It's actually not dumb at all. A gun in that situation is doing exactly what it was meant to do - its intended (and only) function. Harm someone/something. Additionally, there's a reason so many successful suicide attempts in the US are by firearm ... it's quick, it's easy and it's typically fatal. I looked up stats that said, for one year, there was an estimated 1.2M suicide attempts, with only 46K being "successful." It's usually a cry for help. It's a fleeting moment of overwhelming despair that gets the better of someone. Using a gun, that fleeting moment becomes permanent. Most other manners of attempting suicide take planning, take time and/or aren't very lethal ... so they give that person time to "come to their senses" or get a second chance. With a gun ... you get that feeling of despair, you quickly find the poorly stored gun, you grab it and boom. Game over.
Active shooting event at Michigan State
- Thread starter BW Lion
- Start date
He's probably pretty close, though.
Except the part where "we" go to the armory to draw weapons. Unless by "we" he meant those with prior active military service who were trained and qualified- and I don't think that's what he meant.
No, no "prior active military service" was needed. Just the various members of the militia would have access. Granted, they would be "well regulated," so training would likely be provided ... and access would be regulated, of course.
And, somehow, from this actual history of the Amendment, certain folks determined which should have the biggest military in the world, basically no well-regulated militia at all, and just about everyone should have guns, guns, and more guns, to protect us from baddies invading our homes and FROM the government taking guns from us (when it was actually to have us protect the government from usurpation and invasion). And then try to pretend like they were upholding the true meaning of the Amendment, and everyone else just wanted to disregard what was written and meant. You couldn't make this up if you wanted to. And you wouldn't want to.
If the DA had done her job, the shooter would have been in jail or in a mental institution and getting the treatment he needed.
Also note MSU was a gun free zone. The shooter knew that he would not face guns from students but from police when they responded. So he had time until the police responded to do this shooting. Gun Free Zones do not work.
The militia would have access is not correct. The militia would bring their own guns when called. The militia would have guns the equal to guns in the regular army.
You are simply parroting the myths promoted by the terrorist organization known as the NRA. Stop.
False. That was the sorry state of affairs at times like the start of the Revolution, because they had no other options at the time. That's part of the reasoning behind the FFs mentioning a "well-regulated militia." They didn't want to go through that (relying on folks bringing their own crappy weapons) again. Yes, at a point in time folks were required to have a weapon, but we're talking about "the big guns" ... the stuff that would allow a militia to operate as an army-substitute (to an extent) as weapons technology advanced.
Some food for thought re: the "intention" of the framers of the Bill of Rights. One often sees a musket used to illustrate what they knew as guns, with the supposition being that there was never any intent to allow automatic or semi-automatic guns.
Check out the following link. It is for an automatic rifle that was invented nearly 80 years before the Bill of Rights was drafted. British ships were outfitted with these to discourage hostile boarding.
Does any of us know what the framers knew about and/or were thinking about relative to guns when they said "shall not infringe?" There is a very VERY good chance that when they wrote those words they didn't have only single shot rifles in mind.
First Automatic Rifle
Check out the following link. It is for an automatic rifle that was invented nearly 80 years before the Bill of Rights was drafted. British ships were outfitted with these to discourage hostile boarding.
Does any of us know what the framers knew about and/or were thinking about relative to guns when they said "shall not infringe?" There is a very VERY good chance that when they wrote those words they didn't have only single shot rifles in mind.
First Automatic Rifle
doubtful- extremely
"In 1717 it underwent trials at Woolwich but was rejected for government use, one reason being that the flintlock mechanism was too unreliable. This did not however deter Puckle from patenting the machine and then setting up a company in 1721 to market the gun. Ahead of its time in concept, it could not overcome the handicap of 18th century flintlock technology. The Puckle Gun failed to attract investors and was not a commercial success."
And if not the Puckle gun, there's this... that they discussed financing the production of... 15 years before the Bill of Rights...
The Belton Repeater
Irrelevant for the supposition of what the framers of the Bill of Rights intended. People very close to the formation of the new Republic were aware that rapid firing guns either existed or were on the horizon.
None of us has any idea what they knew or didn't know and to argue the intent was to only allow single shot muskets is no more sound than arguing they felt future militia should have flame throwers or lasers or light sabers. We just don't know and shouldn't pretend that we do.
I just think it's intellectually dishonest for either side of this argument to say that "unequivocally they meant x". Evidence suggests awareness of automatic weapons. Whether they felt the 2A should include them or not is conjecture.
I didn't see anyone say that. But since a functional automatic didn't exist, it just seems very unlikely.
District of Columbia v. Heller, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, held (5–4) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home.
On June 23, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. The Court ruled that New York’s law requiring a license to carry concealed weapons in public places is unconstitutional.
On June 23, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. The Court ruled that New York’s law requiring a license to carry concealed weapons in public places is unconstitutional.
A couple of points: In regards to weapon technology and the Bill of Rights one must remember that Freedom of the Press carries over to Radio and TV neither of which existed when the Bill of Rights existed.
As outlined in The Federalist Papers, the 2nd AD was to insure individuals had firearms.
Sonone showed a modern automatic weapon as what is available today. Automatic weapons are highly regulated requiring an expensive tax and registration. All automatic weapons in priviate hands must have existed prior to 1968 making them rare and expensive.
As outlined in The Federalist Papers, the 2nd AD was to insure individuals had firearms.
Sonone showed a modern automatic weapon as what is available today. Automatic weapons are highly regulated requiring an expensive tax and registration. All automatic weapons in priviate hands must have existed prior to 1968 making them rare and expensive.
What about when the definition of ‘bear’ went from carry or display to purchase/own/hoard use at will?
It would be tragically hysterical to watch the reactions of unfettered gun ownership advocates if a liberal Supreme Court gets their hands on some of these cases and, utilizing the new precedent of ignoring precedent, totally flipped these decisions. Would you be sitting here doing the equivalent of "scoreboard," arguing against your beliefs by pointing out the Supreme Court decisions? Or would you be screaming that the Supreme Court was wrong, and they'd take your guns from you when they could pry them from your cold, dead hands?