Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Unsourced or not a well regulated militia means a well regulated militia.
Actually the "well regulated militia" referred to in the Constitution means specifically the National Guard.
Celebrating 375 Years of the Army National Guard
Posted on December 13, 2011
The National Guard, the oldest component of the Armed Forces of the United States and one of the nation’s longest-enduring institutions, celebrates its 375th birthday today on December 13, 2011. The National Guard traces its history back to the earliest English colonies in North America. Responsible for their own defense, the colonists drew on English military tradition and organized their able-bodied male citizens into militias.
The colonial militias protected their fellow citizens from Indian attack, foreign invaders, and later helped to win the Revolutionary War. Following independence, the authors of the Constitution empowered Congress to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia.” However, recognizing the militia’s state role, the Founding Fathers reserved the appointment of officers and training of the militia to the states. Today’s National Guard still remains a dual state-Federal force.
Throughout the 19th century the size of the Regular Army was small, and the militia provided the bulk of the troops during the Mexican War, the early months of the Civil War, and the Spanish-American War. In 1903, important national defense legislation increased the role of the National Guard (as the militia was now called) as a Reserve force for the U.S. Army. In World War I, which the U.S. entered in 1917, the National Guard made up 40% of the U.S. combat divisions in France; in World War II, National Guard units were among the first to deploy overseas and the first to fight.
In general the "militia" referenced in founders and temporal documents was not controlled by the government either State or Federal. That was the whole point. The Feds or State could not get out of control or the militia would rise and smite.
Remember our Founding Fathers were revolutionaries. Terrorists from a Loyalist or British point of view.
Your assertion was that... we've had hundreds of years to change it and we have collectively chosen not to do so. We haven't chosen any such thing. Choice is an affirmative action. Doing nothing is by definition NOT an affirmative action.
Choosing not to act is still a choice. I didn't use the phrase "affirmative action" - I used the word "chosen". If we've had two hundred years with which to repeal the second amendment, and at no point in those two hundred years did anyone even think that it was worthwhile to bring it up for a vote - we've chosen not to change it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fairlaker
No one wants to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Repeal isn't necessary. Sensible gun controls are.
I have no problem with actual sensible gun controls, if someone could show me some for a change. Unfortunately, 'sensible gun controls' all too often ends up being a euphemism for nonsense. Laws that make it a felony to possess a rifle that has a handgrip which is shaped a certain way, for example. It sounds silly to regulate the shape of a handgrip, but this sort of nonsense has actually become federal law in the United States. Refer to the 1994 "Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act" - an act which banned the sale of many recreational firearms in the US. To this day people are still pushing laws like this at the federal and state levels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fairlaker
Where gun nuts go wrong is in pretending that there are and can be no situations in which regulation makes things better or where adding a lot of guns to the equation makes matters worse.
Well, there are absolutists in every group I suppose. I don't consider myself one of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fairlaker
Not everyone lives in the wilds of Wyoming. Many people live in Manhattan. A gun of any sort means something different in those two places. You can't even get agreement on something as simple as that.
I think we're in agreement here. Forcing the people of Cheyenne to live by the sort of gun laws that the people of Manhattan want does not seem fair to me. The gun laws that are appropriate for NYC aren't necessarily appropriate for the entire United States.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fairlaker
The ACLU makes every effort to defend free speech rights at the margin, but they readily note that this precious right is not pure, pristine, and unlimited. They quite comfortably note that laws constraining speech of certain types and in certain places are appropriate. Where is similar room over at the NRA or GOA? Answer: Nowhere -- it doesn't exist. That's where the problem lies.
Well, if we're going to compare gun laws with free speech laws we need to look at where we are right now. This country has many gun laws at the federal, state, and local levels. There are numerous restrictions regarding licensing, transportation, which specific types of guns can be purchased and owned, where they can be carried, how they can be carried, which types of ammunition can be owned, which types of ammunition feeding devices can be owned, etc. Now we certainly have some restrictions on free speech as well - but I think we have relatively few restrictions on free speech compared to the number of restrictions we have on gun ownership. If that is indeed the case, we should expect to see more public resistance to additional restrictions on gun ownership than public resistance to additional restrictions on free speech, correct?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fairlaker
Gunowners are less than a third of the population. Gun nuts are a small percentage of those. But that small percentage is trying to hold their guns to the heads of everybody else with sometimes fatal consequences. People are getting tired of it.
Yes, gun owners are a minority but that doesn't matter. Minorities have rights too, and minorities are still allowed to voice their opinions. Gun owners aren't threatening anybody as you claim. Gun owners are involved in a political battle in which they're outnumbered. A vocal minority that feels strongly about an issue can win, and an apathetic majority that disagrees can lose despite being the majority. This is exactly how you should expect representative government to work.
You know what would make America less violent? If America were:
-More religious (and by that I mean "Christian", because religious battles have always been very violent... were we the generally homogeneous Christian nation we once were, there'd be less civil violence.)
-More economically healthy (and by that I mean that we reduce the income disparity between the haves and the have-nots... I'm all for people getting rich but when 99% think that 1% is getting rich at the expense of the 99%, sooner or later someone is going to break.)
-Less accepting of things that are violent (movies, music, artwork, stories, video games, TV shows, you name it... this stuff should all be restricted to people who are at least 18 years old because it has been proven repeatedly that it can imprint on young minds)
That guard who got shot was obviously not vigilant. Come on. They may be trained to shoot at a moment's notice but how many of 'em actually will? First you have to recognize that there is that type of fatal danger, then you have to assess your environment to make sure you minimize collateral damage if you do fire. By that time your brains have already been splattered all around the room by the assassin.
Gun control? Look, I own a gun, and I hope to God that I never have to use it. I don't get any thrill out of shooting. I like knowing that I can handle my gun... toward that end, I go to the range about once every two years or so just to keep fresh, as it were... but if a kill-crazed psycho busted into your house with a gun and it was either you blow him away or he blows you and your family away, wouldn't you rather be the one doing the blowing-away? So many people talk about gun control. All ye who think that guns should be controlled more than they are, raise your hand if you've ever been a violent crime victim. (I've heard many a liberal say that they became conservative on gun control issues the first time they wished they had a gun and didn't have one. We buy car insurance, homeowner's or renter's insurance, health insurance, life insurance... well, a gun is body & property insurance. Just like any other type of insurance, you hope you never have to use it, but you thank God that it's there if you actually do have to use it.)
I owe my life to a gun. I've said this before. My parents' house got broken into when I was 4, and the perp was armed. He had a knife, and was waiting behind the door leading from the house to the garage for my dad to come out... at which point he'd have stabbed my dad to death. After that, my mom and her two very young children would have been easy prey. Instead, my dad outsmarted the guy, shooting through the door without opening it up because he'd heard the guy moving around... and in so doing, not only did he ensure that a violent criminal was left with a permanent reminder of the error of his ways (and got locked up for a good long time), but he saved his life and the lives of his wife and children.
As such, I will NEVER say anything bad about guns. Would YOU say anything bad about something or someone to which (or to whom) you owe your life?
We cannot make it impossible for the insane or the criminal to obtain guns. Chicago had, until recently, one of the most comprehensive handgun bans in the country. Yet, Chicago routinely came in around 500 murders per year as I understand. Guaranteed, most of those murders were committed with guns... because they always are. I wonder how all of those Chicagoans got their guns? And that says nothing about the people who used guns to commit armed robbery or armed burglary in Chicago without actually killing anyone. We cannot make it impossible for the insane or the criminal to obtain anything. Somehow they can always get what they want. It's called organized crime, the black market, whatever. America's punishments for crime are not sufficiently severe, so they don't sufficiently deter crime. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. With that being the case, the only real deterrent to crime, and the only real way you can protect yourself against being a crime victim, is to own a gun, know how to use it and be comfortable with it, carry it with you at all times if possible, and keep it loaded.
All the while, pray to God that you never once find yourself having to use it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cindersslipper
Amazingly Joe Blow in the USA truly seems to believe that More Guns are the answer to Everything.
Shootings in schools? Arm the teachers.
Do you deny that this would make would-be school shooters think twice? One of the reasons why they like to shoot up people at school is because they know it's a concentration of unarmed victims! They can cause a lot of damage at minimal risk to themselves!
Quote:
Originally Posted by cindersslipper
Shootings in cinemas? Relax the personal carry rules so some Rambo can come to the rescue of the cowering unarmed.
Do you have a better suggestion? Would you rather have the government create an Entertainment Security Agency which makes you do an airport-style full-body scan before you're admitted into the movie theater, concert arena, sports arena, etc?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cindersslipper
Mind you I said that about Fort Hood too.
I guarantee, if the soldiers at the Readiness Center at Fort Hood had been in possession of their weapons at the time, they'd have stopped that lunatic in his tracks. As it stands, the only person who did anything meaningful to stop him was the military police officer who shot him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cindersslipper
LAX is arguably one of the "safest", most terrorist conscious airports in the world. Airports anywhere are now pockets of extreme policing, armed security personnel and equipment everywhere, their own governmental staff, customs, sniffer dogs, etc. They even have their own police force.
One maggot with a semi-automatic not only breached all of the security at LAX, he also managed to shoot a trained, armed guard who's means of making a living included being alert and ready to shoot at a moments notice.
Vigilance has a shelf life. I flew on an airplane exactly one month, to the day, after 9/11. People thought I was nuts. I had no fear... because people were still very vigilant after 9/11. But as these events become old history, we slowly become complacent again. That's what these nutjobs look for. You said it accurately - LAX is ARGUABLY one of the safest airports out there. But it is also, like most major airports, constantly crawling with people and therefore it's pretty easy for one person to get away with something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cindersslipper
Gun Lobby Fail. Even the prepared can be caught by surprise or outgunned. What do you want, AK47s on everyone?
I agree with you that the prepared can be caught by surprise or outgunned. Do you propose a better solution than to arm the populace? Heaven knows, the UNPREPARED are much more likely to be caught by surprise and outgunned, compared to the armed and prepared! Nobody is perfect but if you were a would-be mugger and you had X-ray vision such that you could see that Potential Victim A had a loaded gun in his pocket and Potential Victim B had no weaponry at all, which person would you mug? (I'd bet that 99.9% of the people would say "I'd wait for Potential Victim A to be out of sight and out of earshot so that he wouldn't shoot me, then I'd jump the other guy!")
The old cliche' is true. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cindersslipper
You can't outlaw the crazies. America doesn't even have a public mental health system so it doesn't actually try anyway.
But you CAN lay some punishment on them that would make even the strongest person break. Maybe the punishment for an act of criminal insanity would be solitary confinement for the rest of one's life. THEN we would see who is REALLY crazy. I would bet that not quite so many people would turn out to be crazy after all. Often, mental illness is a controllable state. However, I grant that there are other factors that contribute to a person going crazy. We should do what we can to eliminate those factors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cindersslipper
You can make it so the crazies cant buy an AK47 at Walmart or on the street corner.
But you CAN'T make it so that the crazies cannot get an AK47 no matter what they do. Heck, they could merely break into someone's house and steal his weapons! Not everyone keeps his guns in a gun safe. I sure don't. My gun is kept loaded in its regular plastic box under my bed, where I can reach down and within three seconds have it out and ready to rock. That criminal isn't going to wait as I put in the combination for my gun safe, open it up, select the gun I want, and get it ready.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cindersslipper
Using an airport analogy, allowing free and open access to firearms is like firing all of the air traffic controllers.
Again, what do you propose? You have to figure that no matter what laws you enact to control guns, they will only apply to those people who are predisposed to obeying the laws. Someone who would work a plan to murder someone is not going to get to a point where he'd say "oh crap, I can't do that... it'd be illegal for me to carry a gun!" Puh-LEEEEZE. The only people whom gun control laws truly affect are law-abiding citizens. Here's an analogy for you - we've all watched those cop shows where they show car chases. People flee from the cops in their cars. Do they ever slow down because it's illegal to speed? Do they ever stop because it's illegal to drive on the wrong side of the road? Do they ever get out and check on the drivers of the other cars they hit while fleeing because it's illegal to flee the scene of an accident? NO. And people who would commit violent crime that they know is illegal are not going to be stopped by gun control laws any more than pot smokers are stopped by pot control laws.
Therefore, since it's a given under any set of circumstances that criminals can and will obtain firearms for their criminal purposes, why would you take from the law-abiding citizens the one and only thing that could truly even the playing field?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cindersslipper
Gun control, like air traffic control, has zero to do with "freedom" and everything to do with common sense and protecting the innocent.
See my story above. A gun once saved four lives at a time when my dad shot and incapacitated an armed intruder. Four innocent people were protected by a gun. I'm with you on protecting the innocent. That's why I own a gun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cindersslipper
These incidents are going to keep happening unless you do something about the gun laws. Gun Control has never meant You Cant Have A Gun - you can, if you're properly licensed and assessed. Honest people will not be affected by gun control.
The problem with licensing and assessing gun owners is that the licenses can very easily be revoked... not to mention that it turns gun ownership into a privilege, whereas it is clearly stated in the second amendment to the Constitution as a right. Licensing and assessing gun owners sounds good on paper but all it'll do is create a pain in the butt for law-abiding citizens while doing next to nothing to stop criminals from getting guns. If a nutjob wants a gun and knows he'd fail the licensure assessment, that's not going to stop him. He'll steal someone else's gun (like that Connecticut guy did), he'll buy his gun at a gun show, he'll get it on the black market, he'll borrow an illegal gun from someone else who also isn't licensed, etc. I'd favor this idea if I really thought it would stop nutjobs from getting guns. It won't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cindersslipper
There are many societies that no one owns a gun, and those societies do not see massacres and attempted massacres like this one. It's not a coincidence!
Show me the racial, ethnic, and religious demographics of those societies... and I will show you why they're not violent.
For example, Japan has one of the lowest rates of gun ownership in the world, and it is also one of the least violent societies out there. Y'know why this is? First of all, it's VERY difficult to get illegal guns onto a freaking ISLAND. Whereas plenty of guns make it into America via tunnels from Mexico every year, you can't tunnel into an island country. Everything that comes to Japan has to come by boat or airplane, unless it is manufactured there. Furthermore, they're ASIANS... the ethnic group statistically proven to be least likely to commit violent crime out of all major ethnic groups. In addition, they're strongly religious and fiercely traditional. Japanese people have a strong sense of family honor, and as such they are self-dissuaded from committing crime due to the blot it will place on their family's name and honor.
You cannot compare a country like Japan to a country like America. America is full of ethnic groups statistically proven to commit violent crime at high disproportionate rates all around the world. It doesn't make a person racist to say this. Furthermore, America has a very porous border with a country full of drug gangs, criminal families, and inept government. This is like comparing apples to sofas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cindersslipper
All of this is going to keep escalating until someone stands up and calls a halt to the internal Arms Race, before every man woman and child is directly affected by gun violence.
Every man, woman and child is already directly affected by gun violence. Look at all of the houses that have security systems. Look at all of the people who own guns merely so that they can protect themselves in the event that they're threatened by an armed criminal. Look at the outrageous prices of houses in areas that have very little violent crime. Look at the blight in cities that are full of violent crime. Look at the garbage we have to go through just to board a stinking airplane. Don't tell me we're not all affected by this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cindersslipper
Obama, I'm looking at you! It is way past time America stepped up in line with International Law regarding the Death Penalty, and also stepped up the personal responsibility that comes hand in hand with "freedom" in a civilised society.
Obama doesn't favor personal responsibility. All you have to do is check his signature health care law to determine that. 900-some pages about reform... not one sentence that mandates any type of personal responsibility for one's own health.
When it comes to the death penalty... honestly I'm on the fence. I favor it because it is cheap if it is used properly... but it rarely is used properly... and for some people it's not the best punishment. (Let's face it, if you want to commit suicide anyway, you won't be deterred by a death penalty. But you MAY be deterred by the prospect of life in a maximum security prison, perhaps in solitary confinement, with no entertainment, bland food, no allowed interaction with those you love, and no hope of parole EVER.) I prefer using the punishments that will deter crime. Hint: what we're doing now ain't working. A reduction in the crime rate of some percentage I can count on one hand hardly qualifies. Slashing the crime rate in half overnight... now that'd make me perk up and pay attention.
Oh, I have an opinion. But I'm going to stay away from that for the moment and examine a couple facts. Firstly, the "common sense" laws and rstrictions you advocate are in place in CA. And then some. The LAX shooter shattered them all. The high capacity magazines he used are impossible to buy, legally, in CA, unless you are LE. There is a 2 week waiting period on all firearms puchases, supposedly to perform a detailed background check and provide "cooling" time to negate crimes of passion.
It is, of course, quite illegal to take a weapon into an airport, nationwide. That sure didn't stop him. I still don't know, for sure, what type of rifle he used, but semi auto, service style, weapons, are also highly restricted in CA. Ammunition, also, is very difficult to purchase, in quantity. Service style semi autos are also required to be registered with LE.
Transporting a firearm and ammunition, in an automobile, requires that the firearm and ammo be in seperate, locked, cases in seperate parts of the vehicle. CAs firearmslaws are everything you advocate as a solution. And then some. Yet, things like this incident still happen. Gangs cruise around with military hardware, blazing away, other criminals rape, rob and run amok, bolstered by firearms. Police, the only ones who can possess such weapons, legally, do, and are armed better than many countrys armies, which avails them but little.
So, since the laws and restrictions you are touting, obviously do not do anything to stop, or even curb, criminal misuse of firearms, how will more of the same be more effective?
That guard who got shot was obviously not vigilant. Come on. They may be trained to shoot at a moment's notice but how many of 'em actually will? First you have to recognize that there is that type of fatal danger, then you have to assess your environment to make sure you minimize collateral damage if you do fire. By that time your brains have already been splattered all around the room by the assassin.
I pretty much agree with everything else you said except for the above point - be aware that the person shot was a TSA agent. TSA agents are not armed, are not law enforcement agents in any sense, have no law enforcement authority whatsoever, and have no law enforcement or even flunkie-"mall cop" level training. They are essentially equivalent to wallmart greeters in experience.
Most of the TSA agents on duty at that time ran to the exits just like (and ahead of, according to witnesses) all the other bystanders when the shooting started.
I pretty much agree with everything else you said except for the above point - be aware that the person shot was a TSA agent. TSA agents are not armed, are not law enforcement agents in any sense, have no law enforcement authority whatsoever, and have no law enforcement or even flunkie-"mall cop" level training. They are essentially equivalent to wallmart greeters in experience.
Most of the TSA agents on duty at that time ran to the exits just like (and ahead of, according to witnesses) all the other bystanders when the shooting started.
Honestly, though this may be to my shame, I didn't even read about the shooting before seeing this article. I assumed that what the OP was saying was true... that the person who was shot was trained to fire at a moment's notice. I should've known better than to trust the words of a gun-control advocate at face value.
Indeed, 'twere unarmed TSA agents who were shot, and 'twas an armed airport police officer who stopped this nutcase by shooting him. (He should've shot the perp again. Now we'll be spending millions of dollars in taxpayer money to keep him alive, represented by lawyers, and in jail for decades as he goes through all of his appeals.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delahanty
1. I thought the perp got his face blown off...by someone who was armed.
2. More "gun control" blather when we already have...gun control. How about chucking the ambiguity, then, and telling us what your real agenda is.
People who scream about gun control in response to an event like this never actually think about what they're saying at first. If they did, they'd realize that the perps always break all of the gun control laws, no matter how strict, prior to executing their dastardly deeds. How many more people would this dude have shot, had he not been shot by someone who was armed? The gun used by the perp took at least one life. The gun used by the officer saved countless others.
Seems to me that the state with the strictest gun laws in the country should arm their citizens. One person with a concealed weapon could have stopped him dead. The guns laws there didn't stop him.
I don't own a gun and am not a "gun nut," but I entirely agree with this statement. When the "video game" shoots back at these nutcases, lives will be saved.
Remember the theater in CO where the joker guy shot at everyone. If one person had been carrying, lives would have been saved.
The gun owners I know are the salt-of-the-earth types -- the kind of guys who would give you the shirt off their back.
The way CA is going only the nuts will have the guns. (I'm so glad I moved.)
Alley
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
The guns laws there didn't stop him.
