Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

bad_syntax t1_j9vvweq wrote

Sounds like they missed all vital organs (naked gun joke?) so she is going to be ok, was released a day later.

Probably an accident, but since it appears it was a felon who did it, back to jail he'll go.

113

Rickylostthatnumber t1_j9w47bi wrote

I had a gun once. It was when I was in the Army. They kept the gun locked up in the armory. Guess they cared about their investment.

90

zarmao_ork t1_j9xqnal wrote

That would be the modern version of the well-regulated militia that the Second Amendment says is necessary

37

bentnotbroken96 t1_j9yvcsj wrote

The National Guard and Reserves are the militia, aka trained citizens that can be called up to service.

25

dungone t1_j9z5rgb wrote

So is the standing army. They’re all volunteers, all of them take an oath to defend the constitution.

5

Remote-District-9255 t1_j9ylks9 wrote

You think the standing national army is the modern day militia? What did they call an army back then?

7

Indian_Bob t1_j9z2o0l wrote

They didn’t have an army back then, just militias.

7

dungone t1_j9z5v9v wrote

They called it a militia. They didn’t have a standing army. They didn’t have military academies, the only people who would get a military education were wealthy aristocrats.

5

AlienPathfinder t1_j9z9gja wrote

??? It was called the Continental Army led by Generals, Colonels, etc. They had a uniform and bases. Your reference to military academies is simply non-sensical and I won't address it further. There were also groups of people who would fight alongside the army. These were the militias. The modern day National Guard is best described as weekend army.

−1

dungone t1_j9zdaxg wrote

The Continental Army was formed after the war started and consisted of completely untrained volunteers. Do you see what this means? The first battles were fought by militias. In some cases, militias from New York and Massachusetts had to be incorporated into the Continental Army. The Continental Army was disbanded immediately after the Treaty of Paris was signed, which ended the war. So only the militias were left after that. The way you would become an officer in the Revolutionary War was very simple - you'd be a rich guy, maybe you had a little military experience, you were friends with someone like Ben Franklin and he'd vouch for you (Lafayette), or you'd get off a boat and introduce yourself to George Washington (Pulaski).

The first military academy in the USA wasn't founded until 1802. Given your limited knowledge I can see why you don't want to talk about that. Just a reminder that the Revolutionary War started before then, in 1775. And it's kind of "important", you know, if you want to talk about the entire concept of a professional army that isn't just a ragtag group of citizen soldiers. Remember - at the time when the US Constitution was signed, in 1787, there was no professional army, only militias, and the federal government was completely broke.

10

AlienPathfinder t1_j9zh76w wrote

I think you are regurgitating the point of view of your history professors. The people that wrote the constitution were aware of the idea of an army yet chose to protect the militia, not the army. They were not stupid and would have said army if that' s what they meant.

What do military academies and nepotism in the army have to do with what we are discussing?

−10

dungone t1_j9zjibd wrote

My history professor? You mean the military officers who taught me military history when I served in the US military? You're telling me that I shouldn't listen to people who actually understand history? Instead I should listen to whom, exactly? Some redneck terrorist who thinks the Founding Fathers whisper sweet nothings in his ear?

Everything I told you is the context that you have to understand if you have any hope of understanding what the 2nd Amendment means by the "well regulated militia" and why it says they are necessary for the security of the state. It's referring to the state-level militias at a time when those were the only military means for the USA to defend itself. It's not referring to some right wing lunatics practicing to overthrow the government in some backwoods red state.

10

Remote-District-9255 t1_ja23w7o wrote

Your interpretation means that regular citizens can't own firearms. That's ok if you and your little army friends think that, but you know that's never how it's been done here right? Like never.

−3

dungone t1_ja3ly0r wrote

It doesn't distinguish between the militia and the citizenry. The purpose is to secure the state. You have the right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia. That's your right as a "regular citizen".

This amendment has been completely perverted by traitors over time where now, people like you think it means that you, as an anti-government terrorist, dangerous lunatic, secessionist, white supremacist, serial killer, mass murder, or whatever other rogue element in society you belong to, believe that you have a constitutional right to threaten the security of the state.

2

Remote-District-9255 t1_ja6qr1k wrote

Are you serious? It has nothing to do with the integrity of the state. If the founders gave a shit about that we would all be eating tea and crumpets right now. The entire point of the constitution is to limit the states power over the individual. Our education system has completely failed you

0

dungone t1_ja6qx7j wrote

Have you ever actually read it?

> A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...

I guess you never read it.

1

Remote-District-9255 t1_ja6rfhq wrote

Yes of course I have. There is obviously a huge debate as to exactly what each word means in a 18th century context as well as the intent of the amendment. The point you need to deal with is why it has been implemented the way it has for the entirety of the nation's existence. Feel free to advocate for a change to the amendment or a new one, but to try and say this one means something totally different is asinine

0

mekonsrevenge t1_ja3qqzb wrote

The issue then was a standing army. Most Americans opposed the concept bitterly, assuming it would lead to an authoritarian state. In times of war, the idea was to raise an army of citizen soldiers who would return to civilian life asap Even after the war, the standing army was a small group meant to protect the president and congress.

4

UniversalMomentum t1_ja0wx76 wrote

But you're trying to mix terms from now and then, which makes no sense anyway.

I think all these terms are rather generic and don't have precise meanings and never did. A militia and an army can be the same thing and they can also be totally different things opposing each other.

That's what happens when you use terms that don't have much meaning!

1

UniversalMomentum t1_ja0wm1v wrote

I right is not a declaraction of necessity. It's just a limit on legislation. It's not a guaranteed freedom or a duty of citizens. It's ONLY a limut on legislation.

"Congress shall make no law" is the term that should ring in your head when thinking about the scope of a Constitutional Rights.

Freedom of religion doesn't say religion is necessary it just tries to equalize the freedom for all who want it. Speach too really, you aren't really required to talk much and exercise your freedom of speech, it's mostly optional. 2nd ammendment right is the same. It's a limit on legislation to control guns that ensures the OPTION to get a gun remains an option, but still only an option. It doesn't proclaim that all citizens should get guns.

3

jfjacobc t1_j9wano6 wrote

This is why we need actual courses, training, and certification required for firearms owners. That way, only the people who care enough about safety and responsibility would would be willing to go through the hoops to get a gun. You get caught with a gun, and you shouldn't have one? Jailtime at the minimum.

There will always be people who skirt the system and get one illicitly, so we shouldn't remove the option for safe, responsible gun owners to have one as well.

36

[deleted] t1_j9xe1z7 wrote

[removed]

7

jfjacobc t1_j9ximb7 wrote

I mean, yeah, but that's for people convicted of a felony already, and what I'm describing, ideally, wouldn't be a felony.

I believe fines are only punishment for poor people, so that's why I say jail time minimum. That way, even millionaires who illegally acquire a firearm without the proper training would have a consequence.

The purpose of that proposed system isn't to punish but to promote safe, responsible ownership of the greatest force-equalizer we have.

0

onikaizoku11 t1_j9xwrvj wrote

Your heart is in the right place, but you are only adding another layer to a problem. Not solving it. You only get the jail time after a conviction, which comes after a trial, a trial that the wealthy can circumvent for years if not indefinitely in a state like Texas.

I don't profer a solution here, to be clear and honest, but your proposed solution makes stuff worse.

1

faciepalm t1_j9y6ceg wrote

Hardly makes things any worse. It's pretty easy to have a gun license on you at all times while you have a gun, just like your phone or actual license. Shifting the point of legality to no one can unless they have a license from everyone can except felons means that everybody who is illegally using guns will have to be more careful, because they know that just having one gives a reason to check ID.

1

onikaizoku11 t1_j9y9lcw wrote

>I believe fines are only punishment for poor people, so that's why I say jail time minimum. That way, even millionaires who illegally acquire a firearm without the proper training would have a consequence.

Is what I was really pointing at in that comment.

Why are fines mostly only bad for the poorer of us? Because they don't have the same resources. A say $500 fine, just throwing out a realistic figure, is less than a pittance for a wealthy individual, that is food money for half the month for financially struggling people.

Now throw mandatory jail time into the mix, same variables. Rich person can get representation and fight legally much easier than a poor person. Hell, in the case of the affluent, them not even being officially charged for lengthy periods of time after offenses is a real consideration.

For reference, I have lived in a part of Georgia where there is still a law on the books that says every home is required to have a firearm. Throw in the newish law pretty much getting rid of the need for permits of any kind to carry or own here.... Who is hurt more before that commentor's idea? After? The poor guy only now he has jailtime on his record.

2

faciepalm t1_j9ytw34 wrote

I agree with you, except for that example at the end. It shouldn't be too difficult for someone to prove that they are competent and understand the risks behind owning and using a gun to provide themselves with a license, especially if the cost of doing so was waived for the first year or so that it was going to be announced.

Every household being required to own a gun sounds straight out of a state trying to prepare its population for a civil war, huh? I'm not in the US and accustomed to the laws at all, but it is interesting how many carry overs probably exist from so long ago

0

LuangPrabangisinLaos t1_j9yql3l wrote

In Canada greater Montréal has a population of 1.5 million and had 19 firearm related homicides. This is one of the worst years in the last 10.

Philadelphia is an American city of about 1.5 million. Had 512 homocides in 2022 but I can't accurately ascertain how many were from guns.

I can say for 2023 there have been 51 firearm related homocides in 2023 as of Feb 23 in Philly.

It's hard to kill people without easy access to guns, and Canada's primary source of firearms used for murder are from South of the border, because legal gun owners get a background check done every 24 hours and if anything comes up they lose their guns. You don't have a permit? Jail. You have a permit but you didn't follpw your ascribed route to your registered range and your pistol is locked in its box in your trunk? Jail. Personal sale? Complicated.

3

vegabond007 t1_ja01qnd wrote

I have complex feelings about Canada's solution to firearm control. l I do have significant issues with the recent developments.

It's one thing to require these things it's another when the next government comes in and promptly uses it to strip thousands of gun owners who have done nothing wrong of their firearms. Which is why it's such a resisted method of control in the US.

4

LuangPrabangisinLaos t1_ja1fyk8 wrote

Then you're ok with the amount of firearm related homocides, or have a better solution to reduce the number of firearm related crimes? I'm not being sarcastic, it seems like you're up for a sincere discussion.

0

discotim t1_j9z701q wrote

Makes total sense, the more guns that are generally out there, legal or otherwise, the more shootings there will be.

2

Romano16 t1_ja09cc0 wrote

The argument is that the 2nd amendment says nothing about being “certified” to being able to buy a gun AND the people who fought against the British Empire during the American Revolutionary War weren’t exactly all certified officers prior to switching sides many were rural farmers

2

SpaceTabs t1_j9xt9kt wrote

Never happen. Even if it did, it would become the equivalent of putting Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court. It would be as popular as reconstruction in the south.

There's a half billion guns. Only about one percent of gun owners are The Complete Angler type.

1

discotim t1_j9y2vsa wrote

There must be some solution to this problem. It is a uniquely American problem.

7

UniversalMomentum t1_ja0z651 wrote

I think we should lock up violent people much longer so the risk vs reward is much worse for violent behavior across the board.

Gun regulations take forever to have an impact and you mostly just kind of punish a bunch of people who weren't going to commit crimes trying to catch the few who might. It's a bit of a sucky strategy with low pay off that causes a lot of pushback. Accountability sounds great, but that's kind of like thinking car insurance would make car accidents rare because you're accountable for your driving. It's easy to say, but how do you make people accountable in a way that changes their behavior BEFORE they do something stupid? This requires them to like learn stuff.. which means low probability of success and very long adoption time to get results.

I'm not against the idea so much as I don't think it will work fast enough to notice much impact, so the investment of effort tends to not produce much result.

I'd rather replace all the CCTV with smart cameras that tie into rapid respnse police forces. So basically if you fuck around in public there is always a camera that can detect violent behavior or sounds and get the police there, probably eventually with a drone because that's the fastest.

Camera/mic/call for public violence and a drone gets there in like 3 minutes. If that's how it worked a lot less people would be willing to commit crime in public because a police drone would be on them recording them, shining lights on them so fast they have to stay in the shadows more... which means crime is harder to commit.

We are going to get smart camera and more camera anyway so I don't see any real intrusion of privacy issue, just public cameras that automate reporting crime and rapid response to get police there so fast it basically scares criminals how fast they can show up. Once that is setup it would be a major deterrent for most crime and not cost much at all AND it works on most crime vs just gun crimes.

1

squazify t1_j9x5gz5 wrote

This is the kind of solution that just makes it harder for poor folks to acquire firearms. Sounds like this was an intentional shooting, I doubt any training would have prevented it. While training is important, beauricratic and punitive measures like this won't do much.

−9

Big_D_Cyrus t1_j9xantb wrote

Wait until you find out firearms cost money

9

squazify t1_j9xbn9y wrote

Yes, but it's the same thing as when you need to get a tax stamp for a suppressor. There's no benefit to requiring it other than creating an arbitrary wealth barrier.

−1

Big_D_Cyrus t1_j9xcrhp wrote

Quite a jump from training classes to a tax stamp for a suppressor. Classes are certainly reasonable.

6

[deleted] t1_j9xd3sl wrote

[removed]

3

Big_D_Cyrus t1_j9xd8no wrote

You implying gun classes won't save anyone from being shot is classic toxic gun culture

1

[deleted] t1_j9xdffc wrote

[removed]

3

Big_D_Cyrus t1_j9xdjsd wrote

You know are on the wrong side when you are attacking education

2

[deleted] t1_j9xdky3 wrote

[removed]

2

Big_D_Cyrus t1_j9xe179 wrote

Says the person who came at me with, "but it wouldn't have prevented this." You attacked me for wanting people to be educated about guns. Never wrote that it would have prevented this . But you clearly read what you want

1

jfjacobc t1_j9xjgco wrote

You make good points man, you're probably right in saying training and certification wouldn't have prevented this shooting. Maybe if she had her own gun, she could have protected herself. Maybe she still would have died. We'll never know.

My point is, there is no law that could have saved her life, so we shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of progress, and I think mandatory training for potential gun owners is progress.

2

[deleted] t1_j9xnj7h wrote

[removed]

1

jfjacobc t1_j9xtxsi wrote

Not going to lie, I didn't read the article. That was pretty much my point though, some situations are just un-legislatable. However irrelevant to this particular incident training may have been, it would still be a net benefit to a gun-laden society like ours. I was just using this article as an excuse to open dialogue on the topic is all.

1

TabularBeastv2 t1_ja14szn wrote

I definitely think we should require training/certification before a gun can be purchased, just make the classes/tests free and easily accessible. Adding gun safety and education to public school curriculum can be helpful too.

1

jfjacobc t1_j9xjr6k wrote

If having a base level of competency and firearm safety isn't a benefit, I don't know what is. You're right about the potential to alienate poorer gun owners, but to be frank, if you can afford a taurus and a couple of boxes of ammo, you can afford a weekend class.

3

AustinLurkerDude t1_j9xnzpz wrote

Also car licensing and insurance. Makes it tough on poor ppl, they need to be exempted from any safety requirements that cost money.

2

Just_trying444 t1_j9vcx5n wrote

I thought guns don’t hurt people?

35

Warg247 t1_j9vytqh wrote

Guns don't kill people. People kill people...

... with guns.

32

organasm t1_j9wg9iz wrote

Jon Lajoie reference?

8

Annoying-Ass_Insect t1_j9wnihc wrote

Haha I never expected to see this but I appreciate it. Those MC Vagina videos were great satire.

6

EquinsuOcha t1_j9wt3gq wrote

Everyone knows bullets do all the dirty work and get none of the credit.

17

Zerotan t1_j9xfmc0 wrote

Was the shooting related to him being a councilman? If not, why even mention him.

Like her epitaph will just be "Proud Councilmom"

5

mekonsrevenge t1_ja3o32h wrote

That's some first-rate writing right there. Sheesh

1

Stromaluski t1_j9vmqwn wrote

The title isn't worded very well. Did the mother shoot at something else through her door or was she shot by somebody else through her door?

−35

Etzell t1_j9vtkax wrote

If only there were a thing that could be clicked to gather more information. Alas.

11

Stromaluski t1_j9vwoha wrote

I wasn't genuinely asking the question. I read the story, so I knew the answer. I was simply pointing out the ambiguous language that was used in the title and how it could be taken a few different ways.

−2

HilariouslyBloody t1_j9vtpsv wrote

You could also read it as if the mother was launched through the door somehow. Maybe by a catapult or bungee cords ... or something

10

Stromaluski t1_j9vwhwa wrote

I didn't even consider that possibility! I need to work on my reading comprehension, it seems.

2

anadams t1_j9yqp6u wrote

Not sure why you’re being down voted. The title should say she “was” shot through “the” door of her home. Not using “was” changed the meaning.

2

Stromaluski t1_j9zxktf wrote

I would assume that it's from people thinking "why not just read the article and find out?". But I wasn't actually asking, and was instead just trying to point out the ambiguous title.

1

jschubart t1_j9vrxk8 wrote

DFW is a dangerous area.

−43

DigitalArbitrage t1_j9vzik6 wrote

No, it isn't even in the top 50 most dangerous U.S. metro areas.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/433603/us-metropolitan-areas-with-the-highest-violent-crime-rate/

This story is just in the news because the victim is a close relative of a public figure.

28

jschubart t1_j9w7lrp wrote

Yeah. It was Houston I was thinking of. DFW is still higher than Chicago though which is generally thought of as a violent city.

−20