Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum GUN VIOLENCE IN THE US ...

BTW , if this was the only mode of transportation that an
individual had available , I would charge a large amount of money for rent when the vehicle is just sitting in my driveway.

and if it just happened to run over nails all the time and flatten its tires that too would not help matters.

this would just be another attempt at a control method by those who want to film and record us in our everyday life
and of course I would be against it.

The chances of a self driving car plowing into a crowd of people would be remote. That is one of the things that is included in the algorithms used in the cars. It certainly happens with driver controlled cars. Just yesterday at the Oklahoma State University home coming parade somebody did just that. The driver killed a bunch of people and seriously injured a bunch more. That probably would not have happened with a self driving car.

As far as insurance is concerned I expect it would still be required, but the premiums would go down sharply. Licensing of vehicles would still be required. The license fees would be paid by the owner of the car. Who would pay is open. Obviously the individual owner would pay. For a leased car it would depend on the lease terms. Either the lessee would pay or the leasing company would pay, depending on the contract. In either case it would be the lessee who actually paid, just as renters pay real estate taxes through their land lords.

Of course my heart bleeds for the insurance companies who make big bucks off of automobile insurance. Of course this would free up money for the individuals which they could spend on other things that would create new jobs in other fields.

Speed traps would dry up, but there has already been some relief from that, at least here in Oklahoma. Any town where more than 50% of the towns income is from traffic fines can be declared a speed trap. They then will not be able to issue tickets on the highway through the town. That shut down a bunch of speed traps. Of course in many places the reduction in need for traffic enforcement would free up valuable police resources to concentrate on other types of crime. We might actually be able to really provide better police protection against real crimes.

Bill Gill

First off, at least here in Oklahoma, before you can get a concealed carry permit you have to take a gun course. This is supposed to prepare you to use a gun responsibly. So your call for training is not necessarily a valid call. It certainly does make sense that anybody who owns or has access to a gun should be well trained in its use.

Also I just saw something in the paper this morning. There has been a study of gun deaths in states with and without gun controls. The states with gun controls had lower gun death rates, sometimes, Sometimes it didn't make any difference. The author of the study had no explanation for this except that it is a very complex question. So the question is still open as to what types of gun controls might make the most sense. I am still open on the question, although I still say that the answer is someplace in the middle between complete freedom to have guns and complete prohibition of guns.

Bill Gill

the more I think about this the less I believe it will
ever come into play. machines rarely make mistakes so your right the insurance rates would plummet.

probably to the point where the manufacturer would carry
the insurance themselves due to the cost per vehicle.

and they already know that auto insurance is a racket and
wouldn't feel compelled to donate large amounts of their
income to the auto insurance industry so they would simply
form their own insurance company.

so there went the auto insurance industry.
because when you lease the auto the insurance is included
out of necessity.

gun safety training should be a requirement but the banning or
controlling of guns is a non American practice.

the states or local governments that have laws or
regulations that control the ability of any American
citizen to bear arms is illegal according to the us
constitution where as the states do not have the
ability to override the us constitution when
the right to bear arms is in question.

all powers that are not granted to the union by
the us constitution are granted to the
states and/or the people/citizens.

the tenth amendment.



I see the fine State of Kansas is not suckin the hind tit on
this matter , they have achieved somewhat of a immunity to
the illegal gun control practice being pursued and established in other obvious anti constitutional states.

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/04/17/kansas-governor-signs-second-amendment-protection-act/



and that is the way the us constitution reads.
any law that has been passed that infringes
the rights of a us citizen to bear arms is illegal.

and the only type of government that would want to
remove arms from its citizens is the exact type of
government that the founders and writers of
the us constitution had in mind when they clearly
gave the citizens the right to bear arms so that
the citizens could in fact throw off that type of
government if deemed necessary.

by attempting to remove this right
the government is in fact attempting to
remove all other rights and the us constitution itself.

the right to bear arms is the enforcement mechanism
that protects all other rights including
the us constitution itself.

Well, that is a fine example of a meaningless law. It is already a fact that anything that is unconstitutional is null and void in any US state, district, or territory, just as soon as the US Supreme Court rules that is is not constitutional. And the only entity that can rule on the constitutionality of any law, etc. is the US Supreme Court. A state law making such a statement is completely superfluous. And of course once the Supreme Court makes its ruling then that is the way it is.

Bill Gill

It don't work that way Bill.

the us supreme court does not write laws nor does it have any
powers to change the us constitution.

they do have judicial powers but not law making powers.
and their decisions can be nulled because after all they are only people who sometimes make stressful if not influenced decisions that are later found to be wrong.



but the us supreme court has never had nor will it ever have authority that overrides the us constitution.

otherwise some clever group of people might install a anti
constitutional judge or set of anti constitutional judges to do their will and nullify the us constitution for their groups belief or agenda.

congress can make amendments/changes to the laws found in the us constitution.

but they know that the changes that they make can be removed
as well as themselves including the president any and all underneath him if deemed necessary the us constitution
protects itself by its wording.

so they are really cautious in what they attempt to change.

swearing an oath to protect the us constitution does not mean
that they should change its wording because its an old document
it means that they swore to protect its wording and any changes they make can cost them their office.

That's what I said. The US Supreme Court is the judicial body charged with deciding whether any law is constitutional. They are the only national body so charged. In any state the state supreme court decides whether a state law is in agreement with the state constitution. However, the US Supreme Court decides if a state or federal law is in agreement with the US Constitution. Once the US Supreme Court makes the decision then that is the way it is, unless they readdress the decision and make a new interpretation. Sometimes their decisions do not directly address one single law, but are generic in nature, or at least contain wording that impacts laws in many states. The school segregation issue is an example. The Supreme Court found segregation unconstitutional. Then all states were forced to integrate their schools.

You are right. The Supreme Court doesn't make law. But it decides whether any law is constitutional. Therefore it may not make laws, but it can cancel laws, including state laws. And the US Supreme Court is the only entity that has that capability. The Kansas law that you cited is therefore kind of ridiculous. If Kansas feels that a law is against the second amendment then the only thing it can do is to file suit in federal court to have the law rescinded. The ultimate decision on the constitutionality of the law still resides with the Supreme Court, not with the state of Kansas.

Bill Gill

OK , it was the way I read your comment below , to me I
perceived that what you were saying was that the current laws found in the us constitution such as the law that grants the power or right to the us citizens to own and bear arms to defend the us constitution. ie the union of states that was formed when the colonist threw off the last government that we had in the revolutionary war against the british tyrants would need to be found constitutional by the us supreme court.



I bet the british wish they would have been able to install a form of gun control back then like they are trying to install these days because without the colonist having guns to fight back with it would have made the war much easier for the british tyrants to win the war.

which brings me to the unconstitutional and infringing gun laws currently in place that have removed the ability of the arms that the us citizens can legally own to rapid or auto fire munitions and the removal of high capacity magazines.

the us constitution grants its citizens the right to a well
regulated militia ...



single shot or semi fire weapons with low capacity magazines
reduce or infringe on the ability of a militia to defend the security of its state and the us constitution and are unconstitutional.

the us supreme courts never had the power to override the
us constitution where the removal of the right to have and maintain a well regulated militia is concerned.

all militaries of the world use automatic weapons with large capacity magazines , so our ability to quickly form a militia to defend our state has been infringed and is not well regulated.

if anything they have removed the regulator valve and have installed a tiny orifice to ensure a win the next time a government of tyrants decides to do tyrannical things that cause the citizens to revolt against them.

ask your state government if they have a state militia and
then ask if the members of the state militia are required to
bring their own weapons to the fight or if the state will
supply them with well requlated arms that could be compared
to the arms of any soldier of any military of the world if they ever had to fight to defend their state.

Well, as a lot of gun advocates know the Supreme Court has oked some gun controls. The requirements for special registration of fully automatic weapons and such like. So that apparently doesn't fall foul of the constitution. Now I understand that a lot of people think that the Supreme Court has made some mistakes. I agree that there have been mistakes, I haven't always agreed with their decisions. But the way it goes the US Constitution says that the Supreme Court is always right, even when they are wrong.



As far as the Second Amendment is concerned you will find a lot of arguments about just what it means. Some people look at the first clause, about the militia and say that members of the militia are the only ones who can keep and bear arms. Others look at just the third phrase "the right of the people" and say the right applies to every one. The Supreme Court has very carefully kept from speaking on that issue.

At the time the Bill of Rights was written the militia consisted of the members of a community who could be called up in case of an emergency. Now days there are plenty of people who see the National Guard as the modern equivalent. Under that point of view then only the National Guard can keep and bear arms. I am excluding the Reserve Forces, which are technically parts of the United States Armed Forces, not militia members. I suppose they could be considered militia, but I prefer to stick to the National Guard. Any way that is one interpretation of the second amendment that has some reasonable justification.

The other part of the Second Amendment is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A lot of people look at it and say that it doesn't matter what the reason given in the amendment is concerned the last part is what is important. Whatever reason the writers had to include the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights, the last part is the important part, and overrides the first part about the militia.

So there is a very real question as to the exact meaning of the Second Amendment. I don't think the Supreme Court will speak on its actual meaning until they are forced to do so.

In the mean time I am still neutral. As I have said before, when there are 2 highly polarized sides to an argument then the answer is probably some where in the middle. But right now there is no unbiased research that clearly indicates where the proper balance point is.

Bill Gill

I try not to read meanings into the us constitution so
when it clearly states that ...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

it means that each and every free state in the union
has a right to keep a well regulated militia for security of the free state.

and it also clearly states that each us citizen has the
right to keep and bear arms.

and shall not be infringed.
is exactly what it means.

granted you don't need full automatic weapons and large capacity magazines to hunt game animals with but the right to keep and bear arms has absolutely nothing to do with hunting , hunting is just the way people used to provide food for their families.

I have never heard of an instance where an army consisting of game animals attacked the free peoples of a state and threatened that states security.

hunting weapons and weapons for the defense of a free state are
completely different weapons.

and the military type weapons designed for the military should not be used for hunting likewise a us citizen in his states militia should not be expected by his state to bring hunting weapons to the fight when his state expects a well regulated state militia as provided for in the us constitution to be present at the fight .

I will never be a supreme court judge either because I
don't read things into the wording of the us constitution
or its amendments.

to me it clearly gives power to the people of each state to have a well
regulated militia , and it clearly gives each citizen the right to keep and bear arms.

and the well regulated means that the arms that a citizen
can own and bear should be comparable to the arms that the
military keeps and bears to defend the nation against invasion
of a foreign power , likewise each state should have its own militia with weapons that are comparable to the weapons of the us military should one free state ever need to defend itself from another free state or should one free state ever need to defend its self from the us military.

or groups of free states need to defend their states from an invading foreign power or from a us government of tyrants that have requested foreign powers step in and intervene on behalf of their us government of tyrants because the us military refuses to kill or harm us citizens.

there are states that have a non federally connected state militia and they are called state defense forces (SDF) but
congress does not seem to think that the us constitution really means much because it refuses to improve the poor
( not well regulated ) condition of the SDF's by ignoring bills that could have improved the condition of the state defence forces or state militia's in the us.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force



the page describes how the federal government may under certain circumstances take ownership or control of these state defense forces and I don't think that there should be any ability of the federal government to control any measure of these state defense forces as it may be the federal government itself that these forces need to defend against so the ownership and full control of these state defense forces should remain in the state of residence of the state defense force.

however the funding of these non federally connected state militia should be provided by both the federal government and the state governments as both the union and the state would be a benefactor in the event of an invasion by a foreign power.

I might point out that when the US Constitution and its first 10 amendments were written the militia members provided their own weapons. And they would mostly have been hunting weapons.

I believe that the state, actually mostly community, militias would have been on call to the federal government in case of invasion. So that the state National Guard organizations have mostly taken the place of the militias.

As far as a well regulated militia, I think that would imply a strict control of the militias organization and training by the sponsoring state. That of course is supplied by the National Guard. And of course the National Guard provides a unified command and control structure with the regular armed forces. A separate state militia would probably not be as easily integrated into a national defense.

As far as invasion of one state by another I find it unlikely. However, I do know that at one time Oklahoma's Governor, Alpha Bill Murray, called out the National Guard to protect a bridge across the Red River from Texas. A new toll bridge had been built and they wanted to tear down the old free bridge. I don't know if any other states have come that close to war with a neighboring state. Of course right now I think Governor Murray's actions are looked at more with amusement than with pride. A demonstration of the klutzes we have elected from time to time.

Anyway, the constitution gives the federal government control over inter-state affairs. So if one state tried to invade another the US Army would probably be called on to intervene. The chances of such an event are extremely remote.

And the constitution gives the federal government responsibility for defending the country from foreign invasions, so a state militia would only be useful as a source of conscripts for the regular army, which is what the National Guard provides.

Bill Gill

exactly the militia members provided their own weapons and back then there was little or no difference between a british military weapon and a colonist weapon.

they all used a flint spark to ignite gun powder that fired a single round of ball ammunition , they then had to reload which took apx 15-20 seconds and point the weapon in the direction of their respective foe and fire again.

not much aiming took place they mostly just fired into the crowd.

the us military have in fact advanced so far that a single modern soldier with a light machine gun could have defeated the entire british army and could have mowed them down at a distance so far away that they would never know where the
soldier was ... and he could have done that at night with
an ir scope ... or he could have simply sunk the wooden ships as they approached the shores using he rounds.

the us military could do the same thing today to the states defense forces just as easily if the people in the military
would fire on civilians.

and the military is training them to fire on civilians from what I understand , what I would do is remain calm and do the training to prevent myself from being weeded out of the military because of my ideals and then if the time ever comes when an officer tells me to kill a civilian I would kill the officer because he would have proven to me that he is my enemy.

if that ever comes into play in the military I am certain there will be many more that would react the same way.
the ass kissers of course will follow orders no matter what orders are given in order to please their superiors.



yes the president would be the commander in chief of the
army and navy of the united states , the national guard and the state militias (which have become the national guard).

but the state defense forces are under full control of the governor of its state.



the national in national guard implies ( national control ) and the national guard is under national / federal control.

when our government clearly desires to remove the freedoms and the powers that are granted to united states citizens by the wording of the us constitution and steps and measures are being taken by the government to implement the removal of these freedoms , rights and powers , to me it is a clear and unquestionable desire of the government to void the us constitution and each state should provide the funding of its state defense force prior to demanding that the federal government repay its fair share of that funding because the us constitution deemed it necessary for every state to have its own well regulated militia and it did not state that every state should have a portion of the us military within its borders to serve as the sole protection of its state.



well there was of course the us civil war where each states militia from the north (USA) and the south (CSA) were organized and commanded by their respective state government in the years leading up to the war between the states.



well , the us constitution also clearly gives the state governments the right to have and the control over a state militia ... but where are these mighty state militias that defend the states?

so the us constitution says this somewhere and it says that somewhere else ... why does one saying have powers over another saying?

not having a well regulated ( well equipped ) militia in each state that is controlled by each state as the us constitution requires sort of allows the rest of the us constitution to become defunct doesn't it.

or does it simply mean that the us government itself realizes that it could not get away with removing our freedoms if these requirements in the us constitution were fulfilled.



theres always the possibility that a nation that could quickly form a really large army such as china or Russia or india or a group of nations such as these might decide for some reason to invade the united states and in the event that the us regular army forces were defeated and had surrendered to the invaders
each state may not want to sign over their sovereignity to the invading armies ... if each state had a well regulated militia then these invaders would then be faced by forces that might just prove to be too much for them to defeat and at that time the wording of the us constitution would be seen as the savior of the united states as a nation , they could build the ships needed to invade the invaders nations and get on with it at that point.

And there is no law against being an irrational conspiracy theorist.

Bill Gill

well if you want your theory of

-------------
a state in the us that needs no protection
from the us government
-------------

to achieve some measure of reality vs theory
then you must first provide some type of evidence
that shows that the us government has no present or future intentions of harming its citizens via the removal of the
citizens rights found in the us constitution.

people might start believing your theory if you can produce
any evidence that there is a free state in the us that does not require the us military for its security.

and I know that facts are not important to those who want
to adhere to the beliefs of their group of peers or like minded thinkers even those who claim to be neutral on the gun control issues presently being heavily pursued by the us government but the fact remains that the us constitution does require that all free states in the us have a militia that is well regulated.

plus regulated does not mean organized either , the word
organized existed and was in use when the us constitution was written.

to regulate means to control a flow , so I think that
what they meant was that the condition of the state militias should not fall below the standard condition of the us army forces.

heck , any government consisting of people who never
intend to bring any harm to its citizens should not resent each state having the ability to defend itself if it ever needs defending.

only a government that does intend to bring harm to its citizens would not want the states to have the ability to defend itself from the government.

that all makes sense to me and as a plus we now , each state in this fine union have a very large number of trained ex military personnel returning from the battlefields who are
plunged back into civilian life many times with disastrous results.

providing a state ran militia for each state would greatly help each states economy and greatly lower the jobless rate in the us , and it would help the arms industry as well as all
industry that provides clothing , training materials , etc etc etc for the us military would experience a boom in business
and growth as this becomes a part of the internal security of every state in the us and the union as a whole.

(my italics)


The constitution provides that the defense of the country at large is provided by the US military. It also requires that the states not attack each other, or words to that effect.



And of course the 2nd amendment mentions a well regulated militia. But I don't see any place where the states are required to have a well regulated militia. The quote I have above mentions the militia of the several states, but I don't see that it requires them to have one.

Bill Gill

this excerpt is from the us constitution as written and adopted in 1789.

---- 1789 ----



and was amended a few years later in 1791 to reflect the right of the people to keep and bear arms and the right of
the states to have a well regulated militia and there is no mention of the need for any type of approval or permissions needed from the president or congress for any state to form
a state militia that is commanded by the state government.

--- 1791 ---



as the second amendment clearly states.



that's written pretty clearly and really needs no correction.

I can understand its meanings.



there is a distinct difference when the word militia
is being discussed those differences being...

the national guard (or National Guard of a State)

is state organized , and governed , and can be called to
active duty only by state governors or territorial commanding generals to help respond to domestic emergencies and disasters, such as those caused by hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes.

the national guard of the united states

is federally organized , and governed , and can be called to
active duty by the president of the united states.



as a whole nation the us military is the main defense of
the union of us states.

what are the words you are speaking of when you wrote..


I have read the second amendment that requires that states
have a well regulated militia but haven't read that part yet.



the bill of rights is a list of rights that
pertain to the rights of the people and are listed
as articles.

there are 12 articles in the bill of rights.

the fourth article in the bill of rights reads...

a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

in todays language it might read as follows.

you have the right to have a well trained and well armed militia in your state of residence , and in order to properly defend your state in the event of war you also have the right to keep and bear arms and munitions and equipment that could be compared to the standard arms and munitions and equipment in use by the us armed forces so that you can be properly equipped and supplied with the arms and munitions and equipment that you would need to fulfill your role as a member in your state militia to keep in your possession in the event of war to take to the war when you are called to report to the war , and these rights cannot legally be removed.


heres what alexander Hamilton said about a
"well regulated militia".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Ame...ated_militia.22



the wording above clearly is focused on the national security
not state security yet the words "well regulated militia" clearly describe a militia that is well trained , well equipped for war in the event that the militia is called upon by its commander.

so the above pretty much clears up the meaning used in the
days that the bill of rights were written and the words
"well regulated militia" were used in the bill of rights.

so we know what our fore fathers meant when these words were written.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hamilton

Notice how the Congress still has the duty to organize the militia, to arm it and to define the discipline under which it will be trained. I don't see anything in there about an independent state militia. The states get the right to assign officers and have the authority to train the militia, as long as they follow the discipline prescribed by Congress.

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to get at with your description of 2 apparently different National Guards. I am aware of only one National Guard in each state. Its duties are as you described. They can be called by the governor of the state in times of local emergency, and they can be called by the federal government in times of national emergencies.

As far as states not attacking each other, the idea that all interstate activities are to be controlled by the federal government, and that all states are treated equally. The following kind of gives that idea.



And the rest of you words are just more of the same stuff you have been spouting.

Bill Gill

I can certainly understand the confusion you are having.

congress has powers over
the national guard of the united states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States

the national guard of a state ( is the states defense force SDF )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States#State_defense_forces





if all states are to be treated equally and if one state were to attack another state then how can the us or federal army attack the attacker?

the us military cannot go to war with its citizens.

the combined forces of the FBI and all of a states law enforcement agencies could not repel an invasion of one state against another state.

however the us constitution does give power to the peoples
of a free state to have a well regulated militia for the security of the free state.

article 4 , the bill of rights

a well regulated militia , being necessary to the security of a free state , the right of the people to keep and bear arms , shall not be infringed.

united states code
title 32
section 109
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-1996-title32/html/USCODE-1996-title32-chap1-sec109.htm
the maintenance of other troops.



so , a states defense force (SDF) is the only entity that
is in place (if a state has one )
that could properly (if well regulated)
and legally (article 4 bill of rights and USC 32,109)
defend its states borders from an invasion.

thus my reality shows its evidence , were it a theory it
would not have gained enough evidence strong enough to
move it from theory to reality.

so what you claim is a conspiracy theory of mine
all turns out to be reality.
so am I a conspiracy realist.

And none of the laws you quote are a part of the constitution.

If you don't recall the last time one state attacked another was during the Civil War and the US Army certainly attacked the southern states.

So Conspiracy Theorists continue using all kinds of distorted theories to support their weird ideas.

Nuff Said.

Bill Gill