Two firefighters dead after being shot while responding to house fire

Originally Posted by Xcelratr

LOL

I actually had that thought too. At close range, given the choice of a full-pressure fire hose vs a hand gun, I might take the hose. Don't need to be hyper-accurate and you can still knock a guy back about a city block and leave him without any skin when you're done. Comes with about a week-and-a-half worth of ammo, too.

Hell, not only can you probably knock the guy down, if you keep the hose on him, you can keep him down and if you really want to get dirty, you can probably drown the prick.

Give me something to believe in.

Joe peschi. He looks like a guy who can get things done. -Carlin

Originally Posted by Rhumb

True, people have, do and will act on the desire to kill, be it with knives and clubs or with guns. The huge difference though is the stunning ease and efficiency in how modern guns can actually injure and kill. Indeed, that is the very purpose of modern firearms -- to be able to injure and kill as easily and efficiently as possible -- that, in the end, is their very raison d'etre and to their credit, they are stunningly good at this.

It is this distinctive quality, there very effectiveness, that does set guns apart from other means of mayhem and murder and suggests that they thus be addressed in our society. Do recall that when the Second Amendment was penned, the most modern firearm was a muzzle loader which, of its own design, is far less effective or efficient in terms of lethality than even the most basic of cheap handguns today. Their very inefficiency and ineffectiveness were an innate gun control right there, what with a rate of fire of perhaps 1-2 per minute in the hands of a very well trained individual, giving more than sufficient time to subdue the perpetrator or run away from harm. With a modern firearm, even a mentally deranged individual can unleash that number of bullets per SECOND for minutes on end leaving little time for intervention or escape before a high level of injuries and fatalities have occurred.

I guess two questions would be: would the founding fathers have authored the Second Amendment differently in light of modern firearms, and two, should we today revisit the Second Amendment in light of the profoundly greater lethality of modern firearms? A single semiautomatic rifle can give a single shooter perhaps the killing power of a whole colonial-era platoon, if not more so, creating in essence individual roving militias in terms of firepower in their context. I suspect the FFs would have treated that level of lethality rather differently than they did in the perspective of the firearms of their day.

As mentioned, perhaps a better analogy than the McVeigh bombing would be the Chinese school attack, done with a knife rather than guns, which only resulted in a number of injuries rather than deaths, even presuming a similar underlying intent of malice. Will people continue to try to kill in the absence of guns? Of course, but they will be far, far less effective at it and far, far fewer people will thus be injured or killed.

That all said, I'm not for an outright ban of all, or even most, guns -- I'm a fellow gun owner myself. Indeed, I think the focus on “assault weapons is primarily aesthetic (they look menacing) and misplaced as they are a rather small aspect of the gun problem and are less powerful than most good hunting rifles (I’d rather be shot, if at all, by a Bushmaster .223 than a 30.06). However, I am for far more stringent regulations around the possession and use of guns than currently exist -- pro-gun and pro-gun-control if you will. I guess I see that "well-regulated militia" phrase in the Second Amendment as much more than some throw-away phrase than many do.

Originally Posted by Rhumb

. I guess I see that "well-regulated militia" phrase in the Second Amendment as much more than some throw-away phrase than many do.

"well-regulated" doesn't mean what you think it means

Originally Posted by Rhumb

That all said, I'm not for an outright ban of all, or even most, guns -- I'm a fellow gun owner myself. Indeed, I think the focus on “assault weapons is primarily aesthetic (they look menacing) and misplaced as they are a rather small aspect of the gun problem and are less powerful than most good hunting rifles (I’d rather be shot, if at all, by a Bushmaster .223 than a 30.06). However, I am for far more stringent regulations around the possession and use of guns than currently exist -- pro-gun and pro-gun-control if you will. I guess I see that "well-regulated militia" phrase in the Second Amendment as much more than some throw-away phrase than many do.

So, as a gun owner, which militia are you currently drilling with?

And put yourself in the shoes of a rebel leader in Syria right now (a founding father in his own right, potentially). Would he be content saying that civilians shouldn't be allowed to have more than a single-shot rifle, since its "less lethal" and therefore safer for society to own?

Some of us only need one shot.

Originally Posted by Lair

Some of us only need one shot.

nice. Now if only all the bad guys would stand in line for you.

Why is it so hard for people to understand the wording of the 2nd A

A well regulated milita is not referencing regulating firearms nor is a militia a prerequisite to owning them.

Educate yourself please

Originally Posted by JonJon

Why is it so hard for people to understand the wording of the 2nd A

A well regulated milita is not referencing regulating firearms nor is a militia a prerequisite to owning them.

Educate yourself please

You can beat them over the head with the answer and they won't absorb it. Eyes shut tight, fingers in years, yelling lalalalalalalal while they stamp their feat.

Ignorance is bliss for libtards, the greatest of the bumper sticker militia.

Originally Posted by JonJon

Why is it so hard for people to understand the wording of the 2nd A

A well regulated milita is not referencing regulating firearms nor is a militia a prerequisite to owning them.

Educate yourself please

Why do people fail to realize that the constitution is living and changes with time and society.

Maybe you're right jj.


You do belong in the Wild West

Scales over their eyes! Its been documented and those who see the light have been warned.

Originally Posted by JonJon

Why is it so hard for people to understand the wording of the 2nd A

A well regulated milita is not referencing regulating firearms nor is a militia a prerequisite to owning them.

Educate yourself please

Please share, then, your interpretation of why that phrase is in the Second Amendment to begin with and what it means. Is it, in fact, essentially a throw away phrase with no further relation, impact or import to the rest of the Second Amendment? Or something else?

ban firefighters.

Originally Posted by Rhumb

Please share, then, your interpretation of why that phrase is in the Second Amendment to begin with and what it means. Is it, in fact, essentially a throw away phrase with no further relation, impact or import to the rest of the Second Amendment? Or something else?

Look up Heller, McDonald, Madison, Hamilton, read things like the federalist papers, do some research

It's not my opinion, its the ruling of SCOTUS

It's a fact

Originally Posted by JonJon

Why is it so hard for people to understand the wording of the 2nd A

A well regulated milita is not referencing regulating firearms nor is a militia a prerequisite to owning them.

Educate yourself please

Why is it so hard for people to understand that the second amendment was written under a very different reality?
At the time, when firearms referred to muskets, all you needed was arming people with enough muskets to effectively counter the government.
This was also emerging from an oppressive foreign government.
In today's reality, if the government wanted to oppress you, they have tanks, laser guided missiles and chemical weapons, to name a very few. None of your fancy schmancy AK-47's will do a dent.
Besides, the government is our own people. Would they really shoot their own brothers and fathers? It's more effective to educate everybody.

For the "purists" that stick to the "it was written by our all wise beyond reproach forefathers" argument, if they were so wise we wouldn't need an amendment to begin with, would we?

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

So, as a gun owner, which militia are you currently drilling with?

And put yourself in the shoes of a rebel leader in Syria right now (a founding father in his own right, potentially). Would he be content saying that civilians shouldn't be allowed to have more than a single-shot rifle, since its "less lethal" and therefore safer for society to own?

Perhaps to turn the question a bit then, should we then also be allowed to possess F-22s, M1 tanks, ballistic missiles and nuclear arms to provide a more or less equal counter to what our own government possesses? Isn't stopping at allowing assault rifles an essentially meaninglessly minute step beyond allowing only single-shot weapons in creating some armed parity with what our government fields?

Should the Federal Gubment roll up to your front door in an M1 to take your freedoms, a Bushmaster is as useless as grand daddy's single shot squirrel gun, presuming the JDAM dropped by aforementioned F-22 didn't already turn your home into a smoking crater.

Or is the whole concept propounded by some that the basic purpose/function of the Second Amendment is to create an armed parity with our own government -- as opposed to external threats -- problematical?

And why then is that “well-regulated militia” phrase even in the Second Amendment if it basically carries no import in understanding the Amendment in full?

Originally Posted by Rhumb

Perhaps to turn the question a bit then, should we then also be allowed to possess F-22s, M1 tanks, ballistic missiles and nuclear arms to provide a more or less equal counter to what our own government possesses? Isn't stopping at allowing assault rifles an essentially meaninglessly minute step beyond allowing only single-shot weapons in creating some armed parity with what our government fields?

Should the Federal Gubment roll up to your front door in an M1 to take your freedoms, a Bushmaster is as useless as grand daddy's single shot squirrel gun, presuming the JDAM dropped by aforementioned F-22 didn't already turn your home into a smoking crater.

Or is the whole concept propounded by some that the basic purpose/function of the Second Amendment is to create an armed parity with our own government -- as opposed to external threats -- problematical?

And why then is that “well-regulated militia” phrase even in the Second Amendment if it basically carries no import in understanding the Amendment in full?

Originally Posted by Master Po

Why is it so hard for people to understand that the second amendment was written under a very different reality?
At the time, when firearms referred to muskets, all you needed was arming people with enough muskets to effectively counter the government.
This was also emerging from an oppressive foreign government.
In today's reality, if the government wanted to oppress you, they have tanks, laser guided missiles and chemical weapons, to name a very few. None of your fancy schmancy AK-47's will do a dent.
Besides, the government is our own people. Would they really shoot their own brothers and fathers? It's more effective to educate everybody.

For the "purists" that stick to the "it was written by our all wise beyond reproach forefathers" argument, if they were so wise we wouldn't need an amendment to begin with, would we?

Agreed.

The whole concept that the second amendment was meanst as some sort of last resort against our own government is simply wrong and even if it weren't, that understanding is rendered simply meaningless and farcical by the immense disparity in the force of arms our government could theoretically bring to bear against hand arms and rifles of various sorts.

Too, I think this whole self agrandizing conceptualization or our government as being some sort of foreign entity -- and gun owners as some sort of noble minutement standing between "us" and "it" -- is itself deeply flawed. Even if very flawed, it is OUR government put into place and empowered by our, and your, votes and is as much a part of our Constitution and society as is the Second Amendment. "It," our government, is "us."

While the Constitution is an uncommonly brilliant document that remarkably sprang from the minds and machinations of many brilliant but diverse and flawed founding fathers, it is but the fallible and flawed work of humans and not in any way a sacred document that should be treated as such. I've always found it interesting that it so often is conservatives who at one hand often treat the Constitution in quasi-sacred manner yet are the ones on the other hand who are so eager to alter it with amendments (flag burning, defining marriage, banning abortion, etc. -- interesting how they all seem to be individually proscriptive amendments limiting or constricting individual freedom in some way).

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

And put yourself in the shoes of a rebel leader in Syria right now (a founding father in his own right, potentially). Would he be content saying that civilians shouldn't be allowed to have more than a single-shot rifle, since its "less lethal" and therefore safer for society to own?

Originally Posted by JonJon

Look up Heller, McDonald, Madison, Hamilton, read things like the federalist papers, do some research

It's not my opinion, its the ruling of SCOTUS

It's a fact

I have, and there is a range of thought on the issue, whether from the writings of the founding fathers up to more recent Supreme Court interpretations and rulings.

My readings and understandings inform me that the "well-regulated militia" phrase was a very important and relevant clause in understanding the rest of the Amendment and that it was to define the purpose of the 2nd Amendment and thus inform and limit the meaning and understanding of the rest of the Amendment.

I think some of the recent SCOTUS ruling re: the Second Amendment have been overly broad, even penumbral, interpretations rather than a restricted reading of it. Odd because those very broad interpretations have come from self-purported limited originalist Scalia who generally ascribes to very cribbed Constitutional interpretations. But then, perhaps it's that nobody, whether one ascribes to either broad or narrow interpretations of the Constitution ought to have it both ways as is often the case on all sides.