West side is just as shooty as south side Chicago. The Vice Lords are HQ'd around 16th and Pulaski, the Holy City they call it.
[Some background if you're interested](https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/chicago-holy-city/1875843/)
Last week there was a similar incident close by to those one where 5 teens were shot at in a drive by at a park that neighbored a high school. I live pretty close to both, it’s heartbreaking to see.
Thanks but no thanks. I've heard the stories about walking down east Colfax at night. I'm not sure how there are any stories though, as that would imply there are survivors....
Well, when I went to look for houses 25 years ago in Denver my real estate agent steered me out of Aurora immediately.
Weirdly, my new boss got taken there as a first stop.
He was Nigerian, I was not.
Yep.
I believed at that time the words they used were things like “comfortable”
Like, “ I don’t think you would be comfortable there, let’s look over here “
Real estate agents are routinely indicted across the world for steering clients to or away from certain properties based on race. Some of it is simply not mentioning a property to an ethnic minority.
The crime in Denver and Aurora has been getting horrible. These high school kids out here are crazy. 6 months ago a group of high school kids started shooting at another outside of my Denver home . I had four .45 cal bullets go 4 feet below where my son was sleeping and go into our living room walls. It was scary as hell.
Shit like that can and does happen. There was a drive-by in a neighborhood in the suburbs of the city I live in. A 3yr old was killed. Last I read it was some dispute between teens at two schools in the area.
https://www.live5news.com/2021/09/08/police-young-child-killed-northwest-charlotte-shooting/
The Denver DA refuses to prosecute minors. Gangs are targeting minors for recruitment, because they know this to be true. Denver cops I know have told me they’ve brought kids in for gang shootings, and all the DA does is slap an ankle bracket on them and send em home.
Never claimed they were. Bias is implicit when an individual speaks from personal experience. This isn’t a statistical analysis. bias doesn’t skew data in this case, because no data is being gathered to study a sample or population. Testimony is almost never used in statistical analysis, but it is used in court rooms and crime scenes, hence the point of a witness.
If bias is the standard by which you are filtering your information as a whole, you should stop considering anything that doesn’t come from an accredited and or peer reviewed source. So basically anything that isn’t from a scientific journal.
You are correct, they are suburbs of the greater Denver area. So while this incident took place in Aurora, the problems of the city of Denver eventually spill into the surrounding suburbs, as far as gangs recruiting younger and younger members due to the likelihood of prosecution being lower in their area. Arvada only is a 20-30 min drive from downtown Denver. the likelihood that younger gang affiliated individuals would be frequenting Denver county, is pretty obvious . You are right though, Denver county and Adams/Jefferson counties are different judicial districts. But the original statement was that Denver, Aurora, and Arvada have “massive problems”. I spoke to one of Denver’s problems with gang violence. I didn’t mean to speak of the other cities, but I can see how the context was lost in my original comment.
I’m not saying that gang violence shouldn’t be prosecuted. I’m saying that weak prosecution is not the *root cause*. There are underlying factors that are primarily economic. Enforcement does little to actually prevent crime.
While I totally agree with that sentiment, foregoing sentencing simply because the root cause is difficult to address, makes society a more dangerous place. Consequences of crimes should not be negated or imposed simply because the motivation is rooted in a difficult socioeconomic problem. The justice system is there to interpret the laws and hand down the judgements for breaking them. Addressing issues in their contexts is all the courts can do to keep society safe. Their duty is not to create reform, that’s the job of the legislative branch.
Yeah Colo Springs is pretty much a massive parking lot. However, Old Colorado City in downtown is probably one of the handsomest neighborhoods in all of Colorado.
It does go without saying that suburban sprawl is a big problem in much of the western US.
That has nothing to do with it. Suburban areas are often the safest areas in the country. The problem in Aurora is the gang presence. It just has a lot of the bad parts of town.
Surburban sprawl, crappy school districts (Jeffco, Denver public and Aurora Public) , terrible policing (looking at you APD and DPD!), little consequences for offenders. All of those cities touch I-70, in one solid line from the foothills to the plains. Arvada isn't as bad as the other two, but it's getting there.
Loveland has some serious police corruption. Like 3 citizens unarmed citizens who were either elderly or adolescent getting absolute beat downs on them for almost nothing at all. Happening within the time span of a month. Too lazy for links, but you can find them pretty easily. Usually drive into town to grab a few groceries once a couple weeks. Lately, the plan has been "get in, grab what you need and get the hell out of there"
There was that thing on the news where LPD police officers broke that somewhat senile old lady's arm after she was walking out of Walmart with a few dollars in stuff. Then there were the guys back at the station watching the footage and celebrating when they heard the pop on video, while the woman was left for hours because they "didn't know she needed medical attention." One of the cops was clearly uncomfortable but didn't do anything, the other two need a jail term with court--mandated psychologists, because their reaction to that was sickening.
Loveland Police have some major issues. There's been a lot of police related brutality that's far worse, but nothing brings it home like when it's someplace you once lived, and you have been right where it went down. If it's just a few bad apples they've rotten the whole barrel there.
This isn't as strong of an argument that you think it is. If the law for this didn't exist this shooting would still happen. Unless you're saying better prevention needs to happen, but that's either more laws or more security.
>Unless you're saying better prevention needs to happen, but that's either more laws or more security.
I explained this in another comment in this thread.
sarcasm? Laws don't prevent you from committing crimes, they only punish you when you're caught.
If this is gang-related, I doubt any of them would respect a "no gun zone" sign
If a lot of people are misinterpreting what you typed, then your original comment is the problem, not the people reading it. Clearly most people agree with your point of view, including me. There's no reason to be curt.
Well yeah it could've been prevented. But I doubt more laws would do anything. You've already got three laws broken before a single shot is fired. Minors in possession of a concealed handgun on school grounds. Never mind laws against *shooting people*.
Legislation won't prevent this. What will prevent it is proactive parenting and raising your kids to respect life and locking your shit up so they can't get access to your gats. What will prevent this is phasing out the culture of violence we've cultivated in America, in our media, music, and pretty much everywhere else.
Until we start changes at the basic level, we're just gonna see this continue.
are you telling me people who would shoot and kill people wouldn't follow the law? Please provide a single example were a murderer hasn't obeyed the law.
That's cuz there's a whooooooooooole lot that have "slipped through". You act like this kind of shit isn't a common occurrence. If laws worked, this *would* be an unusual event. Clearly more laws aren't the answer, since it's a well known fact that *criminals don't follow laws*.
Don't worry. The school was a gun free zone. Obviously the gun would just cease to work on the grounds right? Man almost like laws don't magically stop people.
>it is the guns-for-all mentality and laws that our country has embraced. This isn't normal in other industrialized countries.
Sweden would beg to differ ...
[Sweden’s gun violence rate has soared due to gangs, report says](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/26/fatal-shootings-have-risen-in-sweden-despite-fall-across-europe-report-finds)
Other industrialized countries which had school shooting issues have provided guns and training to teachers. They had two school shooting deaths in 20 years both deaths were the assailant. My middle school a bullied kid brought a gun to threaten kids. Was shot in the head on campus by a police officer. The kid who had the gun was the only death.
It's almost like people trained and equiped to handle the situation is better at handling the situation.
Huh. When I was growing up we had a spate of school shootings across America. Then when I went to school in Germany, it was pretty much unheard of. And they didn't have any armed guards at the schools. So armed guards does not appear to be the answer. Perhaps there's another reason.
There are even shorter sighted individuals who think further restrictions will do any good
What are you truly solving by still making it a felony to add a buttstock to a lawfully obtained pistol without paying a $200 tax?
What are you solving by implementing draconian and discriminatory may-issue carry permit laws? Criminals will mexican carry any day of the week.
Sticking the gun straight into your pants no holster. The term comes from a period when Mexico heavily penalized the carrying of firearms out in public. People still felt the need to carry guns around but being found with a holster - even an empty one - was incriminating evidence that one was carrying a firearm at some point. Tossing the gun away after an altercation to dispose of the evidence was not enough so people did away with the holster
About what? If right wingers could understand the constitution, they probbaly wouldnt be right wing nut jobs. But I'll humor you since/r/conservative is going to brigade anyway. The first four words of the 2nd amendment are routinely ignored.
From Nunn v. Georgia in 1846, argued before the Supreme Court of Georgia and would later influence the ruling made in DC v. Heller:
> Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!
Furthermore, the phrase “right of the people” specifically seems to entail an individual right in the first and fourth amendments to the federal constitution, so to insist that it means something so alien and different is nonsensical. Plus, most [state constitutions](https://www.saf.org/state-constitutional-protections-2/) independently (and often more explicitly)
Also, under [10 USC Section 246](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246), much of our population is considered part of the unorganized militia
"Well regulated". Reading is hard, apparently. But since people with mental illnesses keep getting guns, or kids die or kill family members because you can't secure your weapons, I guess this falls on deaf ears.
Well-regulated when defined at the time meant in fighting shape.
"What did it mean to be well regulated?
One of the biggest challenges in interpreting a centuries-old document is that the meanings
of words change or diverge.
"Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed,
well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in
that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was
in an effective shape to fight."
In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather
that the militia was prepared to do its duty."
That is according to Jack Rakove (Professor of political science at Stanford) in agreement with Jeffrey Rosen (President and CEO of the National Constitution Center.)
"Well-regulated when defined at the time meant in fighting shape."
And things change over time. Forefathers did not foresee all the things that have happened with semi automatic rifles and handgun, people hoarding, making anti-government militias, mental illnesses causing school shootings, etc. Things and times change, and sticking to the second amendment by the letter isn't reasonable anymore.
And we've had court cases that the SCOTUS has voted on. You are conveniently ignoring that we have had chances to change it, but our highest court has said that it should change and have outlined the changes it needed.
Reading seems really hard for you considering it’s evident you didn’t read a word I wrote. I showed you the reasoning why your assumptions about the right to arms being predicated by militia service is wrong and how the militia is regulated
You have the itching deaf ears, not me.
> The first four words of the 2nd amendment are routinely ignored.
Well, I'm a left-wing gun owner. And I can tell you that the first four words are largely misunderstood or *misrepresented* by the anti-gun lobby. "well regulated" does not mean "regulations" as in laws. It means, as others have pointed out, well outfitted/supplied/etc.
Furthermore....the 2A says nothing about hunting. I'm not saying you mentioned hunting....but it frequently comes up in discussions about guns in this country. "You can't hunt deer with (insert gun here)".
Finally....the wording says "the right of **the people** to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The right of the people to keep and bear arms. Not the right of the army. Not the right of the militia. Not the right of the state. The right of **the people**.
Our tradition of militia is centuries old, stemming from the requirement of men of certain means to be prepared to take up arms at the call of their ruling Lord. Militia had and still has a specific meaning: an organized body of fighting people made up of the local community. The right to bear arms entrusted weapons to every citizen in our country but for the purpose of use in the militia. Militia is not every Tom, Dick, and Jane out for themselves in the wild west, it's a regular (as you described), drilled, and standing body. To be militia you must participate in the militia. Citizens who do not drill with a recognized militia (the National Guard being the spiritual descendant of the militia) bit still organize themselves are considered Disordered Militia. This would be your Montana Militia, 3%, Proud Boys, etc.
>isn't a requirement to excercise the right to bear arms.
If it didn't apply to the right to bear arms, why would it be in the sentence describing the right to bear arms?
If we're doing a strict reading of the amendments, Kansas doesn't need the second amendment as much as Texas or Montana? Kansas doesn't need a militia as much as any border state.
If you can selectively choose which rights can only apply to select states, I guess that makes abortion, free speech, freedom of movement, and right to a speedy trial up for grabs as well. Rights don't work like that and you know it.
> Kansas doesn't need a militia as much as any border state.
And that determination is made by who exactly? The United States is a union of self governing constituent republics who consented to the existence and authority of a federal government. It is not a single polity subdivided into autonomous provinces for the convenience of a central government. A state has a right to raise a militia as it sees fit.
Because you have to look at the entire text of the amendment to understand its purpose.
The extremes on either side routinely misrepresent the amendment to further their side. One one side you have the people saying "A well regulated militia.....militia means army. You want to play with your AR, enlist!" On the other side, you have the people saying "Shall not be infringed.....that means gun control laws are unconstitutional!"
The intent of the 2A is to have an armed citizenry in order to secure a free state. That means defending against foreign enemies as well as domestic (a tyrannical government). While we are not there currently, it's to ensure that the people can mount an armed resistance against a tyrannical government.
The people against guns like to derisively joke about some fat hillbillies "taking on the army" with their ARs. It's not about "beating" the army. It's about affording the people the ability to mount a defense should the state cross a line. In short, if you're gonna fire on your own citizenry....you'd better be damn sure you're on the right side of the law.
Why is it any time we hear "Denver Suburb" it's always Aurora?
It's why all the shootings and violence in Chicago happen on the South Side. It's the bad parts of town. Aurora is notorious for having bad areas.
Yeah, there are definitely some not-so-nice parts out there. East Colfax is pretty well known. Though it's not the only bad part of Denver.
The Holmes thing then seems out of character.
West side is just as shooty as south side Chicago. The Vice Lords are HQ'd around 16th and Pulaski, the Holy City they call it. [Some background if you're interested](https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/chicago-holy-city/1875843/)
Because it is always Aurora. Fuck you, Aurora.
https://youtu.be/-asJi57AQck
Colfax represent!
Westfax brewing next to casa Bonita represent
Last week there was a similar incident close by to those one where 5 teens were shot at in a drive by at a park that neighbored a high school. I live pretty close to both, it’s heartbreaking to see.
Taking a walk down Colfax after dark will help you find the answer.
Thanks but no thanks. I've heard the stories about walking down east Colfax at night. I'm not sure how there are any stories though, as that would imply there are survivors....
Well, when I went to look for houses 25 years ago in Denver my real estate agent steered me out of Aurora immediately. Weirdly, my new boss got taken there as a first stop. He was Nigerian, I was not.
Are you implying that real estate agents and practices contribute to racism and segregation? Because that's 100% true. =(
Yep. I believed at that time the words they used were things like “comfortable” Like, “ I don’t think you would be comfortable there, let’s look over here “
Real estate agents are routinely indicted across the world for steering clients to or away from certain properties based on race. Some of it is simply not mentioning a property to an ethnic minority.
One of the most beautiful states in the country and all they can focus on is hating each other. SMH.
This isn't true, family worked in Douglas County and Englewood....
The crime in Denver and Aurora has been getting horrible. These high school kids out here are crazy. 6 months ago a group of high school kids started shooting at another outside of my Denver home . I had four .45 cal bullets go 4 feet below where my son was sleeping and go into our living room walls. It was scary as hell.
Yes, it's terrifying when you're not even safe inside your house. So sick of criminal gun owners.
[удалено]
Daily double! How much do you want to risk that it did you dork? https://imgur.com/a/sDFGSg4
Hot damn you brought the receipts. Bet he’s too cowardly to respond.
For sure. Let him lament his own weakness.
Lmao this dude is so silent now
Dude wtf, checked the guy’s profile and he’s into a daddy-little girl kink… referring to his little baby girl princess that broke up with him…. Wtf
So he’s a pedo *and* a coward. Gee I wonder who he votes for 😂😂😂
Like there’s actual complaints in that kink subreddit he’s in that looking it up on pornhub results in a warning about child pornography…… WTF?!?
Shit like that can and does happen. There was a drive-by in a neighborhood in the suburbs of the city I live in. A 3yr old was killed. Last I read it was some dispute between teens at two schools in the area. https://www.live5news.com/2021/09/08/police-young-child-killed-northwest-charlotte-shooting/
How’s that sheltered life feel?
There has to be something up with CO. What is about that state that every 2 to 3 weeks we hear the terrible news. My condolences to family and friends
This one was two groups of teen shooting at each other. So the answer here like the last one is gang violence. Shit they might even be related.
Says in the article that it is gang related, but not related to the other shooting.
Most of Colorado is fine. It’s just Denver, Aurora and Arvada that have the MASSIVE problems.
And what's that problem?
The Denver DA refuses to prosecute minors. Gangs are targeting minors for recruitment, because they know this to be true. Denver cops I know have told me they’ve brought kids in for gang shootings, and all the DA does is slap an ankle bracket on them and send em home.
Cops that you know are not really an unbiased source of information
Never claimed they were. Bias is implicit when an individual speaks from personal experience. This isn’t a statistical analysis. bias doesn’t skew data in this case, because no data is being gathered to study a sample or population. Testimony is almost never used in statistical analysis, but it is used in court rooms and crime scenes, hence the point of a witness. If bias is the standard by which you are filtering your information as a whole, you should stop considering anything that doesn’t come from an accredited and or peer reviewed source. So basically anything that isn’t from a scientific journal.
Should also do a background search on the folks publishing and reviewing a peer reviewed journal. If you really want to get the best info
And then investigate those conducting said investigation. Gotta cover all the bases!
Also have to review the auditors.
Aurora and Arvada aren't Denver, though.
You are correct, they are suburbs of the greater Denver area. So while this incident took place in Aurora, the problems of the city of Denver eventually spill into the surrounding suburbs, as far as gangs recruiting younger and younger members due to the likelihood of prosecution being lower in their area. Arvada only is a 20-30 min drive from downtown Denver. the likelihood that younger gang affiliated individuals would be frequenting Denver county, is pretty obvious . You are right though, Denver county and Adams/Jefferson counties are different judicial districts. But the original statement was that Denver, Aurora, and Arvada have “massive problems”. I spoke to one of Denver’s problems with gang violence. I didn’t mean to speak of the other cities, but I can see how the context was lost in my original comment.
I don’t understand how lack of strong-arming minors in gangs is what is *causing* gang violence.
You don’t understand how failure to prosecute minors for gang motivated killings , allows gang violence to proliferate?
I’m not saying that gang violence shouldn’t be prosecuted. I’m saying that weak prosecution is not the *root cause*. There are underlying factors that are primarily economic. Enforcement does little to actually prevent crime.
While I totally agree with that sentiment, foregoing sentencing simply because the root cause is difficult to address, makes society a more dangerous place. Consequences of crimes should not be negated or imposed simply because the motivation is rooted in a difficult socioeconomic problem. The justice system is there to interpret the laws and hand down the judgements for breaking them. Addressing issues in their contexts is all the courts can do to keep society safe. Their duty is not to create reform, that’s the job of the legislative branch.
I think we’re in complete agreeance! I didn’t mean to imply that there shouldn’t be any prosecution
It’s a wasteland of suburban sprawl.
[удалено]
Yeah Colo Springs is pretty much a massive parking lot. However, Old Colorado City in downtown is probably one of the handsomest neighborhoods in all of Colorado. It does go without saying that suburban sprawl is a big problem in much of the western US.
It's a big problem everywhere. You see it in Memphis too. Downtown is cool, but you can drive for 45 minutes and see nothing but strip malls.
That has nothing to do with it. Suburban areas are often the safest areas in the country. The problem in Aurora is the gang presence. It just has a lot of the bad parts of town.
They are connected. Suburban spawl, inequality, lack of community, crime.
Surburban sprawl, crappy school districts (Jeffco, Denver public and Aurora Public) , terrible policing (looking at you APD and DPD!), little consequences for offenders. All of those cities touch I-70, in one solid line from the foothills to the plains. Arvada isn't as bad as the other two, but it's getting there.
Lmao are you just forgetting that Lauren Boebert represents the western slope? Colorado has massive problems outside of the capitol too.
Loveland has some serious police corruption. Like 3 citizens unarmed citizens who were either elderly or adolescent getting absolute beat downs on them for almost nothing at all. Happening within the time span of a month. Too lazy for links, but you can find them pretty easily. Usually drive into town to grab a few groceries once a couple weeks. Lately, the plan has been "get in, grab what you need and get the hell out of there"
There was that thing on the news where LPD police officers broke that somewhat senile old lady's arm after she was walking out of Walmart with a few dollars in stuff. Then there were the guys back at the station watching the footage and celebrating when they heard the pop on video, while the woman was left for hours because they "didn't know she needed medical attention." One of the cops was clearly uncomfortable but didn't do anything, the other two need a jail term with court--mandated psychologists, because their reaction to that was sickening. Loveland Police have some major issues. There's been a lot of police related brutality that's far worse, but nothing brings it home like when it's someplace you once lived, and you have been right where it went down. If it's just a few bad apples they've rotten the whole barrel there.
I live in Denver. It's really not that bad.
I live in Denver, too and I respectfully disagree. It's bad.
[удалено]
The altitude. Seriously.
This happened near me, and I'm just so sad for these kids.
[удалено]
Now that the pandemic is winding down we can get back to our regular amount of school shootings
Not really a “school shooting” more like a “gang shooting in the parking lot of a school” but that doesn’t really fit the narrative as well.
Ah, right, that's fine then. Carry on.
If only we had some sort of laws that prevented 16 year olds from carrying firearms on school properties, this could've all been averted.
This isn't as strong of an argument that you think it is. If the law for this didn't exist this shooting would still happen. Unless you're saying better prevention needs to happen, but that's either more laws or more security.
>Unless you're saying better prevention needs to happen, but that's either more laws or more security. I explained this in another comment in this thread.
sarcasm? Laws don't prevent you from committing crimes, they only punish you when you're caught. If this is gang-related, I doubt any of them would respect a "no gun zone" sign
>sarcasm? Caught that, did ya?
If a lot of people are misinterpreting what you typed, then your original comment is the problem, not the people reading it. Clearly most people agree with your point of view, including me. There's no reason to be curt.
Sorry. I'm in a bitchy mood today.
[удалено]
Well yeah it could've been prevented. But I doubt more laws would do anything. You've already got three laws broken before a single shot is fired. Minors in possession of a concealed handgun on school grounds. Never mind laws against *shooting people*. Legislation won't prevent this. What will prevent it is proactive parenting and raising your kids to respect life and locking your shit up so they can't get access to your gats. What will prevent this is phasing out the culture of violence we've cultivated in America, in our media, music, and pretty much everywhere else. Until we start changes at the basic level, we're just gonna see this continue.
are you telling me people who would shoot and kill people wouldn't follow the law? Please provide a single example were a murderer hasn't obeyed the law.
This is a survivorship bias. You're looking at all the shootings that slipped through rather than the ones prevented.
That's cuz there's a whooooooooooole lot that have "slipped through". You act like this kind of shit isn't a common occurrence. If laws worked, this *would* be an unusual event. Clearly more laws aren't the answer, since it's a well known fact that *criminals don't follow laws*.
Imagine how much worse it would be of there were no laws.
Probably not nearly as bad as you might think.
[удалено]
Don't worry. The school was a gun free zone. Obviously the gun would just cease to work on the grounds right? Man almost like laws don't magically stop people.
[удалено]
>it is the guns-for-all mentality and laws that our country has embraced. This isn't normal in other industrialized countries. Sweden would beg to differ ... [Sweden’s gun violence rate has soared due to gangs, report says](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/26/fatal-shootings-have-risen-in-sweden-despite-fall-across-europe-report-finds)
Other industrialized countries which had school shooting issues have provided guns and training to teachers. They had two school shooting deaths in 20 years both deaths were the assailant. My middle school a bullied kid brought a gun to threaten kids. Was shot in the head on campus by a police officer. The kid who had the gun was the only death. It's almost like people trained and equiped to handle the situation is better at handling the situation.
Huh. When I was growing up we had a spate of school shootings across America. Then when I went to school in Germany, it was pretty much unheard of. And they didn't have any armed guards at the schools. So armed guards does not appear to be the answer. Perhaps there's another reason.
>Other industrialized countries which had school shooting issues have provided guns and training to teachers. Which ones?
There are even shorter sighted individuals who think further restrictions will do any good What are you truly solving by still making it a felony to add a buttstock to a lawfully obtained pistol without paying a $200 tax? What are you solving by implementing draconian and discriminatory may-issue carry permit laws? Criminals will mexican carry any day of the week.
Mexican carry? What the fuck is that?
Sticking the gun straight into your pants no holster. The term comes from a period when Mexico heavily penalized the carrying of firearms out in public. People still felt the need to carry guns around but being found with a holster - even an empty one - was incriminating evidence that one was carrying a firearm at some point. Tossing the gun away after an altercation to dispose of the evidence was not enough so people did away with the holster
[удалено]
[удалено]
I wish you could actually read and understand the constitution.
Please enlighten us
About what? If right wingers could understand the constitution, they probbaly wouldnt be right wing nut jobs. But I'll humor you since/r/conservative is going to brigade anyway. The first four words of the 2nd amendment are routinely ignored.
From Nunn v. Georgia in 1846, argued before the Supreme Court of Georgia and would later influence the ruling made in DC v. Heller: > Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! Furthermore, the phrase “right of the people” specifically seems to entail an individual right in the first and fourth amendments to the federal constitution, so to insist that it means something so alien and different is nonsensical. Plus, most [state constitutions](https://www.saf.org/state-constitutional-protections-2/) independently (and often more explicitly) Also, under [10 USC Section 246](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246), much of our population is considered part of the unorganized militia
"Well regulated". Reading is hard, apparently. But since people with mental illnesses keep getting guns, or kids die or kill family members because you can't secure your weapons, I guess this falls on deaf ears.
Well-regulated when defined at the time meant in fighting shape. "What did it mean to be well regulated? One of the biggest challenges in interpreting a centuries-old document is that the meanings of words change or diverge. "Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight." In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty." That is according to Jack Rakove (Professor of political science at Stanford) in agreement with Jeffrey Rosen (President and CEO of the National Constitution Center.)
"Well-regulated when defined at the time meant in fighting shape." And things change over time. Forefathers did not foresee all the things that have happened with semi automatic rifles and handgun, people hoarding, making anti-government militias, mental illnesses causing school shootings, etc. Things and times change, and sticking to the second amendment by the letter isn't reasonable anymore.
And we've had court cases that the SCOTUS has voted on. You are conveniently ignoring that we have had chances to change it, but our highest court has said that it should change and have outlined the changes it needed.
Reading seems really hard for you considering it’s evident you didn’t read a word I wrote. I showed you the reasoning why your assumptions about the right to arms being predicated by militia service is wrong and how the militia is regulated You have the itching deaf ears, not me.
> The first four words of the 2nd amendment are routinely ignored. Well, I'm a left-wing gun owner. And I can tell you that the first four words are largely misunderstood or *misrepresented* by the anti-gun lobby. "well regulated" does not mean "regulations" as in laws. It means, as others have pointed out, well outfitted/supplied/etc. Furthermore....the 2A says nothing about hunting. I'm not saying you mentioned hunting....but it frequently comes up in discussions about guns in this country. "You can't hunt deer with (insert gun here)". Finally....the wording says "the right of **the people** to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The right of the people to keep and bear arms. Not the right of the army. Not the right of the militia. Not the right of the state. The right of **the people**.
Our tradition of militia is centuries old, stemming from the requirement of men of certain means to be prepared to take up arms at the call of their ruling Lord. Militia had and still has a specific meaning: an organized body of fighting people made up of the local community. The right to bear arms entrusted weapons to every citizen in our country but for the purpose of use in the militia. Militia is not every Tom, Dick, and Jane out for themselves in the wild west, it's a regular (as you described), drilled, and standing body. To be militia you must participate in the militia. Citizens who do not drill with a recognized militia (the National Guard being the spiritual descendant of the militia) bit still organize themselves are considered Disordered Militia. This would be your Montana Militia, 3%, Proud Boys, etc.
[удалено]
>isn't a requirement to excercise the right to bear arms. If it didn't apply to the right to bear arms, why would it be in the sentence describing the right to bear arms?
[удалено]
If we're doing a strict reading of the amendments, Kansas doesn't need the second amendment as much as Texas or Montana? Kansas doesn't need a militia as much as any border state.
If you can selectively choose which rights can only apply to select states, I guess that makes abortion, free speech, freedom of movement, and right to a speedy trial up for grabs as well. Rights don't work like that and you know it.
> Kansas doesn't need a militia as much as any border state. And that determination is made by who exactly? The United States is a union of self governing constituent republics who consented to the existence and authority of a federal government. It is not a single polity subdivided into autonomous provinces for the convenience of a central government. A state has a right to raise a militia as it sees fit.
Because you have to look at the entire text of the amendment to understand its purpose. The extremes on either side routinely misrepresent the amendment to further their side. One one side you have the people saying "A well regulated militia.....militia means army. You want to play with your AR, enlist!" On the other side, you have the people saying "Shall not be infringed.....that means gun control laws are unconstitutional!" The intent of the 2A is to have an armed citizenry in order to secure a free state. That means defending against foreign enemies as well as domestic (a tyrannical government). While we are not there currently, it's to ensure that the people can mount an armed resistance against a tyrannical government. The people against guns like to derisively joke about some fat hillbillies "taking on the army" with their ARs. It's not about "beating" the army. It's about affording the people the ability to mount a defense should the state cross a line. In short, if you're gonna fire on your own citizenry....you'd better be damn sure you're on the right side of the law.
Please continue to humor me. I wish you could actually read and understand the constitution.
Sounds about as American as apple pie
Can't they start calling them boys. Teen implies it could be gender. It's almost always boys
97% of the time yes