If we're going to talk about foundational knowledge of the Second Amendment and the basis upon which the country was founded, then let's be honest about the purpose of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment exists because the founders intended for the primary military force of the United States to be the various citizen militias of the constituent states, and that we should either have a minimal Federal Army, or no Federal Army at all. They expected these militias to be trained, organized, and under the direction of the government of their state of origin. The Second Amendment was viewed as a federalist check on centralized military authority, enabling the state governments, described as "possessing [the people's] affections and confidence", to field men at arms in contest to the federal government. Madison viewed the worst case scenario to be a Federal Army that was outnumbered by the combined militias a mere 20:1. If you have ever served in a uniform bearing the flag of the United States, which if I recall correctly you have, you have already acceded to the Second Amendment being obsolete in its intended purpose.
I have not served. I am a contractor attached to the military in certain respects. Separately, your quoted text above is an opinion of the meaning of 2A. Everything in regard to what: "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." means is an opinion. The alternate opinion of this statement is as follows: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.....The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms." The alternate opinion comes from the Supreme Court of the United States; D.C. v. Heller.
I thought we were talking about the foundation of the second amendment and the basis on which the country was founded, so I referenced the man who wrote the Second Amendment explaining the rationale behind the Second Amendment.
To be clear, he didn't write it alone and if it were left up to him, the Bill of Rights would have been omitted. So it is opinion, had he stood his ground, who knows if he could get it ratified or not. Edit: Looking back, it turns out he was wrong. The Federal Government grew to the point where there is little doubt where the power lies and a good thing the Second Amendment is there.
Yes the state militia system was a big part of the idea of checking federal power. Be nice to still have around instead of spend billions/trillions of dollars on foreign bases and wars no? The basis of the militia started with armed citizens of their state, their right to be are armed laid out specifically as the right of the people. You are also ignoring the fact that he based it on the Virginia Bill of Rights in turn based on English Common Law which had long established the individuals right to personal self defense.
She admitted that her and her friends were bullying the shooter in her speech. It was incredible. Her reasoning was, “but you didn’t know this kid.” I get that she’s the darling of leftists, considering that she’s butch, probably gender fluid, a minority and sports a Cuban flag patch on her arm, but the fact that they’re protesting doesn’t make their cause sacrosanct. Perhaps Im being too harsh, I dont know. There's absolutely nothing wrong with protesting for what you believe in or what they're protesting about. You would be hard-pressed to find anyone disagreeing with the message. But along with the other protests, if there is nothing coherent being asked for, then how meaningful is it really? With how Congress is, especially a Republican Congress, demanding they nebulously do something will likely yield very little. It’s almost as bad as being told all of your beliefs stem from bigotry and racism. I would hardly call this board a conservative space. They’re just not shouted down here as much as other places.
The dismissive nature cuts both ways. The Tea Party movement and the historical gain they made in congress plus state legislatures/governorships in the past 9 years is as widely dismissed on the left as simply gerrymandering and voter suppression. Not that there is actually millions of folks that actually care about fiscal conservatism. What pisses me off the most in the current gun control push with these teens, as legitimate as their underlying concerns are the fact that they were immediately co-opted by the biggest names in gun control and the strategy therein. I’d be much more up for a discussion and far less dismissive if they weren’t only shrieking one sided talking points that everytown and moms demand action feeds them. It is very our way of the highway as far as their wishes. They aren’t actually interested in compromise positions, which is fine, it just reinforces the opposition stance against them.
It’s the same ploy used for any form of control proposals... “think of the children!” If you don’t agree 100% with what they say, you somehow want all children dead.
To prevent school shooting specifically?Nothing that is related to gun control at this point. There’s too many guns available and too many people who love them that we would be better off looking into what led the kids who have done this to get to that point and try to intervene before it gets there. But I understand that’s pretty difficult considering there are over 50 million students in school currently there will be some that fall through the cracks no matter how perfect a system we have. I’ve also made it pretty clear that I’m not an expert in anything gun related and think the onus should be in the manufacturers to do what they can to prevent their products from being used in a way that harms others. But I doubt that will happen.. http://www.chicagotribune.com/blues...-bc-guns-kids-advertising-20180323-story.html Four days after the shooting the NRA quadrupled it’s online daily advertising spending with a significant portion of that going towards advertising on children’s videos on platforms such as YouTube. And ya know, their ads are never fear monger in’s sensationalism either. Trust me, I don’t like the look of an 8 year old walking around with a sign at these rallies. But people need to stop saying it’s liberals using kids to make their arguments. It’s fucked up on both sides.
Not to pick on your post but if everyone else in this country started thinking along these lines, we would be well on our way to a solution. The root cause of this problem is not guns, it is something else. Generally, for instance, when a pedestrian bridge collapses, people undertake a root cause analysis. They want to know why this bridge collapsed but not the one down the street and they understand banning post-tensioned bridges won't fix this problem. Interms of school shootings, even if we went so far as to ban guns, I don't think it would end this type of violence at schools. I am almost 100% positive in the absence of guns, people would find other means. There is something emotionally/psychologically impacting kids today, suicide numbers are up, anxiety is up, depression is up. Figure out what is causing that and I'm sure there is a link to school shootings.
Perhaps this is a naive view of the world, but here goes. Is it plausible that an entire subpopulation of marginalised people is growing up with fewer basic necessities? Parents working multiple jobs to pay off their own debts incurred from taking on mortgages they couldn't afford, and trying to save for college funds that will partially offset the cost of their child getting a useless degree that will procure them no increased chance of employment, simply because we've become so focused on post secondary education as being a necessity? And then we take those students who are feeling that pressure, and load an unreasonable curriculum and expectation of extracurricular activities on them to ensure they are "well rounded". We see them lashing out and send them to therapists who dole out meds the parents can't afford, making those parents feel like failures, or filling medicine cabinets with drugs intended to normalise children who were already normal but who are just trying to ask for some attention. And when they lash out physically, we reprimand and suspend or expel without resolving the root cause. Debt crushes and emasculates, and what do people who are emasculated do? Overcompensate. With cars they can't afford, or vacations they shouldn't take, or guns they carry to "protect themselves"/feel bigger. And when Junior hits that lowest of low points and just wants to feel powerful over one fucking thing in his life, are we really surprised that he turns to firearms for that feeling of power? Anyway, just my two cents.
For all of his warts, it appears that he has a plan in terms of Global trade: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...t-500-million-in-u-s-operations-idUSKBN1H20KY https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...e-on-u-s-steel-tariff-exemption-idUSKBN1H20O5 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-s-to-resolve-trade-differences-idUSKBN1H20Q0 If he is able to leverage the threat of tariffs into more globally balanced trade, then this is a good thing for the U.S. It's early but if this plan works, this is bringing actual GDP creation back to America, which has been sorely needed.
I don't see how any of this is unexpected. When tarrifs are instituted, price of the imported good goes up, therefore imports go down, therefore domestic production goes up, and the price of downstream goods goes up, therefore production of the downstream goods goes down. Tariffs on steel was always going to lead to more domestic steel production, just at the expense of everything we make with steel.
In the meantime though it is wreaking a bit of havoc on the steel market in the US. I work in construction and steel prices are skyrocketing currently and it's costing people significant amounts of money. Projects I am on are buying steel that will be needed two years from now because the price has gone up 25% on domestic buy. I don't know enough about the global markets to really analyze the impact but there are a lot of US companies that are/will take a significant hit because of it. Now maybe it could have an overall good impact in the long run, but right now it's an absolute mess. Also, I found these two links talking about whether or not a trade deficit really is a bad thing. I don't know if anyone has a better source for information, but to me when Trump talks about the trade deficit it comes off just as a talking point without any nuanced thought behind it. https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/are-trade-deficits-really-bad-news https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/051515/pros-cons-trade-deficit.asp
I agree with both of you regarding cost and turbulence in the market. I am in the construction business as well, we are rushing an order for 5,000 tons of reinforcing steel today to avoid it to the greatest extent possible. Though, in a world where we need more and better jobs, liveable wages etc. Is there no potential for a positive to come out of this long term? I just don't see any other way than finding a way to create better jobs - such as manufacturing or some other place where value is added. Now, this could easily spiral in to full-blown trade war and then we will all be standing next to each other in the same bread line but for the time being it looks like he is leveraging the size of our global economy to garner a better deal for the U.S.
The argument that jobs need protecting is at its core the argument about wealth inequality. It's just that protectionist trade policies take a really roundabout, inefficient, and costly path to addressing it just so we don't have to admit to ourselves that we're using the government to intervene in the market to address wealth inequality. It's as much welfare for the working man's ego as it is for his paycheck. I'd much rather make the market as efficient as possible and transfer wealth directly if we agree that we want to help the people at the bottom of the market.
I understand the first part of your comment and am not ignoring it or disagreeing with you but I do disagree with the quoted text above. I would much prefer these people having a job than welfare. Welfare is nothing more than life support; there is no chance to find a better station in life because no appreciable skills are learned. There is no pride in accomplishing anything or pride in bettering yourself as an individual. Future generations of a family on welfare learn their values from their parents, what do they learn growing up in a house where parents never worked, just collected a check? In that scenario are they basically cradle to the grave locked into being on welfare?