FWIS3

.....moderate.....

Target: Me

Wow. All you Americans are fucked...

Yeah. Remember how I said earlier that if we go Fascist, the gun nuts will just be recruitment fodder for death squads? I wasn't kidding about that.

There's no reasoning with fundamentalists of any flavor. 2nd Amendment fundies are among the worst.

Yeah, fucked up indeed.

That said, a part of me really wishes when these articles were written people would not also start listing unfiltered internet comments and reactions. I am seriously not surprised that a random internet person brought up Hitler, for example, but I find the pressure from gun manufacturers far more interesting and think it should be more prominent.

I mean, present company excluded I really usually don't think much about people's comments on the Internet as a good way to gauge any sort of opinion, and don't understand why others present it as such.

Well, just shows that the 2A nutjobs are now pushing purity over whatever rights the US constitution grants about firearms (and it also shows that Gun Manufacturers are AT LEAST passively helping along).

This quote summarizes IMHO the whole thing:

The existing body of literature and legal precedent on the Second Amendment is much like the Bible: One can find something to support nearly any agenda. Even the Founders themselves wrote many different things at different times (with commas in different places) about what they meant by a Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Or by “well regulated.” Or by “militia.” I wish more people would actually read those writings.

Notice where is coming from.


Edited for clarity

Rommie wrote:I mean, present company excluded I really usually don't think much about people's comments on the Internet as a good way to gauge any sort of opinion, and don't understand why others present it as such.

yep

I have always thought that the "well regulated" phrase in the Second Amendment referred not to controls on use, but to equipment thereof. IIRC, back in the days of the Founding Fathers, the concept of 'regulation' defined itself more with a certain level of common equipment -- the group was 'regulated' by everyone having to have a minimum level of personally supplied and specific gear (a rifle of caliber X, so much powder/shot for Y number of reloads, a knife, camping gear, etc etc etc). The common definition of "regulated" seems to have changed to "controlled" sometime between the writing of the Second Amendment and maybe the late 19th century.

Am I wrong in my interpretations on this etymology?

Your thoughts eagerly awaited.

cid wrote:I have always thought that the "well regulated" phrase in the Second Amendment referred not to controls on use, but to equipment thereof. IIRC, back in the days of the Founding Fathers, the concept of 'regulation' defined itself more with a certain level of common equipment -- the group was 'regulated' by everyone having to have a minimum level of personally supplied and specific gear (a rifle of caliber X, so much powder/shot for Y number of reloads, a knife, camping gear, etc etc etc). The common definition of "regulated" seems to have changed to "controlled" sometime between the writing of the Second Amendment and maybe the late 19th century.

Am I wrong in my interpretations on this etymology?

Your thoughts eagerly awaited.

I'd say you're on the right track, but along with standard equipment, there also would be training and discipline. Back then, something that was 'well regulated' meant that is was in proper working order. Now tie that to 'militia' and what do you have? The average, untrained, undisciplined, un-anything citizen armed for bear? That's not 'well regulated'. A militia that is in proper working order can operate as a unit, carry out orders, accomplish specified missions, etc. In other words, the US Army or National Guard.

My personal belief is that if these 2A nutjobs really want to go only by the original writing then let them have it.
From this day forth, the only weapons allowed are black powder muskets and black powder pistols.
You are free to own as many as you want.
Anyone caught in the USA with smokeless ammunition or firearms that can accept smokeless ammunition or any other weapons technology that was not around back then goes to prison indefinitely for attempting to perverse the some members of the public to killing children, as has been the demonstrated effective by the numerous examples of such incidents.

Hey, I found a site that agrees with me about the dumb golden rules of firearm safety: What's wrong with the golden rules

While it doesn't cover everything it does explain the basic problems with the way firearms safety is taught and naturally how it's applied in practice.

FZR1KG wrote:Hey, I found a site that agrees with me about the dumb golden rules of firearm safety: What's wrong with the golden rules

While it doesn't cover everything it does explain the basic problems with the way firearms safety is taught and naturally how it's applied in practice.

To each his own, I guess, but I don't agree. The guy is just taking issue with sematics and literalism. So the NRA uses the word 'always'. I don't think anyone with half a brain thinks that means you can't clean your gun. Both sets of rules he trashes are pretty good, although I don't like the Cooper rules use of the word 'cover', which is just jargon. His rules are the same as everyone else's, just expressed differently.

geonuc wrote:

FZR1KG wrote:Hey, I found a site that agrees with me about the dumb golden rules of firearm safety: What's wrong with the golden rules

While it doesn't cover everything it does explain the basic problems with the way firearms safety is taught and naturally how it's applied in practice.

To each his own, I guess, but I don't agree. The guy is just taking issue with sematics and literalism. So the NRA uses the word 'always'. I don't think anyone with half a brain thinks that means you can't clean your gun. Both sets of rules he trashes are pretty good, although I don't like the Cooper rules use of the word 'cover', which is just jargon. His rules are the same as everyone else's, just expressed differently.

You don't know how many people I've run into lately, who think if they follow those rules, they will be completely safe. They don't know how to use their brains, and there are a lot of them. I don't think it's really a case of semantics. Especially when you have people thinking that they are completely safe and nothing bad can happen if they follow these rules. Guns are dangerous. Using guns means taking risks, and I don't think everyone realizes that those risks can't be eliminated; they can only be minimized.

The problem with the absolutes is that it confuses.
For you because you are intelligent enough to grasp the concepts you find it pointless.
Problem is that not everyone can reason the same way you can and rules/guidelines need to be given so that have the greatest impact. That means too simple or too complex things fall apart.

Case in point, the don't point your weapon at anything you don't want to shoot/safe direction.
Try doing that with a concealed weapon.
Every wearer of a concealed weapon at one time or another during the course of the day will end up inadvertently pointing that loaded weapon at someone.
It is impossible to fulfill the rule of always point your weapon in a safe direction.
The results of this are confusion and dangerous practices as well as totally hypocritical stances, such as freaking out when someone swings an unloaded firearm towards them yet they may have just obliviously pointed a loaded handgun at a bus load of kids an hour ago.
All this is the result of ignorance because the implied golden rule is considered above reproach.

The rule is so basic it should be something you teach kids with very limited reasoning ability.
It's only effective for teaching kids who will generally follow it to the letter where they can.
But, it's become a golden rule for everyone that should never get broken and is regularly broken by adults and professionals.
That makes it useless for anything other than a starting point for further discussion once a person has gained more reasoning ability or experience.

It also affects the onus of responsibility with regard to the carrier of a concealed firearm.
For example, what happens if a holstered weapon is discharged accidentally and injures or kills someone?
The golden rule states that it should never be pointed in an unsafe direction but clearly it has.
Just as clearly it is impossible to carry a concealed weapon and not point it at someone unintentionally.
This then basically to me says that the carrier of the weapon has chosen to wear a loaded weapon with the full knowledge that it may at some point kill someone without his desire to discharge the weapon. It means its not an accident, its a statistical possibility and the wearer has decided to play the odds.
The problem here is that when a weapon is accidentally discharged and does injure or kill someone it is considered an accident.
We read about it all the time, tragic accident bla bla bla.
Nothing accidental about it.
It should be considered a clear and conscious decision to override the most basic rule of always pointing a weapon in a safe direction.

Why is that important to me?
Because the purpose of carrying a concealed weapon is for self defense, or life preservation. What is happening however is the wearer is trading their own risk of injury against an innocent member of the public and they need to be aware of that fact.
The reason they need to be aware of that fact is because it will allow them to not only choose a better weapon that is safer for the general public while not diminishing the "security" it gives the wearer.
It would also lead to weapons designed to be safer for concealed carry purposes as well as possibly banning certain makes from being allowed to be carried when they are not inherently safe to use as a concealed carry weapon.


This is similar to the other issue I had with low level training/teaching. It makes the person think that they know firearms safety yet what it is doing is preventing further useful knowledge being gained because they think that they know the most important ones.

If you don't believe me, try pointing these issues out to a gun supporter who has a conceal carry permit and uses it.
They will almost with feverish arrogance ignore the fact that they or their friends are pointing loaded weapons regularly at people against their own rules because they know about firearms and if you are challenging the golden rule you have no clue what you are talking about and need to be dismissed along with any knowledge or experience or wisdom you may have acquired.

That attitude is what goes against the dissemination of knowledge that we both want in society.

SciFi Chick wrote:You don't know how many people I've run into lately, who think if they follow those rules, they will be completely safe. They don't know how to use their brains, and there are a lot of them. I don't think it's really a case of semantics. Especially when you have people thinking that they are completely safe and nothing bad can happen if they follow these rules. Guns are dangerous. Using guns means taking risks, and I don't think everyone realizes that those risks can't be eliminated; they can only be minimized.

Exactly.
Because they already think they are following safe practices they don't realise how unsafe they really are.
The statistics in the USA relating to accidental gun deaths and injuries however demonstrate otherwise.

The other issue I have with these golden rules is that they are used to absolve gun manufacturers from responsibility in the design and manufacture of their products as well as reckless shooters who use firearms and injure or kill people.
Perfect example of the former is the recent issue with the Remington model 700 trigger that discharged without the trigger being pulled.
Ironically the discharge was triggered by the cycling of the safety.
Remington's response along with the entire gun lobby was that if the golden rules were followed, no one would have been injured.
Thus the blame rests on the owner/user.

Perfect example of the latter is people getting shot "accidentally" in a fog.
It's routinely dismissed as an accident.
There is nothing accidental about taking a weapon that can kill a man at over a mile and going hunting in a fog that has visibility less than 100 yards.
That is reckless and stupid and the shooter should be charged with manslaughter, not have the charges dropped because it's an accident.
There is no safe direction when shooting a rifle in a fog.
The problem here is the shooter routinely breaks then justifies breaking the golden rule so it's not that much of a leap to make a mistake when breaking it yet again even in such obviously dangerous circumstances. It's second nature to break it now for a seasoned shooter so what's one more time.
And nothing will change until this golden rule is actually understood to be flawed and a conscious decision has to be made each time it is about to be broken and, a risk assessment made to understand the implications of breaking it in this particular instance on this particular day at this particular time in these particular circumstances.

Seems to me you'd like Canadian gun laws. Everything that you just said is the law here.

Shooting in fog, for example, would result in a charge of manslaughter on the grounds of criminal negligence.

I haven't studied the Canadian shooting/hunting laws so I really can't comment but it sounds like they are on the right path.
I'll have to do a search on the Canadian laws and get myself more acquainted with the differences.

One huge oversight here that astounds me for its stupidity is that there is no law for minimum acreage or distance to housing/public roads when discharging a firearm apart from designated areas such as cities.
Our neighbour for example regularly fires off high caliber weapons from his back yard, which has less acreage than our property which is 2.5 acres.
Seriously?
Firing rounds that can travel over a mile when you have less than 100 yards to your property line is mind blowingly stupid and irresponsible, but totally legal here.

Also you can get deer hunting properties here that are 10 acres or so in size.
Really?
You can shoot a rifle that is effective at taking down deer humanely in 10 acres?
What moron allows this?

The best part is when there is a hunting related death, it's labeled an "accident".
They use that word but I don't think it means what they think it means...

FZR1KG wrote:One huge oversight here that astounds me for its stupidity is that there is no law for minimum acreage or distance to housing/public roads when discharging a firearm apart from designated areas such as cities.
Our neighbour for example regularly fires off high caliber weapons from his back yard, which has less acreage than our property which is 2.5 acres.
Seriously?
Firing rounds that can travel over a mile when you have less than 100 yards to your property line is mind blowingly stupid and irresponsible, but totally legal here.

Criminal Code of Canada, s. 244.2 (Discharging firearm — recklessness)

(1) Every person commits an offence

(a) who intentionally discharges a firearm into or at a place, knowing that or being reckless as to whether another person is present in the place; or

(b) who intentionally discharges a firearm while being reckless as to the life or safety of another person.

[...]

(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and

(a) if a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence or if the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization, is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of

(i) five years, in the case of a first offence, and

(ii) seven years, in the case of a second or subsequent offence; and

(b) in any other case, is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years.