brandon
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 17, 2019
- Messages
- 3,105
- Reaction score
- 5,394
Offline
T&P
Now is not the time to talk about gun control (1 Viewer)
- Thread starterbrandon
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Users who are viewing this thread
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Online
Interesting read
==============
.........The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1791, reads: “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.” Responsible readings of this sentence note that it locates gun rights within the framework of militia service, not as an individual entitlement. By contrast, the 5th Amendment, ratified the same year, says that “No person” shall be denied due process.
Militias aside, there is also the “keep and bear” part of the 2nd Amendment to consider. In the founders’ era, to “keep” meant to own and possess something inside one’s home, while “bear arms” referred specifically to shouldering a musket or rifle in an army or militia.
Nowhere does the amendment declare or suggest a right to “go armed,” the term used in that era for carrying a weapon such as a pistol or dagger, either openly or in secret. Going armed was not legal. It was a form of misdemeanor known as an affray, from the French effrayer, to make afraid. Indeed, many of the new states responded to a disturbing rise in violence in the early republic with more restrictions on those carrying firearms and other weapons.
In part, that uptick in violence can be attributed to dueling, an aristocratic custom that the haughty officers of the Continental Army learned from their British and French peers. While duelists at least had the decency to count 10 paces and take aim before firing, the so-called “blades” of the southwestern frontiers simply swaggered around with pistols and cane swords, demanding that everyone treat them like royalty on pain of a beating or shooting.
Contrary to romantic mythologies about the frontier, neither duelists nor blades were very popular. Then as now, most people just wanted to go about their lives without getting shot, stabbed or bullied. And they were willing to stand up for their right to do so..........
==============
.........The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1791, reads: “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.” Responsible readings of this sentence note that it locates gun rights within the framework of militia service, not as an individual entitlement. By contrast, the 5th Amendment, ratified the same year, says that “No person” shall be denied due process.
Militias aside, there is also the “keep and bear” part of the 2nd Amendment to consider. In the founders’ era, to “keep” meant to own and possess something inside one’s home, while “bear arms” referred specifically to shouldering a musket or rifle in an army or militia.
Nowhere does the amendment declare or suggest a right to “go armed,” the term used in that era for carrying a weapon such as a pistol or dagger, either openly or in secret. Going armed was not legal. It was a form of misdemeanor known as an affray, from the French effrayer, to make afraid. Indeed, many of the new states responded to a disturbing rise in violence in the early republic with more restrictions on those carrying firearms and other weapons.
In part, that uptick in violence can be attributed to dueling, an aristocratic custom that the haughty officers of the Continental Army learned from their British and French peers. While duelists at least had the decency to count 10 paces and take aim before firing, the so-called “blades” of the southwestern frontiers simply swaggered around with pistols and cane swords, demanding that everyone treat them like royalty on pain of a beating or shooting.
Contrary to romantic mythologies about the frontier, neither duelists nor blades were very popular. Then as now, most people just wanted to go about their lives without getting shot, stabbed or bullied. And they were willing to stand up for their right to do so..........
MSN
www.msn.com
Taurus
Well-known member
Offline
Well, then. A sizeable majority will just have to vote for government that restricts the 2nd all over again. Just like we'll have to install a government that believes women are equal citizens who own their bodies...all over again.
SystemShock
Uh yu ka t'ann
Offline
ah yes, the good ol' "god had a plan for these innocent people who were murdered" claim
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Uvalde deaths: "God has a plan"
“Life is short no matter what,” Paxton said in an interview with right-wing host.www.salon.com
... and maybe this is the way to go about abortions: "God had a plan".
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Online
Posted on EE too
===================
This morning, the Supreme Court struck down a New York State law that limited concealed-firearm permits to those with a demonstrated need to carry arms outside the home. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the 6–3 majority in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, said, “The Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”
Bruen thus opens one of the next major battlegrounds over guns in America: not who can buy guns or what guns can be bought but where these firearms can be carried, every day, by the millions and millions of Americans who own them.
This question will have major implications for what it’s like to be an American. Are people carrying guns at schools and shopping malls and public parks? What about at churches and synagogues and mosques? What is it like to pray in places where fellow supplicants are armed?
Courts and legislatures will have to decide whether people can carry guns at protests and political demonstrations, in voting booths, on the subway and bus, and in pretty much every other public space in American life.
The Supreme Court spent several decades determining where in the public square—streets, sidewalks, airports, fairgrounds, public libraries, public plazas—speakers have a First Amendment right to communicate. The Court’s answer—not in every place, and not equally in all places—is probably a harbinger for how the justices will determine the “sensitive places” where firearms can be restricted.
After all, something must be done to stem the flow of weapons into all parts of the public square. Even with the staggering frequency of mass shootings in our country, the Supreme Court in Bruen has now limited states’ discretion in regulating guns. New research by the Violence Project on mass shootings from 1966 to 2019, funded by the National Institute of Justice, finds that more than three-fourths of mass shooters bought “at least some of their guns legally.”
If states can no longer use discretion to limit the number of people and places with guns at the permitting stage, identifying “sensitive places” will become an important means of restricting the presence of firearms in the public square.
Most states already have robust public-carry rights. But tellingly, state laws in both red and blue states are also chock-full of bans on public carry in a host of locations.
They include public transit, polling places, areas near permitted events, athletic facilities, public swimming pools, riverboat casinos, school-bus stops, pharmacies, business parking lots, public highways, amusement parks, zoos, liquor stores, airports, parades, demonstrations, financial institutions, theaters, hotel lobbies, tribal lands, and even gun shows.
Discovering commonalities across such a variety of locations is difficult. But it is possible to identify the core safety, functional, and constitutional-value concerns that have long justified treating some places as “sensitive” for purposes of public carry..........
===================
This morning, the Supreme Court struck down a New York State law that limited concealed-firearm permits to those with a demonstrated need to carry arms outside the home. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the 6–3 majority in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, said, “The Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”
Bruen thus opens one of the next major battlegrounds over guns in America: not who can buy guns or what guns can be bought but where these firearms can be carried, every day, by the millions and millions of Americans who own them.
This question will have major implications for what it’s like to be an American. Are people carrying guns at schools and shopping malls and public parks? What about at churches and synagogues and mosques? What is it like to pray in places where fellow supplicants are armed?
Courts and legislatures will have to decide whether people can carry guns at protests and political demonstrations, in voting booths, on the subway and bus, and in pretty much every other public space in American life.
The Supreme Court spent several decades determining where in the public square—streets, sidewalks, airports, fairgrounds, public libraries, public plazas—speakers have a First Amendment right to communicate. The Court’s answer—not in every place, and not equally in all places—is probably a harbinger for how the justices will determine the “sensitive places” where firearms can be restricted.
After all, something must be done to stem the flow of weapons into all parts of the public square. Even with the staggering frequency of mass shootings in our country, the Supreme Court in Bruen has now limited states’ discretion in regulating guns. New research by the Violence Project on mass shootings from 1966 to 2019, funded by the National Institute of Justice, finds that more than three-fourths of mass shooters bought “at least some of their guns legally.”
If states can no longer use discretion to limit the number of people and places with guns at the permitting stage, identifying “sensitive places” will become an important means of restricting the presence of firearms in the public square.
Most states already have robust public-carry rights. But tellingly, state laws in both red and blue states are also chock-full of bans on public carry in a host of locations.
They include public transit, polling places, areas near permitted events, athletic facilities, public swimming pools, riverboat casinos, school-bus stops, pharmacies, business parking lots, public highways, amusement parks, zoos, liquor stores, airports, parades, demonstrations, financial institutions, theaters, hotel lobbies, tribal lands, and even gun shows.
Discovering commonalities across such a variety of locations is difficult. But it is possible to identify the core safety, functional, and constitutional-value concerns that have long justified treating some places as “sensitive” for purposes of public carry..........
DaveXA
Well-known member
Offline
I don't see why it would. It doesn't have any provisions related to that decision.
CrowFlies
Well-known member
Offline
this whole thing makes me sick.
its about a mental illness a need to feel power over others before they capitalize on you.
it comes from living beneath that custom that economy that way of getting money.
call it what you will, today its nothing but algorithms swiping money from the masses any
way they can anytime they can. the constant pressure of that is sick.
no other place on the planet lives with bullets as mericans do.
it is sick, it is also a learned behavior.
its the cognitive dissonance of merica the greatest grifter of over population.
what can you expect when lying cultist nut cases are elected by followers to run the
entire gov and the lives and deaths of the peoples let alone a supreme court which
clearly does not care about the size or health of the population existing here.
s.m.h.
its about a mental illness a need to feel power over others before they capitalize on you.
it comes from living beneath that custom that economy that way of getting money.
call it what you will, today its nothing but algorithms swiping money from the masses any
way they can anytime they can. the constant pressure of that is sick.
no other place on the planet lives with bullets as mericans do.
it is sick, it is also a learned behavior.
its the cognitive dissonance of merica the greatest grifter of over population.
what can you expect when lying cultist nut cases are elected by followers to run the
entire gov and the lives and deaths of the peoples let alone a supreme court which
clearly does not care about the size or health of the population existing here.
s.m.h.
SystemShock
Uh yu ka t'ann
Offline
On a contrasting note: the PRI party in MX has started the push to allow citizens access to high power firearms, due to the high rates of murders, kidnappings, etc in certain States in MX. Then again, in MX, there are towns that neither police or national guard dare enter, and townsfolk form armed vigilante squads and impart justice wild west style, mostly carrying illegal high power firearms, but since there is no police in those towns to enforce the firearms laws ...
BullSheetBuddha
Well-known member
Offline
Lovely
Man accused of killing 3 officers, injuring 5 others in Floyd County
Lance Storz is facing a list of charges after a violent night that started out as a domestic violence call.
My state, over the objections of nearly every police organization in the state, just passed a permitless carry law. Police officers are now not permitted to even ask a person carrying a gun in front of a school what their intentions are unless they have seen something suspicious. It makes no damn sense.
SaulGoodmanEsq
Well-known member
Offline
If it's any consolation the 'reasonable suspicion' standard is a pretty low bar to meet.
- Moderator
- #733
Offline
Talk about complete lack of class..
">
A mentally ill 22 yo young man with a single shot hunting riffle shot and killed 3 people at one of the largest shopping malls in Copenhagen. He also injured 5 more.
As horrible as this attack was, every indicator is that the attacker was limited to hunting equipment. Specifically a hunting rifle. I don’t want to begin to think what the situation would have looked like if it was a AR15/similar weapon. Likely dozens more injured and dead. Right wingers on twitter claiming guns are illegal in Denmark are flat out wrong. This attack took place less than 5k feet from a shooting range. Coincidence, but also illustrative. Guns, especially military grade, are illegal. Hunting weapons are not. In fact there are app 10 guns/100 people in DK. But they are heavily regulated in terms of training, usage, availability and handling vs the US at 120/per 100 people where training and type is wide open. Putting DK around 88th on the list/shows in just how little gun crime.
Police was at the spot less than 8 minutes after the first shot was fired and the shooter was apprehended shortly thereafter. EMS was at the scene just as quickly and managed to transfer anyone not killed immedeatly to the main Copenhagen hospital in minutes saving at least 2 lives.
The Government had already started offering trauma and counseling support to anyone impacted by the incident within hours. Everyone involved also by default has their medical expenses and needs fully covered for free. Yet another stark contrast to the US.
The whole situation is going to get analyzed, and if they find loopholes in regulations, laws or procedures, they will get fixed.
But the US right wing loonies are really having a field day in the media and on twitter today - and no - Not A SINGLE T@P just a lot of "Gun Control does not work" lunacy.
">
A mentally ill 22 yo young man with a single shot hunting riffle shot and killed 3 people at one of the largest shopping malls in Copenhagen. He also injured 5 more.
As horrible as this attack was, every indicator is that the attacker was limited to hunting equipment. Specifically a hunting rifle. I don’t want to begin to think what the situation would have looked like if it was a AR15/similar weapon. Likely dozens more injured and dead. Right wingers on twitter claiming guns are illegal in Denmark are flat out wrong. This attack took place less than 5k feet from a shooting range. Coincidence, but also illustrative. Guns, especially military grade, are illegal. Hunting weapons are not. In fact there are app 10 guns/100 people in DK. But they are heavily regulated in terms of training, usage, availability and handling vs the US at 120/per 100 people where training and type is wide open. Putting DK around 88th on the list/shows in just how little gun crime.
Police was at the spot less than 8 minutes after the first shot was fired and the shooter was apprehended shortly thereafter. EMS was at the scene just as quickly and managed to transfer anyone not killed immedeatly to the main Copenhagen hospital in minutes saving at least 2 lives.
The Government had already started offering trauma and counseling support to anyone impacted by the incident within hours. Everyone involved also by default has their medical expenses and needs fully covered for free. Yet another stark contrast to the US.
The whole situation is going to get analyzed, and if they find loopholes in regulations, laws or procedures, they will get fixed.
But the US right wing loonies are really having a field day in the media and on twitter today - and no - Not A SINGLE T@P just a lot of "Gun Control does not work" lunacy.
Last edited:
zztop
Well-known member
Offline
"t & p"
apnews.com
Police: 5 dead, 19 hospitalized in shooting at July 4 parade
HIGHLAND PARK, Ill. (AP) — At least five people are dead and 19 were taken to hospitals after a shooting at a July Fourth parade in a Chicago suburb, and officers are searching for a suspect, police said Monday.
apnews.comDaveXA
Well-known member
Offline
I refuse to take anything Boebert says seriously.
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account on our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.