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.
An armed society is a polite society. Communities where law abiding citizens are armed and trained are always safer than those that want stricter gun laws because the criminals know they'll go down for the dirt nap if they try to behave badly. Following the second ammendment saves lives and should be considered a moral imperative by every law abiding citizen.
You're an armed society are you not?
Would you then go so far as to suggest your society could be described as universally polite?
I am asking the question based upon the historical evidence readily available for your consideration proving otherwise.
Why were towns and cities so quick to invoke gun control statutes after the American west was settled?
How did the U.S. morph from a country where virtually everyone had a firearm to put food on the table to one of; after first settlements were established, having those guns consigned to pegs over the fireplace and not carried within the town limits. Why did that happen? BECAUSE they found that there were instances of armed people being anything but polite towards each other, regardless if they were ALL ARMED OR NOT.
Criminals will plan accordingly and the mentally ill will not shive-a-git whether they're going to encounter an armed response.
The guns are here and they're going to stay. Stop worrying that any entity is going to try to confiscate them - a physical and hypothetical impossibility. It CANNOT happen. Relax.
Do Mass Murders (MM) pick a group of ppl to attack because they KNOW there's no defense against their murderous actions?
Does a MM have fear of 'getting shot' by a gun-wielding bystander?
Do MM pick their targets KNOWING their targets are not prepared to defend themselves guaranteeing Mass Carnage and renowned Reputation TO the MM?
Many believe that MM commit public spectacles to gain attention and notoriety...a Sick 'Narcissistic' Self-importance Cry to the World. “Hey, look at me, this is what the world has done to me...here is my Revenge”
IN FACT, there have been numerous papers written on the subject of ‘Narcissistic Revenge’ ~ Could a Toxic Narcissist ‘Risk being Killed in the execution of his plan?’
ANSWER; I don’t think a Toxic Narcissist would risk the embarrassment and loss.
SO I BELIEVE You are correct in your assumption.
NOTE: The Israel system of daily preparation of Terrorism is one of the reasons Israel Thrives in spite of being the hot-bed of Terrorism Plots and attacks.
Most mass shooters shoot up a place where the people he wants to kill are. Ramos probably knew this school had an SRO as he went there at one time. The Buffalo shooter knew that specific grocery store had armed security. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold knew their school had an SRO and I would think the Parkland shooter knew that about his school. Mass shooters shoot the people they want to kill by and large.
FYI - the second amendment is cleverly written to conflate two different groups in the reader's mind.
Group one - THE PEOPLE - who have the right to bear arms ( in defense of the endowed right to life).
Group two - THE MILITIA (composed of citizens who consented to be governed) have a duty to train, fight, and die on command, and can be regulated in the manner and which arms they can bear.
Ergo, most "gun control" laws are limited in application to the consenting citizenry, and have zero application to "people who have the right to bear arms."
This is how they have side stepped the restriction for centuries.
FYI - the second amendment is cleverly written to conflate two different groups in the reader's mind.
Group one - THE PEOPLE - who have the right to bear arms ( in defense of the endowed right to life).
Group two - THE MILITIA (composed of citizens who consented to be governed) have a duty to train, fight, and die on command, and can be regulated in the manner and which arms they can bear.
Ergo, most "gun control" laws are limited in application to the consenting citizenry, and have zero application to "people who have the right to bear arms."
This is how they have side stepped the restriction for centuries.
= = = = =
CONSENT OF THE CITIZENRY
“ Our theory of government and governmental powers is wholly at variance with that urged by appellant herein. The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED BY THE CITIZENSHIP to the agencies of government. The people's rights are not derived from the government, but the government's authority comes from the people. The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief. The fewer restrictions that surround the individual liberties of the citizen, except those for the preservation of the public health, safety, and morals, the more contented the people and the more successful the democracy.”
- - - City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944
https://casetext.com/case/city-of-dallas-v-mitchell-1
. . .
The rights of the individual / national / non-citizen / inhabitant / non-resident ("THE PEOPLE") are not derived from government, but are Creator endowed... (i.e., republican form of government)
But once consent to be governed is granted, via citizenship, that endowment has been surrendered / waived by the citizenry.
Why? Because mandatory civic duties abrogate endowed natural rights, natural and personal liberty, absolute ownership of private property, etc, etc. That’s the consequence of migrating to their democratic form of government, where a majority can legally persecute a minority.
"What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's CONSENT. I say this is the leading principle, the sheet-anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
- - - Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (1854)
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abraham_lincoln
...
People who have not consented, are not governed (ruled), but served by government.
People who have consented, have no grounds to object to being governed by another man OR government.
Has anything changed since 1776?
“If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final.”
- - - Calvin Coolidge, Speech on the Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence (1926)
If you do not have your endowed rights, and only government privileges ("civil rights" & "political rights"), you might inquire of your public servants, or a sitting judge, or an attorney general to explain exactly HOW and WHEN you consented to be governed, and thus surrendered your Creator's endowment.
They will simply be the ones the mass-murderer shoots first.
How about talking to each of the school staff (for starters) and ask each one if they want to be armed during school hours? Most will say No Thanks, but a few might say I Will. If not enough volunteer, hire and extra "janitor" whose actual role is to be a covert armed guard. No one will know who accepted (The Principal will quietly keep a list, and the cops). Get the volunteers some range and safety training on a regular basis.
Then publish the fact that each school has armed people on campus, no names or positions mentioned. Some madmen might change their minds and not attack the school, there's a benefit right there. But a few madmen might do it anyway... in which case, the armed personnel will already be inside the school, waiting for them.
Still not a perfect solution, but it will often produce better results than anything we've tried so far.
Likely not. The media, most democrats and all anti-gunners teach that we should be terrified of guns, we should not take an active role in defending our own lives, and every time a trigger is pulled someone dies.
They treat the NRA, the largest gun safety organization in the world, as if they are lepers.
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.
