260 Mass Shootings 160 Days, When Will it be Too Much?

Burning Man

Super Anarchist
10,605
2,109
Back to the desert
The brief amendment was an attempt to say the following:

Men cannot be truly free to assemble militias sufficient to deal with the threat of a potentially oppressive force unless they can, at any moment, assemble a sufficient fighting force to stand against those who would take advantage.
Any regulation of any sort by the government could potentially be used to disarm and more easily opress the citizens, for that reason, we are removing the ability of the government to place a scintilla of control over anything having to do with men having arms or carrying them on their person,
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. .
That's probably not really that far off base. Thanks for that well written summary!
 

Alan H

Super Anarchist
3,360
777
SF Bay Area
The answer is that for a significant minority....but significant enough....there will never be enough deaths from guns in the USA to convince them that maybe getting rid of the tools of destruction is a good first step in solving the problem.

Never.

As has been proven in this thread over and over and over and over and over and over again. I've stopped reading the thread, honestly. The answer is obvious.
 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,274
300
near Seattle, Wa
The brief amendment was an attempt to say the following:

Men cannot be truly free to assemble militias sufficient to deal with the threat of a potentially oppressive force unless they can, at any moment, assemble a sufficient fighting force to stand against those who would take advantage.
Any regulation of any sort by the government could potentially be used to disarm and more easily opress the citizens, for that reason, we are removing the ability of the government to place a scintilla of control over anything having to do with men having arms or carrying them on their person,
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. .

Urban myth. Lukewarm propaganda. ^^^

I heard this bit in third grade, mate. You are not particularly well informed on this subject, Gouv.

Dude, they were, among other things, actively negotiating slave control. The militia was necessary for security, no shit...and the guns of the slave states were not to be infringed upon, cuz the (very white) militia.

  • Um, the Ohio settlements were seriously threatened by natives in the very months that the Bill of Rights was negotiated.
  • Southern states were insecure, just because.
  • They needed no interference from the North... and if things went south they would need militia support from the north.
  • Slave states weighed in with needs for the militia, to keep a lid on fucking captives.
  • Virginia became the coin toss in the ratification...and the BofR was negotiated and signed there:
  • Concessions were made to Virginia, in Virginia.
  • The acceptance of slavery, then the defense of slavery, became givens.
  • The slave masters had worked their best deal: northern states had to return escaped slaves, etc...
  • Welcome to guns... and racially exclusive militias, in the USA
  • My source is Carl T. Bogus. I think your source is the water cooler boys.

Please. It was not just about the king, Gouv. Don't be a Jeffie with this history: do some reading.


Footnote 192: A year earlier at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Luther Martin of Maryland raised the converse problem -- the North being forced to march its militia south. Martin suggested that the slave system would unfairly burden the Northern states because they would be bound to protect their sister states from insurrection. See Anti-Federalist Papers, supra note 60, at 161 (quoting proceedings of Aug. 21-22, 1787).

p44.
In this same exchange with Martin, John Rutledge of South Carolina extinguished any thought that slavery might be a negotiable subject at the Constitutional Convention with his now famous statement that “(t)he true question at present is whether the Southern States shall or shall not be parties to the Union.” Id. Rutledge said he would be willing to exempt the Northern states from an obligation to defend the Southern states from slave insurrection. See id. Although Rutledge's suggestion of granting the North an exemption from the duty to suppress slave insurrections in the South was not acted upon by the Constitutional Convention, Maryland later proposed a constitutional amendment providing that the “(m)ilitia not be subject to the rules of Congress, nor marched out of the state, without the consent of the legislature of such state.
2 The Debates on the Constitution: Federalist and Antifederalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle Over Ratification 555 (1993).

Query whether, by raising the possibility of Northern militia being ordered to march to the South, Luther Martin unintentionally stimulated fellow delegate George Mason's thinking about the reverse problem.

THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT.pdf (thomsonreuters.com)
 
Last edited:

Gouvernail

Lottsa people don’t know I’m famous
38,029
5,556
Austin Texas
My Mother was a history major and she loved books in general. I had the opportunity to grow up in a house with lots of history books and political books that were all over the spectrum.
I will not deny the slave issue was significant as far back as when the US Constitution was composed, but I think you are taking a 2-5% consideration and granting it 85% standing.
Often, the reason a historian holds a minority opinion is the rest of the historians are correct.

Modern lore says the 2nd Amendment is about freedom to have guns for personal defense, hunting, the sheer joy of ownership, and to defend democracy.

I have felt, for years, that is utter bullshit


My impression, gathered mostly from my Mother’s library and the James Prendergast Library in Jamestown, New York has for many decades been, “We aren’t real sure how this is going to go. We aren’t disarming because we are afraid to do so. If we need to fight, we will need a powerful militia and that means we do not dare to give up our guns.”
( note: Mom soent years as a morning talk radio host in the fifties and sixties and she used the library as her daycare center. The librarians were her buddies and loved leaving a little boy with nothing to do but suck knowledge from the shelves.

You have reference one author. None of my Mom’s Univerdity of Michigan textbook share his position. None of the books I read in the library shared his position. None of my texts in high school or at Penn State shared his position.
I have to work hard to remain open minded enough to say, “It seems he has a point,” but I cannot find sufficient support to agree his position slavery was a major factor behind Number 2.

And: My understanding of sentences and punctuation says NOTHING about the second Amendment modifies the application of the word “Infringed.”

I do believe the word ONLY applies to keeping and bearing.

I might stretch the meaning of keeping to include purchasing. You would have a hard time keeping something you cannot purchase. Restricting purchase might be infringement.

By the same logic, restriction of manufacture and distribution might infringe on keeping and bearing

BUT
Selling your arm is absolutely NOT protected. We most certainly can make laws requiring sellers to jump through hoops.

I Have a problem eith forcing a purchaser to go through a background check because that is infringement.

I have ZERO problem with forcing an owner to keep his arm until he has o trained a thorough background check Just because somebody is eligible to buy does not mean Anyone has the right to sell arms to him.
 

Blue Crab

benthivore
16,244
2,621
Outer Banks
The answer is that for a significant minority....but significant enough....there will never be enough deaths from guns in the USA to convince them that maybe getting rid of the tools of destruction is a good first step in solving the problem.
Doubtless true. This is where the discussion should start not end.
 

Steam Flyer

Sophisticated Yet Humble
44,384
9,662
Eastern NC
Any discussion of the 2nd Amendment with regard to guns is bootless from the start. It doesn't say a word about guns.

Any discussion of the 2nd Amendment with regard to military/political implication should include recognition that "ARMS" are restricted all to heck. Good reasonable law-abiding Americans cannot "keep and bear" grenades, Stingers, Javelins, mortars, etc etc.

This is one reason why the US Supreme Court has had to do so much tap-dancing around the issue. I bet it's stressful for them, poor things.
 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,274
300
near Seattle, Wa
My Mother was a history major and she loved books in general. I had the opportunity to grow up in a house with lots of history books and political books that were all over the spectrum.
I will not deny the slave issue was significant as far back as when the US Constitution was composed, but I think you are taking a 2-5% consideration and granting it 85% standing.
Often, the reason a historian holds a minority opinion is the rest of the historians are correct.

Modern lore says the 2nd Amendment is about freedom to have guns for personal defense, hunting, the sheer joy of ownership, and to defend democracy.

I have felt, for years, that is utter bullshit


My impression, gathered mostly from my Mother’s library and the James Prendergast Library in Jamestown, New York has for many decades been, “We aren’t real sure how this is going to go. We aren’t disarming because we are afraid to do so. If we need to fight, we will need a powerful militia and that means we do not dare to give up our guns.”
( note: Mom soent years as a morning talk radio host in the fifties and sixties and she used the library as her daycare center. The librarians were her buddies and loved leaving a little boy with nothing to do but suck knowledge from the shelves.

You have reference one author. None of my Mom’s Univerdity of Michigan textbook share his position. None of the books I read in the library shared his position. None of my texts in high school or at Penn State shared his position.
I have to work hard to remain open minded enough to say, “It seems he has a point,” but I cannot find sufficient support to agree his position slavery was a major factor behind Number 2.

And: My understanding of sentences and punctuation says NOTHING about the second Amendment modifies the application of the word “Infringed.”

I do believe the word ONLY applies to keeping and bearing.

I might stretch the meaning of keeping to include purchasing. You would have a hard time keeping something you cannot purchase. Restricting purchase might be infringement.

By the same logic, restriction of manufacture and distribution might infringe on keeping and bearing

BUT
Selling your arm is absolutely NOT protected. We most certainly can make laws requiring sellers to jump through hoops.

I Have a problem eith forcing a purchaser to go through a background check because that is infringement.

I have ZERO problem with forcing an owner to keep his arm until he has o trained a thorough background check Just because somebody is eligible to buy does not mean Anyone has the rig,ht to sell arms to him.

I'm not sure you read the link. And your historical wisdom on this subject has never extended itself beyond the word "infringe"... which I traced to the documents of the (non-violent) Glorious Revolution. Note: you passed on that little bit.


Look at the situation, Gouv. Slaves figured in to the arms situation, big-time, on a daily basis, in the morally rotten Deep South.

Then, Madison phrased the Second the way he did, for Virginians. Yeah, it was about the militia: it was about controlling the slaves today, just to survive, and just to ratify...to face the King and Parliament tomorrow.
 
Last edited:

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,274
300
near Seattle, Wa
We aren’t disarming because we are afraid to do so.

Are "we" minutemen? Or are "we" slaveholders?


Conclusion, "Hidden History of the 2nd Amendment", Carl T. Bogus

In his article, The Bill of Rights as a Constitution, Akhil Amar argues that the Bill of Rights was “(o)riginally a set of largely structural guarantees applying only against the federal government.” 505 “Like the original Constitution, the original Bill of Rights was webbed with structural ideas,” he writes. 506 “Federalism, separation of powers, bicameralism, representation, amendment -- these issues were understood as central to the preservation of liberty.” Though he has not yet fully appreciated it, the Second Amendment provides a striking example of Amar's thesis. Its parentage is in the English Declaration of Rights of 1689.

Although to twentieth century American eyes the right to have arms provision of that document appears at first blush to provide an individual right, the provision is in fact quite a different animal. It is a structural provision. It does not mean that Protestants may have arms, but that Parliament, and not the Crown, has the authority to regulate the matter.



This was the template that Madison, the quintessential structuralist, used when he wrote the Second Amendment, and this was the model in the minds of the members of the First Congress and the state legislatures when they proposed and ratified the Amendment.

Like English legislators a century earlier, Madison wrote the Second Amendment to resolve a structural problem. The Constitution had given Congress the power to organize and arm the militia. Focusing on this provision, the anti-Federalists sent a chill down the spine of the South: would Congress, deliberately or through indifference, destabilize the *408 slave system by “disarming” the state militia?

Whether Madison personally shared this fear cannot today be known, but there is little doubt that after Richmond this specter plagued many Southerners, including many of Madison's constituents.


What does the hidden history mean with respect to how the Second Amendment should be interpreted? I do not in this Article take any position with respect to “original intent.” Nevertheless, two items of significance ought to be mentioned.
  • --First, the Second Amendment was written to assure the South that the militia -- the very same militia described in the main body of the Constitution -- could be armed even if Congress elected not to arm them or otherwise attempted to “disarm” them. From our perspective today, this may seem like a small matter since Congress retained exclusive authority to determine the composition of the militia, and, thus, who could enjoy the right to bear arms. However, in the context of the concern and circumstances of the time, it was significant. The Amendment deals with keeping and bearing arms in the militia, subject to federal and state regulation. Therefore, to the extent original intent matters, the hidden history of the Second Amendment strongly supports the collective rights position.
  • --Second, the Second Amendment lives two lives: one in the law and the other in politics, public policy, and popular culture. The hidden history has ramifications in the second realm as well. The Second Amendment takes on an entirely different complexion when instead of being symbolized by a musket in the hands of the minuteman, it is associated with a musket in the hands of the slave holder.

Now, my good man, Gouv, go to the most super library, and find this out: in framing the Second, real-time, would a five percentile importance factor cover the (armed) control of all the slaves, in all the slave states, in the 1780's? Get back to us.
 
Last edited:

Mark_K

Super Anarchist

Are "we" minutemen? Or are "we" slaveholders?


Conclusion, "Hidden History of the 2nd Amendment", Carl T. Bogus

In his article, The Bill of Rights as a Constitution, Akhil Amar argues that the Bill of Rights was “(o)riginally a set of largely structural guarantees applying only against the federal government.” 505 “Like the original Constitution, the original Bill of Rights was webbed with structural ideas,” he writes. 506 “Federalism, separation of powers, bicameralism, representation, amendment -- these issues were understood as central to the preservation of liberty.” Though he has not yet fully appreciated it, the Second Amendment provides a striking example of Amar's thesis. Its parentage is in the English Declaration of Rights of 1689.

Although to twentieth century American eyes the right to have arms provision of that document appears at first blush to provide an individual right, the provision is in fact quite a different animal. It is a structural provision. It does not mean that Protestants may have arms, but that Parliament, and not the Crown, has the authority to regulate the matter.



This was the template that Madison, the quintessential structuralist, used when he wrote the Second Amendment, and this was the model in the minds of the members of the First Congress and the state legislatures when they proposed and ratified the Amendment.

Like English legislators a century earlier, Madison wrote the Second Amendment to resolve a structural problem. The Constitution had given Congress the power to organize and arm the militia. Focusing on this provision, the anti-Federalists sent a chill down the spine of the South: would Congress, deliberately or through indifference, destabilize the *408 slave system by “disarming” the state militia?

Whether Madison personally shared this fear cannot today be known, but there is little doubt that after Richmond this specter plagued many Southerners, including many of Madison's constituents.


What does the hidden history mean with respect to how the Second Amendment should be interpreted? I do not in this Article take any position with respect to “original intent.” Nevertheless, two items of significance ought to be mentioned.
  • --First, the Second Amendment was written to assure the South that the militia -- the very same militia described in the main body of the Constitution -- could be armed even if Congress elected not to arm them or otherwise attempted to “disarm” them. From our perspective today, this may seem like a small matter since Congress retained exclusive authority to determine the composition of the militia, and, thus, who could enjoy the right to bear arms. However, in the context of the concern and circumstances of the time, it was significant. The Amendment deals with keeping and bearing arms in the militia, subject to federal and state regulation. Therefore, to the extent original intent matters, the hidden history of the Second Amendment strongly supports the collective rights position.
  • --Second, the Second Amendment lives two lives: one in the law and the other in politics, public policy, and popular culture. The hidden history has ramifications in the second realm as well. The Second Amendment takes on an entirely different complexion when instead of being symbolized by a musket in the hands of the minuteman, it is associated with a musket in the hands of the slave holder.

Now, my good man, Gouv, go to the most super library, and find this out: in framing the Second, real-time, would a five percentile importance factor cover the (armed) control of all the slaves, in all the slave states, in the 1780's? Get back to us.
That is true but there can be more than one reason for a thing happening.

The first three amendments are a laundry list addressing what the British did at the outbreak of hostilities. Arresting people for saying the wrong things, collecting arms, and making people host British troops. Yes, the slave holders, like all slave holders, lived in constant terror of slave rebellion, and also made damn sure no provision was put in the Constitution which would prevent them from breaking away from the Union if need be, but it can't be said that was all there was to it.
 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,274
300
near Seattle, Wa
That is true but there can be more than one reason for a thing happening.

The first three amendments are a laundry list addressing what the British did at the outbreak of hostilities. Arresting people for saying the wrong things, collecting arms, and making people host British troops. Yes, the slave holders, like all slave holders, lived in constant terror of slave rebellion, and also made damn sure no provision was put in the Constitution which would prevent them from breaking away from the Union if need be, but it can't be said that was all there was to it.
I am saying let's factor the concerns of slaveholders in...aka the "security of the free state." (And not as a 5% influence.)
 

Burning Man

Super Anarchist
10,605
2,109
Back to the desert
LOL

I guarantee, you would be the last person to give up your firearms without a shoot-out and serious over-the-top whinging.
You're entitled to your opinion. However, the fact is I lived overseas for the previous decade without a single firearm and I seemed to get by just fine. I just spent my "gun money" on racing sailboats instead. Honestly guns are a metric fuckload cheaper and a lot less hassle. But I did just fine without them.
 

Burning Man

Super Anarchist
10,605
2,109
Back to the desert
The answer is that for a significant minority....but significant enough....there will never be enough deaths from guns in the USA to convince them that maybe getting rid of the tools of destruction is a good first step in solving the problem.

Never.

As has been proven in this thread over and over and over and over and over and over again. I've stopped reading the thread, honestly. The answer is obvious.
The Yuge flaw in your logic is that getting rid of gunz is the "First Step" rather than a last resort. It's absolutely not the first step when its not even a causal issue. The causal issues in our violence problem in the US are: poverty, inequality, hopelessness, lack of social mobility, marginalization, lack of access to mental health care, a fractured society, the War on Drugs, social media exacerbating bullying and mental depression, poor infrastructure, a breakdown in community support mechanisms, and on and on.

More and more social scientists are admitting that the gun violence problem is FAR FAR deeper than just the guns. They are now (FINALLY) starting to peel the onion back on the real underlying causal issues. Start tackling those issues and stop punishing law abiding gun owners who are not shooting up schools and gunning down rival gang members - and you would have a groundswell of support among us "2nd Amenders".

And you know what.... if despite all of our best and honest good faith efforts to do the above "root cause" work - if after a reasonable amount of time and nothing is working to stem the violence, then I'll be the first to take an angle grinder to all my firearms and campaign to outlaw gunz in 'Murica. But if you continue to think that is instead the "First step", then you can come take them from my cold dead fingers.

Just saying.
 

MauiPunter

Will sail for food
The Yuge flaw in your logic is that getting rid of gunz is the "First Step" rather than a last resort. It's absolutely not the first step when its not even a causal issue. The causal issues in our violence problem in the US are: poverty, inequality, hopelessness, lack of social mobility, marginalization, lack of access to mental health care, a fractured society, the War on Drugs, social media exacerbating bullying and mental depression, poor infrastructure, a breakdown in community support mechanisms, and on and on.

More and more social scientists are admitting that the gun violence problem is FAR FAR deeper than just the guns. They are now (FINALLY) starting to peel the onion back on the real underlying causal issues. Start tackling those issues and stop punishing law abiding gun owners who are not shooting up schools and gunning down rival gang members - and you would have a groundswell of support among us "2nd Amenders".

And you know what.... if despite all of our best and honest good faith efforts to do the above "root cause" work - if after a reasonable amount of time and nothing is working to stem the violence, then I'll be the first to take an angle grinder to all my firearms and campaign to outlaw gunz in 'Murica. But if you continue to think that is instead the "First step", then you can come take them from my cold dead fingers.

Just saying.

ALL countries have that problem. The only difference is, we have tons of guns, they don't have many. The guns seem to be the difference.
 

Alan H

Super Anarchist
3,360
777
SF Bay Area
The Yuge flaw in your logic is that getting rid of gunz is the "First Step" rather than a last resort. It's absolutely not the first step when its not even a causal issue. The causal issues in our violence problem in the US are: poverty, inequality, hopelessness, lack of social mobility, marginalization, lack of access to mental health care, a fractured society, the War on Drugs, social media exacerbating bullying and mental depression, poor infrastructure, a breakdown in community support mechanisms, and on and on.

More and more social scientists are admitting that the gun violence problem is FAR FAR deeper than just the guns. They are now (FINALLY) starting to peel the onion back on the real underlying causal issues. Start tackling those issues and stop punishing law abiding gun owners who are not shooting up schools and gunning down rival gang members - and you would have a groundswell of support among us "2nd Amenders".

And you know what.... if despite all of our best and honest good faith efforts to do the above "root cause" work - if after a reasonable amount of time and nothing is working to stem the violence, then I'll be the first to take an angle grinder to all my firearms and campaign to outlaw gunz in 'Murica. But if you continue to think that is instead the "First step", then you can come take them from my cold dead fingers.

Just saying.
I'm so tired of debating this. I say something, you say something- nobody hears anything and tomorrow some fucktard will take his gun and kill ten more people and wound 30 more. USA, USA! . But guns are no part of the problem. You vote. Tens of millions of people like you vote. So in the end, nothing will happen except more people will die.Makes me want to yank down my stars and stripes on the front yard flagpole and move to Scotland. Scotland has it's own problems, and some big ones but killing themselves by the thousands isn't one of them.
 




Top