It's time. It's time to repeal the second amendment (revisited)

it's called pointing out hypocrisy.

 

No, but selling or buying a gun certainly is.[/QUOTE]
not within the meaning of the founders. The commerce clause was never intended to give congress power over the actions of private citizens acting in their own states in a private capacity. That changed with FDR's dishonest court with crap like WICKARD V FILBURN

 

No, but selling or buying a gun certainly is.[/QUOTE]
But not necessarily commerce among the several states. So what commerce regulations would you like enacted when guns are sold among the several states?

For example, let's say that Able, a gun manufacturer ships a gun to Baker, who runs a gun shop in another state? What regulations on that commerce among the several states would you suggest?

 

I have yet to meet a legal scholar-even one who supports what FDR did-who will admit that the CC was intended to give congress the power it has now. It was to prevent one or more states from interfering with interstate commerce.

 

Actually, since the law was always unconstitutional, the turds in ILL are also liable.

 

Clearly you haven't considered the facts.
Using a gun isn't required. But planning a sedition, bringing military attire, clothing, weapons-- carrying them, having them nearby, planting pipe bombs, implementing military tactics, etc., is the reason some were indicted for sedition and sentenced to as many as 18 years in prison,.

You haven't shown anything. Your characterization is narrow, anemic in scope, and not even remotely close to reality.
.

There is no legal 'rising up against the govt' that isn't an insurrection or rebellion, in the eyes of the constitution.

Like I said, your argument is outdated and not viable in the modern age, and your 'example' ignores reality. No rag tag militia can compete with the military. The idea is comparable to a loony tunes cartoon.

I repeat, there is no legal 'rising up against the govt' that isn't an insurrection or rebellion in the eyes of the constitution, just ask Elmer Rhodes, and if he doesn't agree, ask him how long his sentence is.
That this idea that the business of 'tyranny against the gov' is the reason for 2A defies the constitution as it is written. The constitution was written not long after colonial rule, and they were thinking of their own rebellion against a foreign government, NOT any rebellion against the new government they were creating, that's just nuts.

 

That's a very interesting way you're using the word 'freedom'- to describe the ability of the group to restrict ('regulate') the individual. Is that really how you see it, that 'freedom' is how much power we have over eachother?

 

That isn't quite right.

There is no such thing as absolute freedom in society. That we have governments and laws is the default framework in which freedom will always exist, at least until the day comes when each of us evolves to perfection where all of the things that evil, incompetence and folly in general, is requires to contain, repel and quell, are no longer needed.

Moreover, the repeal of 2A wasn't about 'absolute freedom' it was about 'more freedom to regulate'. The term 'freedom' is a nuanced term, one about which volumes can and have been written, so be careful in your characterizations where one might not be cognizant of such nuance.

 

You seem to be arguing a strawman argument. No where have I talked about the legality of a rebellion, insurrection, or anything of the sort. I've also neither condoned, argued for, or agreed with such. The only comment I've made regarding 1/6 is in response to your attempt to use it as an example of a failed militia rebellion that our military conquered. All I did was point out that not one single person used one single gun on 1/6 except a LEO. As such using it as an example of a failed militia rebellion that our military conquered is BS propaganda.

If it was outdated then I wouldn't have been able to provide recent examples of our military withdrawing with its tail tucked between its legs by people that are "rag tag militias". Indeed, its your type of thought process that made our "leaders" believe that they could win. So go ahead and keep your head in the sand. The 2nd Amendment is not going away. And any actual attempt to get rid of it will result in severe backlash. Whether that backlash results in another civil war or replacement of leaders via the voting process is still up in the air. But if it does end up being a civil war...it will not be near as easy as you seem to think that it will be. That is a guarantee. There are plenty of examples that show that to be true, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Just as true today, as it was then. Sane people will do whatever they can to avoid such, but when all else fails, just as then, it is our right and duty to do so.

 

In 2019, according to the FBI UCR, almost 89% were single victim murders, and 11% were multiple victim murders. Here's the link to that data: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls

Of course, not all multiple victim murders are considered to be "mass murders", and they are not all "random victim" murders; some are targeted murders. Nevertheless, it does make sense that if there were fewer multiple victim murders, the murder rate would be lower.

Yes, I did keep my theories to myself because it was not the subject of the thread, and it's a big topic. We do know that most high-casualty murders are committed by young adult males. There have been a couple of notable exceptions lately, such as the Las Vegas mass murder (suspect 64 years old) and the Monterey Park murders (suspect 72 years old). But most are young. So it seems to me that the root cause has not to do with just one thing, but multiple things - a toxic brew, if you will - that affect some young people as they grow up.

I would say that a major ingredient in that toxic brew is the breakdown of the intact two-parent family. Just judging by your posts, I'm guessing that you are a reader and researcher, so I'm going to link you a fairly lengthy, but very interesting and informative, article about marriage and divorce in America. There are some very pertinent nuggets in it relating to the effects on children. This is a scholarly piece, full of facts and figures and percentages. I take it you're interested in the subject I've brought up, so I hope you will take the time. https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-evolution-of-divorce

Other lesser ingredients in this toxic brew I will simply list with some brief remarks, and if you want to discuss any or all of them (or add to them), I can do that. I am listing them off the top of my head, not in order of importance. But I decided to red highlight things that can be linked to family breakdown, absent parents, or toxic, abusive parents.

- entertainment media: the content and overt and subtle messages conveyed in TV shows, music, movies, and graphically violent video games (highlighted in red because engaged, caring parents control this, same with the next item.)
- toxic internet influences: belittling, bullying, other expressions of hatred in social media, political extremism, racial hatred, class envy and resentment, pornography, etc.
- immersing and isolating oneself in the aforementioned toxic online world instead of having positive relationships and experiences in the real world.
- a breakdown in accountability, self discipline, and imposed discipline: at home, in school, and even in the criminal justice system. Tacitly sanctioning crime and coddling criminals just breeds more and worse crimes.
- a failure to imprint qualities of good citizenship, a strong moral code consisting of honesty, generosity, patience, compassion and understanding, respect for others, living by the Golden Rule. These qualities should be imprinted at home first, but backed up by schools, churches, in the entertainment media, and by the words and example of our leaders.
- the dropout rate: Dropping out of school results (for most) in fewer choices, lower income, job instability, relationship failure, frustration, resentment, and hopelessness. Dropping out of high school is at an all time low in the U.S. but it is also linked to ...
- generational poverty, and students from low income households are twice as likely to dropout as students from higher income households.
- the news media: It makes mass murderers famous. ("Everyone will remember my name.")
- extremely poor leadership, and extremely poor public policy, in my opinion, at the national level and in many big cities. (The majority of our murders, and the highest murder rates, take place in our cities.) This is a non-partisan opinion. I blame both R's and D's for this. For different reasons, but both are responsible.

So there's my toxic brew.

Have you ever heard of the Strauss-Howe generational theory? Basically it says that a society will go through changes (called "turnings") somewhere around every twenty years. They are named and go in this order: High, Awakening, Unraveling, Crisis. That's a complete cycle. When the society has found its way through the Crisis, the cycle starts over. As America came out of the Great Depression and WW2, we entered a High. The 60s and 70s brought on the Awakening, a period that is more self-centered than the High period, and it seems like we entered the Unraveling probably in the 90s, and perhaps we are in or close to the Crisis stage now. I think there is some validity to the theory. The downside to that is the inevitability of it. And while I think I can think of things to reverse or mitigate that toxic brew I described, the theory implies that things will get better in its own sweet time - like after a period of crisis. It suggests that all the good intentions you or I may have are outweighed by the inevitability of the cycle. And perhaps Strauss-Howe are right.

But for as long as I'm around, I will speak my mind and hope for the best.

 

And your point is what?

Don't have to use it. Your premise is absurd on it's face. No militia can beat our military, it is mindboggling that anyone could even offer that as a rational argument.

You simply cannot compare the rugged guerrilla mountain men warriors of Afghanistan with rag tag suburban militias. Because THAT is all you have done.

See above.

Not at issue.

Not at issue.

Hysterics. And, not at issue.

Spare me your ad nauseum pontificating.

the militia idiots in their cushy suburban mancaves fantasizing about 1776 are a pale shadow of the real men of 1776.

Give me a break.

 

Your view of militia's in the US is quite telling. You don't even realize that much of the militias in the US have veterans in them. You know, those people that were in our military? People that learned from our military. Learned things while on deployment. And you don't even take into consideration that even with the ones that do fit your view, won't stay like that in an actual case of civil war. Nor do you take into account that our military would split on which side they would be on...which considering most military members are conservative...would more than likely become a part of those militias, or absorb militia members into their ranks. Your narrow view of what a new civil war would look like just gave anyone with any tactical know how the shudders.

 

that reeks of orwellian double speak

 

sounds like you should just run around demanding they all hand over their guns to you. Nothing to worry about

 

It's a moot point. No 'militia' I don't care if it's a group of seals, can defeat the military might of the United states.

There isn't going to be any civil war, that's nonsense talk, fantasy bullshit by gun nuts.

 

I'll file that in the cop out file.

 

That is not a serious reply.

 

You shouldn't expect very many of those when your thread is not a very serious topic.

 

Yet a bunch of unarmed ragtag protesters were almost able to overthrow democracy as we knew it on January the 6th.... It was an insurrection I tell you.

And a bunch of goat herders in the desert sent the US military packing using firearms and crude improvised explosive devices. When is the last time that we entered into a war where the enemy used guerilla tactics that we actually won the engagement?

It turns out that firearms are very effective military weapons after all

 

Do we get rid of alcohol because of drunk drivers? Do we get rid of marijuana because of impaired drivers?

 

Get the criminals off the street. Problem solved.

 

Since you're comparing guns and cars how about we do this? How about equalizing the treatment of cars and guns? That would mean gun owners would be required to get a learner's permit before legally possessing a gun for which they would need to be licensed. A license they would have to renew by passing a test on gun safety. Since there are different classes of weapons different classes of licenses would be required. Guns would have to be registered with a state authority and a data base of ownership would be established. Gun owners would need to have insurance on their guns in order to defray the costs to society from the misuse of the gun. Ammunition would be heavily taxed as gasoline is and online sales of ammunition would be prohibited. Trigger locks would be a requirement so the gun couldn't be misused in the event of theft. Car manufacturers have designed a myriad of ways to make cars safer. Shouldn't gun manufacturers be called upon to do the same for guns?

 

Would you also agree to allowing felons and minors to possess guns in the same way they can possess cars?

 

No. The goal is saving lives, right? What about the things I mentioned? OK with that?

 

Would such an amendment to the constitution be likely to be passed? I highly doubt it.