45 Mass Shootings in the USA This Year

hahahaha

 

It only lowers the crime rate because of fear. It has nothing to do with culture. People are afraid to speak up out of fear they will be gun downed by the people we give our guns to. Either that or the populace is under a mass hysterical psychosis and believe they are safe with big brother "protecting" them.

But that is just another conspiracy theory like Strugglesaurus mentioned. People tend to attack and hate on things they don't understand in my opinion.

 

I think the second amendment has been fundamentally mis-interpreted. This is the full text of the second amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The founders specifically state that the people have the right to bear arms within the context of a well regulated militia. I don't think they meant every citizen should be allowed to possess arms, only those trained and regulated within a militia.

If they had meant the former, they would have stated it as: "Every citizen shall have the right to bear arms." Period, the end. But they didn't phrase it like that. They specifically couched the right to bear arms within the context of a well regulated militia.

 

mi·li·tia
məˈliSHə/
noun

1. a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
   • a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.
   • all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

Think about the context in which the constitution was created. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons from unreasonable search and seizure" "Freedom to petition their government for a redress of grievances" "Fair and speedy trial" These all describe protections from a tyrannical government that they had just revolted and broken off from. And yet, under the "progressive" interpretation, it seems just sort of "shoved in there" for no reason.

Yet, later on, in the main body of the constitution it states:

The Congress shall have Power To ...make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces....

ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 14

^Very clearly and succintly gives authority to congress to regulate military rules and regulations. It does not say "militias", it says land and naval forces.

The BILL OF RIGHTS was included due to some of the states refusing to ratify the constitution unless a list of guaranteed rights was included to explicitly prevent the abuses of the former government. Now why would Amendment 2 be included in "The Bill of Rights"?

 

In the context of the time the 2nd amendment made some sense. America was a frontier country; it was incumbent upon each head of the household to protect his family from Indians, outlaws, etc and also to hunt. There was slavery, so slave owning Americans needed guns to keep their slaves in check. Furthermore America was very weak militarily, so it was vulnerable to outside invasion and also to usurpation from internal factions of pro-British loyalists. Britain almost succeeded in re-taking the country during the war of 1812.

What purpose do guns have in modern day America? Look at the question of protecting the country against tyranny. That is already a moot point; the government is already tyrannical, gun advocates did nothing.

Look at Waco in the 90s. The Branch Davidians were protecting their property; they had an arsenal of weapons; they claimed to be legally justified in engaging violently with the BATF. Did that help them? No, all the BATF and FBI did was burn their complex to the ground, complete with men, women and children inside. That seems pretty tyrannical to me.

The US is a de facto surveillance state. We have an alphabet soup of spy agencies: the FBI, CIA, NSA, NRO, DHS, etc. Domestic drones fly over our skies, every aspect of the internet is monitored, habeas corpus is gone (if the government really wanted to, they could accuse you of being a terrorist and throw you in Gitmo never to be seen again), eminent domain means the government can seize your property and take it for their needs.

I would actually argue that guns and gun violence has accelerated tyranny, not stopped it. More violence leads to more fear which leads to more justification for a police state. It's a fantasy, this idea that somehow having a few assault rifles will help you against the US military, which can watch everything you do, fly a drone over your house and do a surgical strike before you even get out of bed.

 

I disagree, bro. Do you travel at all or just watch the mainstream media? I've been to South Korea and Japan. Besides fights, drunk driving, and pick-pocketing, they have low crime-rates, period. I believe it's in their culture. Female Europeans and fellow American colleagues of mine felt safe walking at night in the streets of Tokyo, Japan and Seoul, Korea. They are the kind of people where if you lose your wallet, someone will give it to the police. When you pick it up from the police station, all of the cash is still inside and the credit cards were never charged. Yes, they are not perfect either; they have assaults involving knives and blunt objects. However, their crime rates are nothing like the US or Britain.

 

I believe what I see, not what I hear. No, I don't travel, but I am definitely excited to and me and my SO are starting in June. I don't watch mainstream media either though. I haven't watched or read mainstream media in almost a year and a half. I don't use social media either.

Like I said man, it was just my opinion, but I take your word that the places are nice. I hope we have the same experience you did when we go there someday.

This thread is just about arguing now and I've been lured in to it. You guys have a good day. I'm tired of threads like these. My mental illness prevents me from being as patient with people as I would like.

 

This interpretation is popular today, but fundamentally false.
Every able bodied man at the time was considered part of the "Militia". It was what allowed us to rise against the Empire and throw off their yoke. In fact, the battles of Lexington and Concord were fought because the British were attempting to seize ammunition stores and cannons, some of which were privately owned (the cannons, I mean).
In their writings on the amendment, the founders made their intentions clear. I'd post it here, but google "founding fathers on the second amendment" and my point will be made.
We are not like Europe. The only way control levels on par with Europe or Australia could happen would be with the repeal of the 2nd amendment, and that will never happen. It sets us apart. We are so utterly free (at least for now) that our government allows us to buy and own the very tools with which we could mount a guerrilla campaign against it. That was the point.
Anyways, this a website intended for positive personal growth, not negative political back and forth. My only intention here was do clear up what I consider misconceptions regarding the 2nd amendment. Being in the military, I regard it as a right I defend. Yes, there are some who certainly shouldn't own or possess firearms, and laws prohibiting them from owning them are already on the books. Heck, I'm in the military AND I perform law enforcement duties and I STILL have to pass a background check to buy a gun, and have to be thoroughly vetted before I'm allowed to carry that gun in public in my off-duty time. I have no problem with that, as long as those tools aren't used to keep law-abiding citizens from buying and owning firearms. But that's my totally unsolicited two cents.

 

We had a teacher in high school from South Africa who used to teach high school students in South Africa. At that time it was recommended for teachers to carry weapons on them, because of the rates of students bringing weapons into school. According to him, he would rest his hand on his holster whenever he asked the students if they'd done the homework. Of course, it was his little joke, but it makes me realise how easy it is for someone (in this case a teacher), to abuse their power. Personally I believe if teachers had guns, it would only be a matter of time before one flips out and ends up massacring all their students.

I do not believe that guns are things that people know how to use correctly, if they can even be used 'correctly'. This 'right' to bear arms bugs the hell out of me. Does that mean it is your right to kill another person (even in self defence)? This last lunatic in Oregon could have argued that it was his right to kill those people, because he had a right to bear arms. I know that saying he had a right to a gun is not the same as saying he had a right to kill people, but guns are devices of death. This is simply what they are used for. It states in the second amendment, that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". So by this logic, this man had a right to carry a gun (and there was nothing stopping him from using it). We cannot argue that the mentally ill are not people, therefore this second amendment is becoming less and less relevant to today's society.

It seems interesting to me that people should say that to take people's power away would instill fear in them. This is a good point, although it strikes me as ironic that their power to bear arms is derived from fear in the first place. People fear that someone will burgle them, so they keep a gun to shoot the burglar before he/she takes off with their stuff. Or the fact that people fear that a lunatic will go into a school and start killing people, therefore everyone wants more guns to 'solve' that problem. Yet we already know, that guns invariably lead to violence, so how do we nullify fear in order to create a healthy society to live in. I don't know all the answers, but I do not think that more guns can be part of a solution, as I believe the fact that the implications of guns already instill enough fear in people as it is. Therefore cut out the guns, and you cut out the implications.

It's also interesting to me that Americans seem to fear their own police force (someone said taking away individuals guns will give more power to those who have them, such as the police. In New Zealand certainly, we do not fear our police. Sure, their fairly annoying at times (dishing out speeding tickets etc), but fundamentally, they are here to protect us. Perhaps America is so far gone, that it's citizens already fear it's police force... Discrepancies do occur in New Zealand of course (institutional racism is a good example), but it seems not nearly to the same extent as America. For example, we don't fear of being arrested for questioning a police officer...

Anyway, I'm rambling here, but hopefully some of what I said is valuable.

 

Same here.

 

I also found it tragic. Thank you for the compliments. There were some good points on both sides. I can just feel the "taking it personally" part me building up and so I felt it best to just bow out.

Good luck with your discussion

 

Are we free though? A couple posts back I argue that tyranny is already here. If you could provide a rebuttal tobthat post I would be interested in reading it. I seriously question whether any militia would have any remote chance of defeating the US military. I think it is a fantasy, the US military would crush any civilian uprising in a matter of days.

See, the ruling classes have no problem with us commoners having guns, as long as we keep using them against each other. Increasing violence and fear justifies the continuation of the police/prison/surveillance state more and more.

 

A video at a shopping center was recently leaked showing a cop choke a man by putting his knee too hard on his neck. He died right in the middle of the mall. Hell yeah, I'm scared of our police. They get away with so much because of that badge. They are more worried, in my opinion, about meeting there quota and money than protecting their citizens.

There's nothing you say that isn't valuable in some way. Never doubt yourself. I look forward to seeing what you have to say on every thread. Even if we disagree.

 

More free than most, though less free that we historically have been.
I think it's obvious they do have a problem with it, just listen to what the President has been saying.
A civilian uprising has stymied the greatest fighting force on earth in Iraq and Afghanistan. The same argument was made by loyalists before the Revolution and that didn't work out so well for them.
I'm not advocating uprising, far from it. I'm part of "The Machine". I'm also a Libertarian, and by that definition I see small and large tyrannies every day. But to say we suffer under "Tyranny" is giving a good name to real tyrants in the world. The fact that we can have this conversation proves that we aren't there yet.
Our problem is we've contracted the job of self-defense to others, and trust that they will be there when we need them. I don't submit to that train of thought.

 

Americans aren't afraid of their own police force. People who watch too much NEWS think that. The only ones in American who are afraid of the police are the ones who have a long criminal history and/or have warrants against them. Usually the uneducated are "afraid" of American police. Proper and educated Americans trust and look up to the police. It's a lose-lose situation for the police in poor and uneducated neighborhoods. The police can't win no matter how much good and sacrifice they do.

Let's do a simple test: If you're walking on the street and there's a sidewalk available to walk on, do you A. obey the police and move to the sidewalk and go on your way? Or B. say "Fuck the police", keep walking on the street, and assault the police officer when they're trying to detain you? Pretty much common sense. It's a NOBRAINER.

 

I'm sorry, but I feel sad and angry about the things you said in this post because I believe them to be assumptions and judgmental. I do not watch the news nor do I believe myself ignorant.

I made a post recently explaining why I am afraid of our police. Please do not label and judge me.