Gunman kills 19 children, 2 adults in Texas grade school

[August]

Originally Posted by Ostfriese

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.

So what? Tyrants and murderers were similarly limited.

[mapuc]

I say the same as Skybird did some years ago in our former US-Politics thread.

(From memory)
The word militia mean there's a structure a hierarchy from top to bottom officer who gives order and soldiers who obey them.

Markus

[Xerxes]

Originally Posted by Ostfriese

Aka mercenaries.

Mercenaries offer their services to the highest bidder, militias offer their service to their government, at little to no pay, and certainly not for profit.

[Rockstar]

For you Euros who think our president is some kind of king and that the federal government is the ruling body of this country. Over here the term for a lawful Militia which the constitution is referring too is these days commonly known as a State Defense Force (SDF). Last count I saw was in a 2010 report that said 23 States officially have one. I think Florida just recently formed one as well. The SDF is under the control of the people (governor) of their respective state and NOT under control of the federal government. I know some would like you to think it’s a Democrat vs Republican thing but even the Great State of California has one. Legal gun owners bear 300,000,000 firearms and trillions of rounds of ammo. If legal ownership was a problem don’t you think we would know it by now?

[Sean C]

I own multiple firearms, but I am not a Republican and I have never attempted to "curb" the rights of anyone else.

As for the argument that the ideas set forth in the Constitution are outdated: as far as I know, no one believes that freedom of speech, for example, only applies to the printing press - or that police no longer need a warrant to search one's property. The Second Amendment is meant as a safeguard against a tyrannical government. From where I sit, the U.S. government has never seemed more so.

The Second Amendment does say that militias are necessary for the security of a free state. But it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms that it protects. Because who is going to populate a militia, if not the people?

It is estimated that there are around 400 million guns in the U.S. They won't be disappearing any time soon. We could try to ban some or even all guns. We could take it a step further and ban knives too - or any sort of weapon for that matter. But I have a better idea: we simply make murder itself illegal. That way, no one can kill anyone! It's so simple!

[Buddahaid]

"Uvalde police, school district no longer cooperating with Texas probe of shooting."

https://abcnews.go.com/US/uvalde-pol...ry?id=85093405

Looks like it's time to open a criminal investigation.

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

The problem with the 2nd Amendment is it became a moot point after the United States had a standing army. The whole purpose of even having militias was at the time of the American Revolution there was no standing army and the majority of the Continental Army was until the latter years of the war largely made up of said militias. As I've pointed out before as well when the Constitution was written the 2nd Amendment made sense because one the US was at that time surrounded by three of the world powers i.e France, Great Britain and Spain all of whom had well trained standing armies, two lots of really pissed of Native Americans who where hostile to settlers invading their ancestral territory, and three they where using smoothbore muzzle loading flintlock muskets and pistols (sorry the Kentucky Long-rifle was really a musket with a rifled barrel) that could at best get off two to three rounds a minute depending on the skill of the individual soldier.

[August]

Originally Posted by mapuc

I say the same as Skybird did some years ago in our former US-Politics thread.

(From memory)
The word militia mean there's a structure a hierarchy from top to bottom officer who gives order and soldiers who obey them.

Markus

Well not necessarily, look up the term "unorganized militia", but regardless it is irrelevant anyways.

Thing is Militias are NOT a justification for the right to keep and bear arms. That right exists even if the Second Amendment was never written. The 2A, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, only officially recognize certain human rights that belong to all free people. The BoR contains only individual rights that were considered vital enough that they were "enumerated" with (supposedly) clear instructions for the government not to infringe upon them.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Kptlt. Neuerburg

The problem with the 2nd Amendment is it became a moot point after the United States had a standing army. The whole purpose of even having militias was at the time of the American Revolution there was no standing army and the majority of the Continental Army was until the latter years of the war largely made up of said militias. As I've pointed out before as well when the Constitution was written the 2nd Amendment made sense because one the US was at that time surrounded by three of the world powers i.e France, Great Britain and Spain all of whom had well trained standing armies, two lots of really pissed of Native Americans who where hostile to settlers invading their ancestral territory, and three they where using smoothbore muzzle loading flintlock muskets and pistols (sorry the Kentucky Long-rifle was really a musket with a rifled barrel) that could at best get off two to three rounds a minute depending on the skill of the individual soldier.

Just a quick FYI, when you declare something as being ‘moot’. You are saying it is still open for debate or discussion.

[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; . . .

So continuing on with the debate of militias.

The power of the state government to legislate militias existed prior to the formation of the Constitution. Though the militia clauses do not constrain Congress in raising and supporting a national army neither does it remove the States power to raise a militia.

I don’t know anything about Kentucky long rifles I’m from Wisconsin.

And when I speak of Militias I’m referring to State organized militias or a SDF. Not the private ones and those other loose cannons.

[d@rk51d3]

No reports on this so far......

https://www.ammoland.com/2022/05/arm...#axzz7UuO4e700

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61615236

[Gorpet]

Can we start with Chicago Illinois first? It seems that the most gun deaths are from their citizens out working. So if Joe is going to hit the country with a Presidential decree of gun control.Then i would like for Chicago to be the the City to implement the government's controls .And in 24 months if that works' then maybe we talk about how well the Democrats gun control laws will be beneficial for the rest of the Country.

[MaDef]

Originally Posted by d@rk51d3

No reports on this so far......

https://www.ammoland.com/2022/05/arm...#axzz7UuO4e700

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61615236

Doesn't fit the narrative, so the MSM will ignore it or dismiss it as an aberration.

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Just a quick FYI, when you declare something as being ‘moot’. You are saying it is still open for debate or discussion.

[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; . . .

So continuing on with the debate of militias.

The power of the state government to legislate militias existed prior to the formation of the Constitution. Though the militia clauses do not constrain Congress in raising and supporting a national army neither does it remove the States power to raise a militia.

I don’t know anything about Kentucky long rifles I’m from Wisconsin.

And when I speak of Militias I’m referring to State organized militias or a SDF. Not the private ones and those other loose cannons.

Okay so what about this thing called the National Guard? Did the National Guard take on the role of what the states militias had done previously, since while it is considered part of the US Army's Reserve when it's activated for a federal mission but when it is not activated is under the control of a state's governor. I would also argue that in the context of the 2nd Amendment it gives the right to keep and bear arms to members of the well regulated militia and not the general populous of the United States.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Kptlt. Neuerburg

Okay so what about this thing called the National Guard? Did the National Guard take on the role of what the states militias had done previously, since while it is considered part of the US Army's Reserve when it's activated for a federal mission but when it is not activated is under the control of a state's governor. I would also argue that in the context of the 2nd Amendment it gives the right to keep and bear arms to members of the well regulated militia and not the general populous of the United States.

The U.S. Army National Guard can be called up under federal control. The State Defence Force is solely under control of the State Governor.

Any of the 50 states can form a well regulated militia anytime it wants too. Some have them already, others do not but can if they so wish. State militias will be consist of armed citizens of that State. Plus I don’t see anywhere in the militia clauses that deny citizens ownership.


I also don’t see what talking about militias has to do with Salvador Ramos? He was a violent child who had absolutely no respect for the lives of others, he was demented, lost, no morals, disconnected from reality. Blows my mind why nobody is looking into the causes of this killers decisions and maybe trying to change that from forming in others? Instead, here we are AGAIN like clockwork talking about f-in militias.

He had a juvenile record how about making that available to background checks? How about raising the age to purchase to 21? Ya but Trump!, Militias!, NRA!

Why isn’t anyone looking into the common links, if any, these kinds had?

Experts have consistently raised concerns about this:

“The irritability and impulsivity” from antidepressants, for example, “can make people suicidal or homicidal.”[7] – Harvard Medical School psychiatrist Joseph Glenmullen

“The link between antidepressants and violence, including suicide and homicide, is well established.”[8] – Patrick D. Hahn, affiliate professor of biology at Loyola University Maryland

“Violence and other potentially criminal behavior caused by prescription drugs are medicine’s best kept secret.”[9] – Professor David Healy, leading psychopharmacology expert and professor of psychiatry in Wales

In a study published in the British Medical Journal, in January 2016, Prof. Peter C. Gøtzsche and other researchers reported: “Perpetrators of school shootings and similar events have often been reported to be users of antidepressants….” Antidepressants, including the use of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) and Serotonin-Norepinephrine Reuptake Inhibitors (SNRIs), put at risk the lives of individuals prescribed them. Reviewing numerous studies of five different antidepressants, they found there was a doubling of the risk for both aggressive behavior and suicidality for children and adolescents.[10]

This is why only the dumbasses of the world call for mandates.

The use of psychotropic drugs in schools is so rife in the U.S. that in 2004, a Prohibition of Mandatory Medication Amendment was necessary when it was discovered that, astoundingly, parents were being threatened with criminal child abuse charges if they refused to put their school-aged child on a psychotropic drug as a requisite for their education, or took them off it.[11]

[Rockstar]

Has America Tried Bombing Its Mass Shooting Problem? Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix




https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2022/05...rative-matrix/



Oh cool it’s the part of the news cycle where Democrats and Republicans pretend something’s going to change about American gun laws for a few days.
“It’s a gun control problem!”
“Nuh-uh it’s a mental health problem!”
[Nothing changes about gun laws or mental health care]
[Repeat]

❖

There’s probably a correlation between the fact that the US is the only nation with a mass shooting epidemic and the fact that Americans are the most aggressively propagandized population on earth.


If you took any armed population and psychologically pummelled them from birth with narratives about how mass military slaughter is fine while turning them into underpaid, alienated gear-turners and giving them an artificial culture mass-produced in Los Angeles, you’d probably see some mass shootings.


There’s only so far you can warp the human psyche before it snaps. Bash hundreds of millions of people in the brain their entire lives with indoctrination programs telling them madness is sanity and sanity is madness, and eventually a few of them are going to wind up mass murderers.