[Discussion] Shooting in VA at Congressional baseball practice

I am hoping that given the swift and overwhelming evidence negating the claim, TAZ89 will edit the post accordingly.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

All your favorite far-right nutcases and liars come out of the woodwork to blame Democrats and the MSM:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...

I don't think they're wrong in claiming that anti trump rhetoric created an environment where attacks like this are possible. After living through eight years where virulent right wing rhetoric created an environment where right wing terrorists could murder state senators in their place of worship, I considered this to be almost inevitable.

Seth wrote:

I am hoping that given the swift and overwhelming evidence negating the claim, TAZ89 will edit the post accordingly.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

All your favorite far-right nutcases and liars come out of the woodwork to blame Democrats and the MSM:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...

I don't think they're wrong in claiming that anti trump rhetoric created an environment where attacks like this are possible. After living through eight years where virulent right wing rhetoric created an environment where right wing terrorists could murder state senators in their place of worship, I considered this to be almost inevitable.

How so? Doesn't seem to change anything.

Dimmerswitch wrote:
Whenever a politician gets hurt or vandalized, there's a cynical part of me that thinks some people in their own camp are secretly pleased by it, because it gives validation for attacking and generalizing about their political enemies. I can see this happening again.
Spoiler:

Source

It's more true now than ever, one side breathed a big sigh of relief when today's motivation was revealed. As a former Bernie guy, I admit I was pretty disheartened.

Running Man wrote:

It's more true now than ever, one side breathed a big sigh of relief when today's motivation was revealed. As a former Bernie guy, I admit I was pretty disheartened.

Moral of the story is that there are sucky people everywhere, don't be like them.

I'm going to be curious to see if any of these congressmen, after coming under targeted fire at a friendly baseball practice, will change any of their views towards guns. It's one thing to be yay-NRA and have a detached view of what it might be like to be a kid in a school under attack, it's something else huddling down in an outfield with dirt clods blowing up around you as a result of bullet fire.

sheared wrote:

I'm going to be curious to see if any of these congressmen, after coming under targeted fire at a friendly baseball practice, will change any of their views towards guns. It's one thing to be yay-NRA and have a detached view of what it might be like to be a kid in a school under attack, it's something else huddling down in an outfield with dirt clods blowing up around you as a result of bullet fire.

Imagine what the political blowback would be for them though if they reversed course after years of being in lockstep with the NRA, convincing everyone of the paramount importance of guns.

They'd become pariahs. So, I'm not holding my breath.

Edit: Nevermind.

I'm not sure what republicans are complaining about. According to them the point of the second amendment is to allow one to shoot elected representatives.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/a-yea...

This is a feature of the system they've designed.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

I'm not sure what republicans are complaining about. According to them the point of the second amendment is to allow one to shoot elected representatives.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/a-yea...

This is a feature of the system they've designed.

People saying the tweet didn't age well but I still don't see anything wrong with it.

“The tweet you reference was part of live tweeting of someone else’s speech and it was done by a staffer. Those are not Senator Paul’s words.”


That was quick.

I have been to literally dozens of gun shows in the last four years and can count on my thumbs the ones I have been to where I didn't find targets with Hillary Clinton's or Barack Obama's face on them.

Paleocon wrote:

I have been to literally dozens of gun shows in the last four years and can count on my thumbs the ones I have been to where I didn't find targets with Hillary Clinton's or Barack Obama's face on them.

Wait... when did you lose your thumbs?

sheared wrote:

I'm going to be curious to see if any of these congressmen, after coming under targeted fire at a friendly baseball practice, will change any of their views towards guns. It's one thing to be yay-NRA and have a detached view of what it might be like to be a kid in a school under attack, it's something else huddling down in an outfield with dirt clods blowing up around you as a result of bullet fire.

I expect them to bandy about a bill that says US lawkmakers can carry concealed everywhere in America.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
sheared wrote:

I'm going to be curious to see if any of these congressmen, after coming under targeted fire at a friendly baseball practice, will change any of their views towards guns. It's one thing to be yay-NRA and have a detached view of what it might be like to be a kid in a school under attack, it's something else huddling down in an outfield with dirt clods blowing up around you as a result of bullet fire.

I expect them to bandy about a bill that says US lawkmakers can carry concealed everywhere in America.

More likely they'll establish a weapon-free "Green Zone." They already disarm the nutbags at the NRA convention keynotes and RNC gatherings.

Mostly, they are just trying to spin this as a reason to shut down criticism of Trump.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...

In the CNN interview, Davis blamed the shooting on the "hateful" tone of politics in the country and said it "could be the first political rhetorical terrorist act."

*infinite facepalms*

Yes, let's ignore anti-feminist, racist, xenophobic, homophobic attacks because this time the conservative white guys were targeted... which makes it the first one ever.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Booth wrote:

People saying the tweet didn't age well but I still don't see anything wrong with it.

The Second Amendment not only was not put in place to allow rebellion, but Jefferson opined that rebellion was inevitable, but should be squashed with some mercy, after spilling some blood, on the theory that people need to re-learn the lessons of unity. That's what the "tree of Liberty" letter was all about. The Founders *had* rebelled, and recognized (and feared and hated) rebellion as a challenge to the Union they had put together with their gold and blood. They really did not want to see others tearing down what they built up. They instead provided for peaceful change, through changes not just to the laws, but to the Constitution itself over time, to remove the need for violent change.

Further, any organizational opposition to government that *might* have been in the Second dissolved when the militia system failed. There was no, zero, expectation that people would rise up outside the militia system and be considered legitimately resisting. Again, we can see that in how they handled rebellion.

The idea that today we could see the Second as a legitimate avenue to rebellion, or even that an untrained force could successfully *improve* the government through rebellion, is completely delusional. What might have been possible with fucntional State militias as the core of a rebellious army - and which indeed was used that way and went down to abject failure - is just fantasy today. It's cruel and misleading and dangerous to put that fantasy forward as a way to justify private weapons ownership.

Conservative Michael Savage:
Calls Maddow is a "sneering creature".

Should Trump take control of Twitter for not monitoring haters? You heard me. Is it time for the government to take control of the out-of-control pirates on social media, like Facebook and Twitter, who do not monitor left-wing haters? Should Rachel 'Madcow' and the haters be removed from the airwaves by the Federal government?

Lou Dobbs:

As we have seen the secular left rise and hostility within it rise, it has become a threat to domestic order, and to this administration.

It's irrational, and there is no, if you will, mitigation on the part of the national left-wing media. Indeed, they have become collaborators, accomplices in those acts of subversion and the effort to undercut this lawful administration. This is something we've never experienced.

It's something we have experienced though, from the right during Obama's administration.

If you want to see hostility, read this from Dobbs in May:

The Trump administration has a communications department behaving as though they were in the George W. Bush White House. Our president is under constant barrage from all quarters, by the vapid but still venomous Dems on Capitol Hill, the left-wing national media, the toxic GOP elites and much of the orthodoxy who hate also as much as the left and the deep state denizens. That includes some of the wealthiest and most powerful people in this nation. And this president deserves the full commitment of his White House staff, who should be fighting as hard as the president for him, his agenda, and this country. The all too civil, low energy Trump White House communications deep remains flatfooted and failing. They need to change that. They aren't obviously fighters, they obviously aren't street smart and they haven't been strategic. And they must change all of that. They must become all of that and much more. Because the determined forces of evil that surround this White House are trying to destroy the Trump presidency. This is a war, damn it, so go to war now.

We still have functional state militias, and they even have a bunch of neat toys like F-16s and whatnot, but it's true that I don't think that even most of the National Guards together would be a credible threat to the US Military.

The passage of the Second Amendment was concurrent with the passage of the Militia Acts. This is not coincidental. Neither is the language in the 2nd regarding the "well regulated militia". It is further not incidental that the first actual use of this "well regulated militia" was to stomp on the faces of folks that didn't want to pay their taxes.

So the idea that the Founders passed the 2nd Amendment so folks could overthrow the government is such a misreading of it that it could only be cooked up by some home schooled, mail order bible college nutbag.

Paleocon wrote:

The passage of the Second Amendment was concurrent with the passage of the Militia Acts. This is not coincidental. Neither is the language in the 2nd regarding the "well regulated militia". It is further not incidental that the first actual use of this "well regulated militia" was to stomp on the faces of folks that didn't want to pay their taxes.

So the idea that the Founders passed the 2nd Amendment so folks could overthrow the government is such a misreading of it that it could only be cooked up by some home schooled, mail order bible college nutbag.

I have no problem with "mail order bible college", but my son's education was MUCH better when I was homeschooling him than it is now that he's in public high school (his choice, not mine).

Sex Ed at the school is abstinence based with no explanation or discussion about non heterosexual sex. Biology teacher (honors class) also tried to use "it's just a theory" for evolution. Son asked her to explain what a theory meant in scientific terms. (I'm surprised he hasn't been sent to the office yet.)

Yonder wrote:

We still have functional state militias, and they even have a bunch of neat toys like F-16s and whatnot, but it's true that I don't think that even most of the National Guards together would be a credible threat to the US Military.

None of them function anything like the original militias.

Militia Act of 1792 wrote:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.

Mandatory White male conscription. Local militia companies who recruit and train locally. The use of militias for law enforcement, tax collection and other local duties now handled by other organizations. Direct pay to militias from State coffers. No standing army.

Even Madison, who had championed the idea of local militias as a check on tyranny, reversed his position emphatically and supported a standing army, due to the failure of the militias in the War of 1812. What we have today would be unexplainable to the Founders. (Imagine their reaction to the legal fiction of the "Unregulated militia" that was used to change the system without directly repealing the Militia Act or the Second Amendment.) Thus, we have the situation that allows the Draft, and the maintenance of State militias, the National Guard, State's Guards, and even plausibly "citizen's militias", but not the system that was understood by the Founders. We have a system that pre-dates a standing army mashed up with a newer model in which that standing army actually conducts our national defense, and in which the previous State militias, now Guards, are actually pretty helpless against Federal usurpation. Which directly opposes the Madisonian idea of militias standing up to Federal tyranny.

I invite anyone to consider under what circumstance the, say, Illinois National Guard will act against the Federal Government, what it could achieve, and how it would do it. Much less the 400 or so members of the "Missouri Citizen's Militia", or the unknown numbers of the "423rd Texas Light Foot Militia", or the other ten or so similar organizations that exist today. Give it some serious thought. That capability simply does not exist today, and is a fantasy used to justify gun sales.

The National Guards have been significantly reformed since the first Militia Act, but the point remains that National Guards ARE the state militias. The various Militia Acts and amendments that started with what you quoted led us directly to the National Guards. The "Missouri Citizen's Militia" or any other of those social organizations that BRAND themselves as Militia, are not. The National Guard is the (organized) militia.

But they are not State Militias in any sense of the original law, or the context of the Second Amendment. They are a modern invention that is different in nature and function and command structure and membership from the original militias.

We have no more militias like those that were universal when the Constitution was written and for decades afterwards. It's a term that has not changed, but whose meaning has changed over the years.

That is just literally not true. The Militia Act of 1903 did shrink down the militias, moving all of the 18-45 year old men that used to be in it to the "Reserve Militia" but it didn't remove complete legal structure of militia, it reformed then and renamed them as National Guards.

Militia Act of 1903 wrote:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the militia shall consist of every able-bodied male citizen of the respective States, Territories, and the District of Columbia, and every able; bodied male of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more than eighteen and less than forty-five years of age, and shall be divided into two classes-the organized militia, to be known as the National Guard of the State, Territory, or District of Columbia, or by such other designations as may be given them by the laws of the respective States or Territories, and the remainder to be known as the Reserve Militia.

Edit: I'm not saying that they have stayed exactly the same, note that, but to say that there is just no trace of them or that they don't fulfill the same functions is just wrong. They are the current in a heirarchy of militias, a heirarchy that performs the same functions of emergency response, keeping order in times of martial law, and support of the main armed forces in times of war. They are smaller, yes, because in the last 200 years we had technological changes that moved to small, highly trained groups rather than full conscription. They don't do all the same jobs, because we have Fire Departments and an IRS now, but they are, 100% militias. The idea that "we don't have militias anymore, those are relics of the past" is not true. Whether you are pushing a "look how far America has fallen" viewpoint or a "boy this whole militia thing is super obsolete and totally doesn't exist anymore" viewpoint.

In 1792, a "firearm" would have described an unrifled weapon which used flint and steel to ignite powder in a barrel, into which a single charge, wadding and shot were inserted manually, with a function range of about 30 yards. We still have "firearms" today; we still have muskets. But there no firearms used in 1792 that are in use today by any military in the world.

Reverse your perspective for minute, and tell me where in the Militia Acts there exists an "unregulated militia". Where in the Constitution? Where in the original State Constitutions?

Today's "militias" have very little in common with those of the early US, and that's the point I'm making. They have the same *name*, but laws written to deal with the militias in the early 19th and late 18th century were intended to deal with something entirely different in form and function from today's National Guard.

I agree - we still have things we call "militias". But we don't have militias that the Founders would recognize as such, and that's a key to understanding the problems we have with defining limits on firearms in the US today. It's not the only one, but it's an important one, because pretending they are the same is what the modern "conservative" interpretation of the Second hangs on. If they admit that the things themselves have changed, then that would open the door to changing the laws around them, and that's anathema, so they argue strenuously that today's "militias" are the same as those of the past.

But they are not. Remember the context here. In 1792, each community could at least lay claim to the idea that, if threatened, it could turn out militarily equipped, capable, trained and organized to a standard (ie, "regulated") militias to defend itself from Indian attack, foreign invasions, another state, rebellion, or simply a criminal mob. Those in the militia knew they were subject to call-up to form a national army (since there was none); every White male 18 to 45 was a member (but no one else); and the State paid to equip, train and maintain them. Active service was severely limited, although this varied. Volunteer force? No.

Which of those things can you say the National Guard does? Required membership of every male of age? No. Training at the local level? Eh, maybe, but not to the same degree. Exclusive state control? No. Equipped and trained to fend off invasions or rebellions? Only with the inclusion of the standing army. Forced active service for all males of age? No. Authority to conduct law enforcement operations? Prohibited by statute, I believe. Independent of the Federal government? No. Volunteer force? Yes.

You are accusing me of saying something I expressly, 100% did not say. I am not saying that 23rd Battallion of Armed Hobos is a militia. I am saying that the CALIFORNIA NATIONAL GUARD is a legal militia as described and regulated by the current Militia Acts in the federal legal code of the United States of America. The main legislation being the Militia Act of 1903, which significantly reformed the previous militia systems and received much more minor amendments in 1908, 1916, and 1933. It is still the law of the land.

We're talking at cross purposes, unless you believe the average citizen, by virtue of being designated part of the "unregulated militia", is part of a nascent "militia" of armed citizens who are a bastion against tyranny, and that their right to bear arms is intended to intimidate the Federal government from over-reach. Are you defending that point? Because I think you're just arguing over the term itself, and that's missing my point entirely.

Robear wrote:

We're talking at cross purposes, unless you believe the average citizen, by virtue of being designated part of the "unregulated militia", is part of a nascent "militia" of armed citizens who are a bastion against tyranny, and that their right to bear arms is intended to intimidate the Federal government from over-reach. Are you defending that point? Because I think you're just arguing over the term itself, and that's missing my point entirely.

If you reread my posts I think you'll find it abundantly clear that I never, ever said anything close to that, AND that I specifically denounced that sort of thing multiple times. You're flagrantly misreading my posts.

I was responding to this:

Robear wrote:

when the militia system failed.

The militia system didn't fail, we have a ton of them, they have helicopters, jets, guns, howitzers. They rescue and deliver supplies in emergencies, keep the peace in emergencies, and even defend the country in armed conflict (if you buy the whole "we're defending America 5000 miles away" argument, which I really hope we don't start here).

The corollary to that that I didn't mention is that, since the US Militias are live and well, when we read the second amendment we should keep in mind that the "well-regulated militia" that that amendment mentions DOES still exist today, in the form of the various National Guards.

Edit: Here is a sourced brief rundown of the history of the militia acts that I made. It's more than a little snippy because the guy I was responding to had been an ass elsewhere in the thread.

I think I understand your argument regarding militias, Yonder, and thanks for the Reddit post. How do you integrate that argument into your interpretation of the second amendment, then? Do you think that a well-regulated militia, by your definition, is still necessary to the security of the free state? Who are the "people" referenced in the text, if not lay citizens using firearms for their own recreational purposes?