Bill O'Connell Andrew, you are not exactly correct. Different firearms use different loading methods. The M1 Garand rifle, what infantrymen carried in WWII was loaded with a clip. The AR-15 is loaded with a magazine. See: http://m1-garand-rifle.com/clips-vs-magazines.php
Bill O'Connell Yes you were, and not having to report for duty doesn't change it. The organized militia is also known as the National Guard. The unorganized militia is the rest of us. Unfortunately, we can't ask the framers why they included that prefatory clause. It's use indicates that it provides a reminder of the importance, one of the reasons, for the main clause. The states created the federal government, not the other way around. They wanted the people and the states (militia) to be able to keep the federal government in check. I was fascinated by this article entitled, "Why Liberals Should Love the Second Amendment," published in the Daily Kos. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/04/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment#
Bill O'Connell Why do all of these mass shooting seem to happen in "gun-free" zones? Schools, military bases, since Bill Clinton made them gun-free in 1992, the Aurora movie theater that was "gun-free?" It takes about 2-3 seconds to reload a magazine in a gun. It matters little if one as three ten-round magazines or six five-round magazines, if the victims have nothing but their bare hands. The Sandy Hook murderer broke at least eight laws, by my count, before he fired the first shot within the school. What makes you think another law would have made a difference? If you have any facts to back up your assertion, please share them.
Bill O'Connell Yes, Emily, the militia is made up of citizen soldiers, et al. How do you have an armed citizenry if citizens are not allowed to bear arms? I refer to you Antonin Scalia's majority opinion in Heller (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html) his analysis is an excellent breakdown of the language and he is not limited to 750 characters.
Bill O'Connell Emily, I agree. I know a lot of people who are responsible gun owners and many of them have the right to carry concealed. The last thing any of them want to do is to use it. But, when confronted with someone intent on doing evil to them or their loved ones, they can only protect them if they took the precaution to carry. Where I receive my training they make it very clear, "If you are ever in a gun fight, it will change your life. And it won't be for the better."
Bill O'Connell Agreed, Rollo. The hospitals were shuttered with agreement from many sides, perhaps for different reasons. Conservatives from either a federalism or cost savings perspective or both. The medical community based on the mistaken reliance on the efficacy of drugs. Progressives rightfully opposed to some of the deplorable conditions, but perhaps fixing them rather than closing them would have been a better approach. To the original article, these should all be revisited.
Bill O'Connell Nice pivot, Peter. Yes, the original issue was the epidemic of shootings, which is not the equivalent of gun control, but I'll play along. The wording of the Second Amendment is divided into two clauses, a prefatory clause and an operative clause. As Justice Scalia wrote, "a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause." Consider this, "A well balanced diet, being necessary to recover from illness, everyone should eat a well balanced meal three times a day." Do you interpret this to mean you should only eat a well balanced meal when you are ill? For those unconvinced, according to federal law, every able bodied male 17-45 years of age is a member of the militia. Should they be required to own a gun?
Bill O'Connell That's your opinion. Here is what was researched and reported in the New York Times: "Many of the psychiatrists involved as practitioners and policy makers in the 1950's and 1960's said in the interviews that heavy responsibility lay on a sometimes neglected aspect of the problem: the overreliance on drugs to do the work of society." http://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/30/science/how-release-of-mental-patients-began.html
Bill O'Connell My point about being on his watch, one time events can be forgiven. The old saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." When it happens four times on your watch, you should be connecting the dots, not trying to use it as continuing cover to implement an agenda, rather than a solution.
Bill O'Connell I'll call you Peter, and raise you two: NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/30/science/how-release-of-mental-patients-began.html WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121341017433574441.html It's interesting how the conversation digresses. I point to the mental illness aspect of these massacres, and nearly all the responses to the comment is "who depopulated the mental hospitals" rather than how do we address the issue before us?
Bill O'Connell As this is the fourth massacre on his watch, do you think it is time to stop "mentioning mental health issues" and propose doing something about it? No, let's try to punish law abiding citizens instead.
Bill O'Connell As a pharmacist you probably know that beyond the politicians it was the mental health practitioners that paved the way for throwing open the doors. The subscribed to the belief that meds were the answer. Properly medicated, the patients would do just fine in the mainstream. That proved disastrous, and the politicians relied on that advice. President Obama ordered the CDC to perform a study of gun violence. The purpose was to reinforce his anti-gun position. You don't hear much about that report as it didn't give him the cover he was looking for. http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/082113-668335-cdc-gun-violence-study-goes-against-media-narrative.htm "defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive use by criminals"
Bill O'Connell I did look, (http://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/30/science/how-release-of-mental-patients-began.html) and (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121341017433574441.html) and most of it started before Reagan even became governor of California. But what is your point with regard to the subject here. Are you saying that because you believe it is Reagan's fault, we should ignore it as a factor in these mass shootings?
Bill O'Connell While I may have given a larger slice of the responsibility to progressives than was warranted, it wasn't Reagan who emptied the mental hospitals. That began in the 1950s and accelerated through the 1960s and early 1970s. But the issue here is the focus on a solution to the mass shootings, as you agree is mental health. So, can we agree that the focus should be there rather than how we got here?
Bill O'Connell "and our inability to find a solution to prevent them." Yes, you will be unable to find a solution if you refuse to look directly at the problem. Tucson, Aurora, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Washington Navy Yard, all had a common thread if we have the courage to look beyond the instrument used. These were all cases of serious mental illness. Why doesn't our "healthcare" president acknowledge that? Is it because the progressives emptied the mental hospitals, made it nearly impossible to submit someone to involuntary confinement, and believed the solution was mainstreaming? This has created myriad problems including homelessness and violence, and so they propose housing and gun control. Rather than praised he should be shamed.
Bill O'Connell I start with the Constitution. Agree or not, national defense is in the Constitution as a role for the federal gov't. Before going into war, there should be a declaraion of war by Congress. What you call corporate welfare I call crapitalism. Typically it is an alliance between big business and gov't to stifle competition from small to medium sized business. Make gov't smaller, and there is less they can interfere with. As far as free education, healthcare, etc. that's not in the Constitution. If you want to do that at the state level and the citizens of that state vote for it, I have no problem with it. If I do have a problem, I can vote against it or MOVE to another state. If everything is at the federal level, we're stuck.
Bill O'Connell Taxing only businesses is really taxing everyone as the businesses will build the taxes into their prices. Taxing only millionaires under the premise the more they make the more they pay is a pretty good way to put the economy in a death spiral. There are not enough millionaires to fund the federal government.
Bill O'Connell The admin will probably shred it, deny they ever got it... I don't think you can put the toothpaste back in the tube. If we want lasting change, we have to change the system. Simplify the tax code and there is no need for about 90% of the IRS. The next administration can't put them back. We need to look to federalism to start emptying out Washington. It won't be easy.
Bill O'Connell Clever how you take a statement about not covering any bad news about Barack Obama and change it into reporting on nuclear power. That is a desperate debater. In nearly 70 years there has not been a death due to a nuclear accident in the US. What do you want them reporting about? the leakage of a cup of radioactive water? You think it's because GE owns NBC. Okay, I'll bite, so where is all the coverage of these nuclear accidents on ABC, CBS and the NY Times? What proof do you have of glowing treatment of Ronald Reagan for four years? I certainly don't remember any glowing media treatment until he died and the country rose up to pay tribute to one of the greatest presidents in this country's history.