"How do we protect our 2nd amendment & our kids at the same time? "
Ban formal education. Problem solved !!!
Around 4,000 Salesforce staff have signed an open letter calling for the CRM giant to stop working with the National Rifle Association, the powerful US gun-lobby organisation. The calls to senior management at Salesforce come in the wake of the 24 May school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, which left 19 children and two adults dead …
If you define the problem as "you can buy guns" then the answer is simple (for some value of simple) but if you think its the individual its a bit more difficult. The majority of gun owners in the US do not go around shooting people. Some do so why?
I just typed into DuckDuckGo "mass shootings in the us" and the graph a link showed was interesting - it showed that the number of shootings has increased. I accept that guns have become more lethal and possibly more available but I'm not sure that is why some people are crossing the line.
More people are crossing the line simply because the connectivity provided by the internet allows easy access to other like-minded individuals (and/or instigators/trolls), which makes them feel like they are "normal", when in fact they are very far from normal.
NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY who shoots up a school is normal, by any stretch of the imagination. They need to be removed from the general population to protect everybody else, and in most cases to protect them from themselves.
We don't need to get rid of guns, we need to keep a handle on nutcases.
I'm ready for a million downvotes but I think the Online Safety Bill, while clumsy in implementation, is a positive step in this direction. Huge parts of the internet are a cesspool - as you rightly point out, there's a site for everything, from the innocuous (the 20th Century Testcard Appreciation Forum) to the downright nasty (racist hate sites where the kind of nutters who shoot up schools develop their neuroses with the support of others, organised harassment sites like KiwiFarms which celebrate the suicides of their "targets"). The latter shouldn't be available.
Many in the "total online privacy at any cost" lobby that has dominated internet discourse on this subject for years have never had to suffer the indignity of online threats or harassment. So much of what's on the internet is corrosive and nasty - I certainly wouldn't be shedding tears if increased controls on online activity meant the person who sent me rape threats was up in court. (AC because I normally post under my real name, this is a contentious topic, and I don't fancy more crap.)
Guns do not pull their own triggers. Guns are incapable of targeting anything on their own. Guns are, in fact, inanimate objects. They are no more a problem than a pointy stick, or a fist-sized lump of rock.
The problem is clearly the loonie using firearms inappropriately.
This will remain true, regardless of how loud you scream to the contrary.
Look, jake, this argument is not convincing anyone. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is claiming that guns are magical animated objects that go around shooting people. You know this, I know this, everybody knows this. Just drop it.
People want legislation targeting guns not because they are madmen who believe in evil flying rifles, but because such legislation appears to be working in other countries.
If you want to state that you believe that the same approach wouldn't work in the USA, or that it's not really working even elsewhere, that's fine. Go ahead and say that. Give more details, even. You don't need to spout nonsensical hyperbole, just get to an actual rational point that can be the basis of an actual discussion.
"People want legislation targeting guns not because they are madmen who believe in evil flying rifles, but because such legislation appears to be working in other countries."
In *some* other countries, yes, but certainly not across the board. I live in a country where gun control is so strict that the easiest way to legally obtain a firearm is to join the police or the military, yet gun violence is more common than in the US. Why? It would take a wiser person than myself to know for sure, but I'd wager it is the cultural tendency to solve problems personally with a quick fix (meh, I'll just shoot you) rather than slowly and impersonally (let's both pay lawyers to talk to themselves for years).
I am not trying to cherry pick one datapoint and argue that gun control never works. Indeed I could name counterexamples myself. What I am trying to do is point out that the matter is more complicated than some folks make it seem. I don't mean to put words in Jake's mouth but I understood him to mean that, and to that extent I agree.
There is a big difference between a lump of rock and a gun.
One of them is designed to allow the easy mass slaughter of others, the other requires a connection between the loon and the victim.
Do people get stabbed? Yes
Do the loons stab dozens of people whilst the police cower outside the building for fear of the knife? No
The concept that the problem is the loon using the firearm is half true... but given that there are, and always will be, loons in society the question is: Do we give them easy access to weapons of mass slaughter?
The 2nd amendment was a change to an existing document. It's a change that made sense at the time, but absolutely does not make sense any more. The USA has evolved since the 2nd amendment was written (for instance you now have an army), the weapons which are now being used were unimagined at the time (three rounds a minute was about as fast as you could get).
It's not as if the US doesn't have a precedent either... the 21st amendment overturned the 18th.
That argument falls down immediately when anything else is banned. What else is banned: Drugs? Kinder Surprise Eggs? Anthrax? Nuclear weapons or low dose nuclear products? Heavy encryption? Condoms and contraceptive pillers to 12 year olds? The Origin of the Species?
By your logic, EVERYTHING should be available, to anyone, anytime. There are, rightfully, certain restrictions on certain things.
The list of banned or restricted things is huge, but YOU choose to pick and choose.
"Drugs are, in fact, inanimate objects"
"These contraceptive pills, are, in fact, inanimate objects"
"This encryption algorithm, is in fact, inanimate object", etc.
The other argument often trotted out by gun nuts is that everything would be safer if everyone had guns. (1) in schools, the calvalry did not appear but rather waited it out, leaving the children to die and (2) that fact that everyone* has nukes does NOT make me feel any less worried about nuclear war - more does NOT equal safer. More nukes just makes it easier for nutjobs to launch one.
"Guns are, in fact, inanimate objects. They are no more a problem than a pointy stick, or a fist-sized lump of rock."
That is a silly argument. Guns are designed to kill, at a distance. How many attacks on schools do you know of where the perp was armed with a pointy stick and some rocks?
I don't disagree that there has to be some sort of mental / emotional instability that contributes towards the violent behaviour.
And absolutely, improved education and mental healthcare should be pursued.
But in the meantime, why not make it harder for unstable people to slaughter children? Mental illness isn't getting fixed overnight (and they've been trying for a while now....), and education in the States is arguably going backwards (eg evolution being taught as an alternative religion), so what if we stop selling guns?
Or better still, bullets.
OK, so we ban guns and bullets (Shirley you mean cartridges?).
That's firmly in slippery slope territory.
Shall we ban knives, too? Pocket, sheath, and carving?
Bows & arrows?
Cars? (many cars kill many people every single day!)
Pokers (red hot ones, especially!)?
Where are you going to draw the line?
"Slippery Slope" is a bullshit argument. It's clear that guns make it super easy to kill at a distance, and assault-style weapons make it easier to scale up the "productivity" to a high level.
Yeah you can buy knives here in UK (have to be 18+) and most kids can get one from parents' kitchen as well. But the evidence is clear that _relatively few_ stabbing incidents happen compared to the US. Same with gun 'suicides.
Arming teachers is rubbish too because of the overwhelming firepower of an AR15 compared to Miss Schoolteacher's holstered handgun.
Also: arming teachers is a risk in itself because teachers are under intense stress and sooner or later one is going to give in to the itch to just f**** kill all those annoying brats!
This slope is not really that slippery. There are literally dozens of first-world nations that are comfortably standing on a place on that slope where you can own cars and knives (and, within limits, even guns), and at the same time mass shootings are not a thing. It's not a slippery slope.
I need a licence and a test before I can legally operate a car (designed for transportation), and the NRA are against even that for devices designed specifically to terminate life.
I'm saying that less guns is worth a try, because more guns has been tried and doesn't seem to be working. Yes, bad people will continue to do bad things with whatever weaponry is available to them, but those bad things are unlikely to give a higher body count if the weaponry is less deadly.
To take an example, the Vegas sniper....how many people does he kill with, for example, a pocket knife?
Look at the legal system of a civilised country like UK, France, Germany, Japan, etc, etc where we do not have these problems then copy our laws. It's quite simple and you did it when you set your country up in the first place so it should be a no-brainer.
"We don't need to get rid of guns, we need to keep a handle on nutcases."
It's the combination of both is the problem.
Here's one idea to think about. Make it illegal to own a gun if not carrying unlimited public liability insurance for gun ownership. Require issuers of such insurance to be licensed to do so. It then becomes up to the insurers to vet their customers for nutjobness. They have a better incentive to do it properly rather than some rubber-stamping public official. The requirement for the insurer to be licensed is to prevent someone setting up a shell company which can go bankrupt if anyone makes a claim.
For avoidance of doubt the real purpose of this is not to make shooting someone a commercial transaction but to ensure that gun owners receive substantially more than a cursory check and to impose financial deterrents (the annual premium for an assault rigle might be more than the value of your house).
"We don't need to get rid of guns, we need to keep a handle on nutcases."
And yet the people most in favour of guns are the same ones most opposed to any kind of competent healthcare. Texas, for example, recently implemented several even more pro-guns laws, while cutting well over $100 million from the budget for mental health care. If anyone genuinely believed that guns aren't the problem because it's really a mental health issue, you'd see the NRA and the Republican party desperately clamouring for health care reform and funding. What you actually see is the exact opposite. It makes it painfully obvious what the real motivation is.
"I accept that guns have become more lethal"
There hasn't been a significant advancement in lethality of small arms since 1885. The first semiautomatic rifle was introduced back then, and little has changed since. One might argue that the final evolution of the modern rifle was the M1 Carbine, claimed to be the first magazine fed semi-automatic light rifle, developed in the 1930s and deployed in mass production in 1940, but the Garand was deployed in 1936, and one can certainly argue that rifle was the first modern autoloading rifle... But if you're going to say that, you have to admit that the Remington Model 8 was the first modern autoloading rifle, in 1905.
Pistols haven't changed much since the early 1900s either. The same caliber rounds are in use now as then, with a few exceptions, like 10mm, which is not significantly different than .45 or other rounds that are over a hundred years old.
"and possibly more available"
You used to be able to buy BAR 30 cal rifles and Thompson machine guns mail order from the Sears Catalog and they didn't keep records. Yes, you can 3d print the receiver for a more modern rifle (though designed in the 1950s), but the barrels and other components are just as available as they were since the 1800s. Mail order or in-person purchase.
In conclusion, I submit that neither the lethality nor availability have significantly changed for small arms since at least the first years of the 1900s and that these rifles are rarely used in crimes in the US.
There are more people.
There are more mind-altering drugs in use.
There are more mind-altering medications in use.
There are more other things in play that could impact one's mental state.
I accept that people will disagree with these conclusions, to that I say, go buy one and see what it takes. In no place in the US can you walk into a store and purchase small arms without a background check, except private sales which has always been true (and a black market will always exist).
There hasn't been a significant advancement in lethality of small arms since 1885
I disagree. First, the rate of fire. It increased a lot with the introduction of submachine guns. MP18 got a rate of fire around 500 rounds / min. Next, the lethality of ammunitions: a .223 cartridge can gives a bullet an energy above 1,500J. That's more than twice than a 9mm parabellum cartridge.
Around 450 millions guns in the US. Around 80 millions guns in the EU.
45,222 firearm deaths in the US in 2020. Around 6,700 deaths by firearms in the EU.
About mass shootings:
Typical (Median) Annual Death Rate per Million People from Mass Public Shootings (U.S., Canada, and Europe, 2009-2015):
United States — 0.058
Albania — 0
Austria — 0
Belgium — 0
Czech Republic — 0
Finland — 0
France — 0
Germany — 0
Italy — 0
Macedonia — 0
Netherlands — 0
Norway — 0
Slovakia — 0
Switzerland — 0
United Kingdom — 0
There's a clear correlation between number of guns and number of deaths by gun.This is not an opinion, it's a fact. US pro-gun people are delusional in claiming guns don't make things worse.
"The majority of gun owners in the US do not go around shooting people. Some do so why?"
Some people just go bonkers, sometimes dangerously so. Even if mental health care were adequately funded, I don't think you are going to prevent a small number of people becoming dangerous due to mental illness. I think it would be a good idea to have properly funded mental health services, and various ways of picking up people who are having problems. However, that cannot be the whole answer, because it would entail a massive intrusion into innocent people's lives, just in case they do something loony.
Without statistics to support this, I would suggest that most countries have a similar incidence of mental illness leading to violence, but the effects of that are vastly worse if it is easy to get hold of lethal weapons, especially weapons such as assault rifles, with rapid fire capability and large magazines.
Yes, because people in this nation need Less education./s
We are already 1 Brando ad away from Idiocracy. For fuck sakes look at how many people believe the earth is Flat or fell for the Qanon gag. We need better education and better mental healthcare. One thing all these shooting have in common. They were all carried out by someone fucked up in the head.
I think (hope?) he was suggesting that the perpetrator had been taught that nothing was their fault and the world owed them <whatever>.
And that if *they* had been raised with respect being earned and showed around them... that they might not have ended up at the place where this crime seemed like a "good idea".
I agree with John on this. Jake you need to look at the context. The basic premise is that more and more bad things are due to mental health or wellbeing so 'It isn't my <the perpetrator not the victim> fault that I just killed all those people'.
On general principles there are 2 arguments being made:
1) Limit the sale of assault type weapons, increase background checks, increase the age at which a gun of whatever type can be purchased.
2) By guns, buy more guns, buy as much ammunition as you can, then buy some more guns.....
The premise of option 2 is that if you have guns you can defend yourself (theoretically at least in line with the 2nd amendment), however the more guns that are available without reasonable controls, the more likely it is someone who is mentally unstable will acquire one and go on a shooting rampage.
Jake, your argument that guns don't kill people, people kill people is correct as far as it goes but the argument can't stop there. Ultimately making guns freely available leads to more of the bad (define this how you wish) guys getting those weapons and using them, they can break into a house and steal them then use them etc. This only works if people have guns available to be stolen.
The counter argument that if you take peoples guns away from them means only the bad guys have guns is also a valid argument, but again taking it a step further if you have a gun then you are a bad guy. It is easier to identify you as such and then take the relevant action to prevent you from doing harm.
I can see the American need to hold to the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms, but it is an amendment so why can't it be further amended?
The Republicans are for more guns as far as I can see, don't want to allow more checks to take place, etc. This doesn't make sense. If you don't want to infringe on the normal persons rights to bear arms fine but why stop or restrict background checks which would stop at least some of the people who want to go a mass killing spree?
As has been mentioned above the UK only allow guns (primarily rifles) for certain activities such as pest control by farmers or sports shooting in controlled circumstances. Anyone else would have to explain why they have a weapon of any kind - this includes knives. If you get stopped and searched by the pollice you better have a good reason for carrying. Having said that you can carry a knife for example if you have a valid reason. I occasionally carry one for specific task at work which is legal, but I can't legally carry that knife at any other time. Rules also apply to the type of knife and it's use.
A bit of a rant, but I think Americans need to take a long hard look at what type of weapons they can access, how easily, and the devastating impact those weapons have when used for the wrong reasons by people who have 'issues' of some type and whether your personal right to live and bear arms outweighs the right of other people to be able to live at all.
Why do we have to protect the 2nd Amendment? Are not our kids more important? I know my kids are, as are the rest of the kids in the school, or anywhere else for that matter. The same goes for most adults anywhere.
That is a badly worded question. It assumes the importance of the 2nd Amendment equates to the importance of our children.
Our children are our future. Firearms pokes holes in that premise.
"Why do we have to protect the 2nd Amendment? Are not our kids more important?"
"That is a badly worded question. It assumes the importance of the 2nd Amendment equates to the importance of our children."
This needs to be said more often.
Some rights are more important than others.
The problem isn't with guns or background checks, it's what our culture has become; self indulgent, ultra sexualized, divisive, ostracizing any and all who don't fit in. We entertain ourselves with violence. We embrace violence as a means of expression (blm, antifa). We drug any child who is enthusiastic about living while screaming that we "have a right to kill our babies". Guns aren't the problem, our "culture" is.
And moderators who censor the truth!!
This post has been deleted by its author
or, "loud squeeky wheel wokesters" should just quit and work elsewhere. Companies need to tell these agenda-driven crybaby clowns to PACK! SAND!!!
(Good riddance when they quit over this. And, you KNOW that the wokesters would say the same thing to *US* if *THEY* were running the show, "just quit if you do not like it". Politics does NOT belong in business anyway!!!)
And, there are PLENTY of businesses where the execs and boards of directors will want to obtain services and goods from companies that REFUSE TO BOW DOWN TO THIS *WOKE* *CRAP*.
"Cancel culture" can KISS MY HAIRY NAKED FREEDOM LOVIN' BUTTOCKS! (someone has to say it)
exploiting a TRAGIC CRIME and/or TERRORIST ACT for "THE WOKE AGENDA" is *JUST* *SICK*.
Good old BombAStic misplaced CAPITALS for THE sake of IT Bob
On the bright side after they kiss your '.....freedom lovin' buttocks' they are already at the right height to go straight to Trumpy Wumpys orange behind for a bit of extra lovin'. If either of you are unlucky though they might just shove a rifle up there instead since Republicans seem to love there guns so much.
Ah yes, the 2nd amendment that was drafted in the days of rod-loaded muskets that you would struggle to hit someone 100 feet away, and mass shootings would involve folks sitting around for a minute between reloads for each and every shot?
I own a musket for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. "What the devil?" As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, "Tally ho lads" the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the founding fathers intended.
Negative. U.S. Musket Model 1795 had an effective range from 50 to 75 yards. That's effective range, the range at which you could expect to hit center of mass, and a .69 cal bullet which had devastating effects on impact.
And you could fire it 3x a minute quite accurately.
Repeating rifles existed in the 1790s though not in mass production and common use in the US military until the Spencer in 1860, though Colt pistols entered common use before that.
And the 2nd amendment isn't about technology, it's about capability. Disarm the government, disarm the planet, make nukes and chemical and biological weapons a distant memory, and we'll talk about limiting small arms.
It's clear from an originalist view that the 2nd amendment allows the possession and use of as many Single Shot long guns and handguns as a person wants. It is also clear that the 'well regulated militia" clause allows for such things as registration of either or both the individuals and their guns.
The 2nd amendment is poorly worded, otherwise there would not be so different interpretations.
I think it can easily be read along the lines of what Switzerland has. Why else waste ink on well regulated?
Btw, I read a bit of a court ruling from the 1840es that “bearing arms” was a martial thing. E.g hunting didn’t count,
"along the lines of what Switzerland has.".
In Switzerland you have first become a member of the "well organized militia" that Switzerland is and then you are given that weapon you are supposed to keep at home to defend the country should that be needed.
It has nothing to do with the American lunacy.
The 2nd amendment is poorly worded, otherwise there would not be so different interpretations.
Yep that's the english language for you. I've Seen whole sections, lines even a single words' meaning/intent in a statute being argued in court.
The 2nd Amendment is 27 words long. Given the wide-range that the US Constitution has been interpreted throughout the centuries - there will be differing opinions on what it (the Constitution) means.
As an example - Roe v Wade was a 7-2 decision. The (last) decision on concealed carry was just 5-4, McDonald v. City of Chicago.
"Regulated" then was used as "supplied" is now. Regardless of that, it doesn't protect the right of the militia to keep and bear arms; it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The final part of the sentence is the operative clause and the entire point of the amendment. The rest is preamble to establish context. A citizen militia - that is, a private armed force that is not established or supplied by the state, but by its members - is useless unless the people can keep and bear arms.
The second amendment doesn't specify which arms the people have the right to keep. This is a deliberate choice.
The war of independence was fought as much with the private weapons of the citizens as it was with the arms of the continental army, from muskets, to cannon, to more than one privately owned man-of-war.
Repeating guns, though scarce and expensive, were already available at the time, with the very first being invented almost a hundred years before the war. The founding fathers were all well abreast of the technological advances that were being made, and how rapid the pace of those advancements was, when they were drafting the constitution. If they had wanted to restrict the people only to specific kinds of arms and armaments, they would have specified it.
There is nothing, either in the law or the constitution, that would prevent a United States citizen from acquiring a fully armed battleship, assuming he were rich enough and could convince a shipyard to build it for him. The constitution protects this.
For the record, the reason I'm pointing this out is because nitpicking about what the second amendment actually means is not going to fix anything. If you want to change the law, change the law, instead of trying to rules-lawyer a way around it.
"Regulated" then was used as "supplied" is now.
Do you know this yourself and can give a reference?
It has been repeated here multiple times, but I see no such usage in the OED etymology of regulate or in
The meaning is unchanged since 1600
Seems like a self-serving water-muddying myth to me.
Well-regulated didn't mean regulated as in under laws, government regulations, or anything like that. It meant well trained, supplied, and disciplined, like the "regulars" that Revere shouted were out. A well-regulated militia is one that has everything it requires to function, including such things as the ability to march in order, maintain control of their weapons, and maintain effectiveness in battle. It's an esoteric and technical use of the word, so it won't necessarily be found in any etymological dictionary, the same as many technical uses of otherwise common words don't make their way into dictionaries today. To say "regulated = supplied" is a shorthand for all of that.
But all that aside, as I said before, the latter clause is the operative clause. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The preamble only explains that this right is protected because the militia was privately organized and maintained by the people, not the state, meaning that it is necessary that the people be able to both keep and bear (IE use for their intended purpose) arms.
So, by your definitions it means bearing arms requires training. Ergo, nobody may own any arms until they have extensive training on their use, and regular refresher courses to ensure they remain "well regulated". If they do not, they cannot keep arms.
Though you're right. If the NRA and Republicans keep this up, the Republican vote will totally collapse, the constitution will get amended and all firearms will be banned completely.
And another 100,000+ children will have died to firearms.
If the NRA had any sense, they would be lobbying for regulation. Then they could become a training provider and make huge amounts of money.
The fact they do not proves they have become a cult, making human sacrifices at the altar of smokeless powder.
"the constitution will get amended and all firearms will be banned completely."
And instantly there will be tens of millions of Americans who are now criminals, even though they have done absolutely nothing wrong.
Way to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
"But it is what will happen."
It's not going to happen any time soon. Especially not with the former idiot-in-chief Trump's Supreme Court. And judging by previous Courts, not after a more liberal court is sitting, either. (Which will happen, eventually. These things run in cycles.)
I think the point is for people who own firearms to show that they are competent to do so. I am going to be generous and suggest that most gun owners in the USA are not homicidal nutters or violent criminals. That means you are not going to turn the majority of citizens into criminals. You may assume here that I don't think an outright ban on firearms is practical, but there ought to be far more tests you have to pass before you can own firearms, or keep the firearms you already have under the old (almost non-existent) rules.
So, by your definitions it means bearing arms requires training.
No. Again, the latter part of the sentence is the operative clause. It's not "the right to keep and bear arms after appropriate training". The people are not well regulated; the militia is. The use of training is a necessary part of a well regulated militia, but for the militia to engage in that training of its members, in order to be well regulated, the right to keep and bear arms must first exist for the people. Therefore the state shall not infringe upon that right.
Responsible gun owners spend a lot of time training with their weapons anyway.
You're also wrong about public support on this matter. Shootings in the US, while they are tragic, never generate a permanent increase in support for gun control. Given the massive increase in gun ownership in the last two years, following the country-wide riots, lack of coherent police response, and subsequent police defunding that occurred after unfortunate death of George Floyd, I'd be confident in saying that the outcome you've predicted is as unlikely as Trump getting the 2020 election overturned.
When you drill down into these polls, the kind of "significant" gun control they're talking about are things like universal background checks and fixing the gun show "loophole". Except universal background checks are already real, and the gun show loophole doesn't exist for that reason, as in it's already a federal crime to sell weapons without a background check, even between private individuals.
The rest tends to be about things like ghost guns, for which the solutions always seem to be some variation of banning the use of any equipment that could be used to make guns, which is just about everything you'd find in a tool shop; straw purchases, which are already illegal if you're buying for a prohibited person, such as a felon; or banning "assault weapons", which has no legal definition - and had no legal definition the last time the ban was enacted - but instead bans guns based on arbitrary features that may or may not have any bearing on how dangerous a gun is.
When campaigners talk about significant gun control, they conflate these results with their own desire for a near-total ban on the purchase and use of firearms. They then use this conflation as a justification to attempt to implement their sweeping bans with unconstitutional legislation, which inevitably either fails to pass, or ends up struck down by the supreme court (DC v Heller for instance).
If they want to ban guns, they can get it by amending the constitution. They don't attempt this because they know that they don't have the broad support they claim.
According to Samuel Johnson's dictionary (pub. 1755) "regulate" had two meanings:
The first, "to adjust by rule or method" clearly allows for "well-regulated" to mean regulated under laws, i.e. regulated by the state. The second "to direct" is the definition you are using. I think that Johnson's dictionary would have been well-known enough in 1791 that the definition would not have been regarded as "esoteric and technical". Can you provide any more evidence to support your assertion that the second definition only is the relevant one, and the first should be discarded?
Secondly, Johnson's definition of "Militia" is "The Trainbands, the standing force of a nation". The quotations he uses to illustrate his definition allude to a state-controlled army. Can you provide evidence to support your second assertion that a militia, under the definition in use at the time, was "privately organized and maintained by the people, not the state".
To the second point, the founding fathers themselves expounded on this topic to great extent, along with their contemporaries in political office.
George Mason: “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.”
Tenche Coxe wrote "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
And George Washington, general of the continental army, said: “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”
James Madison said: “As the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia.”
Jefferson described the militia thus: "Every able-bodied freeman, between the ages of 16 and 50, is enrolled in the militia. The law requires every militia man to provide himself with the arms usual in the regular service."
Richard Henry Lee: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.”
Elbridge Gerry: “What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.”
Within this context, Johnson's definition of militia does not mean a professional standing army, but instead the body of the well-armed citizenry.
To the first, I assume you're aware of the difference between regulars and irregulars in a military context? Regulars being a properly equipped, disciplined force, who march to order and so on, while irregulars are not that. That is the context for "well-regulated". Not a professional force, as can be seen from the quotes I've laid out, but a force that nevertheless regularised in form, order, equipment, discipline, and training, and therefore well-regulated.
And before you try and rules-lawyer your way around and through these quotes: don't bother. The object of pointing all of this out to you is to make it clear that the law, as it stands, is firm on the topic. The constitution protects the right of the people to bear arms; trying to weasel around it will not stand. Instead, if you want to remove the protections of the second amendment, you should be campaigning for a constitutional convention to get an amendment restricting such things. Anything less will be struck down as unconstitutional, because it is.
Can you provide evidence to support your second assertion that a militia, under the definition in use at the time, was "privately organized and maintained by the people, not the state"
In the UK (at the time) the militia was somewhat akin to the modern US National Guard or the UK Territorial Army - ie part-time soldiers who were trained and could be called up if needed.
The US militia of the time were slightly different - all able-bodied men were supposed to be available for militia duties. And the important point is thet they were organised paramilitary (and military) units - not loners with a gun.
Remember people - historical context is important when trying to work out what an historical document means..
As an example - look at the Militia Act of 1792 - it sets up that all free white males shall be enrolled in a militia under the control of a captain.. And that act was enacted when the 2nd amendment was drafted and accepted so it seems entirely reasonable to tie the two together.
So - looking at the historical context (as an outsider) it's fairly clear that the 2nd Amendment was designed to provide an armed populace *as part of a state or federally-controlled* conscript army in order to protect each state from threats to life.
it was *not* designed to ensure that people, uncontrolled by State or Federal control could carry as many guns as they could afford.
There were private militias (just like there were private militia regiments in the UK) but they were swept into the State (and later Federal) structure after the Revolutionary War.
And yes, you did get private militias in the US Civil War but then that's also happened in pretty much every was since the Peninsula War (which is why we call it Gurilla War (speeling?) - it's from the Spanish for 'little war' where Spanish irregular troops fought against the invading French.
Someone on Ars Technica made a very good point - in a US civil war today there are two scenrios:
1. The US Army (or large portion thereof) sides with the rebels and thus the rebels win since the army firepower is so much greater than any ragtag civilian militia
2. The US Army opposes the militia - in which case the militia dies fairly quickly and all goes quiet again.
So the purported purpose 'to oppose a tyrannical government' has already failed because any conflict between a militia and the government will be settled very quickly by the army and the choice they make.
This post has been deleted by its author
You say that as if people hadn't been trying to invent repeating weapons since the advent of the first hand cannon. The puckle gun, already called a machine gun in the 1720s, was 50 years old by the time of the war of independence. The kalthoff repeater was over one hundred years old, with various descendents and copies existing. They were scarce and expensive, but they were known. They could conceive of repeating small arms just fine.
> "well regulated militia" effectively means what has since come to be know as the United States' army*. What it doesn't mean is random individuals with indeterminate grudges.
* Whether that is a well-regulated organisation is a completely separate question.
No, it has not. The united states army is not a militia, as it is established, funded, supplied, and trained by the federal government. The national guard aren't the militia either, for a similar reason. The militia is distinct, as it was distinct from the continental army, in being raised from the people, by the people, using their own funds and arms.
Amendments can be changed or it would not be called an amendment, and that one has to be amended.
A good American Quasi Christian and the NRA would of course demand that every +6 year old kid has to be armed to defend the 2nd amendment.
I still own the .22 that my Grandfather gave me on my 4th birthday. That was well over half a century ago. Far from causing me to go out and shoot people, it helped teach me how to safely use, maintain and store a very dangerous tool. I have never in my life shot anybody. You insinuating otherwise is, quite frankly, very insulting.
How about this: every teacher carries a loaded pistol and is properly trained in its use.
Then, pass laws that EXEMPT EVERYONE FROM PROSECUTION if deadly force is used to protect yourself or others from harm SUCH AS from a terrorist or a criminal.
And, MAKE SURE CAREER CRIMINALS GO TO JAIL AND STAY THERE.
Self defense is a RIGHT and must NOT be infringed, In My Bombastic Opinion. And children should be taught when it is appropriate to use such force, and when it is not. But we no longer teach any kind of morality in schools any more, do we???
An armed teacher could reduce the death count of any school shooting to *ONE*.
And an UNarmed population is easier to control, manipulate, coerce, lock down, etc... RIGHT AUSTRALIA? RIGHT CHINA?
"Then, pass laws that EXEMPT EVERYONE FROM PROSECUTION if deadly force is used to protect yourself or others from harm SUCH AS from a terrorist or a criminal."
Self defence has always been a possible reason to avoid prosecution for murder, manslaughter, assault, etc. But you have to prove it in court. If you were automatically exempt from prosecution if you shoot a criminal or a terrorist, then you are inviting armed mobs to go out and shoot anybody they THINK is a criminal or a terrorist, which would make the wild west look like a vicar's tea party.
Unless that armed teacher happens to be James Bond, they may find their solitary pistol is somewhat lacking against an aggressor armed with several AR-15s and covered in bullet proof armour.
If twenty odd armed and trained police officers didn’t storm the school to shoot the guy and save lives - when that’s their actual job - what makes you think teachers would (or could)?
I.e. do double of NOTHING. America is a violent country, one of the most violent in the world and too many people in America think that more guns are the answer.
I know, why not give guns to people as they enter supermarkets and children as then enter school. No age checks, no health checks, no background checks. Just give everyone Automatic firearms with large magazine and armour piercing bullets. After all, what can go wrong? "It's not guns that kill, just people".
And this is one of the reasons that i might never visit America again, too many of you appear to be gun wackoos.
Has it occurred to you that the only reason that you hear about shootings in America in your saintly, far-off nation is because far from being normal, shootings are unusual enough to make the news? You never hear about the hundreds of millions of Americans going about their lives, being friendly, helpful, decent human beings ... all you hear about are the few and far between lunatics. The vast majority of us are not like that, at all. Not even the gun owners.
 Yes, I include our politicians in that ...
I wouldn't call 7% (the latest figures I have access to) a "large margin". Also note that figure is from 2021 when miles driven by the population was at record lows because Covid, thus skewing the data. But you knew that, didn't you?
Also please note that most of those gun deaths are suicide (which is a whole 'nuther kettle of mental issues). Multiple shootings by loonies are really not all that common in comparison.
Mass shootings do NOT happen daily, and barely monthly (13 total last year). The news just tries to make it look that way to sell advertising.
Enjoy your hyperbole, AC.
2020 it was 11% more, not 7% (CDC)
2018 it was 9% more.
So no, Covid didn't do it.
most of those gun deaths are suicide
And most of them wouldn't be dead without a convenient handgun. They all leave the bereaved behind the same as a homicide.
So yes, they absolutely do count.
Mass shootings, by the standard used elsewhere, happens daily in the US.
You say there were 13 last year, whereas there are 27 school shootings alone this year.
You personally may be using a different body count.
Which just shows how desensitised you all have become.
But I do agree that mass shootings are a bit of a sideshow. The 5 children murdered every day count more. (oddly enough only 3 teens suicide by gun a day)
The real thing is that we all use the roads every day, and we all gain real benefit from it, in fact we wouldn't even be able to eat if we didn't.
Guns confer very little benefit or utility to the vast majority of americans who die from them. Most of them will have died from something they gained zero benefit from at all, and which they could absolutely live without.
Road deaths have been steadily reduced by concerted efforts to reduce harm.
Gun deaths have increased, following concerted efforts to make guns more prevalent.
Countries like Switzerland, Finland and even France have huge amount of legally owned guns but there 8s none of the gun violence that we see in the States.
This is a cultural problem that no one wants to address .
Changing the gun laws won't change the culture. The politicians don't no where to turn because they won't face the real problem head on.
I think this is closer than most to the truth.
We all sceam "it's the guns! It's the people! it's the nutters! It's the retailers!" when in fact it's way more complicated and more deep rooted than any one single cause or isseu, it's an entire born and bred culture of gun use that's so ingrained I don't think there ever will be a solution to this.
I think mass shootings and gun related crime are a fact of life in the US and all we can do is hope we're never in such a situation where a gun is likely the be the last thing we see or hear.
way more complicated and more deep rooted than any one single cause
Put this in D&D terms:
The UK is (mostly) true-neutral with good tendancies.
Germany is (mostly) lawful neutral
The US is (mostly) chaotic neutral (with evil tendancies)
Chaos == 'only I matter and what I want is paramount'
Law == 'The need of the many outweighs the need of the few'
Unfortunately, the political party that unwaveringly protects the 2nd amendment is the same political party that defunded our public mental health programs three decades ago and blocks any current attempts to increase funding for mental health programs.
I think it was my second trip to the US on business towards the south (never been there for any other reason) and I went into some monster outdoor emporium, sort of Go Outdoors on steroids just to look round.
I simply could not believe that there where aisles of shelves full of nothing but ammunition, stacked up like beans in a supermarket. People were loading boxes of the stuff into trolleys. Then there was a huge counter with pretty much every conceivable firearm (though in this context let's use the correct term, weapon), sidearms, through to sophisticated rifles and automatic weapons.
With the ease of availability the possession of firearms is normalised and vice versa. With that comes the inevitable fallout that some people will go off the rails (or start with the intention) of causing havoc. The damage is then huge because of the firearms that are available.
Whether SalesForce acts on this remains to be seen. All one can hope is that if one major company does, others will follow.
As someone who used to have a UK Firearms certificate and the outcry that followed Hungerford were there were calls for an outright ban I believe we have a reasonable compromise in terms of ownership, regulation & the types of firearm that are available.
There is a book by Jeffrey Archer from 1982, "The Prodigal Daughter" that although fiction explores politics and the NRA in the US.
Perhaps if the schools were able to teach better English (instead of school survival techniques) then people would understand the meaning of the word "Amendment"
Quite simply people are dying in the US because of gun crime and this is to make a select group of very rich people even richer. That's all. Nothing to do with protecting rights. If you had proper rights in the US then why are so many of your citizens in prison?
"Quite simply people are dying in the US because of gun crime"
Let my correct that.
"Quite simply people are dying in the US because of crime"
The fact that a gun is involved is irrelevant.. How many people die each day from drugs, car accidents, alcohol, robbery, murder....
The US of A has become a mentally unstable place to live... Solve the mental/cultural problems then we will start to see a difference.
Recommend against ever buying Salesforce - a SaaS service whose staff are willing to cut off a customer because they disagree with its politics, and will do so in response to an extraneous event, are a significant business continuity risk.
Today it's the NRA, tomorrow it might be.. well, given how farcical some of these causes get, could be anything.
There are multiple options. Chinese companies aren't the only SaaS providers that aren't beholden to toxic American politics, plus there are non-SaaS options and alternatives.
Look at it this way: The Register just posted an article with the headline, "Renegotiating a Salesforce software agreement? It could take up to two years"
So I have to start negotiating two years in advance to renew an agreement to use SaaS software, knowing that 23 months into that negotiation the staff of the company could arbitrarily and with no prior warning decide they hate the company I work for, preventing the renewal going ahead and leaving us with no licensed working software.
One month's notice to replace enterprise grade SaaS systems? It's not whether I'd be sacked, it's whether I'd also be sued for negligence for putting the company in that position.
Agree with Cederic :
In my opinion this is just Cancel Culture rearing its ugly head...this is a Twitterati/Wokerati style reaction..
I wonder if Salesforce will announce it's position in relation to the ProLife/ProAbortion dichotomy, thereby risking of losing half of it's clientele...
Companies will learn the hard way that by becoming political they will lose their clientele...... Only a tiny percent of the population are vocal and hot-headed about political issues, the rest don't really care.
Since in the US of A, rural folk get a much bigger Senate vote than everyone else, this problem persists. Two Senators per state was the deal with the devil that has perpetuated plantation politics in a more urban nation. There are quite a few states with only enough people to get 1 congress representative that still get 2 Senators.
I'm not sure changing to a simple majority on everything would be such great idea either.
I received my basic public education in cities during the the 60's and 70's, "democrat".
As an adult I've resided in rural areas "republican".
I've come to believe that for some issues, location is THE determining factor when it comes to "right" or "wrong".
Obviously current system for electing representation is "busted" but.. I've pretty sure that switching to a simple "majority rule" won't really improve things.
Obviously current system for electing representation is "busted" but.. would switching to a simple "majority rule" really improve things?
I received my basic public education in cities during the the 60's and 70's ("democrats").
During much of my adult life I've resided in rural areas ("republicans").
I've come to believe that for some issues, location is THE determining factor of "right" or "wrong".
In my opinion, some kind of weighted system will always be required.
Frightening to read the comments from some of the deranged gun nuts on here. They make as much sense as the NRA drone that was interviewed by the BBC the day after the shooting, who basically blamed the school and teachers for not being armed. I have never been a fan of US governments, their world policy and behaviour, the culture of greed over everything.
I do feel sorry for the genuine american people that I have met over decades, the ones that are not fanatical about their preferred religion, the right to own stupidly OTT weapons that have NO purpose other than mass killing. The ones that do not push their crazy agendas on everyone else. The ones that work hard and want their kids to have a good life, good education and healthcare. I wish you all the luck in the world to overturn the sheer fucking idiocy your nation displays regularly.