NFT: how does one rationalize this: Shooting instructor dies

so sad.

In comment 11829241 Jon from PA said:

Quote:

so sad.

I stand by my opinion that an automatic weapon should not be allowed to the public, no matter if it's for their own use or at the range. Just no need for it.

You meanie!

I honestly do enjoy firing it once in a while but I wouldn't be outraged or anything if they were banned.

In comment 11829191 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

In comment 11829081 BeerFridge said: Quote: that the girl was shooting an uzi? Ok. and they put the militia in because there was active debate about whether a centralized military should replace local militias. And there was a lot of skepticism that handing that power over to a central agency was a good idea. Explain to me what role the second amendment has with the right for someone to go to a gun range or some place called bullets and burgers and fire a weapon owned by the range. it's about individual gun ownership. Anyone can do what they did or something like it at almost any range/gun club - maybe not with an uzi, but with other weapons and that's not the 2nd amendment that allows that it's free enterprise/capitalism.

Of course it is. Because other activities can be stopped but the second amendment stands as a barrier from doing away with these activities. The reason "anyone can do it at almost any range/gun club" is precisely because of the second amendment.

In comment 11829458 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

You meanie! I honestly do enjoy firing it once in a while but I wouldn't be outraged or anything if they were banned.

I think firing anything in full-auto is fun for the kids (hence you get incidents like this), but unless it's a mounted weapons system, I don't really care for automatic weapons.

I see what your saying and it sounds like your assumption is that if the 2nd amendment is abolished that guns (legal guns) disappear.

I don't think that's the case, I just think individual ownership would.

I still think you'd find gun clubs and other places where business can own firearms and people could go and shoot them,. totally outside of the 2nd amendment since the business isn't technically forbidden from bearing arms.

In comment 11828992 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

In comment 11828979 Dunedin81 said: Quote: doesn't mean what you think it does. It means well-trained or well-drilled. Quibble with the why and its applicability to the present day, but when every man is expected to keep and maintain arms as both a right and an obligation I don't see the ambiguity. I think it's applicability to the present day is exactly the opening the opponents of the 2nd amendment use. There is no obligation. anyway, like i said I'm no expert, I just think if the intent were simple it could have worded simpler and avoided this, but I'm not sure the founding fathers wanted that, I try not to give them too much credit for terms of vision, but I think they anticipated a time when they expected this to be a debate.

As Dune said, terms like 'well regulated' meant something different in that time than it may be interpreted in today's common language. And the FF tended to write in more flowery language than is in use today.

If you understand the times and the men, and they philosophy that they followed, there is no way you could infer that they wanted to control ordinary citizens having arms. And it's #2 on the list, right after the right of free speech. The Constitution was more about limiting the power of the federal government, not imposing rules on the populace. Whether it is still applicable to today is debatable. What was meant at the time really isn't.

When they install a Mk-19 at the range, I'll be first in line.

In comment 11829514 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

When they install a Mk-19 at the range, I'll be first in line.

Off topic here...did you read how the crew of USS Kearsarge got their CAR? Ain't that some shit? At least the Marines said hell no.

In comment 11829504 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

I see what your saying and it sounds like your assumption is that if the 2nd amendment is abolished that guns (legal guns) disappear. I don't think that's the case, I just think individual ownership would. I still think you'd find gun clubs and other places where business can own firearms and people could go and shoot them,. totally outside of the 2nd amendment since the business isn't technically forbidden from bearing arms.

That's probably true. Other countries have gotten rid of guns and restricted access to them. We can't because of the second amendment. Buford is probably right that the intent was to not limit them at all, but unless you think the founding fathers were prophets they were considering land owners with muzzle loading muskets, not nine year olds with uzis.

Like I said, if you use that standard, pretty much every single Marine who ever set foot in Iraq or Afghanistan rates a CAR. Ridiculous.

In comment 11829535 BeerFridge said:

Quote:

In comment 11829504 pjcas18 said: Quote: I see what your saying and it sounds like your assumption is that if the 2nd amendment is abolished that guns (legal guns) disappear. I don't think that's the case, I just think individual ownership would. I still think you'd find gun clubs and other places where business can own firearms and people could go and shoot them,. totally outside of the 2nd amendment since the business isn't technically forbidden from bearing arms. That's probably true. Other countries have gotten rid of guns and restricted access to them. We can't because of the second amendment. Buford is probably right that the intent was to not limit them at all, but unless you think the founding fathers were prophets they were considering land owners with muzzle loading muskets, not nine year olds with uzis.

I never said the amendment was crafted to limit anything, but I do believe it was crafted in a way that intentionally left it somewhat ambiguous - for whatever reason. I'm not going to speculate on the intent from 230 years ago.

Otherwise, flowery writers or not, they could have simplified it and removed any room for doubt.

In comment 11829542 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

Like I said, if you use that standard, pretty much every single Marine who ever set foot in Iraq or Afghanistan rates a CAR. Ridiculous.

I do see GMANinDC's point regarding the different standards. However, then maybe there should be a separate kind of CARs within the Naval Service. And this is more than just a difference in the interpretation of when the ribbon is awarded, it's actually written differently in the actual standards.

is to probably overstate the point. Doubtful they would have countenanced private citizens running around with cannon, especially when part of the impetus for the Constitution was to give the federal government a fair amount of power in the wake of some small-scale uprisings. And in that day and age there was a real danger that an ordinary citizen could spark a war by mistreating a member of a neighboring tribe.

Quote:

(CNN) -- The little boy looks barely old enough to walk, let alone understand the dark world he's now inhabiting. He should be toddling around a playground with his friends. But instead, he wears a black balaclava, crouched down in a desolate street with his tiny hands clenched around an AK-47. He pulls the trigger and the recoil of the shot knocks him back, his limbs unable to control the rifle. An adult takes the weapon from the boy's hands as he stands up and steps away, casting a blank glance into the camera.

Really, this group needs some killing.
Link - ( New Window )

the problem with the discussion of the second amendment
is it is always argued in a vacuum
if you look at the other references of the word Militia in the constitution
it is obvious what the framers meant with second amendment

2nd Amendment
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.

Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power *** To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power *** To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

seems pretty clear cut that federal government has ultimate control of militias
what ambiguity was removed in the National Defense Act of 1916 which created the National Guard and the idea of dual enlistment - that those in the national guard can be used in the US army .

so once again there is never been any interpretation where a State militia is in existence to keep the Federal Government "In check" is a modern fantasy

In comment 11829936 giantfanboy said:

Quote:

the problem with the discussion of the second amendment is it is always argued in a vacuum if you look at the other references of the word Militia in the constitution it is obvious what the framers meant with second amendment 2nd Amendment 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. Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power *** To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions. Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power *** To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. seems pretty clear cut that federal government has ultimate control of militias what ambiguity was removed in the National Defense Act of 1916 which created the National Guard and the idea of dual enlistment - that those in the national guard can be used in the US army . so once again there is never been any interpretation where a State militia is in existence to keep the Federal Government "In check" is a modern fantasy

If everything was obvious, Constitutional scholars would not still be debating the issue

The second amendment is one of, if not *the* only remaining aspects of the Constitution which isn't routinely ignored. Seriously, what other right hasn't been abridged on a regular basis?

And, again, like Bill in UT points out, if the 2nd amendment is so obviously bogus, how does it manage to survive the nearly ceaseless legislative attacks over the past decades?

the second amendment has been hijacked by NRA

they did this by taken seperating the 2nd amendment from the other relevant parts of constitution (sited in my previous posts)

if you look at Constitution the idea was that citizen Militia that had their own arms could be commanded by the states and then called by Federal Government in case of the situation explicitly sighted in the constitution.

the whole idea of citizen militia has been not valid since the creation of National Guard with National Defense Act of 1916.
so the idea that citizens needs to be armed is also antiquated

but even an scalia originalist would be hard pressed to twist the second amendment to show that a 9 year old girl should be shooting an Uzi

They may have come from far different backgrounds and contexts, and y'all can argue to the death about constitutionality and legal precedent till your keyboard goes tits up.

But shit's out of the bag, and it ain't going back in.

Better off trying to learn how to cope with a world that has both in them, than delude yourself into thinking some kind of safety/constitution/think of the children debate will ever lead to eradication...



#gatsnblunts4eva


#sorryyougotshotbya9yearoldwithanuzi


#thickones

or Colorado Davisian?

In comment 11830847 Headhunter said:

Quote:

or Colorado Davisian?

Does it matter? It's still the same shitty Davisian we've come to love. HI, DAVISIAN!

Sorry, got busy and couldn't get back to the thread..i think that story with the story seems kind of fishy, but i wonder whether the closeness of the missile and the impact it would have had warranted it..Because it was sitting in port, doesn't mean it's not vulnerable, like we've seen with the USS Cole, who was sitting in port. IAnd i don't think that ship got a CAR for getting hit..

The standards for CAR's should be different for each service. If not, i don't believe any ship would ever got a CAR because they would have to be hit by a missile to garner one. Understandbly, ground troops are going to get the majority of the CAR and other ribbons because of the nature of their mission. They are sent to go in Combat. Navy ships are inherently in harms way just on routine deployments because of where they are operating.

Any time a ship goes into the Persian Gulf, the potential of hitting a mine, getting fired up by patrol boats, rogue boghammers, etc., is significant..And this is in peacetime..ground troops are sent into specific area for the battle. So the threshold for getting a CAR for Marine or soldier is that much greater..

That being said, each service has their own criteria and I don't put any service over the other. They are for the same battle..

Here is the story behind. I don't thin it mentions that we hit an Iranian F4 as it was coming toward us..I was on the USS Wainwright..


Operation Praying mantis - ( New Window )

In comment 11830734 giantfanboy said:

Quote:

the second amendment has been hijacked by NRA they did this by taken seperating the 2nd amendment from the other relevant parts of constitution (sited in my previous posts) if you look at Constitution the idea was that citizen Militia that had their own arms could be commanded by the states and then called by Federal Government in case of the situation explicitly sighted in the constitution. the whole idea of citizen militia has been not valid since the creation of National Guard with National Defense Act of 1916. so the idea that citizens needs to be armed is also antiquated but even an scalia originalist would be hard pressed to twist the second amendment to show that a 9 year old girl should be shooting an Uzi

Then if the right for the people (not militias) to keep and bear arms was negated by the creation of the National Guard, why wasn't the Constitution amended to say so?

The 2nd amendment is actually based on the British Bill of Rights right to have arms for self defense or civic duty.

You can argue if this applies to a 9 year old shooting an Uzi, but you really can't argue as to the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. It was not to only arm militias.

winner

In comment 11830941 GMANinDC said:

Quote:

Sorry, got busy and couldn't get back to the thread..i think that story with the story seems kind of fishy, but i wonder whether the closeness of the missile and the impact it would have had warranted it..Because it was sitting in port, doesn't mean it's not vulnerable, like we've seen with the USS Cole, who was sitting in port. IAnd i don't think that ship got a CAR for getting hit.. The standards for CAR's should be different for each service. If not, i don't believe any ship would ever got a CAR because they would have to be hit by a missile to garner one. Understandbly, ground troops are going to get the majority of the CAR and other ribbons because of the nature of their mission. They are sent to go in Combat. Navy ships are inherently in harms way just on routine deployments because of where they are operating. Any time a ship goes into the Persian Gulf, the potential of hitting a mine, getting fired up by patrol boats, rogue boghammers, etc., is significant..And this is in peacetime..ground troops are sent into specific area for the battle. So the threshold for getting a CAR for Marine or soldier is that much greater.. That being said, each service has their own criteria and I don't put any service over the other. They are for the same battle.. Here is the story behind. I don't thin it mentions that we hit an Iranian F4 as it was coming toward us..I was on the USS Wainwright.. Operation Praying mantis - ( New Window )

I'm with you regarding the different standards being necessary, and as you can see, even in combat the awarding of CARs or CIBs are skewed based on the units themselves.

As far as the three linked stories go, I am not sure about the third one myself. However, the one from SFGate.com seems legit as it merely states the circumstances of the attack without going into CARs or anything else (since the story was immediately after the incident).

My issue mainly was having to explain to my Marines why a bunch of sailors had CARs when they've never seen "combat" as they understand combat. To explain the different standards among the services for the same ribbons/awards to a bunch of junior Marines isn't easy. Hence, my telling them that the ribbons on your chest really isn't all that important (beyond the tangible benefits you can receive as Duned mentioned regarding tuition waiver due to Purple Heart, etc.).

And thanks for the link. That was interesting.

because at the time in 1916

automatic weapons did not exist except in military (they were only invented a few years earlier)

Don't tell that to the Round Marine!

In comment 11831093 giantfanboy said:

Quote:

because at the time in 1916 automatic weapons did not exist except in military (they were only invented a few years earlier)

In 1916, automatic weapons were unknown in armies around the world. Good call!







or, hell, forget the Great War - what about the Civil War? Behold, the Union Repeating Gun aka the "coffee mill gun"

In comment 11831096 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

Don't tell that to the Round Marine!

Sad thing is that that is actually a prior Marine, no? Sad that he would feel the need to falsify his decorations but more so because he's fat.

In comment 11831093 giantfanboy said:

Quote:

because at the time in 1916 automatic weapons did not exist except in military (they were only invented a few years earlier)

The Gatling Gun operates differently than automatic weapons nowadays but the effect was the same and that was in use in the later stages of the Civil War.

A former sergeant who served seven years in the Corps. Those cases are always the most disgusting.

the perfectly lucid guys who use that stuff to get money and benefits (or even just to hit on girls) bother me. The ones who wear really fucked up uniforms and go around trolling for thank yous almost all seem to be mentally ill.

In comment 11831149 Dunedin81 said:

Quote:

the perfectly lucid guys who use that stuff to get money and benefits (or even just to hit on girls) bother me. The ones who wear really fucked up uniforms and go around trolling for thank yous almost all seem to be mentally ill.

Of course the "fat" comment was in jest (sort of)...:)

And choose to take a massive shit on that record by inventing a bunch of bullshit. I was just a pogue corporal with a handful of ribbons - so what? I was a Marine, and that alone is good enough for me. I don't have to pretend I'm Ricky Recon to have pride in who I am and what I did. I just don't get people like that.

and people who are just not right in the head is the stumbling block for me.

In comment 11831093 giantfanboy said:

Quote:

because at the time in 1916 automatic weapons did not exist except in military (they were only invented a few years earlier)

I don't think the type of weapon really matters. But many gun control laws don't want to control only automatic weapons.

I bet it would be difficult to explain to guys sitting in foxholes, ducking form bullets and being wary of explosives that a ship sitting inport got a CAR!..lol..I would have that problem with my own sailors..We used to have arguments on who was the best ship in the fleet. sometimes it led to ship fights..

The one issue i had when we got fired on was that, we gave this asshole ship 4 freaking warnings while they where closing the distance on us. We didn't get the order to fire until they fired FIRST. That pissed me of..

People talk about how great a President Reagan was, but this limited operational and authority almost got our ship sunk..

In comment 11831434 GMANinDC said:

Quote:

I bet it would be difficult to explain to guys sitting in foxholes, ducking form bullets and being wary of explosives that a ship sitting inport got a CAR!..lol..I would have that problem with my own sailors..We used to have arguments on who was the best ship in the fleet. sometimes it led to ship fights.. The one issue i had when we got fired on was that, we gave this asshole ship 4 freaking warnings while they where closing the distance on us. We didn't get the order to fire until they fired FIRST. That pissed me of.. People talk about how great a President Reagan was, but this limited operational and authority almost got our ship sunk..

Having had time on several ships as a Marine and as a midshipman, I can completely understand the anxiety when it comes to being attacked while on a ship.

As far as the whole ROE goes, it's just a fucked up thing all the way around. Sometimes it's too restrictive and sometimes it's not restrictive enough...:(

In comment 11831383 buford said:

Quote:

In comment 11831093 giantfanboy said: Quote: because at the time in 1916 automatic weapons did not exist except in military (they were only invented a few years earlier) I don't think the type of weapon really matters. But many gun control laws don't want to control only automatic weapons.

Automatic weapons aren't as much of a problem as handguns.

In comment 11831213 Dunedin81 said:

Quote:

and people who are just not right in the head is the stumbling block for me.

I don't know...I just can't differentiate the two groups since while one is doing to obtain benefits and the other for adoration, both are still taking things that they have not rightfully earned (although the adoration part is meh to me).

In comment 11831522 RC02XX said:

Quote:

In comment 11831213 Dunedin81 said: Quote: and people who are just not right in the head is the stumbling block for me. I don't know...I just can't differentiate the two groups since while one is doing to obtain benefits and the other for adoration, both are still taking things that they have not rightfully earned (although the adoration part is meh to me).

I don't like the latter, my point is merely that in almost all the news stories or blog posts I've seen those guys (and occasionally girls) were clearly not right in the head. And I don't take much joy in shaming the mentally ill, even if their conduct is reprehensible.

But I think the majority of them are just pathetic, glory-desparate losers.

In comment 11831591 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

But I think the majority of them are just pathetic, glory-desparate losers.

This.

In my opinion, it's not really that much more different than someone who lies about the number (and quality) of women they've slept with or their high school sports accomplishments. This one just involves wearing fancy medals. People, who are completely sane, will make shit up just so that they can be viewed by others with a bit more respect.

and General Soul Patch perhaps, but it seems like the bulk of guys who run around in fucked up uniforms are off. Maybe not send them to the loony bin off, but short bus off.

In comment 11831631 Dunedin81 said:

Quote:

and General Soul Patch perhaps, but it seems like the bulk of guys who run around in fucked up uniforms are off. Maybe not send them to the loony bin off, but short bus off.

Ok...so their decision making may be off a bit (or more) in a short bus kind of a way, but I just don't see the two groups in any different light.

Quote:

DAMASCUS — The U.S. military took an unusual move Tuesday with the deployment of two battalions of amateur airsoft players to the Syrian capital, in an attempt to depose Bashar al-Assad, or at a bare minimum, just look like they are at least doing something in the two-year-old civil war. Indeed, the battalions of fully-grown men — who dress up in military uniforms and shoot each other with Airsoft guns on the weekend — are currently en route to the conflict zone via an extremely short C-130 airbus. “I’ve been training for this my whole life,” said Jeremy Lyons, a 32-year-old college dropout who swears “Airsoft is just a hobby,” even though his entire Facebook features photos of him looking like a goddamn Navy SEAL. Sources were unable to confirm whether Lyons had ever actually had sex with a woman.

Link - ( New Window )

are usually when someone ends up dead, I thought I would add this article to the mix of the discussion where a woman having a weapon apparently saved her from being abducted.
Woman Uses Her Gun To Ward Off Abduction - ( New Window )

stories every day about crime being deterred by citizens with legal weapons.

Not controversial enough.

She did it right. The first thing an attacker should hear is the safety clicking of and looking down a barrel. Never state you have a gun.

Universal language. No press 1 for English, 2 for Spanish, etc.

Investigators spoke with witnesses, gun range employees, and the girl’s family. And, of course, they attempted to look at the release forms that the family had to sign.

There’s just one problem: the gun range lost them.

And what happened? Well, here’s what two separate accountings in the investigative report said:

“I was told by the supervisor that the releases went into the wind (north) during this incident.”

“Sgt. Thien then instructed me to obtain copies of the release waivers signed by the family. I was informed by staff that the waivers were blown away by the wind after the incident had occurred.”

Yes, the gun range employees told police the papers were just lost to the wind.

Link - ( New Window )