Originally Posted by Weave

Enforce the laws we have. Does anyone denied a gun based on a background check ever get charged...nope. Do those who knowingly sell to felons gets charged...rarely. Sorry but an "assault weapon" ban isn't likely to pass the Senate, and especially the House.

They were written to be ignored ... and they are. Fixing this requires the same guts the Aussies showed under very similar curcumstances.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

You are figuring, rather than counting. And the reason you do so is because there is nothing to count.

There are lots of stats on all these subjects, and I'm sure they have been posted here. Common knowledge doesn't have to be backed up every time you mention it.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Just don't lose track of the difference between the militia and the national guards. The militia is the adult male fit population. Congress specifies their training. The states appoint officers and implement the federal training. The Congress may call up the militia to enforce laws, suppress insurrections or repel invasions, so the members may keep and bear arms appropriate for the above tasks. None of those tasks involve leaving the country, so the militia cannot be used to fight abroad. Once the Congress calls up the militia, the president is commander and chief of the militia for the duration of the federal service.

I understand in terms of definitions, but there is no such "militia" in actual practice. In actual practice, the National Guard is the militia, along with other armed services, and it is these well-regulated militia that are called up to defend the security of a free state.

This isn't to say that the modern national guard isn't entirely adequate to serve our current needs for a reserve military force. I don't think anyone truly wants to go back to giving the entire adult male population full military training. (In old New England, one brought one's musket to church so one could do militia drills after the service. Times have changed.)

Yes, times have changed. I think Washington may have called up the militia to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, IIRC. Other than that I don't recall a single case.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

They were written to be ignored ... and they are. Fixing this requires the same guts the Aussies showed under very similar curcumstances.

The gun ban that occurred in Australia will never happen here, at aleast without a outright rebellion occurring.....

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I understand in terms of definitions, but there is no such "militia" in actual practice. In actual practice, the National Guard is the militia, along with other armed services, and it is these well-regulated militia that are called up to defend the security of a free state.

We pretty well agree on what the reality is, but I feel like Vandal in the "Ideals and Directions of Life" thread. Within a given specialized field, words can have very specific technical meanings that are distinct from their common use English meaning. Technically, the National Guard is not the militia. The sections of the US Constitution that govern the militia do not apply to the National Guard. For example, the President can not call up the militia. Congress has to do that. The President can declare a state of emergency and call up the National Guard, though. He can also send the National Guard to Iraq or Afghanistan, which he could not do with the militia.

This is important to me as I feel the Constitutional provisions regarding the militia could be invoked to clearly and legally implement gun control without any sort of constitutional amendment.

But in terms of ordinary every day internet political conversation, a lot of people don't know the technical language very well. I try not to be too much of a jerk in reminding people of the technical definitions. Still, it is possible should Congress ever get into the mood to actually implement gun control that the difference between the militia and the National Guard could become very important.

Originally Posted by Weave

Enforce the laws we have. Does anyone denied a gun based on a background check ever get charged...nope. Do those who knowingly sell to felons gets charged...rarely. Sorry but an "assault weapon" ban isn't likely to pass the Senate, and especially the House.

President Obama has signed executive orders that assume the powers of law enforcement that the Presidency has. He needs no Congressional approval for such. He has yet to show himself 'soft on crime'.

President Obama has Congressional Republicans in a bind. President Obama is going after weapons that few people like, against massacre clips, and the gun-show loophole while strengthening laws against fraudulent statements on background checks. This is not going to get in the way of sport hunters and target shooters. It will be rough on urban gangs -- not that they deserved to be coddled anyway. (Expletive deleted) the Bloods and the Crips, and let's keep people who have troublesome characteristics such as the mentally ill, drunkards, druggies, and spouse abusers from getting guns. Tough luck. Gun ownership ought to be a privilege as driving a car is.

Now what is the bind? The 2014 elections. As the 2006 midterm elections show, an unpopular Party majority can lose its majority. President Obama is not and has never been a "limousine liberal". He has cleverly taken an anti-crime stance that conservatives ought to love. Any pol who has to defend a vote massacre clips in a moderate district deserves electoral difficulty.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I understand in terms of definitions, but there is no such "militia" in actual practice. In actual practice, the National Guard is the militia, along with other armed services, and it is these well-regulated militia that are called up to defend the security of a free state.

Yes, times have changed. I think Washington may have called up the militia to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, IIRC. Other than that I don't recall a single case.

Legally the Militia according to US Code is "The "militia" was provided for in Section 10 of the United States Code (often abbreviated USC). The Code is the list of all the laws that are written by the federal government. Section 10 USC 311 reads:
"All able-bodied males at least 17 years of age…and under 45 years of age who are or have made a declaration to become a citizen of the United States." Additionally, another provision allows for a "reserve militia" (as opposed to the "ready militia" described above), that includes women, children and the elderly. " www.saf.org is the source...

More responsible gun use:

http://www.wkyc.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=278508

The weapons and ammunition that the men were shooting were seized and include:

• One AK-47 Assault Rifle with 628 rounds
• One 9mm Handgun with 50 rounds
• One 380 Handgun with 8 rounds
• One 22 revolver with 40 rounds

Police said that further investigation revealed that the men had been consuming alcohol and were shooting at paper targets with no back stop.
The distance from the area the men were shooting to the homes that were struck is estimated to be 500 yards.

About that Second Amendment:

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890...eserve-slavery

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

About that Second Amendment:

Allow me* to retort:



---
*not me

I was talking with ASB'65 and BookishXer lately. ASB'65 especially was trying to understand why there was such a visceral reaction to the idea of guns being taken away. She made the comment that they were reacting as though they were mothers being ripped from their children or something along those lines. And then I think we hit upon what could possibly be a contributing factor to all this violence--not the cause, but definitely a contributing factor.

This Saeculum, and the one prior, we've been slowly taking away various physical activities which fulfilled our natural instincts that we have as predatory animals. One of those instincts I have to say is quite frankly to kill. It simply just comes from being a predator. It used to be that we'd go out and hunt for our food and this satisfied our instinctual need. When there came to be too many people around and not enough food, we fought and killed one another over the limited resources--depleting our populations usually enough to deal with the more limited food supply. Now as we evolved from the Hunter-gatherers and formed bare bones societies, hunting and wars between people continued, but simply got bigger--and there began to develop classes of people who didn't need to hunt or make war, and the solution a lot of our ancestors came up with to channel aggressive tendencies in peacetime was sports.

Human beings are predatory animals. What happens when you put a predatory animal inside a cage and lock it? Speaking from experience with Dogs and Cats, they go insane. I once had a dog that upon immediately going into the crate for the night would not keep quiet for the rest of the night and would violently gnash her teeth and scratch at her crate. Another dog started to twist the bars until she snapped them on her nightly cage. The cats became more ornery and clawed as well. However once I started to let them go outside--and have a largely free reign of the house--(let the cats kill a few mice or two, the dogs chase and kill a few rabbits), all of a sudden they were right as rain, and rather sweet and affectionate.

This past Saeculum especially we've been building very comfortable cages for ourselves and locking ourselves up in them. Some have found outlets for the primal desire for physical prowess/killing through exercise, sports, home repair, hunting, exploring/traveling, etc. Some kind of physical activity that fulfills our need to be physical creatures. We don't need to hunt in order to gather food anymore, but the physical activity that came along with that can be substituted through other means and the adrenaline rush of killing something can be supplanted through winning a game of football, dancing, or some other means. But not everyone does these things anymore, and it's taking a toll. Also, what prey tell is the worst cage in our society? That's right, prison. Is it any wonder that people sometimes come out worse than when they went in?

Think about most of the shooters in these shootings, who have they been largely? Young Men--those who would've been out hunting in the old hunter-gatherer societies. In Medieval times dealing with young Knights (who were anything but chivalric--well, they defined chivalry as killing, fighting, raping, [especially if you were a peasant--expect to get trod all over by a Knight] etc... the Code of Chivalry was actually an attempt to "tame" them--jousting and tournaments were other ways), eventually people began to grow tired of dealing with unruly knights so they decided to put those desires to good use in the crusades so that the Knights would stop attacking their own people and channel their aggressive tendencies to "good use".

Now this is not to say that everyone is this way, or that it's the primary cause of these things, but I'd say it's a good contributing factor.

It's something we have to live with, humans being a predatory animal and all. Now I'm not saying the solution is to neuter the more aggressive members of our species, but I'm sure we can find outlets to let people channel out their aggression--because they need to. And we're going to have to find some way to recognize potential shooters before they become shooters and find some way to get them to channel their aggression in healthy ways--because it doesn't look like the ones who do are doing so on their own. Until Trans-humanism swoops in to delete these instinctual needs, we're going to need to find a way to do that. We have to accept the fact that as long as we're humans some of us are more predatory than others and need outlets that are appropriate if we're to function. Does that mean we're always going to be successful? No. Does that mean as long as there are guns out there and there are people who don't have those predatory needs fulfilled that there will be gun violence? Yeah IMO.

Also I think violent video games & violent movies are about the same as watching a bullfight or gladiator games--in that they give a superficial satisfaction to the instinct, but they don't replace the physical half of the instinct and that's where the danger comes in.

As to why people get upset over the disappearance of guns--well, they're more predatory than those who are trying to get rid of the guns. It's like telling the cat: "I'm going to de-claw you" or "trim your claws". Every cat I've had hates either experience and gets rather depressed and a bit more violent and manic when that happens. Hunting is how those people cope with not using their predatory skills every day, other people play sports or exercise, so of course they're going to react in a hostile manner to the suggestion of taking away the guns--because it's almost like taking their arms or legs from them. IMO the need to "defend from a hostile government" isn't so much the reason and more of an excuse. And I'd argue that those who do argue that argument probably have a lot of Scot-Irish ancestry in their blood--or at least some kind of Celtic ancestry, and that comes from centuries of living on the edge of society and spent repelling foreign invaders who "organize" themselves in a different manner than they're used to. A people who lived for so long amongst vast wilderness that the individual survival instinct desire by now is simply bred into them. After all, let's not forget that these are the same people who decorated their homes with the heads of their enemies in Roman times. And we all know how the British adapted... they collected the heads of the animals they hunted and decorated their homes with them.

Thus said Chas after walking/exploring/patrolling the perimeter of his territory, satisfying his Celtic blood.

~Chas'88

I think Chas 88 is correct. We are a violent species, and what he said about the Scots-Irish experience is dead on.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

President Obama has signed executive orders that assume the powers of law enforcement that the Presidency has. He needs no Congressional approval for such. He has yet to show himself 'soft on crime'.

President Obama has Congressional Republicans in a bind. President Obama is going after weapons that few people like, against massacre clips, and the gun-show loophole while strengthening laws against fraudulent statements on background checks. This is not going to get in the way of sport hunters and target shooters. It will be rough on urban gangs -- not that they deserved to be coddled anyway. (Expletive deleted) the Bloods and the Crips, and let's keep people who have troublesome characteristics such as the mentally ill, drunkards, druggies, and spouse abusers from getting guns. Tough luck. Gun ownership ought to be a privilege as driving a car is.

Now what is the bind? The 2014 elections. As the 2006 midterm elections show, an unpopular Party majority can lose its majority. President Obama is not and has never been a "limousine liberal". He has cleverly taken an anti-crime stance that conservatives ought to love. Any pol who has to defend a vote massacre clips in a moderate district deserves electoral difficulty.

Utter mindless garbage. As if limiting magazines to 10 rounds will affect any criminals as many of them are already felons and illegally posses them and at the least cannot carry them legally as they are not legally allowed to have concealed carry licenses. Did it stop them from 1994-2004? Did it stop Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold from thier massacre where they carried 4 weapons, 3 of which would still be allowed under Diane Frankenstiens bill (a handgun, a double barrel shotgun and and a pump shotgun).

The people in the bind are red state Democrats up for re-election in 14 like Max Baucus who better speak up against the ridiculous Diane Frankenstien Bill or be thrown out on their kiesters. I do appreciate Obama's efforts to undermine his own parties control over the Senate though....

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

President Obama has signed executive orders that assume the powers of law enforcement that the Presidency has. He needs no Congressional approval for such. He has yet to show himself 'soft on crime'.

Why no, not "soft on crime" at all.

But you can't really blame Barry for doing this. While it is true that you can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs it is also true that you first need eggs in order to break a few eggs.

Ah those silly lawmakers (you may file this one under whoops). It seems that New York state lawmakers forgot to exempt police from the new 7 round magazine limits. Perhaps the most telling statement would be from this state Senator.

State Senator Eric Adams, a former NYPD Captain, told us he's going to push for an amendment next week to exempt police officers from the high-capacity magazine ban. In his words, "You can't give more ammo to the criminals."

Well I beg to differ Senator Adams, it would appear that you really can give more ammo to the criminals. You certainly gave the criminals more ammo capacity than the law-abiding civilians are allowed in your state.

But then ultimately why bother passing an exemption for police? It's not like they will be able to find ammunition anyway. Limiting these guys to 7 rounds would be a great way to ration ammo. Real bummer for the NYPD. Maybe they should learn to hand-load their own ammunition. But who knows, limiting NYPD magazine size might just lessen the bystander carnage the next time they decide to empty their weapons at someone.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Ah those silly lawmakers (you may file this one under whoops). It seems that New York state lawmakers forgot to exempt police from the new 7 round magazine limits. Perhaps the most telling statement would be from this state Senator.

This is the kind of stupidity you get when you pass laws hastily because "we must do something now."

Originally Posted by Weave

The gun ban that occurred in Australia will never happen here, at aleast without a outright rebellion occurring.....

If so, the rebels would be in serious trouble. The US military is not an institution you want on the other side of an argument.

Originally Posted by B Butler

... But in terms of ordinary every day internet political conversation, a lot of people don't know the technical language very well. I try not to be too much of a jerk in reminding people of the technical definitions. Still, it is possible should Congress ever get into the mood to actually implement gun control that the difference between the militia and the National Guard could become very important.

Do you agree that the militia, as referenced in the Constitution, was intended to be a home guard? If so, why do we need one today? Even the PTB in WW-II ignored the militia in favor of Civil Defense, because CD was not a hostile force in any way. Even though the demand for troops was massive at the time, and the possibility of invasion was not zero, we ignored activating the militia. In my opinion, this was because they would have been dangerous to civilians and cannon-fodder to opposing troops. It that was true then, imagine how true it is today.

Originally Posted by Weave

Legally the Militia according to US Code is "The "militia" was provided for in Section 10 of the United States Code (often abbreviated USC). The Code is the list of all the laws that are written by the federal government. Section 10 USC 311 reads:
"All able-bodied males at least 17 years of age…and under 45 years of age who are or have made a declaration to become a citizen of the United States." Additionally, another provision allows for a "reserve militia" (as opposed to the "ready militia" described above), that includes women, children and the elderly. " www.saf.org is the source...

These are both organizations that will never be called to duty. In fact, they will never be called to drill, unless we make a big deal of that dependent clause of the 2nd. Can you see this is absurd on its face?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

If so, the rebels would be in serious trouble. The US military is not an institution you want on the other side of an argument.

except most would agree with my side of the argument and would join the rebellion...

Originally Posted by Weave

except most would agree with my side of the argument and would join the rebellion...

Based on my own experience with the institution, I seriously doubt it.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Based on my own experience with the institution, I seriously doubt it.

And when did that experience take place again?

Originally Posted by Chas'88

I was talking with ASB'65 and BookishXer lately. ASB'65 especially was trying to understand why there was such a visceral reaction to the idea of guns being taken away. She made the comment that they were reacting as though they were mothers being ripped from their children or something along those lines. And then I think we hit upon what could possibly be a contributing factor to all this violence--not the cause, but definitely a contributing factor.

This Saeculum, and the one prior, we've been slowly taking away various physical activities which fulfilled our natural instincts that we have as predatory animals. One of those instincts I have to say is quite frankly to kill. It simply just comes from being a predator. It used to be that we'd go out and hunt for our food and this satisfied our instinctual need. When there came to be too many people around and not enough food, we fought and killed one another over the limited resources--depleting our populations usually enough to deal with the more limited food supply. Now as we evolved from the Hunter-gatherers and formed bare bones societies, hunting and wars between people continued, but simply got bigger--and there began to develop classes of people who didn't need to hunt or make war, and the solution a lot of our ancestors came up with to channel aggressive tendencies in peacetime was sports.

Human beings are predatory animals. What happens when you put a predatory animal inside a cage and lock it? Speaking from experience with Dogs and Cats, they go insane. I once had a dog that upon immediately going into the crate for the night would not keep quiet for the rest of the night and would violently gnash her teeth and scratch at her crate. Another dog started to twist the bars until she snapped them on her nightly cage. The cats became more ornery and clawed as well. However once I started to let them go outside--and have a largely free reign of the house--(let the cats kill a few mice or two, the dogs chase and kill a few rabbits), all of a sudden they were right as rain, and rather sweet and affectionate.

This past Saeculum especially we've been building very comfortable cages for ourselves and locking ourselves up in them. Some have found outlets for the primal desire for physical prowess/killing through exercise, sports, home repair, hunting, exploring/traveling, etc. Some kind of physical activity that fulfills our need to be physical creatures. We don't need to hunt in order to gather food anymore, but the physical activity that came along with that can be substituted through other means and the adrenaline rush of killing something can be supplanted through winning a game of football, dancing, or some other means. But not everyone does these things anymore, and it's taking a toll. Also, what prey tell is the worst cage in our society? That's right, prison. Is it any wonder that people sometimes come out worse than when they went in?

Think about most of the shooters in these shootings, who have they been largely? Young Men--those who would've been out hunting in the old hunter-gatherer societies. In Medieval times dealing with young Knights (who were anything but chivalric--well, they defined chivalry as killing, fighting, raping, [especially if you were a peasant--expect to get trod all over by a Knight] etc... the Code of Chivalry was actually an attempt to "tame" them--jousting and tournaments were other ways), eventually people began to grow tired of dealing with unruly knights so they decided to put those desires to good use in the crusades so that the Knights would stop attacking their own people and channel their aggressive tendencies to "good use".

Now this is not to say that everyone is this way, or that it's the primary cause of these things, but I'd say it's a good contributing factor.

It's something we have to live with, humans being a predatory animal and all. Now I'm not saying the solution is to neuter the more aggressive members of our species, but I'm sure we can find outlets to let people channel out their aggression--because they need to. And we're going to have to find some way to recognize potential shooters before they become shooters and find some way to get them to channel their aggression in healthy ways--because it doesn't look like the ones who do are doing so on their own. Until Trans-humanism swoops in to delete these instinctual needs, we're going to need to find a way to do that. We have to accept the fact that as long as we're humans some of us are more predatory than others and need outlets that are appropriate if we're to function. Does that mean we're always going to be successful? No. Does that mean as long as there are guns out there and there are people who don't have those predatory needs fulfilled that there will be gun violence? Yeah IMO.

Also I think violent video games & violent movies are about the same as watching a bullfight or gladiator games--in that they give a superficial satisfaction to the instinct, but they don't replace the physical half of the instinct and that's where the danger comes in.

As to why people get upset over the disappearance of guns--well, they're more predatory than those who are trying to get rid of the guns. It's like telling the cat: "I'm going to de-claw you" or "trim your claws". Every cat I've had hates either experience and gets rather depressed and a bit more violent and manic when that happens. Hunting is how those people cope with not using their predatory skills every day, other people play sports or exercise, so of course they're going to react in a hostile manner to the suggestion of taking away the guns--because it's almost like taking their arms or legs from them. IMO the need to "defend from a hostile government" isn't so much the reason and more of an excuse. And I'd argue that those who do argue that argument probably have a lot of Scot-Irish ancestry in their blood--or at least some kind of Celtic ancestry, and that comes from centuries of living on the edge of society and spent repelling foreign invaders who "organize" themselves in a different manner than they're used to. A people who lived for so long amongst vast wilderness that the individual survival instinct desire by now is simply bred into them. After all, let's not forget that these are the same people who decorated their homes with the heads of their enemies in Roman times. And we all know how the British adapted... they collected the heads of the animals they hunted and decorated their homes with them.

Thus said Chas after walking/exploring/patrolling the perimeter of his territory, satisfying his Celtic blood.

~Chas'88

I have to disagree. I don't think brains are like steam engines that need to occasionally let off steam. In fact, The opposite is true. I remember reading an article a year ago saying that the notion that repression (in the psychoanalytical sense) is "bad" and that we need to release them is completely wrong. The article said that people who "let off steam" instead of repressing violent urges actually were more likely to act violently

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Why no, not "soft on crime" at all.

But you can't really blame Barry for doing this. While it is true that you can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs it is also true that you first need eggs in order to break a few eggs.

The GOP pols have arranged for a toothless ATF, just as the National Rifle Association wants. You tell me what is "soft on crime".

Originally Posted by Odin

I have to disagree. I don't think brains are like steam engines that need to occasionally let off steam. In fact, The opposite is true. I remember reading an article a year ago saying that the notion that repression (in the psychoanalytical sense) is "bad" and that we need to release them is completely wrong. The article said that people who "let off steam" instead of repressing violent urges actually were more likely to act violently

And I seem to recall you've made mention of a hunting rifle in your possession that you want to keep... and are protective over.

Serious question now though: Did the study have a control group of people who behaved in a violent manner to begin with to see if exposure or non-exposure to more violence had any effect on their violent tendencies? It could be that they had inadvertently chosen people who already had a higher rate of violent tendencies.

~Chas'88