What other countries do differently than the US to stop mass shootings

You can imagine whatever you like about what the founders thought a militia should look like. I imagine that every able-bodied person they could muster would be welcomed, and those who represented a problem would be dealt with. Regardless, they knew that they could not expect a militia to be mustered AT ALL, if the right to keep and bear arms were infringed. Hence, the 2A.

 

Oh, now you are downgrading it to only able-bodied, which was part of my argument which you disagreed with. Yes, able-bodied and able-minded. Its practically the same thing, and it DOES mean you can infringe on the gun rights of a raving madman, or 8 yr olds who wants to join the battle with daddy. The two parts of the 2A are in harmony.

Arguing for the sake of arguing.......

 

There, again, you pose a debatable situation that can only be resolved by an amendment to the Constitution -- or -- in the case of the Second Amendment, a modification to it, or the outright removal of it. To put it mildly, that special word, "shall" is 'big medicine' in government 'legalese'-language. In its context, it almost rises to the level of German in its absolute and unequivocal denotation.

 

But as you say, it has been changed 27 times.
If an amendment proliferates murder and death and is clearly written in à context no longer relevant, then it is ripé for change.
Like the example I gave of à law in the UK which allowed driving sheep across London Bridge.
It is totally irrelevant today. It is doing nothing but proliferating bribery and payoffs, while hundreds of thousands of people die every year.
Surely you dont want to continue that!
It is in your remit to stop it. Humans can do what they want in forming their society. They are not trapped by outdated law. They lead, and do not follow something so detrimental to their existence. Their culture. Their population.

 

Why do you always set up the most ridiculous whatifs?
Is it because you have nothing better to debate with?

 

If you think you can get rid of the right to own and bear arms with a Constitutional amendment give it a try. I look forward to your embarrassing failure.

 

The phrase 'well-regulated' does not apply to individual gun owners. It applies to the militia, which would be assembled from the pool of gun owners. In order to have a pool from which to muster a militia when necessary, the founders recognized that they needed to have an armed populace who were familiar and ready with their arms. Everybody was a member of that pool, and the militia would be assembled from them. Hence the 2A. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, because a functioning militia is essential to the security of the free state. A functional militia cannot be mustered from a disarmed populace.

The relevance of the 2A to life today is immaterial. It is, currently, the law.

 

Because what I am responding to is patently ridiculous.

 

I have not disagreed that the militia be comprised of the able-bodied, it absolutely should. I have only pointed out that: "Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only NOT the intent in using the phrase 'well-regulated' in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it."

You, on the other hand, said this:

The 2A absolutely does no such thing. It only says that the right of the People to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed, because a well-regulated militia is essential to the security of a free state. It logically follows that any militia, well-regulated or not, cannot be mustered from a disarmed populace, in a timely fashion. The intent of the founders, for purposes of having a pool from which to quickly assemble a functional militia, was clearly that EVERYONE who could arm themselves, absolutely should have done so. Kids, criminals, drunkards, crazies... everyone. And that the government "SHALL NOT infringe" their right to do so.

By the way, if engaging in debate for the sake of debate is unpalatable to you, perhaps you should not be participating in a debate forum such as this.

 

The problem is you disagree for the sake of disagreeing. Even when you agree you make it sound like you disagree. Weird, but it is what it is.

In your opinion: Kids, criminals, drunkards, crazies = Well regulated militia. Heck, whatever gets you through the night.

Have a nice day.

 

I accept your concession.

Debate works better when *I* express *my* opinion, and *you* express *yours*. When we try to form opinions for others, debate becomes impossible. Regardless, I hold no such opinion. I said that they are included in the POOL, along with everyone else, from which a militia would be assembled.

I doubt anyone else here has had any confusion about my position on the 2A. It is a stupidly simple amendment, and only those whose agenda is impeded by it, find it necessary to obfuscate it.

 

There is no need to amend it, let alone delete it. As Anthony Scalia explained its flexible enough to allow for certain measures: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited” - Scalia. We already have background checks, and we can add mental evaluation for 1st time buyers (could be a simple interview with LE officer who is trained to detect mental warning signs). I think vast majority of people would be ok with that, including vast majority of gun owners. We want to keep our right to own guns, but hardly anyone wants deranged psychos running around with them.

 

Unfortunately, Pixie, our American 'culture' has mutated into a sick, perverted mash-up of humorless 'humor', grotesque bad-taste, and other 'lowest-common-denominator' expressions reflecting sad life at 'the bottom of the barrel'. American ideas of 'beauty' are often garish, nauseating exaggerations, featuring green or blue hair, panels of tattoos, troweled-on facial makeup, etc. Most of our more popular pastimes are childishly boring, and our American-English language has devolved into halting, monosyllabic doggerel. Worse, my German friends can only commiserate with me by telling me that, now, it's gotten to be just about that bad in GERMANY. So... seemingly, there's no escape from it, if you want to remain in the 'First World'... although I still have hope for Wales.

 

Why should I care what other countries do about their guns? Are we America? Or are we one of those other countries?

For decades we did not have mass school shooting problems. Despite the fact that millions of people owning guns. What changed between then and now? It wasn't the guns. It wasn't the availability of guns. So what changed outside of guns?

 

Why do we allow "deranged psychos" to be free at all? Seems to me that if they are too dangerous to enjoy and safely exercise their 2A rights, then they are probably too dangerous to be loose in our peaceable society at all. Do you want someone who cannot be trusted to own a pistol driving a vehicle through a school zone?

 

Let's be clear, calling for further restrictions to the right to own and bear arms will not end with the next law or set of laws. We have more than enough "common sense" gun laws, which BTW only effect honest gun owners, never criminals. The progressives want to END the right for individuals to protect themselves completely and permanently. They will not be satisfied with anything less than banning and confiscating all firearms.

 

Sounds like you might be agreeing with the mental evaluation idea.

 

I wouldn't know. Its not what I want, so I only speak for myself.

 

Absolutely! I'm all for mental evaluations. Anyone who is deemed to be a dangerous "deranged psycho" should be segregated from our peaceable society before they can harm themselves, or others. They should remain there until they are no longer a violent threat to the peaceful.

The problem arises when you try to infringe upon a free citizen's 2A rights to defer or delay his ability to keep and bear arms contingent upon a mental evaluation. Currently, that would be unconstitutional, unless it can be done in an expeditious manner, like the NICS check is. Ideally, a "deranged psycho" would have been mentally evaluated long before he was standing at the sales counter in a gun store, and his evaluation would be included in the NICS check.

 

Like I have said, we could have a national carry license for anyone who is physically and mentally able to handle firearms. We already have a criminal background check, and a mental evaluation for 1st time gun buyers could be an interview with a trained police officer locally. Nothing unconstitutional about it.

 

Well if it's a "mentality" issue then one can only assume that Americans are mentally unstable ppl as a whole.

 

No federal registration or licensing. "Shall not be infringed."

 

I can support a national carry license. Currently, reciprocity is such a patchy moving target that it makes planning an interstate trip a potentially dangerous chore. All we need is national reciprocity.

I wouldn't be against a standardized mental evaluation either as long as it's not a subjective process, and that it can be completed within the same time frame as the NICS check. I wouldn't want police to perform the mental evaluations, though, for the same reason that I would not like for a gun store employee to do it. It would need to be a qualified mental health professional, but uninterested to the transaction. And again, not delay the purchase beyond the NICS check.

Ideally, this mental health professional would not even know that the evaluation was for a gun purchase. That way, personal biases would not come into play. We could even use the same evaluation process for other things, like voting for instance. We wouldn't want any "deranged psychos" exercising their right to vote, would we?

 

Thanks for sharing your personal opinion, but I'll go with Anthony Scalia on this one.

Trained officer is just my idea. It could, and maybe should be a pro.

 

Yes and I'm sure progressive will distort that opinion to justify regulating the 2nd Amendment out of existence. You're not fooling anyone.