How Can The U.S.A. Reduse Mass Shootings?

[jaybo]

I agree that gun control differs from disarmament but the amendment also states the right "shall not be infringed." Infringed means to encroach upon. Encroach means to move gradually or little by little.

There are plenty of laws on the books now that in fact do infringe on our 2nd Amendment rights but more and more laws are being proposed and some passed that little by little infringe even more. There's an old adage that says, give them and inch and they take a mile. It may not happen all at once and may even seem reasonable at the time but eventually there could come a time when the scales will be tipped too far to the one side resulting in us losing that right.

Fortunately our constitution is not written in stone. Unfortunately, our constitution is not written in stone. Depends on your point of view. If enough of the people get support, the laws can be changed and our rights can be restricted or even denied. Consider prohibition. That was an amendment that was later rescinded. I don't want to give up my right to keep and bear arms and I hope I never see it happen.

OzSpen talked about how Australia requires gun owners to store their guns at government facilities. See post #295. When I was in Germany in the late 90's, most Germans I talked to were very curious about our 2nd Amendment rights. They were required to keep their firearms in locked government facilities and if they wanted to use them they had to submit an application citing the reason for it. The cost for storage was quite high and they said, "Hunting in Germany has now become a rich man's game because the average citizen can't afford to purchase and store their firearms due to the expensive fees, licensing, and so forth."

This can happen here too and already has begun. Government imposes special taxes on all firearms and ammunition sales. To carry a handgun we in MN are required to obtain a permit to carry and there is a cost of up to $100.00. They claim there is no firearms registration in MN but I don't recall being able to purchase a shotgun, rifle, or handgun without filling out a pile of paperwork. It would take a lot of proof to convince me the state does not maintain a record of my purchased firearms.

There is a preliminary clause of the second amendment that is almost always ignored: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." That clause is there for a good reason: to regulate the purpose of an armed citizenry. It does not mean that anyone who wants to own and use a gun -- keep and bear arms -- can do so indiscriminately. Until that is understood the US will continue toward a "wild west" mentality.

Why do you think the founders included that introductory clause?

 

[Edward]

but eventually there could come a time when the scales will be tipped too far to the one side resulting in us losing that right.

Yeah well, if it's time to bury the weapons, then it's the time to dig them up again too.

 

[jaybo]

I agree that gun control differs from disarmament but the amendment also states the right "shall not be infringed." Infringed means to encroach upon. Encroach means to move gradually or little by little.

There are plenty of laws on the books now that in fact do infringe on our 2nd Amendment rights but more and more laws are being proposed and some passed that little by little infringe even more. There's an old adage that says, give them and inch and they take a mile. It may not happen all at once and may even seem reasonable at the time but eventually there could come a time when the scales will be tipped too far to the one side resulting in us losing that right.

Fortunately our constitution is not written in stone. Unfortunately, our constitution is not written in stone. Depends on your point of view. If enough of the people get support, the laws can be changed and our rights can be restricted or even denied. Consider prohibition. That was an amendment that was later rescinded. I don't want to give up my right to keep and bear arms and I hope I never see it happen.

OzSpen talked about how Australia requires gun owners to store their guns at government facilities. See post #295. When I was in Germany in the late 90's, most Germans I talked to were very curious about our 2nd Amendment rights. They were required to keep their firearms in locked government facilities and if they wanted to use them they had to submit an application citing the reason for it. The cost for storage was quite high and they said, "Hunting in Germany has now become a rich man's game because the average citizen can't afford to purchase and store their firearms due to the expensive fees, licensing, and so forth."

This can happen here too and already has begun. Government imposes special taxes on all firearms and ammunition sales. To carry a handgun we in MN are required to obtain a permit to carry and there is a cost of up to $100.00. They claim there is no firearms registration in MN but I don't recall being able to purchase a shotgun, rifle, or handgun without filling out a pile of paperwork. It would take a lot of proof to convince me the state does not maintain a record of my purchased firearms.

You wrote "I don't want to give up my right to keep and bear arms and I hope I never see it happen." What well-regulated militia do you belong to?

 

[WIP]

There is a preliminary clause of the second amendment that is almost always ignored: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." That clause is there for a good reason: to regulate the purpose of an armed citizenry. It does not mean that anyone who wants to own and use a gun -- keep and bear arms -- can do so indiscriminately. Until that is understood the US will continue toward a "wild west" mentality.

Why do you think the founders included that introductory clause?

Actually, according to the US Supreme Court you are incorrect.

District of Columbia v. Heller, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, held (5–4) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home.

 

[WIP]

You wrote "I don't want to give up my right to keep and bear arms and I hope I never see it happen." What well-regulated militia do you belong to?

The citizens of the State of Minnesota.

 

[jaybo]

The citizens of the State of Minnesota.

When I lived in Minnesota there was no citizens militia, never mind being "well-regulated". When did that militia form?

 

[WIP]

Maybe this will help too. Here's the definition of a militia per Merriam-Webster.

Definition of militia​

1a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency.
b: a body of citizens organized for military service

 

[WIP]

When I lived in Minnesota there was no citizens militia, never mind being "well-regulated". When did that militia form?

We can all be part of it if we are citizens. If there was an invasion upon our soil against our country and families, would you not be ready to take up arms to defend? I would.

 

[Edward]

You wrote "I don't want to give up my right to keep and bear arms and I hope I never see it happen." What well-regulated militia do you belong to?

I am a Militia of One.

A well regulated militia means a militia of persons who can shoot. People who can shoot are said to be well regulated. I can shoot. Therefore I am well regulated.

So I am a well regulated militia of one.

 

[WIP]

I am a Militia of One.

A well regulated militia means a militia of persons who can shoot. People who can shoot are said to be well regulated. I can shoot. Therefore I am well regulated.

So I am a well regulated militia of one.

Yes and considering that all hunters over the age of 12 are required to have a firearms safety certificate, we are all regulated and taught about the safe use of firearms.

 

[jaybo]

Actually, according to the US Supreme Court you are incorrect.

District of Columbia v. Heller, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, held (5–4) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home.

The decision concerned the keeping of handguns in homes in DC. It was a narrow decision -- 5-4 -- and is not a blanket okay for people to own and use weapons whenever and wherever they wish.

Did you see that the Missouri couple were found guilty of a misdemeanor for their brandishing weapons, threatening demonstrators? "Patricia McCloskey pleaded guilty to misdemeanor harassment and was fined $2,000. Her husband, Mark McCloskey, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor fourth-degree assault and was fined $750. They also agreed to give up the weapons they used during the confrontation."

Clearly your personal interpretation of the Second Amendment is faulty.

 

[jaybo]

I am a Militia of One.

A well regulated militia means a militia of persons who can shoot. People who can shoot are said to be well regulated. I can shoot. Therefore I am well regulated.

So I am a well regulated militia of one.

Are you serious? There is no such thing as "a militia of one".

I won't discuss the issue with you since you can't address the issue at hand.

 

[jaybo]

A grand jury has invoked a rarely used federal statute to indict a Capitol defendant who repeatedly admitted transporting a weapon across state lines ahead of the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
The D.C. federal grand jury, in a superseding indictment returned Wednesday and unsealed Thursday, charged Guy Reffitt of Texas with transporting “a rifle and a semi-automatic handgun, knowing and having reason to know and intending that the firearm will be used unlawfully in furtherance of a civil disorder.”

"... As federal authorities continue to make their way through cases and discover additional evidence, more weapons charges against future and current defendants are a near certainty."

Second Amendment violation? I don't think so.

 

[jasonc]

We can all be part of it if we are citizens. If there was an invasion upon our soil against our country and families, would you not be ready to take up arms to defend? I would.

there's history of something last century locally.since the national guard was gone ,the stated used as created the home guard ,these were not the military ,bit Joe ordinary who was too able to see war but able to use his rifle and able bodies enough for emergencies of riots and state disasters . in short a militia .these couldn't be deployed but persons could be drafted

State defense force - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Edward]

We can all be part of it if we are citizens. If there was an invasion upon our soil against our country and families, would you not be ready to take up arms to defend? I would.

I would too. It is this willingness of spirit that brings us to the Militia of one precept. That every able bodied man be armed and have at least minimal preparation for oneself and ones charge for when the s h t f.

 

[WIP]

It was a narrow decision -- 5-4 -- and is not a blanket okay for people to own and use weapons whenever and wherever they wish.

Now you're putting words in my mouth and misrepresenting my position. I kindly ask that you refrain from doing this. I never suggested that we could own and use weapons with reckless abandon. There are responsibilities that go along with our rights and I've never suggested otherwise.

 

[humble soul]

Ah shoot. This always happens on gun threads.

 

[OzSpen]

And then put up bollards.

New anti-terror measures outside Lindt Cafe siege site

EXCLUSIVE

www.news.com.au

Dan,

That's a hypothesis to be tested. It's nothing more than wishful thinking at this stage.

In your country, what is the nation planning to do after the Christchurch massacre?

Oz

 

[humble soul]

Dan,

That's a hypothesis to be tested. It's nothing more than wishful thinking at this stage.

In your country, what is the nation planning to do after the Christchurch massacre?

Oz

Poor kiwis. Shouldn't have let that idiot in the country. They may need to tighten up gun laws but that massacre was surely a one off.

 

[Edward]

Now you're putting words in my mouth and misrepresenting my position. I kindly ask that you refrain from doing this. I never suggested that we could own and use weapons with reckless abandon. There are responsibilities that go along with our rights and I've never suggested otherwise.

I agree and would go as far to say that, that is part of being well regulated. Governmental sensationalism and agendas aside, Firearms are deadly so there is an implied sense of duty that goes to the handler of any arm when they pick it up.

You never implied reckless abandon, lol. And you didn't have to mention it regardless because it is a given for safety with weapons and you know that, so I don't understand why they picking on you like that?

Maybe it's the old, those who can, do...those who can't, teach. (Lol). It's good we have that cleared up in this thread now. It is a given that there is no reckless abandon. Minimum competence and previous exposure to weapons a requirement to enter. It takes Wisdom, Temperance and the grace of God to have hold of ready arms.