The second amendment is failing the USA : Another school shooting!

[Kerfuffle]

18 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

The largest number of illegals in the U.S. from visa overstays are.....Canadian.

 

 

Looks like the Trump needs to build a wall on US/CANADA border also ....you know to prevent US citizens from massive emigration and defection.... Lock Them Up Lock Them Up

[?Impact]

3 hours ago, WestCoastRunner said:

My first guess is he is marching in a gay pride parade.

[Argus]

On ‎2‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 9:49 PM, bcsapper said:

It's a pretty bad idea if you want to control illegal immigration, but it's a pretty good idea if you want to get elected.

I disagree. Oh, I don't think a "wall" is needed, but any nation which can't control its borders loses sovereignty. The US has a perfect right to block off their border given the millions who have illegally flooded across it. They should have done it decades ago.  That won't, of course, stop all illegal immigration but it will sure as hell make it a lot harder.

 

[Argus]

9 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

My first guess is he is marching in a gay pride parade.

One of the articles I read over the fiasco in India talked about how much Trudeau loves dressing up in costumes. A holdover from his drama school days, I guess.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Argus said:

I disagree. Oh, I don't think a "wall" is needed, but any nation which can't control its borders loses sovereignty. The US has a perfect right to block off their border given the millions who have illegally flooded across it. They should have done it decades ago.  That won't, of course, stop all illegal immigration but it will sure as hell make it a lot harder.

 

That was my point.  I don't think a physical wall will do much more than whatever they have down there currently, and certainly not to the tune of the billions of dollars it is expected to cost., but as far as a bit of button pushing goes, it seems to have done the trick.

[WestCoastRunner]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

My first guess is he is marching in a gay pride parade.

He sure is packing! 

[JamesHackerMP]

OMG, ROFL. Nice one!

The purpose of the second amendment had to do with wanting the citizenry armed so that they could provide manpower for the several state militias. Back in the day we didn't have a large standing army. The U.S. "Army" was a mostly temporary construct during time of war, and most of its manpower came from calling up the state militias into the service of the United States. When they would present themselves for service, they needed to have their own weapons.

THAT was the purpose of leaving the citizenry armed. Liberals and Conservatives alike mistake the purpose of the amendment. It's in the same sentence as "militias", in fact.

Some Americans are terrified that if you disarm the population then the government will be tyrannical and the people rendered helpless against a totalitarian nightmare. While there is evidence to support that in other countries where tyrannical governments have disarmed the population, I do not think it is entirely operative in this case.

Edited March 16, 2018 by JamesHackerMP

[Thinkinoutsidethebox]

On 3/15/2018 at 10:08 PM, JamesHackerMP said:

Some Americans are terrified that if you disarm the population then the government will be tyrannical and the people rendered helpless against a totalitarian nightmare. While there is evidence to support that in other countries where tyrannical governments have disarmed the population, I do not think it is entirely operative in this case.

With a defense budget pushing $900B the US government has effectively disarmed the American population. If you standing on the street and a drone operating out of sight drops a bomb on you an AK47 is useless.

[ironstone]

On ‎2018‎-‎02‎-‎14 at 5:27 PM, Kerfuffle said:

The Second Amendment has merely created a means through which violent people can obtain lethal ordnance and act on their dark intentions. 

 The Second Amendment is a failed amendment – a hopelessly entrenched piece of legislation that has continually fallen short of its expectations and has contributed more to depriving Americans of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness than to protecting those same rights.

Doesn't Chicago have very tough gun laws in place? Do you have any thoughts as to why there are still so many shootings there in spite of the anti-gun laws?

https://www.dailywire.com/news/28630/watch-actors-audition-reading-gun-facts-camera-frank-camp

Any shooting is one too many of course,but the sad fact is that there will always be crimes committed in society, no matter how many laws are in place.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, ironstone said:

Doesn't Chicago have very tough gun laws in place? Do you have any thoughts as to why there are still so many shootings there in spite of the anti-gun laws?

https://www.dailywire.com/news/28630/watch-actors-audition-reading-gun-facts-camera-frank-camp

Any shooting is one too many of course,but the sad fact is that there will always be crimes committed in society, no matter how many laws are in place.

Chicago is surrounded by counties with very lax gun laws. 

[cannuck]

On 2/15/2018 at 11:44 AM, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Again, you are speaking from a framework that requires laws and compliance....doesn't matter to criminals.

I can buy a gun on the street in less than an hour.

Now I know you live about 50 minutes outside of town.

I find it sad that Canadians cannot appreciate that the second amendment was perfectly reasonable when militia may have been needed to protect the people from their own or other governments.   I also find it sad that it has been rigidly interpreted today to suit the gun lobby.  I see nothing wrong with demanding some pretty strong background checks before granting some kind of licence to procure - but I also realize that gives the government some kind of record as to WHO is potentially armed - defeating the purpose of the second altogether.

Since everything on the interwebs has to be about Hitler:  I believe one of the things he did was have all private weapons seized at some point.

All above considered: I think prohibitions on ownership could be expanded without compromising the intent of the amendment.   I also reject the "criminals" argument as a red herring, as it is true, but not terribly relevant.   The second amendment is not about protecting citizens from other citizens, it is about protecting the country from government.

[bush_cheney2004]

7 hours ago, cannuck said:

Now I know you live about 50 minutes outside of town.

 

Less than half that, but the time required has little to do with distance and more to do with finding a seller/broker.  

I purchased my first handgun (Taurus 9mm semi-auto) back in the '80's from the back of a guy's trunk in a parking lot, with factory box and paperwork.   (I purchased a Sony PS2 the same way when none were available in retail stores.)

 

Quote

I find it sad that Canadians cannot appreciate that the second amendment was perfectly reasonable when militia may have been needed to protect the people from their own or other governments.   I also find it sad that it has been rigidly interpreted today to suit the gun lobby.  I see nothing wrong with demanding some pretty strong background checks before granting some kind of licence to procure - but I also realize that gives the government some kind of record as to WHO is potentially armed - defeating the purpose of the second altogether.

 

Firearms are an inseparable part of American history and culture.   No guns....no United States.

 

Quote

All above considered: I think prohibitions on ownership could be expanded without compromising the intent of the amendment.   I also reject the "criminals" argument as a red herring, as it is true, but not terribly relevant.   The second amendment is not about protecting citizens from other citizens, it is about protecting the country from government.

 

Prohibit away...Americans will still have the right and will find ways to get firearms, legally and illegally.

The guns are not going away anytime soon.

Edited April 1, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[Penderyn]

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Less than half that, but the time required has little to do with distance and more to do with finding a seller/broker.  

I purchased my first handgun (Taurus 9mm semi-auto) back in the '80's from the back of a guy's trunk in a parking lot, with factory box and paperwork.   (I purchased a Sony PS2 the same way when none were available in retail stores.)

 

 

Firearms are an inseparable part of American history and culture.   No guns....no United States.

 

 

Prohibit away...Americans will still have the right and will find ways to get firearms, legally and illegally.

The guns are not going away anytime soon.

The purpose of guns was to kill people trying to escape slavery.   Make everyone who possesses one serve six months unpaid in a militia and I think they will lose interest, even the Nazi cops.

[bush_cheney2004]

5 minutes ago, Penderyn said:

The purpose of guns was to kill people trying to escape slavery.   Make everyone who possesses one serve six months unpaid in a militia and I think they will lose interest, even the Nazi cops.

 

OK....the purpose of guns was also to kill loyalists escaping to Canada...would have to kill lots more and their British masters a generation later as well.

Nazis are also protected by the U.S. Constitution.

[cannuck]

On 3/15/2018 at 10:08 PM, JamesHackerMP said:

OMG, ROFL. Nice one!

The purpose of the second amendment had to do with wanting the citizenry armed so that they could provide manpower for the several state militias. Back in the day we didn't have a large standing army. The U.S. "Army" was a mostly temporary construct during time of war, and most of its manpower came from calling up the state militias into the service of the United States. When they would present themselves for service, they needed to have their own weapons.

THAT was the purpose of leaving the citizenry armed. Liberals and Conservatives alike mistake the purpose of the amendment. It's in the same sentence as "militias", in fact.

Some Americans are terrified that if you disarm the population then the government will be tyrannical and the people rendered helpless against a totalitarian nightmare. While there is evidence to support that in other countries where tyrannical governments have disarmed the population, I do not think it is entirely operative in this case.

Sorry I had not read your post before I commented based on one several pages back.  The way the 2nd amendment was meant to work was exactly as you said - as the citizen army could realistically posses and equivalent infantry firepower to a government of the day.  If those same militia were to resemble a modern force, it would artillary, air resources, a navy - all things that could NOT be secreted away and would be easy targets for an invader or totalitarian dictator.

53 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Firearms are an inseparable part of American history and culture.   No guns....no United States.

Prohibit away...Americans will still have the right and will find ways to get firearms, legally and illegally.

The guns are not going away anytime soon.

I have a business in WY run by one of my closest friends of many decades.  The largest ante-room in his homes are inevitably the loading room.  He is also the state and often regional senior trap champ, but is hardly an outlier.   We have clients all over the US, and West of the Miss up to the Rocks is near 100% 2nd amendment country in my experience.  I also am involved with two businesses in NY, one in the city and one up in Westchester County.   BOTH are run by patriotic Americans, but none of our executives own a firearm in spite of one being deeply involved with DoD.   Even up here in socialist Canuckistan, one of my sons-in-law has quite an arsenal and loads (infantry officer) handgun and long guns for himself and my daughter.

I think I have two points to make.  First, is the attitudes to gun control and gun registry in the US are not that much different North of 49 - inasmuch as they are very much demographic in distribution.   Rural areas one way, urban exactly the opposite.  The wild card is US urbanites who come from a far more militaristic upbringing cling to the second amendment, waving the flag strictly to suit their personal adherence to a cultural construct.  One that IMHO, is no longer valid.   

The second is just that: the idea of a citizen militia being able to overpower a state sponsored force armed with much greater firepower and with virtually unlimited resources is strategically and tactically naive.  Then again, look at Afgan, Iraq, etc. where the ragtag band of citizen armies have been able to resist the US and UN forces for more than 15 years - something neither Germany or Japan were able to manage in the last century.

I guess the answer is you need to either scrap the second - or arm the citizens with equivalent weapons.  One option would be to have a totally separate reserve force who's command is only given to national forces at the will of the regional commands - who would answer only to the local citizens.

However, to your statement:  there would still be a United States without guns.  It would simply adapt and get on with life.

[cannuck]

11 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

OK....the purpose of guns was also to kill loyalists escaping to Canada...would have to kill lots more and their British masters a generation later as well.

Nazis are also protected by the U.S. Constitution.

You tried something like that in 1812, you lost.

The US Constitution and Joe Kennedy.,

Edited April 1, 2018 by cannuck

[Penderyn]

10 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

OK....the purpose of guns was also to kill loyalists escaping to Canada...would have to kill lots more and their British masters a generation later as well.

Nazis are also protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Did they have British masters?   I don't think many gave two hoots, except for fighting the French, both times, and we having abolished the slave trade, I suppose we thought they'd soon collapse anyway..   India was hugely more important.

Edited April 1, 2018 by Penderyn

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, cannuck said:

I think I have two points to make.  First, is the attitudes to gun control and gun registry in the US are not that much different North of 49 - inasmuch as they are very much demographic in distribution.   Rural areas one way, urban exactly the opposite.  The wild card is US urbanites who come from a far more militaristic upbringing cling to the second amendment, waving the flag strictly to suit their personal adherence to a cultural construct.  One that IMHO, is no longer valid.  

 

I disagree...U.S. urban and suburban centers embrace firearms for perceived and real needs, from desired protection and deterrence from criminal elements and illegal (e.g. "gang") exploits/ retaliation.   Poor Americans are often forced to live in socioeconomic conditions where drugs, assaults, robberies, and murder are commonplace occurrences, and some law abiding citizens arm themselves accordingly.    Urban centers are also the home for the leftist cohort that rails against guns at the same time.

 

Quote

The second is just that: the idea of a citizen militia being able to overpower a state sponsored force armed with much greater firepower and with virtually unlimited resources is strategically and tactically naive.  Then again, look at Afgan, Iraq, etc. where the ragtag band of citizen armies have been able to resist the US and UN forces for more than 15 years - something neither Germany or Japan were able to manage in the last century.

 

This is a red herring for the gun grabbers....Great Britain thought the same thing about rebelling colonists....they were proven wrong.

 

Quote

I guess the answer is you need to either scrap the second - or arm the citizens with equivalent weapons.  One option would be to have a totally separate reserve force who's command is only given to national forces at the will of the regional commands - who would answer only to the local citizens.

However, to your statement:  there would still be a United States without guns.  It would simply adapt and get on with life.

 

Nope...U.S. history says otherwise.   Hell, even Canada has one of the highest per capita gun ownership rates in the world.

[bush_cheney2004]

11 minutes ago, cannuck said:

You tried something like that in 1812, you lost.

The US Constitution and Joe Kennedy.,

 

No, the U.S. emerged from that war with more, not less.

The U.S. is now a world superpower....the UK and Canada are not.

[bush_cheney2004]

12 minutes ago, Penderyn said:

Did they have British masters?   I don't think many gave two hoots, except for fighting the French, both times, and we having abolished the slave trade, I suppose we thought they'd soon collapse anyway..   India was hugely more important.

 

The only relevant point here is that the American experience with guns and violent revolution was different from Canada's, which remained under Britain's thumb well into the 20th century.  

[Penderyn]

12 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

The only relevant point here is that the American experience with guns and violent revolution was different from Canada's, which remained under Britain's thumb well into the 20th century.  

Put 'em down, did we?   Come ON!

[ironstone]

13 hours ago, Slick said:

Chicago is surrounded by counties with very lax gun laws. 

Is that an admission that the people actually living in Chicago are not obeying the current gun laws?

[eyeball]

7 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

The U.S. is now a world superpower....the UK and Canada are not.

Suddenly Bad Company's Shooting Star comes to mind, that and the thread on opioids.

Johnny died one night
Died in his bed
Bottle of whiskey, sleeping tablets
By his head

 

[Guest]

On 2018-04-01 at 11:08 AM, ironstone said:

Is that an admission that the people actually living in Chicago are not obeying the current gun laws?

Teens in Ottawa can skirt local drinking laws that restrict alcohol sales to those 19 an older by crossing into Gatineau to legally buy some booze a year earlier. Similarly, those in Chicago can leave the county to legally purchase arms with fewer restrictions. The restrictions in Chicago are essentially inconsequential when guns are easily purchased right next door.