FScouter Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 Yeah, the mention in the 2nd amendment of bearing arms has to do with supporting a "well regulated militia" to provide security for the state, but that part of the sentence is usually ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moosetracker Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 POLICE (at least at SWAT level) and MILITARY have good reason to have them. They are highly trained to prevent loss of life of the innocent and know where and when to use them effectively and where and when not to. Average citizens do not need them. I can't believe all shopkeepers in LA had the same style of gun. Sorry.. Perhaps you had one or two with this style, but not all. Aim a gun of any type and people in a riot situation they will pay heed, because with riots your fighting people who mostly have the force of numbers, but most of their numbers are unarmed with nothing but fists bricks, bats some knives, possibly a few guns. Still the multitude without guns will backup taking the few in their midst they have guns with them in the tide of retreat. They flow like water, they are like stampeding cattle and take the path of least resistance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR540Beaver Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 FScouter: "Only the gun folks talk about this. Why is that?" Really? A simple Google search proves differntly. For instance, http://www.banhandgunsnow.org/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perdidochas Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 F Scouter, The Supreme Court (McDonald vs. Chicago, and Heller vs. DC) ruled that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, not just a right for states to have militia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perdidochas Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 Moose, It's history. Google Korean shopkeepers AR15. You will find several examples. The point is that you or I cannot anticipate all the reasons a 30-rd magazine might be useful. They have uses beyond shooting up schools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beavah Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 I don't know how old you are, but I vividly remember the LA riots of 1992. From seein' 'em on TV, I suppose. There's da second half to that statement, though, perdidochas. Is it really rational for a woman in well-off, racially homogeneous suburban/rural CT to be fearful of an urban race riot in a slum? Yeh should go back farther, mate. All of us suburbanites on da plains could be admonished there's a need for weapons to defend us from da Indians! It's history! I saw them on TV too! Also, if massacres are the only reason for these guns, why did most of the police responders to Sandy Hook have them? Because if crazed or nutty members of da public have 'em and are out massacring folks, then law enforcement has to have them to respond effectively. It does not follow that Mildred Peabody also has to have one, eh? And it might well be that if da general public had fewer so that criminals and nutters had fewer, then da police could have fewer. In fact, I'm old enough to remember when da police never carried that kind of equipment, eh? On regulation, the problem with them is that there are so many of them that they are becoming useless and almost to the point of paralyzing us. That's probably overstatin' it, but there is a genuine point there that I agree with. Bigger firms can afford to deal with regulation in ways that smaller ones cannot. Da worst offenders right now are copyright, trademark, and patent law, so squalkin' about other things and leavin' those unaddressed seems pretty silly. But now here's da thing. There's a reason for most of da regulation out there, eh? Small restaurants often dislike all da food safety regulations, and they truly are a morass in some ways. But they're all there because someone at some point killed or injured folks by not bein' careful. So which would yeh eliminate? We eliminated a bunch of banking regulation, and we came within a few hairs of Great Depression II in less than 10 years. So yeh can't just complain about regulation, eh? It's like complainin' about government spending. Yeh have to actually identify what yeh would be willing to eliminate and suffer da consequences of. Beavah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR540Beaver Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 I've lived in Oklahoma for 55 years. I've seen my share of tornados in that time. The biggest, baddest tornado of all came within a few blocks of my house back on May 3rd, 1999. That being said, the likelihood that your house is actually going to be destroyed by a tornado is statistically small. That doesn't stop people from "being prepared" and building storm shelters. Gun ownership doesn't really matter if you live in a high crime inner city or a low crime suburb, some people just like "being prepared" for something that "could" happen, but probably never will. What was it Baden Powell supposedly said when asked what to be prepared for? Why, any old little thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beavah Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 Well, I don't reckon it's possible for your kid to get a hold of your tornado shelter and use it to kill all da kindergarteners in his elementary school, eh? So we can't ignore da negative risk side the way everyone keeps tryin' to with these "preparedness" ideas. As yeh said, SR540, yeh live in Oklahoma. Oklahoma is second only to Texas in numbers of tornadoes and number of killer tornadoes. So despite da risk being low, being prepared is not irrational. My state is much farther north, and at much lower risk for tornadoes. Buildin' a tornado shelter up here would raise all kinds of eyebrows, and be considered a bit nuts. It wouldn't make practical or economic sense, given da risk. Livin' in states west of da Rockies, or northern New England, tornadoes are rare to virtually non-existent. Buildin' a tornado storm shelter there would not be rational. Similarly, buyin' an AR-15 to defend your shop against a race riot in suburban Oklahoma would not be rational. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moosetracker Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 It just is a question of How prepared is good enough. Is a root cellar for the family and preparing an emergancy plan and emergancy kit good enough? Or do you need to build an plastic bubble over your entire house with an emergancy supply room to feed an army for 5 years? I don't have a tornado plan at all, a tornado did hit NH about 5 years back, but it is so rare with all the mountains valleys and trees. I think the last one to hit our county was in the 1980's I didn't even live here then. I don't have plans for earthquakes, being on granite the state hasn't suffered from them. We did have a rumble last year though I didn't even feel anything, but I heard something, some people felt something, others heard not felt nothing. We have had ground flooding, not from any river or stream as I am not near one, or from heavy rains even, as I live on the upper part of a large hill, but my well water will never dry up for the amount of underground water in the area.. Still this meant a sump pump in the basement, not building my house on stilts and putting in windows that could withstand the pressure of surging ocean waves crashing into it. There is protection and then there is paranoia overkill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brewmeister Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 I always find it funny that the same group of people who want to read the second amendment in the most narrow and limiting way possible, or who argue that the founders in no way wrote the second amendment with today's society in mind, have no problem with finding other individual rights in the Constitution that are not written there...abortion comes to mind, for one. All you people trying to parse the second amendment are missing the fundamental point that rights belong to the people. The Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the government; it restricts what the government can do to curb individual rights. A "free state" is not just free against threats from outside its borders; it is one where its citizens are also free to pursue their God given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness against threats posed by fellow man or other dangers. Some were against the creation of a bill of rights for this very reason--the fear that it would be interpreted narrowly to recognize only those rights written within it. Fortunately the court, at least thus far, has interpreted the second amendment in favor of individual liberty as it is intended, as it has done so for other constitutionally protected rights as well. "Shall not." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moosetracker Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Well Beavah may be pro-gun control, but would support you with your abortion beliefs. Back then murder was fine if it was considered your "property" you were killing off, a slave, or a wife that wasn't minding you or was promiscuous, even if the wife was with child. Hey even your children were the property of the man, so slap them around and kill them off.. What the heck. Oh, yeah I guess back then the abortion would have been fine if the husband/father wanted the baby killed off, but not ok for the wife.. So I see your point. In this day and age the right is given to the female.. The audacity!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beavah Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Well Beavah may be pro-gun control Yah, I don't reckon Beavah is in favor of gun control. I know him pretty well. Beavah is just a proponent of citizenship and a bit adverse to extremism. To my mind, da Second Amendment and its history is fairly clear, eh? Yeh can't ignore either clause of da amendment. It protects a personal right to keep and bear arms; it also envisions that when keeping and bearing arms for defense it will be done within da level of training and structure of a well-regulated militia, not lone wolf vigilantes or wannabe cops. Beavah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sentinel947 Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Beavah, you keep stealing all my points! Darn it! =P I concur with what Beavahs been saying. Sentinel947 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brewmeister Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Given that the men (and women) in uniform can't be in all places at all times, a well-regulated (in the historical sense of the term) militia made up of armed citizens is a wise and timeless practice that does indeed protect the security of a free state and its inhabitants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moosetracker Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 OK then Beavah is making sound reasons for gun-control in this thread, but for some reason is of the opinion that it is not pro gun-control, because gun control is the same as elimination of all guns.. Therefore, I don't know what he thinks is the in-between of total freedom to buy whatever gun and ammo ever manufatured to total elimination of gun.. So Beavah what do you call the arguement that you have been making where : It might be reasonable to believe that appropriate restrictions would reduce da risk of stressed or disturbed individuals usin' certain kinds of guns in crimes of opportunity. and reckon it's also worth bein' thoughtful about some kinds of things that are more along da lines of law enforcement or military stuff. Da closer gear gets to higher-capacity semi-auto and intended use gets to firing at humans, da stricter da requirements should be for training and recurrent certification. To me those arguements is gun control, because I don't buy into the slippery slope theroy that if you pass legislation to make it harder for individuals to buy riskier weapons like candy, or make it harder for others to steal your guns etc.. All this is a form of gun control. But, I will accept you don't.. So, what do you call it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now