• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Another School Shooting

a_unique_person said:
We all know that's a joke. The very short definition of the amendment is open to several interpretations. The conservative courts choose the interpretation that aligns with their political views.
Click to expand...

Not really, we can be very sure that the original definition, in the vernacular of the time, pretty much means, "because it's important for national security to have a well regulated roster of potential conscripts, we must let people have weapons."

And like in any X => Y situation, it kinda falls apart when either

1. X becomes false, or
2. the guys claiming to be in X aren't actually, or
3. the implicit other premises in that reasoning become false, or
4. the same can be applied to lead to an absurd Y

And I'd say that nowadays all 3 apply.

1. The US has moved from a national militia conscription model, to a professional army. Not the least because professional troops kick a militia's ass any day of the week, and twice on Sundays.

2. Sorry, part of that conscriptable definition was always being "able bodied" Some obese guy who isn't even able to run 10m before getting winded, is NOT what "militia" meant. So that alone would still disqualify about half the population.

3. As I was saying before, we're no longer operating under the assumption that people would largely be dependent on their civilian training, much less that they might bring their own weapons. We're no longer in the flippin' 14'th century where you had to have civilians training archery weekly, to have any competent archers.

3.A. The weapons which REALLY kill these days are stuff like artillery, HIMARS, planes, etc. We DON'T expect people to come pre-trained in how to operate an F-35, or a supercarrier, much less bring one from home :p

3.B. Knowing how to aim down iron sights is the LEAST important skill even for infantry. Stuff like coherent squad tactics, combined operations, being conditioned by training to shoot to kill before you think, or even the basic not panicking when it turns into a second person shooter (i.e., you're the one that some unkind guys are shooting several medium machineguns at), are not even things that 99% of civilian ranges won't teach you, and most of the rest won't teach correctly.

4. It would be absurd to actually expect that any gun policy would mean some hillbilly would come pre-trained on how to do any job on an aircraft carrier, except maybe cook or medic/nurse :p
 
Last edited:
Short version: Look, seriously, coming from a guy that's actually been in the army: do you ACTUALLY want to serve your country in the spirit of what 2A meant? Join a flippin' paintball club, or airsoft CQB club, or even laser tag. Even being able to work coherently with team mates in paintball or airsoft will be a MUCH more useful thing in case your country needs you, than your owning some hunting rifle.

Like, <bleep> me, you can even join some video game clan for a team-based FPS. Or, hell, do raids in WOW. Just the fact that you can work in a hierarchy and follow orders and coordinate with the others will be a MUCH more useful skill when your country needs you, than whether you can aim down iron sights.

I'm not even kidding.
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann said:
... It would be absurd to actually expect that any gun policy would mean some hillbilly would come pre-trained on how to do any job on an aircraft carrier, except maybe cook ...
Click to expand...

It worked for Seven Seagal. I saw a documentary about it called Under Siege. Though I'm not sure which country's well regulated militia he's part of these days.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
Even if I do grant that that's how the law in your country works, it does not follow that that is how the law in your country will always work.
Click to expand...


Yes, precedent is the way the law in the U.S. will continue to work for generations if not forever because it is one of the most deeply ingrained principles in the law, inheriting from English Common law that dates back to the 11th Century. It ain't going away...it is a fundamental principle.
 
Last edited:
jt512 said:
Yes it is—and as a reminder, we're talking about how legal precedent is set—because it is one of the most deeply ingrained principles in U.S. law, inheriting from English Common law that dates back to the 11th Century. It ain't going away...it is a fundamental principle.
Click to expand...
"Never" is an awful long time.

If enough people want it to change, it will change.
 
jt512 said:
Oh, really? How?
Click to expand...
Well, since you're referring to a Supreme Court ruling, another Supreme Court ruling can overrule it, just like it did with Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court you have in twenty or thirty years could be very different from the Supreme Court you have now.
 
arthwollipot said:
Well, since you're referring to a Supreme Court ruling, another Supreme Court ruling can overrule it, just like it did with Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court you have in twenty or thirty years could be very different from the Supreme Court you have now.
Click to expand...

What I wrote was:
jt512 said:
As long as this Supreme Court is sitting, it doesn't much matter what gun laws are passed. They will be held to be unconstitutional. This SC has ruled that unless a gun law adheres closely to the text of the Second Amendment, it must reflect how guns were historical regulated.
Click to expand...

In case you missed it, I said this Supreme Court, meaning the SC as comprised of the now-sitting justices. This Supreme Court is not going to overturn its own precedent. Will some SC do so in the future? Yes, I predict they will because this SC's ruling is extreme and, IMO, unreasonable.
 
arthwollipot said:
Even if I do grant that that's how the law in your country works, it does not follow that that is how the law in your country will always work.
Click to expand...

Our system of law, or a particular piece of legislation?

Our system for creating and deciding the constitutionality of laws will always be exactly as it is now. The specific laws themselves will change often.
 
jt512 said:
In case you missed it, I said this Supreme Court, meaning the SC as comprised of the now-sitting justices. This Supreme Court is not going to overturn its own precedent. Will some SC do so in the future? Yes, I predict they will because this SC's ruling is extreme and, IMO, unreasonable.
Click to expand...
Right, so we agree.

Good. It's nice to finally have something we can agree on.
 
sarge said:
Our system of law, or a particular piece of legislation?

Our system for creating and deciding the constitutionality of laws will always be exactly as it is now. The specific laws themselves will change often.
Click to expand...
It's possible for your system to be changed too. Your Constitution has already been amended 27 times.
 
HansMustermann said:
You can get a 12.5" or 11.5" barrel one quite trivially, and it won't break any laws in the USA. Especially one where you can fold the stock or such, I've had shoulder bags that could fit more than that.

But yes, if you read the story, he's described a pulling the weapon out in front of the classmates, not going to the lockers for it or taking time to assemble it.
Click to expand...
A barrel shorter than 16" make the weapon legally an SBR, and hence restricted.
 
jt512 said:
As I said, the U.S. constitution guarantees that a citizen has a right to keep and bear arms. That makes it next to impossible (at least under the current Supreme Court) to pass gun control laws that would pass constitutional muster, and it is next to impossible to amend the Constitution.

Everybody is quick to say how easy it should be to fix the gun violence problem in America, but when pressed, nobody can ever think of a viable solution.
Click to expand...
It also mentions a "well regulated militia" but this bit gets ignored.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom