[url]http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada/shooting-instructor-dies-after-being-accidentally-shot-girl
[/url]
Thoughts on this utterly tragic event? Specifically how does one (either for/against gun rights and or control) rationalize this event from the perspective of the parents and 9 year old girl?
Period, end of story, clear as day.
this:
allows interpretation and I for one think it was intentional.
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.
But why then did men still largely of the Founding Generation draft and pass a law that seemed to do precisely that? If, as many have argued, the free speech protections were about prior restraint rather than the very expansive understanding now employed, the apparent contradiction makes sense. Our present understanding is quite different and most of us agree that's a very good thing.
Trying to understand why the Founders wrote what they did is important and instructive, but it does not limit the inquiry. And at the end of the day there is always amendment.
And now we have nine year olds shooting gun instructors with uzi's at a place called Bullets and Burgers fer chrissakes. Founders, schmounders. If they foresaw this then they are incredibly overrated.
And now we have nine year olds shooting gun instructors with uzi's at a place called Bullets and Burgers fer chrissakes. Founders, schmounders. If they foresaw this then they are incredibly overrated.
One thing has nothing to do with the other. that 9 year old didn't own the uzi and it had zero to do with the 2nd amendment.
My point wasn't "this debate" it was debate in general based on the wording .
if your speculation is right then why not just word the amendment simply:
And considering the Revolution was sparked in large part by a British attempt to confiscate arms the very narrow interpretation was almost certainly unintended.
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.
It was his first time shooting a fully automatic gun, and the recoil of the weapon was too much for him. He lost control and fatally shot himself in the head.
continued - ( New Window )
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.
It was his first time shooting a fully automatic gun, and the recoil of the weapon was too much for him. He lost control and fatally shot himself in the head. continued - ( New Window )
The real fucked up thing is that the 15 year old (really...a damn 15 year old?) supervising this station told the father twice that his son was too young to shoot the gun, but the father insisted that his son be allowed to shoot the gun, leading to this tragedy.
So many people fucked up in that incident. The stupid police contracting out for automatic weapons to be brought to this fair, the contractor having his 15 year old son be a supervisor, and the father insisting that his small child shoot a gun he shouldn't have been shooting, especially with a teenager watching him.
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.
I honestly do enjoy firing it once in a while but I wouldn't be outraged or anything if they were banned.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 )
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
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
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?
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
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
Does it matter? It's still the same shitty Davisian we've come to love. HI, DAVISIAN!
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 )
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.
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.
automatic weapons did not exist except in military (they were only invented a few years earlier)
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"
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.
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.
Of course the "fat" comment was in jest (sort of)...:)