Mass Shootings in the US

Obvious fix.
Amendment explains that "a well regulated militia" is required, so the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It cannot logically be an infringement to make sure that ONLY weapons required for militia use should be controlled. (Military types).
Hunting and sporting weapons excluded.

Therefore, logically, only serving members of a REGULATED militia should be able to purchase military weapons.
Since the militia is a State organisation, it appears that this is the local National Guard ( Not the comedy Blackshort preppers using the name).
Therefore, only serving military, Reserves or NG should be able to buy military weapons.
Weirdo wingnuts who can't pass medicals, vetting and basic training have no business with them.
QED.
 
Obvious fix.
Amendment explains that "a well regulated militia" is required, so the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It cannot logically be an infringement to make sure that ONLY weapons required for militia use should be controlled. (Military types).
Hunting and sporting weapons excluded.

Therefore, logically, only serving members of a REGULATED militia should be able to purchase military weapons.
Since the militia is a State organisation, it appears that this is the local National Guard ( Not the comedy Blackshort preppers using the name).
Therefore, only serving military, Reserves or NG should be able to buy military weapons.
Weirdo wingnuts who can't pass medicals, vetting and basic training have no business with them.
QED.
Well regulated as written in 1786 and the NG is by law NOT the Militia if the US. that tack was tried and found wanting

Try again
 
Well regulated as written in 1786 and the NG is by law NOT the Militia if the US. that tack was tried and found wanting

Try again
Nope. Not up to me to try. It's an American problem. Although I wasn't aware the NG were not legally a State militia. If they weren't, the Amendment should have been changed then.

What one law says can be amended by lawyers.
The INTENT of the Amendment was clearly to allow each State an individual armed force. A 'regulated'one. No problem with that.
It said nothing about individuals setting up their own militias OR the right to own military weapons outside of a regulated military organisation.

When the public decide that they want their representatives to go against the National Russian (Sorry, RIFLE) Association and control weapon sales, then you will start to stop seeing the massacre-of-the -week.
 

Helm

MIA
Book Reviewer
Biggest mass murder at a US school in history was with bombs

The 1927 Bombing That Remains America’s Deadliest School Massacre | History | Smithsonian

We've had bombers from the FALN (Puerto Rican terrorists), Anti castro terrorists, pro castro terrorists, croats, arabs, jews, irish, italian, anarchists, russians, RW, LW, christian, Ku Klux Klan, black nationalist, neo nazi. you name the group over time we've had nutter factions making bombs
And supplying most of them, especially the Irish. You know until suddenly the USA discovered terrorism all of sudden back in 2001
 
Nope. Not up to me to try. It's an American problem. Although I wasn't aware the NG were not legally a State militia. If they weren't, the Amendment should have been changed then.

What one law says can be amended by lawyers.
The INTENT of the Amendment was clearly to allow each State an individual armed force. A 'regulated'one. No problem with that.
It said nothing about individuals setting up their own militias OR the right to own military weapons outside of a regulated military organisation.

When the public decide that they want their representatives to go against the National Russian (Sorry, RIFLE) Association and control weapon sales, then you will start to stop seeing the massacre-of-the -week.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Militia sounds like everyone and anyone. Doesn't mention 'military weapons'. Try again.

Read the federalist papers and its clear what the amendment is for.

. Samuel Adams proposed that the Constitution:
Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of their grievances: or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures.
 
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Militia sounds like everyone and anyone. Doesn't mention 'military weapons'. Try again.

Read the federalist papers and its clear what the amendment is for.

. Samuel Adams proposed that the Constitution:
Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of their grievances: or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures.
Straining a bit there. The Classically educated drafters would have had a very clear idea of what a militia meant-a citizen soldier on the Greek hoplite model who would be available for service in the absence of a regular army. (Which was a hallmark of the European powers).

Therefore the Only reason that the citizenry would require weapons was so that they could perform military service in the militia.This is what the Amendment prescribed.

Therefore, if there is no militia, or the individual is not liable for service in one (ie, they are mad...) they have no need for 'militia' weaponry or equipment.
You can't get away from the fact that 'regulated militia'and the right to bear arms are directly linked in intent.
The one justifies the other.
At the moment, the 'regulated'bit is being infringed or ignored.
Perhaps someone should amend it.
 
Straining a bit there. The Classically educated drafters would have had a very clear idea of what a militia meant-a citizen soldier on the Greek hoplite model who would be available for service in the absence of a regular army. (Which was a hallmark of the European powers).

Therefore the Only reason that the citizenry would require weapons was so that they could perform military service in the militia.This is what the Amendment prescribed.

Therefore, if there is no militia, or the individual is not liable for service in one (ie, they are mad...) they have no need for 'militia' weaponry or equipment.
You can't get away from the fact that 'regulated militia'and the right to bear arms are directly linked in intent.
The one justifies the other.
At the moment, the 'regulated'bit is being infringed or ignored.
Perhaps someone should amend it.
And the federalist papers? Which consistently and repeatedly showed the founders wanted the populace the capabilities to resist a tyrannical oppressive government.

And an amendment cant be amended - it can only be superseded. Which doesn't have anywhere near the support needed (which has been repeated several times and ignored by your ilk).

Perhaps you should read a little more and come up with a better argument.
 
supplying most of them, especially the Irish
Meh. Not so much the Irish. NORAID was a drop in the ocean compared to Mad Dog Muammar Gaddafi, and indeed to the stream of revenue that originated at the UK taxpayer, and was siphoned off by PIRA by extorting from building companies contracted to redevelop Ulster, funded from Westminster.
 
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Militia sounds like everyone and anyone. Doesn't mention 'military weapons'. Try again.

Read the federalist papers and its clear what the amendment is for.

. Samuel Adams proposed that the Constitution:
Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of their grievances: or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures.
So clear that the Supreme Court had to rule on it definition.
 
I don't think a lot of the US believes that will happen to them.
I'm sure you're correct.

Sadly, I think a fair chunk of the UK population hasn't yet understood that it had well and truly happened to us by the time I was barely 12 months old.

They'll be the ones who think Mr Putin is really worried about Theresa May's ultimatum.
 
So clear that the Supreme Court had to rule on it definition.
The Supremes issue opinions. All are subject to change by by constitutinal amendment or reversal by the Court it self. Dred Scott v. Stanford (1857) essentially reversed by the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. Bower v. Hardwick (1986) affirmed anti sodomy laws. Reversed in Lawerce v. Texas (2003).
The Surpeme Court , like it or not, is a political creature. It's opinions are subject to change.
 
I'm sure you're correct.

Sadly, I think a fair chunk of the UK population hasn't yet understood that it had well and truly happened to us by the time I was barely 12 months old.

They'll be the ones who think Mr Putin is really worried about Theresa May's ultimatum.
Didn't the Russian defence minister tell the Labour equivalent over some spat "who the fcuk are you, telling me what to do"?

Putin must have shit himself so much, that another Russian exile has offed himself with worry!
 
We have thousands of laws on the books which if enforced stuff like this wouldn't happen. This latest mass murders and the one before it happened because the people who are also paid to enforce the laws (FBI) dropped the ball, they screwed up big time.

Also with regards to the firearms laws here, our political parties are too agenda driven to actually do anything about this problem, for years one party in particular has tied the hands of LE in tackling the gun crime problem.

Can you guess which party that is?
The FBI according to their own web site is 35000 people, not all that number is badged agents, but admin staff, instructors, armourers, researchers the list goes on.
Now that's 35000 to "Police" what upward of 400 million?
Wonder how many tips offs are rang in a day that Johnny AR-Nut is a bit weird never mind all the calls that Amir at the 7/11 looks a bit talibanny.
 
The FBI according to their own web site is 35000 people, not all that number is badged agents, but admin staff, instructors, armourers, researchers the list goes on.
Now that's 35000 to "Police" what upward of 400 million?
Wonder how many tips offs are rang in a day that Johnny AR-Nut is a bit weird never mind all the calls that Amir at the 7/11 looks a bit talibanny.
The sheriffs Dept also went to his house 40 times... at some point - Law enforcement has to admit a huge part of the responsibility.
 
I wouldnt doubt it- scary place to be an armed guard, good chance he will have to use it in some capacity.
He commutes out of town to somewhere else to work. I don't think he is full time at it now either.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top