More shooting in schools

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by timojin, Oct 2, 2015.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,102
    No: I asked whether you had an argument against what I posted, and you quoted.

    For example, do you object to my claim that the issue of mass incarceration of black men, currently on the table and with broad public support for significant changes, offers a way for gun violence opponents to make gains in reducing gun violence ?
    It has dozens of them.
    It also has a lot of military trained civilians with suitable weapons and gear at home, available for call at need. Again: I could raise a competent, well armed, county militia from my home county in 48 hours. That is exactly the situation referred to as "necessary to the security of a free State" in the Constitution.
    No. Billy, you are wrong. In error. You have a mistaken idea of what a militia was and is, what the word meant and means. This causes you to misunderstand the 2nd Amerndment.

    Not a single American militia in 1786 fit your description. None since have either. Very few militia anywhere, at any time, have been organized as the Swiss are now - the Swiss have almost converted their militia to an army, a standing military force commanded and supplied and in the pay of the State, and not a militia at all. They have a professional military command for their "militia", on full time duty, hired and governed and equipped and trained and paid by the State. The Swiss as "militia" are outliers.

    The writers of the Constitution did not know of a single militia anywhere organized as the Swiss are today. They were referring to ordinary militia, such as were common then, such as the word meant - the ones that had fought in the Revolutionary War, the ones fighting at that very time against various Red nations and tribes, British and French and Spanish backed frontier raiders, and the like.

    And this is all both simple and obvious. What is the motive for trying to muddle the language of the 2nd Amendment in that strange manner? It's completely unnecessary, for starters: America right now is a borderline free fire zone - nowhere near the limitations on gun control imposed by the Constitution.

    Not enough, by my guess. I bet 1.9 million votes in key States - from the endorsement - had more clout.
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2015
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    If US adopted the Swiss model (well regulated militia that routinely trains together) not only do you have the right to keep guns, but the government provides you with standard issue rifle for your militia duties. You can also buy many more if you like, including hand guns, machine guns, AK-47s, and if you can afford it, a tank! This is why Hitler did not dare invade Switzerland as he conquered all the rest of Europe. The Swiss army would have been a "push over" but the well armed and trained militia with detailed knowledge of the local terrain, etc. would have killed at least 10 of Hitler's solders for each militiaman they killed.

    The NRA is correct: mentally unstable people, not guns, kill people. The easy availability of guns, just lets them kill many in a few minutes. The people becoming mentally unstable in Switzerland are normally noticed /detected / by other members of the militia they routinely practice with; especially if as often the case, they go to a tavern after practice for a few beers. IE some one whose tonged is a little less carefully guarded after a few beers may, for example, start spouting off how much he hates the Jews or the new immigrants and telling that the "Real Swiss" must act while they still can to eliminate them, etc.

    Repeated talk like that will get him reported and then qualified psychologist will check him out. If they find he is becoming mentally unstable and a danger to the community, his guns will be confiscated, yes even the ones he paid for.

    US has nothing like this - people in US going mentally unstable tend to withdraw into themselves. Often their parents don't even know they are buying guns and large clip ammo. We need to learn from the Swiss (and obey the 2nd amendment) by having a well regulated militia that practices defending their community together as a militia unit.

    I'm all for a well regulated militia like the Swiss have. One where the members spend a lot of time together, and can notice a member going mentally unstable. The US once had that. - Often in the older cities, like Baltimore, there is a strong stone building called "the armory" still. Baltimore's was in part a refuge where the well off could take their families, in case the rabble began to violently resist the "status quo" exploiting them but they also drilled to protect the community (at least their part of it) against pirates, Indian raids, etc.
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2015
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,102
    The US has never had anything like the Swiss "militia".
    The Swiss accomplish that by universal conscription into their "militia".

    If you think that in the US an unbalanced guy mouthing off about the Jews or whatever at the bar would result in typical volunteer US militia members turning them in for psychological evaluation and weapons confiscation, you have been out of the country for too long.

    And if your recommendation is that the US establish universal conscription into military discipline and oversight as a means of gun control - - - - well, that's a new one. Points for thinking outside the box.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2015
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,666
    I gave you an argument against the mass incarceration of black men as a solution to gun violence. And fyi, there is NO broad public support for this anywhere. Not in the America I live in. It's insane. Where are you getting your stats on this? And no. Absolutely not does the claim that the issue of the mass incarceration of black men offer a way for gun violence opponents to make gains in reducing gun violence. Gun violence would increase 100 fold in America as a result. Are you denying this?
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2015
  8. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,654
    I can have guns now.
    I can buy a tank now:

    http://www.armyjeeps.net/armor1.htm

    Interestingly enough, you are wrong:

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/

    So Feel free to move to switzerland if you think you will be safer.
     
  9. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    That is your egotistical (I'm right so you must be wrong) POV. lets see what historians have to say but first two graphics of a early American militia men, which you claim US did not have:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    [/URL]

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    '

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    [/url]Sorry I tried twice on second but neither would post.
    Note there are two points (1) have arms & (2) PARTICIPATE in a militia. US has many arms, but lacks the 2nd amendment's required militias.
     
  10. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    to milkweed look at the data table of you own link.* Yes a couple of years ago one mentally disturbed Nowegian did kill 67 mainly young people and wound 33 others. They were on an island and parents were of a liberal party that thought Norway needed more immigrants to be workers supporting the aging population, etc. Before that in the time period of the table there had not been any other mass killing, but in the US, according to the table there had been 133.

    * http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/

    Norway is extremely safe. I have explained why in posts telling how the elementary teachers move up with their students and all consider it a team effort to help each other get a much better education and sense of social responsibility for the welfare of others, but now I'll tell what my 11 year old daughter, Emily, did alone in Norway, but first note she was not allowed to go to the movie alone in the USA.

    She went from her grand mother's house in Oslo suburb of Barum by electric street car to the Oslo train station to then cross Norway by train to Bergen. A lady from Bergan had come to Oslo for medical assistance and briefly stayed in apartment across the hall from her grand mother's. She needed to say in bed as much as possible to not lose the baby she was pregnant with. She already had a four year old and hired Emily for the rest of the summer to watch over him. Emily had to wait, not go back with her, to get our permission. Emily was fluent in Norwegian, and was stressing out her grandmother too much, so we said OK.

    At the end of that job, Emily was put on a bus to the harbor where she got on a boat going up the Sognafjord which has two separate arms about half way up. Three boats come to that junction point so passengers and mail can transfer from one to another. With the help of others, she made the correct switch, then at Flam got on the cog-wheel train that climbed up the steep mountain side to the main train line, switched to the Oslo bound train, and via the electric street car got back by walking a few blocks to her grandmother's house a few days before date of her return to USA ticket. She had done all this once before with me and her Norwegian mother but that was when she was nine.

    I would be lying if I said I had no concern for her safety (she was a very pretty blond)*, but wife had been an elementary school teacher and I knew how strongly being responsible for others was instilled in Norwegians so was glad for her to get the experience of reading children's books and living the life of a child in Norway. The lady's husband managed a hotel. Emily and the little boy were treated as mini-gods by the staff. Emily may not have gotten a very accurate impression of what managing a hotel consist of, but she did go on to later graduate from Cornell's hotel school, which many think is the best in the world. She did this despite as a mid-teenager working summers in hotels in Norway. One summer she make beds in 40 rooms and cleaned 40 toilets - I was hoping that would correct her view about hotels, but it did not.

    * She was always with many other Norwegian. If any one had tried to molest her, they would have beaten the molester to a pulp.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2015
  11. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,654
    Wow. Just wow.

    One question. Does this mean your moving to norway instead?
     
  12. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,666
    "The National Guard of the United States, part of the reserve components of the United States Armed Forces, is a reserve military force, composed of National Guard military members or units of each state and the territories of Guam, of the Virgin Islands, and of Puerto Rico, as well as of theDistrict of Columbia, for a total of 54 separate organizations. All members of the National Guard of the United States are also members of the militia of the United States as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 311. National Guard units are under the dual control of the state and the federal government.

    The majority of National Guard soldiers and airmen hold a civilian job full-time while serving part-time as a National Guard member.[1][2] These part-time guardsmen are augmented by a full-time cadre of Active Guard & Reserve(AGR) personnel in both the Army National Guard and Air National Guard, plus Army Reserve Technicians in the Army National Guard and Air Reserve Technicians (ART) in the Air National Guard.

    The National Guard is a joint activity of the United States Department of Defense (DoD) composed of reserve components of the United States Army and the United States Air Force: the Army National Guard of the United States[1]and the Air National Guard of the United States respectively.[1]

    Local militias were formed from the earliest English colonization of the Americas in 1607. The first colony-wide militia was formed by Massachusetts in 1636 by merging small older local units, and several National Guard units can be traced back to this militia. The various colonial militias became state militias when the United States became independent. The title "National Guard" was used from 1824 by some New York State militia units, named after theFrench National Guard in honor of the Marquis de Lafayette. "National Guard" became a standard nationwide militia title in 1903, and specifically indicated reserve forces under mixed state and federal control from 1933."===https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States
     
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,379
    iceaura:

    It seems that you may have miscommunicated and so created a misunderstanding. Let's see if we can clear that up, shall we?

    This is what you wrote. Everybody here interpreted this statement as meaning that you support "drug war laws" (whatever they are), mass incarceration of black men, militatization of the police etc. etc. This interpretation is strengthened because you also put in "formal handling of domestic abuse" and "improvements in mental health". We all assumed that, in addition to improvements in mental health and the formal handling of domestic abuse, you'd also like to see more mass incarceration of black men, militarization of the police and drug war laws.

    Now, you have hinted that this is a misunderstanding on the part of your readers. I'd argue that you may have mixed in some things you like to see less of with some things you'd like to see more of, thus leaving as a reasonable interpretation of what you wrote that you'd like to see more of all the things you listed.

    Moreover, you suggested that these things have not be "pre-trashed" (whatever that means). So, again a reasonable interpretation of what you wrote is that mass incarceration of black men has not been "pre-trashed" and should be considered as a way to improve gun violence rates.

    Perhaps you'd like to take this opportunity to clarify exactly what you meant to say. In particular, you should be clear about whether you would like to see less incarceration of black men or more incarceration of black men. Because at this point, you look like a racist, and if you're not a racist I'm sure you'd like to take the opportunity to clear up the misunderstanding.
     
    Magical Realist likes this.
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,102
    An invention of yours I do not need, or have the slightest interest in.

    If you are going to quote my posts, as if responding to them, you should at least attempt to respond to what they actually contain.

    Insults from ignorance and willful denial - this thread reeks with them, and notice: from "both sides" at least equally.

    Pictures of militia men, btw, do not support your description, which was of a standing militia comprised of men who met regularly (once a week! but I'll let you walk that back) for training and socializing in the absence of any need or specific call.

    I claim none of the militia in 1786 America met your description. And notice how much stronger that claim is than anything I need, for my completely obvious point that you are wrong about the meaning of the word "militia", and thus about the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. If you did somehow find a couple of militia in the US in the late 1700s that did meet regularly all year 'round for "training" without any action in the offing, you would still be stuck with the fact that the rest of the militia - including those referred to in the Constitution, the ones that helped fight the Revolutionary War - did no such thing. And neither have any large percentage of militia formed since, in this country. That's not typical militia organization.
    In a normal militia and all American examples, one "participates" in a militia at need and when called. Not all the time, for "training".
    There's no conflict between your quote from oxfordscholarship and anything I've posted here. It makes no difference to me whether the people keeping and bearing arms as a Constitutional right were guaranteed the right as "civic" or "individual",

    and I don't even care that your chosen quote there from those high class scholars moves directly from "right" to "obligation", without passing go and without collecting a nickel's worth of logical consistency, or appearing to have noticed the whiplash effect in the rhetoric:
    it's still a fact that militia are normally raised from the regular citizenry at need, and to make that possible these citizens (not in the militia yet, mind) have to be able to keep and bear firearms, and that's what the 2nd amendment guarantees.
     
  15. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,666
    No..you asked for an argument and I gave you one. And I directly responded to the quoted post. I'm going to take this as proof you have nothing to say in response to my refutation. Which is totally expected. There's simply no way to defend the mass incarceration of black men as a solution to anything, much less gun violence.
     
  16. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,666
    The NRA's concept of the American militia:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    America's ACTUAL militia: The National Guard

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2015
  17. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,063
    I don't quite know what your problem is, but at present, you appear to be arguing from a pro-gun standpoint, while claiming you are for gun control, while dismissing and abusing anyone who dares to espouse pro-gun control ideology. You have been insulting and condescending about studies that were cited, made spurious comments about the use of those studies while saying you don't have a problem with the studies themselves. And your insults continue, by referring to us as idiots for trying to clarify your position.

    It is possible that you are not aware of how you are coming across in this thread, but some of the things you have said for your solution to gun violence are simply, for lack of a better term, not cool. In fact, they are steeped in racism and bigotry. If that was not your intention or not your argument, but arguing from a different stand point, then it would be great if you could clarify your position.

    What in the hell are you even on about?

    I have not insulted you personally and you have gone out of your way to be as personally insulting as you can possibly be. Remember, that we can only go by the actual words you write at any given time. And when you say things like this:

    Fortunately, big improvements in gun violence rates in the US are available in several ways not as yet pre-trashed. Drug war laws, mass incarceration of black men, militarization of the police, and some sensible improvements in mental health care and the formal handling of domestic abuse, are all on the table. They would not require extraordinary leadership, they have wide popular support, and they are likely to work imho. So that's my suggestion for the near term.

    And then claim that we are all wrong for taking those words of yours, and these "suggestions" for the near term at face value, then really, there comes a point where perhaps you need to realise that it's not everyone else but you that is wrong in how you are presenting your argument in this thread. Because I can assure you, we are stunned that you would suggest such things to improve gun violence rates in the US. Why? Because it is inherently racist.

    You are not making sense. Was it your intent to say that reducing gun violence would be to tackle the drug war laws, mass incarceration of black men, militarisation of police and improving mental health care and how domestic violence is handled? Because if that is the case, then you should be aware that this is not what you actually said. So some clarification here would go a long way in clearing up the confusion that everyone else seems to be having with your "suggestions".
     
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,102
    Now your little crowd here, whose every response to every post I've made in this thread has required an attempt to correct "misreading" in any response, is "everybody"? Well, this "everybody" has a track record, and a serious thinking disorder on full display in this thread. And I've been talking about exactly that disorder for years here, with respect to gun control: the extremists on both sides have jammed the discussion, and ruined the issue. They can't think straight, they say crazy and threatening things, and nobody reasonable will trust them with political power - either side, but it's the gun control side that needs the power.

    Look: I obviously can't stop you guys from misrepresenting my posts while ignoring my arguments, and the fact that your hallucinatory presumptions interfere with your comprehension of even very simple things (like statistical correlations, or the fact that a list of policies up for review is not a recommendation of any of them) is something I've been telling you to your face - with examples - for a long time, but the larger implication is that when you refuse to even reconsider these silly mistakes you make, when you blame the abused for your inveterate misrepresentations and willful insults, eventually the reality of your approach here becomes just something to acknowledge, name, and deal with as one would any other circumstance that obtains. You get labeled, in this matter, and the rewards of credibility - such as being able to lecture people on how they should have posted to forestall your latest jackassery - are not yours.
    No. I hinted at mocking you to your face, for being willfully and inexcusably stupid and then blaming me for it.
    I also said exactly what that means - it means that these issues, unlike the gun control issue, have not been ruined by the unique circumstance of wingnuts and loonies on "both sides" having jammed the discussion and poisoned the wells and prevented the reasonable from getting anything done.

    In all of these issues, only one "side" is beholden for media time to irrational extremists - the "other side" has a coherent approach governed by reason and facts honestly presented and considered, a position of strength from which it can apply pressure for beneficial change. And by good fortune these beneficial changes can - in my claim - reduce gun violence in the US.

    So I recommended that approach, one or more of those ways, to those who wish to reduce gun violence in the US. So far, no discussion on that, or anything else actually posted by me.
     
  19. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,666
    While you do your rhetorical dance of the seven veils, insulting everybody as "stupid" for not understanding whatever the hell you are claiming you meant, why don't you just tell us straight out? Are you for the mass incarceration of black men to prevent gun violence or not? It's a simple request. We don't need any more of your distractive verbal salad served with a side of pissy attitude.
     
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,102
    For the fiftieth time: the National Guard is not a militia. It's not even close. It's a professional, State commanded, State equipped, State paid, State trained, formal-term-of-enlistment, standing, government military force. The Federal government sends the National Guard to fight wars over seas.

    Man, this is ridiculous. Will you guys please go get a damn dictionary, read anything - a cursory three page history of the militia in the US that fought in the Revolutionary War, and encyclopedia entry on the topic of militia - quit with this business of trying to rewrite the 2nd Amendment via interpretation. It's completely unnecessary, it's threatening to reasonable people, it muddles serious issues (have you noticed that the alternative readings conflict with each other as well?), and it wastes time.

    The limitations imposed by the 2nd Amendment have almost nothing to do with the current failure of the US to govern the firearms and firearms owners among its citizenry. The US has so far to go before it starts bumping against the Constitution that it's hardly an issue.

    None of that is true. All of that is false. Every single sentence there expresses a falsehood.

    The biggest one is that you have been trying to clarify my position.
    I already did. Posts 26, 35, 41, 46, have parts, post 55 has a fairly complete rehash I posted directly in response to you, and so forth.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2015
  21. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,666
    Really? So that picture I posted of the National Guard in Ferguson WASN'T in Ferguson? You couldn't be more wrong.

    "Today, the term militia is used to describe a number of groups within the United States. Primarily, these are:

    Guess that solves it then. The National Guard IS America's militia. But just to make sure:

    "The organized militia is the armed forces of the state. Each state has two mandatory forces which are: the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard. Many states also have state defense forces and a naval militia, which assist, support and augment National Guard forces.

    National Guard
    The National Guard (or National Guard of a State) differs from the National Guard of the United States; however, the two do go hand-in-hand.

    The National Guard is a militia force organized by each of the states and territories of the United States. Established under Title 10 and Title 32 of the U.S. Code, state National Guard serves as part of the first-line defense for the United States.[37] The state National Guard is divided up into units stationed in each of the 54 states and U.S. territories and operates under their respective state governor or territorial government.[38] The National Guard may be called up for active duty by the state governors or territorial commanding generals to help respond to domestic emergencies and disasters, such as those caused by hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes.[38]

    The National Guard of the United States is a military reserve force composed of state National Guard members or units under federally recognized active or inactive armed force service for the United States.[39][40] Created by the Militia Act of 1903, the National Guard of the United States is a joint reserve component of the United States Army and the United States Air Force. The National Guard of the United States maintains two subcomponents: the Army National Guard of the United States [39] for the Army and the Air Force's Air National Guard of the United States."===[ibid.]
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2015
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,102
    Is it getting obvious enough yet, that these people have a serious thinking disorder?

    If all of them get together and demand that I clarify my post there, because I appear to be claiming that the National Guard has all been sent over seas to fight wars, can I please just call them all idiots and move on without going into the details?

    It's not a militia. The 2nd Amendment does not refer to it (Guardsmen do not keep or bear their arms as civilians - "the people").

    There's a famous joke/riddle from Abraham Lincoln: "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?" The answer is not "five".
     
  23. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,666
    Well seeing it's the only "well regulated militia" in existence, then I guess it IS referring to it. Hey, did you know the Constitution doesn't mention the Air Force either? Guess we should disband it then eh?

    "We recognize December 13th as the birthday of the National Guard. On this date in 1636, the first militia regiments in North America were organized in Massachusetts. Based upon an order of the Massachusetts Bay Colony's General Court, the colony's militia was organized into three permanent regiments to better defend the colony. Today, the descendants of these first regiments - the 181st Infantry, the 182nd Infantry, the 101st Field Artillery, and the 101st Engineer Battalion of the Massachusetts Army National Guard – share the distinction of being the oldest units in the U.S. military. December 13, 1636, thus marks the beginning of the organized militia, and the birth of the National Guard's oldest organized units is symbolic of the founding of all the state, territory, and District of Columbia militias that collectively make up today's National Guard."===http://www.nationalguard.mil/AbouttheGuard/HowWeBegan.aspx
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2015

Share This Page