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.

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.

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.

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.

---

So you think the average man would abuse those arms?

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.

Wangchung said:

---

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.

---

So you think the average man would abuse those arms?

---

The average person wouldn't, so we should all be entitled to have them, right? After all, in order to stand off a well regulated army and maintain freedom, tanks, nuclear weapons, etc. would be necessary.

contrario said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Contrario: " I personally don't view"

And that's the key phrase.

And yet again, only the Second Amendment specifically has the phrase 'shall not be infringed'.

So I ask yet again, what does that phrase mean in that context, and why is it specifically written that way?

---

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law." This is a distinction without a difference.

---

So you think the Founders were, what , riffing when they chose the language they did?


I do not.

All those volumes of The Federalist, for example, show there was a great deal of debate about these words.

So once again, why was that specific phrase included in the Second Amendment?

---

They could have used "Congress shall make no law,,, abridging the right to bear arms," as they did with speech, and it wouldn't have a different meaning. If you think it would, please explain how you would draw a legal distinction between "Congress shall make no law, abridging the right to bear arms" and" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

---

So you won't answer the question.

That's part of my point, actually.

We all know why that phrase was included.

The first battle of the Revolutionary War was to keep British (i.e. government) troops from seizing a privately-owned cannon.

The references in the Constitution to 'Letters of Marque' demonstrate that the founders not only understood that there were private individuals with their own warships, but set up rules on how to contract with such individuals to assist the US government when needed. The implication is that, yes, if you could make your own warship, your own tank, your own armed aircraft, if you could be responsible in your actions the founders had no worries about you.

There are a great many essays and quotes on the mind of our founders regarding weapons, and they are strongly consistent.

The Founders plainly refused to let the government decide what weapons the citizens could have for their use.

Every law restricting guns, ammunition by number, size or type is a slap in the face of the Founders of our country.

Right about now, some here will be hyperventilating over mass shootings, terrorism and every other phobia they have rolling around in their skulls. Some will claim my observation somehow excuses every crime committed with a weapon.

Our nation's founders had no trouble recognizing the inherent right of citizens to keep and use arms, while at the same time holding people accountable for their actions. During the Whiskey Rebellion, for example, the government under Washington arrested rioters who rose up against the government and seized the weapons they used, while notably not restricting the use and ownership of weapons by people not involved in the uprising.

We have plainly seen that gun laws do not work. Those damnable 'gun free zones' at schools, for example, only disarm innocent people who could otherwise defend themselves, and allow murderers to plan where they alone would be armed. Rules on magazine sizes, on how scary a gun can be and still be legal, or whether a person has to prove to the government's pleasure that they meet the definition of "need" are all useless in protecting innocent people, and serve only a tyrant's goals.

We need a long, serious discussion on guns, starting with the fact that the American right to a gun is - beyond argument - absolute unless that person has demonstrated by their actions that they are a threat, and if so, it is their specific actions which bring the consequence of arrest and incarceration, not the gun.

---

Let me explain: The use of the term "shall not be infringed" is neither unique nor noteworthy when comparing the right to bear arms with other rights outlined in the Bill of Rights.

I don't know why the used that phrase instead of any other similar language and it really doesn't matter.

---

"It's not unique despite it being the only time the phrase is used!" Wouldn't that be the definition of unique? Sounds like you just don't WANT it to be significant.

---

I can see your point since the wording was chosen for a reason. Do you think there is a reason "A well regulated Militia" was included in the wording of the 2nd amendment? And what does "well regulated" mean?

If their intent was for every person to have the right to bear arms, wouldn't they have just said, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."? If we are going to focus on the uniqueness of the word infringed, shouldn't we focus also on the uniqueness of the rest of the sentence?

---

"Well regulated" means they can hit what they aim at.

contrario said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

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.

---

So you think the average man would abuse those arms?

---

The average person wouldn't, so we should all be entitled to have them, right?

---

YES! Why shouldn't we?

D. C. Bear said:

---

contrario said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Contrario: " I personally don't view"

And that's the key phrase.

And yet again, only the Second Amendment specifically has the phrase 'shall not be infringed'.

So I ask yet again, what does that phrase mean in that context, and why is it specifically written that way?

---

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law." This is a distinction without a difference.

---

So you think the Founders were, what , riffing when they chose the language they did?


I do not.

All those volumes of The Federalist, for example, show there was a great deal of debate about these words.

So once again, why was that specific phrase included in the Second Amendment?

---

They could have used "Congress shall make no law,,, abridging the right to bear arms," as they did with speech, and it wouldn't have a different meaning. If you think it would, please explain how you would draw a legal distinction between "Congress shall make no law, abridging the right to bear arms" and" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

---

So you won't answer the question.

That's part of my point, actually.

We all know why that phrase was included.

The first battle of the Revolutionary War was to keep British (i.e. government) troops from seizing a privately-owned cannon.

The references in the Constitution to 'Letters of Marque' demonstrate that the founders not only understood that there were private individuals with their own warships, but set up rules on how to contract with such individuals to assist the US government when needed. The implication is that, yes, if you could make your own warship, your own tank, your own armed aircraft, if you could be responsible in your actions the founders had no worries about you.

There are a great many essays and quotes on the mind of our founders regarding weapons, and they are strongly consistent.

The Founders plainly refused to let the government decide what weapons the citizens could have for their use.

Every law restricting guns, ammunition by number, size or type is a slap in the face of the Founders of our country.

Right about now, some here will be hyperventilating over mass shootings, terrorism and every other phobia they have rolling around in their skulls. Some will claim my observation somehow excuses every crime committed with a weapon.

Our nation's founders had no trouble recognizing the inherent right of citizens to keep and use arms, while at the same time holding people accountable for their actions. During the Whiskey Rebellion, for example, the government under Washington arrested rioters who rose up against the government and seized the weapons they used, while notably not restricting the use and ownership of weapons by people not involved in the uprising.

We have plainly seen that gun laws do not work. Those damnable 'gun free zones' at schools, for example, only disarm innocent people who could otherwise defend themselves, and allow murderers to plan where they alone would be armed. Rules on magazine sizes, on how scary a gun can be and still be legal, or whether a person has to prove to the government's pleasure that they meet the definition of "need" are all useless in protecting innocent people, and serve only a tyrant's goals.

We need a long, serious discussion on guns, starting with the fact that the American right to a gun is - beyond argument - absolute unless that person has demonstrated by their actions that they are a threat, and if so, it is their specific actions which bring the consequence of arrest and incarceration, not the gun.

---

Let me explain: The use of the term "shall not be infringed" is neither unique nor noteworthy when comparing the right to bear arms with other rights outlined in the Bill of Rights.

I don't know why the used that phrase instead of any other similar language and it really doesn't matter.

---

"It's not unique despite it being the only time the phrase is used!" Wouldn't that be the definition of unique? Sounds like you just don't WANT it to be significant.

---

I can see your point since the wording was chosen for a reason. Do you think there is a reason "A well regulated Militia" was included in the wording of the 2nd amendment? And what does "well regulated" mean?

If their intent was for every person to have the right to bear arms, wouldn't they have just said, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."? If we are going to focus on the uniqueness of the word infringed, shouldn't we focus also on the uniqueness of the rest of the sentence?

---

"Well regulated" means they can hit what they
aim at.

---

Well regulated means the arms are in good working order. The intent was always to have protection from
the government's reach, not permission.

Wangchung said:

---

contrario said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

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.

---

So you think the average man would abuse those arms?

---

The average person wouldn't, so we should all be entitled to have them, right?

---

YES! Why shouldn't we?

---

Personally, I have no experience with maintaining and detonating a nuclear bomb. But by your definition, I'm entitled to it purely because of the last part of the 2nd amendment. But how does my lack of knowledge with respect to nuclear bombs fall under any definition of a "well regulated militia"? If "well regulated" means working properly, like a swiss time piece, how is a buffoon with a keyboard "well regulated" by any definition?

Wangchung said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

contrario said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Contrario: " I personally don't view"

And that's the key phrase.

And yet again, only the Second Amendment specifically has the phrase 'shall not be infringed'.

So I ask yet again, what does that phrase mean in that context, and why is it specifically written that way?

---

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law." This is a distinction without a difference.

---

So you think the Founders were, what , riffing when they chose the language they did?


I do not.

All those volumes of The Federalist, for example, show there was a great deal of debate about these words.

So once again, why was that specific phrase included in the Second Amendment?

---

They could have used "Congress shall make no law,,, abridging the right to bear arms," as they did with speech, and it wouldn't have a different meaning. If you think it would, please explain how you would draw a legal distinction between "Congress shall make no law, abridging the right to bear arms" and" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

---

So you won't answer the question.

That's part of my point, actually.

We all know why that phrase was included.

The first battle of the Revolutionary War was to keep British (i.e. government) troops from seizing a privately-owned cannon.

The references in the Constitution to 'Letters of Marque' demonstrate that the founders not only understood that there were private individuals with their own warships, but set up rules on how to contract with such individuals to assist the US government when needed. The implication is that, yes, if you could make your own warship, your own tank, your own armed aircraft, if you could be responsible in your actions the founders had no worries about you.

There are a great many essays and quotes on the mind of our founders regarding weapons, and they are strongly consistent.

The Founders plainly refused to let the government decide what weapons the citizens could have for their use.

Every law restricting guns, ammunition by number, size or type is a slap in the face of the Founders of our country.

Right about now, some here will be hyperventilating over mass shootings, terrorism and every other phobia they have rolling around in their skulls. Some will claim my observation somehow excuses every crime committed with a weapon.

Our nation's founders had no trouble recognizing the inherent right of citizens to keep and use arms, while at the same time holding people accountable for their actions. During the Whiskey Rebellion, for example, the government under Washington arrested rioters who rose up against the government and seized the weapons they used, while notably not restricting the use and ownership of weapons by people not involved in the uprising.

We have plainly seen that gun laws do not work. Those damnable 'gun free zones' at schools, for example, only disarm innocent people who could otherwise defend themselves, and allow murderers to plan where they alone would be armed. Rules on magazine sizes, on how scary a gun can be and still be legal, or whether a person has to prove to the government's pleasure that they meet the definition of "need" are all useless in protecting innocent people, and serve only a tyrant's goals.

We need a long, serious discussion on guns, starting with the fact that the American right to a gun is - beyond argument - absolute unless that person has demonstrated by their actions that they are a threat, and if so, it is their specific actions which bring the consequence of arrest and incarceration, not the gun.

---

Let me explain: The use of the term "shall not be infringed" is neither unique nor noteworthy when comparing the right to bear arms with other rights outlined in the Bill of Rights.

I don't know why the used that phrase instead of any other similar language and it really doesn't matter.

---

"It's not unique despite it being the only time the phrase is used!" Wouldn't that be the definition of unique? Sounds like you just don't WANT it to be significant.

---

I can see your point since the wording was chosen for a reason. Do you think there is a reason "A well regulated Militia" was included in the wording of the 2nd amendment? And what does "well regulated" mean?

If their intent was for every person to have the right to bear arms, wouldn't they have just said, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."? If we are going to focus on the uniqueness of the word infringed, shouldn't we focus also on the uniqueness of the rest of the sentence?

---

"Well regulated" means they can hit what they
aim at.

---

Well regulated means the arms are in good working order. The intent was always to have protection from
the government's reach, not permission.

---

So "well regulated militia" means the arms are in good working order to you? Really? A militia is a body of people by almost any definition I have ever found.

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?

"Dude, then why was it worded that way? "

Since you did not bother to read the quotes I left, I will 'splain them to you.

We started the fighting when British (government) troops tried to seize a privately-owned cannon at Lexington & Concord. By the end of the revolution, the Founders of our nation were damn well determined that the government should be at the mercy of the citizens, not the other way around.

The Founders put the Bill of Rights in the Constitution because they realized they needed to be clear about boundaries, things government had no business doing.

As I noted earlier, the text of the Constitution includes things like Letters of Marque, whereby the government could contract with people who had privately-owned warships, for service to United States.

That is a prima facia proof that the government intended individuals to have such weapons as they saw fit to buy, build and/or maintain.

But just to be clear, the Founders made clear that the people had a right to arms, every one of the citizens, and that right extended all the way to warfare should it be necessary, even to fighting against a government that sought to enslave the people.

Those quotes I left make that plain.

"Well-regulated", in the meaning of 1783, meant supplied and maintained, fit for duty. And literally every quote you can find from one of our Founders makes clear they wanted regular citizens to be armed, in order to limit and control the government.

If you want to deny this, you will need to find evidence that no gun-control advocate every found.

The best they can do is find court rulings where some judge gave in to the government and ignored the plain text of the Constitution. And before you start singing the praises of the courts, keep in mind these geniuses upheld Slavery for decades, then upheld Jim Crow for decades, upheld internment camps for US citizens in World War 2, have created 'rights' like Abortion which do not actually exist anywhere in the Constitution, and have supported things like the Patriot Act and eminent domain for profit rather than actual need.

The Constitution is plain in its text. Take it up with Washington and Madison if you want gun control.

contrario said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

contrario said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Contrario: " I personally don't view"

And that's the key phrase.

And yet again, only the Second Amendment specifically has the phrase 'shall not be infringed'.

So I ask yet again, what does that phrase mean in that context, and why is it specifically written that way?

---

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law." This is a distinction without a difference.

---

So you think the Founders were, what , riffing when they chose the language they did?


I do not.

All those volumes of The Federalist, for example, show there was a great deal of debate about these words.

So once again, why was that specific phrase included in the Second Amendment?

---

They could have used "Congress shall make no law,,, abridging the right to bear arms," as they did with speech, and it wouldn't have a different meaning. If you think it would, please explain how you would draw a legal distinction between "Congress shall make no law, abridging the right to bear arms" and" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

---

So you won't answer the question.

That's part of my point, actually.

We all know why that phrase was included.

The first battle of the Revolutionary War was to keep British (i.e. government) troops from seizing a privately-owned cannon.

The references in the Constitution to 'Letters of Marque' demonstrate that the founders not only understood that there were private individuals with their own warships, but set up rules on how to contract with such individuals to assist the US government when needed. The implication is that, yes, if you could make your own warship, your own tank, your own armed aircraft, if you could be responsible in your actions the founders had no worries about you.

There are a great many essays and quotes on the mind of our founders regarding weapons, and they are strongly consistent.

The Founders plainly refused to let the government decide what weapons the citizens could have for their use.

Every law restricting guns, ammunition by number, size or type is a slap in the face of the Founders of our country.

Right about now, some here will be hyperventilating over mass shootings, terrorism and every other phobia they have rolling around in their skulls. Some will claim my observation somehow excuses every crime committed with a weapon.

Our nation's founders had no trouble recognizing the inherent right of citizens to keep and use arms, while at the same time holding people accountable for their actions. During the Whiskey Rebellion, for example, the government under Washington arrested rioters who rose up against the government and seized the weapons they used, while notably not restricting the use and ownership of weapons by people not involved in the uprising.

We have plainly seen that gun laws do not work. Those damnable 'gun free zones' at schools, for example, only disarm innocent people who could otherwise defend themselves, and allow murderers to plan where they alone would be armed. Rules on magazine sizes, on how scary a gun can be and still be legal, or whether a person has to prove to the government's pleasure that they meet the definition of "need" are all useless in protecting innocent people, and serve only a tyrant's goals.

We need a long, serious discussion on guns, starting with the fact that the American right to a gun is - beyond argument - absolute unless that person has demonstrated by their actions that they are a threat, and if so, it is their specific actions which bring the consequence of arrest and incarceration, not the gun.

---

Let me explain: The use of the term "shall not be infringed" is neither unique nor noteworthy when comparing the right to bear arms with other rights outlined in the Bill of Rights.

I don't know why the used that phrase instead of any other similar language and it really doesn't matter.

---

"It's not unique despite it being the only time the phrase is used!" Wouldn't that be the definition of unique? Sounds like you just don't WANT it to be significant.

---

I can see your point since the wording was chosen for a reason. Do you think there is a reason "A well regulated Militia" was included in the wording of the 2nd amendment? And what does "well regulated" mean?

If their intent was for every person to have the right to bear arms, wouldn't they have just said, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."? If we are going to focus on the uniqueness of the word infringed, shouldn't we focus also on the uniqueness of the rest of the sentence?

---

"Well regulated" means they can hit what they
aim at.

---

Well regulated means the arms are in good working order. The intent was always to have protection from
the government's reach, not permission.

---

So "well regulated militia" means the arms are in good working order to you? Really?

---

No, that's not only what it meant what it was written, as then it was meant as part of maintaining a civilian defense from threats.

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?

contrario said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

contrario said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

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.

---

So you think the average man would abuse those arms?

---

The average person wouldn't, so we should all be entitled to have them, right?

---

YES! Why shouldn't we?

---

Personally, I have no experience with maintaining and detonating a nuclear bomb. But by your definition, I'm entitled to it purely because of the last part of the 2nd amendment. But how does my lack of knowledge with respect to nuclear bombs fall under any definition of a "well regulated militia"? If "well regulated" means working properly, like a swiss time piece, how is a buffoon with a keyboard "well regulated" by any definition?

---

I used to think differently about this, but since Joe Biden threatened Americans with nukes and F-15s, I think we should all have the right to own these now for our own protection.

contrario said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

contrario said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

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.

---

So you think the average man would abuse those arms?

---

The average person wouldn't, so we should all be entitled to have them, right?

---

YES! Why shouldn't we?

---

Personally, I have no experience with maintaining and detonating a nuclear bomb. But by your definition, I'm entitled to it purely because of the last part of the 2nd amendment. But how does my lack of knowledge with respect to nuclear bombs fall under any definition of a "well regulated militia"? If "well regulated" means working properly, like a swiss time piece, how is a buffoon with a keyboard "well regulated" by any definition?

---

So law abiding people are now reduced to buffoon with keyboards? Come on. The people who could afford a nuke wouldn't exactly be the lesser-thans in the intellectual world. Maybe their kids? Like a country filled with Kim families. What good is power if everyone is dead? So nukes are once again reduced to self-defense as a last resort arm. If you can afford a nuke, you can afford the nuclear physicists and teams to maintain it. Think of it like a yacht.

Oldbear83 said:

---

"Dude, then why was it worded that way? "

Since you did not bother to read the quotes I left, I will 'splain them to you.

We started the fighting when British (government) troops tried to seize a privately-owned cannon at Lexington & Concord. By the end of the revolution, the Founders of our nation were damn well determined that the government should be at the mercy of the citizens, not the other way around.

The Founders put the Bill of Rights in the Constitution because they realized they needed to be clear about boundaries, things government had no business doing.

As I noted earlier, the text of the Constitution includes things like Letters of Marque, whereby the government could contract with people who had privately-owned warships, for service to United States.

That is a prima facia proof that the government intended individuals to have such weapons as they saw fit to buy, build and/or maintain.

But just to be clear, the Founders made clear that the people had a right to arms, every one of the citizens, and that right extended all the way to warfare should it be necessary, even to fighting against a government that sought to enslave the people.

Those quotes I left make that plain.

"Well-regulated", in the meaning of 1783, meant supplied and maintained, fit for duty. And literally every quote you can find from one of our Founders makes clear they wanted regular citizens to be armed, in order to limit and control the government.

If you want to deny this, you will need to find evidence that no gun-control advocate every found.

The best they can do is find court rulings where some judge gave in to the government and ignored the plain text of the Constitution. And before you start singing the praises of the courts, keep in mind these geniuses upheld Slavery for decades, then upheld Jim Crow for decades, upheld internment camps for US citizens in World War 2, have created 'rights' like Abortion which do not actually exist anywhere in the Constitution, and have supported things like the Patriot Act and eminent domain for profit rather than actual need.

The Constitution is plain in its text. Take it up with Washington and Madison if you want gun control.

---

To be clear, in the infancy of the United States we were going up against one of the top militaries in the world. So yes, if a private citizen owned a warship and was willing to sacrifice their private property for the good of this new nation, the United States government would have gladly taken it. In other words, the US was desperate for anything to help them win. We live in a different world now and I think we would all be pretty terrified if the US was relying on Elon Musk's privately owned warship to fend off an invading army. But that's because we have a well regulated army in the US armed forces.

The words "well regulated militia" were included for a reason. If the intent wasn't with respect to some definition of militia, it wouldn't have been included, and well regulated wouldn't have been included if it wasn't expected for the "militia" to have some training to reach a level of "well regulation". We can argue over the definitions of those words and we can argue over what role the government has in enforcing laws for militias that aren't well regulated, but the fact is, the purpose of the 2nd amendment is related to the necessity of a well regulated militia to maintain freedom. It isn't up for debate. The 2nd amendment isn't a blanket statement that says anyone can own any type of arm they see fit. To make that blanket statement, one would have to ignore the first half of the 2nd amendment, which was included by the wise founders for a reason.

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 all of that adds up to:

"I don't want to have to say anything can be restricted because it might mess up my Shall Not Be Infringed argument, so I'm just going to argue that it would be really really hard to do so we shouldn't worry about that in this conversation (making it someone else's problem). But I'm not going to say they should be restricted from use by the common citizen."

Count still stands at three.

contrario said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Contrario: " I personally don't view"

And that's the key phrase.

And yet again, only the Second Amendment specifically has the phrase 'shall not be infringed'.

So I ask yet again, what does that phrase mean in that context, and why is it specifically written that way?

---

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law." This is a distinction without a difference.

---

So you think the Founders were, what , riffing when they chose the language they did?


I do not.

All those volumes of The Federalist, for example, show there was a great deal of debate about these words.

So once again, why was that specific phrase included in the Second Amendment?

---

They could have used "Congress shall make no law,,, abridging the right to bear arms," as they did with speech, and it wouldn't have a different meaning. If you think it would, please explain how you would draw a legal distinction between "Congress shall make no law, abridging the right to bear arms" and" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

---

So you won't answer the question.

That's part of my point, actually.

We all know why that phrase was included.

The first battle of the Revolutionary War was to keep British (i.e. government) troops from seizing a privately-owned cannon.

The references in the Constitution to 'Letters of Marque' demonstrate that the founders not only understood that there were private individuals with their own warships, but set up rules on how to contract with such individuals to assist the US government when needed. The implication is that, yes, if you could make your own warship, your own tank, your own armed aircraft, if you could be responsible in your actions the founders had no worries about you.

There are a great many essays and quotes on the mind of our founders regarding weapons, and they are strongly consistent.

The Founders plainly refused to let the government decide what weapons the citizens could have for their use.

Every law restricting guns, ammunition by number, size or type is a slap in the face of the Founders of our country.

Right about now, some here will be hyperventilating over mass shootings, terrorism and every other phobia they have rolling around in their skulls. Some will claim my observation somehow excuses every crime committed with a weapon.

Our nation's founders had no trouble recognizing the inherent right of citizens to keep and use arms, while at the same time holding people accountable for their actions. During the Whiskey Rebellion, for example, the government under Washington arrested rioters who rose up against the government and seized the weapons they used, while notably not restricting the use and ownership of weapons by people not involved in the uprising.

We have plainly seen that gun laws do not work. Those damnable 'gun free zones' at schools, for example, only disarm innocent people who could otherwise defend themselves, and allow murderers to plan where they alone would be armed. Rules on magazine sizes, on how scary a gun can be and still be legal, or whether a person has to prove to the government's pleasure that they meet the definition of "need" are all useless in protecting innocent people, and serve only a tyrant's goals.

We need a long, serious discussion on guns, starting with the fact that the American right to a gun is - beyond argument - absolute unless that person has demonstrated by their actions that they are a threat, and if so, it is their specific actions which bring the consequence of arrest and incarceration, not the gun.

---

Let me explain: The use of the term "shall not be infringed" is neither unique nor noteworthy when comparing the right to bear arms with other rights outlined in the Bill of Rights.

I don't know why the used that phrase instead of any other similar language and it really doesn't matter.

---

"It's not unique despite it being the only time the phrase is used!" Wouldn't that be the definition of unique? Sounds like you just don't WANT it to be significant.

---

I can see your point since the wording was chosen for a reason. Do you think there is a reason "A well regulated Militia" was included in the wording of the 2nd amendment? And what does "well regulated" mean?

If their intent was for every person to have the right to bear arms, wouldn't they have just said, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."? If we are going to focus on the uniqueness of the word infringed, shouldn't we focus also on the uniqueness of the rest of the sentence?

---

This is why History Classes matter in their course material Instead of fiction from SJW, we can and should learn what the Founders actually said and did.

Here are some relevant quotes on the matter of arms:

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…" George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790


"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"To disarm the people…s the most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

So what about the 'well-regulated militia"?

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

There is also this:

"The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

Quote:

---

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

---

Quote:

---

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

---

Quote:

---

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

---

Quote:

---

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

---

Quote:

---

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

---

Quote:

---

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

---

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it."

Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" (constitution.org)

In short, it means the opposite of what most gun control advocates pretend is the meaning.

---

We can provide quotes of individuals, but that doesn't provide the meaning of what was voted on, agreed to and enacted. Individual politicians frequently have a stance that is stronger than what was ultimately voted on and agreed to. Concessions are made in the wording of laws and most times the agreed to wording is much different than what the individual politicians would have preferred. So with that in mind, the words were chosen and put in the order they were after much back and forth and concessions from both sides of the argument. And ultimately, what was voted on and ratified by the states was the wording of the 2nd amendment, not what George Washington, Thomas Jefferson or others said on the topic.

So with that in mind, why was militia included? How was militia to be defined? And beyond that, there were probably many uses for the words "well regulated" and the pro-gun website you quoted that from certainly picked the quotes that best support their opinion, but even if we take their definition of "well regulated" at face value, how is a 17 year old with no training a well regulated militia? How is a 22 year old that has never owned a gun a well regulated militia? Someone holding a gun for the first time is not as proficient with the use of a gun as someone that has years of a experience. Someone with years of experience might fit the definition of well regulated you are talking about, but even someone with years of experience may not be well regulated when it comes to high pressure situations that the use of a gun is necessary. Just as a significant amount of work and time is required to make a clock well regulated, to become well regulated in anything, isn't a certain amount of knowledge, proficiency or experience necessary?

---

You are arguing with a guy who claims nuclear weapons are covered by the 2nd A

I have provided explanation, context and evidence.

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

Osodecentx said:

---

contrario said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Contrario: " I personally don't view"

And that's the key phrase.

And yet again, only the Second Amendment specifically has the phrase 'shall not be infringed'.

So I ask yet again, what does that phrase mean in that context, and why is it specifically written that way?

---

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law." This is a distinction without a difference.

---

So you think the Founders were, what , riffing when they chose the language they did?


I do not.

All those volumes of The Federalist, for example, show there was a great deal of debate about these words.

So once again, why was that specific phrase included in the Second Amendment?

---

They could have used "Congress shall make no law,,, abridging the right to bear arms," as they did with speech, and it wouldn't have a different meaning. If you think it would, please explain how you would draw a legal distinction between "Congress shall make no law, abridging the right to bear arms" and" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

---

So you won't answer the question.

That's part of my point, actually.

We all know why that phrase was included.

The first battle of the Revolutionary War was to keep British (i.e. government) troops from seizing a privately-owned cannon.

The references in the Constitution to 'Letters of Marque' demonstrate that the founders not only understood that there were private individuals with their own warships, but set up rules on how to contract with such individuals to assist the US government when needed. The implication is that, yes, if you could make your own warship, your own tank, your own armed aircraft, if you could be responsible in your actions the founders had no worries about you.

There are a great many essays and quotes on the mind of our founders regarding weapons, and they are strongly consistent.

The Founders plainly refused to let the government decide what weapons the citizens could have for their use.

Every law restricting guns, ammunition by number, size or type is a slap in the face of the Founders of our country.

Right about now, some here will be hyperventilating over mass shootings, terrorism and every other phobia they have rolling around in their skulls. Some will claim my observation somehow excuses every crime committed with a weapon.

Our nation's founders had no trouble recognizing the inherent right of citizens to keep and use arms, while at the same time holding people accountable for their actions. During the Whiskey Rebellion, for example, the government under Washington arrested rioters who rose up against the government and seized the weapons they used, while notably not restricting the use and ownership of weapons by people not involved in the uprising.

We have plainly seen that gun laws do not work. Those damnable 'gun free zones' at schools, for example, only disarm innocent people who could otherwise defend themselves, and allow murderers to plan where they alone would be armed. Rules on magazine sizes, on how scary a gun can be and still be legal, or whether a person has to prove to the government's pleasure that they meet the definition of "need" are all useless in protecting innocent people, and serve only a tyrant's goals.

We need a long, serious discussion on guns, starting with the fact that the American right to a gun is - beyond argument - absolute unless that person has demonstrated by their actions that they are a threat, and if so, it is their specific actions which bring the consequence of arrest and incarceration, not the gun.

---

Let me explain: The use of the term "shall not be infringed" is neither unique nor noteworthy when comparing the right to bear arms with other rights outlined in the Bill of Rights.

I don't know why the used that phrase instead of any other similar language and it really doesn't matter.

---

"It's not unique despite it being the only time the phrase is used!" Wouldn't that be the definition of unique? Sounds like you just don't WANT it to be significant.

---

I can see your point since the wording was chosen for a reason. Do you think there is a reason "A well regulated Militia" was included in the wording of the 2nd amendment? And what does "well regulated" mean?

If their intent was for every person to have the right to bear arms, wouldn't they have just said, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."? If we are going to focus on the uniqueness of the word infringed, shouldn't we focus also on the uniqueness of the rest of the sentence?

---

This is why History Classes matter in their course material Instead of fiction from SJW, we can and should learn what the Founders actually said and did.

Here are some relevant quotes on the matter of arms:

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…" George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790


"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"To disarm the people…s the most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

So what about the 'well-regulated militia"?

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

There is also this:

"The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

Quote:

---

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

---

Quote:

---

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

---

Quote:

---

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

---

Quote:

---

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

---

Quote:

---

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

---

Quote:

---

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

---

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it."

Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" (constitution.org)

In short, it means the opposite of what most gun control advocates pretend is the meaning.

---

We can provide quotes of individuals, but that doesn't provide the meaning of what was voted on, agreed to and enacted. Individual politicians frequently have a stance that is stronger than what was ultimately voted on and agreed to. Concessions are made in the wording of laws and most times the agreed to wording is much different than what the individual politicians would have preferred. So with that in mind, the words were chosen and put in the order they were after much back and forth and concessions from both sides of the argument. And ultimately, what was voted on and ratified by the states was the wording of the 2nd amendment, not what George Washington, Thomas Jefferson or others said on the topic.

So with that in mind, why was militia included? How was militia to be defined? And beyond that, there were probably many uses for the words "well regulated" and the pro-gun website you quoted that from certainly picked the quotes that best support their opinion, but even if we take their definition of "well regulated" at face value, how is a 17 year old with no training a well regulated militia? How is a 22 year old that has never owned a gun a well regulated militia? Someone holding a gun for the first time is not as proficient with the use of a gun as someone that has years of a experience. Someone with years of experience might fit the definition of well regulated you are talking about, but even someone with years of experience may not be well regulated when it comes to high pressure situations that the use of a gun is necessary. Just as a significant amount of work and time is required to make a clock well regulated, to become well regulated in anything, isn't a certain amount of knowledge, proficiency or experience necessary?

---

You are arguing with a guy who claims nuclear weapons are covered by the 2nd A

---

It must be so easy, when you can argue while ignoring what someone actually says ...

I think you made up your mind before you read even the first word of my post.

I also notice you have provided zero evidence for your position.

Seriously, given the track record of our government, and ours is much better than most, why would a sane man demand we take government at its word?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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."

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?

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.

Count stands at three.

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 ...

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.