More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

[billvon 2,379]

7 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Only the ones with money, duh.

Well that goes without saying.  

Hopefully they will live near Slim King, so he can feel protected from the evil enslaving US military.

[kallend 1,619]

A predictable result of our lamentably inadequate gun laws.

 

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3749222-us-passes-600-mass-shootings-for-third-straight-year/

[riggerrob 558]

On 11/27/2022 at 12:21 PM, Slim King said:

Let's refocus on the REAL second amendment in the Bill of Rights...... Since the government has a big well stocked army we citizens also need to have unfettered access to weapons in order to keep the military from making us slaves...(My interpretation)

The sad thing is that the definition of "A well regulated militia ... " has changed over the years. During the American Revolutionary it meant part-time soldiers (e.g. Minutemen) who reported up a chain of command to the state governor.

Today, many nations (e.g. Canada) still have formal "militias." In Canada, the term "militia" is slang for the Army Reserve, Navy Reserve and Air Force Reserve who all report up a chain of command to National Defense Headquarters, Parliament and the Prime Minister. Canadian "militiamen" wear the same uniforms as the Regular Army, carry the same weapons, drive the same vehicles and frequently attend the same courses, to the extent that when Canada sends troops overseas (Afghanistan or United Nations missions) almost half their contingent might be reservists on short-term (e.g. one year) contracts.

Sadly, the popular American definition of "militia" has been so badly distorted over the last few d3ecades, that few Americans know what the term means any more.

 

P.S. I am so old that I frequently get in trouble for using the dictionary definition of words.

Hah!

Hah!

[riggerrob 558]

23 hours ago, Slim King said:

I'm glad you acknowledge that our government has all these weapons of mass destruction. Why would we (The USA) have weaponized Smallpox? Why do we (The USA) have more Sarin gas than the rest of he world? Who do they intend to use them on?

Military laboratories in more than a dozen nations keep small amounts of banned biological weapons (e.g. anthrax) for research purposes like developing vaccines and other counter-measures. Even Canadian federal labs keep small amounts of anthrax, etc. despite Canada having never publically admitted to holding NBCW. Those labs are usually under three or four levels of restrictions to reduce the risk of nasty germs escaping.

If you want to know the finer points of operating a Canadian federal lab, ask my brother-in-law who monitors insects, etc. trying to sneak into Canada,

[billvon 2,379]

On 11/27/2022 at 12:59 PM, Slim King said:

I'm glad you acknowledge that our government has all these weapons of mass destruction. Why would we (The USA) have weaponized Smallpox?

?? We didn't; that was done back in the 14th century by the Tartars.  It is wise to keep a sample of it on hand in case someone ELSE decides to release it, though - since developing a vaccine goes so much more quickly if you start with relatively pure samples.

Quote

Why do we (The USA) have more Sarin gas than the rest of he world? 

Since the world has a big well stocked armory, we democratic nations also need to have unfettered access to weapons in order to keep other militaries from making us slaves.

In other words, the same reason you think you need an AR-15.

[lippy 764]

19 minutes ago, Slim King said:

So you believe that Sarin Gas is the equivalent of an AR 15? Sarin Gas is internationally Prohibited .. Remember when we made Syria destroy all of theirs?  In addition the USA spends more on the military than the top ten other nations combined.

If Slim outlaws sarin gas, then only outlaws will have sarin gas

[gowlerk 1,901]

1 hour ago, lippy said:

If Slim outlaws sarin gas, then only outlaws will have sarin gas

Sarin is widely considered a weapon of mass destruction. Production and stockpiling of sarin was outlawed as of April 1997 by the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993, and it is classified as a Schedule 1 substance.

[billvon 2,379]

2 hours ago, Slim King said:

So you believe that Sarin Gas is the equivalent of an AR 15?

No.  But apparently you believe that Sarin is the same as smallpox!  No wonder Trump loves the poorly educated.

[Phil1111 905]

9 hours ago, billvon said:

No.  But apparently you believe that Sarin is the same as smallpox!  No wonder Trump loves the poorly educated.

Putin spreads his love to them too. Putin has "special" a holiday program on now. He sends the poorly informed off to an exotic country where they can kill. He said it was a limited time offer of 300,000. But its looking like the "special" has been extended.

Or more likely, be killed.

[BIGUN 1,042]

2 hours ago, Slim King said:

I wonder what else they have? And what does the CIA have?

That's above your pay grade.

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

Hi folks,

IMO one 'sacrifice' is too many:  Over 1 million people in US have been killed by firearms over past 30 years, data show | The Hill

1 mil, now we are talking numbers.

Jerry Baumchen

[billeisele 122]

15 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi folks,

IMO one 'sacrifice' is too many:  Over 1 million people in US have been killed by firearms over past 30 years, data show | The Hill

1 mil, now we are talking numbers.

Jerry Baumchen

It appears that the 1.1 mill includes suicide. The historic annual stats are: 60% suicide, 500 due to mishandling of the gun (accidental discharge), and 500 self-defense. That leaves approximately 10,000 annually (recent history). In past years the # of deaths was lower. 90% occur with handguns and 10% with rifles.

Clearly the 10,000 deaths per year is a crazy number. It's approximately 30% of the total gun deaths. That provides an opportunity to address the other 70%.

Unfortunately criminals have guns and have no qualms with using them. Luckily for the general population many of the gun deaths are between criminals.

A primary concern remains. If gun laws are passed that don't disarm criminals then the disarmed law-abiding population will be at greater risk. What then?  

[wmw999 2,114]

30 minutes ago, billeisele said:

It appears that the 1.1 mill includes suicide. The historic annual stats are: 60% suicide, 500 due to mishandling of the gun (accidental discharge), and 500 self-defense. That leaves approximately 10,000 annually (recent history). In past years the # of deaths was lower. 90% occur with handguns and 10% with rifles.

Clearly the 10,000 deaths per year is a crazy number. It's approximately 30% of the total gun deaths. That provides an opportunity to address the other 70%.

Unfortunately criminals have guns and have no qualms with using them. Luckily for the general population many of the gun deaths are between criminals.

A primary concern remains. If gun laws are passed that don't disarm criminals then the disarmed law-abiding population will be at greater risk. What then?  

Attacking the biggest contributor to a problem is often a good start. Do you have any ideas that might actually get passed and enforced? The Colorado shooting was possibly a result of a red-flag law that was willingly not enforced by the local law enforcement personnel. They are not unique. And how do we pay for the increased mental health care?

Part of the high rate of gun suicide is the high rate of gun ownership. Rerference to Stanford Medical School study. That study, conducted over 12 years on 26 million California residents, says that male gun owners are 8 times more likly to die by suicide, and female gun owners are 35 times more likely. What would be your first recommendation for reducing suicide risk?

Many other suicide means leave more time for one to re-think; they're either messier (and therefore require more thought), or less certain to end it quickly (likewise).

Wendy P.

[kallend 1,619]

2 hours ago, billeisele said:

 If gun laws are passed that don't disarm criminals then the disarmed law-abiding population will be at greater risk. What then?  

It's careless "law abiding" gun owners who are:

1. Arming the criminals.  DoJ data on gun thefts is very clear on this.

2. Responsible for accidental shootings by, for example, kids who find unsecured guns in cars or homes.

I have zero sympathy for that lame argument.

[billvon 2,379]

3 hours ago, billeisele said:

It appears that the 1.1 mill includes suicide

Yes.  Guns make suicide VERY VERY easy.  Which is why the American Pediatrics Academy, the #1 professional organization for pediatricians, is calling for better gun control, so kids don't kill themselves as often.

Quote

 If gun laws are passed that don't disarm criminals then the disarmed law-abiding population will be at greater risk. 

Right.  So pass laws that disarm criminals.  Problem solved.

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

5 hours ago, billeisele said:

It appears that the 1.1 mill includes suicide. The historic annual stats are: 60% suicide, 500 due to mishandling of the gun (accidental discharge), and 500 self-defense. That leaves approximately 10,000 annually (recent history). In past years the # of deaths was lower. 90% occur with handguns and 10% with rifles.

Clearly the 10,000 deaths per year is a crazy number. It's approximately 30% of the total gun deaths. That provides an opportunity to address the other 70%.

Unfortunately criminals have guns and have no qualms with using them. Luckily for the general population many of the gun deaths are between criminals.

A primary concern remains. If gun laws are passed that don't disarm criminals then the disarmed law-abiding population will be at greater risk. What then?  

Hi Bill,

Re:  If gun laws are passed that don't disarm criminals then the disarmed law-abiding population will be at greater risk,

In my entire 82 yrs of living on this earth of ours, I have never carried a gun with me. *

I have never considered myself 'at greater risk.'

Jerry Baumchen

*  When I was 13 yrs old, I bought a used 22 cal bolt action, Remington single shot rifle.  I did carry it in my folk's car & then my car when I got one in 1956.

 

[normiss 620]

On 11/27/2022 at 3:21 PM, Slim King said:

Let's refocus on the REAL second amendment in the Bill of Rights...... Since the government has a big well stocked army we citizens also need to have unfettered access to weapons in order to keep the military from making us slaves...(My interpretation)

"well regulated" - seems to be ignored, much like the militia portion.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

11 hours ago, billeisele said:

It appears that the 1.1 mill includes suicide. The historic annual stats are: 60% suicide, 500 due to mishandling of the gun (accidental discharge), and 500 self-defense. That leaves approximately 10,000 annually (recent history). In past years the # of deaths was lower. 90% occur with handguns and 10% with rifles.

Clearly the 10,000 deaths per year is a crazy number. It's approximately 30% of the total gun deaths. That provides an opportunity to address the other 70%.

Unfortunately criminals have guns and have no qualms with using them. Luckily for the general population many of the gun deaths are between criminals.

A primary concern remains. If gun laws are passed that don't disarm criminals then the disarmed law-abiding population will be at greater risk. What then?  

Bill, please, stop with this crap that the no gun folks can eviscerate at will. I am certain we agree that responsibly kept firearms in the homes of trained users is acceptable. We also agree that home defense weapons are a reasonable reaction to the real world around us. Trying to get past that is like trying to explain the difference between statistics and art. Give them their day.

[BIGUN 1,042]

6 hours ago, Slim King said:

Once again you need to refer to a dictionary from that time period.

Penn  & Teller are from this time period. If you're trying to use the "Well Regulated" meant "Well Organized" argument - I'm not even sure where that originated. The colonialists (the people) were the militia and not any part of a standing army (which caused Hamilton great concern for the US to have one - but we do). 

In his Federalist Papers No. 29, he  outlines all "three sides" of the coin. The militia, a standing army and the people. "Well Regulated" meant training to a military standard. It was proposed, that the people from each state would gather once or twice a year and train to military standards, but make no mistake they were "the people" of each state - not a paid military. In fact, they could be made to support another state in the event that other state were invaded by a standing army. 

There is an ongoing myth about what the forefathers "meant" about a "well regulated" militia and "the people" being separate by a single comma. "The people" were "the militia." The right to bear arms was to allow the people to support the militia UNTIL a more formalized militia could be developed at a later date to protect these US from a standing (foreign) army.

If you don't believe the government can regulate weapons and ammo, then how has the NFA stood as a law for so long. Did you know that the Supreme Court didn't acknowledge individual gun ownership as a right until 2008. 219 years after the US Constitution was adopted.

If you don't think the US can ban certain weapons, then why is there still a ban on gravity knives. Why is there still a law on who can or can't own machine guns and a rather lengthy "well-regulated" process to own one.  

Having said all that, I personally, don't like the "left's" attack on the 2nd Amendment, but I also don't like the "right's" belief that gun ownership comes without some form of responsibility or accountability, or regulation. The "left" needs to agree to leave the 2nd Amendment alone and the "right" needs to agree that children getting killed in school warrants  regulation of firearms to prevent it from happening again. We claim to be morally superior to other countries - let's start with protecting children from even having to have "active shooter" programs by regulating ownership - not banning guns, but banning nut jobs from owning guns AND ensuring everyone who owns a weapon gets the proper training as Hamilton outlined as "the People" being "Well Regulated."  

Edited December 1, 2022 by BIGUN
Left out a comma ; )

[Phil1111 905]

2 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Penn  & Teller are from this time period.... as Hamilton outlined as "the People" being "Well Regulated."  

Well stated. But with the current USSC and as a result of midterms. Well.....

Be it guns, immigration, budgets, etc. Come January it will be back to the same old, same old. Moderates like yourself are still on the defensive. Only 79 republican house members supported the just passed rail strike ban legislation. Voting in favor of that to the detriment of unions should have been a no-brainer.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

2 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Penn  & Teller are from this time period. If you're trying to use the "Well Regulated" meant "Well Organized" argument - I'm not even sure where that originated. The colonialists (the people) were the militia and not any part of a standing army (which caused Hamilton great concern for the US to have one - but we do). 

In his Federalist Papers No. 29, he  outlines all "three sides" of the coin. The militia, a standing army and the people. "Well Regulated" meant training to a military standard. It was proposed, that the people from each state would gather once or twice a year and train to military standards, but make no mistake they were "the people" of each state - not a paid military. In fact, they could be made to support another state in the event that other state were invaded by a standing army. 

There is an ongoing myth about what the forefathers "meant" about a "well regulated" militia and "the people" being separate by a single comma. "The people" were "the militia." The right to bear arms was to allow the people to support the militia UNTIL a more formalized militia could be developed at a later date to protect these US from a standing (foreign) army.

If you don't believe the government can regulate weapons and ammo, then how has the NFA stood as a law for so long. Did you know that the Supreme Court didn't acknowledge individual gun ownership as a right until 2008. 219 years after the US Constitution was adopted.

If you don't think the US can ban certain weapons, then why is there still a ban on gravity knives. Why is there still a law on who can or can't own machine guns and a rather lengthy "well-regulated" process to own one.  

Having said all that, I personally, don't like the "left's" attack on the 2nd Amendment, but I also don't like the "right's" belief that gun ownership comes without some form of responsibility or accountability, or regulation. The "left" needs to agree to leave the 2nd Amendment alone and the "right" needs to agree that children getting killed in school warrants  regulation of firearms to prevent it from happening again. We claim to be morally superior to other countries - let's start with protecting children from even having to have "active shooter" programs by regulating ownership - not banning guns, but banning nut jobs from owning guns AND ensuring everyone who owns a weapon gets the proper training as Hamilton outlined as "the People" being "Well Regulated."  

Count me in.

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

8 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Penn  & Teller are from this time period. If you're trying to use the "Well Regulated" meant "Well Organized" argument - I'm not even sure where that originated. The colonialists (the people) were the militia and not any part of a standing army (which caused Hamilton great concern for the US to have one - but we do). 

In his Federalist Papers No. 29, he  outlines all "three sides" of the coin. The militia, a standing army and the people. "Well Regulated" meant training to a military standard. It was proposed, that the people from each state would gather once or twice a year and train to military standards, but make no mistake they were "the people" of each state - not a paid military. In fact, they could be made to support another state in the event that other state were invaded by a standing army. 

There is an ongoing myth about what the forefathers "meant" about a "well regulated" militia and "the people" being separate by a single comma. "The people" were "the militia." The right to bear arms was to allow the people to support the militia UNTIL a more formalized militia could be developed at a later date to protect these US from a standing (foreign) army.

If you don't believe the government can regulate weapons and ammo, then how has the NFA stood as a law for so long. Did you know that the Supreme Court didn't acknowledge individual gun ownership as a right until 2008. 219 years after the US Constitution was adopted.

If you don't think the US can ban certain weapons, then why is there still a ban on gravity knives. Why is there still a law on who can or can't own machine guns and a rather lengthy "well-regulated" process to own one.  

Having said all that, I personally, don't like the "left's" attack on the 2nd Amendment, but I also don't like the "right's" belief that gun ownership comes without some form of responsibility or accountability, or regulation. The "left" needs to agree to leave the 2nd Amendment alone and the "right" needs to agree that children getting killed in school warrants  regulation of firearms to prevent it from happening again. We claim to be morally superior to other countries - let's start with protecting children from even having to have "active shooter" programs by regulating ownership - not banning guns, but banning nut jobs from owning guns AND ensuring everyone who owns a weapon gets the proper training as Hamilton outlined as "the People" being "Well Regulated."  

Hi Keith,

Once again, a well thought out post.  I don't agree with all of it, but overall, I could easily live with every bit of it.

Jerry Baumchen

[SkyDekker 1,120]

10 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Having said all that, I personally, don't like the "left's" attack on the 2nd Amendment, but I also don't like the "right's" belief that gun ownership comes without some form of responsibility or accountability, or regulation. The "left" needs to agree to leave the 2nd Amendment alone and the "right" needs to agree that children getting killed in school warrants  regulation of firearms to prevent it from happening again. We claim to be morally superior to other countries - let's start with protecting children from even having to have "active shooter" programs by regulating ownership - not banning guns, but banning nut jobs from owning guns AND ensuring everyone who owns a weapon gets the proper training as Hamilton outlined as "the People" being "Well Regulated."  

Well said! I am more and more coming around to this similar opinion.

[gowlerk 1,901]

2 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

The "left" needs to agree to leave the 2nd Amendment alone and the "right" needs to agree that children getting killed in school warrants  regulation of firearms to prevent it from happening again.

And of course you are correct. It is hard to see how that can happen though. The SCOTUS has ruled on the meaning of the words and is unlikely to rule in a way that makes meaningful change possible. That leaves an even more unlikely amendment to the constitution as the other possible solution. And I agree with your quotation makes. It is not a straight left-right issue, but we need some way to divide up the teams. 

[JoeWeber 2,294]

2 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Well said! I am more and more coming around to this similar opinion.

For sure BIGUN is our best thought leader on gun/second amendment/political action issues here on SC. While we all have our own iterations, interpretations, definitions, and desires I would happily, no eagerly,  give my vote to him and sleep easily.