Bill Frists thoughts on Gun Control

[arein0 977]

7 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

All weapons are “assault” weapons when used for something other than hunting or defense. 
 

This issue is similar to every other political “battle” in 2023. Irrational and full of holes. 

You are right. The arguments to protect gun rights are irrational and full of holes. Glad we are on the same side on this one 

[GoAU 1,600]

5 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

If you go strictly by that view of the second amendment,,, you cannot place age limits on gun ownership. 

You truly believe that owning an assault rifle is your constitutional right?  Is there any limit on the killing efficiency of any firearm?  Was that truly the founders intent?

As I’ve said - I have no issue with age requirements.  As laid out in the 2A, the point is to allow the militia (the people) the right to keep & bear arms to maintain the security of the free state - they are talking about people of age to fight.   This aligns with the same age to join the military.   I also have no issue with other requirements/ disqualifications such as felony convictions.  My issue is with the continued advancement of more and more restrictions resulting in the erosion of the rights enshrined in the 2A.  
 

Not sure how you’d limit “killing efficiency” given that the point of the 2A is to provide the people the right to self defense against foreign and domestic tyranny.   I am not opposed to current requirements for fully automatic weapons if that’s what you’re asking, although I could see where one could (if so inclined) make the case for them.   I do feel the current rules surrounding short barreled rifles and suppressors are total garbage and likely to be repealed.  

[homersapien 11,428]

16 hours ago, autigeremt said:

All weapons are “assault” weapons when used for something other than hunting or defense. 

This is an absurd statement based on a sophomoric, semantical argument that is pointless. 

It's not like there isn't a general understanding of exactly what we are talking about.  

https://www.britannica.com/technology/assault-rifle

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault rifle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

https://www.gunmade.com/definition-assault-rifle/

https://tacticalgear.com/experts/assault-rifle-definition

And I could go on.....

(Hey they even have pictures for you if that helps. )

And here's a particularly revealing source from one of the inventors of the category:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/family-ar-15-inventor-speaks-out-n593356

Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians

[homersapien 11,428]

11 hours ago, GoAU said:

Not sure how you’d limit “killing efficiency” given that the point of the 2A is to provide the people the right to self defense against foreign and domestic tyranny.   I am not opposed to current requirements for fully automatic weapons if that’s what you’re asking, although I could see where one could (if so inclined) make the case for them.   I do feel the current rules surrounding short barreled rifles and suppressors are total garbage and likely to be repealed.  

You are reading stuff into the second amendment that simply isn't there.

The second amendment was designed to provide for the protection of our own country in a time when the only means to do so was a civilian militia instead of a standing army - as we have today.

Furthermore any regulation to that right is more than covered by the preamble - the part most frequently ignored by the 'absolutists".

“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.”

 

Edited May 10, 2023 by homersapien

[autigeremt 6,666]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

This is an absurd statement based on a sophomoric, semantical argument that is pointless. 

It's not like there isn't a general understanding of exactly what we are talking about.  

https://www.britannica.com/technology/assault-rifle

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault rifle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

https://www.gunmade.com/definition-assault-rifle/

https://tacticalgear.com/experts/assault-rifle-definition

And I could go on.....

(Hey they even have pictures for you if that helps. )

And here's a particularly revealing source from one of the inventors of the category:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/family-ar-15-inventor-speaks-out-n593356

Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians

Doesn’t change a thing. Root cause isn’t the weapon so how about y’all start with that first. 

[Leftfield 2,648]

8 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

Doesn’t change a thing. Root cause isn’t the weapon so how about y’all start with that first. 

What is the root cause?

What is your solution?

[GoAU 1,600]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

You are reading stuff into the second amendment that simply isn't there.

The second amendment was designed to provide for the protection of our own country in a time when the only means to do so was a civilian militia instead of a standing army - as we have today.

Furthermore any regulation to that right is more than covered by the preamble - the part most frequently ignored by the 'absolutists".

“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.”

 

We’ve had this conversation before, and I’ve posted links to the grammatical breakdown of the Second amendment and the deliberate language used.  I’m sorry but your breakdown and interpretation of the language is incorrect.  
 

https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2021/07/the-strange-syntax-of-the-second-amendment/

The ‘Strange’ Syntax of the Second Amendment

By Kari Sullivan on July 14, 2021Categories: Corpus Linguistics, Scholarship, Second Amendment

The Second Amendment is not sloppy or ungrammatical, as some modern analysts claim. Rather, the Amendment is written in a variety of English that no longer exists. Since none of us are native speakers of late 18^th century American English, we cannot expect to have good intuitions about its grammaticality or interpretation. When we read Shakespeare, for example, we accept that we have to rely on footnotes about vocabulary and syntax. The language of the Bill of Rights is chronologically closer to Shakespeare’s English than to present-day English, so the words and syntax are not always going to be immediately comprehensible.

The Second Amendment seems especially confusing because its structure has been subject to syntactic change, not just changes to words or word meanings. Words change faster and more frequently than syntax, so they are easier to notice. As we get older, we notice young people using words in new and different ways, whereas we probably are not aware of many differences in their syntax. But when we look at Shakespeare’s English, for example, we can see that syntax does change. If something seems ungrammatical to us, that is a signal that we need to look at how the grammar was used by native speakers.

The Second Amendment consists of a subordinate clause, A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, followed by a main clause, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The main clause sounds perfectly grammatical in present-day English (if we ignore the extra comma, which does not seem to have been significant). The subordinate clause with being,however, seems to have something wrong with it. This is because the being-clause precedes the main clause, and the two clauses have different subjects. The last example of this type in the Corpus of Historical American English (COHA; a 475-million-word balanced corpus of American English 1820—2019) is from 1923. Since this type of being-clause fell into disuse around a hundred years ago, it is reasonable that modern readers would not have good intuitions about its grammaticality or its meaning.

In order to understand a syntactic construction that we no longer use, we have to look at historical examples of the construction. A good resource for this is a balanced historical corpus, that is, a collection of texts from a particular timespan and region that consists of a balanced mix of personal letters, newspapers, scientific treatises, religious texts and so forth. These corpora are intended to provide an idea of general usage at particular times and places. Relevant balanced corpora for studying the Second Amendment include COHA, mentioned previously, or A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers (ARCHER; 3.3 million words, 1600—1999). These corpora can tell us how being-clauses changed over time. They can also show how being-clauses were used, so that modern readers have a better idea of how this grammatical construction shapes the meaning of the Second Amendment.

For the moment, let us consider only being-clauses with the basic structure of the Second Amendment, in which the being-clause precedes the main clause and has a different subject. (A wider range of being-clauses is examined in my paper “Being-clauses in historical corpora and the U.S. Second Amendment”.) Being-clauses of this type have had four possible meanings, several of which could overlap. First, they could signal that the event in the being-clause happened before the main clause event, as in this example from 1723: The morning being come and breakfast over, Stertorius’s coach was brought. That is, after morning came and breakfast was over, the coach was brought. This is called a temporal usage. It is the earliest kind of being-clause, and gave rise to the second and third types.

The second use of being-clauses, the conditional, has always been rare. Conditional being-clauses were used to make predictions, as in the following example from 1786: These things being granted what is of a like kind will readily be so disposed too. If the ‘things’ (atmospheric conditions) occur, then ‘what is of a like kind’ (condensation) is predicted to behave in a particular way. Temporal and conditional meanings can overlap, as in the last two clauses in this 1833 example: Increase the amount of Bank notes, and, other things being the same, prices will rise. Whenever other things are the same, this statement claims, prices will rise (a temporal meaning); and if things are the same, prices will rise (a conditional meaning). These clauses are related temporally and conditionally, and the temporal and conditional meanings are completely compatible.

The third use of being-clauses also evolved from temporals, and could likewise overlap with them. These being-clauses signalled real-world causation, as in this sentence from 1780: The usual passages for the waters below being obstructed, they flooded the low grounds. That is, flooding occurred because the passages were obstructed. This is an external causal because it refers to a cause and a consequence in the real world. It’s important to note that an external causal relation frequently assumes a temporal one. In the above example, the flooding happens because of the obstruction (a causal relation) but also happens at the time of the obstruction (a temporal relation), so both causal and temporal relations are present, and are compatible with each other.

The fourth type of meaning is an internal causal, where the being-clause provides the logical basis, not the real-world cause, for the main clause, as in this example from 1702: The words in the will being to Richard and the heirs of his body, the heirs were in that will only words of limitation, and not of purchase. Here, the being-clause gives the reason for concluding the status of the heirs stated in the main clause. The main clause could be paraphrased by it was concluded that the heirs were in that will only words of limitation, and not of purchase. An external causal can never be paraphrased this way, and it was concluded that the waters flooded the low grounds would make no sense in the external causal above.

If we assume that the Second Amendment was grammatical, then its being-clause belonged to one of these four types or a documented area of overlap between them. The temporal reading would indicate that whenever “A well regulated Militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State”, then “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” A conditional interpretation would entail that if “A well regulated Militia” is ever “necessary to the security of a free State”, then “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The external causal interpretation would mean that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” for the purpose of “A well regulated Militia … necessary to the security of a free State”. The internal causal would indicate that because it is known that “A well regulated Militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State”, it is concluded that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.

The temporal, external causal, and internal causal readings are not equally likely. The ARCHER corpus, for example, contains 37 being-clauses of the relevant type from the second half of the 18^th century. Of these, 18 have purely temporal meanings without conditional or causal inferences; 1 is a conditional; 19 have external causal meanings; and there are no internal causals. Statistically, then, the temporal and external causal interpretations of the Second Amendment are the most probable.

In the context of the Second Amendment, these two interpretations are not incompatible. We have seen that external causal meanings often assume temporal ones, since effects usually happen along with their causes. Both a temporal and a causal reading would assert that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” whenever a militia was “necessary to the security of a free State”. The causal reading would additionally assert that the “right” was for the purpose of the necessary militia, and therefore applied whenever the militia was necessary.

A temporal or causal relation between the clauses would mean that the main-clause content was temporally or causally contingent on the being-clause content, and “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” would only be asserted when, or for the purpose of, “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State”. Interpreting the main clause while ignoring the being-clause would be nonsensical, and certainly contrary to the original intent or understanding of the two clauses.

Of course, understanding the relation between the clauses does nothing to answer the question of how often a “A well regulated Militia” was thought to be “necessary to the security of a free State” and consequently how often “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. Perhaps such a militia was thought to be a permanent necessity, in which case the right to bear arms for that purpose would be perpetual. This is an issue for historians, not linguists. It is also a matter of debate as to whether the founders’ opinions on this issue outweigh those of present-day theorists, who might disagree on the necessity of a “well regulated Militia” to the “security of the free State”. This is an issue for legal scholars. However, the history of being-clauses does suggest that the applicability of the Second Amendment’s main clause was temporally and potentially causally contingent on the necessity of the “well regulated Militia” to the “security of the free State”, which may delimit the reasonable range of debate for theorists in other areas. Recognition of this clausal relation may also be helpful for interpreting words and collocations that have been the subject of debate, such as militia and bear arms, since the context of these items would have played a role in disambiguating their meaning.

This linguistic history also makes it clear that the Second Amendment was grammatical and probably unambiguous at the time of its writing. The Bill of Rights, like Shakespeare’s plays, was not badly written. We can blame our incomprehension on the ongoing process of language change – and perhaps on present-day speakers who fail to acknowledge it.

[Leftfield 2,648]

28 minutes ago, GoAU said:

We’ve had this conversation before, and I’ve posted links to the grammatical breakdown of the Second amendment and the deliberate language used.  I’m sorry but your breakdown and interpretation of the language is incorrect.  
 

https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2021/07/the-strange-syntax-of-the-second-amendment/

I can only speak for myself, but the syntax was never anything I was focused on. My focus was on two things: 1) The fact that a militia was needed when it was written because a standing army had only just been established and was completely insufficient for defending the country at the time, 2) The types of weapons the Amendment intended citizens to keep. 

I think we'd all agree that our current military is more than sufficient to defend us from attack. If that's the case, what need do we have for a militia? Gun activists state that it is also to defend citizens from their own government. I've mentioned this in another thread, but to me a government intending for the citizenry to stay armed to resist that very government is absurd. Why would the government allow citizens the means to resist and even overthrow them? Why would a government provide the means for citizens to ignore the very laws that government implements? Would you do that if you were forming a government? 

For the second part, the muzzle loader was the standard weapon of war at the time the 2nd Amendment. If that were still the case there would be no debate right now, because gun deaths would be far, far lower, and mass shootings would be non-existent, but things change and technology evolves. Now we have firearms that allow people to become deadly to large groups of people, something that was not the case when the 2nd Amendment was written. You state that gun ownership is an absolute right because of the Constitution, so no consideration can be given to banning AR-style rifles, but you've also agreed that it was correct to ban fully automatic weapons. Those are incompatible with each other. Either citizens are allowed to keep any weapons they want, or they're not. If they're not, then the government is responsible for determining which weapons are allowed. If they are, then God help us all.

[aubiefifty 16,892]

15 hours ago, GoAU said:

As I’ve said - I have no issue with age requirements.  As laid out in the 2A, the point is to allow the militia (the people) the right to keep & bear arms to maintain the security of the free state - they are talking about people of age to fight.   This aligns with the same age to join the military.   I also have no issue with other requirements/ disqualifications such as felony convictions.  My issue is with the continued advancement of more and more restrictions resulting in the erosion of the rights enshrined in the 2A.  
 

Not sure how you’d limit “killing efficiency” given that the point of the 2A is to provide the people the right to self defense against foreign and domestic tyranny.   I am not opposed to current requirements for fully automatic weapons if that’s what you’re asking, although I could see where one could (if so inclined) make the case for them.   I do feel the current rules surrounding short barreled rifles and suppressors are total garbage and likely to be repealed.  

they say that little girl who had her face shot off was pretty. and tyranny? where were all you bro's when they took over the capitol? you are not police nor military if you are retired. that good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy sounds great but it happened what less than 1 percent of the time. people are showing every single day we do not deserves guns. we have turned them into play toys. notice how most shooter have to have that look?  they wear military gear or dress all in black in case that photo op comes up. americans do not deserve military grade weapons. i know you own an assault weapon. you got a bump stock with that?

[GoAU 1,600]

23 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

I can only speak for myself, but the syntax was never anything I was focused on. My focus was on two things: 1) The fact that a militia was needed when it was written because a standing army had only just been established and was completely insufficient for defending the country at the time, 2) The types of weapons the Amendment intended citizens to keep. 

I think we'd all agree that our current military is more than sufficient to defend us from attack. If that's the case, what need do we have for a militia? Gun activists state that it is also to defend citizens from their own government. I've mentioned this in another thread, but to me a government intending for the citizenry to stay armed to resist that very government is absurd. Why would the government allow citizens the means to resist and even overthrow them? Why would a government provide the means for citizens to ignore the very laws that government implements? Would you do that if you were forming a government? 

For the second part, the muzzle loader was the standard weapon of war at the time the 2nd Amendment. If that were still the case there would be no debate right now, because gun deaths would be far, far lower, and mass shootings would be non-existent, but things change and technology evolves. Now we have firearms that allow people to become deadly to large groups of people, something that was not the case when the 2nd Amendment was written. You state that gun ownership is an absolute right because of the Constitution, so no consideration can be given to banning AR-style rifles, but you've also agreed that it was correct to ban fully automatic weapons. Those are incompatible with each other. Either citizens are allowed to keep any weapons they want, or they're not. If they're not, then the government is responsible for determining which weapons are allowed. If they are, then God help us all.

Regarding the militia - that is EXACTLY what the founding fathers intended.  They just fighting for independence from a tyrannical government.   Their intent was to ensure the government was subservient to the people and not the other way around.   
 

The founders put in numerous checks and balances, and the Second Amendment was another check and balance.  If you look at the Bill of Rights - it is not a permissive document, meaning it is not giving people rights, it is restricting governmental overreach.  The reason it is absurd to you that the founders would ensure the people have the ability to keep the government in check is either because you are content in relying on the government versus individual liberty or you aren’t very educated on the journey the founders took in creating our country.  
 

For the second part of your statement the muzzle loader comment is silly, and I think you know that.  The intent was for people to have similar arms as the government - hence the point of referring to a militia, and not just hunting or self defense.  And if you re-read what I said, I stated that one could absolutely make the claim that fully automatic weapons should be legal.   I didn’t say I necessarily agree that they should be banned, I said I wasn’t necessarily opposed to banning them.   Yes, it is a “compromise”, but it also has a limit / line.  You’ve made a logical fallacy that because I wasn’t opposed to restrictions on fully automatic weapons that continued compromise is on the table.  You’re essentially advocating for the “slippery slope”, right?   However, if forced to choose an extreme, I’d choose liberty.  

[GoAU 1,600]

24 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

they say that little girl who had her face shot off was pretty. and tyranny? where were all you bro's when they took over the capitol? you are not police nor military if you are retired. that good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy sounds great but it happened what less than 1 percent of the time. people are showing every single day we do not deserves guns. we have turned them into play toys. notice how most shooter have to have that look?  they wear military gear or dress all in black in case that photo op comes up. americans do not deserve military grade weapons. i know you own an assault weapon. you got a bump stock with that?

I’m having trouble even understanding what your trying to say here….

 

The statistics of the “good guy with the gun” is much higher than what you stated.  Before the CDC caved to pressure from the Soros backed gun control lobby, they stated in their own study that 500,000 to up to 2.5 MILLION defensive uses of firearms a year.  Not exactly 1% is it?  
 

I’m glad your opinion of what Americans “deserve” is completely meaningless - heck, you don’t don’t even bother to capitalize “American”…..

[aubiefifty 16,892]

10 minutes ago, GoAU said:

I’m having trouble even understanding what your trying to say here….

 

The statistics of the “good guy with the gun” is much higher than what you stated.  Before the CDC caved to pressure from the Soros backed gun control lobby, they stated in their own study that 500,000 to up to 2.5 MILLION defensive uses of firearms a year.  Not exactly 1% is it?  
 

I’m glad your opinion of what Americans “deserve” is completely meaningless - heck, you don’t don’t even bother to capitalize “American”…..

people stilldying in record numbers. and screw you  i am a five point vet and i enlisted/ and if you still want to get on me for my typing then have the common decency to use red ink.

[cptau 169]

On 5/4/2023 at 10:33 PM, arein0 said:

I didn't realize you could murder or cause harm to yourself or others with your vote 

There’s good reason to raise the driving age to 18.  Several thousand people each year die in car accidents caused by drivers under 18. More than are killed by shootings using AR15 type rifles. 

[GoAU 1,600]

20 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

people stilldying in record numbers. and screw you  i am a five point vet and i enlisted/ and if you still want to get on me for my typing then have the common decency to use red ink.

I can understand typing errors, goodness knows I have typing issues as well - especially when on my phone.   It’s your incoherent ramblings that I’m trying to understand….

[cptau 169]

Some of Frist’s proposal have potential to reduce gun murders or suicides, but they focus on law abiding people following the laws. 

red flag laws are good if they follow due process.  That means they take time to implement for a high risk person. If a potential shooter / killer has family or friends they have to take action and they usually don’t. The Nashville school shooter’s mother was anti gun, yet she didn’t even check her daughter’s room or car for weapons when she knew she had at least one.  The Louisville bank shooter’s parents didn't notify police until it was too late.  Both shooters were in therapy of some type.  The Nashville RV bomber’s girlfriend and neighbors never thought of him as someone who might kill. 
 

changing the minimum age to legally purchase a firearm would have be the same age for everyone to be Constitutional.  The 21 age only for handgun purchases has been successfully challenged in federal court.
 

 The major problem with gun related murders and mass shootings is with less that 3% of the population. Black males between ages 14 to 30 murder the majority of people.  They obtain their handguns illegally by private sale or theft.  The 5 killers in Dadeville are prime examples. They obtained the handguns illegally and at least 2 guns had been illegally modified to fire full automatic.  One was even wearing an ankle GPS tracker based on another weapons charge. 2 of the dead victims had handguns.   It will take many years to change that culture of death and collect all the weapons.  

Biometric safeties on firearms might work, but it would be expensive and only new firearms would be equipped.   
 

mental health and drug abuse therapy may work for some, but not all.  It can’t be voluntary, it must be mandatory which the courts have not often required.  Some of the these people will have to institutionalized for treatment.  This needs to be done regardless of the firearm issue.  

[Leftfield 2,648]

9 hours ago, GoAU said:

Regarding the militia - that is EXACTLY what the founding fathers intended.  They just fighting for independence from a tyrannical government.   Their intent was to ensure the government was subservient to the people and not the other way around.   
 

The founders put in numerous checks and balances, and the Second Amendment was another check and balance.  If you look at the Bill of Rights - it is not a permissive document, meaning it is not giving people rights, it is restricting governmental overreach.  The reason it is absurd to you that the founders would ensure the people have the ability to keep the government in check is either because you are content in relying on the government versus individual liberty or you aren’t very educated on the journey the founders took in creating our country.  

Thanks, but I'm well aware of the reasons our founders set things up the way they did. I understand they were concerned about government overreach, but it still makes no logical sense to have civilians that can defy laws on a whim. The idea of the noble individual or like-minded groups standing up against tyranny is something we've all been raised to admire, rightfully so, but it depends on people being noble. The problem is, a lot of people are f****** horrible, not particularly bright, or just lack information and fill in the blanks with their own ideas of what's right (many to the point of conspiracy). As you said, our government has checks and balances, and individuals have methods of redress that don't resort to violence. It's ridiculous to provide every person with the means to defy their government at will. I ask again, why would any competent government do that? If that was our founders' intent, then before they even started it they were implicitly admitting that the government would eventually fail, so why bother setting up a government in the first place? 

9 hours ago, GoAU said:

For the second part of your statement the muzzle loader comment is silly, and I think you know that.  The intent was for people to have similar arms as the government - hence the point of referring to a militia, and not just hunting or self defense.  And if you re-read what I said, I stated that one could absolutely make the claim that fully automatic weapons should be legal.   I didn’t say I necessarily agree that they should be banned, I said I wasn’t necessarily opposed to banning them.   Yes, it is a “compromise”, but it also has a limit / line.  You’ve made a logical fallacy that because I wasn’t opposed to restrictions on fully automatic weapons that continued compromise is on the table.  You’re essentially advocating for the “slippery slope”, right?   However, if forced to choose an extreme, I’d choose liberty.  

How was the muzzle loader comment silly? You agreed with me in your second sentence. My point was that muzzle loaders were equivalent to what the government had at the time. Do you really believe a person should be allowed to have any weapon the government has, even today? The 2nd Amendment makes no statement about the limit on "arms," so does it only pertain to weapons that can be carried on your person? Could Elon Musk commission a stocked aircraft carrier? How would you feel about George Soros building a few missile silos in his yard? If they wanted to be able to defy our government, wouldn't they have to have those weapons? Yes, these are absurd examples, but they're meant to be. They're the logical conclusions of your stated line of thought, the opposite extreme of the "slippery slope" you cite.

One last thing I would point out: many on this forum have derided the violent race outbursts and the BLM movement, yet ignore the conditions that fostered them. Many of those people were lashing out at what they see as tyranny against them by their own country. Interesting that no one calls them "patriots."

 

 

[homersapien 11,428]

17 hours ago, autigeremt said:

Doesn’t change a thing. Root cause isn’t the weapon so how about y’all start with that first. 

That's a simplistic response.  For starters, it doesn't have to be a strict "either or". 

Obviously, people committing these mass shooting have mental problems. 

But it's also possible - even probable - that the mass production and merchandising of military weaponry (over $ 1 billion) - along with the psychologically-oriented advertising that accompanies it - like getting your "man card", or playing to fear compounds the potential. That is also a "base" cause.

I find it hard to believe that the U.S. has an extraordinary mental illness problem compared to the rest of the developed world.  So what's the difference?  I submit it's the numbers and availability of military weaponry. That's simply a part of the "root cause".  Furthermore - unlike mental illness - it's a part of the root cause that is is actually possible to address effectively.

So bottom line, the base cause is the proliferation and marketing of military weapons in society which has plenty of people who are mentally unstable and susceptible to that marketing.  And the latter is basically the norm for all developed countries.

Australia didn't address mental illness.  They addressed the proliferation issue and greatly reduced the incidence of mass shootings in their country. 

Edited May 11, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,428]

20 hours ago, GoAU said:

We’ve had this conversation before, and I’ve posted links to the grammatical breakdown of the Second amendment and the deliberate language used.  I’m sorry but your breakdown and interpretation of the language is incorrect.  
 

https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2021/07/the-strange-syntax-of-the-second-amendment/

The ‘Strange’ Syntax of the Second Amendment

By Kari Sullivan on July 14, 2021Categories: Corpus Linguistics, Scholarship, Second Amendment

The Second Amendment is not sloppy or ungrammatical, as some modern analysts claim. Rather, the Amendment is written in a variety of English that no longer exists. Since none of us are native speakers of late 18^th century American English, we cannot expect to have good intuitions about its grammaticality or interpretation. When we read Shakespeare, for example, we accept that we have to rely on footnotes about vocabulary and syntax. The language of the Bill of Rights is chronologically closer to Shakespeare’s English than to present-day English, so the words and syntax are not always going to be immediately comprehensible.

The Second Amendment seems especially confusing because its structure has been subject to syntactic change, not just changes to words or word meanings. Words change faster and more frequently than syntax, so they are easier to notice. As we get older, we notice young people using words in new and different ways, whereas we probably are not aware of many differences in their syntax. But when we look at Shakespeare’s English, for example, we can see that syntax does change. If something seems ungrammatical to us, that is a signal that we need to look at how the grammar was used by native speakers.

The Second Amendment consists of a subordinate clause, A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, followed by a main clause, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The main clause sounds perfectly grammatical in present-day English (if we ignore the extra comma, which does not seem to have been significant). The subordinate clause with being,however, seems to have something wrong with it. This is because the being-clause precedes the main clause, and the two clauses have different subjects. The last example of this type in the Corpus of Historical American English (COHA; a 475-million-word balanced corpus of American English 1820—2019) is from 1923. Since this type of being-clause fell into disuse around a hundred years ago, it is reasonable that modern readers would not have good intuitions about its grammaticality or its meaning.

In order to understand a syntactic construction that we no longer use, we have to look at historical examples of the construction. A good resource for this is a balanced historical corpus, that is, a collection of texts from a particular timespan and region that consists of a balanced mix of personal letters, newspapers, scientific treatises, religious texts and so forth. These corpora are intended to provide an idea of general usage at particular times and places. Relevant balanced corpora for studying the Second Amendment include COHA, mentioned previously, or A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers (ARCHER; 3.3 million words, 1600—1999). These corpora can tell us how being-clauses changed over time. They can also show how being-clauses were used, so that modern readers have a better idea of how this grammatical construction shapes the meaning of the Second Amendment.

For the moment, let us consider only being-clauses with the basic structure of the Second Amendment, in which the being-clause precedes the main clause and has a different subject. (A wider range of being-clauses is examined in my paper “Being-clauses in historical corpora and the U.S. Second Amendment”.) Being-clauses of this type have had four possible meanings, several of which could overlap. First, they could signal that the event in the being-clause happened before the main clause event, as in this example from 1723: The morning being come and breakfast over, Stertorius’s coach was brought. That is, after morning came and breakfast was over, the coach was brought. This is called a temporal usage. It is the earliest kind of being-clause, and gave rise to the second and third types.

The second use of being-clauses, the conditional, has always been rare. Conditional being-clauses were used to make predictions, as in the following example from 1786: These things being granted what is of a like kind will readily be so disposed too. If the ‘things’ (atmospheric conditions) occur, then ‘what is of a like kind’ (condensation) is predicted to behave in a particular way. Temporal and conditional meanings can overlap, as in the last two clauses in this 1833 example: Increase the amount of Bank notes, and, other things being the same, prices will rise. Whenever other things are the same, this statement claims, prices will rise (a temporal meaning); and if things are the same, prices will rise (a conditional meaning). These clauses are related temporally and conditionally, and the temporal and conditional meanings are completely compatible.

The third use of being-clauses also evolved from temporals, and could likewise overlap with them. These being-clauses signalled real-world causation, as in this sentence from 1780: The usual passages for the waters below being obstructed, they flooded the low grounds. That is, flooding occurred because the passages were obstructed. This is an external causal because it refers to a cause and a consequence in the real world. It’s important to note that an external causal relation frequently assumes a temporal one. In the above example, the flooding happens because of the obstruction (a causal relation) but also happens at the time of the obstruction (a temporal relation), so both causal and temporal relations are present, and are compatible with each other.

The fourth type of meaning is an internal causal, where the being-clause provides the logical basis, not the real-world cause, for the main clause, as in this example from 1702: The words in the will being to Richard and the heirs of his body, the heirs were in that will only words of limitation, and not of purchase. Here, the being-clause gives the reason for concluding the status of the heirs stated in the main clause. The main clause could be paraphrased by it was concluded that the heirs were in that will only words of limitation, and not of purchase. An external causal can never be paraphrased this way, and it was concluded that the waters flooded the low grounds would make no sense in the external causal above.

If we assume that the Second Amendment was grammatical, then its being-clause belonged to one of these four types or a documented area of overlap between them. The temporal reading would indicate that whenever “A well regulated Militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State”, then “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” A conditional interpretation would entail that if “A well regulated Militia” is ever “necessary to the security of a free State”, then “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The external causal interpretation would mean that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” for the purpose of “A well regulated Militia … necessary to the security of a free State”. The internal causal would indicate that because it is known that “A well regulated Militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State”, it is concluded that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.

The temporal, external causal, and internal causal readings are not equally likely. The ARCHER corpus, for example, contains 37 being-clauses of the relevant type from the second half of the 18^th century. Of these, 18 have purely temporal meanings without conditional or causal inferences; 1 is a conditional; 19 have external causal meanings; and there are no internal causals. Statistically, then, the temporal and external causal interpretations of the Second Amendment are the most probable.

In the context of the Second Amendment, these two interpretations are not incompatible. We have seen that external causal meanings often assume temporal ones, since effects usually happen along with their causes. Both a temporal and a causal reading would assert that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” whenever a militia was “necessary to the security of a free State”. The causal reading would additionally assert that the “right” was for the purpose of the necessary militia, and therefore applied whenever the militia was necessary.

A temporal or causal relation between the clauses would mean that the main-clause content was temporally or causally contingent on the being-clause content, and “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” would only be asserted when, or for the purpose of, “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State”. Interpreting the main clause while ignoring the being-clause would be nonsensical, and certainly contrary to the original intent or understanding of the two clauses.

Of course, understanding the relation between the clauses does nothing to answer the question of how often a “A well regulated Militia” was thought to be “necessary to the security of a free State” and consequently how often “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. Perhaps such a militia was thought to be a permanent necessity, in which case the right to bear arms for that purpose would be perpetual. This is an issue for historians, not linguists. It is also a matter of debate as to whether the founders’ opinions on this issue outweigh those of present-day theorists, who might disagree on the necessity of a “well regulated Militia” to the “security of the free State”. This is an issue for legal scholars. However, the history of being-clauses does suggest that the applicability of the Second Amendment’s main clause was temporally and potentially causally contingent on the necessity of the “well regulated Militia” to the “security of the free State”, which may delimit the reasonable range of debate for theorists in other areas. Recognition of this clausal relation may also be helpful for interpreting words and collocations that have been the subject of debate, such as militia and bear arms, since the context of these items would have played a role in disambiguating their meaning.

This linguistic history also makes it clear that the Second Amendment was grammatical and probably unambiguous at the time of its writing. The Bill of Rights, like Shakespeare’s plays, was not badly written. We can blame our incomprehension on the ongoing process of language change – and perhaps on present-day speakers who fail to acknowledge it.

My position is that the second amendment as written allows for the banning of assault rifles.  (After all, we actually do regulate weaponry already and we had fairly a ban on assault rifles specifically.)

I am not interested in delving into the weeds of a semantical or historical argument. I'll just say this:  If a compelling legal argument could  be made that the second amendment absolutely prevents us from regulating (banning) assault rifles (which I do not believe it does), then for the good of the country, we should repeal the second amendment. 

Using your own logic, it's archaic. 

And it's certainly not relevant to the modern era.

 

 

Edited May 11, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,428]

14 hours ago, GoAU said:

Regarding the militia - that is EXACTLY what the founding fathers intended.  They just fighting for independence from a tyrannical government.   Their intent was to ensure the government was subservient to the people and not the other way around.   
 

You are imagining that. 

 

 

[GoAU 1,600]

5 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Thanks, but I'm well aware of the reasons our founders set things up the way they did. I understand they were concerned about government overreach, but it still makes no logical sense to have civilians that can defy laws on a whim. The idea of the noble individual or like-minded groups standing up against tyranny is something we've all been raised to admire, rightfully so, but it depends on people being noble. The problem is, a lot of people are f****** horrible, not particularly bright, or just lack information and fill in the blanks with their own ideas of what's right (many to the point of conspiracy). As you said, our government has checks and balances, and individuals have methods of redress that don't resort to violence. It's ridiculous to provide every person with the means to defy their government at will. I ask again, why would any competent government do that? If that was our founders' intent, then before they even started it they were implicitly admitting that the government would eventually fail, so why bother setting up a government in the first place? 

How was the muzzle loader comment silly? You agreed with me in your second sentence. My point was that muzzle loaders were equivalent to what the government had at the time. Do you really believe a person should be allowed to have any weapon the government has, even today? The 2nd Amendment makes no statement about the limit on "arms," so does it only pertain to weapons that can be carried on your person? Could Elon Musk commission a stocked aircraft carrier? How would you feel about George Soros building a few missile silos in his yard? If they wanted to be able to defy our government, wouldn't they have to have those weapons? Yes, these are absurd examples, but they're meant to be. They're the logical conclusions of your stated line of thought, the opposite extreme of the "slippery slope" you cite.

One last thing I would point out: many on this forum have derided the violent race outbursts and the BLM movement, yet ignore the conditions that fostered them. Many of those people were lashing out at what they see as tyranny against them by their own country. Interesting that no one calls them "patriots."

 

 

So, initially you said you don’t understand why they did what they did, then it was explained to you, then you stated you still don’t understand??  I can’t make it more clear than we already have - they want to ensure the government doesn’t overstep.  For example in places like China and Australia they had oppressive crackdowns during COVID - that wouldn’t happen here.  To answer your question as to why a “competent” government would allow this - perhaps the answer is that a honest & legitimate government wouldn’t be afraid of its own people?   It’s unfortunate you don’t consider the founders of our nation competent and the citizens “worthy” of their rights - you’d make a great king…

 

The muzzle loader comment was silly in the way you appeared to imply that you would be ok with people being restricted to muzzle loaders.   I don’t know if anyone in the gun crowd advocating for missiles or aircraft carriers, but hyperbole is something you’re good at.  The issue isn’t the “gun crowd” asking to buy tanks and planes (which aren’t illegal either BTW) but that they’re tired off people trying to take away rights that they’ve had for decades…..

Regarding your BLM comment - people aren’t calling them “patriots” because looting and vandalism aren’t patriotic activities. 

[GoAU 1,600]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

You are imagining that. 

 

 

Suggest you do a little more reading on history.  

[Leftfield 2,648]

20 minutes ago, GoAU said:

So, initially you said you don’t understand why they did what they did, then it was explained to you, then you stated you still don’t understand??

Where did I say I didn't understand? I said it didn't make sense. 

21 minutes ago, GoAU said:

I can’t make it more clear than we already have - they want to ensure the government doesn’t overstep.  For example in places like China and Australia they had oppressive crackdowns during COVID - that wouldn’t happen here. 

According to some, it did.

However, some of the restrictions were successfully fought in the courts, as our government is set up to do.

27 minutes ago, GoAU said:

To answer your question as to why a “competent” government would allow this - perhaps the answer is that a honest & legitimate government wouldn’t be afraid of its own people?  

You mean like the January 6 rioters? In hindsight, shouldn't we be glad they weren't allowed to have their ARs (or worse)?

One of the most often-used quotes used by gun rights activists is, "When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny," so it appears many do not share your opinion of an honest and legitimate government. Regardless, the real reason those in government should fear the people is because of elections, not violence.

 

35 minutes ago, GoAU said:

It’s unfortunate you don’t consider the founders of our nation competent and the citizens “worthy” of their rights - you’d make a great king…

You're putting words in my mouth. I never called the founders incompetent. I said the government they set up would have been, but I disagree with you on their intent. I could certainly be wrong. They were intelligent people, but couldn't see the future, and I can hardly fault them for that.

Once again, we disagree on whether owning whatever weapon desired is a "right." 

41 minutes ago, GoAU said:

 I don’t know if anyone in the gun crowd advocating for missiles or aircraft carriers, but hyperbole is something you’re good at. 

Lol. Hyperbole. You mean like...I'd make a great king?

Of course nobody is advocating for those things, because they know it wouldn't happen. The reason why it wouldn't happen is relevant here.

43 minutes ago, GoAU said:

The issue isn’t the “gun crowd” asking to buy tanks and planes (which aren’t illegal either BTW) but that they’re tired off people trying to take away rights that they’ve had for decades…..

But that's the thing, many of us think owning an AR wasn't a right to begin with. For a decade the government didn't think so. It wasn't an issue for a long time before that ban, but things changed and then it was. It's been an issue since and is getting worse.

54 minutes ago, GoAU said:

Regarding your BLM comment - people aren’t calling them “patriots” because looting and vandalism aren’t patriotic activities. 

Are you saying every one of them were looters and vandals? Nobody was fighting for legitimate reasons?

Do you think all the people that fought for this country were wholesome, or do you think plenty of them committed their own horrible acts? What do you think the British thought about those we consider patriots? What adjectives do you think they used to describe them?

I'm not excusing the looting and vandalism, I'm just asking for perspective.

[homersapien 11,428]

1 hour ago, GoAU said:

Suggest you do a little more reading on history.  

I have likely read a lot more history than you based on my age alone - as well as my life-long proclivity for non-fiction in the 900 section of the library. 

But if you have a specific work in mind, I'm all ears.

Edited May 11, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,428]

20 hours ago, GoAU said:

I’m having trouble even understanding what your trying to say here….

 

The statistics of the “good guy with the gun” is much higher than what you stated.  Before the CDC caved to pressure from the Soros backed gun control lobby, they stated in their own study that 500,000 to up to 2.5 MILLION defensive uses of firearms a year.  Not exactly 1% is it?  
 

I’m glad your opinion of what Americans “deserve” is completely meaningless - heck, you don’t don’t even bother to capitalize “American”…..

Assault rifles are made for offense ("assault").  They are literally designed for mass "murder".  They are a very poor choice for self-defense in civilian circumstances, if not counter-productive and outright dangerous to one's family and innocent bystanders in self-defense situations.

Banning them would have close to zero affect on the use of guns by civilians for "defensive" purposes.

And what exactly are you referring to by the "CDC caving to pressure"? 

(Oh btw, using the term Soros-backed is a "tell". )

Edited May 11, 2023 by homersapien

[GoAU 1,600]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

Assault rifles are made for offense ("assault").  They are literally designed for mass "murder".  They are a very poor choice for self-defense in civilian circumstances, if not counter-productive and outright dangerous to one's family and innocent bystanders in self-defense situations.

Banning them would have close to zero affect on the use of guns by civilians for "defensive" purposes.

And what exactly are you referring to by the "CDC caving to pressure"? 

(Oh btw, using the term Soros-backed is a "tell". )

If you would like to get literal, we’re not truly talking about “assault rifles” as the term refers to select fire weapons.   You are referring to the hijacking of the term and misapplying it to semi automatic rifles, but I assume you know that (and throw the term around anyway).  
 

Banning them would have close to no effect on firearm homicides either, as they are used in less than 1% of homicides.  And when the needle doesn’t move, I assume you’ll move along to pistols?  
 

The mystery revision to the CDCs gun study is detailed here.  You will see what I’m talking about in removing information that was published for YEARS…  

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/cdc-quietly-removes-defensive-gun-use-studies/amp/