OK NRA ... riddle me this?

Posted by: DLC

OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/13/13 04:37 PM

Today 4 were killed at a Barber shop- car wash.

WHERE are all the "good guys with guns" to prevent this mass carnage ??

WTF are they ? We have > 300 MILLION guns in the USA , yet 1 can't stop the carnage...
And it not just today - it goes on day after day after day and very, very rarely is a "Good gun" there to stop it !!

your argument doesn't hold H2O !! shocked
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/14/13 02:53 AM

If a good guy is there to prevent a mass shooting, then there's no "news". If a good guy is there to stop a mass shooting then there are already a number of wounded/dead before the stoppage happens - but these incidents tend to make at least local news. But while there are 300 million guns in the USA, there is no guarantee that there is 1 within 100yds of any crime involving a firearm, in the possession of a good guy who is prepared to intervene.
Posted by: steveg

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/14/13 03:57 AM

That's not entirely true. Stick an otoscope into the ear of Wayne LaPierre and you will see literally thousands of heavily-armed good guys blowing the heads off of bad guys like a scene out of Walking Dead! That's once you clear the bats and spiders out of your line of site, of course. crazy
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/14/13 05:15 AM

Originally Posted By: Llewelyn
If a good guy is there to prevent a mass shooting, then there's no "news". If a good guy is there to stop a mass shooting then there are already a number of wounded/dead before the stoppage happens - but these incidents tend to make at least local news. But while there are 300 million guns in the USA, there is no guarantee that there is 1 within 100yds of any crime involving a firearm, in the possession of a good guy who is prepared to intervene.

So... by this reasoning... we should arm more people with guns? What's left.. our children?
Oh.. I see... we should all carry them with us and not leave them at home. If the guys running the car wash would have had some guns strapped then this would have turned out ok.
===
Actually.. your statement above completely renders the "good guy" argument as baloney.
"But while there are 300 million guns in the USA, there is no guarantee that there is 1 within 100yds of any crime involving a firearm, in the possession of a good guy who is prepared to intervene."
Posted by: steveg

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/14/13 05:38 AM

You're missing the point. We need to limit the amount of soap one can load in a car wash wand. smirk
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/14/13 09:06 AM

Didn't they try that every-man-armed approach back in the Wild West? Worked real well then, from what I hear. And then there's Switzerland, where every man is armed. Oh, sorry, that's because in Switzerland every man has been required to join the Swiss armed forces, after which every Swiss man belongs to a well-regulated militia. Heck--maybe we should try that! Conscript every American at age 18, force them all into the armed forces, then force them all to be in a National Guard type of militia. That would be so very constitutionally freedom-inspiring!
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/14/13 02:55 PM

Originally Posted By: NucleusG4
Originally Posted By: Llewelyn
If a good guy is there to prevent a mass shooting, then there's no "news". If a good guy is there to stop a mass shooting then there are already a number of wounded/dead before the stoppage happens - but these incidents tend to make at least local news. But while there are 300 million guns in the USA, there is no guarantee that there is 1 within 100yds of any crime involving a firearm, in the possession of a good guy who is prepared to intervene.

So... by this reasoning... we should arm more people with guns? What's left.. our children?
Oh.. I see... we should all carry them with us and not leave them at home. If the guys running the car wash would have had some guns strapped then this would have turned out ok.
===
Actually.. your statement above completely renders the "good guy" argument as baloney.
"But while there are 300 million guns in the USA, there is no guarantee that there is 1 within 100yds of any crime involving a firearm, in the possession of a good guy who is prepared to intervene."


Kind of my point, a bad guy shooter makes headline news because he successfully killed/injured at least one person. If he's apprehended by a cop, or is confronted by a good guy, then he doesn't get to shoot his target and it's local news at best. Once a bad guy shooter gets started, there is a victim count which rises until an intervention occurs and/or the shooter takes the easy way out. It's not so much a question of where the good guy was when the shooting started, but how quickly they reacted and how many more they prevented from being victims.
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/14/13 04:01 PM

It is not a valid argument. If a "bad guy" bursts in shooting with a semi-automatic weapon, is the "good guy" going to request that he stop shooting until the "good guy" can get his weapon?
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/14/13 05:13 PM

No, hence the OP statement that nobody was available to prevent 4 folks from being shot at barber shop-car wash is, in my opinion, a bad premise to support the argument that since 4 people were shot we shouldn't allow good guys to be armed, as they're not effective enough to prevent every shooting - at least that was my take on the OP, maybe I misunderstood.
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/14/13 06:45 PM

I don't know of anyone who just sits around with their weapon fully loaded, ready to fire 24/7 just in case a bad guy shows up. The police don't even do that.
Posted by: carp

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/14/13 07:14 PM

Michael right,

Most of these so called 300 million guns are locked away in kid proof safes - chances for a good guy who is packing a concealed gun and would want to get involved , so that would be a 1 -to- 300 million chance that would happen.

Slightly higher in states that do allow concealed weapons to begin with . The good guy guns are generally left at home for home protection and thats where the laws favor them the best.

Imagine if you will ?
Good guy gets involved in a shoot out with a bad guy to save lives - but a innocent bystander gets shot and killed by the good guy <-- he still could face murder charges even with the good Samaritan laws. Remember these thing happens in a few seconds at most - a good guy has gotta pull and fire in 2 seconds flat - I really don't think a good guy can do that ? ?
Posted by: DLC

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/15/13 11:58 AM

I don't think that's true Llewelyn. IF a good guy stopped someone bad - it'd be BIG news... and don't you think the NRA would be hyping the HLL out of every one of them ? I haven't seen or heard of any ! I think they're almost non existent !!

It's a big pill to swallow ! wink
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/15/13 04:51 PM

The stories are out there, but they're hyped each way by members of each side of the argument. When a good guy does stop a bad guy, then the "arm everyone" crowd blows his achievement out of proportion, extolling how many potential victims were saved, while the "ban all guns" crowd totally underplays it - but then these two extremes tend to play in their own sandpits, that you have to hunt for.

National news tends to play down both sets of hype, so it tends to fall to local news "a local good samaritan prevented a bad guy from harming xxxx", it's easy to save that the samaritan probably saved the target, but difficult to quantify if the bad guy was doing general mayhem or just after the current target.


Arizona mall shooting - Dec 2012
So was the good guy a factor in the stoppage of the shooting? Did the bad guy just decide to end it because his primary weapon wasn't working? The end result was very few people were shot, so I don't believe it was that big of headline thing for the nationals.

Or there's this one from a couple days ago. Now it's not a mass murderer, but the guy definitely made a difference for the victim in this case. But once again it's just a local story, that's pushed on the gun supporter forums.
Posted by: DLC

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/15/13 05:56 PM

#1 is legit, though how rare is this? I'll admit I never heard this on the news. BUT if there's so many - why isn't the National news covering it?

#2 - while the firearm stopped and held the guy; the "good guy" didn't have to have it to stop a beating.

And I have no problem with regular firearms - it's the assault rifles and 30 shot magazines that make me cringe. Either guy could have done what they did with a 6-shooter ! They didn't need a Bushmaster. But regardless, I think we've done this experiment in about 1880 and it didn't work out well. Story #1 also shows the dilemma a "good guy" has - he didn't shoot because of bystanders. IF police had come up and seen him - how do they know he's the "good guy"? Does he wear a bright t-shirt with a big G on it ? wink

The whole argument is just not logical.
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/15/13 06:48 PM

That's part of the intangible. There are local stories where the presence of a firearm makes the bad guy rethink his plans, no shots fired, no crime committed. The only quantifiable is the mass shooter who goes through with his plans unmolested. Everything else is speculation one way or the other, and both sides hype the stories in favor of their viewpoint - and the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle most of the time.

And who's to say a 6-shooter is sufficient? Real life is not like the movies, where the incidental bad guy goes down with a single shot and hit (ok the main bad guy usually just keeps on coming smile ). Folks miss, even marksmen who spend hours per day on the range, and people can survive multiple gunshot wounds, especially if they're hyped up on andrenalin (or pcp). And while it might be reasonable to question who needs 30 shot magazines, the same could be asked of a Ferrari owner, who needs a car that can hit 180mph? Does firearm ownership always have to come down to need?
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/16/13 01:51 AM

That's a poor analogy. No one kills 20-30 people in 3 minutes with a Ferrari.
Posted by: steveg

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/16/13 03:49 AM

Proof that rationalization fails in the face of common sense and fact.
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/16/13 05:29 AM

Oh I don't know, driving recklessly on a highway and causing a multiple vehicle pileup can cause that number of fatalities. And I doubt that most purchasers of assault rifles are doing so with the intention of killing 20-30 people in 3 minutes.

Though personally I cannot justify having either an assault rifle or a Ferrari, some folks just want these things for fun/sport (that's sport, not hunting).
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/16/13 05:51 AM

Even if driving recklessly that would be called an accident. No one wakes up and thinks "i'll just kill a bunch of people today... and instead of using a firearm...I'm going to use my nice expensive sport car".

I don't think most people are "purchasers of assault rifles are doing so with the intention of killing 20-30 people in 3 minutes.".. but so what?

I love how people keep coming up with analogies comparing a gun to other types of weapons. There are few, maybe none, weapons available to the public that have the capacity to kill like an automatic or even semi-auto. That's why they are so freakin' popular... because they are good at killing. It's pretty much why they are manufactured.
Posted by: steveg

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/16/13 06:10 AM

You're struggling — unsuccessfully — to find the connective tissue. Ferraris are designed and engineered to thrill and please those who can pay the price of admission, and to impress those who can't.

Assault weapons and high cap magazines are designed and engineered to kill or injure as many targets (read "people") as possible in the least amount of time and with the least amount of effort. Connecting such weapons to "fun" or "sport" is yet another hollow rationalization.

Adam Lanza's mother was a prepare and a survivalist. She bought a bushmaster not for fun or sport, but for what she felt was a valid purpose: self-defense in a post-apocalyptic world. Largely a fantasy. And a dangerous one at that. Had she not been able to purchase such deadly ordinance, it would not have been accessible to her mentally disturbed son. If he had had to rely on a less efficient weapon, the death toll at Sandy Hook would have probably been half what it was. Same for Aurora. Same for Columbine, et al.

Ordinary citizens do not need military or law enforcement-grade weapons — and that has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. That is not a "well-regulated militia". And a sports car is not a weapon by design.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/16/13 08:03 AM

From Gail Collins's column in the NY Times today:

Quote:
During a meeting of the Judiciary Committee on Thursday, Senator John Cornyn of Texas tried to shore up the pro-gun side by offering nine “news stories of people defending themselves with assault weapons” for the record. The list spanned 17 years and included things like “tenant shoots intruder on porch.”
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/16/13 09:33 AM

Originally Posted By: NucleusG4
Even if driving recklessly that would be called an accident. No one wakes up and thinks "i'll just kill a bunch of people today... and instead of using a firearm...I'm going to use my nice expensive sport car".


That's where you and I differ, I guess. Driving recklessly leaves the realms of accident and heads into territory of causality. Much like you cannot drink and drive - courts have now decided that while you might not intend to cause death, when one occurs you are culpable. I similarly consider a reckless driver to be as much culpable and any death resulting from their decision to drive recklessly to be a result of negligence and not accidental.

And for the record I also consider "accidental firearm discharges" to be a factor of negligence, rather than accident. Before getting a firearm, get training in both handling safety and usage, before you start to mess with it.
Posted by: steveg

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/16/13 10:03 AM

As long as he didn't shoot him IN the porch. That would-a hurt like hell! eek
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/16/13 10:48 AM

Jesuitically speaking (appropriate now that one of 'em is the pope) intentionality doesn't matter, I suppose. So the guy who drives recklessly with no intent to kill anyone is as culpable as the mass murderer who uses his semiautomatic to mow down 20 kids.

No wonder I stopped being jesuitically inclined.
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/16/13 11:57 AM

Originally Posted By: Llewelyn
Originally Posted By: NucleusG4
Even if driving recklessly that would be called an accident. No one wakes up and thinks "i'll just kill a bunch of people today... and instead of using a firearm...I'm going to use my nice expensive sport car".


That's where you and I differ, I guess. Driving recklessly leaves the realms of accident and heads into territory of causality. Much like you cannot drink and drive - courts have now decided that while you might not intend to cause death, when one occurs you are culpable. I similarly consider a reckless driver to be as much culpable and any death resulting from their decision to drive recklessly to be a result of negligence and not accidental.

And for the record I also consider "accidental firearm discharges" to be a factor of negligence, rather than accident. Before getting a firearm, get training in both handling safety and usage, before you start to mess with it.


Huge difference between manslaughter and maniacal, planned, cold blooded homicide.

Anyways... please feel free to point out/link multiple any auto accidents that took the lives of 20-30 people, mostly kids. Purposely, or not.
Posted by: carp

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/16/13 12:22 PM

drive recklessly to be a result of negligence and not accidental

I tend to agree - when it comes to driving and gun discharge - there is NO accident it is always negligence.
Posted by: steveg

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/16/13 12:39 PM

Jesolutely, m'frend!
Posted by: steveg

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/16/13 12:44 PM

There are two legally recognized sources of accidents:
1. Sh!t happens (aka events that are under no one's control).
2. Negligence.

Negligence is not intent.
Posted by: carp

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/16/13 01:19 PM

Negligence is not intent.

Right,

The only accident would be caused by (act) of god.
Posted by: steveg

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/16/13 01:30 PM

Wrong. Accidents are also caused by negligence. Look it up.
Posted by: carp

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/16/13 02:04 PM

You must have speed read ? ?

I said this just above.


there is NO accident it is always negligence.
Posted by: steveg

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/16/13 04:27 PM

And so you did. My bad. blush
Posted by: DLC

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/16/13 09:13 PM

Sorry I just don't "buy it". The Ferrari does NOT kill people usually (you're really stretching it thin with the accident thingy) and there are far fewer of them than assault rifles. Maybe if we priced assault rifles like Ferrari's I might could live with it. wink (not really)

There is just NO need for an ordinary citizen to have military weapons, (not directed at you) and I'm sick of hearing the 2nd amendment BS from the NRA and wayne LaP dog... it guarantees "the right to bear arms" but doesn't guarantee what they are ! Pea-shooters, slingshots !

If they're plentiful and around- the "wrong" people will get them and use them. Plain and simple... How many people in US cities have been run over by a tank ? ZERO - WHY? You can't get them ! It's totally logical and practical - get them totally off the streets !. Won't stop all gun violence, but it will severely impact the probability of massacres like Newtown and Aurora, CO.
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/17/13 04:26 AM

My reading of the 2nd amendment is that it prevents the Federal government from making ANY restriction on civilian firearm ownership. What it does allow is for a state to decide whether it considers its civilians to be members of the state militia (not reserves) and as such arm itself as a last line defense force, and what weapons they should purchase for themselves (regulated militia).

The recent history during the 17th century had countries requiring able bodied civilians train with the weapon of the day in case of need in the defense of the realm - example the UK required regular practice with the longbow, a law which was repealed in the late 20th century! So it's not surprising that the US founders were not in support of creating a regular army (which could be used for offense) but should allow the states to call up civilians as an irregular defense force - and BYO gun.

Is the 2nd amendment an anachronism? Quite probably. Is it a total mess today? Quite probably, since we have legal challenges to state restriction on firearm ownership (something the 2nd allows) and we have the Federal government setting restrictions (something the 2nd is supposed to prevent).

Bottom line (in my view), does someone NEED an assault rifle? No, in the same way someone doesn't NEED a car that will drive over 180 mph. But both allow someone to do something considered illegal, IF the purchaser chooses to. (I'm not trying to equate murder to speeding). Heck even buying a handgun allows someone to be able to commit murder, should they so choose.

Personally I agree with you that I don't see a need for anyone to own an assault weapon. But I also don't feel a need to say what someone else is and isn't allowed to do, so long as anothers rights are not infringed. But the proposed laws as they stand do not eliminate the problem, if you want to ban something you need to then remove it from the field of play, if you don't the threat is still out there.
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/17/13 05:39 AM

Quote:
But I also don't feel a need to say what someone else is and isn't allowed to do, so long as anothers rights are not infringed.


I would say that all of these dead people have had their rights infringed.
Which is the greater right? The one to own high end weaponry.. or the one to live your life in the pursuit of happiness, et al...
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/17/13 05:42 AM

It's a mixed bag, really. I would love to own a Bushmaster. Pretty damn cool piece of tech. But... if it means that certain elements in our society doesn't have access to them either... then I am willing to give up that right. Maybe they could have Bushmasters only at ranges so you could rent one but not own one. Then only a few individuals would have to be "watched" and given psych exams, etc. The range "wardens".
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/17/13 05:47 AM

Thomas Jefferson liked to hunt and wander the woods with a rifle... but he also said this:

He once said that to ask a country to be governed by a Constitution that was passed in previous years is like asking a grown man to wear a child's coat, that without the living constitution idea, it became the most awful of Jeffersonian things, irrational.
Posted by: DLC

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/17/13 08:45 AM

Quote:
My reading of the 2nd amendment is that it prevents the Federal government from making ANY restriction on civilian firearm ownership. What it does allow is for a state to decide whether it considers its civilians to be members of the state militia (not reserves) and as such arm itself as a last line defense force, and what weapons they should purchase for themselves (regulated militia).

So then by that rationale we can't prevent anyone from having a nuke, or a bazooka, RPG, Gatlin-like machine guns (Puff the magic dragon)! No, I think that's the loosest interpretation ! I don't think it'll fly.

Hey I can justify a air cannon with the same rationale - my house might get attacked by a mob after a natural disaster and law enforcement breaks down !! it's just not realistic !! crazy
Posted by: steveg

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/17/13 09:07 AM

There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment — not word one — that precludes common sense. And as sick as I am of the half-baked analogies and false equivalencies, I'll offer up one of my own. One can purchase and drive a Ferrari, despite it's potentially dangerous speed and power, because it still incorporates the things that state gov'ts require for street legal vehicles. It has rear view mirrors, head and tail lights, turn signals, etc. But a AAA rail dragster is not street legal because it does not include such features — even though it's still an automobile. Common sense attributed to the law. Driving the Ferrari at it's top speed through a residential neighborhood is the absence of common sense attributed to the driver — contrasted against the common sense law of a 25 mph speed limit.

Are you seeing the flaw in your analogy yet?
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/17/13 09:27 AM

Why is it that only the 2nd amendment leads to the conclusion that there can be no restrictions on the right it expresses, the ownership of guns? The same doesn't seem to apply to the 1st amendment. For some reason we all (I think all) agree that freedom of the press doesn't extend to publishing child pornography. Or that freedom of assembly means that the state cannot require licenses for such assemblies, in the absence of which the assemblers can be stuck in jail. And we all know about restrictions on freedom of speech, from slander at one end to "fire in a crowded theater" at the other. Religion seems to be an exception to the rule on restrictions--except of course that it's not, since there are more cases than you can shake a stick at about what is or is not constitutional exercise of religion. And what about "unreasonable" in the 4th amendment. What is an "unreasonable search" or "seizure"?

But only the 2nd amendment, ambiguous in its initial phrase as it is, is said to be immune from moves to define what it does or does not protect.
Posted by: steveg

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/17/13 09:47 AM

Interesting that the things people are the most passionate about are the things that drive the most polarized debates. More interesting still that so many people get more emotional over guns than religion, sex, or free speech. confused
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/17/13 09:52 AM

Guns and sharp swords in the hands of young children is OK; sex not so much, except when it's violent. Really--how many TV shows have good, clean sex and how many have sex as rape or violation of some sort? We go haywire over a costume malfunction, but don't think twice about blood and guts all over the place. Whacky.
Posted by: steveg

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/17/13 09:58 AM

Quote:
Whacky.
So now what, you wanna take away everyone's machete? shocked
Posted by: carp

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/17/13 10:41 AM

IMO,

We have to take the time to consider the (era) of when the 2nd amendment was written.

They simply had no ideal about Bushmasters + Wackos at that time. I am sure if they did there would have been some inclusions.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/17/13 11:18 AM

It goes beyond that, carp. In 1800 there was no standing army--that's something of an over-simplification, but it bears an essential truth: the early US was very very wary of any standing army precisely because of the experiences with the British standing army that led to the Revolutionary War in the first place. Essentially the only continuously marshaled land-based armed forces were the militia.

The militia were organized and regulated by the states and ultimately, per Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution, by the federal government. Here's the full clause, which states that the federal Congress has the power "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." To my mind that clause in Article 1 is essential to understanding the 2nd amendment, which begins, as the NRA refuses to acknowledge fully, with "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state. . . ."

What is a well-regulated militia in the context of 1800? Article 1 defines what it means. A militia is not a group of individuals or anything like it. It's equivalent to our current National Guard. A militia is therefore not a bulwark against federal encroachment on the citizen, but rather to be used by the federal and state governments as a means of defense against enemies foreign and domestic. I would bet a heck of a lot of money that in the phrase "enemies domestic" would be included all the so-called militias running around waving their bushmasters on private preserves all around the country. Those people might think of themselves as the last bastion of true constitutional freedom, but they're not. They're exactly what the 2nd amendment is supposed to guard against.

Gun ownership "shall not be infringed," according to the 2nd amendment, because the federal and state authorities must have access to a well-regulated militia. Nowadays the whole issue is silly precisely because we have these little things called the Army, the Marines, the Air Force.
Posted by: DLC

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/17/13 11:24 AM

Originally Posted By: carp
IMO,
We have to take the time to consider the (era) of when the 2nd amendment was written.
They simply had no ideal about Bushmasters + Wackos at that time. I am sure if they did there would have been some inclusions.

ALSO - There was NO Standing Army... hence people could form militias. But the NRA doesn't mention that !! mad

There was a need then - people needed guns to put food on the table- protect against Indians and others that might harm them... there wasn't a police force, no National Guard, as said No Armed Forces ... people lived miles apart - they had to be self reliant.. today most don't need them (I didn't say all). Not like then !!
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/17/13 11:34 AM

It wasn't "the people" who formed the militias. It was the federal Congress, franchising the appointment of the officers to the states. West Point becomes a training facility for officers in 1802, so I suspect that the officers appointed by the states tended to come from the officers trained by the federal government. The "people" are the reservoir from which the ranks of the government-established and -regulated militia are filled, and their right to bear arms is closely associated with their status as that reservoir.
Posted by: carp

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/17/13 11:43 AM

Well lets not only mention the constant (Indian wars) and the Spanish American wars and the French American wars.

So yes this country was built on conflict - so the 2nd amendment made sense at the time.

Today = NO , , well not like it was 300 years ago.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: OK NRA ... riddle me this? - 03/17/13 12:21 PM

Protecting the "western" border was the job of the only standing army battalion left as an organized unit after the Revolutionary War. That group, finally called the "Legion of the United States," was comprised of about 5000 soldiers and officers in battalions that included infantry, riflemen, dragoons (cavalry), and artillery. It was disbanded in 1796, and was replaced by separately organized brigades of the four types of land troops. Everything else was handled by the "well regulated militia." The War of 1812 proved (a) that the army could function effectively, (b) that militias were not enough to protect against enemies foreign, (c) that there weren't nearly enough army troops, and finally (d) that the US had better get itself more regular army soldiers if it was going to succeed in dealing with enemies foreign. So by 1815 the feds reorganized and expanded the standing army, used mostly in the many Indian Wars from 1815 onwards. The militia therefore declined in importance because the standing army replaced its function, and continued to be relatively unimportant until after the Spanish American War, when the Militia Act of 1903 established the National Guard. The National Guard, then, is the direct descendant of the "well regulated militia" that the 2nd amendment refers to.