Parkland FL HS shooting, shooter arrested, 17 dead

[Obelisk]

Self-defense seems like a reasonable right, but it's not clear how self-defense requires the ownership of multiple guns, or semi-automatic, quasi military-grade weapons.

To be fair, you could have a shotgun for home defense - in which case, a shotgun is a terrifying thing to have pointed at you if you're a robber - and a pistol for concealed/open carry when you're not in the house. Then again, you can argue that the pistol should be sufficient for both purposes.

I don't have an "agenda"

I retract the original statement, as it was a knee-jerk reaction that I should have just ignored.

pro-gun side is a mother lode of specious, self-serving arguments.

If I'm not mistaken (I ignore most of the news here because of the political bias on different networks), there's been a lot of retaliation against the NRA for the arguments it's made - support being cut, benefits getting axed, etc.

 

[Johnnypenso]

This is crock, and I agree with you on this. It's based on a flawed interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution" clearly said that resisting a tyrannical federal government is the exact reason for the inclusion of the 2A. Which part has been misinterpreted?

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

James Madison - Federalist Papers No. 46

 

[Obelisk]

Which part has been misinterpreted?

The fact that the United States is no longer under the threat of the British military trying to act on it, and that the amendment was written well over 200 years ago when it was still a fledgling nation coming out of a revolution? To be fair, the Constitution was written in the 1780s, a decade after the formation of the States, but still. Society today is (obviously) not what it was 200 years ago and that would be a fundamentalist interpretation.

I meant flawed in the sense of "this is an outdated view on the subject".

 

[Imari]

This is crock, and I agree with you on this. It's based on a flawed interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

Yes and no. It's based on an accurate interpretation that only applied when the US was a totally different country to today.

It only really applies when there isn't a professional military. This was something that early US government was profoundly against, having seen how the local British military tended to attract the worst sorts of people who then turned into petty thugs taking advantage of their power over the populace. Not having a professional military and having an armed populace was supposed to be a way to defend against that.

Nowadays, the US has the largest professional military in the world and police forces that behave with the same casual disregard for the populace that the British did. The relative equality in force between an armed civilian and an professional soldier is long gone. Funny how sometimes you only live long enough to see yourself become the villain...

 

[allsupratt]

Good call.


Alternatively, the two of you sleep soundly and, best case reasonable scenario, an established criminal simply leaves with a firearm he didn't pay for, much less qualify for.

So yeah, "guns aren't the problem," but maybe the wrong people getting their hands on them is more like

Oh i agree.. bad call.. as someone that has extensive background and training with firearms. (Military) I made a bad choice leaving it there. In my defense, had i known i was going to have a break in that specific night, [in my nice quiet rural Florida neighborhood], i would have put it up. But then the druggie would have been in the house and on top of us by the time i got the safe open.. as with any story, it could have gone in any direction. Favor chose my side that night.

Biggles, your question wss answered by others.

With extensive gun control that weapon would not have been in my house, and, with that guys background, i doubt we would have been alright, had he got in and i wasn't prepared for it.

 

[Joey D]

With extensive gun control that weapon would not have been in my house, and, with that guys background, i doubt we would have been alright, had he got in and i wasn't prepared for it.

Unless you're a felon that was convicted of a violent crime or have severe mental health issues, I'm not sure gun control would've prevented you from buying a rifle - even extensive gun control.

Banning guns would've prevented it from being in your house, but in the US guns will never end up completely banned.

 

[TexRex]

With extensive gun control that weapon would not have been in my house

I think you're confusing gun control with a gun ban. Gun control deals with who has legal access to firearms and to what firearms they have legal access, as well as establishment and enforcement of import laws where firearms are concerned (thereby restricting illegal aquisition). "Extensive" dictates the degree to which these are implemented.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The fact that the United States is no longer under the threat of the British military trying to act on it, and that the amendment was written well over 200 years ago when it was still a fledgling nation coming out of a revolution? To be fair, the Constitution was written in the 1780s, a decade after the formation of the States, but still. Society today is (obviously) not what it was 200 years ago and that would be a fundamentalist interpretation.

I meant flawed in the sense of "this is an outdated view on the subject".

You've badly misunderstood. The 2A and Madison's Federalist papers weren't outlining a threat from the British military but from their own federal government and it's standing army.

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.

 

[Obelisk]

You've badly misunderstood. The 2A and Madison's Federalist papers weren't outlining a threat from the British military but from their own federal government and it's standing army.

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.

Alright, fair enough. That's what I get for forgetting to brush up on my history.

 

[allsupratt]

Im assuming gun control also means private party selling without background checks would not be allowed.

I guess to break that comment down; I was saying that if there were extra steps to purchase through private party I would have been waiting the 3 days at that point to purchase the weapon, and thus it would not have been in my house, i would had to wait 3 days and for my background check to come through..

Again assuming these are controls they would also want in place.

 

[TexRex]

I was saying that if there were extra steps to purchase through private party I would have been waiting the 3 days at that point to purchase the weapon, and thus it would not have been in my house, i would had to wait 3 days and for my background check to come through..

Had you started the process three days earlier, you would have had it. Had you observed your wife's position as being opposed to firearm possession, you wouldn't have had it. There was no mention of you having knowledge of specific criminal activity in your "nice, quiet rural Florida neighborhood," so why did you not seek out acquiring a gun three days earlier? You knew your wife's position on firearms, and indeed noted you intended to observe that position by returning the firearm, but why did you ignore it when making the purchase?

I wonder what the odds of a home invasion in a "nice quiet rural Florida neighborhood" over a three day time period are, and I wonder how those odds compare to those of an individual--at any point after acquiring a firearm not subject to a three day hold--committing a crime with said firearm and resulting in an unjustified death.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Alright, fair enough. That's what I get for forgetting to brush up on my history.

Of course that doesn't mean, as you already stated, that the 2A should be set in stone and untouchable. Just how it should be touched and how much is the question. Given the current political climate in the U.S. of the last decade or so of outright antogonism and disagreement simply for the sake of disagreeing, I don't hold out much hope for bi-partisan comprimise. Any substantive changes on this front will come at the state level or if the Democrats win huge landslides in both Houses and the Presidency.

 

[Biggles]

James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution" clearly said that resisting a tyrannical federal government is the exact reason for the inclusion of the 2A. Which part has been misinterpreted?

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

James Madison - Federalist Papers No. 46

It's a great quote & Madison makes the point quite clearly & rationally. However, like a lot of the US Constitution/Bill of Rights it is a product of the time it was written in. It's interesting to note that, notwithstanding governments being "afraid to trust the people with arms", the overthrow of oppressive government in France happened anyway, just one year after the publication of the Federalist Papers. Of course, the French Revolution followed a confused & bloody path & resulted in the eventual emergence of Napoleon Bonaparte as Emperor, hardly the outcome Madison would have anticipated or welcomed.

What Madison was concerned about was the possibility of ambitious leaders seizing autocratic control in the manner of a European ruler. This did not happen in the US. What did happen was the Civil War, which pitched factions with the United States against each other in a complex political, moral & military struggle that was quite different from anything envisaged by Madison. I've pointed out before my belief that if there were to be an armed struggle in the US in the present, it would be some kind of civil war, it wouldn't be "the government" against "the people".

All that aside, the practical differences between the standing army & an armed militia in the time of Madison, & the present day standing army & a prospective militia force are huge. Armed citizens in the late 18th century might have been poorly trained & disciplined, but they would be carrying similar muzzle-loaded muskets to that carried by the professional army. In the present day, the professional army has tanks, helicopters, jet fighters, stealth bombers, guided missiles, tactical nuclear weapons ... it's barely worth thinking about. So ... no. "Protection against a tyrannical government" might have been a reasonable idea in the fledgling American republic, but it isn't a meaningful purpose for the right to bear arms in the present day.

 

[Dotini]

It's a great quote & Madison makes the point quite clearly & rationally. However, like a lot of the US Constitution/Bill of Rights it is a product of the time it was written in. It's interesting to note that, notwithstanding governments being "afraid to trust the people with arms", the overthrow of oppressive government in France happened anyway, just one year after the publication of the Federalist Papers. Of course, the French Revolution followed a confused & bloody path & resulted in the eventual emergence of Napoleon Bonaparte as Emperor, hardly the outcome Madison would have anticipated or welcomed.

What Madison was concerned about was the possibility of ambitious leaders seizing autocratic control in the manner of a European ruler. This did not happen in the US. What did happen was the Civil War, which pitched factions with the United States against each other in a complex political, moral & military struggle that was quite different from anything envisaged by Madison. I've pointed out before my belief that if there were to be an armed struggle in the US in the present, it would be some kind of civil war, it wouldn't be "the government" against "the people".

All that aside, the practical differences between the standing army & an armed militia in the time of Madison, & the present day standing army & a prospective militia force are huge. Armed citizens in the late 18th century might have been poorly trained & disciplined, but they would be carrying similar muzzle-loaded muskets to that carried by the professional army. In the present day, the professional army has tanks, helicopters, jet fighters, stealth bombers, guided missiles, tactical nuclear weapons ... it's barely worth thinking about. So ... no. "Protection against a tyrannical government" might have been a reasonable idea in the fledgling American republic, but it isn't a meaningful purpose for the right to bear arms in the present day.

There's plenty of supplementary reasons to retain the 2nd amendment and to keep and bear arms beyond the first order points you and Johnny have mentioned. In any number of scenarios - power outages, natural or manmade disasters come to mind - people may have to rely upon themselves for an undetermined time without the aid of normal resources such as water, electrical power, gasoline, groceries and the local police to keep order everywhere at all times. In such circumstances, the unarmed civilian will be helpless against almost any kind of depredation. Modern civilization is leveraged beyond resilience to all sorts of upsets. I think it is prudent for you and I to be trained in and in possession of one or more serviceable firearms for the defense of family and oneself.

 

[Biggles]

There's plenty of supplementary reasons to retain the 2nd amendment and to keep and bear arms beyond the first order points you and Johnny have mentioned. In any number of scenarios - power outages, natural or manmade disasters come to mind - people may have to rely upon themselves for an undetermined time without the aid of normal resources such as water, electrical power, gasoline, groceries and the local police to keep order everywhere at all times. In such circumstances, the unarmed civilian will be helpless against almost any kind of depredation. Modern civilization is leveraged beyond resilience to all sorts of upsets. I think it is prudent for you and I to be trained in and in possession of one or more serviceable firearms for the defense of family and oneself.

You mean like in a post-modern zombie apocalypse?

 

[Mr Tree]

You mean like in a post-modern zombie apocalypse?

I find the prospect of said scenario unlikely, but there are quite few things that could happen th are realistic with such outcome as dotini describes.
Long time power outages for example.

 

[Imari]

You mean like in a post-modern zombie apocalypse?

I'm frankly shocked that word isn't in Dotini's post.

 

[Dotini]

You mean like in a post-modern zombie apocalypse?

In the big, rich city, we are able to cocoon ourselves in taste, luxury and pursuit of our chosen passions, all to the nth degree. We define reality as we wish, and it lives out just the way we like. You see it in our architecture, fine art, music, literature and politics. Pardon me for a moment while I touch that gorgeous college girl with my blade...at the fencing academy. This is postmodernism working as intended. But of course it is all an illusion built on unsustainable foundations that will crumble within days without a constant stream of ships, airplanes, trucks, trains, pipelines, sewers, power lines and underpaid immigrants and other Morlocks toiling around the world and across the hinterland to make it all tick like a fine Swiss watch. We, the Eloi, are living in a bubble, vulnerable to violent bursting with scant notice.

 

[Johnnypenso]

In the big, rich city, we are able to cocoon ourselves in taste, luxury and pursuit of our chosen passions, all to the nth degree. We define reality as we wish, and it lives out just the way we like. You see it in our architecture, fine art, music, literature and politics. Pardon me for a moment while I touch that gorgeous college girl with my blade...at the fencing academy. This is postmodernism working as intended. But of course it is all an illusion built on unsustainable foundations that will crumble within days without a constant stream of ships, airplanes, trucks, trains, pipelines, sewers, power lines and underpaid immigrants and other Morlocks toiling around the world and across the hinterland to make it all tick like a fine Swiss watch. We, the Eloi, are living in a bubble, vulnerable to violent bursting with scant notice.

You should have been a poet:tup:👍. The Morlocks scared the heck out of me as a kid!

 

[TexRex]

 

[Johnnypenso]

You mean like in a post-modern zombie apocalypse?

I'm frankly shocked that word isn't in Dotini's post.

It never ceases to amaze me at the joy you guys get at mocking a forthright and regular contributor to this forum. In mocking him you are actually mocking yourselves. That @Dotini continues to contribute in spite of repeated attempts to embarass him is a credit to his character.

 

[UKMikey]

 

[TexRex]

It never ceases to amaze me at the joy you guys get at mocking a forthright and regular contributor to this forum.

*cough*

Postmodernism

postmodern

Postmodernism

postmodernity

Postmodern

Postmodernism

Postmodernists

postmodernism

postmodernism

postmodernism

Postmodernism

postmodernism

Postmodernism

postmodernism

postmodernism

I mean...at least it's not UFOs or aliens.

And if he chooses to deny belief in aliens in response to that last comment, as he has done elsewhere, citing that "UFO doesn't mean aliens," I'm more than willing to provide evidence that he willfully inserted them into discussion in which they do not belong. It seems to me he's even been asked not to do so by forum staff.

 

[Dotini]

IIRC, there was one staff member who seemed to deny that UFOs exist. Of course they do exist, and carry an immense cultural importance. In fact they are regarded as part of postmodernism, even though they preceded that trend by millennia. That I choose to address the topics of UFOs and postmodernism seems to strike fear, rage and loathing into some. I can't really understand why, as they are part of our world and very valid topics for comment. The Aliens thread has over 100k views, but proportionately few posts. I regard myself as in a unique role at this forum. It gives me a certain satisfaction to amuse, arouse and enchant others. That I endure some criticism (envy?) doesn't bother me in the slightest. It merely means I'm doing my job well.

 

[Obelisk]

Let's...not derail the thread.

 

[Imari]

It never ceases to amaze me at the joy you guys get at mocking a forthright and regular contributor to this forum. In mocking him you are actually mocking yourselves. That @Dotini continues to contribute in spite of repeated attempts to embarass him is a credit to his character.

Grow a sense of humour. @Dotini has one at least.

 

[Dotini]

Grow a sense of humour. @Dotini has one at least.

Keep those cards, letters and fanmail coming, and don't forget to subscribe to my patreon channel!

 

[Sander 001]

I don't know what to think about the 2nd Amendment. I assume there have been reams of learned interpretation written about it. To me, it seems very poorly written, leaving the interpretation very much up in the air. I take it to mean:
1. (certainly) that an armed militia is required to protect the state from foreign & internal threats
2. & (possibly) that citizens should have the right to bear arms to protect themselves.

The way the two ideas are cobbled together in a single sentence, the meaning becomes rather uncertain.

Regardless, I hear the point made continually by gun advocates/patriots that an armed citizenry is a bulwark against a "tyrannical government". In fact, the ongoing, active participation of the citizenry in the democratic process, a belief in the rule of law & an impartial judiciary, an engaged & free press - these are the things that protect against tyrannical government. If these things break down, civil war between various factions, is a more likely outcome than citizens rising up en masse to oppose the government. This is what has happened repeatedly, throughout history, (including US history) when the mechanics of democracy break down.

Self-defense seems like a reasonable right, but it's not clear how self-defense requires the ownership of multiple guns, or semi-automatic, quasi military-grade weapons.

I don't have an "agenda", as I am not a US citizen. I only have a commentary, based on common sense & my experience of living in England, the US, Canada & a couple of other European countries. There are some questionable arguments made on both sides of the gun debate, but the pro-gun side is a mother lode of specious, self-serving arguments.

Yup, it’s very telling that the US has probably the most tyrannical government in the entire Western world.

 

[Dennisch]

Yup, it’s very telling that the US has probably the most tyrannical government in the entire Western world.

You can't say stuff like that with a Che avatar.

 

[Sander 001]

You can't say stuff like that with a Che avatar.

Sure I can because all these decades later, it turns out he was by far the lesser of two evils. But propaganda is more effective when written by the victors.