ADVERTISEMENT

OT Steve Kerr Golden St. head coach says it best about gun violence as a public health issue

JCon, ya I remember watching that on the news back then when it happened. Those guys definitely took things to a new level. The body armor they wore made the revolvers and shotguns the police had pretty much useless. If I remember right, didn't the police have to "borrow" rifles from a nearby gunstore since they were pretty much overmatched?
 
I wish Syb and some of OUr other great 'progressive' friends would chime in with their opinions in these type threads. Just because we share different thoughts does not mean we cannot reflect and consider others...

For instance, now that Donna B has outed the treatment of the Burn by Clinton Inc and SNL has finally jumped on (sort of), HAS the era of Oligarchs finally past it's prime for both sides ?
 
JCon, ya I remember watching that on the news back then when it happened. Those guys definitely took things to a new level. The body armor they wore made the revolvers and shotguns the police had pretty much useless. If I remember right, didn't the police have to "borrow" rifles from a nearby gunstore since they were pretty much overmatched?

That's right. Incredible nobody died except the perpetrators, but just 2 guys were able to fight what was probably 100 officers for around 30 minutes. 1100 rounds fired by the perps, 700 rounds fired by police.
 
I'm surprised with that many officers and so much lead flying that there were no "head shots". Oswald "did it alone" with a mail order bolt action after all...
Well with the amount of bullets the bad guys were firing for suppressive fire, its not like the cops could chill out and take carefully aimed shots with some much lead flying at them. Cops were keeping a pretty good distance from them and the head is a pretty small target.

Not like the movies where every other person that dies gets shot in the head. Lol ;)
 
I'm surprised with that many officers and so much lead flying that there were no "head shots". Oswald "did it alone" with a mail order bolt action after all...

Took a long time for the long rifles to arrive. The bad guys had such powerful weaponry that the officers couldn't get close enough to make an accurate shot with a pistol.

Oswald had time to aim too. He didn't have to worry about someone else taking a headshot on him too. hahaha
I doubt too many of the officers were so ballsy as to poke their heads up for a long time to make a calculated headshot. Not for federally insured money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BillyRay
Yeah but 100 - 2, I would think would have at least one sniper in the ranks somewhere...
Might have been, but patrolmen that were on the scene don't have sniper rifles with them. And not like they had time to mobilize SWAT to show up on the scene. In the end, one of the guys got hit in the hand and then shot himself. And the other guy I remember a car load of cops just basically banzaii charged in with guns blazing and were able to disable the guy. He ended up dying though. I had heard his family tried to sue the police and city for not getting him medical attention soon enough.
 
Well spoken.
While I favor our rights to own guns, for hunting and home defense only, I have a problem with the wording of the second amendment in that it says citizens have the right to bear arms in a well trained militia....and at the time there were no assault rifles, just single shot muskets.
This is now all about money and politics and not about common sense.
You can’t legislate stupid. Chicago has the strictest gun laws of any US City and they have had thousands of shootings per year for years. What law would they have past that would have stopped the Vegas shooter? Really would like to know. WS
 
There is a split that is, for the time being, incapable of being resolved. It will be resolved, and there will be gun control. Some of this is on its last legs. But, a part of the problem is a lack of reality about American history. A non-existent history has been manufactured.

If you go back to the time of the revolutionary war, there were fewer than a thousand long rifles in existence in the colonies, only about 800 available to the revolutionaries. The old muskets were so inaccurate that you had a decent chance of surviving a charge across an open field, and if you were hit, it was probably meant tor the guy next to you.

Meanwhile, what the colonists in general thought was of little consequence. The Constitution was written by what was essentially the elite class. As one kid put it in graduate school, "they insisted on equal rights among the planter class." You are professing that they were concerned with the rights of a plebiscite to bear arms. Really? They didn't even allow the common man to vote. Many states required that only voters who owned property could vote. Certainly, no minorities, and certainly no women (until 1920 some 145 years later) were to be permitted to vote, much less exercise their "rights."

Now, as to the matter of the Second Amendment, who is actually awarded the right to bear arms? A well-regulated militia. Said nothing about the people that you didn't even intend to allow to vote. Exactly what was a militia? Most of the men in any "army" didn't have the funds to sustain themselves. Any rich guy who wanted and had money could form a militia (again, enter the planter class). This well-regulated militia was under the control of someone who generally shared the opinions with others of his crowd, certainly not the riff-raff. Arms were meant to be mostly under the control of the colonists who had the money and power to finance the revolution in the first place.

We happen to be very lucky, Along with all of these guys who just wanted to get out from under British control of their business dealings, there were some very special men. Unlike most of the others who were just in it for themselves, these men saw the opportunity to lay a foundation. They were well-read, had even read most of the philosophical works of their day. Find one like that today. But, men like Madison and Jefferson saw the opportunity to lay a foundation for a country that they saw only in their dreams. They knew it wouldn't happen at that time. Jefferson was opposed to slavery, as were Adams and Madison. But, Jefferson owned slaves, a reality of his time. But, while unable to eliminate it at that time, they did provide a document that could be amended as we learned and made progress. Some are foolish enough to want to go back to the good old days. They built this nation for dreams yet unrealized, and they probably were too bigoted, as men of their times, to accept easily where we are, until they thought about it.. It was done so well that the one thing that we have exported to the world voluntarily is the works of Madison and Jefferson. Every country in the western world had some copy of their document as the foundation of their country.

And, come on folks. It's one thing to join the NRA and have a rifle. I did, sixty years ago. But, I would throw the current NRA out of the association. It is nothing more than a group, not all of whom are Americans, who want to sell guns. Next, you'll insist that a National French Cuff Association has determined that it is your right and responsibility to buy French Cuffs. Nobody wants you rifle or shotgun. When I grew up in a small Oklahoma town, even the farmers thought a pistol was useless. It was only useful to kill people. Nobody needs a weapon that can kill fifty people in ten minutes. The idea that any gun would do it is silly. The Las Vegas shooter would probably have shot ten if he had only had a rifle or shotgun. Those in the church who weren't shot with the first clip of six would have tackled the shooter as he reloaded if he hadn't had the ability to fire off another hundred shells before they could get to him. You have the right to have a car. You don't have the right to drive in 100 mph on the sidewalk. We regulate things for a reason. We don't want nuts to flip out and kill a hundred. At least limit him to a clip of ten or something.

Now, go back and try to figure out exactly who those forefathers thought they needed a militia to protect themselves from. Remember that they weren't all on the same page. But, they had no intention of protecting the riff-raff. Sorry to ruin you pipe dreams. Madison and Jefferson knew they were mostly jerks, and they wrote a document that would be good tomorrow, not only in 1820.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JConXtsy and CTOkie
Now, as to the matter of the Second Amendment, who is actually awarded the right to bear arms? A well-regulated militia. Said nothing about the people that you didn't even intend to allow to vote.

“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.”
 
“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.”
You seem to have a bit of a problem with the concept of a complete sentence, the qualifier being "well-regulated militia." The second clause is dependent upon the first.
 
Why do I need a semi-automatic carbine? Because GO @#$! YOURSELF, THAT'S WHY!

(Actually, they're also quite handy for combating nuisance species, such as feral hogs, coyotes, nutria, communists, etc.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: JConXtsy
You seem to have a bit of a problem with the concept of a complete sentence, the qualifier being "well-regulated militia." The second clause is dependent upon the first.
I don't have a problem at all. You said it doesn't mention "the people" at all in your original post. It does specifically say "the people". When it mentions "well regulated militia", there really is no reason to later mention "the people" later in the same sentence. But that is something that is up to interpretation and is the fuel for countless arguments as to what exactly the founders meant. Remove "the right of the people" from the 2nd amendment, and it means what YOU want it to mean.
 
I don't have a problem at all. You said it doesn't mention "the people" at all in your original post. It does specifically say "the people". When it mentions "well regulated militia", there really is no reason to later mention "the people" later in the same sentence. But that is something that is up to interpretation and is the fuel for countless arguments as to what exactly the founders meant. Remove "the right of the people" from the 2nd amendment, and it means what YOU want it to mean.
Sorry, but you don't get to revise the rules of grammar in order to make it say what you want it to say. Madison and Jefferson were quite good at grammar, and they chose every word very specifically. It means exactly what is says. There is a qualifying clause.

Get over what you want it to mean. As I stated originally, the participants of the Constitutional Convention were not concerned with the unwashed masses. If you look at the Constitution, the average person, if allowed to vote at all by his state laws, was only able to vote for one person, his Representative. Senators were elected by the Representatives. Presidents were elected by electors. They weren't about to have the unwashed masses running around inspiring revolts against them. We have evolved since, thanks to the procedures for amendment.
 
You seem to have a bit of a problem with the concept of a complete sentence, the qualifier being "well-regulated militia." The second clause is dependent upon the first.
You seem to have a problem with the concept of "limitation of power" and constitutional theory in general (and rules of grammar as well). The limitation, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED," is quite explicit and entirely independent of your so-called "qualifier" (which is at best a modifier). If your reasoning were correct, then the second clause would read "......the rights of the people to form a militia shall not be infringed...." or something to that effect, in equally explicit language.

The purpose of the COTUS is to establish a government, bestow powers upon that government, and place limits upon those powers in light of the the inalienable rights bestowed upon the citizens by their Creator. The Second Amendment does not grant the right to bear arms (as the COTUS was written by men, who under US constitutional philosophy have no power or authority to grant rights). It merely limits the power of the government in order to protect a right that the citizens already possess.
 
Sorry, but you don't get to revise the rules of grammar in order to make it say what you want it to say. Madison and Jefferson were quite good at grammar, and they chose every word very specifically. It means exactly what is says. There is a qualifying clause.

Get over what you want it to mean. As I stated originally, the participants of the Constitutional Convention were not concerned with the unwashed masses. If you look at the Constitution, the average person, if allowed to vote at all by his state laws, was only able to vote for one person, his Representative. Senators were elected by the Representatives. Presidents were elected by electors. They weren't about to have the unwashed masses running around inspiring revolts against them. We have evolved since, thanks to the procedures for amendment.
Well then maybe you can go to D.C. and dictate to the Supreme Court how they need to interpret the English language. Their ruling DOES NOT fall in line with your opinion of the qualifying clause. Their ruling absolutely states both clauses stand on their own merit, and the prefatory clause of "well regulated militia" does NOT limit the operative clause "the right of the people".

"In the majority opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court first conducted a textual analysis of the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Court found that this language guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons. The Court examined historical evidence that it found consistent with its textual analysis. The Court then considered the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and determined that while this clause announces a purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, it does not limit the operative clause. The Court found that analogous contemporaneous provisions in state constitutions, the Second Amendment’s drafting history, and post-ratification interpretations were consistent with its interpretation of the amendment. The Court asserted that its prior precedent was not inconsistent with its interpretation."
 
Thanks for contributing Syb. I respect your knowledge of History but cannot agree with all of your conclusions. Even though we have an abundance of regulations in place for everything under the sun, we have the eternal problem with the hearts and minds of men (and women) that circumvent all.
 
You seem to have a bit of a problem with the concept of a complete sentence, the qualifier being "well-regulated militia." The second clause is dependent upon the first.
Completely wrong. The right of the people is the operative clause and isn't dependent on the prefatory clause. Maybe you should read the thoughts and speeches of the Founders. The intent of the 2nd isn't a mystery.
 
Well then maybe you can go to D.C. and dictate to the Supreme Court how they need to interpret the English language. Their ruling DOES NOT fall in line with your opinion of the qualifying clause. Their ruling absolutely states both clauses stand on their own merit, and the prefatory clause of "well regulated militia" does NOT limit the operative clause "the right of the people".

"In the majority opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court first conducted a textual analysis of the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Court found that this language guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons. The Court examined historical evidence that it found consistent with its textual analysis. The Court then considered the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and determined that while this clause announces a purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, it does not limit the operative clause. The Court found that analogous contemporaneous provisions in state constitutions, the Second Amendment’s drafting history, and post-ratification interpretations were consistent with its interpretation of the amendment. The Court asserted that its prior precedent was not inconsistent with its interpretation."
The court has been rather lax in its interpretation, preferring to grant as much individual liberty as they can. But, the Constitution says quite simply what it says, and it grants the right to bear arms to a well-regulated militia. It has already exceeded that in its rulings. It is, quite simply, wrong in so doing. It also fails in its responsibilities elsewhere as well. If it wishes to permit a more individual interpretation, it should insist that it be done by amendment. Fact: the Second Amendment was not intended to grant the right to bear arms to the general public. Those who wrote the Constitution were among those who wished to retain power among the elite, at least for the time being. If you search for any intent among those at the convention for a general acceptance of the rights of the riff-raff, you simply won't find it. This has been deliberately misrepresented by those who wish to have a particular position advanced, a position that will be challenged soon as the mood of the public is switching to regulation.

It won't be interpreted as it should, but as simply a regulation of the "rights" that have been extended by previous rulings.

When you present the opinion of forefathers as having a direct influence, you should first read a bit more about the history of the time. It was not a movie or a Broadway play. It was a time in which a rather routine punishment for missing church in one colony was to have your ears pinned. Look it up to see what that means. It was not a gentlemanly society, nor was it one in which the average person had a rifle.

There will be regulation. Live with it.
 
The court has been rather lax in its interpretation, preferring to grant as much individual liberty as they can. But, the Constitution says quite simply what it says, and it grants the right to bear arms to a well-regulated militia. It has already exceeded that in its rulings. It is, quite simply, wrong in so doing. It also fails in its responsibilities elsewhere as well. If it wishes to permit a more individual interpretation, it should insist that it be done by amendment. Fact: the Second Amendment was not intended to grant the right to bear arms to the general public. Those who wrote the Constitution were among those who wished to retain power among the elite, at least for the time being. If you search for any intent among those at the convention for a general acceptance of the rights of the riff-raff, you simply won't find it. This has been deliberately misrepresented by those who wish to have a particular position advanced, a position that will be challenged soon as the mood of the public is switching to regulation.

It won't be interpreted as it should, but as simply a regulation of the "rights" that have been extended by previous rulings.

When you present the opinion of forefathers as having a direct influence, you should first read a bit more about the history of the time. It was not a movie or a Broadway play. It was a time in which a rather routine punishment for missing church in one colony was to have your ears pinned. Look it up to see what that means. It was not a gentlemanly society, nor was it one in which the average person had a rifle.

There will be regulation. Live with it.
Do you actually believe what you typed? That's some of the funniest shit I've ever read!
 
Hey Syb believes what he thinks and writes well. People including the "Supremes" make mistakes (see the rights of the unborn who have beating hearts but can't vote). That too may soon change
One of the primary issues in a campaign has become the direction of the court. It had been slowly progressing until we got a couple of recent appointments which put some of the advances at risk. But, that is temporary. Progress is inevitable, and any obstacle is temporary. In its entire history, the court never saw the need to declare that women had rights, and it took an amendment to get them to do what they should have done in the first place, grant the vote. We also had such debacles as the Dred Scott decision.

The millennials have a value system that will change the courts dramatically, and they will have the control within twenty years.

Jefferson and Madison recognized the world in which they lived, and they knew it would evolve. Society has always changed, very gradually. I think that will likely be accelerated by the next generation.
 
One of the primary issues in a campaign has become the direction of the court. It had been slowly progressing until we got a couple of recent appointments which put some of the advances at risk. But, that is temporary. Progress is inevitable, and any obstacle is temporary. In its entire history, the court never saw the need to declare that women had rights, and it took an amendment to get them to do what they should have done in the first place, grant the vote. We also had such debacles as the Dred Scott decision.

The millennials have a value system that will change the courts dramatically, and they will have the control within twenty years.

Jefferson and Madison recognized the world in which they lived, and they knew it would evolve. Society has always changed, very gradually. I think that will likely be accelerated by the next generation.
God almighty....and you consider what you posted here as "progress"???
 
I already have many times but will again since the reply came out of sequence. The many laws and regs you suggested are already On the books and through incompetence by authorities or willful disobedience by perps, the sick or the radicalized will Not stop random acts of murder by gun, auto, boxcutter, etc
Some are not yet on the books. Reagan had placed a ban on assault weapons, a ban that was later lapsed. A ban on a type of weapon that permits multiple discharges is necessary, and opposing it seems rather silly, as though someone thought his assault weapon would stop a government takeover. We don't allow people to drive on sidewalks. Why should we allow the purchase of a weapon that only has the purpose of human destruction?

The idea that only the sick use it so it isn't the fault of the weapon is a lame excuse. We don't permit the sale of narcotics because of the harm they do to the individual and society. We regulate a good number of things. We can ban assault weapons.
 
God almighty....and you consider what you posted here as "progress"???
Oh. I'm sorry that you don't like the fact that we have extended rights to homosexuals, women, and minorities. Yes, this is progress. Or, what is it that you object to?
 
Reagan had placed a ban on assault weapons, a ban that was later lapsed.
Umm...you sure about this one???

We don't allow people to drive on sidewalks. Why should we allow the purchase of a weapon that only has the purpose of human destruction?
And yet, if a person wants to hop the curb and drive down a bunch of people casually walking down the sidewalk, a law made to prevent it won't actually prevent it will it??

And I have several AR style firearms. They have never caused any "human destruction" under my ownership, so that clearly isn't their only purpose according to your fear-mongering.

We don't permit the sale of narcotics because of the harm they do to the individual and society. We regulate a good number of things. We can ban assault weapons.
Oh, you mean drugs and narcotics that are heavily restricted, yet are flooding the streets and causing an opioid epidemic in this country? Ya...great example there man.....
 
Umm...you sure about this one???


And yet, if a person wants to hop the curb and drive down a bunch of people casually walking down the sidewalk, a law made to prevent it won't actually prevent it will it??

And I have several AR style firearms. They have never caused any "human destruction" under my ownership, so that clearly isn't their only purpose according to your fear-mongering.


Oh, you mean drugs and narcotics that are heavily restricted, yet are flooding the streets and causing an opioid epidemic in this country? Ya...great example there man.....
But, we still restrict it. Notice any movement to curtail the restrictions on narcotics?

The fact that you don't use your weapon to kill is irrelevant. The fact that is available to someone who would kill, and that it makes their killing more difficult to stop while also making it more deadly is relevant.
 
Syb Utopia only exists in the minds of the deranged and/or Todd Rundgren...
Ah. But, the goals of man have always been to rise as high as we can. Well, there are those who seem to want to pursue the lowest common denominator. But, we build prisons and institutions for them, and statues for those who wish to rise above.

If you didn't hope for your idea of utopia, you wouldn't be in the discussion. It is about the Constitution, the instrument for the pursuit of utopia by free societies.
 
The fact that you don't use your weapon to kill is irrelevant. The fact that is available to someone who would kill, and that it makes their killing more difficult to stop while also making it more deadly is relevant.
This is exactly my point in regards to your idea of "progress" in this country.....God.....Almighty.......

See, your idea of a "value system" is you put your own opinions on how things should be done, above all else, including individuals rights in this country. I don't doubt that you view the Constitution as a whole as one of those "obstacles" you mentioned earlier in regards to what direction you want to see this country more towards. I have no doubt you think burning the Constitution and starting over is prolly viewed as "progress" in your mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huntin Hard
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT