Is it Right to Club Bears?

[retina]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

There's a term to describe this sort of thing. Cluster something-or-other. This one is Texas-sized.

Why limit it to just Texas?

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by retina

Why limit it to just Texas?

"Texas-sized" is an idiomatic term meaning "very large of its kind." It is especially apropos in this case, since it happened in Texas.

[Xyzzy]

Uvalde shooting timeline exposes an ugly truth: The police have no legal duty to protect you

[retina]

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

Uvalde shooting timeline exposes an ugly truth: The police have no legal duty to protect you

Prevention is better then cure. And if the "cure" just stands around eating doughnuts then you need the prevention even more.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by retina

Prevention is better then cure. And if the "cure" just stands around eating doughnuts then you need the prevention even more.

During the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, the often stumble-tongued Mayor Richard J. Daley said, "The police are not here to create disorder, they're here to preserve disorder."

Why that teacher - after hearing a car crash and gunshots - went outside to get her cell phone and then propped a door open when she came back in, is beyond me. This is the sort of thing they put in low-budget horror movies, which have the audience howling "Noooo! Don't do that!" It's called the "idiot plot."

If that door had stayed locked as it was supposed to, the mass shooting might well have been prevented.

[slandrum]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

If that door had stayed locked as it was supposed to, the mass shooting might well have been prevented.

In a crisis situation people do stupid things. They aren't rational or composed. Don't blame the victims for making mistakes.

Blame the country for allowing the manufacture and sale of weapons of mass destruction to basically anyone that wants it.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by slandrum

In a crisis situation people do stupid things. They aren't rational or composed. Don't blame the victims for making mistakes.

Blame the country for allowing the manufacture and sale of weapons of mass destruction to basically anyone that wants it.

There was no crisis at the time the teacher propped the door open. And a "mistake" like propping open a school door that's supposed to be kept locked - especially when you have heard gunshots outside - words like "negligence" and "lawsuit" come to mind.

Calling firearms "weapons of mass destruction" is BS. Saying that allowing their manufacture and sale is the problem is BS. Guns have been made and sold in this country for a long time. But mass shootings, including school shootings, are only a recent development. And after every mass shooting, one immediate reaction is for people to buy more guns.

If you want to "blame the country," you might want to ask why that is. IMO this is driven by fear - fears promulgated and instilled by the NRA and its accomplices: You need guns to protect yourself from all those dangerous people. Especially Communists. In the wake of the latest massacre, Duh Gummint might be gonna restrict guns, so better buy more now. And the sheeple bleat, run out, and stock up.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

Calling firearms "weapons of mass destruction" is BS. Saying that allowing their manufacture and sale is the problem is BS. Guns have been made and sold in this country for a long time.

An AR-15 vs. a bolt action or breach loader is a weapon of more massive destruction. Same for a pump action shotgun. Having 20 or so magazines for a single gun also makes for much more massive destruction.
Sale of them to the general public is a problem. Remember that the concept of a firearm that was in the head of those that wrote the 2nd amendment did not include repeaters.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

An AR-15 vs. a bolt action or breach loader is a weapon of more massive destruction. Same for a pump action shotgun. Having 20 or so magazines for a single gun also makes for much more massive destruction.
Sale of them to the general public is a problem. Remember that the concept of a firearm that was in the head of those that wrote the 2nd amendment did not include repeaters.

The Virginia Tech shooter used two pistols to kill 32 people in less than ten minutes. And most homicides - and suicides - by firearms in the US are done with pistols.

But my point was, "weapons of mass destruction" are in a whole other league. Nuclear weapons. Large low- or high-explosive bombs. Heavy artillery. Chemical, radiological, or biological weapons. Instead of dozens or scores of dead, they could leave hundreds of dead, or thousands, or more. Or whole buildings or whole cities leveled, or large swathes uninhabitable for decades, if not centuries or millennia.

I would point out that the founders of this nation did allow the most powerful weapons of the day - cannon - to be privately owned. Merchant shippers had to be able to ward off pirates. Also, the Constitution gives Congress the power to "grant letters of marque and reprisal." That is, the power to hire "private contractors" (known as "privateers") to commit piracy against foreign enemies. Those private individuals had to use their own resources. This Constitutional provision is nominally still in effect. However, modern custom and treaty obligations being what they are, I do not imagine that Congress will be granting any "letters of marque and reprisal" in the foreseeable future.

IMO one of the reasons for the Second Amendment was that Colonial militias required members to supply their own weapons and ammunition. The founders of this country were very distrustful of standing armies. However, "the militia" as a decentralized, locally controlled force had seen its day well before the War with Mexico. Its modern successor is the National Guard. Guard members do not supply their own weapons. They are kept in armories.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

I would point out that the founders of this nation did allow the most powerful weapons of the day - cannon - to be privately owned. Merchant shippers had to be able to ward off pirates.

What is allowed for ship defense on the high seas is different than what the average farmer, trader, craftsman, smithy, etc. would have at hand. Please point to which part of the second amendment that shows how a ship is part of a well regulated militia. Also, by following your logic, I should be allowed to mount RPG's on my car if I live in a bad neighborhood.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

What is allowed for ship defense on the high seas is different than what the average farmer, trader, craftsman, smithy, etc. would have at hand. Please point to which part of the second amendment that shows how a ship is part of a well regulated militia. Also, by following your logic, I should be allowed to mount RPG's on my car if I live in a bad neighborhood.

"The right to keep and bear arms" is an individual right, not dependent on being in a militia. But what does it mean, "to keep and bear arms?" AFAICT, it means the right to own firearms for defense of life, liberty and property. Cannons aboard a merchant ship to ward off pirates, OK. Artillery for someone living far inland, harder to justify as a defensive weapon. However, see below.

It would be difficult to justify owning fully automatic weapons (machine guns) for such a purpose. It is, however, possible to own machine guns legally in the US. You have to jump through a lot of hoops, though.

Weapons firing projectiles which detonate explosive charges on impact (artillery, RPG's, LAWs, etc) and the projectiles themselves; also bombs, hand grenades, etc are generally disallowed as being "dangerous ordnance," WMD's etc.

There is one way I know to forfeit your right to keep and bear arms: a felony conviction. Of course, convicted felons get guns all the time. But if they're caught in possession of a firearm, they go to jail.

I can cite one story attesting to the fact that, in the early 19th Century, private citizens in the US were allowed to own cannons other than aboard ship. The story is How We Astonished The Rivermouthians by Thomas Bailey Aldrich. I'm sure you can find it online. It's a good story.