Oldbear83 said:

---

contrario said:

---

I was actually talking about myself when I said a buffoon with a keyboard. So you think the cost is the only barrier that should keep me from owning a nuclear weapon? Or your neighbor from owning one? Or even a well organized group of political activists, say like your local BLM chapter?

Nuclear physicists can still make mistakes (see 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl and ***ushima as a few examples). I think there should be more than just costs as a barrier to nuclear bomb ownership. Because if you fail to maintain your yacht, then the only thing that goes wrong is you can't show the world how small your dck is until it gets fixed. But if you fail to maintain your nuclear bomb, the results are obviously far greater.

---

So you are doubling down on ignoring what I wrote ...

---

I was responding to Wangchung, is that your sock, or was I replying to a different post?

contrario said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

contrario said:

---

I was actually talking about myself when I said a buffoon with a keyboard. So you think the cost is the only barrier that should keep me from owning a nuclear weapon? Or your neighbor from owning one? Or even a well organized group of political activists, say like your local BLM chapter?

Nuclear physicists can still make mistakes (see 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl and ***ushima as a few examples). I think there should be more than just costs as a barrier to nuclear bomb ownership. Because if you fail to maintain your yacht, then the only thing that goes wrong is you can't show the world how small your dck is until it gets fixed. But if you fail to maintain your nuclear bomb, the results are obviously far greater.

---

So you are doubling down on ignoring what I wrote ...

---

I was responding to Wangchung, is that your sock, or was I replying to a different post?

---

The only socks I have, I wear on my feet.

Now with that said, would you like a substantive discussion or are you still obsessed with weapons you will never face from a private individual?

Don't worry about children having sex change operations, that will never happen…

Oldbear83 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

And we are up to three in this thread that think nuclear and chemical weapons should be legal for anyone to have.

I'm honestly surprised.

How many more here?

---

You apparently ignored my post from last Friday, so here it is again:

Amusing that you would accuse of doing just what you did, 90s Bear.

Would you care, now, to explain why the Founders, specifically prohibited 'infringing' the right to arms? Or will you continue to duck that question?

To your question, I did indeed answer, but it obviously wasn't the strawman answer you wanted. But I did note that you seemed to imply having a personal nuke was the same as allowing someone unrestricted access to guns. You ducked that one as well, unless you really believed that.

Now with regard to WMD, I hope we can agree that most people lack any capability to create such weapons. Fissionable material is hard enough to find, let alone the means to refine it to weapons-grade, or Hitler would have had his bomb while Einstein was still trying to get the US to consider getting their research going.

As for CW, that's both difficult but also a matter of chemistry and hard work My father worked as a Chemical Engineer before he became a Project Engineer, and some things he told me about how companies store chemicals in high-population places would scare you so you couldn't sleep.

And bioweapons? The Wuhan Virology Lab should be an example of how easily that sort of weapon can go wrong. As a matter of record, I have some friends in the IC who have told me about a couple groups which tried to create their own bio-terror weapons, but instead exposed themselves and died as a result of their own poor controls. I doubt there are even a half-dozen people in the United States who would even like to have their own bio-weapons, given everything you would need to create and maintain them, not to mention that habit viruses have of mutating at the first opportunity, often in ways the designer does not want.

My point is that the number of people who could create such weapons is absurdly low, and of those the number who would want a WMD of their personal ownership would be zero, given the security needs and maintenance costs. And what exactly would you or I want with such a weapon? Even if someone was paranoid enough to want their own nuke in order to hold the government at bay, the most likely practical consequence of making that threat would be a short career as the target of a sniper.

With that said, maybe we can return to the more realistic scenarios of people obtaining guns for their home and workplace defense?

---

I think it is important to see where the line is for you. If you honestly think that anyone should be entitled to own a nuclear weapon, then there is no point in having a debate with you. You are clearly as nutso as you sound. But, if as a reasonable person, you can say "yes, we can all agree nuclear weapons should be off the table for the average citizen," then we can at least have a conversation about where the line is then and maybe we can find some common ground in the increments between a dart gun and a nuclear bomb. But if you don't have a line, then there is no point. There is no solution to any of these problems other than hardening the target. Which means the attacker will need to harden even more. Which means the attackers will pick other soft targets, or if they are hell-bent on making a point by attacking a school, they will find another, more forceful, way to attack a school. And it will eventually get to the point that entering school is the same as entering a military base with large barriers, barbed wire fencing, armed guards in every classroom at all times, security check points and fighter jets flying over every school all day. Certainly a good place for a young mind to grow and learn.

But going back to your point, if it is the case that we don't even need to talk about nuclear weapon ownership because it is so unlikely, why do we even have laws that make nuclear weapon ownership illegal? Why do we even need those laws if, practically speaking, only a handful of people on the planet have the means to own and maintain a nuclear weapon? What's the point?

---

My point is that we already are at an impasse with guns, why bring other weapons into it?

But I do think if you just ignore what the Founders of our country specifically said regarding citizens keeping government in check, then a sound argument could be made that you are the "crazy" person.

It's telling that you and Oso so quickly start using insults when you are still at zero quotes from Founders to support your own position.

Look, I am not personally comfortable myself with some of our Founders' quotes. Jefferson once said that the "Tree of Liberty" must be watered with the "blood of tyrants", which could easily be seen to say Jefferson was OK with killing government leaders who were seen to have abused their power.

I certainly would not agree with that.

However, I do find it unconscionable that some judges have made rulings they knew were unconstitutional, all for the sake of keeping the powers happy. I do find it an outrage that we have career politicians worth hundreds of millions of dollars from abusing their office for personal profit.

Hypothetical questions about nukes are not only useless when pretty much no individual, even Elon Musk, even could make their own, but they are also dangerous because they take us away from the debates we should be having.

The question at this point, is whether you are open to that hard kind of discussion, or do you just want to throw out noise and declare victory by ignoring anything that doesn't say what you want?

---

Again, I think it's important to accept that there is a line somewhere. Just because a nuclear bomb is far-fetched, that doesn't mean a grenade launcher a RPG, fully automatic machine gun, and many bio-weapons are far-fetched. I understand your average citizen won't have these, but a person trying to be harder than a hardened target would try to get their hands on these types of things if they could.

contrario said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

contrario said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I have provided explanation, context and evidence.

You need to do as much, or concede this one.

---

I have. You are the one that must concede.

---

Vice versa pal.

I quoted multiple Founding Fathers, provided the meaning of 'regulated' as used in 1783, showed where private warships were referenced in the actual Constitution, and more.

You ... have simply not defended your position.

---

I have, I gave context to why the founding fathers would be open to private warships being donated to the cause. And I responded to your quotes from the founding fathers (great, they felt one way, they worded the actual amendment that was voted on and ratified a certain way, why was it worded that way).

I've asked a simple question that you refuse to answer, if they just wanted everyone to be armed, why did they mention a "well regulated militia"? What was the point in including those words? If the inclusion of "shall not be infringed" is important, which I concede it is important, why is the inclusion of a "well regulated militia" not important in your mind? It's really a simple question.

---

The militia would be drawn out of the population. For it to be "well regulated," you need a population of people who are able to "bear arms," so infringing on that right would damage the ability of that militia to be "well regulated." Thus, "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."

---

Correct, the sentence is a jumbled mess. If they intended for everyone to have an unfettered right to arms, they simply would have said "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." As it is, the whole militia language is included for a reason, and to some it means "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not to be infringed to be part of a well regulated militia which is necessary to the security of a free State" and to others it means "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed so a well regulated militia will have people to recruit". That is the issue. But again, under either definition, the militia is the focus of the amendment, or else the words "a well regulated militia" wouldn't have been included.

---

They actually did say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Oldbear83 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

contrario said:

---

I was actually talking about myself when I said a buffoon with a keyboard. So you think the cost is the only barrier that should keep me from owning a nuclear weapon? Or your neighbor from owning one? Or even a well organized group of political activists, say like your local BLM chapter?

Nuclear physicists can still make mistakes (see 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl and ***ushima as a few examples). I think there should be more than just costs as a barrier to nuclear bomb ownership. Because if you fail to maintain your yacht, then the only thing that goes wrong is you can't show the world how small your dck is until it gets fixed. But if you fail to maintain your nuclear bomb, the results are obviously far greater.

---

So you are doubling down on ignoring what I wrote ...

---

I was responding to Wangchung, is that your sock, or was I replying to a different post?

---

The only socks I have, I wear on my feet.

Now with that said, would you like a substantive discussion or are you still obsessed with weapons you will never face from a private individual?

---

I will likely never face anyone with any kind of firearm. The chances of that happening are extremely slim. In fact, the odds of the school my children go to being involved in an attack are extremely slim, even if it is becoming alarmingly more common. But just because you and I are very unlikely to ever encounter these issues personally, that doesn't mean we won't obsess about them and talk about them. So even though it is very unlikely that I will ever face the business end of anyone with a blowgun, hand gun, rifle, AK-47, fully automatic machine gun, RPG, remote guided missile, drone, biological weapon or a nuclear bomb, it's still important to discuss where we draw the line between the right to being able to defend oneself and maybe that is a bit too much. If we can't even agree there should be a line, then we can't really figure out a solution to the problem because the next gunman, if the are truly intent on targeting a school, will find a way, even if the school is hardened.

D. C. Bear said:

---

contrario said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

contrario said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I have provided explanation, context and evidence.

You need to do as much, or concede this one.

---

I have. You are the one that must concede.

---

Vice versa pal.

I quoted multiple Founding Fathers, provided the meaning of 'regulated' as used in 1783, showed where private warships were referenced in the actual Constitution, and more.

You ... have simply not defended your position.

---

I have, I gave context to why the founding fathers would be open to private warships being donated to the cause. And I responded to your quotes from the founding fathers (great, they felt one way, they worded the actual amendment that was voted on and ratified a certain way, why was it worded that way).

I've asked a simple question that you refuse to answer, if they just wanted everyone to be armed, why did they mention a "well regulated militia"? What was the point in including those words? If the inclusion of "shall not be infringed" is important, which I concede it is important, why is the inclusion of a "well regulated militia" not important in your mind? It's really a simple question.

---

The militia would be drawn out of the population. For it to be "well regulated," you need a population of people who are able to "bear arms," so infringing on that right would damage the ability of that militia to be "well regulated." Thus, "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."

---

Correct, the sentence is a jumbled mess. If they intended for everyone to have an unfettered right to arms, they simply would have said "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." As it is, the whole militia language is included for a reason, and to some it means "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not to be infringed to be part of a well regulated militia which is necessary to the security of a free State" and to others it means "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed so a well regulated militia will have people to recruit". That is the issue. But again, under either definition, the militia is the focus of the amendment, or else the words "a well regulated militia" wouldn't have been included.

---

They actually did say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

---

Then they would have stopped at that. I feel like I've been pretty clear. if their only intent was every man and woman (actually, if we are being honest, they were only referring to white, land-owning men) should be able to own any arm they wanted, they would have simply said "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Period. End of amendment. But that wasn't it, they included other language. And they included it for a reason. That is what I'm talking about.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Going back to 90s Bear's question, I have a number of neighbors who would not worry me if they personally had their own nuke or chemical weapons. For one thing, if such weapons were held by private citizens, I would worry less about a dim-wit President sending them off to foreign countries without the public being able to say 'boo' about it.

---

contrario said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

contrario said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

contrario said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I have provided explanation, context and evidence.

You need to do as much, or concede this one.

---

I have. You are the one that must concede.

---

Vice versa pal.

I quoted multiple Founding Fathers, provided the meaning of 'regulated' as used in 1783, showed where private warships were referenced in the actual Constitution, and more.

You ... have simply not defended your position.

---

I have, I gave context to why the founding fathers would be open to private warships being donated to the cause. And I responded to your quotes from the founding fathers (great, they felt one way, they worded the actual amendment that was voted on and ratified a certain way, why was it worded that way).

I've asked a simple question that you refuse to answer, if they just wanted everyone to be armed, why did they mention a "well regulated militia"? What was the point in including those words? If the inclusion of "shall not be infringed" is important, which I concede it is important, why is the inclusion of a "well regulated militia" not important in your mind? It's really a simple question.

---

The militia would be drawn out of the population. For it to be "well regulated," you need a population of people who are able to "bear arms," so infringing on that right would damage the ability of that militia to be "well regulated." Thus, "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."

---

Correct, the sentence is a jumbled mess. If they intended for everyone to have an unfettered right to arms, they simply would have said "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." As it is, the whole militia language is included for a reason, and to some it means "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not to be infringed to be part of a well regulated militia which is necessary to the security of a free State" and to others it means "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed so a well regulated militia will have people to recruit". That is the issue. But again, under either definition, the militia is the focus of the amendment, or else the words "a well regulated militia" wouldn't have been included.

---

They actually did say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

---

Then they would have stopped at that. I feel like I've been pretty clear. if their only intent was every man and woman (actually, if we are being honest, they were only referring to white, land-owning men) should be able to own any arm they wanted, they would have simply said "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Period. End of amendment. But that wasn't it, they included other language. And they included it for a reason. That is what I'm talking about.

---

That brings me back to all those quotes l listed. From Washington to Jefferson to Madison and everyone else, there was a strong consensus that government should be at the mercy of people, not the other way around.

That reference to 'militia' was not to limit arms but to be clear to the government that the people would be able to remove any tyrant if necessary.

contrario said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

contrario said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

contrario said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I have provided explanation, context and evidence.

You need to do as much, or concede this one.

---

I have. You are the one that must concede.

---

Vice versa pal.

I quoted multiple Founding Fathers, provided the meaning of 'regulated' as used in 1783, showed where private warships were referenced in the actual Constitution, and more.

You ... have simply not defended your position.

---

I have, I gave context to why the founding fathers would be open to private warships being donated to the cause. And I responded to your quotes from the founding fathers (great, they felt one way, they worded the actual amendment that was voted on and ratified a certain way, why was it worded that way).

I've asked a simple question that you refuse to answer, if they just wanted everyone to be armed, why did they mention a "well regulated militia"? What was the point in including those words? If the inclusion of "shall not be infringed" is important, which I concede it is important, why is the inclusion of a "well regulated militia" not important in your mind? It's really a simple question.

---

The militia would be drawn out of the population. For it to be "well regulated," you need a population of people who are able to "bear arms," so infringing on that right would damage the ability of that militia to be "well regulated." Thus, "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."

---

Correct, the sentence is a jumbled mess. If they intended for everyone to have an unfettered right to arms, they simply would have said "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." As it is, the whole militia language is included for a reason, and to some it means "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not to be infringed to be part of a well regulated militia which is necessary to the security of a free State" and to others it means "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed so a well regulated militia will have people to recruit". That is the issue. But again, under either definition, the militia is the focus of the amendment, or else the words "a well regulated militia" wouldn't have been included.

---

They actually did say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

---

Then they would have stopped at that. I feel like I've been pretty clear. if their only intent was every man and woman (actually, if we are being honest, they were only referring to white, land-owning men) should be able to own any arm they wanted, they would have simply said "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Period. End of amendment. But that wasn't it, they included other language. And they included it for a reason. That is what I'm talking about.

---

Whatever reasons they had for the amendment, the part of the amendment that restricts government action is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

D. C. Bear said:

---

contrario said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

contrario said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

contrario said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I have provided explanation, context and evidence.

You need to do as much, or concede this one.

---

I have. You are the one that must concede.

---

Vice versa pal.

I quoted multiple Founding Fathers, provided the meaning of 'regulated' as used in 1783, showed where private warships were referenced in the actual Constitution, and more.

You ... have simply not defended your position.

---

I have, I gave context to why the founding fathers would be open to private warships being donated to the cause. And I responded to your quotes from the founding fathers (great, they felt one way, they worded the actual amendment that was voted on and ratified a certain way, why was it worded that way).

I've asked a simple question that you refuse to answer, if they just wanted everyone to be armed, why did they mention a "well regulated militia"? What was the point in including those words? If the inclusion of "shall not be infringed" is important, which I concede it is important, why is the inclusion of a "well regulated militia" not important in your mind? It's really a simple question.

---

The militia would be drawn out of the population. For it to be "well regulated," you need a population of people who are able to "bear arms," so infringing on that right would damage the ability of that militia to be "well regulated." Thus, "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."

---

Correct, the sentence is a jumbled mess. If they intended for everyone to have an unfettered right to arms, they simply would have said "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." As it is, the whole militia language is included for a reason, and to some it means "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not to be infringed to be part of a well regulated militia which is necessary to the security of a free State" and to others it means "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed so a well regulated militia will have people to recruit". That is the issue. But again, under either definition, the militia is the focus of the amendment, or else the words "a well regulated militia" wouldn't have been included.

---

They actually did say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

---

Then they would have stopped at that. I feel like I've been pretty clear. if their only intent was every man and woman (actually, if we are being honest, they were only referring to white, land-owning men) should be able to own any arm they wanted, they would have simply said "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Period. End of amendment. But that wasn't it, they included other language. And they included it for a reason. That is what I'm talking about.

---

Whatever reasons they had for the amendment, the part of the amendment that restricts government action is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

---

Agreed, as part of a well regulated militia, which is the complete thought of the amendment as written.

If only the Supreme Court would find time to address these perplexing issues.

contrario said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

contrario said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

contrario said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

contrario said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I have provided explanation, context and evidence.

You need to do as much, or concede this one.

---

I have. You are the one that must concede.

---

Vice versa pal.

I quoted multiple Founding Fathers, provided the meaning of 'regulated' as used in 1783, showed where private warships were referenced in the actual Constitution, and more.

You ... have simply not defended your position.

---

I have, I gave context to why the founding fathers would be open to private warships being donated to the cause. And I responded to your quotes from the founding fathers (great, they felt one way, they worded the actual amendment that was voted on and ratified a certain way, why was it worded that way).

I've asked a simple question that you refuse to answer, if they just wanted everyone to be armed, why did they mention a "well regulated militia"? What was the point in including those words? If the inclusion of "shall not be infringed" is important, which I concede it is important, why is the inclusion of a "well regulated militia" not important in your mind? It's really a simple question.

---

The militia would be drawn out of the population. For it to be "well regulated," you need a population of people who are able to "bear arms," so infringing on that right would damage the ability of that militia to be "well regulated." Thus, "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."

---

Correct, the sentence is a jumbled mess. If they intended for everyone to have an unfettered right to arms, they simply would have said "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." As it is, the whole militia language is included for a reason, and to some it means "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not to be infringed to be part of a well regulated militia which is necessary to the security of a free State" and to others it means "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed so a well regulated militia will have people to recruit". That is the issue. But again, under either definition, the militia is the focus of the amendment, or else the words "a well regulated militia" wouldn't have been included.

---

They actually did say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

---

Then they would have stopped at that. I feel like I've been pretty clear. if their only intent was every man and woman (actually, if we are being honest, they were only referring to white, land-owning men) should be able to own any arm they wanted, they would have simply said "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Period. End of amendment. But that wasn't it, they included other language. And they included it for a reason. That is what I'm talking about.

---

Whatever reasons they had for the amendment, the part of the amendment that restricts government action is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

---

Agreed, as part of a well regulated militia, which is the complete thought of the amendment as written.

---

The militia reference was explanatory not the operative clause.

Basic grammar.

Oldbear83 said:

---

contrario said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

contrario said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

contrario said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I have provided explanation, context and evidence.

You need to do as much, or concede this one.

---

I have. You are the one that must concede.

---

Vice versa pal.

I quoted multiple Founding Fathers, provided the meaning of 'regulated' as used in 1783, showed where private warships were referenced in the actual Constitution, and more.

You ... have simply not defended your position.

---

I have, I gave context to why the founding fathers would be open to private warships being donated to the cause. And I responded to your quotes from the founding fathers (great, they felt one way, they worded the actual amendment that was voted on and ratified a certain way, why was it worded that way).

I've asked a simple question that you refuse to answer, if they just wanted everyone to be armed, why did they mention a "well regulated militia"? What was the point in including those words? If the inclusion of "shall not be infringed" is important, which I concede it is important, why is the inclusion of a "well regulated militia" not important in your mind? It's really a simple question.

---

The militia would be drawn out of the population. For it to be "well regulated," you need a population of people who are able to "bear arms," so infringing on that right would damage the ability of that militia to be "well regulated." Thus, "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."

---

Correct, the sentence is a jumbled mess. If they intended for everyone to have an unfettered right to arms, they simply would have said "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." As it is, the whole militia language is included for a reason, and to some it means "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not to be infringed to be part of a well regulated militia which is necessary to the security of a free State" and to others it means "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed so a well regulated militia will have people to recruit". That is the issue. But again, under either definition, the militia is the focus of the amendment, or else the words "a well regulated militia" wouldn't have been included.

---

They actually did say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

---

Then they would have stopped at that. I feel like I've been pretty clear. if their only intent was every man and woman (actually, if we are being honest, they were only referring to white, land-owning men) should be able to own any arm they wanted, they would have simply said "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Period. End of amendment. But that wasn't it, they included other language. And they included it for a reason. That is what I'm talking about.

---

That brings me back to all those quotes l listed. From Washington to Jefferson to Madison and everyone else, there was a strong consensus that government should be at the mercy of people, not the other way around.

That reference to 'militia' was not to limit arms but to be clear to the government that the people would be able to remove any tyrant if necessary.

---

So how does asking that you possibly take a class and obtain a license to have a gun infringe on your ability to stop a tyrant? I own a gun. I haven't come across any tyrants in my lifetime though. But I guess I'm ready if it ever happens. But filling out some paperwork hasn't infringed one bit on my ability to own a gun.

Oldbear83 said:

---

contrario said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

contrario said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

contrario said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

contrario said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I have provided explanation, context and evidence.

You need to do as much, or concede this one.

---

I have. You are the one that must concede.

---

Vice versa pal.

I quoted multiple Founding Fathers, provided the meaning of 'regulated' as used in 1783, showed where private warships were referenced in the actual Constitution, and more.

You ... have simply not defended your position.

---

I have, I gave context to why the founding fathers would be open to private warships being donated to the cause. And I responded to your quotes from the founding fathers (great, they felt one way, they worded the actual amendment that was voted on and ratified a certain way, why was it worded that way).

I've asked a simple question that you refuse to answer, if they just wanted everyone to be armed, why did they mention a "well regulated militia"? What was the point in including those words? If the inclusion of "shall not be infringed" is important, which I concede it is important, why is the inclusion of a "well regulated militia" not important in your mind? It's really a simple question.

---

The militia would be drawn out of the population. For it to be "well regulated," you need a population of people who are able to "bear arms," so infringing on that right would damage the ability of that militia to be "well regulated." Thus, "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."

---

Correct, the sentence is a jumbled mess. If they intended for everyone to have an unfettered right to arms, they simply would have said "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." As it is, the whole militia language is included for a reason, and to some it means "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not to be infringed to be part of a well regulated militia which is necessary to the security of a free State" and to others it means "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed so a well regulated militia will have people to recruit". That is the issue. But again, under either definition, the militia is the focus of the amendment, or else the words "a well regulated militia" wouldn't have been included.

---

They actually did say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

---

Then they would have stopped at that. I feel like I've been pretty clear. if their only intent was every man and woman (actually, if we are being honest, they were only referring to white, land-owning men) should be able to own any arm they wanted, they would have simply said "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Period. End of amendment. But that wasn't it, they included other language. And they included it for a reason. That is what I'm talking about.

---

Whatever reasons they had for the amendment, the part of the amendment that restricts government action is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

---

Agreed, as part of a well regulated militia, which is the complete thought of the amendment as written.

---

The militia reference was explanatory not the operative clause.

Basic grammar.

---

Right. Basic grammar. It explained what was meant by the operative clause.

Oldbear83 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

contrario said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

contrario said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

contrario said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I have provided explanation, context and evidence.

You need to do as much, or concede this one.

---

I have. You are the one that must concede.

---

Vice versa pal.

I quoted multiple Founding Fathers, provided the meaning of 'regulated' as used in 1783, showed where private warships were referenced in the actual Constitution, and more.

You ... have simply not defended your position.

---

I have, I gave context to why the founding fathers would be open to private warships being donated to the cause. And I responded to your quotes from the founding fathers (great, they felt one way, they worded the actual amendment that was voted on and ratified a certain way, why was it worded that way).

I've asked a simple question that you refuse to answer, if they just wanted everyone to be armed, why did they mention a "well regulated militia"? What was the point in including those words? If the inclusion of "shall not be infringed" is important, which I concede it is important, why is the inclusion of a "well regulated militia" not important in your mind? It's really a simple question.

---

The militia would be drawn out of the population. For it to be "well regulated," you need a population of people who are able to "bear arms," so infringing on that right would damage the ability of that militia to be "well regulated." Thus, "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."

---

Correct, the sentence is a jumbled mess. If they intended for everyone to have an unfettered right to arms, they simply would have said "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." As it is, the whole militia language is included for a reason, and to some it means "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not to be infringed to be part of a well regulated militia which is necessary to the security of a free State" and to others it means "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed so a well regulated militia will have people to recruit". That is the issue. But again, under either definition, the militia is the focus of the amendment, or else the words "a well regulated militia" wouldn't have been included.

---

They actually did say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

---

Then they would have stopped at that. I feel like I've been pretty clear. if their only intent was every man and woman (actually, if we are being honest, they were only referring to white, land-owning men) should be able to own any arm they wanted, they would have simply said "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Period. End of amendment. But that wasn't it, they included other language. And they included it for a reason. That is what I'm talking about.

---

That brings me back to all those quotes l listed. From Washington to Jefferson to Madison and everyone else, there was a strong consensus that government should be at the mercy of people, not the other way around.

That reference to 'militia' was not to limit arms but to be clear to the government that the people would be able to remove any tyrant if necessary.

---

So how does asking that you possibly take a class and obtain a license to have a gun infringe on your ability to stop a tyrant? I own a gun. I haven't come across any tyrants in my lifetime though. But I guess I'm ready if it ever happens. But filling out some paperwork hasn't infringed one bit on my ability to own a gun.

---

Registration lists, for one thing,

Personally, I like CCW classes, but technically, yes requiring a license is infringement.

Btw, do you know one reason the NRA was founded, was to give freed slaves the means to defend themselves from the KKK?

---

Wouldn't a class be a basic requirement to be "well regulated"? For my career, I have to have a bachelor's degree, complete several hours of specialized industry-related courses after I got my bachelor's degree, complete a certain number of experience hours and complete a state-mandated exam before the state will say I'm "well regulated" to do my job, and no one's life is in danger with the tasks of my job. Granted, my job isn't a bill of rights issue, but I would think some basic gun ownership course and/or license would be needed to meet the "well regulated" requirement of the 2nd amendment.

That's great one of the reasons the NRA was founded was just. Btw, did you know Hitler did a lot of good things, like create the autobahn that gave thousands of German workers a job and other things that stabilized the German economy within his first 2 years as chancellor?

Having a conversation with someone who takes a hardline extreme edge stance:

Person 1: We need to have a long serious discussion about what colors are considered "Red".

Person 2: OK. Well what do you consider to be red?

P1: Red is defined as (255, 0, 0)

P2: OK. Yeah, when I look up the definition, that's what it says. What about some other colors? I mean, crimson I agree with you and we may have some common ground there. But if I see scarlet with nothing else next to it, I pretty much call that red.

P1: No, you're not listening. I've already told you - red is (255, 0, 0).

P2: Okaaaay. Well, what about (255, 0, 1)? I mean, it's not EXACTLY the same, but it's REALLY close. Wouldn't you still consider that to be red and we can work our way from there and figure out where we both stand?

P1: You obviously haven't been reading what I've been writing. Red is (255, 0, 0) and nothing else. And we need to have a serious conversation about it.

P2: Yeah. I'm out.

P1: Ha! Won another debate. But I still don't understand why people don't want to have a long serious conversation with me about what constitutes the color red.

"Wouldn't a class be a basic requirement to be "well regulated""

Nope. In the context of a militia, 'well-regulated would mean unhindered and economical access to weapons and ammunition, as well as the means to practice shooting.

Are you having some sort of episode? Should we call 911 for you?

Or are you just throwing out more fiction out about bad people with personal nukes?

"That's great one of the reasons the NRA was founded was just. Btw, did you know Hitler did a lot of good things, like create the autobahn that gave thousands of German workers a job and other things that stabilized the German economy within his first 2 years as chancellor?"

Did you just equate the NRA with Hitler?

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

contrario said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

redfish961 said:

---

To me, the big question is how do you mitigate these instances and can it realistically be done?

While I think gun regulation could be better, I don't see a ban on particular weapons being of much use. Better regulations would be preferred, in my opinion, rather than any ineffective ban.

Criminals are going to be criminals and they will find a way to circumvent any laws, which they don't care about anyways.

All that being said, as I have stated before, I think the answer is hardening the target. Perhaps figure out ways to enable defense of a school that would discourage an individual from selecting that target.

That's a hard nut to crack because costs and ability may be limited and probably will.

For every reason I can think of a solution, I can think of 2 that would decrease quality of life or take away freedoms.

Do we just consider this type of incident collateral damage or is there something that can truly be done about it?

I wish I could think of the answer, but I'm afraid heartbreak may just be part of the program.

I don't accept that notion.

---

The answer is simple and cost effective..... Arm the staff. Gun training is cheap. Getting Concealed licenses is cheap. Even safes to put in the offices for admin, secretary, etc. are cheap. Then post signs all over that the staff is armed. Even this shooter avoided other targets with more security/armed staff.

---

I don't know that it's quite that simple. Many teachers don't want to have that responsibility. As for cost, how much would insurance go up for school districts? How cheap would it be to train every teacher or even some teachers? How much to supply the guns or would the teachers have to do that themselves?

There are many school districts that probably really don't have the funds for this unless it was supported directly by the state but even then you have to have enough teachers interested in doing it as well as continued training. Would be interesting to know how many teachers would be interested. There might be many, I honestly don't know.

---

Yes it is that simple.

The ones that don't want it don't have to do it. I think the insurance claim is a bad argument. Do districts have to pay more in insurance for having police officers? They should not have to pay more for someone carrying out their Constitutional right. I think it is a bad argument to NOT even try something simply because of cost and a cost that should not go up IMO.

It is cheap to train even just 10% of the teachers/staff. Guns would be supplied by the teacher that wants to carry their gun with them.

There are already plenty of districts in TX that do this with the school marshall/guardian program.

It would be a lot cheaper than the standards the state (TEA) is discussing putting in place or the legislature that talk about covering glass in forced resistant film, fencing, etc. that are floating around and will likely get passed.

As for how many want to be armed I know a lot that would not mind being able to, even more that would be fine with other staff being armed and very few totally against it but all the "surveys" I have seen done on it seem to come from anti gun groups that just seem to happen to find the results of their survey that no one wants to do it.....

---

If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?

Insurance cost is a "bad argument"? A police officer goes through a lot of standardized and regulated training with firearms as opposed to someone simply "carrying out their Constitutional right." Yes, I think insurance companies would be more wary of someone who does not have the same level of training being responsible for having a firearm around children. I didn't say to not try something, I said your solution is likely not as easy as you make it out to be.

How much would training cost for 10% of the staff at an entire school? Not just and initial course, I mean continued training at multiple times a year, year after year? How much does that cost compare to a one time construction cost?

I know some teachers that would be fine with it, I know some that are adamantly opposed. So we both just have anecdotal evidence there. If so many are open to it, why don't we see surveys from pro-gun groups showing that?

As I said, I don't know the actual numbers and would be curious.

Either way, I think you have glossed over some complicating factors.

---

And yet look at the problems some people have with police...

Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right? What continued training do drivers have to do? And driving accidents kill far more than guns each year.

I haven't glossed over anything. Just highlighted that the arguments IMO are stupid. It is a guaranteed protected right and there should not have to be the things you mentioned.

NO OTHER right in the Constitution requires training to be able to do. This one should be no different.

Even if there is yearly training required the cost of that would be far less than many of the others the state is thinking about doing.

---

"Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right?"
Are you serious here? This is not even close to a real world response.

I will tell you the same thing I said to Wangchung - respond to the items listed in the article I supplied. "The arguments IMO are stupid" is not a compelling response to dealing with real world challenges.

---

NO I will not respond the way YOU want me to. I will respond the way I WANT.

Yes that is a real world argument.

List one other constitutional right that requires ANY sort of training. Just one.

And I did address EVERY point in the article. It said "may be required" to purchase. As in in theory they might have to purchase it- without checking costs.

I got a small fingerprint safe for $65. They are not expensive. Especially as a one time thing.

---

Why not get training? It's required for concealed carry in Tx.
What would it hurt?

---

The point is that it should not be a requirement to own or carry at all. It is a Constitutional right. No other right requires a person to get training and carry around a card that says they got training to use their right.

---

An ID and training is required to operate a motor vehicle and an ID is required to board an airplane. Both of these could go against Article IV, Section 2 of the constitution (commonly interpreted by the courts as the freedom of movement clause).

An ID is required to purchase alcohol (21st amendment issue)

Many states, if not all, require an ID for the press (1st amendment issue)

Many states, if not all, require a church to register to practice religion (1st amendment issue)

All states require a marriage license (14th amendment issue)

Many people are pushing for an ID to vote and many of the people doing that have no problem with a person carrying a lethal weapon without any ID or training (multiple issues in the constitution).

All of these are examples of a requirement that could possibly "infringe" on a right, based on your definition. I personally don't view any of these as an infringement, nor is requiring gun owners to register their guns and take training in certain situations.

And for the record, I have several guns and I have no problem whatsoever completing the required courses and/or paperwork to maintain my right to own and use those guns, if needed.

---

Driving- NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION

Age for purchase- NOT IN THERE

Id required for press????? No there isn't. Unless you are talking about ID to gain access to a certain spot.

Register to practice religion???? Again what are you talking about. They register for tax purposes. Not to ask permission to be a church.

Marriage- NOT IN THERE

Voting- no issue at all requiring an ID to vote because it does not say either way in the CONSTITUTION you have to have or don't.

None of what you listed is a right specifically listed in the Constitution.

---

AR-15s aren't in constitution either. What is in constitution is "Well Regulated Militia."

I don't think Nashville shooter was in a militia.

---

Arms are. Which covers pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc.

one does not have to be in a militia to use their right to bear arms.

---

Let's agree on the right to bear arms. Why are some fighting so hard to not have regulations and some restrictions?

The regulated part? Court has already ruled you can't own machine guns. And wouldn't a grenade be effective against a home invasion?

I'd set one up on my ring camera when I'm away and put it on auto drop.

Arms, *****es!

What's unreasonable about background check or concealed permit or limit of limit on clip size?

Trans people are marginalized and their voices are silent!!

LOVE WINS!

Another angle of the assault on me today. Police did nothing.

The investigating officer says I instigated, and she told me it was a mutual fight. pic.twitter.com/rCQZyntjSY

— Billboard Chris 🇨🇦🇺🇸 (@BillboardChris) April 1, 2023

Jack Bauer said:

---

Trans people are marginalized and their voices are silent!!

LOVE WINS!

Another angle of the assault on me today. Police did nothing.

The investigating officer says I instigated, and she told me it was a mutual fight. pic.twitter.com/rCQZyntjSY

— Billboard Chris 🇨🇦🇺🇸 (@BillboardChris) April 1, 2023

---

Jethrine was very, very angry. But when in a better mood can probably sing a nice baritone in the town chorus.

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

contrario said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

redfish961 said:

---

To me, the big question is how do you mitigate these instances and can it realistically be done?

While I think gun regulation could be better, I don't see a ban on particular weapons being of much use. Better regulations would be preferred, in my opinion, rather than any ineffective ban.

Criminals are going to be criminals and they will find a way to circumvent any laws, which they don't care about anyways.

All that being said, as I have stated before, I think the answer is hardening the target. Perhaps figure out ways to enable defense of a school that would discourage an individual from selecting that target.

That's a hard nut to crack because costs and ability may be limited and probably will.

For every reason I can think of a solution, I can think of 2 that would decrease quality of life or take away freedoms.

Do we just consider this type of incident collateral damage or is there something that can truly be done about it?

I wish I could think of the answer, but I'm afraid heartbreak may just be part of the program.

I don't accept that notion.

---

The answer is simple and cost effective..... Arm the staff. Gun training is cheap. Getting Concealed licenses is cheap. Even safes to put in the offices for admin, secretary, etc. are cheap. Then post signs all over that the staff is armed. Even this shooter avoided other targets with more security/armed staff.

---

I don't know that it's quite that simple. Many teachers don't want to have that responsibility. As for cost, how much would insurance go up for school districts? How cheap would it be to train every teacher or even some teachers? How much to supply the guns or would the teachers have to do that themselves?

There are many school districts that probably really don't have the funds for this unless it was supported directly by the state but even then you have to have enough teachers interested in doing it as well as continued training. Would be interesting to know how many teachers would be interested. There might be many, I honestly don't know.

---

Yes it is that simple.

The ones that don't want it don't have to do it. I think the insurance claim is a bad argument. Do districts have to pay more in insurance for having police officers? They should not have to pay more for someone carrying out their Constitutional right. I think it is a bad argument to NOT even try something simply because of cost and a cost that should not go up IMO.

It is cheap to train even just 10% of the teachers/staff. Guns would be supplied by the teacher that wants to carry their gun with them.

There are already plenty of districts in TX that do this with the school marshall/guardian program.

It would be a lot cheaper than the standards the state (TEA) is discussing putting in place or the legislature that talk about covering glass in forced resistant film, fencing, etc. that are floating around and will likely get passed.

As for how many want to be armed I know a lot that would not mind being able to, even more that would be fine with other staff being armed and very few totally against it but all the "surveys" I have seen done on it seem to come from anti gun groups that just seem to happen to find the results of their survey that no one wants to do it.....

---

If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?

Insurance cost is a "bad argument"? A police officer goes through a lot of standardized and regulated training with firearms as opposed to someone simply "carrying out their Constitutional right." Yes, I think insurance companies would be more wary of someone who does not have the same level of training being responsible for having a firearm around children. I didn't say to not try something, I said your solution is likely not as easy as you make it out to be.

How much would training cost for 10% of the staff at an entire school? Not just and initial course, I mean continued training at multiple times a year, year after year? How much does that cost compare to a one time construction cost?

I know some teachers that would be fine with it, I know some that are adamantly opposed. So we both just have anecdotal evidence there. If so many are open to it, why don't we see surveys from pro-gun groups showing that?

As I said, I don't know the actual numbers and would be curious.

Either way, I think you have glossed over some complicating factors.

---

And yet look at the problems some people have with police...

Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right? What continued training do drivers have to do? And driving accidents kill far more than guns each year.

I haven't glossed over anything. Just highlighted that the arguments IMO are stupid. It is a guaranteed protected right and there should not have to be the things you mentioned.

NO OTHER right in the Constitution requires training to be able to do. This one should be no different.

Even if there is yearly training required the cost of that would be far less than many of the others the state is thinking about doing.

---

"Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right?"
Are you serious here? This is not even close to a real world response.

I will tell you the same thing I said to Wangchung - respond to the items listed in the article I supplied. "The arguments IMO are stupid" is not a compelling response to dealing with real world challenges.

---

NO I will not respond the way YOU want me to. I will respond the way I WANT.

Yes that is a real world argument.

List one other constitutional right that requires ANY sort of training. Just one.

And I did address EVERY point in the article. It said "may be required" to purchase. As in in theory they might have to purchase it- without checking costs.

I got a small fingerprint safe for $65. They are not expensive. Especially as a one time thing.

---

Why not get training? It's required for concealed carry in Tx.
What would it hurt?

---

The point is that it should not be a requirement to own or carry at all. It is a Constitutional right. No other right requires a person to get training and carry around a card that says they got training to use their right.

---

An ID and training is required to operate a motor vehicle and an ID is required to board an airplane. Both of these could go against Article IV, Section 2 of the constitution (commonly interpreted by the courts as the freedom of movement clause).

An ID is required to purchase alcohol (21st amendment issue)

Many states, if not all, require an ID for the press (1st amendment issue)

Many states, if not all, require a church to register to practice religion (1st amendment issue)

All states require a marriage license (14th amendment issue)

Many people are pushing for an ID to vote and many of the people doing that have no problem with a person carrying a lethal weapon without any ID or training (multiple issues in the constitution).

All of these are examples of a requirement that could possibly "infringe" on a right, based on your definition. I personally don't view any of these as an infringement, nor is requiring gun owners to register their guns and take training in certain situations.

And for the record, I have several guns and I have no problem whatsoever completing the required courses and/or paperwork to maintain my right to own and use those guns, if needed.

---

Driving- NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION

Age for purchase- NOT IN THERE

Id required for press????? No there isn't. Unless you are talking about ID to gain access to a certain spot.

Register to practice religion???? Again what are you talking about. They register for tax purposes. Not to ask permission to be a church.

Marriage- NOT IN THERE

Voting- no issue at all requiring an ID to vote because it does not say either way in the CONSTITUTION you have to have or don't.

None of what you listed is a right specifically listed in the Constitution.

---

AR-15s aren't in constitution either. What is in constitution is "Well Regulated Militia."

I don't think Nashville shooter was in a militia.

---

Arms are. Which covers pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc.

one does not have to be in a militia to use their right to bear arms.

---

Let's agree on the right to bear arms. Why are some fighting so hard to not have regulations and some restrictions?

The regulated part? Court has already ruled you can't own machine guns. And wouldn't a grenade be effective against a home invasion?

I'd set one up on my ring camera when I'm away and put it on auto drop.

Arms, *****es!

What's unreasonable about background check or concealed permit or limit of limit on clip size?

---

So people who cannot make the travel to such classes nor afford them don't get that right, huh? Seems like we should be able to charge people for the right to vote, or at least require land ownership or a GED...

Jack Bauer said:

---

Trans people are marginalized and their voices are silent!!

LOVE WINS!

Another angle of the assault on me today. Police did nothing.

The investigating officer says I instigated, and she told me it was a mutual fight. pic.twitter.com/rCQZyntjSY

— Billboard Chris 🇨🇦🇺🇸 (@BillboardChris) April 1, 2023

---

Jam your thumbs far enough into anyone's eyeballs and they'll never attack someone that way again, no matter what the police do to them afterwards.

Wangchung said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

contrario said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

redfish961 said:

---

To me, the big question is how do you mitigate these instances and can it realistically be done?

While I think gun regulation could be better, I don't see a ban on particular weapons being of much use. Better regulations would be preferred, in my opinion, rather than any ineffective ban.

Criminals are going to be criminals and they will find a way to circumvent any laws, which they don't care about anyways.

All that being said, as I have stated before, I think the answer is hardening the target. Perhaps figure out ways to enable defense of a school that would discourage an individual from selecting that target.

That's a hard nut to crack because costs and ability may be limited and probably will.

For every reason I can think of a solution, I can think of 2 that would decrease quality of life or take away freedoms.

Do we just consider this type of incident collateral damage or is there something that can truly be done about it?

I wish I could think of the answer, but I'm afraid heartbreak may just be part of the program.

I don't accept that notion.

---

The answer is simple and cost effective..... Arm the staff. Gun training is cheap. Getting Concealed licenses is cheap. Even safes to put in the offices for admin, secretary, etc. are cheap. Then post signs all over that the staff is armed. Even this shooter avoided other targets with more security/armed staff.

---

I don't know that it's quite that simple. Many teachers don't want to have that responsibility. As for cost, how much would insurance go up for school districts? How cheap would it be to train every teacher or even some teachers? How much to supply the guns or would the teachers have to do that themselves?

There are many school districts that probably really don't have the funds for this unless it was supported directly by the state but even then you have to have enough teachers interested in doing it as well as continued training. Would be interesting to know how many teachers would be interested. There might be many, I honestly don't know.

---

Yes it is that simple.

The ones that don't want it don't have to do it. I think the insurance claim is a bad argument. Do districts have to pay more in insurance for having police officers? They should not have to pay more for someone carrying out their Constitutional right. I think it is a bad argument to NOT even try something simply because of cost and a cost that should not go up IMO.

It is cheap to train even just 10% of the teachers/staff. Guns would be supplied by the teacher that wants to carry their gun with them.

There are already plenty of districts in TX that do this with the school marshall/guardian program.

It would be a lot cheaper than the standards the state (TEA) is discussing putting in place or the legislature that talk about covering glass in forced resistant film, fencing, etc. that are floating around and will likely get passed.

As for how many want to be armed I know a lot that would not mind being able to, even more that would be fine with other staff being armed and very few totally against it but all the "surveys" I have seen done on it seem to come from anti gun groups that just seem to happen to find the results of their survey that no one wants to do it.....

---

If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?

Insurance cost is a "bad argument"? A police officer goes through a lot of standardized and regulated training with firearms as opposed to someone simply "carrying out their Constitutional right." Yes, I think insurance companies would be more wary of someone who does not have the same level of training being responsible for having a firearm around children. I didn't say to not try something, I said your solution is likely not as easy as you make it out to be.

How much would training cost for 10% of the staff at an entire school? Not just and initial course, I mean continued training at multiple times a year, year after year? How much does that cost compare to a one time construction cost?

I know some teachers that would be fine with it, I know some that are adamantly opposed. So we both just have anecdotal evidence there. If so many are open to it, why don't we see surveys from pro-gun groups showing that?

As I said, I don't know the actual numbers and would be curious.

Either way, I think you have glossed over some complicating factors.

---

And yet look at the problems some people have with police...

Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right? What continued training do drivers have to do? And driving accidents kill far more than guns each year.

I haven't glossed over anything. Just highlighted that the arguments IMO are stupid. It is a guaranteed protected right and there should not have to be the things you mentioned.

NO OTHER right in the Constitution requires training to be able to do. This one should be no different.

Even if there is yearly training required the cost of that would be far less than many of the others the state is thinking about doing.

---

"Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right?"
Are you serious here? This is not even close to a real world response.

I will tell you the same thing I said to Wangchung - respond to the items listed in the article I supplied. "The arguments IMO are stupid" is not a compelling response to dealing with real world challenges.

---

NO I will not respond the way YOU want me to. I will respond the way I WANT.

Yes that is a real world argument.

List one other constitutional right that requires ANY sort of training. Just one.

And I did address EVERY point in the article. It said "may be required" to purchase. As in in theory they might have to purchase it- without checking costs.

I got a small fingerprint safe for $65. They are not expensive. Especially as a one time thing.

---

Why not get training? It's required for concealed carry in Tx.
What would it hurt?

---

The point is that it should not be a requirement to own or carry at all. It is a Constitutional right. No other right requires a person to get training and carry around a card that says they got training to use their right.

---

An ID and training is required to operate a motor vehicle and an ID is required to board an airplane. Both of these could go against Article IV, Section 2 of the constitution (commonly interpreted by the courts as the freedom of movement clause).

An ID is required to purchase alcohol (21st amendment issue)

Many states, if not all, require an ID for the press (1st amendment issue)

Many states, if not all, require a church to register to practice religion (1st amendment issue)

All states require a marriage license (14th amendment issue)

Many people are pushing for an ID to vote and many of the people doing that have no problem with a person carrying a lethal weapon without any ID or training (multiple issues in the constitution).

All of these are examples of a requirement that could possibly "infringe" on a right, based on your definition. I personally don't view any of these as an infringement, nor is requiring gun owners to register their guns and take training in certain situations.

And for the record, I have several guns and I have no problem whatsoever completing the required courses and/or paperwork to maintain my right to own and use those guns, if needed.

---

Driving- NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION

Age for purchase- NOT IN THERE

Id required for press????? No there isn't. Unless you are talking about ID to gain access to a certain spot.

Register to practice religion???? Again what are you talking about. They register for tax purposes. Not to ask permission to be a church.

Marriage- NOT IN THERE

Voting- no issue at all requiring an ID to vote because it does not say either way in the CONSTITUTION you have to have or don't.

None of what you listed is a right specifically listed in the Constitution.

---

AR-15s aren't in constitution either. What is in constitution is "Well Regulated Militia."

I don't think Nashville shooter was in a militia.

---

Arms are. Which covers pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc.

one does not have to be in a militia to use their right to bear arms.

---

Let's agree on the right to bear arms. Why are some fighting so hard to not have regulations and some restrictions?

The regulated part? Court has already ruled you can't own machine guns. And wouldn't a grenade be effective against a home invasion?

I'd set one up on my ring camera when I'm away and put it on auto drop.

Arms, *****es!

What's unreasonable about background check or concealed permit or limit of limit on clip size?

---

So people who cannot make the travel to such classes nor afford them don't get that right, huh? Seems like we should be able to charge people for the right to vote, or at least require land ownership or a GED...

---

Which rights are ok to restrict? Seems at least the voting standard should apply.

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

contrario said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

redfish961 said:

---

To me, the big question is how do you mitigate these instances and can it realistically be done?

While I think gun regulation could be better, I don't see a ban on particular weapons being of much use. Better regulations would be preferred, in my opinion, rather than any ineffective ban.

Criminals are going to be criminals and they will find a way to circumvent any laws, which they don't care about anyways.

All that being said, as I have stated before, I think the answer is hardening the target. Perhaps figure out ways to enable defense of a school that would discourage an individual from selecting that target.

That's a hard nut to crack because costs and ability may be limited and probably will.

For every reason I can think of a solution, I can think of 2 that would decrease quality of life or take away freedoms.

Do we just consider this type of incident collateral damage or is there something that can truly be done about it?

I wish I could think of the answer, but I'm afraid heartbreak may just be part of the program.

I don't accept that notion.

---

The answer is simple and cost effective..... Arm the staff. Gun training is cheap. Getting Concealed licenses is cheap. Even safes to put in the offices for admin, secretary, etc. are cheap. Then post signs all over that the staff is armed. Even this shooter avoided other targets with more security/armed staff.

---

I don't know that it's quite that simple. Many teachers don't want to have that responsibility. As for cost, how much would insurance go up for school districts? How cheap would it be to train every teacher or even some teachers? How much to supply the guns or would the teachers have to do that themselves?

There are many school districts that probably really don't have the funds for this unless it was supported directly by the state but even then you have to have enough teachers interested in doing it as well as continued training. Would be interesting to know how many teachers would be interested. There might be many, I honestly don't know.

---

Yes it is that simple.

The ones that don't want it don't have to do it. I think the insurance claim is a bad argument. Do districts have to pay more in insurance for having police officers? They should not have to pay more for someone carrying out their Constitutional right. I think it is a bad argument to NOT even try something simply because of cost and a cost that should not go up IMO.

It is cheap to train even just 10% of the teachers/staff. Guns would be supplied by the teacher that wants to carry their gun with them.

There are already plenty of districts in TX that do this with the school marshall/guardian program.

It would be a lot cheaper than the standards the state (TEA) is discussing putting in place or the legislature that talk about covering glass in forced resistant film, fencing, etc. that are floating around and will likely get passed.

As for how many want to be armed I know a lot that would not mind being able to, even more that would be fine with other staff being armed and very few totally against it but all the "surveys" I have seen done on it seem to come from anti gun groups that just seem to happen to find the results of their survey that no one wants to do it.....

---

If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?

Insurance cost is a "bad argument"? A police officer goes through a lot of standardized and regulated training with firearms as opposed to someone simply "carrying out their Constitutional right." Yes, I think insurance companies would be more wary of someone who does not have the same level of training being responsible for having a firearm around children. I didn't say to not try something, I said your solution is likely not as easy as you make it out to be.

How much would training cost for 10% of the staff at an entire school? Not just and initial course, I mean continued training at multiple times a year, year after year? How much does that cost compare to a one time construction cost?

I know some teachers that would be fine with it, I know some that are adamantly opposed. So we both just have anecdotal evidence there. If so many are open to it, why don't we see surveys from pro-gun groups showing that?

As I said, I don't know the actual numbers and would be curious.

Either way, I think you have glossed over some complicating factors.

---

And yet look at the problems some people have with police...

Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right? What continued training do drivers have to do? And driving accidents kill far more than guns each year.

I haven't glossed over anything. Just highlighted that the arguments IMO are stupid. It is a guaranteed protected right and there should not have to be the things you mentioned.

NO OTHER right in the Constitution requires training to be able to do. This one should be no different.

Even if there is yearly training required the cost of that would be far less than many of the others the state is thinking about doing.

---

"Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right?"
Are you serious here? This is not even close to a real world response.

I will tell you the same thing I said to Wangchung - respond to the items listed in the article I supplied. "The arguments IMO are stupid" is not a compelling response to dealing with real world challenges.

---

NO I will not respond the way YOU want me to. I will respond the way I WANT.

Yes that is a real world argument.

List one other constitutional right that requires ANY sort of training. Just one.

And I did address EVERY point in the article. It said "may be required" to purchase. As in in theory they might have to purchase it- without checking costs.

I got a small fingerprint safe for $65. They are not expensive. Especially as a one time thing.

---

Why not get training? It's required for concealed carry in Tx.
What would it hurt?

---

The point is that it should not be a requirement to own or carry at all. It is a Constitutional right. No other right requires a person to get training and carry around a card that says they got training to use their right.

---

An ID and training is required to operate a motor vehicle and an ID is required to board an airplane. Both of these could go against Article IV, Section 2 of the constitution (commonly interpreted by the courts as the freedom of movement clause).

An ID is required to purchase alcohol (21st amendment issue)

Many states, if not all, require an ID for the press (1st amendment issue)

Many states, if not all, require a church to register to practice religion (1st amendment issue)

All states require a marriage license (14th amendment issue)

Many people are pushing for an ID to vote and many of the people doing that have no problem with a person carrying a lethal weapon without any ID or training (multiple issues in the constitution).

All of these are examples of a requirement that could possibly "infringe" on a right, based on your definition. I personally don't view any of these as an infringement, nor is requiring gun owners to register their guns and take training in certain situations.

And for the record, I have several guns and I have no problem whatsoever completing the required courses and/or paperwork to maintain my right to own and use those guns, if needed.

---

Driving- NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION

Age for purchase- NOT IN THERE

Id required for press????? No there isn't. Unless you are talking about ID to gain access to a certain spot.

Register to practice religion???? Again what are you talking about. They register for tax purposes. Not to ask permission to be a church.

Marriage- NOT IN THERE

Voting- no issue at all requiring an ID to vote because it does not say either way in the CONSTITUTION you have to have or don't.

None of what you listed is a right specifically listed in the Constitution.

---

AR-15s aren't in constitution either. What is in constitution is "Well Regulated Militia."

I don't think Nashville shooter was in a militia.

---

Arms are. Which covers pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc.

one does not have to be in a militia to use their right to bear arms.

---

Let's agree on the right to bear arms. Why are some fighting so hard to not have regulations and some restrictions?

The regulated part? Court has already ruled you can't own machine guns. And wouldn't a grenade be effective against a home invasion?

I'd set one up on my ring camera when I'm away and put it on auto drop.

Arms, *****es!

What's unreasonable about background check or concealed permit or limit of limit on clip size?

---

So people who cannot make the travel to such classes nor afford them don't get that right, huh? Seems like we should be able to charge people for the right to vote, or at least require land ownership or a GED...

---

Which rights are ok to restrict? Seems at least the voting standard should apply.

---

Apparently all rights should cost money in order for the citizen born with those inherent rights endowed by our creator to be able to exercise said rights.

Man this story of the trans disappeared fast

After a mass shooter killed six people Monday at Covenant School, a small Christian academy, the community faced a controversial question: What’s the Christian thing to do about guns? https://t.co/jRcdsROOoP

— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) April 2, 2023

contrario said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

contrario said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

redfish961 said:

---

To me, the big question is how do you mitigate these instances and can it realistically be done?

While I think gun regulation could be better, I don't see a ban on particular weapons being of much use. Better regulations would be preferred, in my opinion, rather than any ineffective ban.

Criminals are going to be criminals and they will find a way to circumvent any laws, which they don't care about anyways.

All that being said, as I have stated before, I think the answer is hardening the target. Perhaps figure out ways to enable defense of a school that would discourage an individual from selecting that target.

That's a hard nut to crack because costs and ability may be limited and probably will.

For every reason I can think of a solution, I can think of 2 that would decrease quality of life or take away freedoms.

Do we just consider this type of incident collateral damage or is there something that can truly be done about it?

I wish I could think of the answer, but I'm afraid heartbreak may just be part of the program.

I don't accept that notion.

---

The answer is simple and cost effective..... Arm the staff. Gun training is cheap. Getting Concealed licenses is cheap. Even safes to put in the offices for admin, secretary, etc. are cheap. Then post signs all over that the staff is armed. Even this shooter avoided other targets with more security/armed staff.

---

I don't know that it's quite that simple. Many teachers don't want to have that responsibility. As for cost, how much would insurance go up for school districts? How cheap would it be to train every teacher or even some teachers? How much to supply the guns or would the teachers have to do that themselves?

There are many school districts that probably really don't have the funds for this unless it was supported directly by the state but even then you have to have enough teachers interested in doing it as well as continued training. Would be interesting to know how many teachers would be interested. There might be many, I honestly don't know.

---

Yes it is that simple.

The ones that don't want it don't have to do it. I think the insurance claim is a bad argument. Do districts have to pay more in insurance for having police officers? They should not have to pay more for someone carrying out their Constitutional right. I think it is a bad argument to NOT even try something simply because of cost and a cost that should not go up IMO.

It is cheap to train even just 10% of the teachers/staff. Guns would be supplied by the teacher that wants to carry their gun with them.

There are already plenty of districts in TX that do this with the school marshall/guardian program.

It would be a lot cheaper than the standards the state (TEA) is discussing putting in place or the legislature that talk about covering glass in forced resistant film, fencing, etc. that are floating around and will likely get passed.

As for how many want to be armed I know a lot that would not mind being able to, even more that would be fine with other staff being armed and very few totally against it but all the "surveys" I have seen done on it seem to come from anti gun groups that just seem to happen to find the results of their survey that no one wants to do it.....

---

If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?

Insurance cost is a "bad argument"? A police officer goes through a lot of standardized and regulated training with firearms as opposed to someone simply "carrying out their Constitutional right." Yes, I think insurance companies would be more wary of someone who does not have the same level of training being responsible for having a firearm around children. I didn't say to not try something, I said your solution is likely not as easy as you make it out to be.

How much would training cost for 10% of the staff at an entire school? Not just and initial course, I mean continued training at multiple times a year, year after year? How much does that cost compare to a one time construction cost?

I know some teachers that would be fine with it, I know some that are adamantly opposed. So we both just have anecdotal evidence there. If so many are open to it, why don't we see surveys from pro-gun groups showing that?

As I said, I don't know the actual numbers and would be curious.

Either way, I think you have glossed over some complicating factors.

---

And yet look at the problems some people have with police...

Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right? What continued training do drivers have to do? And driving accidents kill far more than guns each year.

I haven't glossed over anything. Just highlighted that the arguments IMO are stupid. It is a guaranteed protected right and there should not have to be the things you mentioned.

NO OTHER right in the Constitution requires training to be able to do. This one should be no different.

Even if there is yearly training required the cost of that would be far less than many of the others the state is thinking about doing.

---

"Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right?"
Are you serious here? This is not even close to a real world response.

I will tell you the same thing I said to Wangchung - respond to the items listed in the article I supplied. "The arguments IMO are stupid" is not a compelling response to dealing with real world challenges.

---

NO I will not respond the way YOU want me to. I will respond the way I WANT.

Yes that is a real world argument.

List one other constitutional right that requires ANY sort of training. Just one.

And I did address EVERY point in the article. It said "may be required" to purchase. As in in theory they might have to purchase it- without checking costs.

I got a small fingerprint safe for $65. They are not expensive. Especially as a one time thing.

---

Why not get training? It's required for concealed carry in Tx.
What would it hurt?

---

The point is that it should not be a requirement to own or carry at all. It is a Constitutional right. No other right requires a person to get training and carry around a card that says they got training to use their right.

---

An ID and training is required to operate a motor vehicle and an ID is required to board an airplane. Both of these could go against Article IV, Section 2 of the constitution (commonly interpreted by the courts as the freedom of movement clause).

An ID is required to purchase alcohol (21st amendment issue)

Many states, if not all, require an ID for the press (1st amendment issue)

Many states, if not all, require a church to register to practice religion (1st amendment issue)

All states require a marriage license (14th amendment issue)

Many people are pushing for an ID to vote and many of the people doing that have no problem with a person carrying a lethal weapon without any ID or training (multiple issues in the constitution).

All of these are examples of a requirement that could possibly "infringe" on a right, based on your definition. I personally don't view any of these as an infringement, nor is requiring gun owners to register their guns and take training in certain situations.

And for the record, I have several guns and I have no problem whatsoever completing the required courses and/or paperwork to maintain my right to own and use those guns, if needed.

---

Driving- NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION

Age for purchase- NOT IN THERE

Id required for press????? No there isn't. Unless you are talking about ID to gain access to a certain spot.

Register to practice religion???? Again what are you talking about. They register for tax purposes. Not to ask permission to be a church.

Marriage- NOT IN THERE

Voting- no issue at all requiring an ID to vote because it does not say either way in the CONSTITUTION you have to have or don't.

None of what you listed is a right specifically listed in the Constitution.

---

AR-15s aren't in constitution either. What is in constitution is "Well Regulated Militia."

I don't think Nashville shooter was in a militia.

---

Arms are. Which covers pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc.

one does not have to be in a militia to use their right to bear arms.

---

It also covers tanks, nuclear weapons, heat seeking missiles, and sharks with lasers on their heads. Clearly all things an average person should be entitled to have.

---

Those are not arms. Nice deflection.

contrario said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Dude, very definitely already answered. You are welcome to find any member of the Continental Congress who supported something different from what I showed.

But you would be the first, if you found even one of the Founding Fathers who supported Gun Control as practiced by the Left.

From Jefferson to Washington to Madison, on this point there was complete agreement.

---

Dude, then why was it worded that way? Why did they put militia and well regulated in there? Why didn't they just say "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"? You are harping so much on the difference between infringed and congress shall make no laws, and your reasoning is reasonable - the word choices were important. So if the word choices were so important, why include "well regulated militia" in there at all? It's there for a reason. And if it's there for a reason, why is it there? Is a mentally-unstable 26-year old ****** with no gun training entitled to have a gun just because of the 2nd amendment? How is a mentally-unstable ****** equivalent to a "well regulated militia"?


And it's ironic many people are debating this at all because in the forefather's mind, only white, male landowners should have the right to vote. And while some of you on the pro-gun side fit in this box, not all of you do.

---

Because a militia is made up of the people. So saying people and militia are essentially the same.