The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Gen.Mannerheim]

Right, obviously it’s historical context makes it basically useless, but the sentiment is a good one.

I said one part. The Second Amendment also comes from the founders understanding of Lockean philosophy and the social contract.

?

Because that was such an obvious baiting comment.

 

[Sommerswerd]

This assumes South Carolina would be the ones attacking. Let's say South Carolina secedes and the marines on Parris Island decide to join them. I could certainly see the federal government sending a force to attempt to destroy or recapture the installation.

Wait... so when you said:

The last civil war started with the shelling of Fort Sumter, will this one start with the shelling of Fort Jackson or Parris Island?

You were talking about the Marine trainees on Parris Island, hailing from all over the country, spearheading a South Carolina secession... and the Feds cracking down? That's complicated. I thought you were just talking about what happened in the Civil War... history basically repeating itself.

 

[inthesomeday]

I said one part. The Second Amendment also comes from the founders understanding of Lockean philosophy and the social contract.

Does that understanding contribute also to its horrible syntax

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

Does that understanding contribute also to its horrible syntax

Except its not horrible syntax. The Second Amendment uses a Nominative Absolute construction, more common in 18th century English than today but still a correct form of English grammar.

 

[inthesomeday]

Except its not horrible syntax. The Second Amendment uses a Nominative Absolute construction, more common in 18th century English than today but still a correct form of English grammar.

Even then they’ve got one too many comma in there. But regardless, that’s not what makes poor syntax. The fact that its wording makes it so extremely contentious today in its meaning is what does. It makes it very unclear and beyond the comprehension of most modern Americans. That’s why, even if it meant what it said, it would be useless.

 

[EgonSpengler]

The first part of the Second Amendment, the " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." bit, is grounded in part by the Founders general distrust in standing armies and the view that the nation would be best served by relying on State Militias to serve in times of need.

Right, in one of the Federalist Papers, I always forget which one, the author calls professional soldiers "mercenaries." To the Founding Fathers, a standing, professional army was how the King kept the people in line (and the European aristocracy, conversely, didn't hold militias in high regard). The militia also served the role of a police force, decades before official police departments existed. If a judge or a sheriff needed someone to serve a warrant, seize property, or make an arrest, they would summon the militia. In The Old West, sheriffs and federal marshals could temporarily muster local townsmen, the "posse comitatus" of American lore. The militia was also useful for suppressing any civil disturbance, such as slave revolts. These dimwits who "self-deploy" to public events with their own weapons and body armor call themselves militiamen, but unless someone in law enforcement asked them to be there (that'd be the "well regulated" part), they're just vigilantes. There are so many ways the Second Amendment is archaic, I get cross-eyed just thinking about it.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Commodore will explode in 10, 9, 8, 7...



Essentially, Scalia's opinion set out two categories: [military] weapons and [civilian] arms. Only arms are protected by the Second Amendment. Weapons, including the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, can be banned.

The Supreme Court has already declined to hear a similar ruling out of Maryland.

What's interesting about this is that when the constitution was written, the distinction between "civilian arms" and "military weapons" was comparatively tiny. Civilians didn't stroll around with cannons, largely like how civilians generally don't stroll around with RPGs or AA guns today. An important component of the intention of the 2nd amendment was that civilian population could defend itself from its own government oppression if necessary. With a large disparity between civilian and military hardware capability, that's not realistic.

I don't think it was reasonable to anticipate modern military hardware or even ww2 stuff in the 18th century, nor do I actually want to see people strolling around with rockets outside of video games. A lot of the regulation is pretty farcical though; as if having a few less rounds in a magazine or altering the grip will actually change the reality of what happens when person A opts to shoot person B, regardless of whether the choice is sound. Perhaps it's not as flagrantly idiotic as some of the knife laws in various countries, but it's still strange and reeks of "regulation to look like we're doing something".

 

[El_Machinae]

This assumes South Carolina would be the ones attacking. Let's say South Carolina secedes and the marines on Parris Island decide to join them. I could certainly see the federal government sending a force to attempt to destroy or recapture the installation.

I know you're in a left-wing echo chamber here, and so don't need to denigrate the idea except as a platitude to further the conversation, but I seriously hope that you help fight the meme of secession in the right-wing forums you attend.

 

[Farm Boy]

some of the knife laws in various countries

Would welcome UK'er input, but am I actually hearing that knife control is heating up in the wake of cutbacks in policing around London? I was ignoring the internet hits, but unless I'm going crazy I think NPR blurbed about it.

 

[Sommerswerd]

What's interesting about this is that when the constitution was written, the distinction between "civilian arms" and "military weapons" was comparatively tiny. Civilians didn't stroll around with cannons, largely like how civilians generally don't stroll around with RPGs or AA guns today. An important component of the intention of the 2nd amendment was that civilian population could defend itself from its own government oppression if necessary. With a large disparity between civilian and military hardware capability, that's not realistic.

I don't think it was reasonable to anticipate modern military hardware or even ww2 stuff in the 18th century, nor do I actually want to see people strolling around with rockets outside of video games. A lot of the regulation is pretty farcical though; as if having a few less rounds in a magazine or altering the grip will actually change the reality of what happens when person A opts to shoot person B, regardless of whether the choice is sound. Perhaps it's not as flagrantly idiotic as some of the knife laws in various countries, but it's still strange and reeks of "regulation to look like we're doing something".

I for one, would love to have my very own, fully stocked, Apache attack helicopter. Just need to figure out where I misplaced that $52 million dollars

 

[El_Machinae]

Canadian laws about weapon ownership and carry ain't bad. But in our last mass shooting, our restriction in the magazine capacity was a critical factor in the number of dead

 

[Farm Boy]

My son just had a drill where they attempted to teach kindergarteners to throw school supplies and "swarm" at an active shooter that makes it in their classroom. My take on "fix bayonets" is a bit complicated.

 

[Cutlass]

My son just had a drill where they attempted to teach kindergarteners to throw school supplies and "swarm" at an active shooter that makes it in their classroom. My take on "fix bayonets" is a bit complicated.

And you let your child attend that school? I'd have the school board tarred and feathered and ran out of town on a rail.

 

[cardgame]

What else are you going to do, Cutlass? Hide in the corner and wait your turn to die? Get under your desk and pretend this isn't happening?

Attacking the shooter, or him running out of ammo, is the only thing that could keep the collective alive.

 

[Cutlass]

Right, but the Constitution of the United States is not the same thing as the country itself.

The oath of office and oath of enlistment in the US is to the Constitution, and not the officers of the government, because the oath prioritizes that this is a nation of laws, and not a nation of men. The oath is to the law. The president is merely the administrator of the law. This is why the training and regulations require a person to refuse to obey an illegal law. Now the presumption is that an order is legal. But there are cases where that is clearly not true. And those orders should not be obeyed.

I imagine it has something to say about armed secession though.

The Constitution is silent on the subject of secession. That constitutional question was settled old school...

A million dead.

If they really, really, want to reopen that question, they need to think about the difference in populations, and firepower, available now.

 

[Cutlass]

What else are you going to do, Cutlass? Hide in the corner and wait your turn to die? Get under your desk and pretend this isn't happening?

Attacking the shooter, or him running out of ammo, is the only thing that could keep the collective alive.

Children attacking a shooter will just get them killed. It's insane.

 

[cardgame]

There's no outcome of an active shooter situation where children don't die, the question is, do you want them to resist, or lie down and be stationary targets.

 

[Cutlass]

No. I want them to try to hide, and not draw attention to themselves.

 

[El_Machinae]

No. I want them to try to hide, and not draw attention to themselves.

It's a game theory question. The society that swarms an active shooter will have fewer deaths than one that cowers from one. But the individuals involved have a higher chance of survival if they hope that by hiding their individual odds are better.

 

[Hrothbern]

My son just had a drill where they attempted to teach kindergarteners to throw school supplies and "swarm" at an active shooter that makes it in their classroom. My take on "fix bayonets" is a bit complicated.

I find it difficult to judge what would be the best strategy in terms of survival.
(although I am inclined to think action is better than hiding/sitting duck)

But that is not all that goes in the equation.

What the kids at school feel about such a drill is also important.
(after all the chance they encounter it is practically zero, but with all the news all the time I can imagine they are frightened for it)

Did your son felt it as positive to have at least an active group response to it ?