Guns

[LeMansAid]

Equalizes force against? The people causing the "disadvantage" and "marginalization"? Because that looks an awful lot like "shoot whoever you blame for your status in society". The implicit assumption here is that people who are "disadvantaged" or "marginalized" have had force used against them for this to occur. That's not necessarily true. And buying guns doesn't help equalize social advantages and marginalization.

It equalizes force for everyone... against actual force.

I read it as force at their disposal, for use against opposing actual force, but just as much (or more) for a mental state of assurance.

This quote fairly much sums up the general vibe for me.....

"I dream of how trans peoples' daily lives could change if all our bullies came to assume that we were all jiu jitsu blackbelts or else had concealed carry licenses,"

 

[Danoff]

I read it as force at their disposal, for use against opposing actual force, but just as much (or more) for a mental state of assurance.

This quote fairly much sums up the general vibe for me.....

The word "bully" there is a bit tricky. Are we talking about someone physically threatening? Or someone making nasty comments? Both are bullies these days.

 

[Parker]

I'd rather see one of these girls openly carrying than a police officer in a heated situation.

Why? A police officer, even one fresh out of the academy, is far more likely to be better equipped to handle a "heated situation" than someone who has taken some classes on gun safety. I can recall multiple videos (we watched a few in in-service this year) where people critical of police shootings were taken through a use of force training course and pretty much shot anything that moved.

 

[KungFury]

Why? A police officer, even one fresh out of the academy, is far more likely to be better equipped to handle a "heated situation" than someone who has taken some classes on gun safety. I can recall multiple videos (we watched a few in in-service this year) where people critical of police shootings were taken through a use of force training course and pretty much shot anything that moved.

The girl who open carries with proper training is a strong deterrent against a heated situation ever occurring.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Why? A police officer, even one fresh out of the academy, is far more likely to be better equipped to handle a "heated situation" than someone who has taken some classes on gun safety. I can recall multiple videos (we watched a few in in-service this year) where people critical of police shootings were taken through a use of force training course and pretty much shot anything that moved.

Finally someone posted this up, I've debated it for so long cause I saw this broadcast live when it first came out, but to me it's not as concrete as it tries to be. However, you make a good point that a wet behind the ears new grad, would have issues.

 

[LeMansAid]

The word "bully" there is a bit tricky. Are we talking about someone physically threatening? Or someone making nasty comments? Both are bullies these days.

And both kinds will tend to make people feel unsafe. If training with and owning a gun will make them feel safe, and feeling safe is the goal, then determining the type of bullying is all but irrelevant to that quote.

All told, I see no reason to shoe horn a militant angle in to the story.

 

[Com Fox]

Why? A police officer, even one fresh out of the academy, is far more likely to be better equipped to handle a "heated situation" than someone who has taken some classes on gun safety. I can recall multiple videos (we watched a few in in-service this year) where people critical of police shootings were taken through a use of force training course and pretty much shot anything that moved.

I've been trying to find this video for ages after seeing it once for future arguments , thanks man.

 

[Blood Eagle]

There was a similar video posted in this thread a couple years ago basically taking regular people off the street and putting them through a simulator and had similar results but the main difference is it was done as an argument for gun control and how regular civilians have no business with firearms. One thing is for sure, training is important. This is the hard truth. I fully support people taking the proper steps to be able to have a concealed firearm but the system we have could use a lot of improvement.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Some prominent Democrats came up with the idea to prove once and for all how easy it is to buy guns over the internet from online private dealers even though these "customers" were prohibited from owning firearms. Customers is in quotes of course because the prospective buyers were undercover operatives. Only thing is, it backfired. Although they were able to purchase two weapons illegally on the dark web from non-licensed sources all of their 72 attempts to purchase from people representing themselves as legitimate online gun dealers failed. Link to original report

“Private sellers on Surface Web gun forums and in classified ads were unwilling to sell a firearm to our agents that self-identified as being prohibited from possessing a firearm,” the GAO reported, noting that in their “72 attempts ... 56 sellers refused to complete a transaction once we revealed that either the shipping address was across state lines or that we were prohibited by law from owning firearms.” In the other cases, the investigators' website was frozen or they encountered suspected scammers. On the dark web, GAO agents successfully purchased two guns illegally, as the serial numbers on the weapons were “obliterated” and “shipped across state lines.” But in the attempt to purchase, the GAO agents “did not disclose any information indicating they were prohibited from possessing a firearm.”

Source

 

[CTznOfTime]

For those in Southern California, Los Angeles precisely, about a quarter to 9am (PST), a young teenage girl (supposedly 12) brought a semi-auto and shot her fellow students, hitting one boy in the temple (critical but stable condition) and the wrist of another girl... Several other classmates and a 30 year old women injured otherwise.

I am not sure if this deserve another separate thread, but for now, am leaving it here.

Supposedly gun owners have theirs locked away from children... so how did she get to the gun ?

Shouldn't you think the gun owner should receive the maximum penalty for allowing this to happen ?

OR do you think this is just an effect of Global Warming / Climate Change ? It is especially hot right now in SoCal, unusually feels like summer ?
This may be a generalization, but i feel like Pro-gun owners dont really believe in Climate Change, so what do you suggest or advise that we do in these situation, moar Guns? Each Child their own? They already have cell phones...

 

[Johnnypenso]

For those in Southern California, Los Angeles precisely, about a quarter to 9am (PST), a young teenage girl (supposedly 12) brought a semi-auto and shot her fellow students, hitting one boy in the temple (critical but stable condition) and the wrist of another girl... Several other classmates and a 30 year old women injured otherwise.

I am not sure if this deserve another separate thread, but for now, am leaving it here.

Supposedly gun owners have theirs locked away from children... so how did she get to the gun ?

Shouldn't you think the gun owner should receive the maximum penalty for allowing this to happen ?

What are the facts of the case? What is the law that pertains to this particular incident?

 

[Blood Eagle]

Cal. Pen. Code, § 25105

 

[Dotini]

...so what do you suggest or advise that we do in these situation, moar Guns? Each Child their own? They already have cell phones...

Question: Does the NRA offer training courses for children? How extensive is the training? Are there any good studies reflecting any benefits of NRA training on the subsequent behavior and civility of trainees?

 

[TexRex]

Question: Does the NRA offer training courses for children? How extensive is the training? Are there any good studies reflecting any benefits of NRA training on the subsequent behavior and civility of trainees?

Yes, there are a number of options--from NRA-sanctioned courses and camps to NRA-approved courses and camps. From very to not very, respectively (see previous answer), depending on the option chosen. I doubt it; that sort of thing is likely to be heavily biased.

 

[Blood Eagle]

This may be a generalization, but i feel like Pro-gun owners dont really believe in Climate Change

We hate Gays too and non-whites.

 

[CTznOfTime]

We hate Gays too and non-whites.

I know you are using sarcasm to answer to my sarcastic comment.

It might be fun and all, but it doesnt help anyone really.

But honestly, why the hatred ?

Honest question that expect an honest answer:
Why hate the Gays (LGBTQ) and the non-white?

Why not consider constructive soutions for everyone , inviting everyone to the tAble for discussion?

Too romantic for ya?

 

[Blood Eagle]

I know you are using sarcasm to answer to my sarcastic comment.

It might be fun and all, but it doesnt help anyone really.

But honestly, why the hatred ?

Honest question that expect an honest answer:
Why hate the Gays (LGBTQ) and the non-white?

Why not consider constructive soutions for everyone , inviting everyone to the tAble for discussion?

Too romantic for ya?

Why are you asking me serious questions about a sarcastic post? Not long ago, I made a post in one of the shooting threads about not wanting to be labeled the way people label firearm owners and was quickly met with a response by @TexRex saying he'd bet I didn't support gay marriage. Your post was sarcastic. So was mine. I don't hate anyone.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

For those in Southern California, Los Angeles precisely, about a quarter to 9am (PST), a young teenage girl (supposedly 12) brought a semi-auto and shot her fellow students, hitting one boy in the temple (critical but stable condition) and the wrist of another girl... Several other classmates and a 30 year old women injured otherwise.

I am not sure if this deserve another separate thread, but for now, am leaving it here.

Supposedly gun owners have theirs locked away from children... so how did she get to the gun ?

Shouldn't you think the gun owner should receive the maximum penalty for allowing this to happen ?

OR do you think this is just an effect of Global Warming / Climate Change ? It is especially hot right now in SoCal, unusually feels like summer ?
This may be a generalization, but i feel like Pro-gun owners dont really believe in Climate Change, so what do you suggest or advise that we do in these situation, moar Guns? Each Child their own? They already have cell phones...

Supposedly? People would be wise to do this or at least have a trigger lock, doesn't mean they're obligated to. However, if there is neglect and something could have been prevented, then yes they should face some penalty. While tragic for the parents of the shooter, who perhaps had no clue this would happen or see the signs that might have been there, they still have accountability. My father never locked his guns away, taught us at a very young age how to shoot and how to respect weapons. I don't agree this is a method many or even anyone should really take but it does show that if people take the time to educate themselves and those in the vicinity of weapons locked or not, that perhaps more understanding could be shed.

As for the generalization...yeah it's just that, considering all walks of life own guns in this country.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Cal. Pen. Code, § 25105

So we already know where the gun came from?

 

[Danoff]

Why are you asking me serious questions about a sarcastic post? Not long ago, I made a post in one of the shooting threads about not wanting to be labeled the way people label firearm owners and was quickly met with a response by @TexRex saying he'd bet I didn't support gay marriage. Your post was sarcastic. So was mine. I don't hate anyone.

That was a great response to a post that was meant to antagonize.

 

[Blood Eagle]

So we already know where the gun came from?

That's currently unknown and that info hasn't been made public yet.

 

[Johnnypenso]

That's currently unknown and that info hasn't been made public yet.

Then how do we know which statue applies?

 

[Blood Eagle]

Then how do we know which statue applies?

We don't. That's just the law that ctznoftime speculates was broken.

 

[Danoff]

"It doesn't mean the same thing to our ears..."

I myself have seen that argument shot down by staunch proponents of the status quo when it's presented by those seeking change with regards to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"; I can't begin to imagine how many times it has been in total.

In regard to the 2nd amendment.

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.

First of all... the right of "the people" right there means it's not limited to a militia. At the time, a militia was anyone who could be pressed into military service... think... white men. Regulated meant "trained", not "regulated by government". So you could re-write it as follows:

White men who are well trained in firearms, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

"keep and bear" would mean the ability to store at home and carry in public (which is where people got the guns they used when they organized to fight). So you could re-write it as follows:

White men who are well trained in firearms, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to have arms in their homes and carry arms in public, shall not be infringed.

The "security of a free state" is in reference to the protection of liberties. It's not a security of the state, because it's expressly aimed at protecting a "free" state. Only a state which is "free" is of concern. So this can be re-written as:

White men who are well trained in firearms, being necessary to the protection of liberty, the right of the people to have arms in their homes and carry arms in public, shall not be infringed.

Obviously we know how the "white man" interpretation turned out over time, so in light of the civil war and women's suffrage I think we can correct that first bit:

The people being well trained in firearms, being necessary to the protection of liberty, the right of the people to have arms in their homes and carry arms in public, shall not be infringed.

People, protecting liberty, is why firearms are legal in the US. It doesn't say ALL firearms, bombs, tanks, bazookas, and attack helicopters, but it does say arms (meaning firearms). And that is why the supreme court very correctly construes this to be an amendment establishing the peoples' right to defend themselves (their liberty) using arms.

 

[UKMikey]

It sounds like it US D.C. vs Heller should've been a no-brainer rather than a 5-4 decision. I wonder what the arguments made by the judges on the losing side were not to interpret the amendment in that way.

 

[Danoff]

It sounds like it US vs Heller should've been a no-brainer rather than a 5-4 decision. I wonder what the arguments made by the judges on the losing side were not to interpret the amendment in that way.

I read the dissent... some of it is downright laughable, although I have a hard time remembering it at this point, it has been a while since I read the case. It's in the public domain, you can read it and see if you find it persuasive.

 

[UKMikey]

I read the dissent... some of it is downright laughable, although I have a hard time remembering it at this point, it has been a while since I read the case. It's in the public domain, you can read it and see if you find it persuasive.

I wouldn't presume to know as much about US law as a Supreme Court judge but if 4 out of 9 of them have a shaky enough grasp of it as to make downright laughable statements it sounds like there's something wrong with the system.

 

[Danoff]

I wouldn't presume to know as much about US law as a Supreme Court judge but if 4 out of 9 of them have a shaky enough grasp of it as to make downright laughable statements it sounds like there's something wrong with the system.

They don't usually agree on the dissent (or the majority) opinion. There are often what are called concurring opinions where someone voted the same way but for a different reason. And there are fragmented dissents as well. Some of the supreme court justices were appointed to the court specifically for their disregard for the constitution. Some of them were appointed specifically for their strict interpretation of the constitution. So the court doesn't usually agree on much, the people appointed to it often have wildly different views on constitutional law depending on which party was in power at the time.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I wouldn't presume to know as much about US law as a Supreme Court judge but if 4 out of 9 of them have a shaky enough grasp of it as to make downright laughable statements it sounds like there's something wrong with the system.

And to add to @Danoff, since they have such a vast opinion on law, even things not related to this that may seem pretty obvious like older cases on race for example don't have a heavy majority as in 8-1 or 7-2. The Supreme court is very left or right many times and the 5-4 or 6-3 even depends on who is more at power. That's not to say that their landmark standing shouldn't be regarded, but to simply look at the outcome without ever reading the reasoning is something I'd advise against.

 

[TexRex]

Obviously we know how the "white man" interpretation turned out over time, so in light of the civil war and women's suffrage I think we can correct that first bit

Obviously we do, and acknowledging that in the appropriate manner, as has been indicated, demonstrates the ability to redefine the text to suit societal shifts.

It doesn't say ALL firearms, bombs, tanks, bazookas, and attack helicopters, but it does say arms (meaning firearms).

As I have asked elsewhere, why not? You indicated that it's not actually illegal to possess such things if one seeking to do so has gone through proper channels, but why are such requirements imposed for some and not others? One imagines those arms requiring further criteria be met (criteria that I'm still ignorant of, as I have never sought to acquire such an implement through proper--or illicit--means) have been deemed more of a threat if in the wrong hands, so shouldn't arms that can be modified to function in a similar manner be treated the same?