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

[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.

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.

"Well-regulated" refers to the the quality of the militia necessary to the security of a free state.

"...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.

"Well-regulated" refers to the the quality of the militia necessary to the security of a free state.

Exact what I have said all along. The militia has to be well regulated. A bunch of guys who never train together, drill, or spend any time studying doctrine, tactics, or even the law do not constitute a militia.

Thanks for endorsing my point.

 

[Dan Daly]

Nobody answered what well regulated meant.

Incorrect

 

[Dan Daly]

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.

"Well-regulated" refers to the the quality of the militia necessary to the security of a free state.

Exact what I have said all along. The militia has to be well regulated. A bunch of guys who never train together, drill, or spend any time studying doctrine, tactics, or even the law do not constitute a militia.

Thanks for endorsing my point.

Where you born this dumb and dishonest, or did you have to go to college for it?

 

[M14 Shooter]

"Well-regulated" refers to the the quality of the militia necessary to the security of a free state.

Exact what I have said all along. The militia has to be well regulated. A bunch of guys who never train together, drill, or spend any time studying doctrine, tactics, or even the law do not constitute a militia.
Thanks for endorsing my point.

For that, we have several powers allocated to Congress; if that's your "point",. you need to change your user ID to Captain Obvious.

None of that has any bearing, however on...
"...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]

"Well-regulated" refers to the the quality of the militia necessary to the security of a free state.

Exact what I have said all along. The militia has to be well regulated. A bunch of guys who never train together, drill, or spend any time studying doctrine, tactics, or even the law do not constitute a militia.
Thanks for endorsing my point.

For that, we have several powers allocated to Congress; if that's your "point",. you need to change your user ID to Captain Obvious.

None of that has any bearing, however on...
"...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.

Sure it does Polly....

Militia....the people
Well regulated....the quality of the militia

Your words.

The only way it can be a good quality is if there is some organization....or are you going to argue such organization is not necessary?

No organization=no militia and no constitutional mandate.

Now do us a favor micro dick and repeat what you've already said (and had its doors blown off) 500 times.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"Well-regulated" refers to the the quality of the militia necessary to the security of a free state.

Exact what I have said all along. The militia has to be well regulated. A bunch of guys who never train together, drill, or spend any time studying doctrine, tactics, or even the law do not constitute a militia.
Thanks for endorsing my point.

For that, we have several powers allocated to Congress; if that's your "point",. you need to change your user ID to Captain Obvious.

None of that has any bearing, however on...
"...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.

Sure it does Polly....
Militia....the people

And there's your error, puppy.
The militia is a SUBSET of the people; the terms are neither interchangeable nor synonymous.

The people - in toto- have their right protected by the 2nd.
"...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.

You lose. As always.

 

[candycorn]

"Well-regulated" refers to the the quality of the militia necessary to the security of a free state.

Exact what I have said all along. The militia has to be well regulated. A bunch of guys who never train together, drill, or spend any time studying doctrine, tactics, or even the law do not constitute a militia.
Thanks for endorsing my point.

For that, we have several powers allocated to Congress; if that's your "point",. you need to change your user ID to Captain Obvious.

None of that has any bearing, however on...
"...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.

Sure it does Polly....
Militia....the people

And there's your error, puppy.
The militia is a SUBSET of the people; the terms are neither interchangeable nor synonymous.

The people - in toto- have their right protected by the 2nd.
"...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 peopl

"Well-regulated" refers to the the quality of the militia necessary to the security of a free state.

Exact what I have said all along. The militia has to be well regulated. A bunch of guys who never train together, drill, or spend any time studying doctrine, tactics, or even the law do not constitute a militia.
Thanks for endorsing my point.

For that, we have several powers allocated to Congress; if that's your "point",. you need to change your user ID to Captain Obvious.

None of that has any bearing, however on...
"...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.

Sure it does Polly....
Militia....the people

And there's your error, puppy.
The militia is a SUBSET of the people; the terms are neither interchangeable nor synonymous.

The people - in toto- have their right protected by the 2nd.
"...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.

You lose. As always.

Ahh, so in this one amendment, your contention is that the framers decided to mention a subset of people for no reason whatsoever.

I can see why you guys tap danced for 70 pages....when you actually write down your reasoning it is revealed as being Bat shit crazy.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Then ---- what's its purpose in sitting there?
Aye, there's the rub.

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.

Why would there be an "explanation"? A Constitution is the primal declaration of What the Rules Are -- "how it's going to work around here". It doesn't NEED an explanation, justification, background, argument for or against, any of that. Direct, declarative statements. "Shall" this, "shall not" that. No need for "well, on account of X..."

We've got 27 Amendments including the original ten. Where do any of them offer "explanations"?

 

[Pogo]

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.

The phrase has no function. It sits there as if it's an intended conditional phrase, implying, yet stopping short of actually saying, that said rights shall apply specifically to citizens in a "well regulated militia".

Its presence there can mean only one of two things. Either:
(1) it IS intended as a conditional phrase, limiting the articulated right to a "well regulated militia" -- in which case it fails to directly state that;
OR
(2) It is NOT intended as a conditional phrase, and therefore has no function, in which case it's fatally ambiguous.

Again, a Constitution is not a court decision. It has no need for explanations, bases of reasoning, or any other incarnation of "why we're doing this". That's not what a Constitution does and not the place for it.

You really want to suggest that, completely out of left field this little phrase suddenly departs from the format of the entire Constitution, injects a thought no one can explain, and then we go back to direct language again? That's what I call word games.

You can like the Second Amendment, you can dislike it, you can feel indifferent --- but you can't sit here and deny how the fuck English works. It's fatally flawed as written. I don't know what it was intended to mean. No one does.

 

[Pogo]

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.

If that were the intent, it could have been articulated as,

quote:

Amendment II:
The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.​

end quote

Had it been writ as such, it would follow exactly the same format as the other 26. It would have been direct, clear, concise and unambiguous

But it wasn't, and it doesn't and it isn't.

Why the departure?

 

[candycorn]

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.

The phrase has no function. It sits there as if it's an intended conditional phrase, implying, yet stopping short of actually saying, that said rights shall apply specifically to citizens in a "well regulated militia".

Its presence there can mean only one of two things. Either:
(1) it IS intended as a conditional phrase, limiting the articulated right to a "well regulated militia" -- in which case it fails to directly state that;
OR
(2) It is NOT intended as a conditional phrase, and therefore has no function, in which case it's fatally ambiguous.

Again, a Constitution is not a court decision. It has no need for explanations, bases of reasoning, or any other incarnation of "why we're doing this". That's not what a Constitution does and not the place for it.

You really want to suggest that, completely out of left field this little phrase suddenly departs from the format of the entire Constitution, injects a thought no one can explain, and then we go back to direct language again? That's what I call word games.

You can like the Second Amendment, you can dislike it, you can feel indifferent --- but you can't sit here and deny how the fuck English works. It's fatally flawed as written. I don't know what it was intended to mean. No one does.

As stated, just like the 9/11 Truthers when you keep asking them to explain things, they get crazier and crazier as they go on. First they refused to address why the word Militia was there. Then once they did that, they tried to act like the words "well regulated militia" were 3 independent words and well didn't describe "regulated" and neither had anything to do with the word militia. As crazy as it sounded, then they doubled down on the framers, in this one amendment, the framers just mentioned a subset to mention it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I find it an interesting study in fear that people can fear a gun, yet having mentally ill people walk around perfectly acceptable.

42 million Americans suffer from some kind of mental illness. (And probably 99% of USMB conservatives, but that's another story)

We can't lock them all up.

We should be able to make sure they can't get guns, though.

Maybe we have stopped some:

Oklahoma woman charged with killing 4 people with car to appear in court

Chambers was expected to make an initial appearance in Payne County District Court on Monday afternoon, police said.

Four dozen people were also injured, five of them critically, in the accident that sent shockwaves through the college town about 70 miles west of Tulsa. The crash was captured on mobile-phone video and seen globally.

Second-degree murder charges can bring between 10 years and life in prison. Police were awaiting results of a blood test administered to Chambers after the crash.

Her lawyer, Tony Coleman, told cable news channel CNN that when he told his client of the deaths and injuries, there was "no show of emotion whatsoever - zero response. That is not something that is typical of a normal, functioning individual."

Coleman told reporters on Sunday he believes his client is mentally ill and doubted she was drunk at the time of the crash.

"In my opinion, Ms. Chambers suffers from a mental illness," Coleman was quoted as saying by the Tulsa World newspaper. "Exactly what type is yet to be determined."

Oklahoma woman charged with killing 4 people with car to appear in court

 

[M14 Shooter]

"Well-regulated" refers to the the quality of the militia necessary to the security of a free state.

Exact what I have said all along. The militia has to be well regulated. A bunch of guys who never train together, drill, or spend any time studying doctrine, tactics, or even the law do not constitute a militia.
Thanks for endorsing my point.

For that, we have several powers allocated to Congress; if that's your "point",. you need to change your user ID to Captain Obvious.

None of that has any bearing, however on...
"...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.

Sure it does Polly....
Militia....the people

And there's your error, puppy.
The militia is a SUBSET of the people; the terms are neither interchangeable nor synonymous.

The people - in toto- have their right protected by the 2nd.
"...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 peopl

"Well-regulated" refers to the the quality of the militia necessary to the security of a free state.

Exact what I have said all along. The militia has to be well regulated. A bunch of guys who never train together, drill, or spend any time studying doctrine, tactics, or even the law do not constitute a militia.
Thanks for endorsing my point.

For that, we have several powers allocated to Congress; if that's your "point",. you need to change your user ID to Captain Obvious.

None of that has any bearing, however on...
"...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.

Sure it does Polly....
Militia....the people

And there's your error, puppy.
The militia is a SUBSET of the people; the terms are neither interchangeable nor synonymous.

The people - in toto- have their right protected by the 2nd.
"...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.
You lose. As always.

Ahh, so in this one amendment, your contention is that the framers decided to mention a subset of people for no reason whatsoever.

Your argument, based on "Militia....the people", has been proven unsound.
This is clear to everyone, even you.
Difference is that everyone but you is honest enough to admit it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

The phrase has no function. It sits there as if it's an intended conditional phrase, implying, yet stopping short of actually saying, that said rights shall apply specifically to citizens in a "well regulated militia".

Its presence there can mean only one of two things. Either:
(1) it IS intended as a conditional phrase, limiting the articulated right to a "well regulated militia" -- in which case it fails to directly state that;
OR
(2) It is NOT intended as a conditional phrase, and therefore has no function, in which case it's fatally ambiguous.

Again, a Constitution is not a court decision. It has no need for explanations, bases of reasoning, or any other incarnation of "why we're doing this". That's not what a Constitution does and not the place for it.

You really want to suggest that, completely out of left field this little phrase suddenly departs from the format of the entire Constitution, injects a thought no one can explain, and then we go back to direct language again? That's what I call word games.

You can like the Second Amendment, you can dislike it, you can feel indifferent --- but you can't sit here and deny how the fuck English works. It's fatally flawed as written. I don't know what it was intended to mean. No one does.

As stated, just like the 9/11 Truthers when you keep asking them to explain things, they get crazier and crazier as they go on. First they refused to address why the word Militia was there. Then once they did that, they tried to act like the words "well regulated militia" were 3 independent words and well didn't describe "regulated" and neither had anything to do with the word militia. As crazy as it sounded, then they doubled down on the framers, in this one amendment, the framers just mentioned a subset to mention it.

Mindless nonsense.

 

[Rustic]

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.

The phrase has no function. It sits there as if it's an intended conditional phrase, implying, yet stopping short of actually saying, that said rights shall apply specifically to citizens in a "well regulated militia".

Its presence there can mean only one of two things. Either:
(1) it IS intended as a conditional phrase, limiting the articulated right to a "well regulated militia" -- in which case it fails to directly state that;
OR
(2) It is NOT intended as a conditional phrase, and therefore has no function, in which case it's fatally ambiguous.

Again, a Constitution is not a court decision. It has no need for explanations, bases of reasoning, or any other incarnation of "why we're doing this". That's not what a Constitution does and not the place for it.

You really want to suggest that, completely out of left field this little phrase suddenly departs from the format of the entire Constitution, injects a thought no one can explain, and then we go back to direct language again? That's what I call word games.

You can like the Second Amendment, you can dislike it, you can feel indifferent --- but you can't sit here and deny how the fuck English works. It's fatally flawed as written. I don't know what it was intended to mean. No one does.

As stated, just like the 9/11 Truthers when you keep asking them to explain things, they get crazier and crazier as they go on. First they refused to address why the word Militia was there. Then once they did that, they tried to act like the words "well regulated militia" were 3 independent words and well didn't describe "regulated" and neither had anything to do with the word militia. As crazy as it sounded, then they doubled down on the framers, in this one amendment, the framers just mentioned a subset to mention it.

It means buy more guns and ammo, it's good for the economy.

 

[JoeB131]

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?)

Cars aren't designed to kill people.

Guns are.

so the comparison that you gun nuts compensating for tiny peckers keep throwing out there is... silly.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Out of 33,000 gun deaths a year, on 200 of them are civilians with guns using them in self-defense. Your cure is far worse than the disease.

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.

That's the idiocy of the gun nut. In fact, gun nuts have never stopped other gun nuts. The FBI found that most mass shooters are stopped by the police or themselves.

And while you do have stories like the person at the Gabby Gifford shooting who almost shot the person who disarmed Loughner, or the CCW hold who went after the guy in the Joker Costume who shot two cops only to be shot in the back by his girldfriend, stories of CCW holders stopping active shooters are few and far between. Usually because these incidents are over before anyone figures out what is going on.

 

[LOki]

Out of 33,000 gun deaths a year, on 200 of them are civilians with guns using them in self-defense. Your cure is far worse than the disease.

1) "Gun deaths" is a meaningless tautology.

2) The success of a DGU is not measured by its lethality.

You're wrong. And intellectually dishonest.

For OBVIOUS reasons.

That's the idiocy of the gun nut. In fact, gun nuts have never stopped other gun nuts. The FBI found that most mass shooters are stopped by the police or themselves.

1) "Gun nut" to describe all private owners of guns is just poisoning the well.

2)

You're wrong. And intellectually dishonest.

For OBVIOUS reasons.

 

[LOki]

1) Hold Gun Sellers responsible for who they sell guns to criminally.

They already are.

2) Allow lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

They already are.

Your implication that they are not is wrong and intellectually dishonest. For OBVIOUS reasons.