Sandy Hook familes sue...well, pretty much everyone

MadsL

ScumLord wrote: »

Unless you need it to survive then yes, it's a complete toy.

A friend of mine lives at the end of this road...it gets far worse than this at the end too. When I visit him, I couldn't safely get there without a 4x4.

For some it's a toy, for others a tool. But you cannot restrict access to tools on the basis that others have fun with the tools.

... Or civilised society. :pac:

Come now - it is not like people are not shot on the streets of Dublin.

It is pointless trying to convince Americans that they shouldn't have a country polluted with guns, but it's a culture thing.

Polluted? Is Ireland also polluted with some 200 thousand plus firearms?

Ireland came out of hundreds of years of being oppressed by a country that used its military might to get it's way.

America didn't really have to suffer that in the same way we did,

Lol. You really should read some North America history. England, France, Spain, Sweden and Holland were all US colonial powers. As a side note technically the Irish nation is still at war with Canada. In fact the Seven Year's War actually started in North America.

"Americans" didn't have to suffer in the same way Ireland did. Have you any notion of what Native Americans suffered at the hands of Europeans?

the gun gave America it's freedom whereas in Ireland the gun kept us in line. Our civil war is just about out of living memory and you can still see the bullet holes in buildings from that conflict,

I see. There was no armed rebellion in Ireland?

whereas in America time allowed for the living memory of people that suffered the gun to pass into legend.

Eh? Is there some romantic music to be played that makes this makes sense?

At the end of the day America and Europe are at very different stages in their development. Europe is still getting over the effects of the gun and war, America hasn't had to suffer it's full effects in a long time.

You are aware that there are 19 million military veterans currently in the US, 7 million Vietnam-era veterans, 5.2 million who served during the Gulf War Era, 1.3 million who served in World War II; and 2.1 million who served in the Korean War.

That's one in seventeen Americans who are combat vets.

All I can think as a European is that at least it's happening thousands of miles away from me.

Tell me, where are the current armed conflicts taking place? Ukraine is also part of Europe.

MadsL

fryup wrote: »

they had the opportunity to change it but did a u-turn at the last minute

http://www.thewire.com/politics/2013/04/senate-vote-background-checks/64331/

That Bill was about background checks, not the Second Amendment, and supported by approx 90% of Americans.

Very few Americans would countenance conviced criminals having legal access to firearms.

The Diabolical Monocle

MadsL wrote: »

As always, when unable to make a coherent and practical argument, resort to name-calling.

Yes boo hoo I said gun nut. What happens when its an accurate description ... do I regain my coherent argument card ? Is that what internet law says ?

MadsL wrote: »

Nothing in the second amendment prevents either individual states or Federal Govt passing restrictions, as evidenced by the restrictions on fully automatic firearms. It is up to the Supreme Court(s) to determine if the legislation violates the 2nd Amendment.

Exactly - so its not a holy document which sets life in stone n'er to be changed. Certain weapons have been banned previously, its frankly a painfully obvious thing to do, at least they somewhat used sense, so you dont have rockets flying round the streets of the US.
In an ideal world they'd go the final inch and finish the job, that wouldn't do however for people who like their 'recreational shooting' and 'collectors items' with a great deal of passion.

MadsL wrote: »

Consider how few of them have required changes.

Thats not really an argument now is it - something hasn't been often changed .... therefore what. It mustn't be changed - why ? - because it hasn't been changed much.

MadsL wrote: »

Do you even read my posts? I even quoted you.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93470553&postcount=122

9 rounds a minute would have been shock and awe in the 1720s.

Yes .... in the 1720's. When shopping centers, universities and cinemas getting shot up wasn't a real big deal. It also looks like it weighs about 20kg.

lol ...it was for shipboard use to prevent boarding.
Your defense for why no changes are needed to present day US gun laws is 'the puckle gun' existed in the 1700's.

Ah I see it did indeed have a turning handle as predicted.

BlaasForRafa

MadsL wrote: »

Do you even read my posts? I even quoted you.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93470553&postcount=122

9 rounds a minute would have been shock and awe in the 1720s.

The Puckle Gun drew few investors and never achieved mass production or sales to the British armed forces. As with other designs of the time it was hampered by "clumsy and undependable flintlock ignition" and other mechanism problems.[2] One newspaper of the period sarcastically observed, following the business venture's failure, that the gun has "only wounded those who hold shares therein

the second variant, designed to be used against the Muslim Turks, fired square bullets

:rolleyes:

It never went into full-scale production, no army or navy adopted it and it was completely impractical, it might as well have been invented by Rube Goldberg.

Plus it's not very practical for massacring 6 year olds in a classroom.

MadsL

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Yes boo hoo I said gun nut. What happens when its an accurate description ... do I regain my coherent argument card ? Is that what internet law says ?

Insult away! You are only making your weak arguments weaker. Maybe that is why you have resorted to bold text?

Exactly - so its not a holy document which sets life in stone n'er to be changed. Certain weapons have been banned previously, its frankly a painfully obvious thing to do, at least they somewhat used sense, so you dont have rockets flying round the streets of the US.

I never said it was, perhaps you kight quote where I did if I am mistaken. As for rocket propelled grenades, you are aware they can be legally owned and fired in the US. Just at rather a hefty price tag.

In an ideal world they'd go the final inch and finish the job, that wouldn't do however for people who like their 'recreational shooting' and 'collectors items' with a great deal of passion. [/B]

Can you enlighten me as to what is wrong with recreational shooting? A past-time practiced in a good many countries, including Ireland. Please I'd love to know what causes you to froth at the mouth at the thought of people putting a few rounds downrange at a target.

Thats not really an argument now is it - something hasn't been often changed .... therefore what. It mustn't be changed - why ? - because it hasn't been changed much.

You do know what a democracy is, right?

Yes .... in the 1720's. When shopping centers, universities and cinemas getting shot up wasn't a real big deal. It also looks like it weighs about 20kg.

lol ...it was for shipboard use to prevent boarding.
Your defense for why no changes are needed to present day US gun laws is 'the puckle gun' existed in the 1700's.
Ah I see it did indeed have a turning handle as predicted.

My defence wasn't the puckle gun, it was my response to your assertion that when the Bill of Rights was written that the only guns were black powder muzzleloaders. Since you now admit that there was a bit more firepower around in the 1790s or even the 1720s than just muzzleloader muskets you have conceded that your argument point is factualy incorrect, thanks for conceding it. You mocking the gun doesn't make it any less historically present.

MadsL

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

:rolleyes:

It never went into full-scale production, no army or navy adopted it and it was completely impractical, it might as well have been invented by Rube Goldberg.

Plus it's not very practical for massacring 6 year olds in a classroom.

Did it exist as a firearm? Yes.

My point is already made, the founding fathers must have been aware of more substantial firepower than muskets, and yet did not frame the Second Amendment as "the right to bear arms except for those nasty Puckle Guns".

Manic Moran

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

:rolleyes:

It never went into full-scale production, no army or navy adopted it and it was completely impractical, it might as well have been invented by Rube Goldberg.

Plus it's not very practical for massacring 6 year olds in a classroom.

Perhaps a better example would have been the Giradoni Rifle, which was in Austrian Army service at that time. It fired from detachable 20-round gravity-fed magazines (each soldier carried five in total). It was in service for about 25 years, the main problems for its time were that it was bloody hard to make and maintain, and kind of fragile. Americans will know it as the rifle which armed the Lewis and Clark expedition.

Dan_Solo

MadsL wrote: »

You do know what a democracy is, right?

Another amazingly inept non-point.
I think we're all pretty well aware that it would take a plebiscite to change the US constitution. Or the right democratically elected (and paid off) representatives to change laws.
Are you confused by this yourself?

Jawgap

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Another amazingly inept non-point.
I think we're all pretty well aware that it would take a plebiscite to change the US constitution. Or the right democratically elected (and paid off) representatives to change laws.
Are you confused by this yourself?

No it wouldn't - the US Constitution is amended through resolutions voted by individual State legislatures, not by referendum.

Two thirds of both houses of congress must agree to a proposal to amend - or the legislatures of two thirds of the States can agree a proposal to amend.

The proposal then goes to the states for ratification - usually there's a time limit - and for it to be accepted (and the Constitution amended) 75% of the states must ratify it.

In the case of the second amendment - good luck with tha'

Dan_Solo

Jawgap wrote: »

No it wouldn't - the US Constitution is amended through resolutions voted by individual State legislatures, not by referendum.

Two thirds of both houses of congress must agree to a proposal to amend - or the legislatures of two thirds of the States can agree a proposal to amend.

The proposal then goes to the states for ratification - usually there's a time limit - and for it to be accepted (and the Constitution amended) 75% of the states must ratify it.

Which doesn't change the fact that we all know already that it takes a democratic decision to change the constitution and state laws. You're not even attempting to refute this.

Jawgap wrote: »

In the case of the second amendment - good luck with tha'

Also a separate argument, whether such a plebiscite would succeed.
Anything anybody posted you'd care to comment on?

Beano

Jawgap wrote: »

No it wouldn't - the US Constitution is amended through resolutions voted by individual State legislatures, not by referendum.

Two thirds of both houses of congress must agree to a proposal to amend - or the legislatures of two thirds of the States can agree a proposal to amend.

The proposal then goes to the states for ratification - usually there's a time limit - and for it to be accepted (and the Constitution amended) 75% of the states must ratify it.

In the case of the second amendment - good luck with tha'

the above isnt strictly true. amendments to the constitution can also be made at a national convention convened for this purpose. This has never been done, and is unlikely to ever be used, but it is an alternative way for amendments to be made. but as you said "in the case of the second amendment - good luck with that"

Jawgap

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Which doesn't change the fact that we all know already that it takes a democratic decision to change the constitution and state laws. You're not even attempting to refute this.
Also a separate argument, whether such a plebiscite would succeed.
Anything anybody posted you'd care to comment on?

I'm not attempting to refute anything, just pointing out that the US Constitution is different to the Irish one. States, not the citizen are the 'unit' in the Republic in the US, therefore it's states that amend the Constitution, choose the President etc

So no plebiscite needed.....

Dan_Solo wrote: »

......
I think we're all pretty well aware that it would take a plebiscite to change the US constitution. Or the right democratically elected (and paid off) representatives to change laws.
Are you confused by this yourself?

Given the number of legislators that would need to be 'paid off' and / or the number of people in support of the second amendment rights - it remains, at this time, an impractical proposition to remove or modify that element of their Constitution.

Guns are a cultural phenomenon in the US, they can't be legislated away, nor can politics or the law provide the answer. It'll take a seismic cultural shift to see gun ownership reduced in a meaningful away or some technological shift that renders them irrelevant or marginalised - in the same way horse culture yielded to the culture of the internal combustion engine.

Dan_Solo

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.

That's the actual ratified wording of the 2nd amendment.
Does the US still need a regulated militia to ensure it's continuing existence? If you are not in a regulated militia, where does your automatic right to bear arms come from under the constitution?

Jawgap

Beano wrote: »

the above isnt strictly true. amendments to the constitution can also be made at a national convention convened for this purpose. This has never been done, and is unlikely to ever be used, but it is an alternative way for amendments to be made. but as you said "in the case of the second amendment - good luck with that"

That is true, but its the state legislatures who select the delegates who would attend such a convention and, like the electoral college used to elect the President, the legislatures could instruct their delegation how to vote.

Likewise, the votes would be on a state by state basis, not on a delegate basis - in the same way the President would be elected if the electoral college was tied. In other words, California, regardless of population gets one vote as does Idaho, Delaware etc

Dan_Solo

Jawgap wrote: »

I'm not attempting to refute anything, just pointing out that the US Constitution is different to the Irish one. States, not the citizen are the 'unit' in the Republic in the US, therefore it's states that amend the Constitution, choose the President etc

Yes, but this is democracy. We know what democracy is. Stating "You do know what a democracy is?", which is what this conversation is about, isn't refuted by saying it's done this democratic way or this democratic way.

Beano

Jawgap wrote: »

That is true, but its the state legislatures who select the delegates who would attend such a convention and, like the electoral college used to elect the President, the legislatures could instruct their delegation how to vote.

Likewise, the votes would be on a state by state basis, not on a delegate basis - in the same way the President would be elected if the electoral college was tied. In other words, California, regardless of population gets one vote as does Idaho, Delaware etc

oh absolutely. but i thought i would mention as i could think of a few people who would use it to bash you over the head.

Jawgap

Dan_Solo wrote: »

That's the actual ratified wording of the 2nd amendment.
Does the US still need a regulated militia to ensure it's continuing existence? If you are not in a regulated militia, where does your automatic right to bear arms come from under the constitution?

No, if you read around it and particularly the Federalist Papers you'll see the idea of a militia was to act as a counterweight to the Government and the standing army.

The idea being that the 'crown' (in the governmental sense) would find it more difficult to arbitrarily infringe the rights of the citizen if the citizens were armed.

Everyone is in the militia, except the salaried officers appointed by the states - they may command the militia, but strictly speaking are regarded to be apart from it.

Incidentally, the framers of the US Constitution also envisaged a relatively small Federal Army (1% of the total population or 4% of the military age population).

AudreyHepburn

Compo Culture alive and well it seems.

Knives are strictly speaking weapons yet we routinely by and sell them as cooking and eating utensils. If some-one stabbed me or my loved ones with a kitchen knife could I sue the manufacturer for completely legally selling it to a member of the public just because that member of the public chose to use it in a violent manner? Of course not, I'd be laughed out of court.

This case is exactly the same.

Dan_Solo

Jawgap wrote: »

Everyone is in the militia, except the salaried officers appointed by the states - they may command the militia, but strictly speaking are regarded to be apart from it.

Ah come one now! How does current gun ownership in the US fit with the wording "well regulated militia"?
I notice none of the civilian gun ownership advocates seem to be able to quote this amendment in its entirety, seemingly always forgetting to mention this pesky first half of it!

Dan_Solo

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Compo Culture alive and well it seems.

Knives are strictly speaking weapons yet we routinely by and sell them as cooking and eating utensils. If some-one stabbed me or my loved ones with a kitchen knife could I sue the manufacturer for completely legally selling it to a member of the public just because that member of the public chose to use it in a violent manner? Of course not, I'd be laughed out of court.

This case is exactly the same.

No denying that. This attempted court proceeding is a load of cobblers...

Jawgap

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Yes, but this is democracy. We know what democracy is. Stating "You do know what a democracy is?", which is what this conversation is about, isn't refuted by saying it's done this democratic way or this democratic way.

But it's not truly democratic - the US is a republic, like us but unlike us it's federal.

You could hold a vote tomorrow and win it but still be over-ruled because it's the states who vote. Therefore, California, even if it votes overwhelmingly in favour of amending the Constitution can be checked by Idaho if they vote against it.

John Q. Adams lost the popular vote to become president by 10% but was nonetheless elected president because he carried the electoral college vote - an in more recent times GW Bush lost the popular vote (by about 0.5%) and still became president.

Dan_Solo

Jawgap wrote: »

But it's not truly democratic - the US is a republic, like us but unlike us it's federal.

You could hold a vote tomorrow and win it but still be over-ruled because it's the states who vote. Therefore, California, even if it votes overwhelmingly in favour of amending the Constitution can be checked by Idaho if they vote against it.

John Q. Adams lost the popular vote to become president by 10% but was nonetheless elected president because he carried the electoral college vote - an in more recent times GW Bush lost the popular vote (by about 0.5%) and still became president.

That's still a debate about the form of democracy, not whether the US is a democracy or not.
In any case, this is coming closer to arguing against the original poster!

MadsL wrote: »

You do know what a democracy is, right?

Jawgap

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Ah come one now! How does current gun ownership in the US fit with the wording "well regulated militia"?
I notice none of the civilian gun ownership advocates seem to be able to quote this amendment in its entirety, seemingly always forgetting to mention this pesky first half of it!

It probably doesn't - and it's probably not what was intended when the document was written, but it's their laws and traditions.

The framers also thought the government should, unlike European governments of the time, trust its citizenry with arms - again you can't really blame for failing to anticipate the growth of the country and the technological advances that would follow.

BattleCorp

This is a ridiculous law suit. I'm not a lawyer but I believe it has zero chance of succeeding.

Guns can be used safely and legally. So when somebody uses one illegally, how is it the fault of the gun manufacturer? It's the fault of the person who used it illegally.

Cars can be used safely and legally. So when somebody drives a car into a crowd of pedestrians on purpose (illegally), you can't blame the car manufacturer, it's the fault of the person who used it illegally.

I have sympathy with the families who have lost loved ones, but they are wasting their time with this law suit.

DrumSteve

MadsL wrote: »

A friend of mine lives at the end of this road...it gets far worse than this at the end too. When I visit him, I couldn't safely get there without a 4x4.

Looks like something from Fallout.

ScumLord

MadsL wrote: »

A friend of mine lives at the end of this road...it gets far worse than this at the end too. When I visit him, I couldn't safely get there without a 4x4.

You wouldn't need a 4x4 to get up that road, although, I do actually part own an American pick up, dodge dakota and it's constantly getting stuck on humps and bumps any normal car would have no problem getting through.

Come now - it is not like people are not shot on the streets of Dublin.

Not many, we haven't had any one going on a shooting spree just yet. It's almost entirely restricted to gang violence.

Polluted? Is Ireland also polluted with some 200 thousand plus firearms?

No, I know of only a handful of people with guns. One guy exterminates vermin for people (rabbits are breeding like rabbits around here), another has a single barrel shotgun, he grew up on a farm but these days just just clay pigeon shooting every few months. The rest are farmers that go on scheduled fox hunting outings with the gun club.

Lol. You really should read some North America history. England, France, Spain, Sweden and Holland were all US colonial powers. As a side note technically the Irish nation is still at war with Canada. In fact the Seven Year's War actually started in North America.

"has just" is missing from the statement I made, I'm saying Ireland is recently out of a civil war, Americans haven't had war on their soil in a long long time .

"Americans" didn't have to suffer in the same way Ireland did. Have you any notion of what Native Americans suffered at the hands of Europeans?

That stayed in America and became Americans? Yes, I've heard all about it.

I see. There was no armed rebellion in Ireland?

Many failed rebellions over many hundreds of years. Ireland didn't really win it's freedom with guns, we couldn't when the greatest Empire of the time was right next door. We beat them at their own game of politicking

You are aware that there are 19 million military veterans currently in the US, 7 million Vietnam-era veterans, 5.2 million who served during the Gulf War Era, 1.3 million who served in World War II; and 2.1 million who served in the Korean War.

That's one in seventeen Americans who are combat vets.

Those are guys sent to other countries, America wasn't under any actual treat (bar ww2 and even then) those are trained soldiers sent to invade another country not quite the same as ordinary civilians being blown up or fighting in the streets, America hasn't had to suffer that since it's civil war.

MadsL

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Another amazingly inept non-point.
I think we're all pretty well aware that it would take a plebiscite to change the US constitution. Or the right democratically elected (and paid off) representatives to change laws.
Are you confused by this yourself?

Do you propose the US remove the right to bear arms by non-democratic means?

Dan_Solo wrote: »

That's the actual ratified wording of the 2nd amendment.
Does the US still need a regulated militia to ensure it's continuing existence? If you are not in a regulated militia, where does your automatic right to bear arms come from under the constitution?

Yeah, we have done this to death on boards and still you don't get it. I'll let Penn and Teller have a crack at getting you to follow the point of the 2A.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Ah come one now! How does current gun ownership in the US fit with the wording "well regulated militia"?
I notice none of the civilian gun ownership advocates seem to be able to quote this amendment in its entirety, seemingly always forgetting to mention this pesky first half of it!

Do you know what a militia is?
Did you know militias still operate in the US as separate armed forces to the US Army?
You seem confused about it. Perhaps I can guide you to the words of George Mason, a co-author of the Bill of Rights who had this to say on the subject.

A worthy member has asked, who are the militia, if they be not the people, of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c. by our representation? I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people. If we should ever see that day, the most ignominious punishments and heavy fines may be expected. Under the present government all ranks of people are subject to militia duty.

Feel free to read him further, he explains it pretty plainly, including his views on the danger of standing armies and why the rights of militias as distinct from standing armies should be protected.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Mason

ScumLord wrote: »

You wouldn't need a 4x4 to get up that road, although, I do actually part own an American pick up, dodge dakota and it's constantly getting stuck on humps and bumps any normal car would have no problem getting through.

At the risk of being directed to the motoring forum, I drive the same truck and I've never got it stuck on "humps and bumps" and I've done plenty of off-road driving. Perhaps you should "jack it up" and risk having it called a toy.

Of course my original point was that some people's "toys" are other people's tools, a fact which you don't seem to grasp when it comes to firearms.

Dan_Solo

MadsL wrote: »

Do you propose the US remove the right to bear arms by non-democratic means?

Why, are you suggesting this? Nobody else has. Yet you seemingly felt the need to announce to us all that the US is a democracy as if anybody said any different.

MadsL wrote: »

Do you know what a militia is?
Did you know militias still operate in the US as separate armed forces to the US Army?
You seem confused about it. Perhaps I can guide you to the words of George Mason, a co-author of the Bill of Rights who had this to say on the subject.

And how many gun owners in the US are part of these "well regulated militias" of which you speak? The highest estimates I can find are under 50,000. Overall gun ownership? About 100,000,000.
Again, have you anything relevant to add here other than pointless definitions of trivial tangential factoids?

Beano

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Why, are you suggesting this? Nobody else has. Yet you seemingly felt the need to announce to us all that the US is a democracy as if anybody said any different.
And how many gun owners in the US are part of these "well regulated militias" of which you speak? The highest estimates I can find are under 50,000. Overall gun ownership? About 100,000,000.
Again, have you anything relevant to add here other than pointless definitions of trivial tangential factoids?

you should try reading the post above yours. it explains it quite well.

MadsL

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Why, are you suggesting this? Nobody else has. Yet you seemingly felt the need to announce to us all that the US is a democracy as if anybody said any different.

My point is very simple. Americans have felt no need to change the 2A in over two hundred years. Yet you seem to feel that it doesn't say what you thing it ought to say. Well, boo-hoo. Thankfully we live in a democracy with a strong constitution and do not have to put up the hodgepodge of gun laws and arbitary Police Superintendents decisions about individuals as gun owners in Ireland have to. Take a look in the Shooting forum to see how messed up Irish gun legislation really is.

And how many gun owners in the US are part of these "well regulated militias" of which you speak? The highest estimates I can find are under 50,000. Overall gun ownership? About 100,000,000.
Again, have you anything relevant to add here other than pointless definitions of trivial tangential factoids?

Oh, so now you understand that militia does not equal army. We are getting somewhere on you actually understanding the 2A. Good.

ScumLord

MadsL wrote: »

At the risk of being directed to the motoring forum, I drive the same truck and I've never got it stuck on "humps and bumps" and I've done plenty of off-road driving. Perhaps you should "jack it up" and risk having it called a toy.

Of course my original point was that some people's "toys" are other people's tools, a fact which you don't seem to grasp when it comes to firearms.

I know I'm just taking the opportunity to pick on American cars. :pac:

It is slightly jacked up, it's the boss edition so that must be good.
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y15/Turk/Dodge/outside_zps688a0e20.jpg it just seems to get stuck and spin it's back wheels at every oportunity where small euopean cars have no problems at all, although I haven't really driven much, its not taxed. The road in your picture is a perfectly good road, even with it's dirt surface it looks better than some paved roads here in Ireland.

MadsL

ScumLord wrote: »

I know I'm just taking the opportunity to pick on American cars. :pac:

It is slightly jacked up, it's the boss edition so that must be good.
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y15/Turk/Dodge/outside_zps688a0e20.jpg it just seems to get stuck and spin it's back wheels at every oportunity where small euopean cars have no problems at all, although I haven't really driven much, its not taxed. The road in your picture is a perfectly good road, even with it's dirt surface it looks better than some paved roads here in Ireland.

It gets knarly about eight miles further up, the rain washes it out and its pretty steep and rutted. Don't have a pic of that bit sorry.
Nice truck by the way. Shame it's a V6

Dan_Solo

MadsL wrote: »

My point is very simple. Americans have felt no need to change the 2A in over two hundred years.

Irrelevant as to whether it is currently fit for purpose.

MadsL wrote: »

Yet you seem to feel that it doesn't say what you thing it ought to say. Well, boo-hoo.

It says "well regulated militia". Very clearly. Can you point me to this "well regulated militia" in the USA that has 100,000,000 members? Ta. (boo hoo in advance when you can't find it).

MadsL wrote: »

Take a look in the Shooting forum to see how messed up Irish gun legislation really is.

I'll take messed up regulations over school massacres, thanks.

MadsL wrote: »

Oh, so now you understand that militia does not equal army. We are getting somewhere on you actually understanding the 2A. Good.

And we are still absolutely nowhere on you explaining where this "well regulated militia", as specified in 2A, is. Which one of the three common words in that phrase are you having difficulty with, or does it only become incomprehensible to you when they are put together in that order?

Beano

Dan_Solo wrote: »

And we are still absolutely nowhere on you explaining where this "well regulated militia", as specified in 2A, is. Which one of the three common words in that phrase are you having difficulty with, or does it only become incomprehensible to you when they are put together in that order?

watch the vid. takes less than a minute. its tells you all you need to know. you're caught up on this "well regulated militia" for some reason.

Dan_Solo

Beano wrote: »

watch the vid. takes less than a minute. its tells you all you need to know. you're caught up on this "well regulated militia" for some reason.

Why, because that's what the US constitution actually says? I shouldn't care about that and watch a video?
Here, why don't you explain to me how "well regulated militia" means "anybody who isn't legally insane or a prior felon" in your own words? Does the "well regulated" bit have to disappear each and every time you define "militia" as "everybody"?
You're honestly contending that the original intention was to pull a fast one and have two utterly separate concepts "well regulated militia" and (apparently) "<absolutely everybody>has the right to bear arms"?

Beano

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Why, because that's what the US constitution actually says? I shouldn't care about that and watch a video?
Here, why don't you explain to me how "well regulated militia" means "anybody who isn't legally insane or a prior felon" in your own words? Does the "well regulated" bit have to disappear each and every time you define "militia" as "everybody"?
You're honestly contending that the original intention was to pull a fast one and have two utterly separate concepts "well regulated militia" and (apparently) "<absolutely everybody>has the right to bear arms"?

well that is what the supreme court has decided so what are you going to do.

"the activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia."

feel free to read the full decision here (warning PDF) http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Of course you will probably insist that they got it wrong. I mean, what would they know, right?

MadsL

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Irrelevant as to whether it is currently fit for purpose.

If it wasn't fit for purpose it would be changed. Prohibition was such an amendment that was repealed. Clearly Americans do not wish it changed.

It says "well regulated militia". Very clearly. Can you point me to this "well regulated militia" in the USA that has 100,000,000 members? Ta. (boo hoo in advance when you can't find it).

I think you are very much confusing a right with exercising a right. I am free to own a gun, and join a militia. However, my right to own a gun does not depend on service in a militia. However, I am free to exercise my right to serve in a militia should the need arise. Are we clear now?

I'll take messed up regulations over school massacres, thanks.

Oh, is it an either/or choice? Do explain.

And we are still absolutely nowhere on you explaining where this "well regulated militia", as specified in 2A, is. Which one of the three common words in that phrase are you having difficulty with, or does it only become incomprehensible to you when they are put together in that order?

I think we have already been warned on bickering, I have provided you with the relevant quote from George Mason explaining his view. I suggest you read it. Militia = the whole people.

Let's give you another example of his thought.

Here is George Mason's draft wording. proposal of the Virginia Declaration of Rights

That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a free state, that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided.

and this from the Virginia Bill of Rights...
Article 12

That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

If that is not crystal clear, I don't know how to help you understand further.

Dan_Solo

Beano wrote: »

well that is what the supreme court has decided so what are you going to do.


feel free to read the full decision here (warning PDF) http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Of course you will probably insist that they got it wrong. I mean, what would they know, right?

And you will assume they got it right without thinking for yourself?
Why has any of the constitution and its interpretation changed since it was written then if your contention is that it was right all along from the start?

Beano

Dan_Solo wrote: »

And you will assume they got it right without thinking for yourself?
Why has any of the constitution and its interpretation changed since it was written then if your contention is that it was right all along from the start?

well obviously havent bothered to read the judgement so i will leave you to wallow in your ignorance.

Beano

MadsL wrote: »

If it wasn't fit for purpose it would be changed. Prohibition was such an amendment that was repealed. Clearly Americans do not wish it changed.


I think you are very much confusing a right with exercising a right. I am free to own a gun, and join a militia. However, my right to own a gun does not depend on service in a militia. However, I am free to exercise my right to serve in a militia should the need arise. Are we clear now?


Oh, is it an either/or choice? Do explain.



I think we have already been warned on bickering, I have provided you with the relevant quote from George Mason explaining his view. I suggest you read it. Militia = the whole people.

Let's give you another example of his thought.

Here is George Mason's draft wording. proposal of the Virginia Declaration of Rights


and this from the Virginia Bill of Rights...
Article 12


If that is not crystal clear, I don't know how to help you understand further.

i think its best to leave him to it MadSL . he has no intention of listening to any opinion that isnt his own.

MadsL

Dan_Solo wrote: »

And you will assume they got it right without thinking for yourself?
Why has any of the constitution and its interpretation changed since it was written then if your contention is that it was right all along from the start?

It isn't the Bible, or the Pope.

The Constitution has changed 27 times, remarkable for a 200 year old document. But it changes when Americans think it needs change. I'm sorry you are unhappy about it but we'll let you know when it gets changed by overwhelming popular demand. Until then manufacturers of firearms operate within the law, as do gun shops and gun owners. If they don't there are sanctions in law to remove those constitutional rights afforded the citizen and legal resident.

Dan_Solo

MadsL wrote: »

If it wasn't fit for purpose it would be changed. Prohibition was such an amendment that was repealed. Clearly Americans do not wish it changed.

Oh, then why do constitutional amendments exist if it was always right? Who claimed Amercans wanted it changed? It must be you because nobody else here has said that, much like nobody here has said the US isn't a democracy.

MadsL wrote: »

I think you are very much confusing a right with exercising a right. I am free to own a gun, and join a militia. However, my right to own a gun does not depend on service in a militia. However, I am free to exercise my right to serve in a militia should the need arise. Are we clear now?

Then what has "well regulated militia" to do with "right to bear arms"? There is no need for these to be in the same sentence unless there is a connection between them, which you are denying exists.

MadsL wrote: »

Oh, is it an either/or choice? Do explain.

Since I appear to have to: we have less gun ownership and therefore less massacres. Yes, these things are connected. It is an either/or.

MadsL wrote: »

I think we have already been warned on bickering, I have provided you with the relevant quote from George Mason explaining his view. I suggest you read it. Militia = the whole people.

Quoting stuff not in constitution by one guy writing constitution equally renounced by other guys writing constitution... nah, yer alright, ta.

Dan_Solo

Beano wrote: »

i think its best to leave him to it MadSL . he has no intention of listening to any opinion that isnt his own.

You are aware of the PM function? You should try it sometime if you want to have a private conversation. Otherwise this just looks petulant.

Beano

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You are aware of the PM function? You should try it sometime if you want to have a private conversation. Otherwise this just looks petulant.

how anything looks to you is irrelevant to me.

Dan_Solo

MadsL wrote: »

It isn't the Bible, or the Pope.

The Constitution has changed 27 times, remarkable for a 200 year old document. But it changes when Americans think it needs change. I'm sorry you are unhappy about it but we'll let you know when it gets changed by overwhelming popular demand. Until then manufacturers of firearms operate within the law, as do gun shops and gun owners. If they don't there are sanctions in law to remove those constitutional rights afforded the citizen and legal resident.

Again, entirely irrelevant as to whether 2A serves the American people's needs best.
You don't appear to be capable of arguing the fitness of the amendment without constantly reminding us all that, omg, the amendment exists as it is and can only be changed democratically, without a single person in this entire thread saying anything to the contrary.

MadsL

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Oh, then why do constitutional amendments exist if it was always right? Who claimed Amercans wanted it changed? It must be you because nobody else here has said that, much like nobody here has said the US isn't a democracy.

Read my post above.

Then what has "well regulated militia" to do with "right to bear arms"? There is no need for these to be in the same sentence unless there is a connection between them, which you are denying exists.

There is every connection between them - the potential need for a militia to defend the people from the State is pretty well spelled out above. This is why the people have a right to carry arms.
Do please read what I quoted. It is very clear. Or try this;

No man has a greater regard for the military gentlemen than I have. I admire their intrepidity, perseverance, and valour. But when once a standing army is established, in any country, the people lose their liberty. When against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defence — yeomanry, unskillful & unarmed, what chance is there for preserving freedom? Give me leave to recur to the page of history, to warn you of your present danger. Recollect the history of most nations of the world. What havock, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies? An instance within the memory of some of this house, — will shew us how our militia may be destroyed. Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British parliament was advised by an artful man, [Sir William Keith] who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people. That it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them. But that they should not do it openly; but to weaken them and let them sink gradually, by totally difusing and neglecting the militia. [Here MR. MASON quoted sundry passages to this effect.] This was a most iniquitous project. Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed?

Since I appear to have to: we have less gun ownership and therefore less massacres. Yes, these things are connected. It is an either/or.
.

Explain the existence of school shootings in the UK then, one of the most restrictive gun policies in the world. Or the lack of them in Switzerland, the fourth highest level of gun ownership in the world.

Quoting stuff not in constitution by one guy writing constitution equally renounced by other guys writing constitution... nah, yer alright, ta

As much as you put your fingers in your ears and go nah-nah-nah, the history of the 2A is very clear if you actually try and understand US history.

But you really aren't reading my posts are you?

MadsL

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Again, entirely irrelevant as to whether 2A serves the American people's needs best.
You don't appear to be capable of arguing the fitness of the amendment without constantly reminding us all that, omg, the amendment exists as it is and can only be changed democratically, without a single person in this entire thread saying anything to the contrary.

In the absence of your proposals as to how to change it undemocratically, or remove millions of guns in private ownership, the only constant we can discuss is the 2A.

Perhaps we could hear your proposed amendment?

Dan_Solo

MadsL wrote: »

Explain the existence of school shootings in the UK then, one of the most restrictive gun policies in the world. Or the lack of them in Switzerland, the fourth highest level of gun ownership in the world.

You are insisting I explain individual data points in a discussion about statistics. Apologies, but I will refuse to do so.
http://www.bu.edu/news/2013/09/13/new-research-shows-link-between-rates-of-gun-ownership-and-homicides/
In US states there is a proven correlation between ownership and homicide. (BTW, anecdotes cannot refute this correlation, in case you were about to try that one again)

MadsL

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You are insisting I explain individual data points in a discussion about statistics. Apologies, but I will refuse to do so.
http://www.bu.edu/news/2013/09/13/new-research-shows-link-between-rates-of-gun-ownership-and-homicides/
In US states there is a proven correlation between ownership and homicide. (BTW, anecdotes cannot refute this correlation, in case you were about to try that one again)

And John Lott has highlighted significant difficulty with the statistical methods used by that study.

that a count data approach was not used with actual count data and that the regressions didn’t use the most basic controls for panel data

http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2013/12/problems-with-public-health-research-michael-siegel-craig-ross-and-charles-king-the-relationship-between-gun-ownership-and-firearm-homicide-rates-in-the-united-states-1981-2010-ajph/

Again, you are not reading my posts. I asked for your proposals to change the right to bear arms, not a (potentially flawed) study on gun violence.

Manic Moran

Dan_Solo wrote: »

That's the actual ratified wording of the 2nd amendment.
Does the US still need a regulated militia to ensure it's continuing existence? If you are not in a regulated militia, where does your automatic right to bear arms come from under the constitution?

Although the militia is considered to be the most important reason for the right for federal purposes, as the court has observed, the right pre-exists the Bill of Rights for non-militia purposes as well.

It says "well regulated militia". Very clearly. Can you point me to this "well regulated militia" in the USA that has 100,000,000 members? Ta. (boo hoo in advance when you can't find it).

The US's Federal Militia consists of approximately 58 million members, which, though not 100 million, isn't bad. Many citizens are also members of State militias, and a number are members of State militias without being part of the Federal militia. (With 50 States, I'm not about to go look up all the numbers)

It is argued that under current policies, the Federal Militia's construct which excludes almost all females, is at least due for review if not outright unconstitutional under current equality precedent, that would bring the figure up to the 100million, but that's a hypothetical not relevant to current legislation.