Of course not. It’s their military. Haven’t you seen their flagpoles? The Second Amendment is for when it becomes someone else’s military.
6 Likes
You might want to wind down a bit and look at the contents. And the lessons learned.
Not that it helps the US of A. But personally, I think that comparing legal systems is interesting. It gave me some insights. I can of course still quip about the system in the US (or UK), of course.
As for your other post:
Panic is something different than just fear. And cowardice is a choice.
I’ve been trampled down by approximatly 500 children when I was about 12. And to come out of it, I stepped on and kicked others. No-one died that day. I didn’t even have to go to hospital. I know what I am talking about when I speak about panic. There is no choice. Survival instinct has nothing to do with cowardice.
See above, and add: it also has nothing to do with common sense. Panic is pure. If you ever really panicked, you will never forget this moment - but you also cannot remember it properly. You will need someone to tell you what happened. To rationalise. Common sense is something which is applied from the outside to someone who panics.
Sorry if I’m 'splaining here, but fuck that shit.
All of it. The shootings, the media, the politicians, and especially the anti-social media. I cannot believe my eyes and ears today. There are actually people who need to debunk conspiracy bullshit about so-called “crisis actors”? And even here, on BBBBS, we are actually discussing if running away from being a target in a shooting, a butchering, is cowardice.
This is worth to go in the Fuck Today thread.
20 Likes
I think “running away from machine gun fire” is one of those actions that is both common sense AND something a panicking person would do.
8 Likes
a kiss is just a kiss 
a sigh is just a sigh
1 Like
Exactly. I think, @Medievalist, that you are better than this. But your contribution in this topic gives me doubts.
Would you then agree that a jump between 100% and .05% is close enough to “all” and “nothing,” respectively, as to be semantics?
Yep. It’s a concept as old as Rome or ancient Greece: the citizen-soldier will answer the call when the security of the State is threatened. After fighting became too expensive and specialistic for this approach in the middle ages (when the necessary horses, good armour and heavy swords cost so much that the activity was basically limited to aristocrats and mercenaries), the concept was “rediscovered” with the invention of pistols and portable guns, which were easy enough and light enough to be usable with very little training. The Swiss had a couple of famous victories in this way and have maintained more or less the same approach since; the American revolution was indeed built on this same approach, like the French one would be a few years later, culminating in the Napoleonic armies.
It is pretty clear, knowing the historical context of the revolution, what that amendment was supposed to mean: maintaining the winning citizen-fighter model into the new states, but well-regulated since citizens were now fully enfranchised.
Also, at the time there was a real threat that Britain, France or Spain could re-invade US territories and a new insurgency might become necessary; that has not been a realistic scenario for over a century now. After the atomic bomb got in the picture, we can now assume that nobody would ever even try to occupy the US: any power fancying their chances to defeat the almighty US would just nuke it with ICBMs. Maintaining guerrilla capabilities in deep US territories is completely redundant nowadays, to use an euphemism. Being more honest, as we just saw, in reality it’s an actively destabilizing factor.
8 Likes
I just turned what he specified into actionable language. Nothing more. I’m not trying to gotcha anyone. If Brainspore wants to ban all guns capable of a massacre on this scale then he will want to ban all self-loading firearms.
I confess, I did overdo it a bit. He’d probably be entirely okay with self-loading pistols that operate on a simple blowback system, i.e. in calibers like .32ACP or so.
It’s Vegas. “Big white guy with big heavy bags” is not a rare sight, it’s not like you have to take out all your guns two days earlier, and a little “do not disturb” gives you plenty of time on the day itself. Plus, the guy was a local high-rolling gambler, he had probably been at the casino before, so the staff was likely concerned with accomodating him as much as possible rather than worrying about his activities.
1 Like
An accurate summary overall, but to make things clear “well-regulated” in the original text simply means properly drilled and trained (usually by a career soldier like a sergeant), not only in the use and maintenance of firearms but also unit tactics and discipline.
Put another way, the Framers most assuredly did not want members of the citizens’ militias described in the Second Amendment to be undisciplined lone-wolves taking potshots at perceived enemies just because they owned their own rifle or pistol. They understood that guerilla tactics only got them so far in the Revolutionary War against the Redcoats, and that what won it was an army that was operating in good working order (“regulated”).
4 Likes
Having been forced by unrelated circumstances to be offline for a day, perhaps I have more perspective.
“Mass cowardice” was something I shouldn’t have said, because it implies everyone that ran or panicked is a coward. I regret the turn of phrase.
I’ve never been in a “hail of lead” as someone put it, so I don’t know what I’d do. If I ran for cover, I’d call that sensible. I don’t normally do what’s sensible. In the past I’ve always moved towards the danger or gone into medic mode.
If I harmed an innocent bystander out of fear or panic I would be extremely harsh to myself; some serious penance would be necessary, and I’d certainly call myself cowardly… I am not willing to change in this regard; I have a right to hold myself to standards I choose. But there is no reason the requirements I place on myself should be applicable to anyone else.
On something of a tangent, I was at a High School field hockey game last year when a fistfight developed into a young man producing a pistol. I observed that some people ran, some people froze, and some people went for the gunman. I don’t believe any of these people acted from rational consideration - charging a gunman isn’t something you ponder. It seems to me that this unreasoned behavior is an excellent group survival trait, far more likely to benefit the group than any more homogeneous response.
Thank you to all who’ve shared your own perspectives with me; this device makes it a bit difficult to parse you out by nym or I’d tag you here.
10 Likes
Far as I’m concerned, it’s all good. We all know that people walked slightly different in Medieval times. 
4 Likes
an added perspective:
people in a panicked crowd don’t really get the choice to act as individuals. there’s not enough information flow, and little in the way of shared decision make.
ive been at otherwise beign concerts where people try to leave, and the pushing is so strong your body pushes regardless of personal choice.
in just such a circumstance, i saw someone fall and everyone around tried to help them up - but, it’s extremely difficult. people have not only been killed by being trampled, but by being crushed.
a very large crowd is like a fluid. regardless of the individuals who comprise it.
6 Likes
Thank you. You are a rare specimen.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
