Time for a new "Mass Shootings" thread

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by argentine soccer fan, Feb 5, 2013.

  1. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Location:
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Country:
    United States
    I have a friend that does the same, I usually post stuff about the Civil war and how the Confederates also were trying to overthrow a tyranny. The gun people today have more in common with the confederacy than with the revolutionaries. IMO

    The Bill or rights were there to protect the people from the government much more than to protect the people from say the British.

    The colonies/States did not very much trust the central government; they hated the idea of Hamilton leading a federal army.

    So the Militias could also technically be used to defend the States vs. the Central government if it was necessary.

    Obviously that still means the militia needed to be regulated but it can be argued it should be the States doing the regulating, but that gets us into the state rights argument and I guess the federal government could use the commerce clause to enforce regulations.


  2. THOMA GOL

    THOMA GOL OH...................

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 1999
    Location:
    Parts Unknown
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Country:
    United States
    Inside police HQ or on the outside :cool:
  3. raza_rebel

    raza_rebel Member+

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2000
    Club:
    Univ de Chile
    Either. Both. take your pick
  4. minerva

    minerva Member+

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Country:
    United States
    I don't quite have time right now to read Scalia's opinion, but I will try to make some time for it later.
    however, in my opinion, I don't see how the first part doesn't constrain the second part. it's almost as though Scalia is saying the two have nothing to do with each other. they are separate thoughts. but that's silly, given the fact that the two thoughts are in the same sentence. the first part of the sentence sets forth the context as well as the purpose of the second part (the right to bear arms). perhaps Scalia explains this in his opinion, but on the face of it, I suspect it's a pretty obtuse argument, but I reserve final judgement until I actually read his opinion.


  5. minerva

    minerva Member+

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Country:
    United States
    this is crazy! did they even make an attempt to apprehend/arrest the occupants of the vehicel, or just opened fire?? maybe the dude on the run has a point about the LAPD...
  6. minerva

    minerva Member+

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Country:
    United States
    but didn't they set safeguards in the constitution (such as separation and division of powers) to prevent that sort of thing from happening? I mean I know Jefferson included such language in the Declaration of Independence, but that's not the Constitution. perhaps in the 2nd amendment, the framers really meant "state" as in state versus the federal government, but either way, it's pretty clear that the purpose of the 2nd amendment right to bear arms is to protect the sate. whether from the federal government or from outside forces is not clear, but it is absolutely clear that the 2nd amendment was not meant as a right of individuals to rise up against and overthrow the government.
  7. minerva

    minerva Member+

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Country:
    United States
    not even that makes sense if you actually read the purpose and context within which the 2nd amendment gives people the right to bear arms. only by completely divorcing the right to bear arms from the intended context and purpose that are outlined in the first part of the sentence can one come up with such a bizarre right. Scalia et. al. may come up with fancy words like "prefatory" to try to divorce the two (context and purpose from from the right), but if that's the way the founders meant it, methinks they would have written two sentences.
  8. Naughtius Maximus

    Naughtius Maximus Member+

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2001
    Location:
    Shropshire
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Country:
    England
    Obviously!

    Off the top of my head, what about...

    1. The people shall maintain a well regulated militia to protect themselves as a free state, (or maybe society).
    2. The People shall have the right to keep and bear arms.

    Why join the two at ALL?

    It only makes sense if the intention was to relate them to each other.
  9. roadkit

    roadkit Greetings from the Fringe of Obscurity

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    Location:
    Fornax Cluster
    Country:
    United States
    I have no idea where you get the idea recruiting goals are "just barely met." And it's an unfortunate fact of life that the U.S. military takes in a small amount of recruits who are less than ideal. It's a very small number, but I give the military credit for at least extending an opporutnity to some who would otherwise not get one -- or a second chance at being a productive member of society.
  10. antifan

    antifan Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Location:
    The Scottie
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Country:
    United States
    Reminds me of the Bonnie and Clyde car.
    Chris M. repped this.
  11. VFish

    VFish Member+

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2001
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Yikes, LAPD seems a little paranoid and on edge.
  12. American Brummie

    American Brummie Member+

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Location:
    Florida
    Club:
    Birmingham City FC
    Country:
    United States
    I got it from your article - the one where it showed that the uptick in recruiting had led to a 100% recruitment target met for two branches, 99% for another branch, and 101% for a fourth branch.
  13. roadkit

    roadkit Greetings from the Fringe of Obscurity

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    Location:
    Fornax Cluster
    Country:
    United States
    You have to understand how military recruiting works -- especially in the middle of a planned force reduction. Military recruiting is hard work -- they don't try to recruit 125% of what they need (or project to need), they go for 100% plus a little extra for the inevitable boot camp drop out, recruits who end up in jail before going to boot camp, etc. The fact that some of the services only hit 99% of their targets does not signal they are "just barely meeting" their recruiting goals, although I could see how you would interpret it that way. If they were only getting 85% of their goals, 90% -- yeah, that would signal a serious recruiting problem. But the military is not having a problem getting recruits. Far from it -- the end strength of the military is getting smaller, military pay and benefits are excellent, we're drawing down from Afghanistan, and the likelihood of a recruit getting deployed to be an IED target is getting much smaller -- which means the military have no problem getting plenty of recruits in the future.
    taosjohn and Chris M. repped this.
  14. y-lee-coyote

    y-lee-coyote Member+

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2012
    Club:
    --other--
    Always plenty of volunteer killers! I do not know how a person can join the military post bush/cheney preemptive strike doctrine.
    Boloni86 repped this.
  15. American Brummie

    American Brummie Member+

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Location:
    Florida
    Club:
    Birmingham City FC
    Country:
    United States
    I dunno, the fact that the Army has literally downsized the recruitment goals in order to meet 99% sounds to me like you might not understand the causal mechanism at work here.
  16. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    You like to stand in judgment of others. And if their intentions or motivations aren't what you think they are, then you simply say, "I don't believe you for one second." How convenient for you.
    stanger repped this.
  17. y-lee-coyote

    y-lee-coyote Member+

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2012
    Club:
    --other--
    I certainly do not find it convenient that my fellow citizens are enabling the government to kill brown people. The fact people volunteer to go kill people who are no threat to us is of more concern than their motivations and intentions.

    Regardless of what lies recruits are telling themselves they are enabling the government to kill people. There is no need for a statement of purpose or intent.
    Boloni86 repped this.
  18. crazypete13

    crazypete13 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Location:
    A walk from BMO
    Club:
    Toronto FC
    Do you not find it convenient that the supply chain for both the military and domestic arms overlap significantly?
  19. dapip

    dapip Member+

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2003
    Location:
    South Florida
    Club:
    Millonarios Bogota
    Country:
    Colombia
    If you are rejected by the army, isn't the fall option to join the NRA?
  20. roadkit

    roadkit Greetings from the Fringe of Obscurity

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    Location:
    Fornax Cluster
    Country:
    United States
    I actually understand it quite well. But you don't have to take my word for it.
  21. American Brummie

    American Brummie Member+

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Location:
    Florida
    Club:
    Birmingham City FC
    Country:
    United States
    Okay, congratulations; you've learned how to recite the same statistics twice. So let me ask you, how many recruits did the Army want in 2006, and what was their %met?
  22. luftmensch

    luftmensch Member+

    Joined:
    May 4, 2006
    Location:
    Petaluma
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Country:
    United States
    Nothing new there.
    fatbastard repped this.
  23. roadkit

    roadkit Greetings from the Fringe of Obscurity

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    Location:
    Fornax Cluster
    Country:
    United States
    You can look that up yourself -- and it is completely irrelevant to your assertion that "our all-volunteer Army has never hurt more for recruits..." -- a point that was made in the present tense -- as in 2013.

    So what the Army recruiting numbers were in 7 years ago is...geez.

    Just admit you were wrong and let's move on.
  24. American Brummie

    American Brummie Member+

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Location:
    Florida
    Club:
    Birmingham City FC
    Country:
    United States
    The size of our-all volunteer Army has been shrunk because we can't fill the posts. It's why sequestration passed. The improved standards in recruitment are a byproduct of declining target goals as much as the economic climate. If we were to find out that targets are 30% less than five years ago, then all the recruitment numbers would tell you is that meeting the old goal was not feasible so it's replaced with a new goal.

    Just admit you were wrong and let's move on.
  25. luftmensch

    luftmensch Member+

    Joined:
    May 4, 2006
    Location:
    Petaluma
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Country:
    United States
    I have a great idea, let's both of you admit you were right and the other one was wrong and just move on.

Share This Page