Report: 7 dead, including shooter, in attack near Milwaukee Molson Coors campus

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: chr0naut

Having gun ownership as members of an organized militia, who vet their members, train in gun safety and responsible use, and can organize against tyranny is not against the 2nd. That was the way the amendment was framed.

No, it wasn’t. Minutemen organized themselves, had their own firearms, and trained themselves. The argument that a bunch of guys who just fought a tyrannical government would then turn around tell everybody “hey if the government becomes a problem again you can totally use guns to overthrow them but only if you’re a member of a government organized and controlled body” is absurd, which is why the Supreme Court rejects the collective rights argument in favor of the individual right argument.

If the 2nd was supposed to assert individual rights, then what was all that stuff at the start of the amendment?

Why even mention militia or a fee state?

Since the whole thing is actually a single sentence, it must necessarily be inclusive of all the parts of the sentence in a way that makes sense.

You can't just ignore the bits that you don't like as if there was a full stop in there, separating each concept.

It would be unreasonable to covert the directive "Stop in the name of the law" to "Stop the law".

originally posted by: JSpader
a reply to: chr0naut

The bill of rights are restraints on the government.

The same describe the government as for, of and by the people.

Therefore it is also restraints on the people if the government is obeying its directive.

a reply to: chr0naut

If the 2nd was supposed to assert individual rights, then what was all that stuff at the start of the amendment?

Because at the time it was written the militia was comprised of all, or nearly all, able bodied men between 16 and 65. The militia was practically any military aged male. Said males were supposed to have their own firearms in case the militia was needed.

Why even mention militia or a fee state?

A) see the previous answer. B) because the point is securing a free state. Not hunting.

Since the whole thing is actually a single sentence, it must necessarily be inclusive of all the parts of the sentence in a way that makes sense.

Correct, and it does so. Just because you choose to interpret how it includes all the parts of the sentence differently doesn’t mean my point of view excludes anything at all.

You can't just ignore the bits that you don't like as if there was a full stop separating each concept.

You’re right, you can’t so perhaps you should stop doing that. When you ignore things like what the militia was at the time it was written and ignore things like case law that has set out what “the bits” mean, you’re ignoring the things you don’t like and advancing your personal, non- U.S. Constitutional scholar opinion as if it’s settled fact. It’s not.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: chr0naut

If the 2nd was supposed to assert individual rights, then what was all that stuff at the start of the amendment?

Because at the time it was written the militia was comprised of all, or nearly all, able bodied men between 16 and 65. The militia was practically any military aged male. Said males were supposed to have their own firearms in case the militia was needed.

Yes and at the time the arming of every potential footsoldier was extremely expensive as a government-funded or state-funded thing, so it made economic sense for everyone to bring their own, too.

Why even mention militia or a fee state?

A) see the previous answer. B) because the point is securing a free state. Not hunting.

It also says that militia are the things necessary to the security of a free state. "The people" mentioned later in the amendment aren't exclusive to (something different than) the militia. The militias actually consist of people. 'The people' mentioned in the sentence fits right in there as a descriptor of the membership of 'the militia'.

Since the whole thing is actually a single sentence, it must necessarily be inclusive of all the parts of the sentence in a way that makes sense.

Correct, and it does so. Just because you choose to interpret how it includes all the parts of the sentence differently doesn’t mean my point of view excludes anything at all.

You can't just ignore the bits that you don't like as if there was a full stop separating each concept.

You’re right, you can’t so perhaps you should stop doing that.

How am I doing that? How am I separating out the parts of the sentence? I thought that I was integrating them. 'The militias', 'the people', 'the free state' are different terms for the same thing in the sentence.

When you ignore things like what the militia was at the time it was written and ignore things like case law that has set out what “the bits” mean, you’re ignoring the things you don’t like and advancing your personal, non- U.S. Constitutional scholar opinion as if it’s settled fact. It’s not.

There is also case law that reads the 2nd differently, too.

In the US Constitution, every mention of "the people" is used collectively. It is really hard to think of how "the people" might possibly refer to an individual and therefore an individual's right. That is because it is a collective term.

It is clear that the 2nd was framed to say to each state that they could have their own armed and disciplined (well ordered) militia as a defence against Federal tyranny.

a reply to: chr0naut

Yes and at the time the arming of every potential footsoldier was extremely expensive as a government-funded or state-funded thing, so it made economic sense for everyone to bring their own, too.

Yep. Thank you for agreeing that it was there to enable every one to have their own firearm. Glad you came around.

It also says that militia are the things necessary to the security of a free state. "The people" mentioned later in the amendment aren't exclusive to (something different than) the militia. The militias actually consist of people. 'The people' mentioned in the sentence fits right in there as a descriptor of the membership of 'the militia'.

Yes, there are people in a militia. Said people have the right to own firearms. Since the militia was most of what was considered “people” at the time, it follows that most people were expected to have a firearm.

How am I doing that? How am I separating out the parts of the sentence? I thought that I was integrating them. 'The militias', 'the people', 'the free state' are different terms for the same thing in the sentence.

I didn’t say you were. If you’re going to try and parse my comments, it would probably help to leave my comments intact and parse them as-is rather than combining two separate comments into one to change them. Much like you’re complaining about individual rights advocates doing.

There is also case law that reads the 2nd differently, too.

No there isn’t. When the Supreme Court renders its decision that it’s an individual right and not a collective right, any case law to the contrary is irrelevant and moot.

It is really hard to think of how "the people" might possibly refer to an individual and therefore an individual's right.

It’s even harder to think of how a bunch of fellas that just used privately armed men to fight an oppressive government would then turn and tell those men if they have a problem with the new government, the only way to fight it is through government controlled and armed forces.

It is clear

In your opinion, anyway.

originally posted by: Stupidsecrets
One situation is responsible for about 90% of gun deaths yet that situation gets little to no exposure. Actually, if that one situation was eliminated the US would be one of the safest countries regarding guns, even compared to countries where guns are illegal. Just something to think about. Unfortunately it can't be discussed in open public because black people are involved. Address it in any format and no politician is getting elected and anyone else is a racist.

Notice how quickly the Main Stream discussion of this shooting ended? Even the majority of ATSers will never know (unless someone makes a new thread) since no one reads the back pages hardly.

Milwaukee Mass Shooter Is A Black Elizabeth Warren Supporter

a reply to: chr0naut

Because all of the rights in the Bill of Rights, in part or in whole, address individual rights. Freedom of the Press has zero to do with newspapers, radio and TV (the collective news media) and everything to do with you being able to publish your ideas without interference (unless a matter of national security or other needed restrictions).

If no one will print your pamphlet or book, you can buy a press and self publish. Hence press.

Double Jeopardy is definitely an individual right, why would gun ownership be left only to a sanctioned and recognized collective such as a shooting club? Guns are one of the few things that you can absolutely own in the US. House? Car? Skip out on the yearly taxes and find out how much you don’t own either of those. There is no additional yearly residual payments to the government on a firearm beyond the original purchase.

a reply to: Deplorable

yes, there is more to this story than just a 2nd amendment debate or politics. As I have posted a earlier I was in the plant when this happened, I wasn't in danger
The shooter
we started working at the brewery the same day in 2004,and worked 3rd shift for about 2 or 3 years I talked with him a lot during these years had a few beers together. He was a decent guy I considered him a work friend. He was a family man with kids. as I said in another post, he didn't like the company and every time you asked him how he was doing he would say #ty
but you just took that as Anthony, I would have to say his mind let go, some of the things I have read about him tells me he got real paranoid. I would never have thought him capable of such a thing. I will be the first to say how cowardly and sad this act was.

One of the victims I have worked with on the same crew with him for 23 years and 2 businesses, we are Journeymen machine repairmen, They call us machinist at Miller because of the union. His name was Dana Walk, A very good man who would not hurt a fly, just a gentel guy who had a wife 2 twin daughters and a son, had perfect attendance at work, loved to fish and Ice boat. He had a reputation for talking, we used to teas him about it, he was always happy. Like I said he was a very good man. RIP Dana you didn't deserve this.

The 2nd victim is an electrician I only knew since 08 when he started, another good family man. I didn't know him that well but I worked with him a few times, he seemed real laid back and friendly. His name was Dale Huddson. RIP Dale you did not deserve this either. I hope the best for the victims familys and loved ones. Sorry I did not know the other 3 victims so cant comment on them

So shuv the gun argument up your azzes with all due respect
Ed

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: chr0naut

Yes and at the time the arming of every potential footsoldier was extremely expensive as a government-funded or state-funded thing, so it made economic sense for everyone to bring their own, too.

Yep. Thank you for agreeing that it was there to enable every one to have their own firearm. Glad you came around.

It also says that militia are the things necessary to the security of a free state. "The people" mentioned later in the amendment aren't exclusive to (something different than) the militia. The militias actually consist of people. 'The people' mentioned in the sentence fits right in there as a descriptor of the membership of 'the militia'.

Yes, there are people in a militia. Said people have the right to own firearms. Since the militia was most of what was considered “people” at the time, it follows that most people were expected to have a firearm.

How am I doing that? How am I separating out the parts of the sentence? I thought that I was integrating them. 'The militias', 'the people', 'the free state' are different terms for the same thing in the sentence.

I didn’t say you were. If you’re going to try and parse my comments, it would probably help to leave my comments intact and parse them as-is rather than combining two separate comments into one to change them. Much like you’re complaining about individual rights advocates doing.

There is also case law that reads the 2nd differently, too.

No there isn’t. When the Supreme Court renders its decision that it’s an individual right and not a collective right, any case law to the contrary is irrelevant and moot.

It is really hard to think of how "the people" might possibly refer to an individual and therefore an individual's right.

It’s even harder to think of how a bunch of fellas that just used privately armed men to fight an oppressive government would then turn and tell those men if they have a problem with the new government, the only way to fight it is through government controlled and armed forces.

It is clear

In your opinion, anyway.

At the time, most militias were state organizations. They provide counterpoint to federal organizations like the armed forces.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: chr0naut

Because all of the rights in the Bill of Rights, in part or in whole, address individual rights. Freedom of the Press has zero to do with newspapers, radio and TV (the collective news media) and everything to do with you being able to publish your ideas without interference (unless a matter of national security or other needed restrictions).

If no one will print your pamphlet or book, you can buy a press and self publish. Hence press.

Double Jeopardy is definitely an individual right, why would gun ownership be left only to a sanctioned and recognized collective such as a shooting club? Guns are one of the few things that you can absolutely own in the US. House? Car? Skip out on the yearly taxes and find out how much you don’t own either of those. There is no additional yearly residual payments to the government on a firearm beyond the original purchase.

So, were the 2nd's explicit mentions of 'the state', 'militias' or 'the people' singular and individual terms? Or are they in fact terms used for groups of people?

You have to contort the plain English meanings of the words to try and make it fit the interpretation that they are talking about individuals separately.

If the Constitution wanted to address the rights of every individual person, it could simply state it, as I have just done. Instead, its language is most often framed around how the separate states are to unify and how that union of states is to apply their state laws equally and justly.

originally posted by: Deplorable

originally posted by: Stupidsecrets
One situation is responsible for about 90% of gun deaths yet that situation gets little to no exposure. Actually, if that one situation was eliminated the US would be one of the safest countries regarding guns, even compared to countries where guns are illegal. Just something to think about. Unfortunately it can't be discussed in open public because black people are involved. Address it in any format and no politician is getting elected and anyone else is a racist.

Notice how quickly the Main Stream discussion of this shooting ended? Even the majority of ATSers will never know (unless someone makes a new thread) since no one reads the back pages hardly.

Milwaukee Mass Shooter Is A Black Elizabeth Warren Supporter

The way the left wing media report things based on skin color is disgusting...if this was a white man it would be in the headlines...and if he killed black employees...oh boy...

They are just held to a much lower standard

a reply to: chr0naut

It does. The Federal is the federal. The State (or several states) are the state. The People are literally the people individually. Each and every time throughout the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights specifically outlines the rights of the People.

The difference between the People and the State is the difference between civilian and official government functions. A very easy example to understand this difference is Double Jeopardy. A State can be nailed several times, an individual...nope.

Now where it does get tricky is that the State and Federal can share some rights and responsibilities. The People do not have to share their rights nor abdicate them, despite decrees from the State or Federal or Both. But they can be tricked into doing so and have been several times.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: chr0naut

Yes and at the time the arming of every potential footsoldier was extremely expensive as a government-funded or state-funded thing, so it made economic sense for everyone to bring their own, too.

Yep. Thank you for agreeing that it was there to enable every one to have their own firearm. Glad you came around.

It also says that militia are the things necessary to the security of a free state. "The people" mentioned later in the amendment aren't exclusive to (something different than) the militia. The militias actually consist of people. 'The people' mentioned in the sentence fits right in there as a descriptor of the membership of 'the militia'.

Yes, there are people in a militia. Said people have the right to own firearms. Since the militia was most of what was considered “people” at the time, it follows that most people were expected to have a firearm.

How am I doing that? How am I separating out the parts of the sentence? I thought that I was integrating them. 'The militias', 'the people', 'the free state' are different terms for the same thing in the sentence.

I didn’t say you were. If you’re going to try and parse my comments, it would probably help to leave my comments intact and parse them as-is rather than combining two separate comments into one to change them. Much like you’re complaining about individual rights advocates doing.

There is also case law that reads the 2nd differently, too.

No there isn’t. When the Supreme Court renders its decision that it’s an individual right and not a collective right, any case law to the contrary is irrelevant and moot.

It is really hard to think of how "the people" might possibly refer to an individual and therefore an individual's right.

It’s even harder to think of how a bunch of fellas that just used privately armed men to fight an oppressive government would then turn and tell those men if they have a problem with the new government, the only way to fight it is through government controlled and armed forces.

It is clear

In your opinion, anyway.

At the time, most militias were state organizations. They provide counterpoint to federal organizations like the armed forces.

No they weren’t. They were organized locally and the level of state control varied wildly from one state to the next. Beyond that, there was and still is an organized militia and an unorganized militia.

In any event, we’re venturing miles and miles off topic so I’m going to end the history and constitutional law lessons here. You’re welcome to create yet another gun control thread so everybody can restate their opinions for the hundredth time though.

a reply to: chr0naut

Please provide an example because the Bill Of Rights doesn’t restrain the people. Are you from the U.S. (honest question)?

a reply to: Ahabstar

An excellent point. The First secures the right of the people to petition the government. Are we supposed to believe that “the people” can only petition the government as a collective body rather than as individuals? The Fourth protects against unreasonable search and seizure. Are we to believe “the people” are only protected from that as a group and not as an individual?

originally posted by: JSpader
a reply to: chr0naut

Please provide an example because the Bill Of Rights doesn’t restrain the people. Are you from the U.S. (honest question)?

The Seventh Amendment places a monetary limitation upon the cases that may be tried in court. This impinges upon the individual right to fair trial. It means that theft of less than twenty dollars cannot be tried. Double jeopardy (the Fifth Amendment) means that multiple accumulated thefts of less than $20 in each instance (for example, in some sort of pyramid scheme or mail-fraud scam), technically, should not be tried.

And, I am not from the US.

originally posted by: Deplorable
Notice how quickly the Main Stream discussion of this shooting ended?

Yup, there does seem to be a lot less media hype when there's not a white male involved to demonize.

originally posted by: Deplorable
Milwaukee Mass Shooter Is A Black Elizabeth Warren Supporter

As for the "Warren Supporter" bit... meh, I'm not really convinced given the weakness of the source itself openly admitting, "It subsequently emerged that Ferrill was an African-American Elizabeth Warren supporter (presuming that Ferrill shared the same political beliefs as his wife, who took a selfie with Warren at a rally last year).".

My mother rarely ever voted the same as my father, and hasn't voted the same as her current husband either. There's a reason people say "opposites attract", and there doesn't appear to be any evidence that he was even politically active, let alone actually attending Warren rallies with his wife. I would assume that if he truly was jazzed about Warren then he would have been right there in the selfie with them.

originally posted by: redmage
Yup, there does seem to be a lot less media hype when there's not a white male involved to demonize.

Flavor of the day, I'm afraid. Truth is I wish people would stop shooting-up other innocent people.

As for the "Warren Supporter" bit... meh

Ya know ... he may not have even been concerned with voting FTM. I only quoted the linked story title.

Personal to: darepairman
My condolences for your losses.

originally posted by: Deplorable
Flavor of the day, I'm afraid. Truth is I wish people would stop shooting-up other innocent people.

Agreed on both counts.

originally posted by: Deplorable
Ya know ... he may not have even been concerned with voting FTM. I only quoted the linked story title.

Exactly, and as for the title... I know it's net etiquette to link the full title, but (for better or worse) they kinda admit to it being click-baity with the "presuming that..." bit deeper in.

Case law -
* - Washington DC vs. Heller - 2008
The Supreme Court ruled an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, cannot be restricted.


* - McDonald vs Chicago - 2010
The US Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd amendment applies to the State government, local government and the individual.

The US constitution originally never applied to the individual states and was restricted to only those who work in Federal government. It was not until the late 1860's, via the 14th amendment, that the US Constitution was applied to the individual states (7th amendment - the only amendment that has never been applied to the states - jury trial in civil cases).

Because the constitution did not apply to the states from the start, we had 90 +/- years of the states themselves regulating firearms. Some of those states were restrictive and had the laws been in force up to the present they would be struck down as unconstitutional. The courts had to strike a balance between the states and the federal government (separate sovereigns) without gutting the constitution and federal government and without gutting the 10th amendment and states rights.

Militias back in the day were not considered a standing army and It was made up of volunteers. Although one could argue today that every single male in the US, starting once they turn 18, is a member of a militia via selective service registration.

Given the Declaration of Independence states the people can overthrown the government should that government act in a manner that loses the support of the people.

“...to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.”

That wording implies the individuals have a right to keep and bear arms in order to create a checks and balance for government should that government become illegitimate. That premise from the Declaration of Independence, among several other examples, resulted in the 2nd amendment.

From the start of this nation up to the present the first person at every crime scene is the perpetrator and the victim. Law enforcement is called after the crime occurred. Secondly law enforcement has no constitutional duty / requirement to protect the individual (City of Castle rock vs. Gonzalez - 2006). That ruling further supported an individuals right to bear arms. The overall purpose of law enforcement is not to protect the individual but society as a whole.

The Constitution, bill of rights and all other amendments do not grant rights to the people. It prevents the government from denying those God given rights to the people.

As for the hunting comment -