He’s afraid of people with guns. 
Then why wasn’t the private ownership of guns banned if that’s how the wealthy elite felt? Instead of dinking around with militias and yearly musters, why didn’t the states outlaw guns and form professional armed forces to keep the peace?
The focus on suppressing rebellion in the federal constitution was largely due to Shays’s Rebellion, which inspired demands that the federal government be empowered enough to stop any rebellion that a state government couldn’t. The proper degree of increased power was bitterly disputed and widely debated, and in fact the Bill Of Rights (which includes the Second Amendment, ya know) was a reaction to fears that the new constitution granted too much power.
Old habits do die hard, but they die eventually. Just because things have only gotten better, not perfect, is no reason to throw in the towel and give up.
Television, really? You don’t need television to have police abuses exposed. You gave one example yourself with the police brutality that put down the labor demonstrations in the early 1900s. Lawmakers acted and the police were reined in through legislation, without the benefit of television. Oh yeah, and without giving the workers guns.
Speaking of which, take the Civil Rights Movement (where armed government enforcement took a break from spreading tyranny and instead kept the peace). Suppose the Kennedys, instead of sending in the National Guard, simply gave guns to all the blacks. Somalians can tell you how well that works out for a country.
Really, your idea is so outlandish that I have to wonder if you’re pulling our legs and having a bit of fun with us.
What problem?? That’s your strawman. There’s no sign of the U.S. becoming a police state, thanks to all the reforms that have been instituted in the past hundred years, and continue to take place when abuses are exposed. They don’t need their guns taken away.
But if you want a police state and militarized law enforcement, go ahead and give every civilian a gun. The cops would need expanded powers and methods to deal with all the guns they’d be facing on the street.
Okay then, an armadillo.
It could have gone off at any time, it just needs to slap the inside of the package just right. It could have reached it’s destination without going off too.
Theory 1 is consistent with all the information we have. Theory 2 is, well it’s a theory. Even if we find out it was a New Model Blackhawk, it still has nothing to support it, but it’s a theory.
Not much. Google her name and look through the articles. Most are the same. One had info about the investigating parties. Many said it went off as he picked it up others were nonspecific.
And he just couldn’t resist opening it up and pulling the trigger? This is just speculation on top of speculation. She did plead guilty to “mailing injurious articles” and “causing a firearm to be present in a federal facility.” She wouldn’t have been charged with that if it were a kosher shipment between dealers and since the articles don’t say who it was addressed to, I’d bet money that it was a private residence. If it were a dealer, that would be news.
From 1955-1973, they made approximately 317,000 Blackhawk .357s without the transfer bar.
This gun notoriously had a feature that would make them go off just like this lady’s did. They eventually improved the design so they wouldn’t and some of the old ones were upgraded but there are many non upgraded models still out there. My take on all the information we have is simply that she was shipping one of those old ones. That’s simple and consistent with what we know.
The other theory is that a postal worker in the middle of a busy distribution center saw that it was addressed to a gun dealer, which is unlikely given the charges, and got all excited and decided to open the package and it went off when he pulled the trigger. That’s… a theory.
IIRC, we were discussing the balance of armed power between the public and the police. You said:
So since you objected to adding more guns to the equation, I suggested removing some instead. Remember now?
None of the articles I found gave much detail.
Mailing ammo ( both in the gun and loose) is illegal, mailing the gun to a dealer is legal, not legal to a private residence.
The stinging hands is one of the things that makes me think the worker had his hand on the gun. I just can’t see the gun jolting a box hard enough to sting. Especially if the gun was loose in the box to move. That would absorb a lot of the force.
There’s no need for more civilian guns or for fewer guns on the police force. Because there’s no danger of becoming a police state. That problem doesn’t exist.
How does that equation balance out, professor?
Essentially, yes. Or more specifically, I know that there are a lot of fuck ups out there. A shitload, really. I mean, half the population has an IQ below 100, and that’s just for starters. Beyond that, think of all the people who are just bad decision makers. Hell, you can probably think of multiple people who you wouldn’t trust to make you a sandwich at Subway.
Then there are people who would otherwise be okay, but who are very anxious, frightened people. They are disposed to overestimate threats and to overreact.
Compounding the problem is the fact that people who should not have guns are disproportionately drawn to having them.
Scared, panicky idiots. That’s the problem with guns.
So a postal worker opens the package, “Oh, there’s a pistol in here. I should pick it up, and hold it in my hand. Hey, lemme see how this trigger action works. Oops.”
A gun going off in a well-sealed package would create a shock wave, not unlike just about any small explosive device. Basically, holding the package as the gun went off would probably be pretty similar to holding a 2x4 while someone whacks it with a hammer directly on the other side.
The “he fired it” argument is looking pretty improbable. I mean, when when people working at the pissed-office pick up guns, you know, lots of mayhem follows.
Google “militarization of police”. Apparently there are a bunch of scholarly types that disagree with you.
There have always been “goddamn fools” to use the older description; yet for the longest time we took the position that people deserve to be free, with the caveat that they be held responsible for their actions. When exactly as a society did we abandon this principle and decide that the people need babysitters? (And just who is qualified to be the sitters and not the sittees?)
(1.) I’m not convinced that that’s true; but presuming for the sake of discussion that it were, (2.) Almost any human activity conceivable will have a fringe. The same argument could be applied to voting: should anyone stupid enough to vote for Donald Trump be allowed to do so? Maybe we should have… I dunno, literacy tests?
Identical arguments apply to deadly weapons as to acts like voting? Wow.
The SDMB gives you 5 minutes – a full 300 seconds – to whack yourself, think “If I leave that post on everyone will know I’m a crazed imbecile,” and click Edit.
I suggest that in future you use those 5 minutes more wisely.
Google “backlash against militarization of police”:
– Obama decries excessive force against Missouri police shooting protesters (This is where you say “Thanks Obama!”)
– Obama: U.S. Cracking Down on ‘Militarization’ of Local Police (Obama says “You’re welcome, Lumpy”.)
– Bipartisan backlash grows against police force in Ferguson, Missouri (Rumors of government naturally evolving into a police state have been greatly exaggerated.)
– "Davis, California city council voted Tuesday evening, after hearing from concerned people at the city council’s meeting, to get rid of the police department’s Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected military vehicle."
To recap: There is no danger of becoming a police state, thanks to public outcries of excessive police force when it happens. The system’s working just fine, thank you, without arming civilians and making it worse.
Speaking of which, the number of murders by civilians far outweighs the number of killings by police. Why are you so concerned about the police but not civilian violence?
Because that’s where the personnel for military forces, when needed, came from. Duh.
As you may, or more likely may not, know, the topic of the government keeping a standing army was discussed pretty heavily at the time, with the decision falling toward having a well-regulated militia available on short notice. Elbridge Gerry compared it to a penis: “A standing army is like a standing member. It’s an excellent assurance of domestic tranquility, but a dangerous temptation to foreign adventure.”
You could go ask any high school history teacher for more detail if you really don’t know.
Your acknowledgment that, in fact, “The Founders” did not intend for the government they created on behalf of We The People to be easily overthrown by a few disgruntled gun strokers is noted. :dubious:
But, again, *not *the power to overthrow it against the democratic will of We The People.
You really do know all that, don’t you? Please say you know it.
ElvisL1ves, I tried, I really tried to follow your chain of discussion but it was like one of those cartoons where two characters keep saying “Oh no you don’t!” “Oh yes I do!” until one of them deliberately goes out of synch to throw the other off. What exactly is the position you’re taking? In replies to you and davidm, I argued that the historical precedent was that overall the founders trusted an armed populace more than they trusted an armed government- something you attempted to contradict. When I asked why then the founders didn’t take the steps your stated position would logically lead to, your response was that they didn’t want standing armies. Well, which is it?
As nearly as I can decipher it, your position is that there was supposed to be an armed population but ONLY in the sense of citizens reporting to duty and being issued their service arms from an armory by militia officers. That the Second Amendment means almost nothing other than “you have the right to drafted into the army”. IOW, the now discredited collective interpretation of the 2nd.
Sorry to have to rub your nose in it but yes, it really was intended that the population own their own guns and keep them in their homes and workplaces. The compromise I mentioned upthread is that the founders intended that the government should have very strong authority, but almost no autonomous power. As I mentioned earlier, the safeguard against rebellion was to be an armed majority voting with their guns: summoned and organized by the government yes, but ultimately requiring that a supermajority agree that the rebels were wrong and the government right. And this requires the tacit understanding that the armed populace may answer a summons to arms with a big “Fuck You”, just as a jury can refuse to convict despite any insistence by the government that someone on trial should be declared guilty.
It’s laughable the way 2nd Amerndment freaks need to guess what the “Founders” thought – conditions are now dramatically different from anything the Founders contemplated, or haven’t you noticed.
Moreover they lose their way completely. Lumpy would understand his view makes no sense if he took the trouble to actually read the 2nd Amerndment. Come on, it’s only one sentence! Focus on the phrase “well-regulated militia” and admit that your stance is quite misinformed.
Are you challenging that statement I made? If you want cites I have plenty.
The “obsolescence” argument again? You don’t think the First Amendment applies only to single-sheet screw presses, do you?
I’ve read the full text of the 2nd Amendment. I’ve also read the texts of several proposed versions of the 2nd Amendment and the history of its revisions, the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist papers. Try reading the Federalist #29, in which Alexander Hamilton actually uses the phrase “well-regulated militia” while specifically arguing against the claim that every armed man needed to be under government supervision. And Hamilton famously was in the pro-federalist camp; Jefferson was something closer to a minarchist libertarian, who actually admired Shays’s Rebellion. Yes, they really did mean that citizens should be armed outside of any government authority- it’s amply documented.
That from a guy who thinks, simultaneously, that The Founders intended both to suppress and facilitate future rebellions like Shays’. When you figure it out, do please let us know, will you?
It’s simple enough: they were trying to strike a balance between anarchy and tyranny. Although there were a spectrum of views on where that balance lay, it was broadly held that to forestall tyranny it was necessary for the public to retain some degree of privately-held force.
So how did we get from that nuanced view of freedom and security, to the current insanity of amassing as many guns of as much destructive power as any source can supply, with as little oversight as possible?