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.
Every time there's a mass shooting, the only alternatives people seem to examine, are either "ban more and more guns", or "everybody should be armed".
How about if we simply let the 2nd amendment do what it was originally intended to do?
If everyone is allowed to carry a gun, would everybody do it? Of course not. Most wouldn't bother.
But a few probably would.
And in a crowd exceeding 100,000 people (as the Gilroy festival was), there might be a hundred or so, armed and knowing how to use their weapons. That's a tenth of one percent.
And the guy who wants to commit mass murder, would know it. If he wants to go someplace where nobody could shoot back, and divert him from the body counts he wanted to rack up, a festival where maybe 1 out of a hundred people (or even less) were armed, would be the LAST place he'd want to open fire. He might not be afraid of dying. But his plan is to rack up a huge body count and get weeks of lurid headlines after the police finally show up and kill him.
If the 2nd amendment were actually upheld and enforced as written, and all law-abiding adults were freely allowed to carry a gun, most still wouldn't bother. But a few would.
And a criminal planning to rob a store, shoot up an office, or murder or rape someone in the street, shoot up a festival etc., would know that there was a pretty good chance that some of the people in the crowd were armed, and knew how to use their weapons.
Some of the crazier criminals might go ahead and commit their crimes anyway. But a number of them would consider the increased risk to himself, and decide not to commit it, than do nowadays.
Presto, a mass shooting prevented, all without a shot being fired.
Why don't we try upholding the 2nd amendment, instead of expecting government to make everything better? If someone contemplating killing people, knows there's probably someone near him armed and ready, he's less likely to even start.
The main use of civilian-owned firearms is to DETER crimes. Which is a far better result than the results we have gotten from every government so-called "gun control" scheme, which have never resulted in ANY reduction in crime.
Sure that would have made the gilroy shooting much more interesting with a few thousand people carrying guns, how do you know who the bad guys are do they have bright yellow uniforms.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 26 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,590,375 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer
Every time there's a mass shooting, the only alternatives people seem to examine, are either "ban more and more guns", or "everybody should be armed".
How about if we simply let the 2nd amendment do what it was originally intended to do?
If everyone is allowed to carry a gun, would everybody do it? Of course not. Most wouldn't bother.
But a few probably would.
And in a crowd exceeding 100,000 people (as the Gilroy festival was), there might be a hundred or so, armed and knowing how to use their weapons. That's a tenth of one percent.
And the guy who wants to commit mass murder, would know it. If he wants to go someplace where nobody could shoot back, and divert him from the body counts he wanted to rack up, a festival where maybe 1 out of a hundred people (or even less) were armed, would be the LAST place he'd want to open fire. He might not be afraid of dying. But his plan is to rack up a huge body count and get weeks of lurid headlines after the police finally show up and kill him.
If the 2nd amendment were actually upheld and enforced as written, and all law-abiding adults were freely allowed to carry a gun, most still wouldn't bother. But a few would.
And a criminal planning to rob a store, shoot up an office, or murder or rape someone in the street, shoot up a festival etc., would know that there was a pretty good chance that some of the people in the crowd were armed, and knew how to use their weapons.
Some of the crazier criminals might go ahead and commit their crimes anyway. But a number of them would consider the increased risk to himself, and decide not to commit it, than do nowadays.
Presto, a mass shooting prevented, all without a shot being fired.
Why don't we try upholding the 2nd amendment, instead of expecting government to make everything better? If someone contemplating killing people, knows there's probably someone near him armed and ready, he's less likely to even start.
The main use of civilian-owned firearms is to DETER crimes. Which is a far better result than the results we have gotten from every government so-called "gun control" scheme, which have never resulted in ANY reduction in crime.
"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."
How I interpret it is that every state should have a regulated Militia (army) and those are the ones allowed to keep and bear the arms. But then people are going to tell me, I'm wrong.
"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."
How I interpret it is that every state should have a regulated Militia (army) and those are the ones allowed to keep and bear the arms. But then people are going to tell me, I'm wrong.
There's a reason for that.
The correct interpretation is much closer to:
"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."
Back to the subject:
Would anybody care to speculate on the chances that the OP's proposal would result in fewer shootings than the present hodgepodges of govt laws, which are usually obeyed only by law-abiding people?
As many have pointed out, to truly read and follow the 2nd amendment as written, one must consider the whole thing - not just the last clause. The first four words: "A well regulated militia..." The whole "well-regulated" part seems to get little attention. The sentence is poorly written and ambiguous because the first clause leads to the second without any coordinating conjunction or other part of speech linking the two ideas together in a way that makes sense. The first clause is what we would call a sentence fragment.
"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."
How I interpret it is that every state should have a regulated Militia (army) and those are the ones allowed to keep and bear the arms. But then people are going to tell me, I'm wrong.
As many have pointed out, to truly read and follow the 2nd amendment as written, one must consider the whole thing - not just the last clause. The first four words - "A well regulated militia..." Well-regulated. The sentence is poorly written and ambiguous because the first clause leads to the second without any coordinating conjunction or other part of speech linking the two ideas together in a way that makes sense. The first clause is what we would call a sentence fragment.
When you consider the whole thing along with why it was written, it's very clear - the 2nd allows all citizens to be armed if they choose.
"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."
How I interpret it is that every state should have a regulated Militia (army) and those are the ones allowed to keep and bear the arms. But then people are going to tell me, I'm wrong.
It says the right of the PEOPLE. Not right of the State, or the Government. So, yes, you are wrong as the Militia clause is separate. However, even if it weren't, the PEOPLE need to own guns privately in order to serve in the Militia which is not the National Guard.
The Supreme Court agrees with me by the way, and incorporated the Second Amendment as an individual right.
"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."
Back to the subject:
Would anybody care to speculate on the chances that the OP's proposal would result in fewer shootings than the present hodgepodges of govt laws, which are usually obeyed only be law-abiding people?
That's a perfect example of the root of the problem. There isn't consensus on the intent. It is as clear to me as it is to you, but they are differing opinions. This isn't simple. This is complicated because we can't actually know the full intent of the framers, nor could they predict the technology that exists today.
I do not feel more secure in a crowd with armed people, legally or not. I cannot imagine in a case like the one in Gilroy that more guns would have helped. As has already been asked, how do you know who the "good" guys are? What if someone saw a shooter who was attired in a particular way, but then encountered a person similarly attired who was not involved? No thank you. There is a lot that pits me against such an idea, but there you go.
I don't think it would prevent shootings. I do think that many of these shooters believe they will be killed, or at least understand it as a possibility. And when you have more guns in a very tense situation, it follows that the likelihood of someone innocent being shot kind of goes up.
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.
