6 killed at private Christian School in Nashville

[RZehr]

But I guess I'm enough of a redneck to believe (maybe incorrectly) that tyrants have always banned guns, and it hasn't always turned out well for the powerless in those countries. And that is the reason for the second amendment. Which is not applicable to abortion, illegal immigration, transgender hormones and surgeries, or illicit use of drugs.

This is a very common sentiment among conservatives. So I'm not picking on you here. But do YOU think, for example, that:

• The 1/6 protests would have turned out better if those thousands of protestors storming the capitol had been carrying assault rifles or had been armed like the recent school shooter with multiple firearms?
• That the civil rights movement to oppose the "tyranny" of Jim Crow segregation would have turned out better and been more effective had Blacks across the south risen up in armed rebellion against white tyranny?
• That the pro-life movement would have been more effective had protestors assaulted abortion clinics with weapons?
• That gay-marriage advocates would have been more effective had they used firearms to assault county courthouses and clerks who refused to issue marriage licenses?
• That Amish families who wished to keep their children out of public schools had barricaded themselves into their compounds with firearms in the style of David Koresh and the Branch Davidians instead of making their case peacefully in court?

In fact can you point to a single point in the past two centuries of American history where firearms helped advance a political agenda involving rights of some sort? Or where more firearms would have made things better? Afghanistan and Somalia are both awash in weapons. Is that helping advance peace and prosperity and respect for freedom in those countries?

What percentage of young mass shooters live with or have both their biological parents married, living together, and go to church regularly? What percentage were taught to value human life? What percent were taught gun safety? What percent were taught that pretending to shoot people is not good?

And what percentage comes from broken homes? What percentage played house of first person shooter video games? What percentage come from shattered homes, with their parents selfishly focused more on themselves than on raising children with solid values?

Are there random mass shootings in Afghanistan and Somalia? I don't think so. If not, why not?

[Soloist]

Ultimately… people could build their own tanks, generally they don’t have the knowledge to do so. Building a magazine is much easier and with widespread 3D printing… I don’t see stopping that cat.

[Szdfan]

Are there random mass shootings in Afghanistan and Somalia? I don't think so. If not, why not?

You mean other than the almost continual wars?

[Josh]

Are there random mass shootings in Afghanistan and Somalia? I don't think so. If not, why not?

You mean other than the almost continual wars?

In Afghanistan that's kind of the Soviets and later the American's fault. From what we can see, life in Afghanistan is quite peaceful now.

And no, there aren't mass shootings in schools in Somalia, despite extremely widespread distribution of firearms.

[Ken]

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.

In any event, none of those wars involved ordinary civilians taking up arms against an oppressive government. They were organized armies battling other organized armies. Even in the Revolutionary War, Washington had very little use for civilian militias and won the war with the regular Continental Army and military allies like the French. The notion that civilian "minute men" militias won the Revolutionary war is a myth. It was conventional armies. And where militias were involved it was subordinate to regular military control.

About the only place you can point to armed civilian militias being involved in any of those wars would be places like Missouri during the civil war which was basically bands of pro-slavery guerrilla fighters terrorizing the countryside. And they accomplished nothing in terms of the overall course of the war.

Sure you can probably point to various bands of civilian partisans operating in places like France and Belarus during the German occupation of WW2. But did any of them affect the course of the war in any way? They blew up train tracks, conducted random attacks on small patrols, and so forth.

But did the efforts of the French Resistance advance the D-Day timetable even one day? Did they advance the timetable of the allied armies of Patton, Bradley, and Montgomery as they ground relentlessly across western Europe towards Germany in a massive mechanized wave in 1944? Very doubtful.

Likewise, did small partisan bands of armed civlians operating in eastern Europe or occupied USSR territory advance the timetable of the massive mechanized red armies that spent 1944 grinding their way through German-occupied Belarus, Ukraine, Poland, etc? Doubtful. What did accelerate those advances were things like the massive lend-lease program that sent tens of thousands of trucks, planes, tanks, and weapons to the USSR.

[Ken]

And no, there aren't mass shootings in schools in Somalia, despite extremely widespread distribution of firearms.

Sure there are. Violence, terrorist attacks, bombings, kidnappings, and mass shootings are a near constant feature of Somali life by terrorist groups like Al-Shabaab and a wide variety of other gangs and militias. And yes, in schools too, just like in Nigeria.

[Josh]

And no, there aren't mass shootings in schools in Somalia, despite extremely widespread distribution of firearms.

Sure there are. Violence, terrorist attacks, bombings, kidnappings, and mass shootings are a near constant feature of Somali life by terrorist groups like Al-Shabaab and a wide variety of other gangs and militias. And yes, in schools too, just like in Nigeria.

You're telling me Somalia regularly has American-style mass shootings in schools where a young person goes and shoots up a school for no reason other to simply inflict pain and suffering and possibly to attempt suicide by cop, and for media attention?

[RZehr]

Are there random mass shootings in Afghanistan and Somalia? I don't think so. If not, why not?

You mean other than the almost continual wars?

Yes. Lone wolf, weirdo, mental cases, suicidally shooting up a place for no ideological reason. Simply because they were bullied, or felt like an outcast. Why don’t they have that?

[Soloist]

In any event, none of those wars involved ordinary civilians taking up arms against an oppressive government. They were organized armies battling other organized armies. Even in the Revolutionary War, Washington had very little use for civilian militias and won the war with the regular Continental Army and military allies like the French. The notion that civilian "minute men" militias won the Revolutionary war is a myth. It was conventional armies. And where militias were involved it was subordinate to regular military control.

Okay… where exactly did Washington find his troops when he was part of a civilian rebellion against a king?
When the revolutionaries stood and fought like the British, they got annihilated. We had the support of the French and that is the only reason our civilians got trained or even managed to resist with armies. Also, the primary reason we rebelled in the first place was the work of a handful of civilians.

About the only place you can point to armed civilian militias being involved in any of those wars would be places like Missouri during the civil war which was basically bands of pro-slavery guerrilla fighters terrorizing the countryside. And they accomplished nothing in terms of the overall course of the war.

Are you referring to the organized fighting after the surrender of the Confederacy by confederate officers who refused to surrender? Where they attacked blacks and required army forces to finally defeat?

Sure you can probably point to various bands of civilian partisans operating in places like France and Belarus during the German occupation of WW2. But did any of them affect the course of the war in any way? They blew up train tracks, conducted random attacks on small patrols, and so forth.

You seriously downplay the French freedom fighters impact.

Who exactly caused Russia to withdraw from WW1? Who caused the death of so many in Russia?

[appleman2006]

Good question!

What? I don't get it.

The president, in a speech that included a response to the shooting, began his speech talking about what kind of ice cream he eats and how much he has upstairs, I'm assuming in the residential part of the White House. He then went on to talk about the shooting.

It was the worst display of tone deafness I have ever seen. Can you imagine if President Trump had done that? Every paper in America would have had it as front page news for two weeks.