Another school shooting

[Kat Kid]

depends on the definition but I think the George Floyd killing was so barbaric it is a pretty high bar to clear.

[catastrophe]

Floyd was certainly especially heinous because it was a case of doing the opposite of their duty rather than just not doing their duty, but based on the facts that have come out, it’s hard for me whether to call the Uvalde situation more of a gun problem or more of a police problem.

With the time he had in that room the casualty count would have been the same regardless of the weapon.

Either that or they have to admit the cowardice was a direct result of the shooter having an assault weapon. In which case the problem and solution here is painfully obvious.

[michigancat]

depends on the definition but I think the George Floyd killing was so barbaric it is a pretty high bar to clear.

I mean, I think more evil than Uvalde. I can see a scenario where the cops were just unorganized cowards at Uvalde but I imagine there are plenty of intentionally sadistic and evil cases since George Floyd. And I look at the intentionally sadistic and evil as *possibly* being worse than Uvalde.

[sonofdaxjones]

https://twitter.com/briantylercohen/status/1532517083946229760

Fine candidate for the golf course thread.

[Sandstone Outcropping]

Floyd was certainly especially heinous because it was a case of doing the opposite of their duty rather than just not doing their duty, but based on the facts that have come out, it’s hard for me whether to call the Uvalde situation more of a gun problem or more of a police problem.

With the time he had in that room the casualty count would have been the same regardless of the weapon.

Either that or they have to admit the cowardice was a direct result of the shooter having an assault weapon. In which case the problem and solution here is painfully obvious.

As horrible as the reports of the police response are (if early reports prove to be true), Uvalde situation was 90% gun/psychopath problem and 10% police problem. That being said, I won't be shocked if the "lesson learned" will be that we need to further militarize law enforcement.

[BIG APPLE CAT]

Floyd was certainly especially heinous because it was a case of doing the opposite of their duty rather than just not doing their duty, but based on the facts that have come out, it’s hard for me whether to call the Uvalde situation more of a gun problem or more of a police problem.

With the time he had in that room the casualty count would have been the same regardless of the weapon.

Either that or they have to admit the cowardice was a direct result of the shooter having an assault weapon. In which case the problem and solution here is painfully obvious.

As horrible as the reports of the police response are (if early reports prove to be true), Uvalde situation was 90% gun/psychopath problem and 10% police problem. That being said, I won't be shocked if the "lesson learned" will be that we need to further militarize law enforcement.

apparently there is plenty of supreme court precedent that pretty much establishes that the police "have a responsibility to the public but not the individual", with the exception of the police having a Special Relationship with an individual, which in pretty much every case means the police have taken that person into custody. So if the person is being held in police custody then the policy do have a duty to that individual to protect them. In the case of Salas v. Carpenter SCOTUS essentially said that someone waiting for rescue by the police is not considered to be a Special Relationship and that the police are not liable for a failed rescue attempt.

The argument could be made that since children are mandated to go to school and the school is run by the state that would constitute a Special Relationship but apparently that isn't the case either.

So basically there will be absolutely no legal liability whatsoever for those cops who stood idly by while 10 year olds were massacred

[Sandstone Outcropping]

My senator's response to rampant firearm-related slaughter in the US = LARPing with his guns. xpost pos pubs.

https://twitter.com/RogerMarshallMD/status/1532754752034971648?s=20&t=4AfOjbX6LfC0z-28kOpuBA

[Kid In the Hall]

My senator's response to rampant firearm-related slaughter in the US = LARPing with his guns. xpost pos pubs.

https://twitter.com/RogerMarshallMD/status/1532754752034971648?s=20&t=4AfOjbX6LfC0z-28kOpuBA

Good ole Doc Marshall needs to spend less money on guns and more money on better sound equipment.

[Dugout DickStone]

should also read the 2A again

[Spracne]

should also read the 2A again

And Federalist Papers No. 46.

[Dugout DickStone]

should also read the 2A again

And Federalist Papers No. 46.

And Mambo No. 5

[Spracne]

should also read the 2A again

And Federalist Papers No. 46.

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

Source: that Republican commie James Madison, aka Publius.

[Spracne]

In sum, the entire Original Understanding of 2A has been frustrated.

[Dugout DickStone]

In sum, the entire Original Understanding of 2A has been frustrated.

Very much so.

[Sandstone Outcropping]

In sum, the entire Original Understanding of 2A has been frustrated.

Spracs, does "National Guard" = "well-regulated militia" when constitutional experts discuss this sort of thing? So people who want to bear military weapons could join the National Guard? I'm too lazy to look at how the concept of the National Guard evolved from state militia groups during the late 18th century (or even if that is what it descends from). I always read about military units being organized from local geographic regions during the Civil War era but I'm pretty sure they weren't all state militias.

[CNS]

I mean, "well regulated" is right there upfront. 

We aren't going to solve the problem with one swipe, so let's start with some of that regulation that 2A insists upon, yet we basically don't have.

[Spracne]

In sum, the entire Original Understanding of 2A has been frustrated.

Spracs, does "National Guard" = "well-regulated militia" when constitutional experts discuss this sort of thing? So people who want to bear military weapons could join the National Guard? I'm too lazy to look at how the concept of the National Guard evolved from state militia groups during the late 18th century (or even if that is what it descends from). I always read about military units being organized from local geographic regions during the Civil War era but I'm pretty sure they weren't all state militias.

That's an open question. When I read Madison's words, it does strike me an awful lot like the equivalent of the National Guard today, except even more so controlled by the several States themselves, and even municipalities. Notice all the involvement contemplated by the local governments in appointing and regulating the local militias. As I think I've said before, there is a dearth of case law on the Second Amendment, so we simply don't "know" much. DC v. Heller held only that a person has a right to have a handgun in their home for self defense. That's about the extent of our "knowledge" on the subject. I've also read convincing scholarship that says the "right of the people" refers to a collective right "of the People" rather than an individual right of every person (happy to extrapolate, if this is confusing). Although, giving a crap about what we supposedly "know" seems not to matter anymore in the wake of Roe.

[dal9]

ames: https://iowastartingline.com/2022/06/03/ames-church-shooter-had-history-of-violence-against-women-accusations/

casualties of "shall issue" and permit repeal...

[BIG APPLE CAT]

In sum, the entire Original Understanding of 2A has been frustrated.

Spracs, does "National Guard" = "well-regulated militia" when constitutional experts discuss this sort of thing? So people who want to bear military weapons could join the National Guard? I'm too lazy to look at how the concept of the National Guard evolved from state militia groups during the late 18th century (or even if that is what it descends from). I always read about military units being organized from local geographic regions during the Civil War era but I'm pretty sure they weren't all state militias.

That's an open question. When I read Madison's words, it does strike me an awful lot like the equivalent of the National Guard today, except even more so controlled by the several States themselves, and even municipalities. Notice all the involvement contemplated by the local governments in appointing and regulating the local militias. As I think I've said before, there is a dearth of case law on the Second Amendment, so we simply don't "know" much. DC v. Heller held only that a person has a right to have a handgun in their home for self defense. That's about the extent of our "knowledge" on the subject. I've also read convincing scholarship that says the "right of the people" refers to a collective right "of the People" rather than an individual right of every person (happy to extrapolate, if this is confusing). Although, giving a crap about what we supposedly "know" seems not to matter anymore in the wake of Roe.

wish someone would have just walked up to one of those dudes at the time and been like "alright just to clarify...

[catastrophe]

It would not have made a bit of difference, imo. It didn’t take long to fetishize arms in the US, even Madison’s take holds up US having guns as hawt AF.

As Spracne pointed out, there have hardly even been occasions to test the constitutional limits of the Second Amendment. Most of the state and federal laws on guns go the opposite way to expand ownership rights and protections. Other than the DC handgun ban and maybe a couple of others it’s arguable IMHO whether the landscape would look significantly different if the Second Amendment never existed.

[star seed 7]

In the old west movies the sheriff rounds up a posse to infringe on the gun rights of the dude who just got in town. Pretty close to 420seriouscat69's "door to door" argument really.

[Spracne]

In the old west movies the sheriff rounds up a posse to infringe on the gun rights of the dude who just got in town. Pretty close to 420seriouscat69's "door to door" argument really.

Ahhhh, the good old days ....

[catastrophe]

In the old west movies the sheriff rounds up a posse to infringe on the gun rights of the dude who just got in town. Pretty close to 420seriouscat69's "door to door" argument really.

That reminds me of the scene in Tombstone where Wyatt Earp attempts to enforce an unconstitutional executive order against some gentlemen minding their own business at the ok corral.

[Rage Against the McKee]

In the old west movies the sheriff rounds up a posse to infringe on the gun rights of the dude who just got in town. Pretty close to 420seriouscat69's "door to door" argument really.

That reminds me of the scene in Tombstone where Wyatt Earp attempts to enforce an unconstitutional executive order against some gentlemen minding their own business at the ok corral.

This caused a civil war, iirc.

[Dugout DickStone]

In the old west movies the sheriff rounds up a posse to infringe on the gun rights of the dude who just got in town. Pretty close to 420seriouscat69's "door to door" argument really.

That reminds me of the scene in Tombstone where Wyatt Earp attempts to enforce an unconstitutional executive order against some gentlemen minding their own business at the ok corral.

he enforced the F out of it