Terror Attack at Munich Mall

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Sure, keep ignoring what's actually happening.
Too many people who shouldn't have guns do, and then murder hundreds on a monthly basis.
You're good with that it seems.
I, and many many others, feel it's past time for more of the "well regulated" part of the second.
I've repeatedly stated some of the things I feel needs better regulation.
Feel free to use the search function in your insistence on ignoring what we say though.

I read the carefully and still did not see a single link......

Derek V

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I, and many many others, feel it's past time for more of the "well regulated" part of the second.

You feel it is past time for better regulating militias? You still have not provided a link showing where poorly regulated militias are causing all the problems you listed.

Derek V

[DanG 1]

Please stop being intentionally obtuse. It's getting boring.

- Dan G

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Please stop being intentionally obtuse. It's getting boring.

I really would like to understand if normiss is trying to apply well regulated to arms or to militia. As is stands, what he keeps saying makes no sense. He is implying that well regulated applies to arms and, when questioned, he dodges the question.

I'll be clear, normiss, do you think that well regulated applies to militia or to arms? When you say, "I, and many many others, feel it's past time for more of the "well regulated" part of the second.", what exactly, do you mean?

Derek V

[DanG 1]

Here is what I think his argument is. The 2nd is very poorly written. It is the only Amendment with a non-functional preamble. If you ignore the preamble, the meaning is clear: the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But the preamble exists, so we can't ignore it. Some have argued that the militia to which the preamble refers is composed of every able-bodied male over the age of 18. They argue that therefore the functional clause applies to everyone. If that is the case we run into a number of problems. What about women? What about elderly or disabled people? And, to normiss's point, what is meant by well regulated? If the preamble applies to all citizens, and all citizens' rights to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, then doesn't the preamble also mean that this militia of all can be regulated? If the functional clause means Congress can't regulate gun ownership, the preamble seems to contradict the functional clause.

In short, I think what normiss is trying to say is that Congress should pass more gun control laws to get the citizen militia (all of us) under control.

- Dan G

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

In short, I think what normiss is trying to say is that Congress should pass more gun control laws to get the citizen militia (all of us) under control.

I haven;t heard that argument before. That is more than a reach to apply "well regulated" through militia and into gun control.

Derek V

[DanG 1]

So if "well regulated" doesn't apply to the arms carried by the citizens' militia, what do you think it applies to?

- Dan G

[kallend 2,148]

DanG

So if "well regulated" doesn't apply to the arms carried by the citizens' militia, what do you think it applies to?

Whatever it applies to, it's clearly necessary that we have one if we are to be a secure free state.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ryoder 1,590]

DanG

So if "well regulated" doesn't apply to the arms carried by the citizens' militia, what do you think it applies to?

I had no idea what that meant, so I just went googling and found this: http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[DanG 1]

Interesting, but it frankly shed little light on how to interpret the clause and its relationship to the functional clause.

- Dan G

[normiss 897]

Yahtzee.
I think he's known that since I first stated it.

More regulation IS needed.

[billvon 3,116]

They gave a few examples:

1)"If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

This seems to suggest that Appetites (often a term used for things like lust, greed etc) are not bad as long as they are well-regulated - constrained from excesses or extremes.

2) "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

Hard to tell without context. Are they describing something desirable or not? And what is the practice?

3) "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

Clocks of that period had a drive source (a spring, gravity) plus a regulator (an escapement or similar mechanism) that kept the spring or the gravity from driving the hands of the clock too quickly. So this would seem to suggest that well-regulated is defined as a means to keep something in check.

4)"A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

This is also a hard one to figure out without more context, since there's no real clues as to what a well-regulated person should do (other than blame people.)

5) "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

This one seems to indicate that well-regulated means disciplined, constrained from flights of fancy or other excesses.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Yahtzee.
I think he's known that since I first stated it.

I honestly did not. That is why I kept asking about poorly regulated militias. It didn't make any sense to me.

Now that I understand your argument (thanks DanG), we can move forward.

Getting from "well regulated militia" to gun control is amazing jump. Especially when it also says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Derek V

[kallend 2,148]

Hooknswoop

Quote

Yahtzee.
I think he's known that since I first stated it.

I honestly did not. That is why I kept asking about poorly regulated militias. It didn't make any sense to me.

Now that I understand your argument (thanks DanG), we can move forward.

Getting from "well regulated militia" to gun control is amazing jump. Especially when it also says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Derek V

It's no bigger a jump than getting from "well regulated militia" to "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms", if the two are as disconnected as the gun lobby would have us believe.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

kallend

It's no bigger a jump than getting from "well regulated militia" to "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms", if the two are as disconnected as the gun lobby would have us believe.

If only the people who wrote the Constitution gave us any additional information describing their intent. Oh, right. They did.

Please. Try to amend it with popular support, but stop wasting time on this feigned confusion on the intent.

[kallend 2,148]

kelpdiver

***
It's no bigger a jump than getting from "well regulated militia" to "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms", if the two are as disconnected as the gun lobby would have us believe.

If only the people who wrote the Constitution gave us any additional information describing their intent. Oh, right. They did.

Please. Try to amend it with popular support, but stop wasting time on this feigned confusion on the intent.

Why is the inscription in the NRA HQ lobby missing the first part of the 2nd Amendment, do you think? Is there some intent behind that?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[normiss 897]

So we're back to the well regulated part then, are we?

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

It's no bigger a jump than getting from "well regulated militia" to "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms", if the two are as disconnected as the gun lobby would have us believe.

It makes sense that "the people" need to have firearms so that they could be called up into a militia, if needed. In that sense, the two are connected for sure. The reverse just isn't true.

Derek V

[Hooknswoop 19]

A well regulated militia. Not well regulated arms. That interpretation of the 2nd amendment just doesn't follow logic. The point of the 2nd amendment was to have armed citizens to be called up into (well regulated) militias.

Nowhere in there does well regulated militia equal gun control. Hence my confusion earlier.

Derek V

[kallend 2,148]

Hooknswoop

A well regulated militia. Not well regulated arms. That interpretation of the 2nd amendment just doesn't follow logic. The point of the 2nd amendment was to have armed citizens to be called up into (well regulated) militias.

Nowhere in there does well regulated militia equal gun control. Hence my confusion earlier.

Derek V

I'll ask you the same question I asked kelpdiver:

i.imgur.com/MbnWFcP.jpg

Why do you think the NRA chose to omit the first clause from the sign in their HQ lobby?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I'll ask you the same question I asked kelpdiver:

http://i.imgur.com/MbnWFcP.jpg

Why do you think the NRA chose to omit the first clause from the sign in their HQ lobby?

Best bet is to ask the NRA. I don't know. I suspect it is because the NRA's focus on gun rights and not militias.

The point of the 2nd amendment is simple, an armed populace from which to form a militia, if necessary. Not gun control.

Ironic that we find ourselves having traded positions from a wingloading BSR to gun control. You felt (feel?) education, not regulation, if it could be proved to you that that was even necessary, was the best course of action.

Derek V

[kelpdiver 2]

kallend

***

If only the people who wrote the Constitution gave us any additional information describing their intent. Oh, right. They did.

Please. Try to amend it with popular support, but stop wasting time on this feigned confusion on the intent.

Why is the inscription in the NRA HQ lobby missing the first part of the 2nd Amendment, do you think? Is there some intent behind that?

I already have done what I suggested we not do - play the same stupid constitutional game on a thread that should be about Germany. I'll answer this question, and no more, even though it was your usual avoidance of what was said by me prior. To address that I'll reiterate - Federalist #46 leaves no doubt. There was little debate on its inclusion in the Bill of Rights, other than wrt the phrasing. And since you (used to) state that the SC's writings are the only opinions that count, I give you Heller, McDonald, and Caetano.

Why does the NRA truncate the verbiage? Possible answers:

1) it's then too damn long for a nice photo op like this. 14 words instead of 27.
2) tired of addressing lame strawman arguments, particularly by those who deliberately pretend not to understand what militia or well regulated means.
3) sticks to their mission, protection of individual gun rights. The ACLU can spend their time debating the first 2 clauses, as part of their odd support for only 9/10ths of the BoR.
4) As Derek suggests, go ahead and ask them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution gives a clear path on the writing (Conflict and compromise in Congress produce the Bill of Rights section).

The second draft version would probably have saved people a lot of time: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

But that would dwarf the NRA seal on the wall, or require a font too small to be readable.

[normiss 897]

Well, the supreme court disagrees with you and has confirmed regulation of gun ownership.
It would help if some current laws were actually enforced as well.

[Hajo 0]

kelpdiver

1) That's much more information that published here, or seemed like to be obtained. But as you probably know, our news is easily distracted and not great about follow through.

2) But it, and your notes about the existing population of illegal weapons, doesn't lend itself to an obvious solution. Particularly with the open borders within the Eurozone, what can block a lone actor like this?

3) That said, with 5-50M weapons out there, why do you think shootings remain so rare within your country? That number doesn't seem that different from the illegal gun population of the US, and obviously with different results. (the bulk of the 300M+ are legally held)

4) Is the drug trade more restrained? Is drug use much less prevalent?

1) that is why I wrote that

2) Nothing. Amok is not preventable. It´s only a matter of time that it happens again. open borders on the Eurozone or not, if you want an illegal weapon you´ll get one.

3) we have a different culture and (usually) go to jail if we shoot someone standing on our lawn.. we mainly see guns either as a sporting device, a tool for hunters (also hunting is restricted in our country), or for law enforcement/soldiers.

I guess (!) it would be the same here in Germany if we would have the same situation as in the US.
Open carry and stand your ground being legal in deep bavaria might become a disaster after Oktoberfest in Munich.

4) drug handling is captured by § 29 ff BtMG.
example: not few amount of drugs, possession, dealing, bringing it to the streets: not less than 1 year in jail up to 15 years.
if in a gang with returning activities: § 30 BtMG, not less than 5 years and up to 15 years.
consuming itself is not charged directly, it´s the possession and the rest.

Seriously, I would be positive touched if the great nation you have in the US would be able to see that the society has developed and changed since the constitutional act.
maybe a document to rule and guide that nation is now ready to follow that process...

--------------------------------------------------

With sufficient thrust,
pigs just fly well

[kelpdiver 2]

Hajo

Seriously, I would be positive touched if the great nation you have in the US would be able to see that the society has developed and changed since the constitutional act.
maybe a document to rule and guide that nation is now ready to follow that process...

Sadly, I'm not convinced society has so progressed. Or more specifically, enough of an element will take advantage that citizens need the choice of viable self defense.

It's a tragedy when random folks get killed (as opposed to the felons killing other felons, which strikes me less so). But I find it more tragic when these people are slaughtered like sheep with no means at all. I can't imagine the anguish they feel in those last minutes knowing what's coming.

As skydivers (retired in my case), we put ourselves into a death situation and then take action to end it. Those victims didn't have any actions they could take. Random misfortune selected them.