.

The Supreme court ruled.

D.C. vs Heller

Read and be educated.

Read it. Wow, you people are screwed up. I will continue to avoid travel to the US.

[Obamacult]

I agree that we should have armed security in schools. Teachers only if they go under a psych test (The same test that is required by all law enforcement officers), Gun safety course, secure place in the classroom where students cannot get a hold of it. If we had armed security I would put an on duty cop. Two schools the next town over has two officers in the high school, and one in middle school (Both separate buildings). If they were to put non-police security I believe they need to be former Military but still undergo the psych test.

Maybe that nice psychiatrist from Ft. Hood could administer the tests. The one currently on trail for shooting 42 people, 13 of whom died.
The best way to end gun violence is to make it extremely difficut to get a gun. Period.

Yeah right, and the best way to stop drug abuse is to make drugs illegal.

How is that government war on drugs working out for ya?

[Galborg]

If the Democrats put gun control legislation up for vote, many wackos would call for revolution to "DEFEND OUR GUNS!!"

No, both wackos and liberals wanted citizens to be disarmed and vulnerable.

Armed citizens could have shot back.

Liberalism is the doctrine that only criminals shall have the right to bear arms.

[Galloism]

Ok, and since we have a constitutional right to guns, how are you going to make it extremely difficult to get a gun without the courts striking it down?

Theories. I'm genuinely curious.

First apply the following statement:

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

Then define "A well regulated militia" and "the people"

If we assume a militia in this context refers to an organised and disciplined body of citizens organised for either national or community defence then we can proceed to examine what is meant by well regulated.


If we define " The People" to refer to the citizens of the United States we find that in fact nothing is mentioned at all in the provision under discussion about individual gun ownership in fact ownership is never mentioned.

What you have is a provision that would be quite happily satisfied by allowing the States and the Federal Government as acknowledged and sovereign representatives of "the people" under the Constitution of the United States to form and administer armed bodies of Citizens charged with defence and/or law and order functions. These bodies would be under the provision required to be "well regulated" such regulations would likely include codes of conduct and treatment for all of their personnel and provisions for the record keeping, storage, transport and use of their arms. They would not be allowed to bar citizens who met their standards of physical and mental fitness on the basis of religious persuasion, gender or sexual orientation as the "rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", however they may of course be regulated so such stipulations as for example an off duty police officer being required to log his weapon in to the station armoury would be valid given the above wording.

The key point about the Second Amendment is that it refers to the people as a collective and at no points mentions individuals.

Except SCOTUS already examined that theory and found it wanting.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

Read and be educated. It's a right of the people, just like the freedom of assembly and the right against unreasonable search and seizure. SCOTUS has confirmed it's an individual right.

[Galloism]

The Supreme court ruled.

D.C. vs Heller

Read and be educated.

Read it. Wow, you people are screwed up. I will continue to avoid travel to the US.

If you like. I'm not going to hold a gun to your head, so to speak.

[Ifreann]

That's where the cowering comes in. Doing so behind something big and solid. And there's the greater difficulty of hitting a moving, shrinking target, that helps too.

And you do not see the virtue in taking cover behind something big and solid, and sending a projectile back at the shooter at 100-3000mph (just in case you have a concealed rifle, I put in the high figure. also for my amusement.)?

Not personally, no. I have neither access to nor experience with firearms, except what one can extrapolate from video games, TV, movies, and one or two army expos. Given that, I have roughly zero confidence in being able to hit someone who was shooting at me as opposed to just missing or hitting someone else.

---

The Second Amendment
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.

Why do Americans always ignore the first half of this amendment? To me it reads that you have the right to keep and bear arms as a member of the state militia.

You're reading it wrong, then.

[Galloism]

And you do not see the virtue in taking cover behind something big and solid, and sending a projectile back at the shooter at 100-3000mph (just in case you have a concealed rifle, I put in the high figure. also for my amusement.)?

Not personally, no. I have neither access to nor experience with firearms, except what one can extrapolate from video games, TV, movies, and one or two army expos. Given that, I have roughly zero confidence in being able to hit someone who was shooting at me as opposed to just missing or hitting someone else.

Ah, a fair point. Anyone who intends to carry a firearm needs to be reasonably proficient with it.

Otherwise, the chances of them improving the situation are about zero.

If you decided to start carrying a firearm, I would heavily encourage some range time.

[Poorisolation]

The Second Amendment
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.

Why do Americans always ignore the first half of this amendment? To me it reads that you have the right to keep and bear arms as a member of the state militia. It doesn't state ownership of arms. Doesn't mention bullets, body armor. If you want to be part of the military, you should have and carry weapons.
I call BS on those who say this gives Americans the right to buy as many weapons as they think they need for private use.

The Supreme court ruled.

D.C. vs Heller

Read and be educated.

It is the case that a group of five activist radical reactionary justices have chosen to interpret the law in the light of their own feelings however the point that is being raised is that the wording of the Second Amendment as it stands does not bar any interpretation that disallows gun ownership nor individual holding of weapons as neither is explicitly stated.

Eventually age will catch up with one of the Justices who number only five out of nine and should that happen on the watch of a Democratic Party President an incidence which seems ever more likely you can expect the decision to be over turned. You cannot gerrymander presidential elections and it is the president who submits his choices of Supreme Court Justices for each vacancy to Congress.

[Galloism]

The Supreme court ruled.

D.C. vs Heller

Read and be educated.

It is the case that a group of five activist radical reactionary justices have chosen to interpret the law in the light of their own feelings however the point that is being raised is that the wording of the Second Amendment as it stands does not bar any interpretation that disallows gun ownership nor individual holding of weapons as neither is explicitly stated.

Eventually age will catch up with one of the Justices who number only five out of nine and should that happen on the watch of a Democratic Party President an incidence which seems ever more likely you can expect the decision to be over turned. You cannot gerrymander presidential elections and it is the president who submits his choices of Supreme Court Justices for each vacancy to Congress.

Actually, if you read the actual majority and dissent opinions, the majority draws on similar legislation, phrasing, grammatical structure, and all in all makes a very compelling and sound argument for being a legal right.

I suggest you read the actual opinions in their full text before you automatically dismiss "activist judges".

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html

[Tagmatium]

Liberalism is the doctrine that only criminals shall have the right to bear arms.

I think this seems to be the problem.

There is no give or take on the other side of the political spectrum. Every time anyone seems to mention the idea that gun violence might be out of control, the Captain Kneejerks like the quoted poster come out of the woodwork and shout down any attempts to actually get things done.

Oh, well. Not my country, not my problem.

[Poorisolation]

First apply the following statement:

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

Then define "A well regulated militia" and "the people"

If we assume a militia in this context refers to an organised and disciplined body of citizens organised for either national or community defence then we can proceed to examine what is meant by well regulated.

If we define " The People" to refer to the citizens of the United States we find that in fact nothing is mentioned at all in the provision under discussion about individual gun ownership in fact ownership is never mentioned.

What you have is a provision that would be quite happily satisfied by allowing the States and the Federal Government as acknowledged and sovereign representatives of "the people" under the Constitution of the United States to form and administer armed bodies of Citizens charged with defence and/or law and order functions. These bodies would be under the provision required to be "well regulated" such regulations would likely include codes of conduct and treatment for all of their personnel and provisions for the record keeping, storage, transport and use of their arms. They would not be allowed to bar citizens who met their standards of physical and mental fitness on the basis of religious persuasion, gender or sexual orientation as the "rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", however they may of course be regulated so such stipulations as for example an off duty police officer being required to log his weapon in to the station armoury would be valid given the above wording.

The key point about the Second Amendment is that it refers to the people as a collective and at no points mentions individuals.

The first and fourth only mention 'the people' as a collective as well.

Clearly INDIVIDUALS don't have a right to freedom of speech or protection from unwarranted search and seizure. Only collective groups.

Yes I agree that the US Constitution is worryingly badly written and subject to a great deal of woolly minded interpretation due to the lack of specific and well worded articles. I personally would suggest that Congress authorise a National Constitutional Convention to update the document to the 21st Century. Failing that they could instead vote in new Constitutional Amendments that make matters more clear...of course that would be the work of adults not children so doubtful either you or I would chose to hold our breathes in expectation of speedy action.

[Northern Dominus]

The first and fourth only mention 'the people' as a collective as well.

Clearly INDIVIDUALS don't have a right to freedom of speech or protection from unwarranted search and seizure. Only collective groups.

Yes I agree that the US Constitution is worryingly badly written and subject to a great deal of woolly minded interpretation due to the lack of specific and well worded articles. I personally would suggest that Congress authorise a National Constitutional Convention to update the document to the 21st Century. Failing that they could instead vote in new Constitutional Amendments that make matters more clear...of course that would be the work of adults not children so doubtful either you or I would chose to hold our breathes in expectation of speedy action.

Just as long as the Cult of the Gun doesn't show up and start hemming and hawing about tyranny and other shock-doctrine hyperoble the second someone mentions that technology has advanced since the 2nd Amendment, and maybe a bit of reasonable regulation is needed.

Deal?

[Greed and Death]

The Second Amendment
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.

Why do Americans always ignore the first half of this amendment? To me it reads that you have the right to keep and bear arms as a member of the state militia. It doesn't state ownership of arms. Doesn't mention bullets, body armor. If you want to be part of the military, you should have and carry weapons.
I call BS on those who say this gives Americans the right to buy as many weapons as they think they need for private use.

The bill of rights list rights, which are restrictions on the federal government.
The 2nd amendment is in the bill of rights.

This would mean the 2nd amendment either list an individual or state right.

But I thought states did not have rights only people had rights.

Ergo it is an individual right.

Also arguing against it is nice but currently the law of the land is that it is a right.
Have the democrats win every Presidency between now and 2024 and maybe maybe you will get to replace one of the pro gun rights justices with a pro gun control justice.
Even then I expect a filibuster from the senate unless it happened in the next 6 months. Anytime after 6 months people will grow up and realize it is bad form to call gun rights supports murders and apologist.

[Poorisolation]

It is the case that a group of five activist radical reactionary justices have chosen to interpret the law in the light of their own feelings however the point that is being raised is that the wording of the Second Amendment as it stands does not bar any interpretation that disallows gun ownership nor individual holding of weapons as neither is explicitly stated.

Eventually age will catch up with one of the Justices who number only five out of nine and should that happen on the watch of a Democratic Party President an incidence which seems ever more likely you can expect the decision to be over turned. You cannot gerrymander presidential elections and it is the president who submits his choices of Supreme Court Justices for each vacancy to Congress.

Actually, if you read the actual majority and dissent opinions, the majority draws on similar legislation, phrasing, grammatical structure, and all in all makes a very compelling and sound argument for being a legal right.

I suggest you read the actual opinions in their full text before you automatically dismiss "activist judges".

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html

I think you fail to realise that one can easily in this case and others read the majority opinions and dismiss them merely as the specious words of activist judges. Now I will not pretend that when that majority opinion suits my personal bias I am not more willing to let it ride than when it goers against it but the point stands that we are addressing an issue upon which the Supreme Court of the United States cannot find unanimity.

That of course I shall hasten to add does not automatically render your interpretation invalid but the challenge I originally addressed was that of demonstrating the possibility of wording an interpretation that does not require individual gun ownership from the words as they stand.

That does not even require that I should believe that individual gun ownership is necessarily a bad thing. It helps that I think it should be carefully regulated but it does not require an all or nothing approach to the issue while satisfying the wording as it stands of the Second Amendment. Nothing in the article as written forbids or endorses the individual possession of arms...nor even in this case is the wording explicitly limited to firearms but nor does the amendment as written remove all room for manoeuvre from subsequent Congresses as has been suggested, though not necessarily by yourself.

Edit note: bar time away does not cure the typos.

[Greed and Death]

Yes I agree that the US Constitution is worryingly badly written and subject to a great deal of woolly minded interpretation due to the lack of specific and well worded articles. I personally would suggest that Congress authorise a National Constitutional Convention to update the document to the 21st Century. Failing that they could instead vote in new Constitutional Amendments that make matters more clear...of course that would be the work of adults not children so doubtful either you or I would chose to hold our breathes in expectation of speedy action.

Just as long as the Cult of the Gun doesn't show up and start hemming and hawing about tyranny and other shock-doctrine hyperoble the second someone mentions that technology has advanced since the 2nd Amendment, and maybe a bit of reasonable regulation is needed.

Deal?

So long as the cult of free speech, the cult of abortion, the cult of gay and interracial marriage is also barred.

We simply must duplicate the same stogie old white men, who would revolt over a penny tax on a beverage they don't drink anyways to re write this constitution.

[Poorisolation]

Yes I agree that the US Constitution is worryingly badly written and subject to a great deal of woolly minded interpretation due to the lack of specific and well worded articles. I personally would suggest that Congress authorise a National Constitutional Convention to update the document to the 21st Century. Failing that they could instead vote in new Constitutional Amendments that make matters more clear...of course that would be the work of adults not children so doubtful either you or I would chose to hold our breathes in expectation of speedy action.

Just as long as the Cult of the Gun doesn't show up and start hemming and hawing about tyranny and other shock-doctrine hyperoble the second someone mentions that technology has advanced since the 2nd Amendment, and maybe a bit of reasonable regulation is needed.

Deal?

Actually I would have to say no deal...you'll just have to bring along or better still convince more folks to outvote them on the relevant articles. Then again I strongly suspect that you ought to be able to do just that.

[Galloism]

Actually, if you read the actual majority and dissent opinions, the majority draws on similar legislation, phrasing, grammatical structure, and all in all makes a very compelling and sound argument for being a legal right.

I suggest you read the actual opinions in their full text before you automatically dismiss "activist judges".

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html

I think you fail to realise that one can easily in this case and others read the majority opinions and dismiss them merely as the specious words of activist judges. Now I will not pretend that when that majority opinion suits my personal bias I am not more willing to let it ride than when it goers against it but the point stands that we are addressing an issue upon which the Supreme Court of the United States cannot find unanimity.

That of course I shall hasten to add does not automatically render your interpretation invalid but the challenge I originally addressed was that of demonstrating the possibility of wording an interpretation that does not require individual gun ownership from the words as they stand.

That does not even require that I should believe that individual gun ownership is necessarily a bad thing. It helps that I think it should be carefully regulated but it does not require an all or nothing approach to the issue while satisfying the wording as it stands of the Second Amendment. Nothing in the article as written forbids or endorses the individual possession of arms...nor even in this case is the wording explicitly limited to firearms but nor does the amendment as written remove all room for manoeuvre from subsequent Congresses as has been suggested, though necessarily by yourself.

Actually, as written, it simply restricts the government's ability to take away the right to keep and bear arms, as the amendment itself says.

The second amendment is open to reasonable regulation, similar to the first amendment.

It should be noted, however, that it also in a similar manner to the first amendment. As an individual right, there must be compelling interest to restrict it, similar to speech, and that these restrictions must be reasonable.

Can Congress pass restrictions? Sure.

Do they have to tread carefully? Yep.

[Gauthier]

Just as long as the Cult of the Gun doesn't show up and start hemming and hawing about tyranny and other shock-doctrine hyperoble the second someone mentions that technology has advanced since the 2nd Amendment, and maybe a bit of reasonable regulation is needed.

Deal?

So long as the cult of free speech, the cult of abortion, the cult of gay and interracial marriage is also barred.

Because we've had mass free speech, mass abortions, and mass gay interracial marriages plaguing society today. *nod nod*

[Frisivisia]

Just as long as the Cult of the Gun doesn't show up and start hemming and hawing about tyranny and other shock-doctrine hyperoble the second someone mentions that technology has advanced since the 2nd Amendment, and maybe a bit of reasonable regulation is needed.

Deal?

So long as the cult of free speech, the cult of abortion, the cult of gay and interracial marriage is also barred.

We simply must duplicate the same stogie old white men, who would revolt over a penny tax on a beverage they don't drink anyways to re write this constitution.

Choice, Free Speech, and Gay Rights advocates don't have the same fiendish fervor over their issue that the Gun Runners (catch the reference?) do theirs. Do you even false equivalency, bro?

[Jedi8246]

First apply the following statement:

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

Then define "A well regulated militia" and "the people"

If we assume a militia in this context refers to an organised and disciplined body of citizens organised for either national or community defence then we can proceed to examine what is meant by well regulated.

If we define " The People" to refer to the citizens of the United States we find that in fact nothing is mentioned at all in the provision under discussion about individual gun ownership in fact ownership is never mentioned.

What you have is a provision that would be quite happily satisfied by allowing the States and the Federal Government as acknowledged and sovereign representatives of "the people" under the Constitution of the United States to form and administer armed bodies of Citizens charged with defence and/or law and order functions. These bodies would be under the provision required to be "well regulated" such regulations would likely include codes of conduct and treatment for all of their personnel and provisions for the record keeping, storage, transport and use of their arms. They would not be allowed to bar citizens who met their standards of physical and mental fitness on the basis of religious persuasion, gender or sexual orientation as the "rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", however they may of course be regulated so such stipulations as for example an off duty police officer being required to log his weapon in to the station armoury would be valid given the above wording.

The key point about the Second Amendment is that it refers to the people as a collective and at no points mentions individuals.

The first and fourth only mention 'the people' as a collective as well.

Clearly INDIVIDUALS don't have a right to freedom of speech or protection from unwarranted search and seizure. Only collective groups.

Well put my good sir.

[Greed and Death]

So long as the cult of free speech, the cult of abortion, the cult of gay and interracial marriage is also barred.

We simply must duplicate the same stogie old white men, who would revolt over a penny tax on a beverage they don't drink anyways to re write this constitution.

Choice, Free Speech, and Gay Rights advocates don't have the same fiendish fervor over their issue that the Gun Runners (catch the reference?) do theirs. Do you even false equivalency, bro?

They would not need to, if gun rights were given the same protection of speech and abortion.