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

[M14 Shooter]

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?

To the Founders, the people ARE the militia. They didn't see militias as the same thing you see them as. This has already been explained multiple times, and you persist in blindly squawking out the incorrect premise that "militia" means a group like the National Guard in the original wording of the Amendment.

The term is "well regulated militia". As you just stated "the people are the militia". Are they "well-regulated"? No. There are no common uniforms, terminology, standardized tactics, weapons, on and on. Thus no constitutional protection exist. As was ever the case.

Nothing the authors/founders/framers wrote supports your position that there is no constitutional "protection" to keep and bear arms outside of the "well regulated militia".

Nothing in the constitution supports your position that there is no constitutional "protection" to keep and bear arms outside of the "well regulated militia".

You choose to be wrong.

Mr Dingle Berry, Sir
The federal government ONLY has those powers specifically enumerated - no authority has been granted to regulate firearms

Why are you telling me this?

 

[Little-Acorn]

By the way, what is the best way to reduce mass shootings?

The only one proven to do that, is to let all law-abiding adults own and carry guns.

Most of them still won't bother, but a few will.

And so, when some nut job is considering shooting up the local strip mall, school, or post office, he'll know that there's probably a few armed folks in the crowd. And he won't know which ones they are. So he can expect to get bullets from an unknown direction (or two) which will prevent him from racking up the huge body counts he wants for lurid headlines after he's gone. And so many of those nut jobs will decide not to commit their mass murders in the first place, if they know there are no longer any "gun free zones" where he can blast away for minutes on end until the cops get there. Mass murders will be duced or stop without a shot being fired. The best possible solution.

And one that liberal fanatics like little candycorn are dead set against.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

To the Founders, the people ARE the militia. They didn't see militias as the same thing you see them as. This has already been explained multiple times, and you persist in blindly squawking out the incorrect premise that "militia" means a group like the National Guard in the original wording of the Amendment.

The term is "well regulated militia". As you just stated "the people are the militia". Are they "well-regulated"? No. There are no common uniforms, terminology, standardized tactics, weapons, on and on. Thus no constitutional protection exist. As was ever the case.

This has been explained to you time and again.

The term is "well-regulated militia", but as has been explained to YOU time and time again, what YOU think that means is NOT what the Founding Fathers thought it meant. Which you would know, if you bothered to actually find out facts, rather than just coming up with fantasies you WISH were facts, and then asserting them as though they are.

 

[MikeK]

There are only two ways to put an end to shootings.

One way is to impose an unconditional totalitarian mandate banning the possession of firearms by anyone other than the police and enforce it with Draconian police state methods. This approach will mean the end of America as we've known it but it will solve the problem of shootings.

The other way is to wipe the gun law slate clean and let Nature take its course. This will result in an immediate eruption of chaotic shootings which eventually will result in the removal of all violent criminals and crazies and will manifest in a society of armed but very polite citizens.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Buy more guns and ammo...

What they say about fools and their money has never been more accurate.

You'd be the resident expert on fools.

It comes from dealing with you.

No, your foolishness predates our acquaintance by quite a bit. Not sure if it's genetic, or because someone dropped you on your head at some point.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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..

Sorry, if you want to argue, you will have to have a seyance (sp?) and channel the framers. They wrote it...I'm just telling you what is in it:

"A well-regulated militia". At no other point do the framers mention a "subset" of the people as they do in the 2nd Amendment....thusly it was pretty important that they were talking about this subset when they mentioned the right to bear arms.

Sorry.

Now do us a favor an repeat yourself.

You don't have to have a seance (hard to take seriously someone who can't even fumble out their own words) to know what the Founders thought and intended. They left behind reams of writing explaining exactly the opposite of what you keep trying to tell us.

As for "repeating yourself", YOU are the only one here ignoring all evidence to the contrary and obstinately parroting your own opinion as though repetition equals fact.

Yet, the quotes concerning "The militia is the people" don't exist anywhere...do they?

The only writing that matters is in the Constitution which says "well regulated militia."

What is that, another fantasy of yours? "I don't want to believe the writings don't exist, so they don't exist, so GOTCHA!"

Just about as fucking stupid as everything else that drivels out of your mouth. BIG shock.

 

[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?

To the Founders, the people ARE the militia. They didn't see militias as the same thing you see them as. This has already been explained multiple times, and you persist in blindly squawking out the incorrect premise that "militia" means a group like the National Guard in the original wording of the Amendment.

The term is "well regulated militia". As you just stated "the people are the militia". Are they "well-regulated"? No. There are no common uniforms, terminology, standardized tactics, weapons, on and on. Thus no constitutional protection exist. As was ever the case.

This has been explained to you time and again.

The term is "well-regulated militia", but as has been explained to YOU time and time again, what YOU think that means is NOT what the Founding Fathers thought it meant. Which you would know, if you bothered to actually find out facts, rather than just coming up with fantasies you WISH were facts, and then asserting them as though they are.

Oh, so now this is a matter of the Founding Fathers (actually the Constitution was written a decade + after the country was founded so we call them "framers" idiot). thought "well regulated militia" meant. If we're going by what the framers thought, they thought blacks were not people...so they can't have guns. Women? They were not fighting so they can't have guns. They also didn't know anything about automatic repeating weapons, pistols, sniper rifles, belt fed weapons etc.... so all of them are not allowed. That is if we use your logic of going by what the framers "thought".

Actually the words "well regulated militia" leave little room for debate.

Its time we stopped legislating from the bench and started living by the constitution.

 

[candycorn]

The people in the militia according to the framers

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

Sorry, if you want to argue, you will have to have a seyance (sp?) and channel the framers. They wrote it...I'm just telling you what is in it:

"A well-regulated militia". At no other point do the framers mention a "subset" of the people as they do in the 2nd Amendment....thusly it was pretty important that they were talking about this subset when they mentioned the right to bear arms.

Sorry.

Now do us a favor an repeat yourself.

You don't have to have a seance (hard to take seriously someone who can't even fumble out their own words) to know what the Founders thought and intended. They left behind reams of writing explaining exactly the opposite of what you keep trying to tell us.

As for "repeating yourself", YOU are the only one here ignoring all evidence to the contrary and obstinately parroting your own opinion as though repetition equals fact.

Yet, the quotes concerning "The militia is the people" don't exist anywhere...do they?

The only writing that matters is in the Constitution which says "well regulated militia."

What is that, another fantasy of yours? "I don't want to believe the writings don't exist, so they don't exist, so GOTCHA!"

Just about as fucking stupid as everything else that drivels out of your mouth. BIG shock.

The only writing that matters from a legal perspective is in the Constitution. What Thomas Jefferson wrote on a cocktail napkin is not applicable.

 

[candycorn]

There are only two ways to put an end to shootings.

One way is to impose an unconditional totalitarian mandate banning the possession of firearms by anyone other than the police and enforce it with Draconian police state methods. This approach will mean the end of America as we've known it but it will solve the problem of shootings.

The other way is to wipe the gun law slate clean and let Nature take its course. This will result in an immediate eruption of chaotic shootings which eventually will result in the removal of all violent criminals and crazies and will manifest in a society of armed but very polite citizens.

Armed but polite? Bullshit.

You'd have shooting occuring when someone cut you off in traffic. The rest of the world has very few shootings and they do not live in a "Draconian police state".

 

[candycorn]

By the way, what is the best way to reduce mass shootings?

The only one proven to do that, is to let all law-abiding adults own and carry guns.

Most of them still won't bother, but a few will.

And so, when some nut job is considering shooting up the local strip mall, school, or post office, he'll know that there's probably a few armed folks in the crowd. And he won't know which ones they are. So he can expect to get bullets from an unknown direction (or two) which will prevent him from racking up the huge body counts he wants for lurid headlines after he's gone. And so many of those nut jobs will decide not to commit their mass murders in the first place, if they know there are no longer any "gun free zones" where he can blast away for minutes on end until the cops get there. Mass murders will be duced or stop without a shot being fired. The best possible solution.

And one that liberal fanatics like little candycorn are dead set against.

Just out of curiosity...in your world where everyone is armed to the teeth...what do you do if you're a bank? Give your guards machine guns? What about air marshalls? How do you know that guy with the sawed off shotgun sitting 8 feet from the cockpit is a "good guy"?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually the words "well regulated militia" leave little room for debate.

The only writing that matters from a legal perspective is in the Constitution.
According to the words found in the Constitution....
The right of the well regulated militia to keep and bear arms is not protected.from infringement.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, is.
There's no room for debate - in the above, or in that you choose to be wrong.

 

[Rustic]

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

Sorry, if you want to argue, you will have to have a seyance (sp?) and channel the framers. They wrote it...I'm just telling you what is in it:

"A well-regulated militia". At no other point do the framers mention a "subset" of the people as they do in the 2nd Amendment....thusly it was pretty important that they were talking about this subset when they mentioned the right to bear arms.

Sorry.

Now do us a favor an repeat yourself.

You don't have to have a seance (hard to take seriously someone who can't even fumble out their own words) to know what the Founders thought and intended. They left behind reams of writing explaining exactly the opposite of what you keep trying to tell us.

As for "repeating yourself", YOU are the only one here ignoring all evidence to the contrary and obstinately parroting your own opinion as though repetition equals fact.

Yet, the quotes concerning "The militia is the people" don't exist anywhere...do they?

The only writing that matters is in the Constitution which says "well regulated militia."

What is that, another fantasy of yours? "I don't want to believe the writings don't exist, so they don't exist, so GOTCHA!"

Just about as fucking stupid as everything else that drivels out of your mouth. BIG shock.

The only writing that matters from a legal perspective is in the Constitution. What Thomas Jefferson wrote on a cocktail napkin is not applicable.

Separation of church and state??

 

[dblack]

prevent masses

 

[candycorn]

Actually the words "well regulated militia" leave little room for debate.

The only writing that matters from a legal perspective is in the Constitution.
According to the words found in the Constitution....
The right of the well regulated militia to keep and bear arms is not protected.from infringement.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, is.
There's no room for debate - in the above, or in that you choose to be wrong.

Gee, when your explaination takes nearly 3x as many words as the amendment itself, the BS-o-meter goes off.

"well-regulated militia" is in the amendment. There is little debate about what that means.

 

[MikeK]

There are only two ways to put an end to shootings.

One way is to impose an unconditional totalitarian mandate banning the possession of firearms by anyone other than the police and enforce it with Draconian police state methods. This approach will mean the end of America as we've known it but it will solve the problem of shootings.

The other way is to wipe the gun law slate clean and let Nature take its course. This will result in an immediate eruption of chaotic shootings which eventually will result in the removal of all violent criminals and crazies and will manifest in a society of armed but very polite citizens.

Armed but polite? Bullshit.

You'd have shooting occuring when someone cut you off in traffic. The rest of the world has very few shootings and they do not live in a "Draconian police state".

You're right. The immediate effect will be an extensive eruption of shootings -- which will continue at a tapering level until the crazies are eventually eliminated by the sane and orderly. The end result will be a considerable loss of life and many injuries but ultimately society will adjust to the new armed reality and the final number will be substantially less than it would be if the present rate is left to continue.

The rest of the world is not the U.S., which happens to be unique in its Second Amendment orientation. America was born in a cloud of gunsmoke and it should be obvious by now that the forest of "gun control" laws which has grown around and among us has disarmed only the lawless.

When those who presently are disposed to road rage understand that most others are armed, too, they will be less inclined to use their guns. Most of today's public shooters have become pre-consciously accustomed to and encouraged by the fact that few if any ordinary citizens are armed.

 

[Little-Acorn]

"well-regulated militia" is in the amendment. There is little debate about what that means.

Is this strange person STILL trying to pretend that the word "militia" somehow means that the right of the people to KBA is not protected?

OK, one more time.

The reason a "militia" is mentioned in the 2nd, 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 mewling leftists such as little cancdycorn 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.

 

[candycorn]

There are only two ways to put an end to shootings.

One way is to impose an unconditional totalitarian mandate banning the possession of firearms by anyone other than the police and enforce it with Draconian police state methods. This approach will mean the end of America as we've known it but it will solve the problem of shootings.

The other way is to wipe the gun law slate clean and let Nature take its course. This will result in an immediate eruption of chaotic shootings which eventually will result in the removal of all violent criminals and crazies and will manifest in a society of armed but very polite citizens.

Armed but polite? Bullshit.

You'd have shooting occuring when someone cut you off in traffic. The rest of the world has very few shootings and they do not live in a "Draconian police state".

You're right. The immediate effect will be an extensive eruption of shootings -- which will continue at a tapering level until the crazies are eventually eliminated by the sane and orderly. The end result will be a considerable loss of life and many injuries but ultimately society will adjust to the new armed reality and the final number will be substantially less than it would be if the present rate is left to continue.

The rest of the world is not the U.S., which happens to be unique in its Second Amendment orientation. America was born in a cloud of gunsmoke and it should be obvious by now that the forest of "gun control" laws which has grown around and among us has disarmed only the lawless.

When those who presently are disposed to road rage understand that most others are armed, too, they will be less inclined to use their guns. Most of today's public shooters have become pre-consciously accustomed to and encouraged by the fact that few if any ordinary citizens are armed.

Psychology tells us you can be a bit more jingoistic when you have a weapon...right? Mix that with the negative influence of someone taking the parking spot you're waiting for (or you innocently taking a parking spot you didn't see anyone waiting for) and boom; shoot out. When you find out your 18 year old daughter just got wasted for doing nothing more than parking the car...will this still be "just society sorting itself out"?

 

[candycorn]

"well-regulated militia" is in the amendment. There is little debate about what that means.

Is this strange person STILL trying to pretend that the word "militia" somehow means that the right of the people to KBA is not protected?

OK, one more time.

The reason a "militia" is mentioned in the 2nd, 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 mewling leftists such as little cancdycorn 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.

Okay, why is "well regulated" in there?

 

[candycorn]

By the way, what is the best way to reduce mass shootings?

The only one proven to do that, is to let all law-abiding adults own and carry guns.

Most of them still won't bother, but a few will.

And so, when some nut job is considering shooting up the local strip mall, school, or post office, he'll know that there's probably a few armed folks in the crowd. And he won't know which ones they are. So he can expect to get bullets from an unknown direction (or two) which will prevent him from racking up the huge body counts he wants for lurid headlines after he's gone. And so many of those nut jobs will decide not to commit their mass murders in the first place, if they know there are no longer any "gun free zones" where he can blast away for minutes on end until the cops get there. Mass murders will be duced or stop without a shot being fired. The best possible solution.

And one that liberal fanatics like little candycorn are dead set against.

Just out of curiosity...in your world where everyone is armed to the teeth...what do you do if you're a bank? Give your guards machine guns? What about air marshalls? How do you know that guy with the sawed off shotgun sitting 8 feet from the cockpit is a "good guy"?

Again,


Just out of curiosity...in your world where everyone is armed to the teeth...what do you do if you're a bank? Give your guards machine guns? What about air marshalls? How do you know that guy with the sawed off shotgun sitting 8 feet from the cockpit is a "good guy"?



Answer thus far....
*crickets*

 

[RWNJ]

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?

One thing that might work is a mandatory death penalty for any crime committed with a firearm. Even if it doesn't work as a deterrent, we get rid of a dangerous criminal. It's a win win.