Orlando Gay Night Club Shooting

[Lihu]

14 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I would say religion is a right, guns are a privilege. I wouldn't put religion in the same category as guns. The 1st amendment outright bans the government from impeding freedom of speech and religion. The 2nd amendment allows for regulations. 

In general I agree with you, and so did the founding father's as they put Religion first.

However, that's not the definition of our "Bill of Rights":

Quote

A bill of rights, sometimes called a declaration of rights or a charter of rights, is a list of the most important rights to the citizens of a country. The purpose is to protect those rights against infringement from public officials and private citizens. The term "bill of rights" originates from England, where it refers to the Bill of Rights 1689 enacted by Parliament following the Glorious Revolution, asserting the supremacy of Parliament over the monarch, and listing a number of fundamental rights and liberties.

The specific reason for the 2nd amendment is so an ordinary citizen who becomes an adult at 18 can help defend our country in times of need. Soldiers are not generally born as such. They are usually ordinary citizens that become soldiers, and in order for them to train to become soldiers they need the right to bear arms.

One of the duties of being a citizen is being prepared to defend our country at any time. Defend in universal sense which includes the use of guns if necessary.

[Elmer]

On 6/24/2016 at 0:24 PM, Lihu said:

 

What do the founding fathers have to do with the current constitution which allows the right to bear arms? There are other amendments in there as well at this point in time.

So, what happens if we go to war with some really unfriendly nation and we desperately need 18 year old kids who can shoot guns effectively? That's why the 2nd amendment was created, and that's unlikely to go "out of fashion" any time soon. People will always hate other people.

 

 

On 6/24/2016 at 1:01 PM, Lihu said:

In general I agree with you, and so did the founding father's as they put Religion first.

However, that's not the definition of our "Bill of Rights":

The specific reason for the 2nd amendment is so an ordinary citizen who becomes an adult at 18 can help defend our country in times of need. Soldiers are not generally born as such. They are usually ordinary citizens that become soldiers, and in order for them to train to become soldiers they need the right to bear arms.

One of the duties of being a citizen is being prepared to defend our country at any time. Defend in universal sense which includes the use of guns if necessary.

So in one post you ask "What do the founding fathers have to do with the current constitution which allows the right to bear arms?", than you bring up the "founding father's" in your second post.
So are the FF's relevant to today's constitution or not?

A few corrections on your post
" if we go to war with some really unfriendly nation and we desperately need 18 year old kids who can shoot guns effectively?"

This is why the military has basic training. We also allow people into the air force with no prior knowledge of flying an F-18. we let people into the army without knowing how to drive a tank.
This is what basic training and then MOS deals with.
For a good example look at WWII, look at the number of NYC people who enlisted or were drafted and had no idea how to shoot a rifle prior to storming the beaches of Normandy.

"The specific reason for the 2nd amendment is so an ordinary citizen who becomes an adult at 18 can help defend our country in times of need"

NO!!!! maybe in 1788, but not today
 

"One of the duties of being a citizen is being prepared to defend our country at any time. Defend in universal sense which includes the use of guns if necessary."

NO! NO! NO!
No where in the constitution or Bill of rights or Declaration of Independence does it state this.
Once again you need to study your history.

The 1st amendment has been regulated by the SCOTUS, otherwise we could still yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
If we can redefine 1 amendment, why not another?

[newtogolf]

10 minutes ago, Elmer said:

 

So in one post you ask "What do the founding fathers have to do with the current constitution which allows the right to bear arms?", than you bring up the "founding father's" in your second post.
So are the FF's relevant to today's constitution or not?

A few corrections on your post
" if we go to war with some really unfriendly nation and we desperately need 18 year old kids who can shoot guns effectively?"

This is why the military has basic training. We also allow people into the air force with no prior knowledge of flying an F-18. we let people into the army without knowing how to drive a tank.
This is what basic training and then MOS deals with.
For a good example look at WWII, look at the number of NYC people who enlisted or were drafted and had no idea how to shoot a rifle prior to storming the beaches of Normandy.

"The specific reason for the 2nd amendment is so an ordinary citizen who becomes an adult at 18 can help defend our country in times of need"

NO!!!! maybe in 1788, but not today
 

"One of the duties of being a citizen is being prepared to defend our country at any time. Defend in universal sense which includes the use of guns if necessary."

NO! NO! NO!
No where in the constitution or Bill of rights or Declaration of Independence does it state this.
Once again you need to study your history.

The 1st amendment has been regulated by the SCOTUS, otherwise we could still yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
If we can redefine 1 amendment, why not another?

The 2nd Amendment was to allow the citizenship to protect itself from hostile governments inside and outside of the country.  

[Lihu]

The Orlando shooter was trained to shoot and did something similar to your "basic training" scenario. So, it's kind of irrelevant to what we are discussing.

 

This is severely off topic, but I'll address it one more time:

14 minutes ago, Elmer said:

This is why the military has basic training. We also allow people into the air force with no prior knowledge of flying an F-18. we let people into the army without knowing how to drive a tank.
This is what basic training and then MOS deals with.
For a good example look at WWII, look at the number of NYC people who enlisted or were drafted and had no idea how to shoot a rifle prior to storming the beaches of Normandy.

Yes, it's "basic training". Basic does not mean they are ready for war. People do not learn to fly an F-18 in 6 months, most pilots in the Air Force have been training since they were high school students. They were selected because they were able to fly either though prior training or natural talent.

 

14 minutes ago, Elmer said:

"The specific reason for the 2nd amendment is so an ordinary citizen who becomes an adult at 18 can help defend our country in times of need"

NO!!!! maybe in 1788, but not today

I'm sure policy makers were saying the same thing in . . .1862, 1914, 1941, 1960. . .where many new recruits were slaughtered. You can probably look up the battle names since you were a history major?

 

14 minutes ago, Elmer said:

"One of the duties of being a citizen is being prepared to defend our country at any time. Defend in universal sense which includes the use of guns if necessary."

NO! NO! NO!
No where in the constitution or Bill of rights or Declaration of Independence does it state this.

Once again you need to study your history.

I think you focused on other things, but you don't seem to really know a lot about tactical military history?

 

14 minutes ago, Elmer said:

The 1st amendment has been regulated by the SCOTUS, otherwise we could still yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
If we can redefine 1 amendment, why not another?

Um, this is not even relevant to your argument. IDK why you even brought it up?

It's only illegal to falsely yell fire. . .

Quote

The paraphrasing does not generally include (but does usually imply) the word "falsely", i.e., "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater", which was the original wording used in Holmes's opinion and highlights that speech which is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech which is dangerous but also true.

 

[phan52]

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

The 2nd Amendment was to allow the citizenship to protect itself from hostile governments inside and outside of the country.  

The Second Amendment was to allow for the country's defense. They had no standing army and they wanted people (white men) to have guns available when necessary. And a lot of people like to ignore the "well regulated" part of the amendment when there are debates about gun control. The Second Amendment was not meant for people to be walking the streets with guns, let alone semi-automatic killing machines, which is why the language needs to be addressed in the 21st Century. The syntax is so obtuse that it is easy to misinterpret it, like the SCOTUS did with Heller vs. DC.

Edited June 27, 2016 by phan52

[newtogolf]

24 minutes ago, phan52 said:

The Second Amendment was to allow for the country's defense. They had no standing army and they wanted people (white men) to have guns available when necessary. And a lot of people like to ignore the "well regulated" part of the amendment when there are debates about gun control. The Second Amendment was not meant for people to be walking the streets with guns, let alone semi-automatic killing machines, which is why the language needs to be addressed in the 21st Century. The syntax is so obtuse that it is easy to misinterpret it, like the SCOTUS did with Heller vs. DC.

That's your interpretation, not mine.  

[Lihu]

25 minutes ago, phan52 said:

The Second Amendment was to allow for the country's defense. They had no standing army and they wanted people (white men) to have guns available when necessary. And a lot of people like to ignore the "well regulated" part of the amendment when there are debates about gun control. The Second Amendment was not meant for people to be walking the streets with guns, let alone semi-automatic killing machines, which is why the language needs to be addressed in the 21st Century. The syntax is so obtuse that it is easy to misinterpret it, like the SCOTUS did with Heller vs. DC.

I believe there were Native Americans employed as scouts and fighters as well.

I'll just go with what @newtogolf stated. . .

[Elmer]

Because 10 guns is never enough!!!!

http://www.people.com/article/christy-sheats-facebook-texas-mom-killed-daughters-guns-mental-health

[newtogolf]

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/06/27/mother-shoots-kills-intruder-lurking-in-childs-bedroom/

 

[Gunther]

1 minute ago, newtogolf said:

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/06/27/mother-shoots-kills-intruder-lurking-in-childs-bedroom/

 

Because 10 is good but 1 is all you need.

[Lihu]

22 minutes ago, Elmer said:

Because 10 guns is never enough!!!!

http://www.people.com/article/christy-sheats-facebook-texas-mom-killed-daughters-guns-mental-health

Mental health is the culprit, just like the Orlando case.

8 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/06/27/mother-shoots-kills-intruder-lurking-in-childs-bedroom/

You don't hear about these incidents enough, and there are a lot of them. When a potentially horrific crime is stopped it rarely makes the news, only when they're not stopped.

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, Lihu said:

You don't hear about these incidents enough, and there are a lot of them. When a potentially horrific crime is stopped it rarely makes the news, only when they're not stopped.

You're right about that; these things happen a lot more often than most people realize.

[boogielicious]

Straying off topic folks.

[Elmer]

I think there is a breakdown between intent and execution!!!
(no pun intended)

http://www.timesunion.com/news/crime/article/Gun-shop-raffling-AR-15-rifle-to-benefit-Orlando-8333813.php

[Lihu]

52 minutes ago, Elmer said:

I think there is a breakdown between intent and execution!!!
(no pun intended)

http://www.timesunion.com/news/crime/article/Gun-shop-raffling-AR-15-rifle-to-benefit-Orlando-8333813.php

Not sure what you mean? All I see is that a store is donating all the raffle income at $5/ticket plus the cost of the rifle and $2000 to the Orlando fund?

They said that they are not doing it for publicity?

Am I missing something?

[Elmer]

1 hour ago, Lihu said:

Not sure what you mean? All I see is that a store is donating all the raffle income at $5/ticket plus the cost of the rifle and $2000 to the Orlando fund?

They said that they are not doing it for publicity?

Am I missing something?

Of course you are!

IT is like raising money for child abuse victims by raffling off copies of Nabokov's Lolita!

[Lihu]

7 minutes ago, Elmer said:

Of course you are!

IT is like raising money for child abuse victims by raffling off copies of Nabokov's Lolita!

I don't see this comparison. I think it's more like auctioning a printing press like the one that printed those books. . .

[iacas]

:sigh: