• Categories

Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

 
  1. Aidabaida, there's the issue of the understanding of the second amendment, which most of us (even non-Americans by now, really!), but let me quote it here:



    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.


    Sure, we have the second part, which is quite simple and its interpretation is out of the question. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    But the problem is when it comes to a regular militia. I mean, let's now forget the general argument of "but... do we REALLY need a militia to patrol the area? The Indians won't raid us" and so on and just look at the first words.

    If we have a general law to bear arms, how does that make for a well-regulated militia? Wouldn't severe background checks and so on actually make it better regulated? And if you guys have federal police (Federal Bureau of Investigations is essentially that), state police, municipal police, sheriff offices, other law enforcement agencies (Secret Service's money counterfeiting branch, ATF, DEA.... probably missed quite a bit, especially considering the fact that CIA has, as far as I remember, no right for operating within the US borders), do you need every possible citizen to bear arms? Even you have local neighborhood patrols. Private security agencies are allowed to bear arms even in European countries. I'm not going into PMCs, as it's something completely else and (I hope to God, at least) they don't operate within any borders.

    I'm not a lawyer. Especially an US Constitution lawyer (BTW, your previous president was a Constitutional Law teacher, wasn't he?). It'd take a lot to consider the reasons for that to become a part of the Bill of Rights, to go through the Federalist Papers, probably an Originalist approach would be potentially interesting (as Antonin Scalia was). It's a difficult issue, but I think there are a lot of "well-regulated militias" already by virtue of several operating law enforcement agencies.

    About the police: I don't know about each and every PD in the States, but we also have to remember that there is a review board which deals with every incident regarding the use of deadly force. At least in Los Angeles civilians are on the board. That makes it even more transparent. After an incident the officer has his weapon seized for investigation, he is put on paid leave until his case is reviewed. If the shooting was illegal, then he's actually tried for murder one.

    This, actually, makes the recent incidents that incited the BLM movement and other controversies actually even more baffling for me. How did that slip through the review boards?
    http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeOct 3rd 2017
    Aidabaida wrote
    I'd just remember the real reason for the second amendment is not self-defense, it is defense against government tyranny.

    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. -- Jefferson, the Declaration of Independence


    That's right, but it was also not intended as a law that said every citizen should have the right to own a gun. This is an interpretation that has arisen over the years, by silly fools.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeOct 3rd 2017 edited
    Thor wrote

    That's right, but it was also not intended as a law that said every citizen should have the right to own a gun. This is an interpretation that has arisen over the years, by silly fools.


    Really Thor? Only silly fools think that "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." means every citizen has the right to own a gun?

    I don't know but "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" sounds pretty definitive to me.
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeOct 3rd 2017
    he had 42 guns the news say
    way to to American gun system you work great
    just accept that nobody in the us are actually giving a fuck about the dead through the shootings all these years , at least not enough to let go of the gun porn obsession , and that would be the real truth . the rest is philosophical Mambo jambo

    the isis claim still looks ungrounded and fake so far
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeOct 3rd 2017
    42 guns...and legal mods that turned them into essentially automatic rifles.

    "The speed of that shooting led some to suggest that Paddock was using automatic weapons. But automatic rifles are heavily regulated and difficult to buy in the US.

    Las Vegas shooting – in pictures

    +show all

    Instead, he used a "bump stock" on at least two of the weapons, officials said. That legal trick is an attachment for the weapon that technically allows it to count as semi-automatic, despite the fact that it can be used to fire like an automatic rifle.

    The devices have attracted scrutiny in recent years from authorities. But they are entirely legal and regularly available in many states."

    simple facts that render pro-gun arguments invalid . just face it muricans love their weapons way more than one another. biggest mass shooting in us history so far and we are seriously discussing pro guns arguments. no wonder you are a trump supporter mate wink off from the political debates here , complete waste of time for me . cheers

    source for the above link btw : http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style … 79871.html
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeOct 3rd 2017
    America's obsession with guns looks absolutely insane from outsiders, and probably many Americans too. Do they really believe they need them for protection against the government, or do they just like to go pew pew? I'm honestly at a loss with this one.
  2. As I understand it the weapons amendment comes from a time when democracy was a new and experimental form of government. There was the fear that a president or some usurper would try to gain king-like powers. Or that British troops from Canada would try and reclaim the former colonies. At the same time there was no regular army. So the necessity to put a militia against some invader or usurper seamed reasonable. Back then.

    Volker
    Bach's music is vibrant and inspired.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeOct 3rd 2017
    and he brought 23 of those guns in the hotel room! Man, what a fucked up situation
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeOct 3rd 2017
    Steven wrote
    America's obsession with guns looks absolutely insane from outsiders, and probably many Americans too. Do they really believe they need them for protection against the government, or do they just like to go pew pew? I'm honestly at a loss with this one.


    They are generally obsessed. It's the country that gives birth to all the lunatic and conspiracy theories, everyone is hunting them or fighting them and many of the times it's imaginary. Their obsession with guns is a macho pew pew thing and they are not willing to even discuss it (as per Trump's yesterday's announcements ' too early to discuss these matters (gun regulation) now' hehe ) let alone give, for some hundreds of deaths every now and then .
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeOct 3rd 2017
    Aidabaida wrote
    Really Thor? Only silly fools think that "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." means every citizen has the right to own a gun?


    No, what it originally meant -- as partially modelled on the English law -- is that every citizen has the right to defend themselves against oppressive tyranny, usually in organized militias. This is in most countries' constitutions, but somewhere along the line, it was interpreted as every Average Joe in the US having the right to own a gun, for whatever reason they desire, and with minimal government influence. It's no longer about organized revolt against oppression, but about something far more mundane. And ultimately dangerous.

    One of our most respected professors in politics, Frank Aarebrot (who sadly passed away just a couple of weeks ago), has gone into some detail about this, i.e. the warped understanding of the second amendment that reigns supreme in the US, but alas, I can't find any English-language quotes, only Norwegian.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBregt
    • CommentTimeOct 3rd 2017
    Thank God praying will prevent further losses.
    Kazoo
  3. Demetris wrote
    Steven wrote
    America's obsession with guns looks absolutely insane from outsiders, and probably many Americans too. Do they really believe they need them for protection against the government, or do they just like to go pew pew? I'm honestly at a loss with this one.


    They are generally obsessed. It's the country that gives birth to all the lunatic and conspiracy theories, everyone is hunting them or fighting them and many of the times it's imaginary. Their obsession with guns is a macho pew pew thing and they are not willing to even discuss it (as per Trump's yesterday's announcements ' too early to discuss these matters (gun regulation) now' hehe ) let alone give, for some hundreds of deaths every now and then .


    The NRA (National Rifle Association) is too strong an organization and they've backed Trump's campaign. So it's understandable he will not even think of discussing the right to bear arms.

    Onto the next mass killing... rolleyes
    "considering I've seen an enormous debate here about The Amazing Spider-Man and the ones who love it, and the ones who hate it, I feel myself obliged to say: TASTE DIFFERS, DEAL WITH IT" - Thomas G.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeOct 3rd 2017 edited
    @Demetris, as I have made clear, I'm not a Trump Supporter. I think Trump is unqualified to be president and damaging conservatism. Earlier I said that Trump was not an idiot and that the people who voted for him were not all racist, but I believe that about most politicians. It doesn't mean I like him, supported him, or think he is a good president in the slightest.

    But mostly, I want to counteract your idea that Americans "Don't Care" about the dead from shootings and that any defense of gun rights is "Philosophical Mambo Jambo". No. That's ridiculous. It's an argumentative technique that says, "If you disagree with me on politics, you must somehow be immoral, you must somehow care less about dead kids." It is standing on the graves of the dead to make your point, utilizing them as emotional baggage, rather than talking facts and policy.

    Again, it is a fact that 98% of mass shootings take place in gun-free zones. There are plenty of other facts I could bring up, but my point is that there are real reasons that people disagree with you, that have nothing to do with "Macho Rah-Rah" gun culture.

    I think most 'gun control' measures in America increase the amount of gun violence. But do I say that the liberals who pass them, "Don't care about dead kids?" No. Even though I believe liberal policies are directly responsible for much inner-city violence, I don't think they, "intended that" or "don't care about that", because I understand that they are trying to do what's best, they just have different ideas and a different approach.

    You think 'gun control' measures decrease the amount of violence, but you, rather than arguing your position with facts, say that people who disagree with you don't care about mass shootings. You are making an assumption about their motives, and that is unfair.

    @Thor: Just as there are scholars who agree with you, there are dozens of constitutional scholars who have studied the topic for years and have a different interpretation than you, and have argued this before the supreme court. I don't ask that you agree with me, I ask that you refrain from dubbing those who disagree with you 'silly fools'.
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeOct 3rd 2017
    food for thought

    especially the opening intro text

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world … 80581.html
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeOct 3rd 2017
    Demetris wrote
    food for thought

    especially the opening intro text

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world … 80581.html


    great article, thanks for sharing. what an awful experience.
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
  4. Aidabaida wrote
    Again, it is a fact that 98% of mass shootings take place in gun-free zones. There are plenty of other facts I could bring up, but my point is that there are real reasons that people disagree with you, that have nothing to do with "Macho Rah-Rah" gun culture.

    "Gun-free zones" in America are a joke when you can walk two blocks down the road to the nearest guns'n'ammo shop, buy a piece, and walk back to said zone within five minutes. Same goes for areas like downtown Chicago that have nominally strict gun laws, but who cares when Gary, Indiana is an hour's drive away? The only preventative measures that can have any effect are sweeping and nationwide. Turn America itself into a gun-free zone. And the fact that half the country will be quite literally up in arms at that suggestion has everything to do with "Macho Rah-Rah gun culture".

    If I was king of the world I would have every single gun and bullet in the world rounded up, melted down and used to build railroads or something else that's actually useful and beneficial to society as a whole. Or else piled up in a mound with a memorial stone on top. What the fuck does any civilian even want to do with a gun? I hope never to hold one in my hands in my entire life, let alone fire it. It's a tool used to hurt, maim and kill. It's gross.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeOct 3rd 2017 edited
    Edmund Meinerts wrote
    I hope never to hold one in my hands in my entire life, let alone fire it. It's a tool used to hurt, maim and kill. It's gross.


    Man, that just ended 200 years of debate! Yes, it's gross. There's no reason that any civilian could ever use one. (Those statistics about how many murders and robberies are prevented by guns every year? Hogwash! After all, if we pass gun control laws, the criminals would turn in their guns too, wouldn't you criminals?) Those people who live in dangerous or remote areas, pffft, a knife would protect them just as well! The fact that dictators disarm their people to prevent any resistance to fascism, pffft, its not like there's any countries who have started democratic and become fascist, right?

    Oh, and the stats showing that gun ownership has increased 56% since 1993 while murders have fallen by 49%? I'm sure......well...... the point is that guns are gross!
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeOct 3rd 2017 edited
    Aidabaida wrote
    @Thor: Just as there are scholars who agree with you, there are dozens of constitutional scholars who have studied the topic for years and have a different interpretation than you, and have argued this before the supreme court. I don't ask that you agree with me, I ask that you refrain from dubbing those who disagree with you 'silly fools'.


    There's a time and place for nuance, but I don't think this is it. In this case, I have no qualms labelling the people who once upon a time interpreted the second amendment in that direction as 'silly fools'. In fact, that's a rather mild description compared to what I really think. It's like that old 'everything has two sides' argument that Trump heralded after the car killing a few weeks back (and which was hilariously and appropriately parodied with Nazi/ww2 memes on social media). No, there are not two sides to this, and there's no reason to be unnecessarily 'grey' about it. The second amendment, as it currently is interpreted and practiced, is bad. Period.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeOct 3rd 2017
    Thor wrote

    There's a time and place for nuance, but I don't think this is it. In this case, I have no qualms labelling the people who once upon a time interpreted the second amendment in that direction as 'silly fools'. In fact, that's a rather mild description compared to what I really think. It's like that old 'everything has two sides' argument that Trump heralded after the car killing a few weeks back (and which was hilariously and appropriately parodied with Nazi/ww2 memes on social media). No, there are not two sides to this, and there's no reason to be unnecessarily 'grey' about it. The second amendment, as it currently is interpreted and practiced, is bad. Period.


    here's the Supreme Court's 5-8 decision in 2008 on the matter. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/

    again, you don't have to agree with it. just read it, and decide for yourself, is this argument the argument of a fool? or someone who disagrees with you for real, rational reasons.
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeOct 3rd 2017 edited
    That there might be smart, presumably rational people defending the current practice of the second amendment is even worse to ponder.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeOct 3rd 2017
    Thor wrote
    That there might be smart, presumably rational people defending the current practice of the second amendment is even worse to ponder.


    You're so sure of your own opinion that you find it scary to even ponder there are smart people who disagree with you?
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeOct 3rd 2017
    On this issue, yes.
    I am extremely serious.
  5. There are plenty of smart people who are also deluded and brainwashed, or else so influenced by the culture they live in that for an outside observer it looks like madness.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeOct 3rd 2017
    Thor wrote
    On this issue, yes.


    Then there is nothing more to discuss.
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeOct 3rd 2017 edited
    Guess not.

    In general, I find it difficult to discuss constructively with someone who is so far on the opposite side of the political spectrum as you are (even a moderate Republican is usually more right-oriented than Norway's most rightwing party, and you don't even appear to me as a moderate Republican?). Because our differences are so fundamental.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeOct 3rd 2017
    Thor wrote
    Guess not.

    In general, I find it difficult to discuss constructively with someone who is so far on the opposite side of the political spectrum as you are (even a moderate Republican is usually more right-oriented than Norway's most rightwing party, and you don't even appear to me as a moderate Republican?). Because our differences are so fundamental.


    that's fine, it was an interesting discussion.
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeOct 3rd 2017
    We'll always have films and film music!
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeOct 3rd 2017
    also here: look at this room ... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world … 80831.html I can understand the whole thing for guns in the us (don't condone don't accept but still understand why Americans are like that ) but really who can turn two hotel rooms like that in la (!) with 32 guns and nobody noticing or giving a fuck about ? how wrong can the system go ?
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeOct 3rd 2017
    I think we should wait until we get more information about how he procured the guns, but I'll point out that it took one gun to carry out his evil deed; you aren't deadlier if you have dozens of guns, since you can really only use one at any given time. If he only had two guns, there would've been the same result. The number of guns he owned is pretty irrelevant.
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
  6. It speaks about his mindset, not really about what impact the amount of guns had.

    And what do you think of the oft-given example of banning guns in Australia which led to a massive reduction of murders and suicides there?
    http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website