6 killed at private Christian School in Nashville

[MaxPC]

The police did find a manifesto written by the shooter. It is a part of the investigation and eventually, court records. There is now pressure to make that manifesto public before the court case, presumably to create a foundation for a mistrial as then the number of qualified candidates for the jury pool will be minimal.

I haven't tried to keep up with all the details of this case, but what trial and jury are you thinking about?

All of the evidence is collected and processed for future trials. If an accomplice or accomplices are found, they will be prosecuted. Those who may have encouraged, aided, and abetted the shooter's actions will also be scrutinised. Then there are the lawsuits and other associated court actions.

[Robert]

I am just, if not more saddened, by all the innocent children killed by abortion as I am the ones killed in school shootings. School shootings are rare and take a handful of lives, yet keep us distracted from all the lives lost through abortion.

There are 2500 abortions DAILY in the US. 2500 children killed every day. 416% more abortions that day then those killed in Nashville.

[Sliceitup]

I am just, if not more saddened, by all the innocent children killed by abortion as I am the ones killed in school shootings. School shootings are rare and take a handful of lives, yet keep us distracted from all the lives lost through abortion.

There are 2500 abortions DAILY in the US. 2500 children killed every day. 416% more abortions that day then those killed in Nashville.

I would posit that there is a lot more damage done in a school shooting than simply the “handful” of lives lost. The fact that there isn’t more discussion on the psychological impacts of this to surviving children is unfortunate.

[Valerie]

I am just, if not more saddened, by all the innocent children killed by abortion as I am the ones killed in school shootings. School shootings are rare and take a handful of lives, yet keep us distracted from all the lives lost through abortion.

There are 2500 abortions DAILY in the US. 2500 children killed every day. 416% more abortions that day then those killed in Nashville.

And it is defended as a woman's right!!! Even with all we know now about the early development that didn't seem to be known when abortion was legalized

[temporal1]

I am just, if not more saddened, by all the innocent children killed by abortion as I am the ones killed in school shootings. School shootings are rare and take a handful of lives, yet keep us distracted from all the lives lost through abortion.

There are 2500 abortions DAILY in the US. 2500 children killed every day. 416% more abortions that day then those killed in Nashville.

And it is defended as a woman's right!!! Even with all we know now about the early development that didn't seem to be known when abortion was legalized

FOR PROFIT.
In courts of law, premeditated, for-hire murder is judged very harshly. Rarely with leniency, if ever.

It’s beyond gruesome. The numbers involved are “biblical.”

In effectiveness and scope, it puts military history in the minor leagues. Against the innocent and defenseless.

[temporal1]

I would posit that there is a lot more damage done in a school shooting than simply the “handful” of lives lost. The fact that there isn’t more discussion on the psychological impacts of this to surviving children is unfortunate.

Agreed. True in regard to most traumas, survivors+their loved ones, families and communities, are deeply affected. Pretty much ignored. This includes damage from abortion, which is pure deadly violence. The single most effective killing method ever invented. Nearly zero chance of survival. Abortion makes a mockery of the MIC.

In the past, i recall occasionally reading news reports, example of wording:
“The father killed his wife in front of their children, who were unharmed.”

UNHARMED. Are you kidding?! Madness.

[Josh]

I am just, if not more saddened, by all the innocent children killed by abortion as I am the ones killed in school shootings. School shootings are rare and take a handful of lives, yet keep us distracted from all the lives lost through abortion.

There are 2500 abortions DAILY in the US. 2500 children killed every day. 416% more abortions that day then those killed in Nashville.

I would posit that there is a lot more damage done in a school shooting than simply the “handful” of lives lost. The fact that there isn’t more discussion on the psychological impacts of this to surviving children is unfortunate.

There is also a lot more damage done every day than just the 2,500 little babies that get slaughtered. The mothers involved have permanent mental damage, and the physicians and staff involved experience grave spiritual and mental damage as well.

[ken_sylvania]

Well, let's see, Ken.

- The Revolutionary War
- The War of 1812
- The Civil War
- World War I
- World War II

I think war is wrong and that none of those wars should have been fought. However, those wars are very key to America's existence and America's political agenda today. And all of them involved use of firearms.

The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with conventional armies or war. The subject of national defense, the military, and war powers are all addressed in Article 1 of the Constitution. Erase the 2nd Amendment and it doesn't affect the military in the slightest. The 2nd Amendment is about the CIVILIAN use of arms, not military use.

Wait, you're actually arguing that the 2nd Amendment prohibits the government from infringing on the rights of CIVILIANS to own and use weapons in a CIVILIAN context?

[ken_sylvania]

The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with conventional armies or war. The subject of national defense, the military, and war powers are all addressed in Article 1 of the Constitution. Erase the 2nd Amendment and it doesn't affect the military in the slightest. The 2nd Amendment is about the CIVILIAN use of arms, not military use.

Those two statements are not inconsistent.

If the 2nd Amendment is not for personal defense, then why would there be regulations for sale and use?

It is okay of you want more control of the government on guns. It is also okay that I do not want more government control. The Assault Weapons ban from 1994-2004, or there abouts, has been found to have little impact on mass shootings. This is what the research shows.

Gun regulations only affect law abiding people. It is already illegal to kill others unless in self defense. Making guns harder to get will only make the person wanting to harm others find illegal or alternative ways. Think of the leftest that plowed through people with a car a while back.

Having a lot of guns in society does mean some will be used for wrong reasons. I think it is not to the level that counteracts the positive. Only God can remove all the violence and killing on this world. Overall, governments have misused and abused it's citizenry and the odds are much higher that a government will harm its citizens more than guns in bad guys hands do.

It is sad that this happened in a school, but just as many died in Chicago over the weekend in a city that has the tightest gun laws around. The laws and regulations are not making its citizenry safe. Children are dying in Chicago. No one is screaming about that. Why not? Politics.

Here is what I am saying.

I believe that the Second Amendment was primarily about the establishment of civilian militias as an alternative to a standing army. From the point of view of the framers, in their recent past from the 30 years war to the 18th century wars between England and France, standing armies were a tool of oppression and tyranny. And, of course the issue of southern militias and slave patrols that Jim highlights. There has been a lot of historical research on this topic and I think it largely backs up my position. But of course, history is also in the eye of the beholder.

By the 20th Century the notion of civilian militias was largely if not entirely obsolete. The last American war in which civilian or state militias played a major role was the War of 1812 and they were largely ineffectual. After the British defeated the Maryland and Virginia Militias at the Battle of Bladensburg President Madison commented "I could never have believed so great a difference existed between regular troops and a militia force, if I had not witnessed the scenes of this day".

In the 20th Century the meaning of the Second Amendment largely shifted away from the notion of regulated militias and towards the private ownership and use of firearms. Both in the general population and within the courts. In the 19th century when it was a largely rural country, the idea of firearm ownership was uncontroversial and unchallenged. But by the early 20th century with an urbanizing America and new weapons like machine guns becoming available, the government first started to regulate firearms in the 1930s. This was the era of Prohibition Gangsters waging wars on city streets and so the government began to tax and regulate firearms, especially sawed off shotguns and machine guns which were the weapons of choice of gangsters and the Court upheld the government's ability to regulate firearm sale, possession and use.

This was more or less the state of affairs for most of the rest of the 20th Century. States and cities passed all manner of firearm regulations including the very restrictive such as virtual prohibitions on handguns in cities like NY and DC. And the court was silent in its approval despite many court challenges. They chose to let all those laws stand.

It wasn't until quite recently that the Supreme Court with a new conservative majority began to actively roll back state and local firearms regulations, and usually with 5-4 votes. So it is only really quite recently that the court (or the conservative majority) evolved its thinking into the more second amendment individual absolutist thinking that pervades today. It is more or less like abortion. A different court could easily take things in a completely different direction.

The notion that constitutional rights evolve is completely uncontroversial. Take the 14th Amendment, which was passed in the context of abolishing slavery but has since come to be interpreted in all sorts of new ways from Miranda warnings to interracial and gay marriage. The interstate commerce clause has similarly been interpreted in all manner of new ways to authorize everything from social security to Medicare to worker safety regulations. Policies that were never thought of or intended when it was drafted in 1789.

So I think it is entirely consistent to believe as I do that the second amendment was drafted with one primary purpose in mind in the 18th century but has evolved to serve an entirely different purpose in the 21st century. Most of the constitution works that way.

And by the way. The Constitution is not the only law of the land. Even if the Constitution were silent about personal firearm ownership and use, states would be perfectly free to authorize the use of firearms and regulate them. Most criminal law is actually state law not Federal law. I personally have no objection to firearms and the right of people to own and use them. I just object to the idea that the Constitution prevents states or Congress from passing reasonable firearms regulations. Afterall, the second amendment contains the term "well regulated" right there with "right to bear arms"

I think if the Constitution were being written today the founders would recognize that the technology and logistics of war has progressed infinitely beyond the point at which local militias bearing personal small arms are a viable alternative to standing armies. That was even a questionable notion in revolutionary times if you read George Washington’s opinions on the effectiveness of citizen militias compared to professional soldiers. But the idea of minutemen being an alternative to modern armies is an absurd notion today.

So I think if the Constitution were being written today they would have gone in an entirely different direction in terms of reining in professional militarism. And would have probably looked more to things like the “Military Industrial Complex” described by Eisenhower as something that needed to be reigned in, not the concept of a standing professional army.

But that is just a guess on my part. None of us can actually know.

That’s my point. I think the original intent was the establishment of well-regulated state militias as an alternative to a Federal standing army. It wasn’t to unleash the unregulated trade in firearms such that psychopaths with no connection to any regulated militia could have unrestricted access to weapons of war to unleash on their communities.

I’m pointing out that the original authors of the Constitution spent a great deal of time discussing the meaning and purpose of a “well regulated militia” and virtually no time discussing personal possession of firearms. Which at that time were entirely different from the weapons of today anyway. An 18 year old in 1789 couldn’t have taken a muzzle loader into a school and killed 20 people in less than a minute like today. We are talking about entirely different weapons.

Well, OK then. If you say so...

[Ken]

The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with conventional armies or war. The subject of national defense, the military, and war powers are all addressed in Article 1 of the Constitution. Erase the 2nd Amendment and it doesn't affect the military in the slightest. The 2nd Amendment is about the CIVILIAN use of arms, not military use.

If the 2nd Amendment is not for personal defense, then why would there be regulations for sale and use?

It is okay of you want more control of the government on guns. It is also okay that I do not want more government control. The Assault Weapons ban from 1994-2004, or there abouts, has been found to have little impact on mass shootings. This is what the research shows.

Gun regulations only affect law abiding people. It is already illegal to kill others unless in self defense. Making guns harder to get will only make the person wanting to harm others find illegal or alternative ways. Think of the leftest that plowed through people with a car a while back.

Having a lot of guns in society does mean some will be used for wrong reasons. I think it is not to the level that counteracts the positive. Only God can remove all the violence and killing on this world. Overall, governments have misused and abused it's citizenry and the odds are much higher that a government will harm its citizens more than guns in bad guys hands do.

It is sad that this happened in a school, but just as many died in Chicago over the weekend in a city that has the tightest gun laws around. The laws and regulations are not making its citizenry safe. Children are dying in Chicago. No one is screaming about that. Why not? Politics.

Here is what I am saying.

I believe that the Second Amendment was primarily about the establishment of civilian militias as an alternative to a standing army. From the point of view of the framers, in their recent past from the 30 years war to the 18th century wars between England and France, standing armies were a tool of oppression and tyranny. And, of course the issue of southern militias and slave patrols that Jim highlights. There has been a lot of historical research on this topic and I think it largely backs up my position. But of course, history is also in the eye of the beholder.

By the 20th Century the notion of civilian militias was largely if not entirely obsolete. The last American war in which civilian or state militias played a major role was the War of 1812 and they were largely ineffectual. After the British defeated the Maryland and Virginia Militias at the Battle of Bladensburg President Madison commented "I could never have believed so great a difference existed between regular troops and a militia force, if I had not witnessed the scenes of this day".

In the 20th Century the meaning of the Second Amendment largely shifted away from the notion of regulated militias and towards the private ownership and use of firearms. Both in the general population and within the courts. In the 19th century when it was a largely rural country, the idea of firearm ownership was uncontroversial and unchallenged. But by the early 20th century with an urbanizing America and new weapons like machine guns becoming available, the government first started to regulate firearms in the 1930s. This was the era of Prohibition Gangsters waging wars on city streets and so the government began to tax and regulate firearms, especially sawed off shotguns and machine guns which were the weapons of choice of gangsters and the Court upheld the government's ability to regulate firearm sale, possession and use.

This was more or less the state of affairs for most of the rest of the 20th Century. States and cities passed all manner of firearm regulations including the very restrictive such as virtual prohibitions on handguns in cities like NY and DC. And the court was silent in its approval despite many court challenges. They chose to let all those laws stand.

It wasn't until quite recently that the Supreme Court with a new conservative majority began to actively roll back state and local firearms regulations, and usually with 5-4 votes. So it is only really quite recently that the court (or the conservative majority) evolved its thinking into the more second amendment individual absolutist thinking that pervades today. It is more or less like abortion. A different court could easily take things in a completely different direction.

The notion that constitutional rights evolve is completely uncontroversial. Take the 14th Amendment, which was passed in the context of abolishing slavery but has since come to be interpreted in all sorts of new ways from Miranda warnings to interracial and gay marriage. The interstate commerce clause has similarly been interpreted in all manner of new ways to authorize everything from social security to Medicare to worker safety regulations. Policies that were never thought of or intended when it was drafted in 1789.

So I think it is entirely consistent to believe as I do that the second amendment was drafted with one primary purpose in mind in the 18th century but has evolved to serve an entirely different purpose in the 21st century. Most of the constitution works that way.

And by the way. The Constitution is not the only law of the land. Even if the Constitution were silent about personal firearm ownership and use, states would be perfectly free to authorize the use of firearms and regulate them. Most criminal law is actually state law not Federal law. I personally have no objection to firearms and the right of people to own and use them. I just object to the idea that the Constitution prevents states or Congress from passing reasonable firearms regulations. Afterall, the second amendment contains the term "well regulated" right there with "right to bear arms"

I think if the Constitution were being written today the founders would recognize that the technology and logistics of war has progressed infinitely beyond the point at which local militias bearing personal small arms are a viable alternative to standing armies. That was even a questionable notion in revolutionary times if you read George Washington’s opinions on the effectiveness of citizen militias compared to professional soldiers. But the idea of minutemen being an alternative to modern armies is an absurd notion today.

So I think if the Constitution were being written today they would have gone in an entirely different direction in terms of reining in professional militarism. And would have probably looked more to things like the “Military Industrial Complex” described by Eisenhower as something that needed to be reigned in, not the concept of a standing professional army.

But that is just a guess on my part. None of us can actually know.

That’s my point. I think the original intent was the establishment of well-regulated state militias as an alternative to a Federal standing army. It wasn’t to unleash the unregulated trade in firearms such that psychopaths with no connection to any regulated militia could have unrestricted access to weapons of war to unleash on their communities.

I’m pointing out that the original authors of the Constitution spent a great deal of time discussing the meaning and purpose of a “well regulated militia” and virtually no time discussing personal possession of firearms. Which at that time were entirely different from the weapons of today anyway. An 18 year old in 1789 couldn’t have taken a muzzle loader into a school and killed 20 people in less than a minute like today. We are talking about entirely different weapons.

Well, OK then. If you say so...

The constitution draws a distinction between regular standing armies for which the 2nd Amendment is not at issue. And civilian militias which is where the right of civilians to carry arms comes from. Civilians are by definition not soldiers. You could completely erase the 2nd Amendment and it would not affect the constitutionality of the military one bit.

We sort of blend the two today with things like the National Guard which kind of bridge civilian militias and military. If you are the National Guard you are a civilian during normal times, but can also be mobilized and sent to war in which case you stop being a civilian and start being a soldier. In any event, National Guard armories are completely separate and the National Guard doesn't depend on guard members arming themselves at gun shops. They have vast armories of military weapons that get issued to National guard soldiers as necessary. This isn't 1776 where National Guard members go to the local gun smith to buy their own musket so they can fight in Iraq.

The question is whether a "well regulated militia" is an historical anachronism like the 3/5ths compromise, slavery, prohibitions on women voting, etc. Or if it has relevance today. I have a hard time visualizing the relevance of a civilian militia in this day and age. We don't form a posse like in frontier days to enforce laws. And a civilian militia with small arms would be completely useless and in the way in any sort of conventional military battle. If they were useful it wouldn't be with 2nd Amendment weapons anyway. It would be like the civilians in Ukraine who used things like anti-tank missiles to stop invading Russian troops. The military gave them weapons. The weren't using stuff they had bought at Cabela.