Mass Shootings - Why?

[JimFromTN]

No. It doesn't say a well regulated militia is a requirement for the preservation of the right. It says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If your position were reflected in the amendment it would have included that the right is dependent on a milita or only reserved to those in a militia.

In the event that a well regulated militia were needed, today or anytime, it would require on that day to have the right to keep and bear arms.

The restriction placed on the government is that it "shall not infringe". There are no exceptions made for when or why it can infringe.

That doesn't mean it won't try. They have infringed several times. … courts interpretation and what not.

It does not say it is a requirement. It says it is necessary to the security of a free state. You are saying that the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with with the security of the free state. It just says people have the right to own guns but does not specify why. Now, can you tell everyone else that the 2nd amendment is just to preserve our freedom to own guns and nothing more. It has nothing to do with protecting any other freedoms or taking on the government when it gets out of hand or any other foolishness.

 

[JimFromTN]

Jim, Are you not a well trained Sniper? Think about it. You sit and wait for hours, hidden, waiting for whatever animal you're seeking to come by, unaware of your presence, so you can shoot and kill it? Sounds like a well regulated Sniper to me.

If we are at war with deer and hogs, we are set

 

[Mike D Texas]

Boy, this has been some good reading. If nothing else, I appreciate that it has continued. Muddy has tried to keep it on track. And there are actually some people on here trying to debate ideas. I like all of that. And I am in support of having armed guards at schools. And I'm not opposed to giving teachers permission to arm themselves. But, you can't really think that this will be much of a solution. If 19 of Texas' finest wearing the biggest cowboy hats you can imagine can't find the cajones to challenge a teenager with an AR, then how do you expect a teacher or a kid to? Just sayin'.... Carry on....

I would say their motives would be vastly different. A teacher facing down a kill or be killed scenario is a much different scenario than someone rolling up on an active shooter scene with a barricaded suspect of unknown whereabouts.

 

[Orange Dust]

It does not say it is a requirement. It says it is necessary to the security of a free state. You are saying that the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with with the security of the free state. It just says people have the right to own guns but does not specify why. Now, can you tell everyone else that the 2nd amendment is just to preserve our freedom to own guns and nothing more. It has nothing to do with protecting any other freedoms or taking on the government when it gets out of hand or any other foolishness.

Jim, you don't live in a Free State if the Government is armed and you are not. You are at their mercy to inflict their will on you. Whatever it may be. You, as a Citizen are the final check on their power.

 

[Orange Dust]

If we are at war with deer and hogs, we are set

Suppose we were invaded or the government taken over. You have the skills needed in an emergency. Our Military could be decimated by a nuclear strike and the country invaded. This is a very real possibility. You already have the skills to help repel such an event. You would just have to have the guts for it. You are the Militia like it or not.

 

[jessej]

 

[JimFromTN]

Jim, you don't live in a Free State if the Government is armed and you are not. You are at their mercy to inflict their will on you. Whatever it may be. You, as a Citizen are the final check on their power.

I guess that depends on what you mean by free. There are lots of countries where people live in that situation and are free. If they aren't, they have no idea. They have all the rights we have with the exception that guns are controlled far more heavily. Besides that, I am just responding to what he said. He said it has nothing to do with the security of the free state. It only had to do with the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. He likes his guns and thats all that matters which I think is pretty much true of most gun owners. I don't think most gun owners feel its their patriotic duty to own guns to protect freedom. I like guns and don't want mine taken away either and I am not going to say its necessary for me to own a gun to protect the security of the free state because that would be a lie. I just like guns. They are fun to shoot.

 

[Orange Dust]

I guess that depends on what you mean by free. There are lots of countries where people live in that situation and are free. If they aren't, they have no idea. They have all the rights we have with the exception that guns are controlled far more heavily. Besides that, I am just responding to what he said. He said it has nothing to do with the security of the free state. It only had to do with the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. He likes his guns and thats all that matters which I think is pretty much true of most gun owners. I don't think most gun owners feel its their patriotic duty to own guns to protect freedom. I like guns and don't want mine taken away either and I am not going to say its necessary for me to own a gun to protect the security of the free state because that would be a lie. I just like guns. They are fun to shoot.

Think about two Countries. First Ukraine. After the invasion they called up EVERY male in the country to help defend it. They have been doing their best and have done a good job holding them off, against all odds they may even win. Those boys are not only defending their homeland, they are defending their families and their way of life.
Now move to Hong Kong. All they had were bows and arrows and home make gas bombs when the Chinese invaded them. The Chinese made short work of rounding up and executing the traitors. This could easily happen here, and it could happen sooner rather than later. You are the Militia, like it or not and could be pressed into duty under this same scenario. Yes guns are fun. They are only a Hobby for me too. But it is a Hobby that not only gives great satisfaction, it also creates the skills needed in a crisis by default. This is why other Countries fear us so much and the mainland has never been invaded IMO, but it does not mean it cannot happen. If you are well armed, and skilled at least you have a chance. If we were disarmed somehow, this deterrent to other countries would vanish IMO. Here comes the tinfoil. The Chinese seem to have a lot of Political influence in this country lately. Makes you wonder the motives of those who would commit Treason to disarm us. Think long and hard about all this.

 

[L.Sherm]

. I like guns and don't want mine taken away either and I am not going to say its necessary for me to own a gun to protect the security of the free state because that would be a lie.

Then who is?
You've obviously never had a gun pointed at you.

 

[Orange Dust]

I would say their motives would be vastly different. A teacher facing down a kill or be killed scenario is a much different scenario than someone rolling up on an active shooter scene with a barricaded suspect of unknown whereabouts.

Mike, I will always feel a teacher has the same right to self defense as you or I. Denying that right is much more than wrong. Gun free Zones are kill zones. I would not work in a school if I could not carry. I also think making them carry is just as bad an idea as not letting them carry. Carrying a weapon and the responsibility that goes with it has to be a personal decision.

 

[Orange Dust]

Then who is?
You've obviously never had a gun pointed at you.

I have, so has my oldest daughter, but this isn't the time.....

 

[L.Sherm]

I have, so has my oldest daughter, but this isn't the time.....

Only reason I brought it up was because I 100% believe in right to carry for that reason because so have I.
Not just because I like to shoot.

 

[dfanonymous]

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.

I briefly looked at whatever **** show is going on above. The text to the second amendment is pretty clear to an honest person and half intelligent person. That's not a jab. Explained:

Regulated as I think someone mentioned was a common term for training during the time the amendment was written. Well regulated is well trained not .gov regulated.

Now the beginning is a statement. A principle. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.

The second half of the 2A, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not being infringed. This is the easiest thing to interpret, it means the people have a right to keep (possess) and bear (use) arms (common weapons.)

Arms are common now as they were common then to firearms.

I don't understand how this still up for debate.

 

[Orange Dust]

Only reason I brought it up was because I 100% believe in right to carry for that reason because so have I.
Not just because I like to shoot.

I haven't been more than arms length from a gun in over 30 years so I get where you are coming from.