So what IS the best way to reduce or prevent mass shootings?

[Cecilie1200]

If that happens the blood shed will be so great, this country will not survive it... And rightly so.

Not too long ago I thought succession was crazy... It's sounding better and better every time it comes up.

In most of the world, the arms are limited to the police and legitimate military. They lead prosperous peaceful lives.

Yes, most of the world is full of peaceful, fluffy puppies and unicorns shooting glittery rainbows out their asses.

No, most of the world is full of nations that have sensible gun laws and those nations live in peace and are fairly prosperous.

Still no answer, how do you plan to disarm the nation??

I don't plan to disarm the nation.

But it does bring up an interesting question. We're told over and over and how much gun crazies love the country, are law abiding citizens, yada yada yada....

Are you stating that they would disobey the law?

An unjust and illegal law? Yes, they would continue to follow the older, legally-passed law, and you would probably have a civil war on your hands.

The only way you would get gun owners to follow a law disarming them is if you passed it legally (which isn't anywhere in the leftist lexicon), because that would require you to convince a majority of Americans - which would include the gun owners - that disarmament was a good idea and that they should amend the Constitution to provide for it.

Good luck with that, dumbtwat.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Again, the words in the 2nd Amendment are there for a reason.

Indeed.
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."
Not the right of the militia...
Not the right of the people in the militia...
The right of the people.
Nothing in the constitution supports your position.

"Nothing" -- and yet there's that inconvenient conditional phrase, batting leadoff ....

And yet that phrase has nothing to do with the following phrase.

Just how many times did you flunk English in school, anyway?

 

[Dan Daly]

They already addressed that issue. Interesting how you only consider the Supreme Court to be the last word when it's a word you like.

FYI, there is nothing about the Second Amendment that enables "monthly bloodbaths", dumbass.

No kidding. It calls for a Militia to have weapons.

Please cite the text of the constitution that says this.
Oh wait... you won't because you can't.
You lose, puppy. Again.

The word Militia is there for a reason. You'll have to be pretty stupid to think the framers were just putting random words into the amendments.

Get used to it (or join a militia). The court's job is to correct the other branches. The correction is coming. All we need is HRC in the oval and the Dems to re-take Congress (and political will to do it which is always suspect at best).

The word "militia" is there, as I said before while you were , to clarify a reason why THE PEOPLE (aka individual citizens) should have an uninfringed right to keep and bear arms, a reason that is not already mentioned or implied elsewhere.

Not a modifying clause. Nothing is going to change the rules of English.

Okay, finally, we're getting somewhere. See what happens when you answer a question...

Now, you said that Militia is there to allow "The People" (aka individual citizens) should have reason to keep and bear arms. Great.

Now, please tell us why the words "well-regulated Militia" are there. Wouldn't that indicate that the intent of the framers was that if they wanted the people to keep and bear arms (as you theorize), that those people would have to be part of a "well-regulated" militia.

Again, the words in the 2nd Amendment are there for a reason.

Let's hear your spin.

Because an effective military force must have training and discipline...but you can't have a well-regulated militia without an armed populace at its core for manpower. The intent of the framers was to guarantee the right of the people to keep and bear arms to make a "well regulated militia" possible. Duh.

 

[Little-Acorn]

"Nothing" -- and yet there's that inconvenient conditional phrase, batting leadoff ....

Precisely.

It's been pointed out to these people multiple times in this thread (and elsewhere in this forum) that the mention of a militia is just an explanation for why the people's right cannot be infringed. Not a condition on it.

So what IS the best way to reduce or prevent mass shootings? | Page 57 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

But they continue to try to ignore it, and pretend that their point hasn't already been refuted again and again.

Then they complain that others don't answer questions.

We who know the facts do answer questions. You just don't pay attention.

And you run away with your tails clamped between your hind legs every time you hear an answer you can't refute, hoping to pretend later it was never said.

Problem is, nobody believes your lies and fakery any more.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"Nothing" -- and yet there's that inconvenient conditional phrase, batting leadoff ....

Precisely.

It's been pointed out to these people multiple times in this thread (and elsewhere in this forum) that the mention of a militia is just an explanation for why the people's right cannot be infringed. Not a condition on it.

So what IS the best way to reduce or prevent mass shootings? | Page 57 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

But they continue to try to ignore it, and pretend that their point hasn't already been refuted again and again.

Then they complain that others don't answer questions.

We who know the facts do answer questions. You just don't pay attention.

And you run away with your tails clamped between your hind legs every time you hear an answer you can't refute, hoping to pretend later it was never said.

Problem is, nobody believes your lies and fakery any more.

That is, they choose to be wrong.

 

[Dan Daly]

Again, the words in the 2nd Amendment are there for a reason.

Indeed.
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."
Not the right of the militia...
Not the right of the people in the militia...
The right of the people.
Nothing in the constitution supports your position.

"Nothing" -- and yet there's that inconvenient conditional phrase, batting leadoff ....

It is neither inconvenient nor conditional, it merely states a reason why a the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...to ensure the basis of a well-regulated (trained, disciplined, equipped) militia, which is essential to the security of a free state (unlike other states of the time where standing armies were the norm).

It's not rocket surgery, and these lame attempts to play word games with such a simple phrase doesn't make you look smart...it makes you look silly and not well educated.

 

[Little-Acorn]

2) Allow lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

Are you also going to allow lawsuits against Chevrolet when somebody uses one of their cars to run over a nagging ex-husband?

(Do these people even realize how ridiculous their "solutions" are?)

 

[Little-Acorn]

And you run away with your tails clamped between your hind legs every time you hear an answer you can't refute, hoping to pretend later it was never said.
Problem is, nobody believes your lies and fakery any more.

That is, they choose to be wrong.

They choose to try to lie to people who haven't been paying attention, in hopes they can fool them into voting their way even though their way has already been proven ineffective.

Their goal is not to keep guns out of the hands of potential criminals. They already know that's impossible.

Their goal is to keep guns out of the hands of everybody except government (i.e. except themselves).

They are insecure, frightened wannabe dictators. As is everyone who supports regulating and restricting people who have done no wrong. They can't stand the idea that there are people around them not under their control.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No kidding. It calls for a Militia to have weapons.

Please cite the text of the constitution that says this.
Oh wait... you won't because you can't.
You lose, puppy. Again.

The word Militia is there for a reason. You'll have to be pretty stupid to think the framers were just putting random words into the amendments.

Get used to it (or join a militia). The court's job is to correct the other branches. The correction is coming. All we need is HRC in the oval and the Dems to re-take Congress (and political will to do it which is always suspect at best).

The word "militia" is there, as I said before while you were , to clarify a reason why THE PEOPLE (aka individual citizens) should have an uninfringed right to keep and bear arms, a reason that is not already mentioned or implied elsewhere.

Not a modifying clause. Nothing is going to change the rules of English.

Okay, finally, we're getting somewhere. See what happens when you answer a question...

Now, you said that Militia is there to allow "The People" (aka individual citizens) should have reason to keep and bear arms. Great.

Now, please tell us why the words "well-regulated Militia" are there. Wouldn't that indicate that the intent of the framers was that if they wanted the people to keep and bear arms (as you theorize), that those people would have to be part of a "well-regulated" militia.

Again, the words in the 2nd Amendment are there for a reason.

Let's hear your spin.

Because an effective military force must have training and discipline...but you can't have a well-regulated militia without an armed populace at its core for manpower. The intent of the framers was to guarantee the right of the people to keep and bear arms to make a "well regulated militia" possible. Duh.

And, see, the Constitution already provides for a military, waaaayyyy back in the Articles, ratified years before the Second Amendment. There's utterly no reason for the Founders to write and ratify an amendment discussing military groups possessing firearms. It would be superfluous. The Second Amendment only makes sense if it addresses the need for private citizens to own and bear arms, and a reason for them doing so that is not already obvious, such as self-defense, private property rights, etc.

Because I'm killing time right now, I'm going to break this down with a little context.

The Framers of the Constitution, main body of which was signed in 1789, had recently broken away from Great Britain. Great Britain had tried to disarm the colonists, and the Framers feared that the new government they had created would become tyrannical. The federalists - who have subsequently been proven wrong in just about every prediction they made - insisted that the government would be restricted to carefully-enumerated powers. The anti-federalists, such as George Mason, were not nearly as trusting, and demanded separate Amendments to guard the rights of the people.

Mason articulated this in his writings:

“A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State”

Sound familiar?

And here we have an explanation of what the words of the Second Amendment mean: "trained to arms" would be the "well-regulated" we so often hear misinterpreted to mean standing military bodies under government control. And while it talks about "defense of a free State", it is not talking about defending the state in the way that the military does. "Free" is the operative word there. The Second Amendment is about defending the condition of freedom that our Founders were working to ensure.

This will clarify the issue for some, and I have no doubt that it will bounce right off the rock skulls of the gun-grabbers in our midst.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And you run away with your tails clamped between your hind legs every time you hear an answer you can't refute, hoping to pretend later it was never said.
Problem is, nobody believes your lies and fakery any more.

That is, they choose to be wrong.

They choose to try to lie to people who haven't been paying attention, in hopes they can fool them into voting their way even though their way has already been proven ineffective.

Their goal is not to keep guns out of the hands of potential criminals. They already know that's impossible.

Their goal is to keep guns out of the hands of everybody except government (i.e. except themselves).

They are insecure, frightened wannabe dictators. As is everyone who supports regulating and restricting people who have done no wrong. They can't stand the idea that there are people around them not under their control.

Well, they make a point of people not being taught history, English, or logic so that they won't understand what the Second Amendment is about or why it's important, and they will be easily gulled into believing misinterpretations, especially when they're being stampeded by fear and panic.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Violence only begets more violence.

No, people who think they know better how you should live, than you do... and who want to disarm you so they can force their will on you (that is, modern liberals) beget more violence.

When the victims try to fight back and refuse disarmament, the resulting violence is not the victims' fault. It's still the liberals' fault, who tried to coerce them in the first place.

And the best way to reduce mass shootings, is still allowing everyone to carry. Most people still won't bother. But a few will. And the criminal knows that when he wants to shoot up a shopping mall or school, knows that a few adults in the crowd are probably carrying... and he won't know which ones they are. But he knows it's unlikely he'll be able to rack up the huge body counts he wants, to get weeks of lurid headlines after he's dead. And so he often will change his mind and not try, since he can't get his massive posthumous publicity. And that mass shooting will be prevented, without a shot being fired.

You can never eliminate all mass shootings 100%. But this is the best way to reduce them.

And the liberals are dead set against it. Even though they know the methods they are pushing, don't work.

Why do you suppose they keep pushing for their draconian laws, while knowing they won't work?

 

[Dan Daly]

This notion that we can prevent mass shootings...or mass murders in general...is simply not supported by either history or common sense...Jeb Bush was right in that respect (even a blind squirrel sometimes finds a nut). While having more people armed AND TRAINED EFFECTIVELY "might" help reduce the number of people killed or wounded in a given incident, it is no panacea. Indeed, just look at the gal who killed 4 and wounded dozens with her car this past weekend...I doubt an armed anybody would have prevented such a thing.

 

[candycorn]

No kidding. It calls for a Militia to have weapons.

Please cite the text of the constitution that says this.
Oh wait... you won't because you can't.
You lose, puppy. Again.

The word Militia is there for a reason. You'll have to be pretty stupid to think the framers were just putting random words into the amendments.

Get used to it (or join a militia). The court's job is to correct the other branches. The correction is coming. All we need is HRC in the oval and the Dems to re-take Congress (and political will to do it which is always suspect at best).

The word "militia" is there, as I said before while you were , to clarify a reason why THE PEOPLE (aka individual citizens) should have an uninfringed right to keep and bear arms, a reason that is not already mentioned or implied elsewhere.

Not a modifying clause. Nothing is going to change the rules of English.

Okay, finally, we're getting somewhere. See what happens when you answer a question...

Now, you said that Militia is there to allow "The People" (aka individual citizens) should have reason to keep and bear arms. Great.

Now, please tell us why the words "well-regulated Militia" are there. Wouldn't that indicate that the intent of the framers was that if they wanted the people to keep and bear arms (as you theorize), that those people would have to be part of a "well-regulated" militia.

Again, the words in the 2nd Amendment are there for a reason.

Let's hear your spin.

How about first, I address your possibly-deliberate and possibly-due-to-being-a-fucking-moron misquote of what I said, because as I have to keep reminding you, you will NOT be imposing your parameters on the debate?

The phrase about militia - which, to the Founding Fathers, would have been simply the citizens of an area - exists to articulate a reason for firearms that is not already covered in other places, either explicitly or implicitly. That clause is completely independent of the one following. Grammatically, it in no way modifies the second clause. There is no number of times you are going to demand, "why is it there?! Doesn't it mean what I want it to mean?!" that that is going to change.

This is the last time I'm saying it. You have your answer. Ignoring it won't make it go away.

Total cop out. Totally expected.

Again, you answered why Militia is there exactly the way a gun nut would. Again totally expected.

But you become totally emasculated when you have to also have to account for the words "well regulated" and come up with the predicted Mumbo Jumbo about clauses and grammar. John Roberts would be proud.

I own you.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Having people armed, per se, does not provide the panacea.

Criminals knowing that there's probably someone in the crowd who's armed, is what reduces mass shootings.

That's why they keep committing the vast majority of their crimes in so-called "gun free zones".

 

[Little-Acorn]

Total cop out. Totally expected.
Again, you answered why Militia is there exactly the way a gun nut would. Again totally expected.
But you become totally emasculated when you have to also have to account for the words "well regulated" and come up with the predicted Mumbo Jumbo about clauses and grammar. John Roberts would be proud.

TRANSLATION: I can't refute what you said, so I'll ignore it and call you names instead. And then I'll pretend you never said it.

And I'll also pretend that the people who answered my question and explained what "well regulated" actually means, never said that either.

And I'll especially ignore that Acorn guy who keeps pointing out the only solution that DOES work, since it doesn't conform to my agenda of total government control.

The only way a liberal like me can stay in this argument, is by repeatedly lying, dodging and pretending the people refuting us aren't there.

 

[Dan Daly]

Having people armed, per se, does not provide the panacea.

Criminals knowing that there's probably someone in the crowd who's armed, is what reduces mass shootings.

That's why they keep committing the vast majority of their crimes in so-called "gun free zones".

No, not really. While they know that they might be able to do more damage in these silly "gun-free" zones, most of these mutts seem to want to die and end up dead by their own hand or by cop...so death is not a deterrent in most cases. Indeed, with the woman in the car, I don't think she either planned or premeditated her actions, let alone thought about the possible consequences. She was a mass-killer, but not necessarily a premeditated mass-murderer.

You simply can't paint with an overly-broad brush, especially when the subject are people who are a few cards short of a full deck for one reason or another.

 

[Dan Daly]

I own you.

That's nice, because ownership of facts, reason or logic seem to be beyond your grasp.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Total cop out. Totally expected.
Again, you answered why Militia is there exactly the way a gun nut would. Again totally expected.
But you become totally emasculated when you have to also have to account for the words "well regulated" and come up with the predicted Mumbo Jumbo about clauses and grammar. John Roberts would be proud.
I own you.

You barely own the stains in your underwear.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."
Not the right of the militia...
Not the right of the people in the militia...
The right of the people.
Nothing in the constitution supports your position.
Nothing.

 

[candycorn]

Total cop out. Totally expected.
Again, you answered why Militia is there exactly the way a gun nut would. Again totally expected.
But you become totally emasculated when you have to also have to account for the words "well regulated" and come up with the predicted Mumbo Jumbo about clauses and grammar. John Roberts would be proud.

TRANSLATION: I can't refute what you said, so I'll ignore it and call you names instead. And then I'll pretend you never said it.

And I'll also pretend that the people who answered my question and explained what "well regulated" actually means, never said that either.

And I'll especially ignore that Acorn guy who keeps pointing out the only solution that DOES work, since it doesn't conform to my agenda of total government control.

The only way a liberal like me can stay in this argument, is by repeatedly lying, dodging and pretending the people refuting us aren't there.

Nobody answered what well regulated meant. Cecil did answer the question about militia. Of course by doing so and acknowledging the word being there, she then had to acknowledge and try to get around the "well regulated" phrase.

Her response was that the words "well regulated". mean nothing but some how Militia does.

That is where the debate is now. Feel free to tell us why the phrase "well regulated militia" is there. Of course you won't. You can't.

Because if you do, it shows the framers were interested in who was able to bear arms. Militia members (arguably everybody of course) but with regulation in terms of why.

 

[candycorn]

Total cop out. Totally expected.
Again, you answered why Militia is there exactly the way a gun nut would. Again totally expected.
But you become totally emasculated when you have to also have to account for the words "well regulated" and come up with the predicted Mumbo Jumbo about clauses and grammar. John Roberts would be proud.

TRANSLATION: I can't refute what you said, so I'll ignore it and call you names instead. And then I'll pretend you never said it.

And I'll also pretend that the people who answered my question and explained what "well regulated" actually means, never said that either.

And I'll especially ignore that Acorn guy who keeps pointing out the only solution that DOES work, since it doesn't conform to my agenda of total government control.

The only way a liberal like me can stay in this argument, is by repeatedly lying, dodging and pretending the people refuting us aren't there.

Most nations ban widespread gun ownership. They have very few gun crimes. In other words, they do the exact opposite of what you recommend. Fact.