San Bernardino shooting. 10 critically injured. suspect at large.

[YeBeWarned]

sometime ago i heard on CNN that within 12 hours more than 40 people were shot in Chicago alone .. i am not sure if that news was true but i hope my memory serve me well .. Never like guns , humans are weird mammals never know when one lose his/her mind to create chaos , makes it worse if that crazy puta has a AR-15 ..

 

[Arsalan]

Indeed, like for example killing children in schools with knives in Chinese schools. Can you imagine if the whole Chinese population were allowed guns, there be deaths in the millions each year!



No, like these.

They will resort to knives and vehicles. They can cause mass casualties. Should they ban knives and vehicles now?

Being to selective while talking about things that are bad? Should i also look up some images of the incidents i talked about and share? But then, you have already seen them!!

That would NOT apply to the Americans on this forum.

If you want me to answer this honestly, YES, most of American members wont fall in this category (i mean, yeah, they can have a gun, can trust them with it). The problem is elsewhere.

 

[Vassnti]

Compared to 22 other high-income nations, the U.S. gun-related murder rate is 25 times higher.[13] Although it has half the population of the other 22 nations combined, the U.S. had 82 percent of all gun deaths, 90 percent of all women killed with guns, 91 percent of children under 14 and 92 percent of young people between ages 15 and 24 killed with guns.

 

[gambit]

If you want me to answer this honestly, YES, most of American members wont fall in this category (i mean, yeah, they can have a gun, can trust them with it). The problem is elsewhere.

Here is the full text of the Second Amendment in the US Constitution, which governs all laws in the US...

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 right of self defense is not in dispute. Never has been throughout history. So self defense was not a component in the debates -- plural -- prior to the enactment of the Second Amendment into the Constitution.

On the other other hand, the idea of the citizenry having a say in how they are governed have always been in dispute and the worst type of dispute of all is -- violence.

Let us take what Mao said about political power...

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/ch05.htm
Every Communist must grasp the truth; "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

Now let us take what von Clausewitz said about warfare...

https://www.clausewitz.com/readings/OnWar1873/BK1ch01.html#a
24.—War is a mere continuation of policy by other means.

We see, therefore, that war is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means.

What this means is that the relationship between state and citizenry is ONLY political in nature. Nothing else matters. Violence is a tool or a mean to assist in the finalization of a political goal.

The Second Amendment is essentially a political statement. Other countries have allowances for personal possession of weapons, but the US's Second Amendment is unique for over 200 yrs in that weapons are tacitly declared as political instruments reserved without restraints to the citizenry as a final -- and violently if necessary -- check against the state.

The words 'regulated Militia' does not mean the National Guards or police forces. A militia is an organically created organization, often spontaneously, when the citizenry felt, rightly or wrongly, the need for one. A militia is a citizen's, not the state's, armed forces. So if there is to be a militia, the citizens themselves must be allowed to be armed however each person is capable.

The vast majority of American gun owners are responsible and knowledgeable on what I said above regarding the political aspects of the Second Amendment. You can cherry picked instances of when a person should be allowed to own guns, but that does not take away the political aspects of the right to own guns.

At the intellectual level, threads like this one are essentially troll threads. The posts are from people who made no efforts at 'root cause' analyses or even general understanding of why guns are allowed in America. The 'root cause' here is the Second Amendment, not mental health or drugs or money.

 

[lastofthepatriots]

Here is the full text of the Second Amendment in the US Constitution, which governs all laws in the US...

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 right of self defense is not in dispute. Never has been throughout history. So self defense was not a component in the debates -- plural -- prior to the enactment of the Second Amendment into the Constitution.

On the other other hand, the idea of the citizenry having a say in how they are governed have always been in dispute and the worst type of dispute of all is -- violence.

Let us take what Mao said about political power...

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/ch05.htm
Every Communist must grasp the truth; "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

Now let us take what von Clausewitz said about warfare...

https://www.clausewitz.com/readings/OnWar1873/BK1ch01.html#a
24.—War is a mere continuation of policy by other means.

We see, therefore, that war is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means.

What this means is that the relationship between state and citizenry is ONLY political in nature. Nothing else matters. Violence is a tool or a mean to assist in the finalization of a political goal.

The Second Amendment is essentially a political statement. Other countries have allowances for personal possession of weapons, but the US's Second Amendment is unique for over 200 yrs in that weapons are tacitly declared as political instruments reserved without restraints to the citizenry as a final -- and violently if necessary -- check against the state.

The words 'regulated Militia' does not mean the National Guards or police forces. A militia is an organically created organization, often spontaneously, when the citizenry felt, rightly or wrongly, the need for one. A militia is a citizen's, not the state's, armed forces. So if there is to be a militia, the citizens themselves must be allowed to be armed however each person is capable.

The vast majority of American gun owners are responsible and knowledgeable on what I said above regarding the political aspects of the Second Amendment. You can cherry picked instances of when a person should be allowed to own guns, but that does not take away the political aspects of the right to own guns.

At the intellectual level, threads like this one are essentially troll threads. The posts are from people who made no efforts at 'root cause' analyses or even general understanding of why guns are allowed in America. The 'root cause' here is the Second Amendment, not mental health or drugs or money.

The sad day when I actually have to agree with gambit.

 

[gambit]

The sad day when I actually have to agree with gambit.

Certainly not a sad day for me, or for any American on this forum regarding this issue.

What I posted is not esoteric philosophical discourses but widely disseminated throughout the US, notably at NRA conventions. If you had to agree with me, it means the essence of what I posted are non-disputable.

What is the difference between 'un' and 'non'? The 'un' means it is possible to be the opposite of whatever it is under discussion. We have '1' and '-1', black and white, yes and no. I can once be a communist then shed myself of Marxist ideals. On the other hand, the 'non' means no options. No opposite possible. This is not merely linguistic nit-picking but important in understanding this issue at the core.

There are two subordinate issues involved:

- It is an absolute truth that the relationship between state and citizenry is ONLY political in nature.

- It is an absolute truth that competing political authorities will result in a civil war.

Neither issues are debatable, as in being non-disputable. Like it or not, WE of the citizenry have to submit to the state if we are to have a reasonably cohesive community and eventually a civilization. But abuses by the state, historically from the monarchies, are abundant throughout history, and the citizenry have been generally helpless.

This is what the Second Amendment intends to rectify. By allowing the citizenry to be armed at the organic level, meaning the individual, the state have a line that it cannot cross without sending the country into a civil war. Tragedies like this recent shooting are the price Americans are willing to bear in order to preserve this line.

 

[Vassnti]

A well regulated Militia

As opposed to the current system that seems to be every Rambo wanabe and nutter that can pony up $50 at a gun show

 

[gambit]

View attachment 498270

As opposed to the current system that seems to be every Rambo wanabe and nutter that can pony up $50 at a gun show

With this post, you proved my point about the thrust of this thread.

 

[Arsalan]

Here is the full text of the Second Amendment in the US Constitution, which governs all laws in the US...

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 right of self defense is not in dispute. Never has been throughout history. So self defense was not a component in the debates -- plural -- prior to the enactment of the Second Amendment into the Constitution.

On the other other hand, the idea of the citizenry having a say in how they are governed have always been in dispute and the worst type of dispute of all is -- violence.

Let us take what Mao said about political power...

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/ch05.htm
Every Communist must grasp the truth; "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

Now let us take what von Clausewitz said about warfare...

https://www.clausewitz.com/readings/OnWar1873/BK1ch01.html#a
24.—War is a mere continuation of policy by other means.

We see, therefore, that war is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means.

What this means is that the relationship between state and citizenry is ONLY political in nature. Nothing else matters. Violence is a tool or a mean to assist in the finalization of a political goal.

The Second Amendment is essentially a political statement. Other countries have allowances for personal possession of weapons, but the US's Second Amendment is unique for over 200 yrs in that weapons are tacitly declared as political instruments reserved without restraints to the citizenry as a final -- and violently if necessary -- check against the state.

The words 'regulated Militia' does not mean the National Guards or police forces. A militia is an organically created organization, often spontaneously, when the citizenry felt, rightly or wrongly, the need for one. A militia is a citizen's, not the state's, armed forces. So if there is to be a militia, the citizens themselves must be allowed to be armed however each person is capable.

The vast majority of American gun owners are responsible and knowledgeable on what I said above regarding the political aspects of the Second Amendment. You can cherry picked instances of when a person should be allowed to own guns, but that does not take away the political aspects of the right to own guns.

At the intellectual level, threads like this one are essentially troll threads. The posts are from people who made no efforts at 'root cause' analyses or even general understanding of why guns are allowed in America. The 'root cause' here is the Second Amendment, not mental health or drugs or money.

Well that's what i have been saying, a well regulated system is what is required. I am not in favor of gun ban, rather call for gun control. People should be allowed to buy guns and carry as per will after they go through a certain well designed process.

 

[gambit]

Well that's what i have been saying, a well regulated system is what is required.

Regulated only AFTER a militia is formed.

a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

The keyword here is 'supplement'. An armed force that is raised by the state is a 'standing army' which would be raised and supported by the state. A militia is an organic creation by the people INDEPENDENT of state directives. A militia is the most basic component of a total armed force.

I am not in favor of gun ban, rather call for gun control. People should be allowed to buy guns and carry as per will after they go through a certain well designed process.

We have plenty of gun control.

For example...As a gun owner, I am not allowed to own fully automatic weapons UNLESS I am willing to submit to stringent federal laws, one of them is that federal agents can come to my house, and business, unannounced to inspect my weapons, financial records, etc, and when I say unannounced, it really unannounced. Any violations of state or federal laws and my weapons would be confiscated and I would be charged appropriately.

So if you argue 'gun control', what are you proposing? Have you considered there might be existing laws to what you propose? If not, how are you going to implement what you propose? What are the consequences? Would what you propose be constitutional, meaning it would not violate the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment?

It is easy to simply spout off the cliche 'gun control'.

 

[Arsalan]

Regulated only AFTER a militia is formed.

a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

The keyword here is 'supplement'. An armed force that is raised by the state is a 'standing army' which would be raised and supported by the state. A militia is an organic creation by the people INDEPENDENT of state directives. A militia is the most basic component of a total armed force.

Regulating AFTER militia is formed do not means that there wont be or should not be a criteria for forming it right?
A check and balance system at that can only improve the situation. That is if the government THINKS that they need to make sure the untrained, random citizens do not start to turn against each others or state. If they are ok with that, then yes, no need to control anything, just let it all run wild, may even have a "survival of the fittest" competition. If the gov. needs to keep in control what they are calling an "independent" group otherwise, which i think they will HAVE TO, regulating the recruitment/induction process and thus getting weapons is a must.

We have plenty of gun control.

No sir, with respect, you dont. USA is among those countries where you can just go to a shop and buy a gun, it takes half an hour or so. THere is no regulation, no one to make sure you are fit enough to carry a weapon.

So if you argue 'gun control', what are you proposing? Have you considered there might be existing laws to what you propose? If not, how are you going to implement what you propose? What are the consequences? Would what you propose be constitutional, meaning it would not violate the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment?

I purpose making access to guns checked and difficult. You can only buy a gun once the authorities have evaluated your mental and physical health, you have passed proper gun handling training, passed a test about both technical and ethical aspect of carrying a dangerous firearm. It is not a cliche,, it is just more than going to a store and picking up a gun for a few bucks, thinking that no worries, authorities can always visit the owners house unannounced and inspect OR that we will train and regulate AFTER they have bought a weapon.

 

[gambit]

Regulating AFTER militia is formed do not means that there wont be or should not be a criteria for forming it right?

Yes, the criteria is that the citizenry is allowed access to weapons. If a person is not armed or unwilling to join, then nothing happens to that person.

A check and balance system at that can only improve the situation. That is if the government THINKS that they need to make sure the untrained, random citizens do not start to turn against each others or state. If they are ok with that, then yes, no need to control anything, just let it all run wild, may even have a "survival of the fittest" competition. If the gov. needs to keep in control what they are calling an "independent" group otherwise, which i think they will HAVE TO, regulating the recruitment/induction process and thus getting weapons is a must.

A militia is a citizen's armed force. At its core, a militia does not have to place itself under the state's authority. That is where you misunderstood the concept of the militia.

No sir, with respect, you dont. USA is among those countries where you can just go to a shop and buy a gun, it takes half an hour or so. THere is no regulation, no one to make sure you are fit enough to carry a weapon.

Wrong. I have to pass a background check. As I am a veteran, my fingerprints are in the government's database, so any gun shop can find out if I am eligible to buy. But for everyone else, a background check is performed to see if the person is in any ineligible categories, such as being a convicted felon. Still, your criticism reflects your inability to understand the impact of the Second Amendment, which is that unless a person is PREVIOUSLY disqualified, the government cannot prevent that person from buying a gun.

Unless I am PREVIOUSLY diagnosed with a mental health condition, no one can prevent me from buying a gun.

Weapons training can be debated, but weapons training do not prevent emotional distress that can result in tragedies such as suicides.

The increasing degrees of difficulty of access to weapons, according to you, is exactly what I asked but you avoided. The more difficult you make it for me to access weapons, the more you deviate from the the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment. Driving is not a Constitutional right, shooting is.

That is where you -- and others -- continually get it wrong.

 

[VCheng]

Unless I am PREVIOUSLY diagnosed with a mental health condition, no one can prevent me from buying a gun.

Many will gladly argue here that being a Murrikan is sufficient, by itself, to qualify as a disbarring pre-existing mental condition.

 

[Oldman1]

Those are pictures of countries in civil war or no government
USA is not undergoing civil war

You have countries that have the AK47 as their symbol on their flags.

 

[Arsalan]

Yes, the criteria is that the citizenry is allowed access to weapons. If a person is not armed or unwilling to join, then nothing happens to that person.


A militia is a citizen's armed force. At its core, a militia does not have to place itself under the state's authority. That is where you misunderstood the concept of the militia.

This is strange sir, a group of people armed and under no control whatsoever, that is a bit troubling. What would we call such people if they are in Muslim country? anti state actors? terrorists?

Wrong. I have to pass a background check. As I am a veteran, my fingerprints are in the government's database, so any gun shop can find out if I am eligible to buy. But for everyone else, a background check is performed to see if the person is in any ineligible categories, such as being a convicted felon. Still, your criticism reflects your inability to understand the impact of the Second Amendment, which is that unless a person is PREVIOUSLY disqualified, the government cannot prevent that person from buying a gun.

Sir its not me, that is what your papers, articles and documentaries report. There are countless features present on a man just walking into a gun store, buying a gun with no verification process needed. What i have been asking for here in previous few posts now is the need of a proper verification, that check whether a person in mentally fit to carry a weapon, checks his criminal record (things that you have pointed to), checks that he is TRAINED at handing a gun, involves an interview, a test to judge ethical and technical ability to handle a fire arm. I do not see whats the argument and why would you or anyone think that this is NOT REQUIRED or NOT SUITABLE.

Weapons training can be debated, but weapons training do not prevent emotional distress that can result in tragedies such as suicides.

Any harm in allowing only people with basic training and skill set to be allowed to carry a weapon?

The increasing degrees of difficulty of access to weapons, according to you, is exactly what I asked but you avoided. The more difficult you make it for me to access weapons, the more you deviate from the the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment. Driving is not a Constitutional right, shooting is.

Sir with modern times and modern problems, i see no harm if you even have to review the amendment and make sure not every tom dick and harry do not caries a gun, ready to shoot anyone anywhere just because he can. Anyway, it is your country, your rules, i am just stating that the gun violence incidents in USA are a concern for YOU people (as per news reports etc) and perhaps it is time to take some action to improve the situation. If you really think that everyone should be allowed to carry a gun no matter if he is capable enough or responsible enough to carry one, well, its your choice really.