Joe Biden proposals for banning some firearms, high capacity magazines, immunity changes

[Fantine]

I play the odds, and have heard from a local FBI agent that nothing scares them more going into a chaotic scene than a bunch of untrained people just itching to deputize themselves.

Just think. One shooter...and ten people respond by taking out their guns. How do those ten know whether one of the others might be his accomplice? Can they really be sure who the shooter is? Would any inner prejudices ever mar their judgment as to who the shooter is in a dark, crowded setting? Might it be the person of color? The person with tattoos and leather? If they aren't sure, would they play their hunches?

I would rather be in a room without guns in a shooting than get caught in the crossfire of a half-dozen people deputizing themselves.

 

[Belk]

Ugh! How many times do I have to answer that?

Once

 

[Pommer]

There have been church shootings where people walk in and start firing. There was one in Texas where a guy with a shotgun opened fire on the congregation. Fortunately, there were at least 2 parishioners who had a gun of their own and stopped the bad guy. If they hadn't been armed, more people would have died. So, this is a case where good guys with guns stopped a bad guy with a gun--in a church. Here's a news story about it.
[link borked]

I see you have no qualms about posting a video that shows people actually being murdered, yet if someone would respond with [swear words], they’d get a talking to?

 

[Aldebaran]

Once

Then I answered twice too many times.

 

[Aldebaran]

I see you have no qualms about posting a video that shows people actually being murdered, yet if someone would respond with [swear words], they’d get a talking to?

The video was edited by the media source to not actually show it. Once the gun went off, the video froze, and then they cut to the aftermath. It conveys what happened well enough. I've seen the unedited video, and even that wasn't very graphic since the actual killing is at a distance in the video.

 

[Belk]

Then I answered twice too many times.

My apologies then. Can you point me to the post number?

 

[Aldebaran]

My apologies then. Can you point me to the post number?

429 and 627.
I'm messin' with ya, dude!

 

[Belk]

429 and 627.
I'm messin' with ya, dude!

Hah! Ya got me on that one.

 

[Aldebaran]

Hah! Ya got me on that one.

Ok, I'll try to answer your question.
The militia as defined by the founding fathers is the general population. A standing professional military is controlled by the government, which the founders were not exactly trusting of. That's why they said that the right of the people to be armed was important, so that the people would not be controlled by the government. It was the only real way for the people to have any recourse if the government went tyrannical.

 

[98cwitr]

Ok, I'll try to answer your question.
The militia as defined by the founding fathers is the general population. A standing professional military is controlled by the government, which the founders were not exactly trusting of. That's why they said that the right of the people to be armed was important, so that the people would not be controlled by the government. It was the only real way for the people to have any recourse if the government went tyrannical.

And then the militia would already be armed with military weaponry, foregoing the need for tax dollars to fund arms.

 

[Belk]

Ok, I'll try to answer your question.
The militia as defined by the founding fathers is the general population. A standing professional military is controlled by the government, which the founders were not exactly trusting of. That's why they said that the right of the people to be armed was important, so that the people would not be controlled by the government. It was the only real way for the people to have any recourse if the government went tyrannical.

My understanding is a bit different than yours. While I agree they were against a standing army since it could be a tool of government oppression any militia would be controlled by the government as well. I think if they intended people to be armed so they could rise up against the government they would of been a bit more explicit about it.

Thank you for your response. I can see were, from your perspective, a militia would always be required since you believe it to be a response to oppressive government and would therefore arise organically.

 

[Aldebaran]

My understanding is a bit different than yours. While I agree they were against a standing army since it could be a tool of government oppression any militia would be controlled by the government as well. I think if they intended people to be armed so they could rise up against the government they would of been a bit more explicit about it.

Thank you for your response. I can see were, from your perspective, a militia would always be required since you believe it to be a response to oppressive government and would therefore arise organically.

When they wrote the Constitution, it seems that they wanted to just get to the point and be rather basic in what they wrote, relying on the people and their representatives to understand it. At the time, it was probably rather easy to do, and the writings self-explanatory. For us to get a better understanding, we can look at what else they wrote on the subject outside the Constitution. Here's just a few examples:

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

Many more examples can be found here: Gun Quotations of the Founding Fathers | Buckeye Firearms Association

 

[Fantine]

But look what happened on January 6, Aldebaran.

A president was legally elected in an election where he led by 7 million popular votes; where the Director of Homeland Security declared it the safest election in history; where 60 baseless, groundless lawsuits were turned away by the courts--

There was no tyrannical government oppressing the people. The duly elected president was proceeding in a thorough, thoughtful, intelligent, and transparent process to appoint superbly qualified candidates for his Cabinet.

Not everyone who takes up arms against the government is a good guy. Not everyone who does so is opposing tyranny.

I am not saying that they were necessarily bad guys. They were misled and manipulated and whipped up into a fever pitch, and they took comfort in the idea that there were a few members of Congress who were sympathetic to the losing candidate.

 

[Aldebaran]

But look what happened on January 6, Aldebaran.

A president was legally elected in an election where he led by 7 million popular votes; where the Director of Homeland Security declared it the safest election in history; where 60 baseless, groundless lawsuits were turned away by the courts--

There was no tyrannical government oppressing the people. The duly elected president was proceeding in a thorough, thoughtful, intelligent, and transparent process to appoint superbly qualified candidates for his Cabinet.

Not everyone who takes up arms against the government is a good guy. Not everyone who does so is opposing tyranny.

I am not saying that they were necessarily bad guys. They were misled and manipulated and whipped up into a fever pitch, and they took comfort in the idea that there were a few members of Congress who were sympathetic to the losing candidate.

We could go back and forth all day and night about whether the election was done correctly or not, and it would be a whole 'nuther topic which would be a repeat of the many times it's already been discussed. Let's just say that it's a matter of opinion so far and still up for debate and is still being looked into.

 

[Belk]

When they wrote the Constitution, it seems that they wanted to just get to the point and be rather basic in what they wrote, relying on the people and their representatives to understand it. At the time, it was probably rather easy to do, and the writings self-explanatory. For us to get a better understanding, we can look at what else they wrote on the subject outside the Constitution. Here's just a few examples:

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

Many more examples can be found here: Gun Quotations of the Founding Fathers | Buckeye Firearms Association

I'm certain some of the founding fathers thought the 2A a great idea for the same reasons you have espoused. I just don't think they all felt that way and I don't think it is included that way in how they drafted the constitution. My thought and original point is that they did not include their reasoning on purpose so that no one would use changing conditions as an excuse to modify our rights as they are laid out. That anyone trying to modify our rights would have to go through the process of amending the constitution.

 

[Fantine]

When 100% of the facts support one conclusion, continuing the debate and un-sanctioned investigations do nothing except continue to incite and mislead people who have already tried to overthrow our government once.

 

[Aldebaran]

When 100% of the facts support one conclusion, continuing the debate and un-sanctioned investigations do nothing except continue to incite and mislead people who have already tried to overthrow our government once.

Dismissal of facts not agreed with is an indication of only one side being heard.

 

[Fantine]

Sixty judges rendered a decision.

 

[Pommer]

Dismissal of facts not agreed with is an indication of only one side being heard.

“Facts not agreed with”?
Do you mean facts under dispute?
Do you mean facts like, “votes getting switched”?

Trying to manufacture an injustice is injustice itself.

 

[Aldebaran]

“Facts not agreed with”?
Do you mean facts under dispute?
Do you mean facts like, “votes getting switched”?

Trying to manufacture an injustice is injustice itself.

See post 374