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

[LOki]

Clearly, if this were the case, they would have said so, when they had the opportunity.


But instead, they said, "well-regulated"; you know, as in properly functioning; as in being armed in accordance with the requirements of soldiering in military service.

Having weapons is the only requirement for soldiering?

Is thst what I said? "Only requirement"?

Obviously not.

And just as obvious, is that you are an intellectually dishonest retard of the very first order.

The word "militia" is there for a reason.

Is it really?

I can't wait for you to tell us all about it, Cupcake.

I do like how, all of the sudden, the framers were all for people having ultimate power.

"All of the sudden"? Cupcake, the fact that the people possess ultimate power was the revolutionary idea that validated the creation of the United States of America.

That statement makes no sense.

Maybe not to the mentally retarded, and the historically ignorant, but the whole rest of the world understands it's validity.

The Constitution explicitly asserts that the Federal Government derives its power FROM the People. The People are the only source of all the government's power.

OF COURSE the framers were all for people having ultimate power... it's what the whole revolution was about!

You're speaking of the Articles of Confederation.

Nope. The US Constitution, Cupcake.

If you happen to accidentally crack open a history book at some time, you'll see that the Constitution was framed well after the failure of the AoC.

Well Cupcake, while it appears that you have heard of the AoC, you might crack open a history book AND the US Constitution before you attempt to tell me what I'm talking about.

Many (if not most) decried the people having too much power--hence the indirect election of the President (article II, section I).

Utter nonsense!

The electoral college was not created to disenfranchise the People; amongst other reasons involving "intrigues", it was created because it was not feasible to properly inform the whole body of sovereigns so that they could all competently exercise their franchise in a timely manner. It was more practical to designate qualified electoral delegates from each state to perform the duty.

Thanks for proving my point; "qualified electoral delegates" = not the direct election by the people.

Thanks for playing. Check please.

Ah. A variant of Moving The Goalposts. How precious.

And transparently dishonest.

It's obvious that your point was all about withholding power from the People, rather than effective enfranchisement.

You are now free to stick a fork in yourself. You're done.

 

[candycorn]

Clearly, if this were the case, they would have said so, when they had the opportunity.


But instead, they said, "well-regulated"; you know, as in properly functioning; as in being armed in accordance with the requirements of soldiering in military service.

Having weapons is the only requirement for soldiering?

Is thst what I said? "Only requirement"?

Obviously not.

And just as obvious, is that you are an intellectually dishonest retard of the very first order.

Great we agree.

The framers wanted a "well regulated militia" meaning that they had uniforms, drilled, weapons (obviously), shared tactics, goals, etc... None of today's gun owners do anything close to that.

Does it make ownership illegal? No. But it does remove the constitutional "protection" to keep and bear arms outside of the "well regulated militia".

But feel free to keep personally attacking me. It's the only thing you're marginally good at; arguing your point? No so much since you've now agreed with what I said all along. Thanks.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Clearly, if this were the case, they would have said so, when they had the opportunity.


But instead, they said, "well-regulated"; you know, as in properly functioning; as in being armed in accordance with the requirements of soldiering in military service.

Having weapons is the only requirement for soldiering?

Is thst what I said? "Only requirement"?

Obviously not.

And just as obvious, is that you are an intellectually dishonest retard of the very first order.

Great we agree.

The framers wanted a "well regulated militia" meaning that they had uniforms, drilled, weapons (obviously), shared tactics, goals, etc... None of today's gun owners do anything close to that.

Does it make ownership illegal? No. But it does remove the constitutional "protection" to keep and bear arms outside of the "well regulated militia".

But feel free to keep personally attacking me. It's the only thing you're marginally good at; arguing your point? No so much since you've now agreed with what I said all along. Thanks.

No, dumbtwat. The framers already had a military force with uniforms etc. covered in the Articles, which you've probably never read. Thus, the Second Amendment had no reason to be added for that purpose.

The militia they had in mind in the Second Amendment was akin to most of the fighters in the American Revolution or a posse formed out in the Western Territories - private armed citizens working together to defend the community against danger . . . or against an oppressive government.

Which leads us to the second clause - which is still, and always, unmodified by the first: the right of private citizens to keep and bear arms.

There is no amount of trying to apply modern-day definitions, viewpoints, and sensibilities to words written in the 18th century that is going to make the intent any different. Our Founders did not trust government, nor did they trust the standing armies employed by governments. They wrote the Second Amendment to preserve the right and ability of the citizens to resist both, and felt strongly enough about that to offer it as an explanation.

 

[Rustic]

Buy more guns and ammo...

 

[candycorn]

Clearly, if this were the case, they would have said so, when they had the opportunity.


But instead, they said, "well-regulated"; you know, as in properly functioning; as in being armed in accordance with the requirements of soldiering in military service.

Having weapons is the only requirement for soldiering?

Is thst what I said? "Only requirement"?

Obviously not.

And just as obvious, is that you are an intellectually dishonest retard of the very first order.

Great we agree.

The framers wanted a "well regulated militia" meaning that they had uniforms, drilled, weapons (obviously), shared tactics, goals, etc... None of today's gun owners do anything close to that.

Does it make ownership illegal? No. But it does remove the constitutional "protection" to keep and bear arms outside of the "well regulated militia".

But feel free to keep personally attacking me. It's the only thing you're marginally good at; arguing your point? No so much since you've now agreed with what I said all along. Thanks.

No, dumbtwat. The framers already had a military force with uniforms etc. covered in the Articles, which you've probably never read. Thus, the Second Amendment had no reason to be added for that purpose.

Actually, that was the #1 reason the AoC had to go; it didn't provide for a comprehensive military force.

Why did the Articles of Confederation fail?

Your ignorance of History is the only remarkable thing about you.

The militia they had in mind in the Second Amendment was akin to most of the fighters in the American Revolution or a posse formed out in the Western Territories - private armed citizens working together to defend the community against danger . . . or against an oppressive government.

Which leads us to the second clause - which is still, and always, unmodified by the first: the right of private citizens to keep and bear arms.

There is no amount of trying to apply modern-day definitions, viewpoints, and sensibilities to words written in the 18th century that is going to make the intent any different. Our Founders did not trust government, nor did they trust the standing armies employed by governments. They wrote the Second Amendment to preserve the right and ability of the citizens to resist both, and felt strongly enough about that to offer it as an explanation.

The words "well-regulated militia" are there for a reason. There is no mystery about what that means. There is only partisan bickering on the behalf of gun nuts that the "well regulated militia" include every nut who wishes to buy a gun. Clearly the founders--by including the phrase--made their intentions known. Sorry. Those are the facts and they are not in dispute from any serious commentator.

 

[LOki]

Clearly, if this were the case, they would have said so, when they had the opportunity.


But instead, they said, "well-regulated"; you know, as in properly functioning; as in being armed in accordance with the requirements of soldiering in military service.

Having weapons is the only requirement for soldiering?

Is thst what I said? "Only requirement"?

Obviously not.

And just as obvious, is that you are an intellectually dishonest retard of the very first order.

Great we agree.

The framers wanted a "well regulated militia" meaning that they had uniforms, drilled, weapons (obviously), shared tactics, goals, etc... None of today's gun owners do anything close to that.

Does it make ownership illegal? No. But it does remove the constitutional "protection" to keep and bear arms outside of the "well regulated militia".

A well regulated Militia is dependendent upon the right of the people--the whole body of the individual soverigns--to keep and bear Arms, which is why the 2nd Amendment declares that their right shall not be infringed.

Even outside of their participation in a well regulated militia, Cupcake.

But feel free to keep personally attacking me. It's the only thing you're marginally good at; arguing your point? No so much since you've now agreed with what I said all along. Thanks.

You're wrong. Again. Still.

 

[Rustic]

Buy more guns and ammo...

 

[Little-Acorn]

The words "well-regulated militia" are there for a reason. There is no mystery about what that means.

Quite true. And the reason is, to explain why the people's right shall not be infringed.

Even if the explanation were misplaced or outright wrong (it isn't), the mandate that the right shall not be infringed, would still be in full force.

If an angel were to come down from Heaven, wave his wand, and make militias completely unnecessary for anything now and forever, and every last person on Earth saw it happen and knew they were no longer necessary....it would still be illegal for any govt in the U.S. to infringe the people's right to keep and bear arms.

This has been explained again and again to the mewling leftists in this thread, with tons of evidence and expert testimony to back it up.

And yet the mewling leftists still keep trying to pretend they haven't been refuted.

You can lead a horse to water.... but when he still won't drink, you eventually have to concede that you're addressing the wrong end of the horse.

 

[LOki]

The words "well-regulated militia" are there for a reason. There is no mystery about what that means.

Quite true. And the reason is, to explain why the people's right shall not be infringed.

Even if the explanation were misplaced or outright wrong (it isn't), the mandate that the right shall not be infringed, would still be in full force.

If an angel were to come down from Heaven, wave his wand, and make militias completely unnecessary for anything now and forever, and every last person on Earth saw it happen and knew they were no longer necessary....it would still be illegal for any govt in the U.S. to infringe the people's right to keep and bear arms.

This has been explained again and again to the mewling leftists in this thread, with tons of evidence and expert testimony to back it up.

And yet the mewling leftists still keep trying to pretend they haven't been refuted.

You can lead a horse to water.... but when he still won't drink, you eventually have to concede that you're addressing the wrong end of the horse.

I don't know how you managed to attribute Candycorn's hilarious disinformation to me, but you are correct: the existence of a well regulated militia is contingent upon the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms.

 

[Rustic]

Let the guns be, an overly controlling America is an really ugly place...

 

[Pogo]

Actually it's been ignored over and over again, and this thread is hardly the first time. I've lost count long ago but every time one of y'all fails to come up with an answer here, it just re-confirms my point that there IS NO answer, and y'all just can't bring yourselves to admit you had it wrong.

Chalk up yet one more failure to address the question. Carry on.

Given that "failure to address the question" simply means "you didn't say what I want to hear", I'll be happy to chalk up yet another surrender on your part, and win on mine.

By all means, keep showing everyone what an echo-chamber, talking-point dimwit you are. The more you talk, the better everyone else looks.

Big hand for Danth

Pick up her new version of Abba's tune "Danthing Queen" on Lisp records. Wherever fine bullshit is sold.

So, buy more guns and ammo??

uh.... what?

That exchange had nothing to do with either guns or ammo. It was about how English works.

Buying more guns and ammo helps everything, especially cutting down on the gun violence in the country.

Not that it's all that big of an issue...

Whatever -- why did you post that in response to the exchange about the subordinate clause?
What the hell's it got to do with that issue?

 

[Rustic]

Given that "failure to address the question" simply means "you didn't say what I want to hear", I'll be happy to chalk up yet another surrender on your part, and win on mine.

By all means, keep showing everyone what an echo-chamber, talking-point dimwit you are. The more you talk, the better everyone else looks.

Big hand for Danth

Pick up her new version of Abba's tune "Danthing Queen" on Lisp records. Wherever fine bullshit is sold.

So, buy more guns and ammo??

uh.... what?

That exchange had nothing to do with either guns or ammo. It was about how English works.

Buying more guns and ammo helps everything, especially cutting down on the gun violence in the country.

Not that it's all that big of an issue...

Whatever -- why did you post that in response to the exchange about the subordinate clause?
What the hell's it got to do with that issue?

Doug Giles / 11 July 2012

---

1.Guns have only two enemies rust and politicians.

2.It’s always better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

3.Cops carry guns to protect themselves, not you.

4.Never let someone or something that threatens you get inside arms length.

5.Never say, “I’ve got a gun.” If you need to use deadly force, the first sound they hear should be the safety clicking off.

6.The average response time of a 911 call is 23 minutes; the response time of a .357 is 1400 feet per second.

7.The most important rule in a gunfight is: Always win – cheat if necessary.

8.Make your attacker advance through a wall of bullets . . . You may get killed with your own gun, but he’ll have to beat you to death with it, because it’ll be empty.

9.If you’re in a gunfight:
– If you’re not shooting, you should be loading.
– If you’re not loading, you should be moving.
– If you’re not moving, you’re dead.

10.In a life and death situation, do something . . . It may be wrong, but do something!

11.If you carry a gun, people call you paranoid. Nonsense! If you have a gun, what do you have to be paranoid about?

12.You can say ‘stop’ or ‘alto’ or any other word, but a large bore muzzle pointed at someone’s head is pretty much a universal language.

13.You cannot save the planet, but you may be able to save yourself and your family.

Read more: 13 Politically Incorrect Gun Rules
Get more Clash on ClashDaily.com, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Clearly, if this were the case, they would have said so, when they had the opportunity.


But instead, they said, "well-regulated"; you know, as in properly functioning; as in being armed in accordance with the requirements of soldiering in military service.

Having weapons is the only requirement for soldiering?

Is thst what I said? "Only requirement"?

Obviously not.

And just as obvious, is that you are an intellectually dishonest retard of the very first order.

Great we agree.

The framers wanted a "well regulated militia" meaning that they had uniforms, drilled, weapons (obviously), shared tactics, goals, etc... None of today's gun owners do anything close to that.

Does it make ownership illegal? No. But it does remove the constitutional "protection" to keep and bear arms outside of the "well regulated militia".

But feel free to keep personally attacking me. It's the only thing you're marginally good at; arguing your point? No so much since you've now agreed with what I said all along. Thanks.

No, dumbtwat. The framers already had a military force with uniforms etc. covered in the Articles, which you've probably never read. Thus, the Second Amendment had no reason to be added for that purpose.

Actually, that was the #1 reason the AoC had to go; it didn't provide for a comprehensive military force.

Why did the Articles of Confederation fail?

Your ignorance of History is the only remarkable thing about you.

Not the Articles of Confederation, you unforgivably pathetic excuse for a sentient organism. The Articles of the Constitution. You know, the body of the Constitution that precedes the Bill of Rights and establishes the framework of the government? Surely you've heard about it at some point.

You should be embarrassed to exist . . . like always.

The militia they had in mind in the Second Amendment was akin to most of the fighters in the American Revolution or a posse formed out in the Western Territories - private armed citizens working together to defend the community against danger . . . or against an oppressive government.

Which leads us to the second clause - which is still, and always, unmodified by the first: the right of private citizens to keep and bear arms.

There is no amount of trying to apply modern-day definitions, viewpoints, and sensibilities to words written in the 18th century that is going to make the intent any different. Our Founders did not trust government, nor did they trust the standing armies employed by governments. They wrote the Second Amendment to preserve the right and ability of the citizens to resist both, and felt strongly enough about that to offer it as an explanation.

The words "well-regulated militia" are there for a reason. There is no mystery about what that means. There is only partisan bickering on the behalf of gun nuts that the "well regulated militia" include every nut who wishes to buy a gun. Clearly the founders--by including the phrase--made their intentions known. Sorry. Those are the facts and they are not in dispute from any serious commentator.[/QUOTE]

The reason has been explained multiple times. Even if you're incapable of understanding that reason - and God knows, you make it painfully clear that you're incapable of understanding why breathing in has to alternate with breathing out - you should at least try to understand that not liking the answer is not the same as not receiving one.

Am I going to repeat it again? I'm quite done casting that pearl before our resident sow.

 

[Little-Acorn]

So, why do the Democrats so virulently oppose the only method that has actually worked to reduce mass shootings: Letting everybody carry who wants to. Most people still wouldn't bother, but a few would. And the nutcase wanting to shoot up the next school or shopping mall or post office, would know there's a probably a few armed people in the crowd he's about to attack. And he won't know which ones they are, or what direction a bullet might come from. And a number of the recent mass shooters have carefully avoided places where there might be armed people on the premises, choosing so-called "gun free zones" where the liberals' laws are in full effect.

Why do these Democrats keep pushing their failed "solutions" after it has become obvious they don't work, and avoiding the solutions that do work?

 

[Pogo]

Big hand for Danth

Pick up her new version of Abba's tune "Danthing Queen" on Lisp records. Wherever fine bullshit is sold.

So, buy more guns and ammo??

uh.... what?

That exchange had nothing to do with either guns or ammo. It was about how English works.

Buying more guns and ammo helps everything, especially cutting down on the gun violence in the country.

Not that it's all that big of an issue...

Whatever -- why did you post that in response to the exchange about the subordinate clause?
What the hell's it got to do with that issue?

Doug Giles / 11 July 2012

---

1.Guns have only two enemies rust and politicians.

2.It’s always better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

3.Cops carry guns to protect themselves, not you.

4.Never let someone or something that threatens you get inside arms length.

5.Never say, “I’ve got a gun.” If you need to use deadly force, the first sound they hear should be the safety clicking off.

6.The average response time of a 911 call is 23 minutes; the response time of a .357 is 1400 feet per second.

7.The most important rule in a gunfight is: Always win – cheat if necessary.

8.Make your attacker advance through a wall of bullets . . . You may get killed with your own gun, but he’ll have to beat you to death with it, because it’ll be empty.

9.If you’re in a gunfight:
– If you’re not shooting, you should be loading.
– If you’re not loading, you should be moving.
– If you’re not moving, you’re dead.

10.In a life and death situation, do something . . . It may be wrong, but do something!

11.If you carry a gun, people call you paranoid. Nonsense! If you have a gun, what do you have to be paranoid about?

12.You can say ‘stop’ or ‘alto’ or any other word, but a large bore muzzle pointed at someone’s head is pretty much a universal language.

13.You cannot save the planet, but you may be able to save yourself and your family.

Read more: 13 Politically Incorrect Gun Rules
Get more Clash on ClashDaily.com, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

Once AGAIN --- what the fuck does ANY of the above have to do with the tangent you quoted about the finer linguistic points of the Constitution?

What the fuck does any of the above have to do with me in any way?

Do you read English? Helllloooo?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The framers wanted a "well regulated militia" meaning that they had uniforms, drilled, weapons (obviously), shared tactics, goals, etc... None of today's gun owners do anything close to that.

Does it make ownership illegal? No. But it does remove the constitutional "protection" to keep and bear arms outside of the "well regulated militia".

This is, of course, a lie.

"...the right of the people..."
Not the militia
Not the people in the militia
The right of the people.

You choose to be wrong.

 

[candycorn]

The framers wanted a "well regulated militia" meaning that they had uniforms, drilled, weapons (obviously), shared tactics, goals, etc... None of today's gun owners do anything close to that.

Does it make ownership illegal? No. But it does remove the constitutional "protection" to keep and bear arms outside of the "well regulated militia".

This is, of course, a lie.

"...the right of the people..."
Not the militia
Not the people in the militia
The right of the people.

You choose to be wrong.

The people in the militia according to the framers--why else mention Militia?

 

[candycorn]

So, why do the Democrats so virulently oppose the only method that has actually worked to reduce mass shootings: Letting everybody carry who wants to. Most people still wouldn't bother, but a few would. And the nutcase wanting to shoot up the next school or shopping mall or post office, would know there's a probably a few armed people in the crowd he's about to attack. And he won't know which ones they are, or what direction a bullet might come from. And a number of the recent mass shooters have carefully avoided places where there might be armed people on the premises, choosing so-called "gun free zones" where the liberals' laws are in full effect.

Why do these Democrats keep pushing their failed "solutions" after it has become obvious they don't work, and avoiding the solutions that do work?

Bikers in Waco were armed; 9 people died.
Carrying didn't help them.



Quick blame the media.

 

[chikenwing]

Something I wrote in 2007 after another mass murder then. As true now as it was then.

-------------------------------------------------------

What IS the best way to reduce or prevent mass shootings?


No method is 100% perfect, of course, and never will be as long as we are a society of imperfect people.

But most of the methods being tried today, pretty much have no effect. Indeed, insane mass murderers seem to be drawn to the "Gun Free Zones" set up by naïve liberals. Where else can they be guaranteed a large collection of unarmed, vulnerable targets, with many uninterrupted minutes to blow away as many people as they like before the cops get there?

Is there a viable way to cut down the numbers of such shootings, and/or the body counts?

Many of the whackos (people who actually start shooting into crowds, at malls, post offices, schools etc.) know it is a suicide mission. The idea that they may be killed, obviously doesn't deter them... in that way, anyway.

But what most of them want, is to go out with a huge splash. They want huge headlines after the fact, crying and wailing about the ten or twenty or thirty innocent people who died, how horrible it all is, wailing and gnashing about what we could have done to prevent it, three-page exposes about the shooter's disturbed childhood and how unfair society was to him, etc. etc. To their twisted minds, that's worth getting dead over.

But if they show up at their planned execution site, start pulling the trigger, wound the first person, miss with the next shot, and then get get shot through the middle of the bod by someone in the crowd they never suspected might have his own gun, next day's headlines will be much less lurid. Some nut pulled a gun and fired two shots, wounding one. The wounded person is now recovering in the hospital, and the nut is dead, end of story. He's a footnote on page 28, if that.

And THAT's what the whackos don't want to happen. They want huge headlines and weeks of media coverage, even after they are dead, that's mostly why they're doing it.

If everyone is allowed to carry, most people still won't bother. I probably wouldn't most of the time. But some people will. And a nutcase like this guy will never know which people in the crowd, are the ones with their own gun. Could be the granny in the wheelchair over there, whose kids were killed in a home invasion robbery five years ago, who swore she'd never go unarmed again, and never misses her weekend hour or two at the practice range.

The deranged whacko is certainly insane. But he's obviously still coherent enough to have a goal in mind, and to do what he needs to carry it out. And he's probably coherent enough to realize that a few unknown people in the crowd who have guns and are practiced in their use, can and will deny him the splashy headlines he wants. And there's nothing he can do about it.

It's enough to often make even a deranged whacko reconsider his plans. Why start shooting at a public event, if you're simply going to become dead three seconds later with little or no lurid body count to show for it?

Letting law-abiding citizens carry freely is, and has always been, the best deterrent to crime. Criminals know there will be somebody nearby who will discourage them quickly. Only in so-called "gun free zones" are the criminals guaranteed the freedom to carry out their crimes.

Or does somebody think that some nutcase who is ready and willing to murder dozens of people, will turn around and obey a new "No guns permitted here" law?

Buy a working crystal ball.or start locking up anyone that even hints at being violent,whats the chances of ether working?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The framers wanted a "well regulated militia" meaning that they had uniforms, drilled, weapons (obviously), shared tactics, goals, etc... None of today's gun owners do anything close to that.

Does it make ownership illegal? No. But it does remove the constitutional "protection" to keep and bear arms outside of the "well regulated militia".

This is, of course, a lie.

"...the right of the people..."
Not the militia
Not the people in the militia
The right of the people.
You choose to be wrong.

The people in the militia according to the framers

This is a lie; nothing in the constitution says this.
You choose to be wrong..