It is 'the right to bear arms', not to bear sub-machine guns.
Maintaining Americans' right to bear arms is as sensible, responsible and safe as introducing the right to arm bears.
The second amendment was originally in relation to militias and their rights to bear arms. The rights of individuals in this regard are much more recent.
Not true. That's just what some on the Left likes to say through a tortured, modern interpretation of the world "Militia."
Back in the Constitutional era the USA had no significant standing army, which was intentional. The founders intended people themselves to be armed and form a militia when under threat. The idea that the militia could be armed but not the people is non-sensical because militias were wholly voluntary. We had no army. The people were armed. Americans has always been armed to the teeth and there was never a period where the guns were stacked up in some shack, awaiting use by a non-existent militia.
In addition, all one needs to read to understand the meaning is the remainder of the Amendment...
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Reagardless of what one thinks of the word "militia," the remainder of the verbiage is clear. The Amendments were created to place limits on government, not people. So when seen in context of the times, the whole intent of the Amendments is clear.
Basically the Amendment means
"In order to defend the country, government may not stop the people from being armed."
I don't own a gun and I feel we need to address ownership of high-powered weapons, going to down the road of the meaning of "militia" is not a winning strategy. Better luck would be had just attempting to overturn the Amendment.
It is 'the right to bear arms', not to bear sub-machine guns.
Maintaining Americans' right to bear arms is as sensible, responsible and safe as introducing the right to arm bears.
The second amendment was originally in relation to militias and their rights to bear arms. The rights of individuals in this regard are much more recent.
Not true. That's just what some on the Left likes to say through a tortured, modern interpretation of the world "Militia."
Back in the Constitutional era the USA had no significant standing army, which was intentional. The founders intended people themselves to be armed and form a militia when under threat. The idea that the militia could be armed but not the people is non-sensical because militias were wholly voluntary. We had no army. The people were armed. Americans has always been armed to the teeth and there was never a period where the guns were stacked up in some shack, awaiting use by a non-existent militia.
In addition, all one needs to read to understand the meaning is the remainder of the Amendment...
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Reagardless of what one thinks of the word "militia," the remainder of the verbiage is clear. The Amendments were created to place limits on government, not people. So when seen in context of the times, the whole intent of the Amendments is clear.
Basically the Amendment means
"In order to defend the country, government may not stop the people from being armed."
I don't own a gun and I feel we need to address ownership of high-powered weapons, going to down the road of the meaning of "militia" is not a winning strategy. Better luck would be had just attempting to overturn the Amendment.
It's an Amendment. It should be amended.
Exactly. I keep telling people this. The process exists for a reason.
It is 'the right to bear arms', not to bear sub-machine guns.
Maintaining Americans' right to bear arms is as sensible, responsible and safe as introducing the right to arm bears.
The second amendment was originally in relation to militias and their rights to bear arms. The rights of individuals in this regard are much more recent.
Not true. That's just what some on the Left likes to say through a tortured, modern interpretation of the world "Militia."
Back in the Constitutional era the USA had no significant standing army, which was intentional. The founders intended people themselves to be armed and form a militia when under threat. The idea that the militia could be armed but not the people is non-sensical because militias were wholly voluntary. We had no army. The people were armed. Americans has always been armed to the teeth and there was never a period where the guns were stacked up in some shack, awaiting use by a non-existent militia.
In addition, all one needs to read to understand the meaning is the remainder of the Amendment...
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Reagardless of what one thinks of the word "militia," the remainder of the verbiage is clear. The Amendments were created to place limits on government, not people. So when seen in context of the times, the whole intent of the Amendments is clear.
Basically the Amendment means
"In order to defend the country, government may not stop the people from being armed."
I don't own a gun and I feel we need to address ownership of high-powered weapons, going to down the road of the meaning of "militia" is not a winning strategy. Better luck would be had just attempting to overturn the Amendment.
It's an Amendment. It should be amended.
Exactly. I keep telling people this. The process exists for a reason.
It all seems so juvenile. I remember playing ‘guns’ in Bromley when I was about nine. It’s about time America grew up.
It is 'the right to bear arms', not to bear sub-machine guns.
Maintaining Americans' right to bear arms is as sensible, responsible and safe as introducing the right to arm bears.
The second amendment was originally in relation to militias and their rights to bear arms. The rights of individuals in this regard are much more recent.
Not true. That's just what some on the Left likes to say through a tortured, modern interpretation of the world "Militia."
Back in the Constitutional era the USA had no significant standing army, which was intentional. The founders intended people themselves to be armed and form a militia when under threat. The idea that the militia could be armed but not the people is non-sensical because militias were wholly voluntary. We had no army. The people were armed. Americans has always been armed to the teeth and there was never a period where the guns were stacked up in some shack, awaiting use by a non-existent militia.
In addition, all one needs to read to understand the meaning is the remainder of the Amendment...
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Reagardless of what one thinks of the word "militia," the remainder of the verbiage is clear. The Amendments were created to place limits on government, not people. So when seen in context of the times, the whole intent of the Amendments is clear.
Basically the Amendment means
"In order to defend the country, government may not stop the people from being armed."
I don't own a gun and I feel we need to address ownership of high-powered weapons, going to down the road of the meaning of "militia" is not a winning strategy. Better luck would be had just attempting to overturn the Amendment.
Interesting, I guess that now that the USA has one of the biggest and the most well armed militaries in the world, that is out of date...and needs, well, amendment.
RIP to the fallen in more attacks today. Have not heard too much about them, which probably indicates it's happening a bit too often.
The theory of more guns makes you safer, and video games being the problem... is literally insane, what a crazy country and one that is getting madder by the day...
The winner takes all political situation across the western world may have to be looked at, we now exist in entirely separate realities via our echo chamber, online filter bubbles, and now any questions asked are immediately scrutinized around 'who' is asking not the content of the question.
So one extreme left or right group gets in power makes 50% of the people happy for a short time then it switches again, and as fear is a greater motivator the right wins more regularly.
An awful state of affairs, and one highlighted by Boris entirely bypassing government by shutting it down to ensure that No-deal Brexit goes through...
It is 'the right to bear arms', not to bear sub-machine guns.
Maintaining Americans' right to bear arms is as sensible, responsible and safe as introducing the right to arm bears.
The second amendment was originally in relation to militias and their rights to bear arms. The rights of individuals in this regard are much more recent.
Not true. That's just what some on the Left likes to say through a tortured, modern interpretation of the world "Militia."
Back in the Constitutional era the USA had no significant standing army, which was intentional. The founders intended people themselves to be armed and form a militia when under threat. The idea that the militia could be armed but not the people is non-sensical because militias were wholly voluntary. We had no army. The people were armed. Americans has always been armed to the teeth and there was never a period where the guns were stacked up in some shack, awaiting use by a non-existent militia.
In addition, all one needs to read to understand the meaning is the remainder of the Amendment...
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Reagardless of what one thinks of the word "militia," the remainder of the verbiage is clear. The Amendments were created to place limits on government, not people. So when seen in context of the times, the whole intent of the Amendments is clear.
Basically the Amendment means
"In order to defend the country, government may not stop the people from being armed."
I don't own a gun and I feel we need to address ownership of high-powered weapons, going to down the road of the meaning of "militia" is not a winning strategy. Better luck would be had just attempting to overturn the Amendment.
It's an Amendment. It should be amended.
Exactly. I keep telling people this. The process exists for a reason.
The problem being, the Amendment process is basically dead at this point, given the current state of the country.
The most important thing to remember about the Founding Fathers, is that they were slave owning rapists, at least a handful of whom were Deists. The second most important thing is that they were terrified of actual democracy, which is part of why the Senate was originally unelected and we have the Electoral College.
Further down that list is that they were vehemently opposed the idea of political parties. As such, you can hack our system with political parties and minority rule. Republicans are really good at this. Democrats are not because Democrats tend to be very bad at power and understanding a relationship to power, not necessarily because they're good people or not. So when you have a judiciary, executive, and judiciary-confirming part of the legislative all of the same party, the system of checks and balances goes away, and you have 40 years of right-wing white nationalist and anarcho-capitalist rule. All, again without popular majorities or in some cases (judiciary) votes even being cast.
Nothing changes until assault rifles are banned. This video while extremely powerful and a very real sense of reality of what America is like, it will solve nothing and will probably be forgotten in a week. The government is too stubborn and too scared to change an amendment that is over 200 years old for fear that it treds upon the vision of our founding fathers. Well, I don't think old George Washington has the idea of heaving weapons of war be made available to every psychopath with a bank account so they could mow down innocent school children. An amendment is literally a change in documentation, it is SUPPOSED to be open to change. Until the government grows a pair and stops pandering to the "We're American, we're free to do whatever we want" bullshit, nothing changes, schools keep getting shot up, we continue to not care about an issue that we could easily fix if we looked past our egos
When I have a bad day I usually just cry in the bath but then I don’t have the ability to walk into a shop and purchase enough guns and ammo to fight a small war. Ffs ‘bad day’.
There’s been a huge rise in anti-Asian sentiment since the pandemic broke out, helped more than a little by a f’ing idiot former President who took every opportunity to blame China for it all. Sickening.
Thoughts with the victims of yet another bastard American.
When you're trained to treat everyone as a threat, and shoot first, this is inevitable. Poor guy was probably walking towards them to tell them what had happened
Documentary on this week on BBC4 Storyville, Raising a school shooter. Talks to parents of three school shooters including one of the Columbine killers.
Documentary on this week on BBC4 Storyville, Raising a school shooter. Talks to parents of three school shooters including one of the Columbine killers.
I've never seen a Storyville that didn't stick in my mind. Fantastic series and will be sure to watch this, thanks for bringing it up.
When you're trained to treat everyone as a threat, and shoot first, this is inevitable. Poor guy was probably walking towards them to tell them what had happened
This is the problem with America's approach to guns. The 'we're all safe if we all carry guns' doesn't work because it doesn't consider the element of confusion.
During a mass shooting, how do you know who the shooter is if everyone is walking round holding a gun?
When you're trained to treat everyone as a threat, and shoot first, this is inevitable. Poor guy was probably walking towards them to tell them what had happened
This is the problem with America's approach to guns. The 'we're all safe if we all carry guns' doesn't work because it doesn't consider the element of confusion.
During a mass shooting, how do you know who the shooter is if everyone is walking round holding a gun?
When you're trained to treat everyone as a threat, and shoot first, this is inevitable. Poor guy was probably walking towards them to tell them what had happened
If he wasn't aiming at them or anyone else, they could have resolved it differently.
It is 'the right to bear arms', not to bear sub-machine guns.
Maintaining Americans' right to bear arms is as sensible, responsible and safe as introducing the right to arm bears.
The second amendment was originally in relation to militias and their rights to bear arms. The rights of individuals in this regard are much more recent.
Not true. That's just what some on the Left likes to say through a tortured, modern interpretation of the world "Militia."
Back in the Constitutional era the USA had no significant standing army, which was intentional. The founders intended people themselves to be armed and form a militia when under threat. The idea that the militia could be armed but not the people is non-sensical because militias were wholly voluntary. We had no army. The people were armed. Americans has always been armed to the teeth and there was never a period where the guns were stacked up in some shack, awaiting use by a non-existent militia.
In addition, all one needs to read to understand the meaning is the remainder of the Amendment...
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Reagardless of what one thinks of the word "militia," the remainder of the verbiage is clear. The Amendments were created to place limits on government, not people. So when seen in context of the times, the whole intent of the Amendments is clear.
Basically the Amendment means
"In order to defend the country, government may not stop the people from being armed."
I don't own a gun and I feel we need to address ownership of high-powered weapons, going to down the road of the meaning of "militia" is not a winning strategy. Better luck would be had just attempting to overturn the Amendment.
Interesting, I guess that now that the USA has one of the biggest and the most well armed militaries in the world, that is out of date...and needs, well, amendment.
RIP to the fallen in more attacks today. Have not heard too much about them, which probably indicates it's happening a bit too often.
Indeed. Thomas Jefferson stated that Constitutions are for living, not the dead. He felt every generation within all countries should re-write their Constitution that best suited them and their times, not hang on to old ideas. No one in the USA ever mentions that. Also, the right to bear arms has a logical limit. Antonin Scalia, one of my favorite Supreme Court justices until he died 5 years ago once pointed out that the argument that owning arms shall not be infringed could also be applied to owning nukes. And since that was absurd and no one would be against limits on having nukes as personal arms, then the whole idea that arms cannot be regulated by "type" was plainly absurd. He is right. Combine the two thoughts and one could make a good argument for just replacing the Second Amendment altogether.
It is 'the right to bear arms', not to bear sub-machine guns.
Maintaining Americans' right to bear arms is as sensible, responsible and safe as introducing the right to arm bears.
The second amendment was originally in relation to militias and their rights to bear arms. The rights of individuals in this regard are much more recent.
Not true. That's just what some on the Left likes to say through a tortured, modern interpretation of the world "Militia."
Back in the Constitutional era the USA had no significant standing army, which was intentional. The founders intended people themselves to be armed and form a militia when under threat. The idea that the militia could be armed but not the people is non-sensical because militias were wholly voluntary. We had no army. The people were armed. Americans has always been armed to the teeth and there was never a period where the guns were stacked up in some shack, awaiting use by a non-existent militia.
In addition, all one needs to read to understand the meaning is the remainder of the Amendment...
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Reagardless of what one thinks of the word "militia," the remainder of the verbiage is clear. The Amendments were created to place limits on government, not people. So when seen in context of the times, the whole intent of the Amendments is clear.
Basically the Amendment means
"In order to defend the country, government may not stop the people from being armed."
I don't own a gun and I feel we need to address ownership of high-powered weapons, going to down the road of the meaning of "militia" is not a winning strategy. Better luck would be had just attempting to overturn the Amendment.
Interesting, I guess that now that the USA has one of the biggest and the most well armed militaries in the world, that is out of date...and needs, well, amendment.
RIP to the fallen in more attacks today. Have not heard too much about them, which probably indicates it's happening a bit too often.
Indeed. Thomas Jefferson stated that Constitutions are for living, not the dead. He felt every generation within all countries should re-write their Constitution that best suited them and their times, not hang on to old ideas. No one in the USA ever mentions that. Also, the right to bear arms has a logical limit. Antonin Scalia, one of my favorite Supreme Court justices until he died 5 years ago once pointed out that the argument that owning arms shall not be infringed could also be applied to owning nukes. And since that was absurd and no one would be against limits on having nukes as personal arms, then the whole idea that arms cannot be regulated by "type" was plainly absurd. He is right. Combine the two thoughts and one could make a good argument for just replacing the Second Amendment altogether.
I've never understood why Americans want to hang onto gun laws that cause so many unnecessary deaths?
It is 'the right to bear arms', not to bear sub-machine guns.
Maintaining Americans' right to bear arms is as sensible, responsible and safe as introducing the right to arm bears.
The second amendment was originally in relation to militias and their rights to bear arms. The rights of individuals in this regard are much more recent.
Not true. That's just what some on the Left likes to say through a tortured, modern interpretation of the world "Militia."
Back in the Constitutional era the USA had no significant standing army, which was intentional. The founders intended people themselves to be armed and form a militia when under threat. The idea that the militia could be armed but not the people is non-sensical because militias were wholly voluntary. We had no army. The people were armed. Americans has always been armed to the teeth and there was never a period where the guns were stacked up in some shack, awaiting use by a non-existent militia.
In addition, all one needs to read to understand the meaning is the remainder of the Amendment...
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Reagardless of what one thinks of the word "militia," the remainder of the verbiage is clear. The Amendments were created to place limits on government, not people. So when seen in context of the times, the whole intent of the Amendments is clear.
Basically the Amendment means
"In order to defend the country, government may not stop the people from being armed."
I don't own a gun and I feel we need to address ownership of high-powered weapons, going to down the road of the meaning of "militia" is not a winning strategy. Better luck would be had just attempting to overturn the Amendment.
Interesting, I guess that now that the USA has one of the biggest and the most well armed militaries in the world, that is out of date...and needs, well, amendment.
RIP to the fallen in more attacks today. Have not heard too much about them, which probably indicates it's happening a bit too often.
Indeed. Thomas Jefferson stated that Constitutions are for living, not the dead. He felt every generation within all countries should re-write their Constitution that best suited them and their times, not hang on to old ideas. No one in the USA ever mentions that. Also, the right to bear arms has a logical limit. Antonin Scalia, one of my favorite Supreme Court justices until he died 5 years ago once pointed out that the argument that owning arms shall not be infringed could also be applied to owning nukes. And since that was absurd and no one would be against limits on having nukes as personal arms, then the whole idea that arms cannot be regulated by "type" was plainly absurd. He is right. Combine the two thoughts and one could make a good argument for just replacing the Second Amendment altogether.
I've never understood why Americans want to hang onto gun laws that cause so many unnecessary deaths?
We tend to think older is better. Once something has been around hundreds of years, we have a cult of not wanting to update or change things. If any country can relate, it's Britain. Luckily the royal family does not shoot 90,000 people per year.
It is 'the right to bear arms', not to bear sub-machine guns.
Maintaining Americans' right to bear arms is as sensible, responsible and safe as introducing the right to arm bears.
The second amendment was originally in relation to militias and their rights to bear arms. The rights of individuals in this regard are much more recent.
Not true. That's just what some on the Left likes to say through a tortured, modern interpretation of the world "Militia."
Back in the Constitutional era the USA had no significant standing army, which was intentional. The founders intended people themselves to be armed and form a militia when under threat. The idea that the militia could be armed but not the people is non-sensical because militias were wholly voluntary. We had no army. The people were armed. Americans has always been armed to the teeth and there was never a period where the guns were stacked up in some shack, awaiting use by a non-existent militia.
In addition, all one needs to read to understand the meaning is the remainder of the Amendment...
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Reagardless of what one thinks of the word "militia," the remainder of the verbiage is clear. The Amendments were created to place limits on government, not people. So when seen in context of the times, the whole intent of the Amendments is clear.
Basically the Amendment means
"In order to defend the country, government may not stop the people from being armed."
I don't own a gun and I feel we need to address ownership of high-powered weapons, going to down the road of the meaning of "militia" is not a winning strategy. Better luck would be had just attempting to overturn the Amendment.
Interesting, I guess that now that the USA has one of the biggest and the most well armed militaries in the world, that is out of date...and needs, well, amendment.
RIP to the fallen in more attacks today. Have not heard too much about them, which probably indicates it's happening a bit too often.
Indeed. Thomas Jefferson stated that Constitutions are for living, not the dead. He felt every generation within all countries should re-write their Constitution that best suited them and their times, not hang on to old ideas. No one in the USA ever mentions that. Also, the right to bear arms has a logical limit. Antonin Scalia, one of my favorite Supreme Court justices until he died 5 years ago once pointed out that the argument that owning arms shall not be infringed could also be applied to owning nukes. And since that was absurd and no one would be against limits on having nukes as personal arms, then the whole idea that arms cannot be regulated by "type" was plainly absurd. He is right. Combine the two thoughts and one could make a good argument for just replacing the Second Amendment altogether.
I've never understood why Americans want to hang onto gun laws that cause so many unnecessary deaths?
We tend to think older is better. Once something has been around hundreds of years, we have a cult of not wanting to update or change things. If any country can relate, it's Britain. Luckily the royal family does not shoot 90,000 people per year.
Comments
RIP to the fallen in more attacks today. Have not heard too much about them, which probably indicates it's happening a bit too often.
The winner takes all political situation across the western world may have to be looked at, we now exist in entirely separate realities via our echo chamber, online filter bubbles, and now any questions asked are immediately scrutinized around 'who' is asking not the content of the question.
So one extreme left or right group gets in power makes 50% of the people happy for a short time then it switches again, and as fear is a greater motivator the right wins more regularly.
An awful state of affairs, and one highlighted by Boris entirely bypassing government by shutting it down to ensure that No-deal Brexit goes through...
So no real solutions, and how good are Charlton!!
The most important thing to remember about the Founding Fathers, is that they were slave owning rapists, at least a handful of whom were Deists. The second most important thing is that they were terrified of actual democracy, which is part of why the Senate was originally unelected and we have the Electoral College.
Further down that list is that they were vehemently opposed the idea of political parties. As such, you can hack our system with political parties and minority rule. Republicans are really good at this. Democrats are not because Democrats tend to be very bad at power and understanding a relationship to power, not necessarily because they're good people or not. So when you have a judiciary, executive, and judiciary-confirming part of the legislative all of the same party, the system of checks and balances goes away, and you have 40 years of right-wing white nationalist and anarcho-capitalist rule. All, again without popular majorities or in some cases (judiciary) votes even being cast.
It's really a great system.
Canada this time, assailant dressed as a policeman.
https://twitter.com/i/events/1260285467875897344?cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjcw==&refsrc=email
There’s been a huge rise in anti-Asian sentiment since the pandemic broke out, helped more than a little by a f’ing idiot former President who took every opportunity to blame China for it all. Sickening.
Thoughts with the victims of yet another bastard American.
Documentary on this week on BBC4 Storyville, Raising a school shooter. Talks to parents of three school shooters including one of the Columbine killers.
During a mass shooting, how do you know who the shooter is if everyone is walking round holding a gun?
Indeed. Thomas Jefferson stated that Constitutions are for living, not the dead. He felt every generation within all countries should re-write their Constitution that best suited them and their times, not hang on to old ideas. No one in the USA ever mentions that. Also, the right to bear arms has a logical limit. Antonin Scalia, one of my favorite Supreme Court justices until he died 5 years ago once pointed out that the argument that owning arms shall not be infringed could also be applied to owning nukes. And since that was absurd and no one would be against limits on having nukes as personal arms, then the whole idea that arms cannot be regulated by "type" was plainly absurd. He is right. Combine the two thoughts and one could make a good argument for just replacing the Second Amendment altogether.
We tend to think older is better. Once something has been around hundreds of years, we have a cult of not wanting to update or change things. If any country can relate, it's Britain. Luckily the royal family does not shoot 90,000 people per year.