Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, you don't come across like a dick. We all would like to see the violence problem dealt with in a competent, rational, & lawful manner without violating the Constitution.
Whether gun ownership is constitutional or not is completely subjective and dependent on whether you see the first half of the Second Amendment ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...") as being a qualifier to the second half or just an irrelevant pleasant phrase. I think we can all agree that the current state of gun ownership in this country has nothing to do with a well regulated militia. Also, as much as we'd like to make rational decisions based on data, the NRA has successfully lobbied against even letting the government study gun violence as a public health issue, which is quite suspicious.
Quote:
1 - The nutcase wasn't showing a weapon. I don't know if he was adjudicated as mentally unfit, if he was a felon, an addict, or a gang member, so I cannot answer that question.
So you feel like he was dangerous enough to justify carrying a lethal weapon, yet believe he potentially has the right to carry a weapon? That just seems so cognitively dissonant to me that I can't begin to wrap my head around it.
Quote:
2 - Element of surprise? Every situation has its own elements. One thing for sure, they were not armed and were easy victims. It is not for you to judge whether or not they could've successfully resisted if they had been armed. I & my family members prefer to have that choice, and not be told we can't.
People all over this thread are trying to say what others should and shouldn't be scared of. When it comes right down to it, the whole point of politics is effectively prioritizing fears.
Quote:
3 - How many what, random mass shootings by nutcases? Targeted mass shootings by nutcases? Terrorist shootings? Gang shootings?
No need to be dense. We're talking about your specific instances for why you feel a gun is necessary. Did they occur before the massive drop in crime that's been happening since the 90s? To me, it's an important question since it explains how dangerous we see the world.
Quote:
4 - History, demographics, economics, media propaganda, availability of firearms, war on drugs, judicial system, they all seem to be the leaders.
Additional opinion of mine - There are plenty of careless yahoo jerks around who have no business owning so much as a BB gun, but they have that right. Just like there are a large number of ignorant citizens who vote without being informed - they have that right (and I think are more dangerous in the larger picture than gun owners).
Forget about gun bans or stopping the right to carry - that ship sailed long ago.
I just can't wrap my head around why you think the availability of firearms for purchase by nutcases (of which there are a staggering amount) is necessary. Even if the language of the Constitution were plain-as-day, it's not a sacred document and has the ability to be changed specifically because circumstances change. The ship has hardly sailed.
Last edited by Westerner92; 08-08-2016 at 01:53 PM..
Whether gun ownership is constitutional or not is completely subjective and dependent on whether you see the first half of the Second Amendment ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...") as being a qualifier to the second half or just an irrelevant pleasant phrase. I think we can all agree that the current state of gun ownership in this country has nothing to do with a well regulated militia. Also, as much as we'd like to make rational decisions based on data, the NRA has successfully lobbied against even letting the government study gun violence as a public health issue, which is quite suspicious.
...
I just can't wrap my head around why you think the availability of firearms for purchase by nutcases (of which there are a staggering amount) is necessary. Even if the language of the Constitution were plain-as-day, it's not a sacred document and has the ability to be changed specifically because circumstances change. The ship has hardly sailed.
It is not subjective, the constitution and the historical writings are very clear. The (unorganized) militia was the entire population of men and has been extended to women now.
This is what madison wrote in federalist 46. If you do the math the militia IS all able bodied men.
Quote:
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.
This is how the federal govt currently defines militia (which is most likely too narrow). Each state could certainly define their own.
Quote:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
In texas the militia is defined as
Quote:
"Reserve militia" means the persons liable to serve, but not serving, in the state military forces.
Here are some examples of the use of the phrase well regulated contemporaneous with the constitution
Quote:
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”
1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”
1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”
1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”
1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”
1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”
The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
Regardless, the second amendment is properly read as "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well [functioning/armed] Militia [almost all people], [is] necessary to the security of a free State."
vs "Only people in the militia shall have the right to keep and bear arms from being infringed"
The second has nothing to do with self defense or sporting purposes. The primary purpose is to defend from tyranny of the federal government.
All countries in the history of mankind have turned against the people.
I agree the constitution is changeable, so far it hasnt happened except through poor judicial interpretation.
----------
To get back to the original topic. State law trumps local law. City of austin is in the wrong and it could cost 10K per DAY of violation.
It is not subjective, the constitution and the historical writings are very clear. The (unorganized) militia was the entire population of men and has been extended to women now.
This is what madison wrote in federalist 46. If you do the math the militia IS all able bodied men.
This is how the federal govt currently defines militia (which is most likely too narrow). Each state could certainly define their own.
In texas the militia is defined as
Here are some examples of the use of the phrase well regulated contemporaneous with the constitution
Regardless, the second amendment is properly read as "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well [functioning/armed] Militia [almost all people], [is] necessary to the security of a free State."
vs "Only people in the militia shall have the right to keep and bear arms from being infringed"
The second has nothing to do with self defense or sporting purposes. The primary purpose is to defend from tyranny of the federal government.
All countries in the history of mankind have turned against the people.
I agree the constitution is changeable, so far it hasnt happened except through poor judicial interpretation.
----------
To get back to the original topic. State law trumps local law. City of austin is in the wrong and it could cost 10K per DAY of violation.
Thanks for the clarification on "well-regulated". I know I certainly wouldn't consider the average person "well regulated" enough to handle a 21st century lethal weapon, and neither does the City of Austin it appears. And we're definitely going to disagree as to whether our puny weapons could stand up to the modern military might as well (and whether the military composed of volunteers would turn on its people at the government's behest).
Last edited by Westerner92; 08-08-2016 at 03:29 PM..
The Luby's massacre is a perfect example of an occasion when a CHL would be needed. Many of the mass shootings could have been limited if responsible gun owners had the opportunity to fight back. The UT Tower shooter had free reign until citizens with deer rifles showed up to pin him down. Police officers could not reach him with their service pistols.
People ask when would we ever need a gun. My answer is whenever we do. I'd rather not be found wanting in that day. I'd rather have a choice to defend myself. Does that mean every altercation must end in gunfire? No. If I'm carrying, and am held at gunpoint for my wallet, I may decide that the best course of action is to hand over my wallet. Live to fight another day. If a man is holding a shotgun in the face of a 7-11 cashier and I'm by the sodas, I may decide to fight. It all depends on the situation. We're not going to just start shooting all the time. CHL holders are actually, on average, much more calm than unarmed citizens. This happens once you strap that gun on your hip because you know you don't want to escalate any situation unless absolutely necessary.
As for the militia subject, I agree that we have a right as citizens of the U.S. to own firearms to protect us from a tyrannical government. It's not about hunting.
But if it ever got changed to needing to be in an actual militia, my dad and I have that figured out. We should actually do it anyway.
Call it the Texas Home Guard. Every county has it's own militia chapter made up of CHL holders. This way the members have been background checked, tested, etc. It's not discriminatory. Republicans, Democrats, Male, Female, Straight, Gay, White, Black, Brown...they can all be members if they have their CHL. Each chapter answers to the locally elected sheriff. Each sheriff then answers to the State of Texas (i.e. Lt Governor). There would be regular meet-ups in each county with training and whatnot. It would be relatively easy to muster a standing militia in Texas of over 1 million if it was ever needed.
It was hilariously... This one time our gun loving, outspoken and patriotic cousin(with all permits etc) left his hand gun laying on the bed in the room we were staying at on a family vacation. Our 3 year old son picked up the gun and started playing with it when he walks in the room... My son proceeds to shoot him in the foot... dumbo survived...Lol but he still talks about gun safety on Facebook all the time... good times
Today's Statesman: "Battle Lines Drawn in UT Gun Dispute."
I know several of the plaintiffs in this case and their integrity and bravery is beyond dispute. Ken Paxton and his ilk couldn't hold a candle to them, he's a creep and a crook. It is an embarassment that he represents the law in this state.
Some day, I don't know if I'll live to see it, Texans will realize that their stubborn selection of representatives and policies that are 180 degrees out from what decency requires is hurting us: our state, our citizens and our economy. I only hope that that day arrives before they turn this state into a hot, dry, desolate intellectual and creative backwater that intelligent and creative people shun.
I know we're alright on that score for now. But these sorts of trends have a way of snowballing; by the time the morons who elect every Republican felon that spouts off about guns and God realizes what has happened, it will be too late.
Today's Statesman: "Battle Lines Drawn in UT Gun Dispute."
I know several of the plaintiffs in this case and their integrity and bravery is beyond dispute. Ken Paxton and his ilk couldn't hold a candle to them, he's a creep and a crook. It is an embarassment that he represents the law in this state.
Some day, I don't know if I'll live to see it, Texans will realize that their stubborn selection of representatives and policies that are 180 degrees out from what decency requires is hurting us: our state, our citizens and our economy. I only hope that that day arrives before they turn this state into a hot, dry, desolate intellectual and creative backwater that intelligent and creative people shun.
I know we're alright on that score for now. But these sorts of trends have a way of snowballing; by the time the morons who elect every Republican felon that spouts off about guns and God realizes what has happened, it will be too late.
so says the liberal living in his gentrified east Austin housing. What does any of this have to do with the AG suing the city of Austin for violation of the law? Fundamentally these employees have tried to take the position that they decide what can be present on University property as if it were their personal turf. What will your opinion be in the event the employees lose their suit over what others are allowed on University property?
Today's Statesman: "Battle Lines Drawn in UT Gun Dispute."
I know several of the plaintiffs in this case and their integrity and bravery is beyond dispute. Ken Paxton and his ilk couldn't hold a candle to them, he's a creep and a crook. It is an embarassment that he represents the law in this state.
Some day, I don't know if I'll live to see it, Texans will realize that their stubborn selection of representatives and policies that are 180 degrees out from what decency requires is hurting us: our state, our citizens and our economy. I only hope that that day arrives before they turn this state into a hot, dry, desolate intellectual and creative backwater that intelligent and creative people shun.
I know we're alright on that score for now. But these sorts of trends have a way of snowballing; by the time the morons who elect every Republican felon that spouts off about guns and God realizes what has happened, it will be too late.
Several? Aren't there only 3 plaintiffs? Jennifer Lynn Glass, Lisa Moore, and Mia Carter? Out of how many professors at UT?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And we're definitely going to disagree as to whether our puny weapons could stand up to the modern military might as well (and whether the military composed of volunteers would turn on its people at the government's behest).
Another crossroad for us.
