Welcome to The Few Good Men

Thanks for visiting our club and having a look around, there is a lot to see. Why not consider becoming a member?

Texas Shootings

No problem. But the Taliban had the support of the population in SOME areas. By no means did they have the support of the population in all areas. Afghanistan had lots of warring factions and tribes.

People with rifles are no laughing matter. History is full of such people mounting incredible resistance (Boers, the Viet Cong, American colonists, etc..). They might struggle to win outright on the battlefield, but they can win wars be wearing down big, expensive armies who run out of money and patience before the will of their opponents is broken.
@Nemesis & @Josey Wales

If you'll pardon my intrusion, but aren't the examples you cited largely a function of an outside entity occupying another countries territory and the population of that country answering a call to arms to fight for their homeland? I should think that would engender a different response given there would be an identifiable 'enemy' to fight back against than what one would witness were it a civilian population raising up against their own Government.

Hence my reticence in finding favour with regards the principal of civilians carrying around instruments of war (i.e. assault rifles) as a bulwark to counter Government oppression.

Presently the U.S. has more guns in circulation than it has people. If one accepts that the country is presently roughly divided 50-50 along various fault lines, should it then not follow that there would be some significant numbers of one's fellow citizens on the 'other' side of the equation who would also be armed and might not view the situation the same way and would support the Government?

How then is one expected to separate the oppressed civilian population from the oppressing civilian population before everyone starts firing off their assault weapon at each other?

Or am I missing something?

Cheers!
 
Perfectly answers my question. I wanted an insider's perspective. Thank you!

I do know that equalization payments in Canada strongly helps Quebec and that the praire provinces are bitter. As the economic pie shrinks.....the squabbles might intensify.
@Nemesis,

That of course is always possible, but bear in mind that the whole Province of Alberta is land-locked and enjoys a population that is only just slightly larger than the City of Los Angeles.

So if the end game of these squabbles were to ever result in its separation from the rest of Canada, then it would basically have only one option but to look south and formulate some kind of arrangement and dependency with the U.S. to maintain access to commercial markets and import/export trade etc. Not sure that would ultimately help its aspirations.

Given the disparity in size and influence between the US (331.4M pop.) and Alberta (4.4M pop.), I suspect those negotiations/arrangements would not be any more favorable to it than would be its ability to wrest accommodation with the rest of Canada (37M pop.) while remaining as part of our Federation.

And if one is contemplating the long-game, given Alberta's economy is highly dependent on its fossil fuel energy sector, eventually those resources will either dwindle and/or become to expensive to profitably extract or will be gradually phased out through global climate initiatives etc and down the road it could eventually become a net recipient of equalization payments.

Cheers!
 
I had the opportunity to see the video (uncensored I mean) that the murderer recorded when carrying out the massacre. They really look like scenes from a video game.

I'm not sure I understood you correctly. You willingly watched a video of the murderer killing 20 children?
 
@Nemesis & @Josey Wales

If you'll pardon my intrusion, but aren't the examples you cited largely a function of an outside entity occupying another countries territory and the population of that country answering a call to arms to fight for their homeland? I should think that would engender a different response given there would be an identifiable 'enemy' to fight back against than what one would witness were it a civilian population raising up against their own Government.

Hence my reticence in finding favour with regards the principal of civilians carrying around instruments of war (i.e. assault rifles) as a bulwark to counter Government oppression.

Presently the U.S. has more guns in circulation than it has people. If one accepts that the country is presently roughly divided 50-50 along various fault lines, should it then not follow that there would be some significant numbers of one's fellow citizens on the 'other' side of the equation who would also be armed and might not view the situation the same way and would support the Government?

How then is one expected to separate the oppressed civilian population from the oppressing civilian population before everyone starts firing off their assault weapon at each other?

Or am I missing something?

Cheers!
This sounds reminiscent of America back in the day of the American Revolutionary War. There was a government (the British Crown) who wanted to confiscate all weapons from the population (there were exceptions for weapons that families on the frontier needed to use to feed themselves). There were citizens who wanted independence from the Crown (they called themselves Patriots and the Crown called them criminals), on the one hand, and there were citizens who were loyal to the Crown (Loyalists or Tories), on the other hand. The Patriots wanted to keep their guns to resist what they perceived to be an overreaching and oppressive government, and the Loyalists were fine with giving up their guns (expect for those Loyalists who took up arms to fight alongside the British Regulars). So, after a war that lasted longer than 7 years, the Patriots/Criminals prevailed and got to write the rules for how their society would live moving forward. One point that was dear to every Patriot's heart is that the government will never oppress the Patriots again ... and the Patriots will keep their guns to make sure that is the case. Hence, the Second Amendment. Now, for sure, times have changed. But the Constitution has not. If it is time to take guns away from the citizenry, then it is time to change the Constitution. That brings up another point. How does one view the Constitution? Are you a strict constructionalist (i.e., the unambiguous words in the document mean what they say and must be enforced) or are you an interpretationalist (i.e., times change and words should be interpreted to fit the mores of the people considering the question at that point in time)? The lawyer in me is a stickler for laws and takes comfort in bright line rules. So, if I were "calling balls and strikes," the question is whether the Second Amendment, as written, should still be the law of the land. If it is time for a change ... and it might be ... then the Constitution needs another Amendment. Just my two cents.
 
Politicians prefer unarmed peasants. The framers of the Constitution understood this, hence the 2nd Amendment. Your governments can be as tyrannical as they want to be and you don't have the means to stop it. Americans have the means. Please do not construe this as a call for civil war or armed insurrection, it's a general observation. I use the ballot box to effect change, not the barrel of a gun.

As for mental health issues, this country is woefully poor at addressing them. We need to do a better job, a much better job on that issue, no doubt about it. But I do believe that social media is having a negative factor on everyone in this country, young and old, left and right. The constant stream of vitriol and falsehoods and the fact that any little piss-ant slight gets blown out of proportion is bound to create issues. My dad told me once "Son, you better toughen your ass up because there is always going to be someone wanting to kick it, chew it or kiss it." Clearly, fathers aren't having that talk with their kids anymore.
 
@Bootie
What he is referring to is a bill that wants private citizens to run background checks when selling to another citizen. Something that would not have prevented any Mass shooting that I am aware of but makes it sound like something is being done. He also doesn’t want armed guards at schools and was just as “passionate” when making that point approximately two years ago. We have more than enough gun laws on record to dramatically curtail murders and violence in general if the courts would just sentence the criminals properly instead of just releasing violent offended for political reasons.
 
This sounds reminiscent of America back in the day of the American Revolutionary War. There was a government (the British Crown) who wanted to confiscate all weapons from the population (there were exceptions for weapons that families on the frontier needed to use to feed themselves). There were citizens who wanted independence from the Crown (they called themselves Patriots and the Crown called them criminals), on the one hand, and there were citizens who were loyal to the Crown (Loyalists or Tories), on the other hand. The Patriots wanted to keep their guns to resist what they perceived to be an overreaching and oppressive government, and the Loyalists were fine with giving up their guns (expect for those Loyalists who took up arms to fight alongside the British Regulars). So, after a war that lasted longer than 7 years, the Patriots/Criminals prevailed and got to write the rules for how their society would live moving forward. One point that was dear to every Patriot's heart is that the government will never oppress the Patriots again ... and the Patriots will keep their guns to make sure that is the case. Hence, the Second Amendment. Now, for sure, times have changed. But the Constitution has not. If it is time to take guns away from the citizenry, then it is time to change the Constitution. That brings up another point. How does one view the Constitution? Are you a strict constructionalist (i.e., the unambiguous words in the document mean what they say and must be enforced) or are you an interpretationalist (i.e., times change and words should be interpreted to fit the mores of the people considering the question at that point in time)? The lawyer in me is a stickler for laws and takes comfort in bright line rules. So, if I were "calling balls and strikes," the question is whether the Second Amendment, as written, should still be the law of the land. If it is time for a change ... and it might be ... then the Constitution needs another Amendment. Just my two cents.
@Nort,

If I may.

Why does this question have to be framed as an absolute, all or nothing, requiring Constitutional amendment? Something I can appreciate has virtually nil chance of occurring given today’s political climate in your country. Or maybe I am misunderstanding your point.

But certainly, putting reasonable restrictions on the type of weapons a citizen has a right to own (i.e., banning assault rifles, other weapons of war and the like), would not be an unreasonable infringement on the 2nd Amendment and on a citizens’ right to bear arms, would it?

After all there are existing restrictions to the 1st Amendment are there not, regarding free speech and those did not require to my knowledge any change to the constitution to be implemented.

I’m of course being facetious here, but taken to its admittedly absurd extreme, for a strict constructionist would not the 1st Amendment then theoretically allow a citizen to install a howitzer gun in their back yard or drive around with a Javelin in their car trunk?

Cheers!
 
@Nort,

If I may.

Why does this question have to be framed as an absolute, all or nothing, requiring Constitutional amendment? Something I can appreciate has virtually nil chance of occurring given today’s political climate in your country. Or maybe I am misunderstanding your point.

But certainly, putting reasonable restrictions on the type of weapons a citizen has a right to own (i.e., banning assault rifles, other weapons of war and the like), would not be an unreasonable infringement on the 2nd Amendment and on a citizens’ right to bear arms, would it?

After all there are existing restrictions to the 1st Amendment are there not, regarding free speech and those did not require to my knowledge any change to the constitution to be implemented.

I’m of course being facetious here, but taken to its admittedly absurd extreme, for a strict constructionist would not the 1st Amendment then theoretically allow a citizen to install a howitzer gun in their back yard or drive around with a Javelin in their car trunk?

Cheers!
I think you mis-typed the 1st Amendment in connection with installing a howitzer. The 1st Amendment protects freedom of expression (freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom of assembly, free press, etc.) I think you meant to refer to the 2nd Amendment, in your howitzer example, which addresses the right to possess a gun.

I feel I should preface my next comments with a disclosure that I am a Strict Constructionalist. So take my views with that grain of salt.

The 1st Amendment prohibits the Federal Congress from making any laws respecting an establishment of religion (so no favored national religion and no exclusion of any faith), or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The Federal Congress cannot make any law abridging free speech, the press, the right to peacefully assemble, or to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. However, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has analyzed the scope of the 1st Amendment and determined that types of "speech" that fall within these expressly enumerated categories is "protected speech" which cannot be abridged. The SCOTUS has also held that if a type of speech falls outside the boundaries of any of these expressly protected classes of speech, then that speech is "unprotected speech." Examples of unprotected speech have been defined by the SCOTUS to include "obscenity," "fighting words," "inciting violence or a riot," "hate speech," "yelling Fire! in a crowded theater," etc. So the Federal Congress would be well within its prerogative to ban speech that falls outside the expressly enumerated categories. Most of the civil rights litigation, at least during my 30 years as a Constitutional lawyer (and I have appeared on behalf of clients on three occasions before the SCOTUS), focused almost entirely on whether the "speech" in question fell within one or more of the protected classes of speech. I cannot recall any litigation focusing on what the scope of the Federal Congress' power might be. In other words, if the speech was held to be protected, the Federal Congress could not control it. If, on the other hand, the speech was held to be unprotected, then the Federal Congress could stifle it. It is also worth noting, that there is nothing in the 1st Amendment that pertains to other public entities, such as states, counties, cities, towns or villages. Having said that, it is very common for each State Constitution to incorporate language that is very similar, if not identical, to that of the Federal Constitution. But there would be nothing the Federal Congress could do to stop a State from choosing to make laws respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting free speech ... at least nothing in the 1st Amendment of the Federal Constitution. As for your reference to "existing restrictions to the 1st Amendment," I am guessing that you are referring to the SCOTUS' "rational basis test" and the implementation of "time, place and manner" restrictions on otherwise "protected speech." It is true that, if there is a rational basis for limiting otherwise protected speech, then that protected speech cannot be stifled, but the time, place and manner of how that protected speech is expressed can be controlled. A common example is protesters. If a group of individuals wish to voice unhappiness with a certain development (i.e., protesting the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War), those individuals cannot be censored based on the content of their speech. And if those individuals protest from a sidewalk, without hampering ingress and egress, their behavior is protected. However, when those individuals step off the curb and into the street in order to block traffic (i.e., without first obtaining a permit to do so), their speech has arguably gone beyond just expressing their views. Now they are imposing their views, through behavior, on others. Those others have a 1st Amendment right to determine with whom they wish to assemble. In this example, it has been judicially adjudicated that the actions of the protesters (blocking traffic to drive home their point) have stepped outside of the realm of protected speech and into the realm of unprotected speech. That is why "time, place and manner restrictions" are a thing. All of that is to say that existing restrictions to free speech are deemed to be already in the fabric of the 1st Amendment, and no further Amendment is required.

Turing to the 2nd Amendment, I ... as a Strict Constructionalist ... have a problem with how the SCOTUS has interpreted the language of that Amendment.

The text of the 2nd Amendment reads in full: "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." Obviously, that language was drafted at a time when the relationship between the British Crown and the American Colonists was what it was. Having said that, what I see when I read that language is that if I am a member of a regulated militia, and that militia was formed to protect the state from either a foreign invasion or internal insurrection, then ... and only then ... the Federal Congress cannot take my gun. Hey, I said I was a Strict Constructionalist. It is my belief that if there is to be a change in that law, then a Constitutional Amendment is required. Clearly, the SCOTUS does not agree with me. When the Court took up the meaning of the words in the 2nd Amendment, the Court held those words to mean that U.S. citizens get to have their guns and the Federal Congress cannot place any limitations on that possessory right. Again, there is nothing in the Federal Constitution that bans other public entities from placing restrictions on gun ownership. That is why California has restrictions on assault weapons and certain types of ammunition, and why those restrictions have been deemed Constitutional. So to answer your question, a Strict Constitutionalist would not allow a citizen to install a howitzer. An interpretationlist court has held that the 2nd Amendment prohibits the Federal Congress from stopping you from getting a howitzer. But, again, that does not stop your State, county or city from taking your howitzer.

Boy, who put a quarter in Nort?
 
Last edited:
@Josey Wales
Nothing short of a full gun confiscation will stop a mass shooter. Nothing the talking heads are saying would make a difference.

The part about courts being tougher on violent criminals AND gun offenders just shows that whatever is done going forward will only affect law abiding citizens who aren’t doing anything wrong and still ignore the violent part of society.

Dedicated Armed guards and more stringent security measures is far different from a local cop who has to always look over his shoulder because parts of society want to prosecute him for any mistake he/she makes in a split second life or death situation. The #ACAB and defund the police movements have driven the most dedicated officers to retire and others to operate with a axe over their heads.

Guns in America aren’t going away any time soon, that’s just a fact.
 
Last edited:
@Josey Wales
Sensible gun regulations only work if you are willing to enforce them. That’s my main point, there are hundreds or thousands of gun laws on the books but they are ignored for political reasons. Politicians are afraid to anger their base by coming down hard on people who use guns in a violent manner.
America is not like the rest of the world in matters of personal liberty and may never be.
 
@sspoom and yet other developed countries which have sensible gun control regulations without a full confiscation have markedly reduced rates of mass shootings, gun related murders, gun related suicides and overall lower murder rates.
I am curious, what is considered sensible gun control regulations, and what countries have them. Not being an ass, just want to know so I can read up on them.
 
I think you mis-typed the 1st Amendment in connection with installing a howitzer. The 1st Amendment protects freedom of expression (freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom of assembly, free press, etc.) I think you meant to refer to the 2nd Amendment, in your howitzer example, which addresses the right to possess a gun.

I feel I should preface my next comments with a disclosure that I am a Strict Constructionalist. So take my views with that grain of salt.

The 1st Amendment prohibits the Federal Congress from making any laws respecting an establishment of religion (so no favored national religion and no exclusion of any faith), or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The Federal Congress cannot make any law abridging free speech, the press, the right to peacefully assemble, or to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. However, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has analyzed the scope of the 1st Amendment and determined that types of "speech" that fall within these expressly enumerated categories is "protected speech" which cannot be abridged. The SCOTUS has also held that if a type of speech falls outside the boundaries of any of these expressly protected classes of speech, then that speech is "unprotected speech." Examples of unprotected speech have been defined by the SCOTUS to include "obscenity," "fighting words," "inciting violence or a riot," "hate speech," "yelling Fire! in a crowded theater," etc. So the Federal Congress would be well within its prerogative to ban speech that falls outside the expressly enumerated categories. Most of the civil rights litigation, at least during my 30 years as a Constitutional lawyer (and I have appeared on behalf of clients on three occasions before the SCOTUS), focused almost entirely on whether the "speech" in question fell within one or more of the protected classes of speech. I cannot recall any litigation focusing on what the scope of the Federal Congress' power might be. In other words, if the speech was held to be protected, the Federal Congress could not control it. If, on the other hand, the speech was held to be unprotected, then the Federal Congress could stifle it. It is also worth noting, that there is nothing in the 1st Amendment that pertains to other public entities, such as states, counties, cities, towns or villages. Having said that, it is very common for each State Constitution to incorporate language that is very similar, if not identical, to that of the Federal Constitution. But there would be nothing the Federal Congress could do to stop a State from choosing to make laws respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting free speech ... at least nothing in the 1st Amendment of the Federal Constitution. As for your reference to "existing restrictions to the 1st Amendment," I am guessing that you are referring to the SCOTUS' "rational basis test" and the implementation of "time, place and manner" restrictions on otherwise "protected speech." It is true that, if there is a rational basis for limiting otherwise protected speech, then that protected speech cannot be stifled, but the time, place and manner of how that protected speech is expressed can be controlled. A common example is protesters. If a group of individuals wish to voice unhappiness with a certain development (i.e., protesting the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War), those individuals cannot be censored based on the content of their speech. And if those individuals protest from a sidewalk, without hampering ingress and egress, their behavior is protected. However, when those individuals step off the curb and into the street in order to block traffic (i.e., without first obtaining a permit to do so), their speech has arguably gone beyond just expressing their views. Now they are imposing their views, through behavior, on others. Those others have a 1st Amendment right to determine with whom they wish to assemble. In this example, it has been judicially adjudicated that the actions of the protesters (blocking traffic to drive home their point) have stepped outside of the realm of protected speech and into the realm of unprotected speech. That is why "time, place and manner restrictions" are a thing. All of that is to say that existing restrictions to free speech are deemed to be already in the fabric of the 1st Amendment, and no further Amendment is required.

Turing to the 2nd Amendment, I ... as a Strict Constructionalist ... have a problem with how the SCOTUS has interpreted the language of that Amendment.

The text of the 2nd Amendment reads in full: "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." Obviously, that language was drafted at a time when the relationship between the British Crown and the American Colonists was what it was. Having said that, what I see when I read that language is that if I am a member of a regulated militia, and that militia was formed to protect the state from either a foreign invasion or internal insurrection, then ... and only then ... the Federal Congress cannot take my gun. Hey, I said I was a Strict Constructionalist. It is my belief that if there is to be a change in that law, then a Constitutional Amendment is required. Clearly, the SCOTUS does not agree with me. When the Court took up the meaning of the words in the 2nd Amendment, the Court held those words to mean that U.S. citizens get to have their guns and the Federal Congress cannot place any limitations on that possessory right. Again, there is nothing in the Federal Constitution that bans other public entities from placing restrictions on gun ownership. That is why California has restrictions on assault weapons and certain types of ammunition, and why those restrictions have been deemed Constitutional. So to answer your question, a Strict Constitutionalist would not allow a citizen to install a howitzer. An interpretationlist court has held that the 2nd Amendment prohibits the Federal Congress from stopping you from getting a howitzer. But, again, that does not stop your State, county or city from taking your howitzer.

Boy, who put a quarter in Nort?
Feel blessed guys, you just got $500 worth of legal interpretation, not including Nort's retainer...
 
Here’s my “sensible gun regulation” that might actually diminish mass school shooters. Anyone under 21 that wants to buy a weapon needs to have his/her social media presence examined. If they don’t have one that’s a big red flag too. But nobody that says “sensible gun regulation” can truly give a real example of a sensible gun regulation that will stop a evil or mentally ill person from committing a heinous crime.
They only affect law abiding citizens
 
Here’s my “sensible gun regulation” that might actually diminish mass school shooters. Anyone under 21 that wants to buy a weapon needs to have his/her social media presence examined. If they don’t have one that’s a big red flag too. But nobody that says “sensible gun regulation” can truly give a real example of a sensible gun regulation that will stop a evil or mentally ill person from committing a heinous crime.
They only affect law abiding citizens
Yeah, I am not so sure the background check works as advertised. There are sociopaths that can move through society and never raise suspicions. But I would like to know what countries have sensible gun control laws.
 
@HOA_KSOP in the UK you cannot purchase a semi automatic rifle with 22 magazines worth of ammunition on your 18th birthday. In order to own a rifle you must prove that you have a legitimate use for it eg gamekeeper and it must be stored in a locked container. A licence is then issued by the police and this is regularly checked. For a shotgun you must meet the locked container and police check criteria but you do not need to prove a legitimate use. It doesn’t 100% stop mass shootings or gun crime. But, in the UK our murder rate due to firearms is around 1 in 1,000,000 per year. Our average murder rate is around 1 in 100,000 per year. We had one mass shooting last year with 5 dead including a 3 year old girl.
 
Just looking at the Texas penal code for comparison and you can open carry a handgun without a license providing you are over 21, not a felon, not recently convicted of a misdemeanour and not drunk. However you can open carry a handgun in Texas whilst drunk providing you are either on your own property or on private property with the owners permission to be drunk in charge of a firearm. Sheesh!
 
Back
Top