BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment

Subject: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 12:09 AM

"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." Second Amendment of the USA Constitution

I have never understood the Supreme Court's ruling that grants individuals the right to 'bear arms' and that the right shall not be infringed upon, meaning it shall not be curtailed or truncated or probably, regulated.

I understand its reasoning IF the qualifying phrase is disregarded. By why would anyone disregard it?

If I say: "My sister, being happily married, is the sibling I designate to raise my child in the event of...." What if my sister is no longer married, happily or not?

??

Subject: RE: BS: The original Second Amendment
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 06:51 AM

A well regulated militia should imo only apply to the National Guard.
After the Boston Massacre in 1770, when British soldiers opened fire on a crowd that had been pelting them with rocks and ice, John Adams defended the soldiers during their murder trial, worried that a guilty verdict could lead to mob rule. Imo 'Rome' is the mob. It is a dangerous wild animal. Common sense is overuled by the Supream Court and their shifting opinions are here. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Mr Red
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 06:52 AM

Ya know.......

It is often said that laws are made by lawyers. It was once predominantly true in the UK and there are a lot of US lawmakers who studied law at "college". The right wording can net fortunes for lawyers!

Mat Gaetz & Ted Cruz studied law. (pointed out just to scare you Donuel)

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 08:01 AM

Almost all of your "founding fathers" were slave owners who would each be immediately cast as villains if they could magically be transported unaltered to the 21st century. On top of that, we are over 200 years remote from them, and, well, to coin a new cliche, times have changed.

I've never been much of a one for accepting the "they were of their time" excuse for people who did bad things that didn't seem so bad in their days, but if that excuse IS proffered I'd say that the same should apply to the second amendment. It's of its time, which means it's outdated and outmoded and seriously needs a rethink (or a ditching). Unfortunately, one of the most powerful lobby groups in your country has, to all intents and purposes, usurped what is a extremely unclear 200-year-old document to their own ends and forced the country to consent to allowing people who have got nothing to do with "militias" to stroll around the streets with a gun in the pocket.

A good, strong democracy should be able to see where its constitution is no longer a good fit and fix it, by consent. But that lobby group of yours is not in any way an integral part your democracy...

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 10:27 AM

The trick is not to keep guns away. The trick is not to think you get to just shoot people with'm for reducing your happiness. You don't have a right to happiness. And your right to pursue happiness does not include the right to shoot people for getting in your way.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: meself
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 11:20 AM

What was it the guy said - "When do we get to use our guns?"

No doubt the Founding Fathers knew what they meant by the 2nd A., and maybe everybody else did at the time - but damned if I've ever been able to figure out what it's supposed to mean ..... I can't help suspecting that the ambiguous wording is intentional; that it actually meant something like, "Okay, your slave patrols can be armed to the teeth, and we won't interfere."

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 11:46 AM

The problem is exacibated by guns becoming sacred objects of worship..

Europe long ago kicked out so many extreme christian nutjobs,
who ended up in the New World forging their insane entrenched power base
at the centre of American society..

Now you lot have far right evangelists preaching 'guns 'n' god' holy patriotism - threatening the entire world...!!!

Yeah.. onward christian soldiers ferfucksake...

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 12:39 PM

Magic aside, the question remains did the John Adams family own slaves?
Ten of the first twelve American presidents were slave owners, the only exceptions being John Adams and his son John Quincy Adams, neither of whom owned slaves and hired people of any race.
You used to get away with murder by shooting an intruder INSIDE your house. Now Florida started the stand your; Ground, pavement, car, church and bar&grill law. You can murder anywhere now. Gun owners are instructed to say "I was in fear of my life" as a get out of jail free card under the new self defense laws. Gun laws in the last few decades have become truley absurd.
Just look at the upcoming John Rittenhouse multiple murder case.
I imagine it would be devestating to anyone here who happened to be a lawyer but let me remind you, lawyers have feet of clay too. I remember when members here could be District Attorneys but Martin Gibson types wrecked that. Ideas are not the disruptors but Martin Gibson types are.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 12:40 PM

"The trick is not to keep guns away."

I absolutely think that you couldn't be more wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 01:24 PM

Very well financed and organised American fundamentalist alt-right internet influencers,
are mounting a quite successful pernicious campaign to brainwash us Brits into accepting that the NHS is a very bad evil Marxist thing,
and guns are a very good Christian patriots thing.

However, it is us Brits who have a far more effective balance on reality;
and it is America that should be be aspiring to emulate our health provision and gun laws.

I've said this before, but if I were rich enough I would collect and enjoy safe target shooting with historic guns..

Come on, a Tommy gun, who wouldn't want to have a go on one,
no matter how much they might deny it in public...!!!???

Existing UK law might even permit this to some extent under very controlled circumstances...

If only youthful revolutionary America had retained some of our more mature sane civilised values...

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 01:34 PM

Steve, lots of other countries have lots of people with guns, and guns are not a problem. But many Americans think they can just shoot people for things like playing the wrong music, jogging, and so on. The problem is not the gun. The problem is thinking you can shoot people for [playing the wrong music. Or whatever reason you think you have to shoot people] pretty much nothing. It is the reasoning, not the guns, that is the problem.

But yeah, without guns, even the non-nutjobs won't shoot anyone...

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 01:52 PM

Yes, the problem is the gun. You appear to be defending mass gun ownership.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 03:25 PM

Myrrzy, your argument might wash IF the United States had only mature, well-wishing, clear-thinking and level-headed citizens. Sadly, we know that is not the case.

I, personally, like(d) guns, the discipline of aiming, the stillness required... but I am speaking of light rifles, the .22, target shooting. I don't play golf but I imagine that there is somewhat of a sameness.

In the best of worlds, to my mind - and DOABLE- is to keep guns in a central registry and storage where one checks out one's gun to go hunting or target shooting and then checks it back in.

For those who are afraid in their homes, let them keep a shotgun filled with birdshot -NOT buckshot-. Very few people are able to hit their target with a single bullet in stressful situations anyway - and that single round should be illegal in the home.

And, Donuel, I know that there is many a 'John' but Rittenhouse is not one of them. His first name is 'Kyle'.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 03:58 PM

I owe several firearms, both rifles, shotguns, and pistols, historic (muzzleloaders) and modern (self reloading, break action, and bolt action). I use them for TARGET shooting. Only. I no longer hunt, and when I did it was for food ("you shoot it, you eat it" was the LAW).

I would not use a firearm inside my house -- bullets can go through the walls of most houses today. I WOULD use a piece of oak closet rod, about 24 inches long, but then I've been trained in the use of such things.

I also have swords, both fencing and "real." And knives, one of which I made myself and others my brothers made for me.

But frankly, ANYTHING can be used as a weapon, from a rag doll to 20 kg of plutonium.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 04:10 PM

I had a close older relative who owned shotguns legally for rabbit hunting
[..and probably a bit of old fashioned country man poaching...???]

He kept them at home in an approved gun safe..

Unfortunately in a state of grief and whatever else was going on in his mind,
he took one gun, went out into a public place, made a bit of a shouty 'sorry for himself' scene, then comitted suicide with it..

In the UK that is still an exception, and possible justification for even stricter gun control...???

But sad as that famuily loss is, that would not deter me
if I was seriously determined to collect vintage guns as a responsible hobby
[in the same way that I collected cameras and guitars].

My relative could just as easily have gone out on a suicidal rampage in his car...

On balance, despite obvious problems, It's relatively safer and saner on our side of the Atlantic...

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 04:16 PM

As a sport, target shooting is athletic as poker.
Toddlers also find guns are fun except when they are not.
I thought someone wanted to pose the Constitutional questions posed by the second ammendment.
The interpretors of the Constitution can do so in a variety of ways.
They can call themselves originalists, litteralists or modern day but that does not mean they are any of those things except tools of their party. The few who decide law with the spirit of the law in mind is claimed by many but decided by few. The great ones are mavericks.
Thank you for the edit Ellie

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 06:56 PM

Donuel, have you ever done actual target shooting? I don't mean popping cans off a fence post, but shooting a target at, say 50 meters, using a 13.5 pound single shot rifle such as this one (sights extra). But you need sights, so perhaps you get one of these. Then the front and rear sights have to be correctly installed, more cost. You'll need a shooting jacket, a good sling, and a shooting mat for prone. Oh, yeah! Ammunition, you'll probably want Tenex (made in the UK) as it's probably the best competition ammo out there -- about USD 20.00 for 50 rounds. Add a coach, a spotter (and the spotting scope) And a range to shoot on.

Stand up, bring the rifle up, place a cartridge in the chamber, close the bolt, obtain a good sight picture, carefully fire, and do it all over again and again and again. Your spotter is calling the shots so you can make immediate corrections by eye. Do this for 4 or 5 hours and you'll find that you'd better be FIT.

I know -- been there, done that.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 07:00 PM

And when you get good at that, try biatholon and/or Stang shooting.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 07:02 PM

And this hubris about your shooting skills has precisely what to do with the ambiguous Second Amendment?

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 07:04 PM

NAMING OF PARTS (Henry Reed)

To-day we have naming of parts. Yesterday,
We had daily cleaning. And to-morrow morning,
We shall have what to do after firing. But to-day,
To-day we have naming of parts. Japonica
Glistens like coral in all of the neighboring gardens,
          And to-day we have naming of parts.

This is the lower sling swivel. And this
Is the upper sling swivel, whose use you will see,
When you are given your slings. And this is the piling swivel,
Which in your case you have not got. The branches
Hold in the gardens their silent, eloquent gestures,
          Which in our case we have not got.

This is the safety-catch, which is always released
With an easy flick of the thumb. And please do not let me
See anyone using his finger. You can do it quite easy
If you have any strength in your thumb. The blossoms
Are fragile and motionless, never letting anyone see
          Any of them using their finger.

And this you can see is the bolt. The purpose of this
Is to open the breech, as you see. We can slide it
Rapidly backwards and forwards: we call this
Easing the spring. And rapidly backwards and forwards
The early bees are assaulting and fumbling the flowers:
          They call it easing the Spring.

They call it easing the Spring: it is perfectly easy
If you have any strength in your thumb: like the bolt,
And the breech, and the cocking-piece, and the point of balance,
Which in our case we have not got; and the almond-blossom
Silent in all of the gardens and the bees going backwards and forwards,
          For to-day we have naming of parts.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 07:12 PM

Norway. Iceland. Canada. Russia Now do your own research! I'm retired.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 07:15 PM

Yes, I've known that poems since I first ran across it in about 1962. It's one of my favorites.

And before we start throwing things at me, I am VERY much in favor of gun control laws.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 07:19 PM

"Miss, it's absolutely right that I can chew gum in this classroom of yours, even with my mouth open if I like, because I know that three kids in the other classes are also chewing gum..."

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 07:24 PM

My English prof., many years ago, read us "Naming of Parts"
He was a excellent teacher and read that poem with feeling.

He also gave us
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43746/the-bishop-orders-his-tomb-at-saint-praxeds-church

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 07:35 PM

Bit of a crap poem that...???

The gun bits are far more interesting than the soppy flowers..

But the Bee livened it up for a moment...


That poem is basically "The Thin Red Line" Terrence Malick's very long epic poetic war movie,
which many viewers found too pretentious and boring...

I'd watch it again...

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 08:18 PM

I'm no professor of poetry and generally avoid the stuff, but I'd say that that poem is far from crap... It's a WW2 poem, by the way. A weapon of death, its mechanics described in desultory tones yet without explicit demurral, set alongside a tender description of springtime whilst mingling the same words for both... Come on, that is some achievement, and it chimes with me...

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 08:22 PM

"and the point of balance,
Which in our case we have not got"

And how about that for a perfect characterisation of where we are, in some countries, concerning gun laws...

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 08:33 PM

Like I said [tongue still in cheek] a bit crap then...

you might like "Thin Red Line"...

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 08:58 PM

I'm no bigger on films than I am on poetry, though today I did buy the box set of all the Pink Panther films in frustration caused by the fact that they never put any of 'em on the box at Christmas any more...

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 09:56 PM

Another one I've liked every since I tripped over it:

Channel Firing
By Thomas Hardy

That night your great guns, unawares,
Shook all our coffins as we lay,
And broke the chancel window-squares,
We thought it was the Judgment-day

And sat upright. While drearisome
Arose the howl of wakened hounds:
The mouse let fall the altar-crumb,
The worms drew back into the mounds,

The glebe cow drooled. Till God called, “No;
It’s gunnery practice out at sea
Just as before you went below;
The world is as it used to be:

“All nations striving strong to make
Red war yet redder. Mad as hatters
They do no more for Christés sake
Than you who are helpless in such matters.

“That this is not the judgment-hour
For some of them’s a blessed thing,
For if it were they’d have to scour
Hell’s floor for so much threatening....

“Ha, ha. It will be warmer when
I blow the trumpet (if indeed
I ever do; for you are men,
And rest eternal sorely need).”

So down we lay again. “I wonder,
Will the world ever saner be,”
Said one, “than when He sent us under
In our indifferent century!”

And many a skeleton shook his head.
“Instead of preaching forty year,”
My neighbour Parson Thirdly said,
“I wish I had stuck to pipes and beer.”

Again the guns disturbed the hour,
Roaring their readiness to avenge,
As far inland as Stourton Tower,
And Camelot, and starlit Stonehenge.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Nov 21 - 01:01 AM

The men behind the guns. Phil Ochs.

My argument is that the gun problem in America is Americans, not guns.

I am not saying guns should be available. I am only saying that having guns is not making Americans shoot people. It is Americans believing that shooting is a reasonable response to not being happy.

Thus, all the places that have rampant gun ownership and no gun violence problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 05 Nov 21 - 01:23 AM

This problem extends to those kind of terminally toxic Americans beliving themselves to be the god chosen master race...!!!

Let's hope they keep up the good work refusing masks and vaccines within their festering fukwitted communities...

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: BobL
Date: 05 Nov 21 - 04:32 AM

Perhaps gun control should be modelled on the Swiss system.

Following the spirit and the letter of the Second Amendment's opening words, all gun owners are regarded as voluntary military reserves, and under military discipline as far as their weapons are concerned. Attendance at periodic training camps is compulsory. Any misuse of weapons, including unauthorised carrying in public, to be dealt with by court martial.

Won't happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Nov 21 - 03:29 PM

Our veterans have a special attachment to guns no other part of the gun culture can have. I would grant a special dispensation to the veterans who naturally have a different relationship with weapons. Few non veterans know how difficult it is for veterans to feel normal without weapons. And why not after life and death dependancy?

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 05 Nov 21 - 03:41 PM

My next door neighbour is a retired army Tank driver..
There's not much parking space outside the front of our terraced houses
for if he'd been unable to give up his dependancy..

Fortunately he seems happy enough with his bicycle and camper van...

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Nov 21 - 04:41 PM

"grant a special dispensation to the veterans"
Except that special relationships aren't always positive. There are more like these.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Unruh

https://www.britannica.com/event/Texas-Tower-shooting-of-1966

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Nov 21 - 04:58 PM

The real gun culture began with the US being one of the youngest major countries.... whose history included not only uncharted wilderness, but the awkward situation of various tribes of natives who were not properly deferential to these interlopers who were **obviously** superior and more 'advanced'. So... 'we' had to struggle to conqueror this great land... "made for you & me" says Woodie Guthrie.

   Guns were a major part of it all, and for many years, no one even questioned the idea of serious restrictions on them. THEN came several wars and 'better' guns were developed. Is there any doubt many 'patriots' would adopt guns as a hobby.... and with that vague 2nd amendment to support them, how in %#@@$& are we to start restricting them now?

It's a vicious circle... and a deadly one for us.

Those countries whose maturity was old before we existed, mostly treat guns as something ONLY for soldiers, and the need for standing armies has waned in the last 50-60 years.

If I had a magic button, I'd fix it pretty fast.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Nov 21 - 04:58 PM

Give a special dispensation? Sorry, mate, that's just tosh!

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Nov 21 - 04:58 PM

Give a special dispensation? Sorry, mate, that's just tosh!

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: meself
Date: 05 Nov 21 - 04:59 PM

PTSD + guns .......

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: gnu
Date: 05 Nov 21 - 06:34 PM

"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."

You Yanks threw the Brits out with violence. That's the essence of the clause. The argument BEGINS with "A well regulated Militia... " If the Brits had decided to quash the revolution, they would have done so. Instead, they decided to use USA economically, as they subsequently did. Yanks conquered the USA on their behalf, using mostly Irish immigrants to do it... violently.

Some Yanks think they're high and mighty, but when it comes down to it, they can't defeat tyranny any more than the rest of us. So, as long as we don't don't shoot up the place, leave us the fuck alone. Employ good gun laws, and leave legal gun owners alone.

I am a Canuck. I have owned guns all my life. I wouldn't think of using them against any other human... unless they tried to take them from me against my will.

BTW, how many "gun threads" to date? I say far too many.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 05 Nov 21 - 07:01 PM

Doesn't sound like the most reasonable last resort for shooting someone...??????

I'd hazard a guess that "I shot him dead because he was trying to kill me"

would go down better with a British jury

than "I shot him dead because he tried to take my gun off me"...

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Nov 21 - 07:48 PM

"I am a Canuck. I have owned guns all my life. I wouldn't think of using them against any other human... unless they tried to take them from me against my will."

Er....Big deal....

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Nov 21 - 08:08 PM

Besides... not everyone who has guns is as reasonable as you, Gary.
IF everyone was sane, there wouldn't be an issue.
There are plenty of crazy people... even some Canucks.

Now the stresses of life are pushing borderline folk over the line...too many issues people think are worth fighting over.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: meself
Date: 05 Nov 21 - 08:38 PM

There seems to be an assumption out there that if people use their guns primarily for hunting, they are, ergo, "responsible gun-owners". I've lived in several communities in which hunting is an essential food-harvesting activity, and I shudder to think of the number of gun-related murders and suicides in my time in those places. Not to mention the instances of guys mad at the world and drunk and/or crazy, and getting out the gun and waving it around, yelling threats, and firing off a few shots. And then there was the ten-year-old who accidentally shot another ten-year-old, permanently maiming him, when they were playing with a gun ....

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 05 Nov 21 - 09:43 PM

...How Britain views America...


"I shot him dead because he tried to take my gun off me"

"Why were you carrying a gun in public, in the first place"

"In case anyone tried to take it off me"

"That's fair enough. Case dismissed, you are free to go"...

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Nov 21 - 02:34 AM

I think if we could pay attention to that word "regulated," we'd be OK.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Nov 21 - 04:08 AM

Don't miss WELL regulated. I still think my idea (and of course, I am not alone) is the best solution: Check 'em out and then Check 'em in.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Nov 21 - 12:19 PM

To repeat what I and others have said many times..
The Founders had no idea what kind of weapons would be developed in a couple of centuries.
   Their idea of weapons people would "keep and bear" were single shot rifles which at the time were not standardized. A militia would be composed of citizens called on to assemble. These would usually bring their own guns... and having a rifle was not unusual, as hunting was fairly common, even for 'city folk'.
   As conquering the country proceeded, guns were almost required.. (ignoring the moral issue of 'conquering the country').

   It wasn't till about the Civil War that multi-shot weapons were common and ammunition began to be standardized.

If the Founders had seen what guns would be common, you KNOW that 2nd amendment would have been more detailed and would have included what a standing army could have and what citizens and police could have.

   Now, the NRA and 'gun nuts' point at that unfortunate vague wording and have the votes to KEEP it vague.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Nov 21 - 02:20 PM

But nobody voted for them. Nobody voted for oil barons. Nobody voted for the CEOs of multinational corporations. Nobody voted for the pro-Israel lobby. I think we call this problem a democratic deficit.