Gun Violence in America

[John.S.Mill]

the people is a clarification on militia, which means well-regulated still overrides that.

so #NOTALLPEOPLE

[FloridaMan]

“well-regulated”…

[Maphistos_Sidekick]

@twig93

That seems perfectly clear to me… it does NOT mean military. If a bad guy shows up at my house the military doesn’t intervene at all. Given that they clearly lay out self-defense as one of the reasons for the right to bear arms it is perfectly clear that it extends beyond the military.

Remember that language has evolved over the past 2½ centuries, and that context is important (despite what Scalia claimed).

Were the authors saying “individuals have the right to defend themselves” or “the people of this state, collectively, have the right to defend themselves”, within the context of a standing army having previously sought to disarm the state/colony and the prospects of an invasion by said standing army?

The latter interpretation doesn’t preclude the existence of a common-law right to self-defense.

[John.S.Mill]

yup. means it seems to be regulated well. in case you’re ESL

[twig93]

@Maphistos_Sidekick

Were the authors saying “individuals have the right to defend themselves” or “the people of this state, collectively, have the right to defend themselves”

Yes, they were saying both. That’s why they said “defence of themselves and the state”.

If they had meant only the latter they should have said “defence of the state”.

[FloridaMan]

As in “properly functioning”.
Not “controlled by government regulation”.

Why the xenophobic hate for ESL people?

[John.S.Mill]

Helping you out with English altruistically is xenophobic? TIL.

Well-regulated means unregulated, TIL

[Vorian_Atreides]

Let’s dispense with the “name calling” and “labelling” language applied to other users.

Argue the points at hand. Adding “jabs” at another poster (either individually or in a “general” statement) adds nothing to your statement and will likely result in your entire post being flagged and hidden.

[YankeeTripper]

Mass shooting at LGBTQ nightclub in Colorado Springs leaves at least 5 dead,...

Wow, just wow. How many more of these before thoughts and prayers aren’t enough?

[John.S.Mill]

Fuck America

[AcademicActuary]

@YankeeTripper

Wow, just wow. How many more of these before thoughts and prayers aren’t enough?

The perpetrator was 22 years old and supposedly used a long rifle. I don’t think any degree of gun regulation that even the strongest proponents support could have had an effect in this case. This is one case where armed security guards may have helped.

[YankeeTripper]

Well at least it’s not a state that elected a gun totting waitress whose husband threatened the neighbors with a gun to return to congress.

[AcademicActuary]

What do you want to do, ban freedom of expression?

[Maphistos_Sidekick]

@AcademicActuary

The perpetrator was 22 years old and supposedly used a long rifle. I don’t think any degree of gun regulation that even the strongest proponents support could have had an effect in this case. This is one case where armed security guards may have helped.

One of the blurbs from the NYT’s update stream:

The strongest proponents for gun regulation have a hard-on when it comes to AR-15 style weapons. That being said, the nature of the shooter’s weapons don’t seem to have been disclosed yet as part of the official briefings. (If the authorities had confirmed the use of AR’s, I suspect that detail would be in large, bold print at many media websites.)

One other detail from the NYT feed (also not officially confirmed):

If that were true, it would invite discussion on the criteria used to establish (in)eligibility to acquire firearms.

[dr_t_non-fan]

♪♪And all the while Graham slept on,
dreaming of a world where he can
DO JUST WHAT HE WANTED TOOOOOOOO…♪♪

[Indy]

@AcademicActuary

I don’t think any degree of gun regulation that even the strongest proponents support

He killed 5 and wounded 25. Good chance (we don’t know yet) that he emptied a 30 round magazine. People may have jumped him when he was reloading or changing guns.

I’ve said that we can reduce the body count at mass shootings by banning replaceable magazines of all types. Magazines would be internal to the gun and limited to six rounds.

I think that would have reduced the carnage. It’s conceivable he would not have gone at all if he hadn’t had the mental image of spraying bullets with abandon.

[now_samantha]

@AcademicActuary

The perpetrator was 22 years old and supposedly used a long rifle. I don’t think any degree of gun regulation that even the strongest proponents support could have had an effect in this case. This is one case where armed security guards may have helped.

As a trans woman, I do not want to live in a fearful society that thinks it is reasonable to have armed security guards at night clubs. Unfortunately, the trans discussion boards I am part of have been filled today with women asking about good ways to arm themselves when in public. I don’t know what a realistic solution is, but arms everywhere are just going to make things worse.

[AcademicActuary]

@now_samantha

I don’t know what a realistic solution is

I am all for background checks, banning assault style weapons, and even red-flag laws. I am not in favor of extreme restrictions on free speech.

Recently we had a showing of the movie “What is a Woman” on our campus. The president was petitioned to ban the showing of the movie which she refused to do. Out of curiousity I watched the movie which is freely available on YouTube, While I can see why many people would find if offensive, I could not find anything that warrants prohibition of its showing.

[soyleche]

@AcademicActuary

I am not in favor of extreme restrictions on free speech.

Reading back through the last few posts - where is there a suggestion of restricting free speech being made?

[AcademicActuary]

Maybe not directly here, I am just referring to a prevailing point of view that was evident at my university where a large number of faculty signed a petition to ban the showing of the movie that I referred to. This is a prevailing point of view that equates speech with violence.