Gunman kills 19 children, 2 adults in Texas grade school

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

What does 'ND' stand for here?

If it's 'neurodivergent', I'm autistic and I've been properly trained in how to handle a firearm and used one on multiple occasions. Never had any urge to go and shoot up a school.

I think the best solution is to have a gun license test - like we have for cars, aircraft, boats, working with minors, etc. etc. - that anyone can apply for and pass if they prove to be responsible and sane. Anyone who doesn't pass can then pursue legal action against the government if they feel they were discriminated against for their political beliefs, ethnicity, etc.

Imagine having to prove your responsible and sane to a govt entity or psychologist that would likely hold bias against against you having a gun regardless. Like most things the govt would turn it into a big money making venture. In many strict Dem states the cost for application, fingerprinting, license, etc can already go over a $1000 which is one reason people just buy off the street, it's the only way they can afford to have a gun. 99% of the mentally ill don't go around shooting people. Looking at several recent mass shootings most had long rap sheets of violent charges and usually several illegal gun charges. Take the Sacramento shooters, two suspects with a long violent history that only served half of their time thanks to Cali voting in laws that made it easier for felons to get out of jail.

[Xerxes]

Originally Posted by MaDef

ND stands for negligent discharge which usually occurs when a loaded firearm is mishandled.

In the state I currently reside in, a safety certificate is required before buying a weapon, and is only good for 5 years and I am completely against this as it is a permit, and I should not have to acquire a permit to exercise a right granted by the Constitution.

North Carolina has a pistol purchase permit, and not only is it onerous, but you used to have to get character witnesses, and if the witnesses failed a background check, you'd be denied your permit.


Most folks get a CCL, so they can forgo the whole process.

[Buddahaid]

https://constitutioncenter.org/image...CNN_Aug_11.pdf

I would ask how does one determine well disciplined now?

[Xerxes]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

https://constitutioncenter.org/image...CNN_Aug_11.pdf

I would ask how does one determine well disciplined now?

Efficacy in combat and drills, they can listen to superiors.



Also, militias would also form privately, and offer their service in times of war.

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Xerxes

Efficacy in combat and drills, they can listen to superiors.



Also, militias would also form privately, and offer their service in times of war.

For the militia that applies but how is that measured with private ownership? Also, the PDF I posted indicates the the state creates the militia but isn't responsible for it's readiness. I'm not taking a position here, just throwing it out for discussion.

[Ostfriese]

Originally Posted by Xerxes

Also, militias would also form privately, and offer their service in times of war.

Aka mercenaries.

[Skybird]

Militias subordinate to the command of POTUS. Else they are just a gang of armed dudes. Declaring oneself a militia alone is not enough to qualify as one. Some legal experts even argue a militia must get called up by POTUS.

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Militias subordinate to the command of POTUS. Else they are just a gang of armed dudes. Declaring oneself a militia alone is not enough to qualify as one. Some legal experts even argue a militia must get called up by POTUS.

Isn't that what was happening on Jan 6th? The PDF says the militias are organized by the state, not the federal government, so not at the whim of the POTUS. No Hail, Caesar.

[Skybird]

Now that I think of it I must admit that I am not certain anymore that my memory hasnt fooled me. I forgot whether it is the governor of a state or the POTUS who alone can legitimise a militia to be actually a "militia" by calling it up and that militia then following governor's/POTUS' direct military command. I think I was wrong, I think it was the state governor, not the POTUS.


However, the core message is the same: just a gang of armed people calling themselves a militia does not make them one - they just remain to be not more than a random gang of armed people giving themselves a bombastic name.

[Ostfriese]

"It's my right!", cried the Republican gun owner who didn't and doesn't hesitate for even a microsecond when it comes to curbing the rights of women, LGBT people, voters in predominantly democratic voting areas and many others.

[Xerxes]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

For the militia that applies but how is that measured with private ownership? Also, the PDF I posted indicates the the state creates the militia but isn't responsible for it's readiness. I'm not taking a position here, just throwing it out for discussion.

It wasn't per se private ownership, but a group of guys throw in funds and choose a commander. Readiness would be to the standard of the commanding officer, and in times of war, to the standards of the government, who gets to choose whether or not to accept said militia under it's command.


That being said, we're not supposed to have a standing army.
The militia was intended to be the people at large:

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788


"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves. They include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms and be taught alike how to use them." Richard Henry Lee


"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of." Source: Federalist No. 48, February 1, 1788


Now, it's a mix between people willing to fight, and offering their services, and people being organized by the town/state.

[Xerxes]

Originally Posted by Ostfriese

"It's my right!", cried the Republican gun owner who didn't and doesn't hesitate for even a microsecond when it comes to curbing the rights of women, LGBT people, voters in predominantly democratic voting areas and many others.

Are you talking about gerrymandering?


If so, look at jersey's redistricting, as well as Illinois's redistricting. Both are horrible gerrymanders.


I'm not denying that the scumbags RUNNING the party don't gerrymander, but stop making rude and divisive blanket statements about the voter base.

[Ostfriese]

Originally Posted by Xerxes

Are you talking about gerrymandering?


If so, look at jersey's redistricting, as well as Illinois's redistricting. Both are horrible gerrymanders.


I'm not denying that the scumbags RUNNING the party don't gerrymander, but stop making rude and divisive blanket statements about the voter base.

I didn't explicitly mentioning gerrymandering. And "he started it" has never ever been a good argument.

[Ostfriese]

Originally Posted by Xerxes

It wasn't per se private ownership, but a group of guys throw in funds and choose a commander. Readiness would be to the standard of the commanding officer, and in times of war, to the standards of the government, who gets to choose whether or not to accept said militia under it's command.


That being said, we're not supposed to have a standing army.
The militia was intended to be the people at large:

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788


"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves. They include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms and be taught alike how to use them." Richard Henry Lee


"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of." Source: Federalist No. 48, February 1, 1788


Now, it's a mix between people willing to fight, and offering their services, and people being organized by the town/state.

Those are ideas from the 18th century, they are effing 230 years old, from a time, when handheld guns were still muzzleloaders, before the steam age.

[August]

Having a proficient militia is just one reason for the peoples right to keep and bear arms but it is not the only reason. In any case the people do not need to supply reasons for rights that are endowed to them by their creator. Especially rights acknowledged by their own constitution as not to be infringed upon.