Today's mass shooting in the US

Caporegime
Joined
29 Dec 2007
Posts
31,991
Location
Adelaide, South Australia
Why is it all the anti-Trumpers seem to have all the links to the Trump supporters websites?

Because they're free entertainment, and it helps me to keep my finger on the pulse of America's ever-expanding lunatic fringe. :)

On a serious note I think this is a step in the right direction. I think they should aim to bring checks up to the levels we have in the UK, including having other people who know the person vouch for them.

Agreed. And Biden has now signed the legislation into law. You love to see it! :cool:
 
Permabanned
Joined
28 Nov 2003
Posts
10,695
Location
Shropshire
Why is it all the anti-Trumpers seem to have all the links to the Trump supporters websites?

On a serious note I think this is a step in the right direction. I think they should aim to bring checks up to the levels we have in the UK, including having other people who know the person vouch for them.

It's strange how people are naturally drawn to watch those whose opinions and actions they loathe, it's probably a latent fight or flight instinct.

I am drawn to looking in the Speaker's Corner for probably much the same reasons I might go to a zoo, to watch the taught behaviour patterns of the subjugated and imprinted ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: KIA
Man of Honour
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
39,945
Oh America, whiel most of them are happy to quote the second amendment, how many of them actually understand its meaning and implication or are just happy to own guns and damned is anyone who tries to remove them...
They don't quote the 2nd ammendment. They quote one part of it, and generally incorrectly. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

They should quote:

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.

And I don't think that someone walking into a school and shooting students and teachers should really be classed as a well regulated militia.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
6,659
Location
Leicestershire
They don't quote the 2nd ammendment. They quote one part of it, and generally incorrectly. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

They should quote:



And I don't think that someone walking into a school and shooting students and teachers should really be classed as a well regulated militia.

yeah, thats my point, they like the right to bear arms part but don't seem to grasp what the actual whole amendment says or actually means, rights be damned, the country going to ****, who cares, jus dunt take away muh gunz!!!
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Aug 2015
Posts
6,931
They don't quote the 2nd ammendment. They quote one part of it, and generally incorrectly. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

They should quote:



And I don't think that someone walking into a school and shooting students and teachers should really be classed as a well regulated militia.

Which bit of it do you think they don’t understand? The Supreme Court has twice ruled that the intention of the phrase “militia” is that anyone can bear arms of the type commonly in use and that service in an actual militia outfit is not required. Look up the “Heller” and “Miller” cases.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
15 Jan 2006
Posts
32,369
Location
Tosche Station
Which bit of it do you think they don’t understand? The Supreme Court has twice ruled that the intention of the phrase “militia” is that anyone can bear arms of the type commonly in use and that service in an actual militia outfit is not required. Look up the “Heller” and “Miller” cases.
But gun rights activists have to be stupid and not understand things, how else does it make sense?!
 
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
20,997
Location
Just to the left of my PC
They don't quote the 2nd ammendment. They quote one part of it, and generally incorrectly. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

They should quote:



And I don't think that someone walking into a school and shooting students and teachers should really be classed as a well regulated militia.

You're doing what you're complaining about - selectively interpreting it to mean what you've previously decided you want it to mean. Despite the fact that what you want it to mean is very clearly not what it actually says. You might quote it but you don't understand it. Or maybe you do but hope other people won't and will take your word for it.

Commas are not merely randomly placed decoration. They have a significant meaning. As an example, consider these two sentences:

I like eating, dogs and my neighbours.
I like eating dogs and my neighbours.

The words are identical but the comma radically changes the meaning of the sentence.

In the case of the second amendment of the USA, the meaning is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The bit about a militia is a supporting argument for that and a clarification of the type of arms being referred to, not the core of the meaning. It could be left out entirely without changing the meaning of the amendment.

It wasn't written that long ago. There is plenty of extant evidence for what the amendment means (taking into account the usage of American English at the time) and what the people who wrote it and the people who voted for it intended it to mean.


There's plenty of scope for arguing that the situation has changed a great deal since then and that the constitution of the USA should be amended again as a result. But claiming that the existing amendment doesn't mean what it says and what the people who wrote it and who voted for it intended it to mean is a completely different thing and I think doing so is either ignorance or dishonesty. There's no doubt that the original intent of the amendment was to ensure that the people of the USA have a right to keep and bear arms that have the potential to be useful in a war or revolution.
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Jan 2004
Posts
10,185
They don't quote the 2nd ammendment. They quote one part of it, and generally incorrectly. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

They should quote:



And I don't think that someone walking into a school and shooting students and teachers should really be classed as a well regulated militia.
Others have already pointed out your incorrect reading of the Second Amendment, so I'll just post a picture for you to enjoy instead.

P05r77p.jpg
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Dec 2007
Posts
31,991
Location
Adelaide, South Australia
Others have already pointed out your incorrect reading of the Second Amendment, so I'll just post a picture for you to enjoy instead.

P05r77p.jpg

The people have the right, but only for the specified purpose. So that's a very poor example, because it does not adequately correlate to the 2nd amendment.

The interpretation that the 2nd amendment exists for the purpose of maintaining a well regulated militia was consistently upheld by federal judges until 2008 (Scalia's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller).

The idea that it protects individual gun ownership is a modern innovation.
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Aug 2015
Posts
6,931
The interpretation that the 2nd amendment exists for the purpose of maintaining a well regulated militia was consistently upheld by federal judges until 2008 (Scalia's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller).

The idea that it protects individual gun ownership is a modern innovation.

Not really, the 1939 Miller case also said this:

8. The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

And:

12. 'In all the colonies, as in England, the militia system was based on the principle of the assize of arms. This implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence.' 'The possession of arms also implied the possession of ammunition, and the authorities paid quite as much attention to the latter as to the former.' 'A year later (1632) it was ordered that any single man who had not furnished himself with arms might be put out to service, and this became a permanent part of the legislation of the colony (Massachusetts).'
 
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
20,997
Location
Just to the left of my PC
@Stu999 - quite, 'citizens enrolled for military discipline'. Not 'three drunken good ol' boys in the bed of a Chevy truck waving AR-15s' :p

I'm not sure if you're being serious, since your argument relies on weapons and ammunition and experience automagically appearing out of nothing. But I'll reply on the assumption that you are serious.

The quoted ruling explicitly and repeatedly states that the reference to a militia means that male civilians were obliged to own their own guns (and ammunition for them). Not just allowed to own and bear arms. Obliged to do so. It did not say that the militia should supply those arms and experience when required. It explicitly states the complete opposite to what you claim it states.

It's not a new thing. Not at all. As the second quoted part from the 1939 ruling says, the custom in the USA stems from the same custom in England, where it goes back much further in time. Most famously to the late medieval law requiring all male English people over the age of 14 to own and be well trained in using a bow suitable for war. But the general idea is even older than that.

And then there's the matter of the commas. The right to bear arms is not tied to the obligation to serve in a militia in the 2nd amendment.

There's plenty of scope for arguing in favour of another amendment to amend the existing amendment. But claiming that the existing amendment doesn't say what it says is unethical at best.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Dec 2007
Posts
31,991
Location
Adelaide, South Australia
Another one.

'What we know about the Kentucky mass shooting.'

Three police officers have died after a mass shooting in Floyd County, Kentucky on Thursday that also injured four others, according to Kentucky State Police.

Driving the news: The alleged shooter barricaded himself before firing at police who were trying to serve a warrant stemming from a domestic violence incident in the Eastern Kentucky county, NBC reports.

Catch up fast: Police arrested Lance Storz, 49, afterward. He faces a slew of charges, including murder, attempted murder of a police officer and assault on a service animal.
  • Storz was arraigned in court Friday morning, and a judge set his bond at $10 million cash, CNN reports.
  • An investigation of the incident is ongoing. Further details will be withheld until it is completed, per State Police.
What they’re saying: "They encountered ... pure hell when they arrived. They had no chance," said Floyd County Sheriff John Hunt, according to CNN.

  • The deputies had not made contact with the alleged shooter when the gunfire started. Hunt said it took officers several hours to determine where they were taking fire from, per CNN.
  • After close to six hours, police were able to negotiate with the shooter, with help from his family, per CNN.
  • "[The alleged shooter] was a sheer terrorist ... he was just a terrorist on a mission,” Hunt said.

Details: Floyd County Sheriff’s Deputy William Petry, Prestonsburg Police Capt. Ralph Frasure and Jacob Chaffins of the Prestonburg Police Department died from injuries stemming from the shooting. A police K-9, Drago, was also killed, per the Louisville Courier-Journal.

I am frankly amazed that they managed to take him into custody. Usually these guys either kill themselves, or go out in a blaze of glory and a hail of police bullets.
 
Man of Honour
OP
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
90,821
I am frankly amazed that they managed to take him into custody. Usually these guys either kill themselves, or go out in a blaze of glory and a hail of police bullets.

From what I've seen over the years half of them are cowards who are fine dishing it out but give up the moment they start taking accurate return fire/reality hits that things aren't going to end well for them.
 
Soldato
Joined
21 Jan 2010
Posts
3,517
...

It's not a new thing. Not at all. As the second quoted part from the 1939 ruling says, the custom in the USA stems from the same custom in England, where it goes back much further in time. Most famously to the late medieval law requiring all male English people over the age of 14 to own and be well trained in using a bow suitable for war. But the general idea is even older than that.

..

Pretty sure Edward iii's law mandated practice, under supervision, not ownership.

I believe that has never been repealed.

Apologies if I got this wrong, it's been years since my archery thing...
 
Soldato
Joined
29 Dec 2014
Posts
5,759
Location
Midlands

Reports the shooter was firing from a rooftop another day in good old USA

Jesus ******* christ, I can't keep up with these at the moment.

I was reading your reply, for like the 1st 10 seconds I wasn't sure whether this was to do with the incident with the cops from the other day, then I saw the comment is like 15 mins old..


Madness, it's Fox news (sorry) they're talking about 9 victims, or thereabouts, bodies laying in the street apparently..
 
Back
Top Bottom