Another gun discussion part deux.

[Rev. Rye]

Either get rid of that amendment entirely or adhere to it entirely. In other words, make firearm ownership a privilege (not a right), or require every firearm owner to serve in ‘a well-regulated militia’.

Boru

Adopting the Swiss model, the well regulated militia one, would be a good idea. Have everybody in the militia own a gun, but limit access to ammunition to when the member is on active duty. And then have strong regulations on owning additional, non militia related, weapons

Frankly, the second amendment was written for a very different time, one when individual colonies were responsible for their own militia, one when other nations' armies actually invading the US was actually plausible, one when even Alexander Hamilton saw the idea of disciplining a full-time standing Army for the 13 colonies to be "as futile as it is injurious.". Wikipedia lists exactly two foreign attacks on US territory within my lifetime, one the 1993 WTC bombing, and the other 9/11. The first was a handful of Al-Qaeda operatives who didn't need any extraordinary help in being subdued, and the second case... I think that once the hijackers took control, the only real options for taking them out are a United 93-style revolt (which I don't think used guns) or the military shooting it down.

[Drich]

He pretends to have these issues in central Florida, as always.

google it there is one major store in the apopka area..  I'm in sanford now they had a dicks sporting goods and a sports authority. neither one sells guns any more. there was a ace hardware that stopped selling guns, which leaves one little store that's been there for for decades.. it's a good old boys club. my dad went in there with his hunting rifle for a repair.. it took 9 months. otherwise walmart and bass pro shops is where people buy their stuff and walmart stopped all handgun sale will not transfer and will not even sell handgun or 556 ammo.

[The Grand Nudger]

How do you see this working out in your head? Do you honestly believe that you'll be able to convince anyone that orlando is a retail desert where a poor florida man cant find a pistol? That you'll be able to convince another floridian...?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

You are talking out your ass.


The Militia is defunct.

It does not exist as it was designed and intended. Random bastards running about with guns are not The Militia.

The Militia is - all able bodied men between the ages of 18 and 45 years of age. The commissioning of officers, awarding of ranks and training therof is the juristiction of the Governor of each state.

Seeing that no Governor has done that since the 1800's you might as well forget about the militia.

And no - the National Guard is not the militia. It does not fit the Constitutional definition of militia.

actually the national guard has taken the place of the militia. so your talking out of your ass. the militia got a serious up grade and have become a regular army, which means it is not technically a militia any more. which puts the role of citizen soldier back onto the people. just like in the revolutionary war days anyone who answers the call to defend this country from threats foreign or domestic or even answer the call to stand watch armed for the same purposes is militia. like it or not, these guys are being defined or identified as militia even if they do not fit the legal definition which is all you provided. these men by action are militia.

note yours is only definition 2 of the total meaning of the word. while this means you are not completely wrong, understand neither am i as my repersentation of the word meets definition 1:

mi•li•tia mə-lĭsh′ə
►

• n.
  An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
  
  
• n.
  A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
  
  
• n.
  The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
  

---

Like so many people who have trouble with complex sentences, you glossed over the ‘well regulated’.

Boru

This is very true like how you glossed over the fact that the supreme court ruled that the well regulated militia was not the sole purpose of the right to bear arms. but rather the independent statement "the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed" stands alone as it's own declarative statement. having a well regulated militia was the benefit of this right as each member precured his own firearm and trained with it on his dime.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

All the more reason to scrap the Second Amendment. The court fucked up.

Boru

[downbeatplumb]

Either get rid of that amendment entirely or adhere to it entirely. In other words, make firearm ownership a privilege (not a right), or require every firearm owner to serve in ‘a well-regulated militia’.

Boru

militia is not regular army you know that right? a militia are those guns who show up to antifa rallies and 'guard' store fronts. kyle what's his name that shot 3 dudes is considered militia. I honestly believe most of us who do own long guns have several other people we hang out with that could very well be considered a small squad or even platoon of militia men. On the right I do not see that as an issue. however gun ownership on the left seems to be more self serving. there isn't a prevalent gun culture to speak of and when one is assembled (the not F-ing around boys/the all black open carry guys) can't seem to get together without negligently discharging their guns and shooting one another with them. Honestly the 2nd amendment is the only reason we have not plunged into a civil war yet.

So why did they want a regulated militia?
Because it was supposed to be INSTEAD of a standing army.
So to keep your guns you should really get rid of your army.

[Rev. Rye]

militia is not regular army you know that right? a militia are those guns who show up to antifa rallies and 'guard' store fronts. kyle what's his name that shot 3 dudes is considered militia. I honestly believe most of us who do own long guns have several other people we hang out with that could very well be considered a small squad or even platoon of militia men. On the right I do not see that as an issue. however gun ownership on the left seems to be more self serving. there isn't a prevalent gun culture to speak of and when one is assembled (the not F-ing around boys/the all black open carry guys) can't seem to get together without negligently discharging their guns and shooting one another with them. Honestly the 2nd amendment is the only reason we have not plunged into a civil war yet.

So why did they want a regulated militia?
Because it was supposed to be INSTEAD of a standing army.
So to keep your guns you should really get rid of your army.

Like I said, the Second Amendment was written for a time when America had a fundamentally different idea of how to defend itself than it does now (namely, each individual state had its own militia and it was still a question whether or not it was even possible or worthwhile to try and consolidate these militiae into a federal army, and even then, people were gravitating to "no"), and, while, technically, the definition of the "unorganised militia" is so broad it encompasses most every able-bodied man (and probably woman) to reach the age of 18, even that is a largely obsolete concept given that the few attacks on American soil since the Civil War have been so small-scale that there's been no need to invoke it. While it was likely a valuable right for the Constitution to protect back in 1787, 233 years later, it's become the inflamed appendix on the American body-politic, serving no purpose but to flare up and further sicken the nation.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"Well regulated" meant "well drilled" or "well trained". They were supposed to be able to act like professional soldiers without getting paid for that. The Op-Ed pages of the day had fun with their "drills".

[onlinebiker]

DBP - that was exactly the original idea.

The Constitution provides for a standing Navy.

It provides with a path to raise an army for a period of two years. The Militia would provide protection at home. The Navy - project power abroad.

But - fat lazy Americans want somebody else to provide their protection. Like poor 18 - 21 year old males....

And - what's the point in being in charge if you don't have an army to play with?

[The Grand Nudger]

There was never any serious plan to defend the borders of our new nation with a militia, and the people who wrote that dead, dead document were vocal in their disdain for militias and militiamen in general. The reason for the amendment is boring and procedural. It was a continuation of rights expected because they were enjoyed under the old regime - as they transitioned to a new regime. The right of self defense, and by extension the civic duty of defense.

We are not to be disarmed, as we were in one of the (heavily propagandized) incidents that set off the american keg.

[Drich]

Holy shit dude, this "teach your children right from wrong" ISN'T THE FUCKING ISSUE. This is an oversimplification.

actually it is the whole problem.. if you educate a kid on how a gun works, take him out have him kill something, that will end 95% of the accidental shootings, and even the trivial way video games desensitize life and guns themselves. it s not only a lack of morality the causes gun deaths it is the respect that has to be taught concerning firearms that is missing. I use to take kids out to the gun range a few at a time, the younger ones had a reverence the older gammer age kids didn't. i would begin with an hour safety and gun handling with individual hands on.. and almost out of every group there was one after everything done and said when he was issued his gun turned around and lowered his gun to his buddy and started to pretend to shoot him. lack of understand the ignorance of know what someone/something being turned inside out by an close proximity blast will do, the violent way something that get hit in a semi vital area shakes violently and struggles in pain to live before it bleeds out slowly.. any non psycopath can't help but to feel something and damn sure do not want that to happen to himself friends or family. what you see as an oversimplification of the issue is infact the issue. when i conceal carry i am always thinking and watching 10 steps ahead, and am carful to avoid conflict at all cost. i will cross the street if i have to walk infront of a bar with loud people having a good time i will avoid certain stores and parts of town so as not to have to shoot and kill anyone in self defense.

If it were as simple as telling a kid, "Don't smoke" the tobacco industry would go out of business. 

no it's telling them not to smoke now have grandpa move in because he can't take care of himself because he was a 3 pack a day smoker for 40 years and now has cancer.. day in day out seeing the effects and being forced to not only help manage and forced to see the consenquences will seriously cause a person to think most likly keep them from smoking if not give it much much more consideration than someone who sees the hero in a movie light up. I don't drink not because of religious reasons. i don't because like trump i had family die young (in their thirties) because they killed their liver. and saw what a burden my own father became to the family. a man who could move mountains turned himself into a living husk due to daily drinking habits. real education life experience not class room bs is what i am referring to. if you see the life run out of something because of something you did or a tool that you have, it will change you. in the right circumstances it can make you respect life in a way you never understood before or in the wrong circumstance it will change you to disregard life/become callous to killing. either way life experience will force you to change. because we are not activly shaping people to respect guns the change they make is to the callous..

It isn't about banning every single firearm. It is about the industry CEOs selling fear to keep a flooded market for PROFIT!

if you think the market is flooded go out and find a .556 on a AR platform. better yet buy that and 1000 rounds of ammo for under 1000.00 and i will give you 1500.00 (over the counter purchase/no mail in wait till production catches up.) you cant find the gun for under 1200.00 and the ammo (new brass) will run between 600 and 800 if you can find it. if the market is over saturated why the high prices? I have a catalog on my desk from 2017 that shows AR 556 for 389.00 and military grade 556 rounds seal in a military ammo can containing 1000 rounds for 298.00.. those areor were the base line prices for an inexpensive set up. yet we are paying 10x more today and can not find the stuff to pay that price. yet the market to you is oversaturated... maybe define oversaturated. because from my understanding a typical gun owner may have 1 or 2 ARs or Aks depending on their preferred build outs (people don't generally mix because the ammo is different) those who are buying now are the previous gun control democrats who see their cities burning down. and supply can not meet demand.

You certainly are not going to stop smoking, anymore than banning all firearms. But it is bat shit insane to simply hand either out like candy. 

it's not an all or other bann. again look up how australia did their complete ban of all guns.. it started in mid 90s with registration of all guns so the government had a list of people and guns to shake down. the hi cap mags, then assault rifles, the hunting rifles that mag fed, then internal mags including shot guns then the restricted those who could own single shot guns. now the general populace is gun free. again clinton swore to implement the australian model and was going to put justices on the supreme court to ensure this went her way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvcWePEsg94

Gun ownership is not the fucking issue. It is the ATTITUDE of blindly defending the industry. 

no one is blindly defending the industry.
we are not over inflating the industry or the problem but assigning guilt/problem to the individuals who commit those crimes.

Car companies used the same bullshit argument in the 60s and 70s when Nadar pointed out the problems their products were causing. 

non sequitur cars are not literally designed to kill. guns are. the nature of a car is to transport quickly and safely. guns are designed to be safe in all directions but one. and in that direction they are intentionally designed to be unsafe as possible/designed to kill. now if you are doing an apples to apples comparison you would need to evaluate all the areas in which the gun is supposed to be safe. if they were killing people while being stored or discharging unprompted or even discharge while being dropped this is then becomes a point in gun safety and someone like nadar needs to have the manufacturers make sure the guns only discharge when properly prompted. all other instances where people are shot and killed by a properly working gun is an operator issue not a manufacture safty issue. how stupid are you to argue knives need to be made without an edge because too many stupid people are cutting themselves? again if the knife cuts you when you properly use it by the handel it then becomes a design/manufacturing issue, but if you cut yourself while usinging the knife as designed then it is again operator issue not a problem with the tool or it manufacturing. people today have been taught that they are never neglent or at fault or stupid any more. use to be if you give a stupid person a gun and he shoots you you would be considered the stupid one. now it's the guns fault for not being safe from use by stupid people.

NOBODY WANT TO BAN ALL FIREARMS.......

clinto does.

But just like cars, you cant sell them to 10 year olds.

fake news... you have to be older to buy a gun than to buy a car. you got to be 21 to buy or have a hand gun on your person.

You don't sell firearms to the mentally ill. You don't sell firearms to domestic abusers. You don't sell firearms to kids. You don't sell firearms to addicts. 

already in the law sport. (since 1985) what do you think the federal back ground check is checking for? the back ground check even cops and conceal carry and military have to under go every time they buy a new gun, or have one transferred to them.. in fact i just filled out my forms to do back ground checks

"No record at time of purchase" is BULLSHIT. People can have no criminal record when they buy, and then go on to do things like commit suicide, or kill their date or spouse, or get lax and let their kid get a hold of it. THOSE are the majority of gun injuries and deaths. 

who gives a crap? before you get all triggered stop a moment and think of the implications of what you are suggesting.. you want to ensure someone does not kill themselves. you want to make sure they will never leave the gun out for their kids to find, or in a rage later kill their spouces... now what does it matter if those people do these things with a gun or knife or car, or pipe bomb their friends looked up how to make (a buddy of mind in school did this and blew up a tree and set a small section of woods on fire.) do you not see the only way to stop this is to literally police the thoughts of people? if having completely free thought means some of us will kill our selves, others will be enraged to kill then this is a fare trade. because understand people have been doing these things long long before guns were available. you are just looking at preferred methods. if someone has it in their minds to do these thing then it will happen one way or another. all of recorded history proves this.

IT IS FUCKING BULLSHIT to claim all gun violence is done by stranger on stranger. 

no one claimed that sport.

A responsible gun owner SHOULD want better vetting at time of purchase.

like i said in the op.. examples what better vetting do you recomend?