Heat Packing Private Citizen Halts Robbery Suspect

[Deleted]

Oct 16, 2015 22:37:42 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Oct 16, 2015 22:00:25 GMT -5 @hickle said:

I also know regulated does not refer to government regulations.  At the time "well regulated" meant "properly working".

If you would like to change "properly working" to "properly trained and disciplined" I would agree with you.  Still, the clause refers to the militia, as I think you know.  They did not think about registering guns.  There was no need and it would have served no purpose.  Everybody had guns, and the science did not exist to trace them or test them for ballistics.  The Second Amendment itself referred only to the necessity of being able to raise a defensive force if necessary.  It had nothing to do with CREATING an individual right to keep and bear arms.  You cannot thus base an argument for an individual right to own a gun for whatever purpose the owner wished on the Second Amendment. 

And as I recall, in the dissent to the Heller decision, Justice Stevens pointed out that language specifically approving an individual right was proposed.  Certain states had such language in their own constitutions, and argued for it to be adopted.  It was not.  That language was defeated and was not included in the Second Amendment itself.   

why do guns scare you (or if scare is not right word, use your word)?  You are more likely to die from an infection from a hospital then from someone shooting you.  You can argue that guns were made to kill and hospital infections are unfortunate or whatever.   But still hospital infections kill just as needlessly and much more often.

Why dont you put your energy if fighting something that is more deadly and no one wants to protect?  You could save more lives by restricting alcohol, or putting governors on car to limit speed or countless other things that cause great death if you dont care about rights or what people enjoy.

Why don't liberals go after all the needless deaths we cause i the Middle East instead of gun deaths here?  You and I are partially responsible for the deaths our military causes.  Yours and my tax dollars are used to kill innocents.  We are not responsible for some guy killing some other guy over drug territory, except in our making drug traficking profitable.  We are not responsible for the school shootings.  Those who do that are. There are so many things we are responsible through government, that just skates by.  Why the hate for guns so much and not the hate for violence we perpetuate through our government and our tax dollars?

[billisonboard]

Oct 16, 2015 22:37:42 GMT -5 tallguy said:

... Still, the clause refers to the militia, as I think you know. ...

A small, yet I think important note: The Second Amendment references not militia, but rather Militia i.e. a proper noun.

[tallguy]

Oct 16, 2015 22:50:24 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Oct 16, 2015 22:37:42 GMT -5 tallguy said:

If you would like to change "properly working" to "properly trained and disciplined" I would agree with you.  Still, the clause refers to the militia, as I think you know.  They did not think about registering guns.  There was no need and it would have served no purpose.  Everybody had guns, and the science did not exist to trace them or test them for ballistics.  The Second Amendment itself referred only to the necessity of being able to raise a defensive force if necessary.  It had nothing to do with CREATING an individual right to keep and bear arms.  You cannot thus base an argument for an individual right to own a gun for whatever purpose the owner wished on the Second Amendment. 

And as I recall, in the dissent to the Heller decision, Justice Stevens pointed out that language specifically approving an individual right was proposed.  Certain states had such language in their own constitutions, and argued for it to be adopted.  It was not.  That language was defeated and was not included in the Second Amendment itself.   

why do guns scare you (or if scare is not right word, use your word)?  You are more likely to die from an infection from a hospital then from someone shooting you.  You can argue that guns were made to kill and hospital infections are unfortunate or whatever.   But still hospital infections kill just as needlessly and much more often.

Why dont you put your energy if fighting something that is more deadly and no one wants to protect?  You could save more lives by restricting alcohol, or putting governors on car to limit speed or countless other things that cause great death if you dont care about rights or what people enjoy.

Why don't liberals go after all the needless deaths we cause i the Middle East instead of gun deaths here?  You and I are partially responsible for the deaths our military causes.  Yours and my tax dollars are used to kill innocents.  We are not responsible for some guy killing some other guy over drug territory, except in our making drug traficking profitable.  We are not responsible for the school shootings.  Those who do that are. There are so many things we are responsible through government, that just skates by.  Why the hate for guns so much and not the hate for violence we perpetuate through our government and our tax dollars?

Quite a bizarre response.  And how you have conflated anything I have said here into either hating or being afraid of guns while simultaneously being in favor of various government evils...?  

First, I have said several times that I don't really care whether someone owns guns.  I only begin to care when those guns are used.  In that vein, I would make the use of a gun in the commission of a crime subject to the death penalty, whether it was fired or merely brandished.  But that is nothing against responsible, law-abiding gun owners.  My contention is only that the individual right to own a gun is not in any way guaranteed by the Second Amendment, and that government is within its rights to regulate gun ownership.

The hospital infection analogy is silly.  Hospital workers are doing as much as they can at all times to eliminate infections.  Should we work to eliminate guns as well?

And do you really think that liberals are the ones supporting military interventions and foreign wars?  Ask that question of conservatives.  They are much more prone to be the hawkish, interventionist ones. 

  

[tallguy]

Oct 16, 2015 22:54:07 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Oct 16, 2015 22:37:42 GMT -5 tallguy said:

... Still, the clause refers to the militia, as I think you know. ...

A small, yet I think important note: The Second Amendment references not militia, but rather Militia i.e. a proper noun.

I've read that different versions exist regarding such things as capitalization and punctuation. I wish it were only the capitalized "Militia" in all versions, since it would strengthen my argument.

[mroped]

I do not have a problem with SANE citizens carrying a concealed weapon. I have a problem with nut cases carrying one.
Legaly, we could ask anyone applying for a CCP to have a psych evaluation. Maybe is already being done or required, I didn't look into it.
Or maybe we should just allow all to carry one but not a rifle. We should limit it to pistols and revolvers and specify that they should be concealed so just out of site. Have at it!
But when people, ordinary people start shooting at other ordinary people just because they are running around what do you do?

LEO are carrying and shooting at people WHEN NECESSARY! They can shoot at you as soon as you flash a weapon and point it their general direction. That is the whole business: when a perpetrator reveals a weapon or threatens their life or that of innocent bystanders.
Do they miss? Sure and quite a lot!
That is because there is a difference between an innate object such as the target and people or living beings for that matter. Some never get past that. That is why after each shooting the cops have to see a shrink and be declared fit for duty again. Showing no remorse for the action means they have a psychological problem which is a big no-no for someone that protects the public.

Having a weapon and defending yourself is all legal and good. Having a weapon and act as an agent of the people without being one or need to be one is absolutely wrong and illegal.
Those that do this because "I thought" excuse, should be given some time to think by themselves in the big house! 

[mroped]

why do guns scare you (or if scare is not right word, use your word)? You are more likely to die from an infection from a hospital then from someone shooting you. You can argue that guns were made to kill and hospital infections are unfortunate or whatever. But still hospital infections kill just as needlessly and much more often.

Guns ms are not scary in any way. Some of them are rather cool looking.
What you can do with a gun is scary!

As David Sedaris says in one of his stories, according to his sister "apple sauce can kill you!"
And he continues the explanation:" but she fails to mention that for that to happen, one needs to inject it into his veins!"

[Deleted]

Oct 16, 2015 23:31:52 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Oct 16, 2015 22:50:24 GMT -5 @hickle said:

why do guns scare you (or if scare is not right word, use your word)?  You are more likely to die from an infection from a hospital then from someone shooting you.  You can argue that guns were made to kill and hospital infections are unfortunate or whatever.   But still hospital infections kill just as needlessly and much more often.

Why dont you put your energy if fighting something that is more deadly and no one wants to protect?  You could save more lives by restricting alcohol, or putting governors on car to limit speed or countless other things that cause great death if you dont care about rights or what people enjoy.

Why don't liberals go after all the needless deaths we cause i the Middle East instead of gun deaths here?  You and I are partially responsible for the deaths our military causes.  Yours and my tax dollars are used to kill innocents.  We are not responsible for some guy killing some other guy over drug territory, except in our making drug traficking profitable.  We are not responsible for the school shootings.  Those who do that are. There are so many things we are responsible through government, that just skates by.  Why the hate for guns so much and not the hate for violence we perpetuate through our government and our tax dollars?

Quite a bizarre response.  And how you have conflated anything I have said here into either hating or being afraid of guns while simultaneously being in favor of various government evils...?  

First, I have said several times that I don't really care whether someone owns guns.  I only begin to care when those guns are used.  In that vein, I would make the use of a gun in the commission of a crime subject to the death penalty, whether it was fired or merely brandished.  But that is nothing against responsible, law-abiding gun owners.  My contention is only that the individual right to own a gun is not in any way guaranteed by the Second Amendment, and that government is within its rights to regulate gun ownership.

The hospital infection analogy is silly.  Hospital workers are doing as much as they can at all times to eliminate infections.  Should we work to eliminate guns as well?

And do you really think that liberals are the ones supporting military interventions and foreign wars?  Ask that question of conservatives.  They are much more prone to be the hawkish, interventionist ones. 

  

The point of hospital infections is that if you are worried about unnecessary deaths, you are far more likely to die of a hospital infection then a gunshot.  Why not put your efforts where they would do the most good?  If you are not a thug, suicidal or abused by your spouse you are very very unlikely to be killed by a gun in America.

If you don't care whether someone owns guns but only begin to care when those guns are used you would not care about restrictions or lack of restrictions when it comes to buying guns.  If you want to regulate when and who can buy a gun you are de facto worried about someone owning a gun or why else push for restrictions?

I think that both so-called liberals and so-called conservatives are a disgrace to their ideology when it comes war.  I think America's war policy is evil and shameful and we are responsible for it.  I think both you and I have blood on our hands because of our government.

[mroped]

And yet hickle we have a bit over 36000 deaths caused by guns every year!

[Deleted]

Oct 17, 2015 8:42:34 GMT -5 mroped said:

And yet hickle we have a bit over 36000 deaths caused by guns every year!

You are very unlikely to be one of those 36,000 if you take reasonable precautions. 
There are ways to make that a smaller number without violating gun rights.  Address the poverty in gang areas would be one way.  Greater access to solutions for depression would be another.

[mroped]

You are very much much more unlikely to die of a disease/infection gotten while hospitalized if this society would put more effort on providing adequate health care for its members and less on making sure that everyone can carry his/her weapon on the street.
However, as I see it, we as a society have other priorities!

[OldCoyote]

Oct 17, 2015 8:59:06 GMT -5 mroped said:

You are very much much more unlikely to die of a disease/infection gotten while hospitalized if this society would put more effort on providing adequate health care for its members and less on making sure that everyone can carry his/her weapon on the street.
However, as I see it, we as a society have other priorities!

How about if we put drugs and alcohol into the your chances of dying?

Now here is a real killer, that we seem to be unable to relate to here.

I think I posted something on this board about your chances of dying from things related to this were like 1 in 9,  What are the chances of dying from a gun related death?

Which one should we be trying do do something about?

[Deleted]

Oct 17, 2015 10:12:08 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Oct 17, 2015 8:59:06 GMT -5 mroped said:

You are very much much more unlikely to die of a disease/infection gotten while hospitalized if this society would put more effort on providing adequate health care for its members and less on making sure that everyone can carry his/her weapon on the street.
However, as I see it, we as a society have other priorities!

How about if we put drugs and alcohol into the your chances of dying?

Now here is a real killer, that we seem to be unable to relate to here.

I think I posted something on this board about your chances of dying from things related to this were like 1 in 9,  What are the chances of dying from a gun related death?

Which one should we be trying do do something about?

I don't think the people who oppose guns are doing so because of the deaths.  I think they dislike guns and see the deaths and want to ban guns.  But the main impetus is the dislike of guns.  There are a lot more useful places to focus on if it is just tragic deaths that are the worry.

[mroped]

Very few people want to ban guns. This is something that the NRA and those that want more and more guns don't tell you.
Gun control doesn't mean banning guns but more in the line of responsible gun ownership.
Many of the death related guns are the result of illegal carrying, accidents where one of the parties has no clue about handling a gun or just simply a mistake or like in the case of serial shooters a person with a psycho problem and a weapon that is easily accessible.
Some of them will never be stopped but at least it can be slowed down or reduced.

The energy put into proclaiming that the "liberals wanna take your guns away!" by the NRA if it were oriented towards teaching citizenry at large and not just by membership on how to handle weapons responsibly, would probably reduce the casualties. But no, NRA chooses to become political on the issue and forgets about the intent of its creation.
I am a gun rights supporter but I'll never affiliate myself with any movement that inserts itself into politics on a subject that should not even be part of it.

[tallguy]

Oct 17, 2015 8:17:52 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Oct 16, 2015 23:31:52 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Quite a bizarre response.  And how you have conflated anything I have said here into either hating or being afraid of guns while simultaneously being in favor of various government evils...?  

First, I have said several times that I don't really care whether someone owns guns.  I only begin to care when those guns are used.  In that vein, I would make the use of a gun in the commission of a crime subject to the death penalty, whether it was fired or merely brandished.  But that is nothing against responsible, law-abiding gun owners.  My contention is only that the individual right to own a gun is not in any way guaranteed by the Second Amendment, and that government is within its rights to regulate gun ownership.

The hospital infection analogy is silly.  Hospital workers are doing as much as they can at all times to eliminate infections.  Should we work to eliminate guns as well?

And do you really think that liberals are the ones supporting military interventions and foreign wars?  Ask that question of conservatives.  They are much more prone to be the hawkish, interventionist ones. 

  

The point of hospital infections is that if you are worried about unnecessary deaths, you are far more likely to die of a hospital infection then a gunshot.  Why not put your efforts where they would do the most good?  If you are not a thug, suicidal or abused by your spouse you are very very unlikely to be killed by a gun in America.

If you don't care whether someone owns guns but only begin to care when those guns are used you would not care about restrictions or lack of restrictions when it comes to buying guns.  If you want to regulate when and who can buy a gun you are de facto worried about someone owning a gun or why else push for restrictions?

I think that both so-called liberals and so-called conservatives are a disgrace to their ideology when it comes war.  I think America's war policy is evil and shameful and we are responsible for it.  I think both you and I have blood on our hands because of our government.

I'm not sure why it is but you seem particularly prone to getting a thought into your head and then being unable to let it go. 

People far more knowledgeable than me on the subject and actively working in the subject area are already working to eliminate hospital infections.  Not a lot that either you or I can add to that.  It's a silly analogy.  With regard to government intervention in foreign countries we can argue against it, we can protest and we can vote.  How many more options do you think are available to us as the general public?  You can let that one go as well.

The bolded part is just flat-out wrong.  The problem is generally not with responsible, law-abiding gun owners.  I will stipulate that most are not nuts.  But people snap all the time, and it only takes one event with a gun in their hand to cause tragic results.  And even law-abiding owners have guns lost or stolen.  Owning a gun is a tremendous responsibility, and it should require at least a little in return from those who wish to do so.

If you are not a thug, suicidal or abused by your spouse you are very very unlikely to be killed by a gun in America.

In most areas of the country, perhaps.  Innocent bystanders get shot almost daily.  Mass shootings are increasing.  Murder-suicides where spouses and children die are not really even news anymore they happen so often.  Restrictions are appropriate when dealing with something that can cause that much harm.  Regulations are even less onerous.

If you want to argue against drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes, go ahead.  They probably cause more deaths than guns do.  The difference is that their use primarily affects the user himself so is more an individual issue.  There is certainly a secondary and indirect effect on those around the user.  With guns, there is a primary effect on other persons.  Hence, there is a greater duty to society in return.    

[djAdvocate]

Oct 16, 2015 22:00:25 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Oct 16, 2015 21:56:11 GMT -5 tallguy said:

You do realize the first thirteen words were put there for a reason, right?

I also know regulated does not refer to government regulations.  At the time "well regulated" meant "properly working".

right.  but you are missing the word militia.  a one man army is not a militia.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 16, 2015 22:50:24 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Oct 16, 2015 22:37:42 GMT -5 tallguy said:

If you would like to change "properly working" to "properly trained and disciplined" I would agree with you.  Still, the clause refers to the militia, as I think you know.  They did not think about registering guns.  There was no need and it would have served no purpose.  Everybody had guns, and the science did not exist to trace them or test them for ballistics.  The Second Amendment itself referred only to the necessity of being able to raise a defensive force if necessary.  It had nothing to do with CREATING an individual right to keep and bear arms.  You cannot thus base an argument for an individual right to own a gun for whatever purpose the owner wished on the Second Amendment. 

And as I recall, in the dissent to the Heller decision, Justice Stevens pointed out that language specifically approving an individual right was proposed.  Certain states had such language in their own constitutions, and argued for it to be adopted.  It was not.  That language was defeated and was not included in the Second Amendment itself.   

why do guns scare you (or if scare is not right word, use your word)?  You are more likely to die from an infection from a hospital then from someone shooting you.  You can argue that guns were made to kill and hospital infections are unfortunate or whatever.   But still hospital infections kill just as needlessly and much more often.

Why dont you put your energy if fighting something that is more deadly and no one wants to protect?  You could save more lives by restricting alcohol, or putting governors on car to limit speed or countless other things that cause great death if you dont care about rights or what people enjoy.

Why don't liberals go after all the needless deaths we cause i the Middle East instead of gun deaths here?  You and I are partially responsible for the deaths our military causes.  Yours and my tax dollars are used to kill innocents.  We are not responsible for some guy killing some other guy over drug territory, except in our making drug traficking profitable.  We are not responsible for the school shootings.  Those who do that are. There are so many things we are responsible through government, that just skates by.  Why the hate for guns so much and not the hate for violence we perpetuate through our government and our tax dollars?

is it just me who get's tired of this defense?

"any objection to the NRA interpretation of the second amendment means that you are a gun loathing sissy"?

word to the unwise: we like guns just fine.  we own them.  we use them.  we defend the right to have them.  however, that does not mean we see that right as a license to fill your shack to the rafters with all manner of weapons, and to the reckless deployment of said weapons to people that are clearly unsuitable or irresponsible for owning them, simply because of the second amendment.  in fact, we argue that the second amendment has nothing to do with the "right" you think it does.

[tallguy]

Oct 17, 2015 11:30:20 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 16, 2015 22:50:24 GMT -5 @hickle said:

why do guns scare you (or if scare is not right word, use your word)?  You are more likely to die from an infection from a hospital then from someone shooting you.  You can argue that guns were made to kill and hospital infections are unfortunate or whatever.   But still hospital infections kill just as needlessly and much more often.

Why dont you put your energy if fighting something that is more deadly and no one wants to protect?  You could save more lives by restricting alcohol, or putting governors on car to limit speed or countless other things that cause great death if you dont care about rights or what people enjoy.

Why don't liberals go after all the needless deaths we cause i the Middle East instead of gun deaths here?  You and I are partially responsible for the deaths our military causes.  Yours and my tax dollars are used to kill innocents.  We are not responsible for some guy killing some other guy over drug territory, except in our making drug traficking profitable.  We are not responsible for the school shootings.  Those who do that are. There are so many things we are responsible through government, that just skates by.  Why the hate for guns so much and not the hate for violence we perpetuate through our government and our tax dollars?

is it just me who get's tired of this defense?

"any objection to the NRA interpretation of the second amendment means that you are a gun loathing sissy"?

word to the unwise: we like guns just fine.  we own them.  we use them.  we defend the right to have them.  however, that does not mean we see that right as a license to fill your shack to the rafters with all manner of weapons, and to the reckless deployment of said weapons to people that are clearly unsuitable or irresponsible for owning them, simply because of the second amendment.  in fact, we argue that the second amendment has nothing to do with the "right" you think it does.

No, it's not just you.  But it does point to a lack of depth on the part of those who subscribe to and propagate it.  The truth is not that hard to comprehend.  It just doesn't fit their preferred view to do so, so gets negated. 

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

Oct 16, 2015 21:53:22 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Oct 16, 2015 21:26:44 GMT -5 @hickle said:

I would bet money that the top 50% of concealed carry can outshoot the bottom 50% of police for accuracy.  I would also bet money that the top 50% of cops are not much better if any then the top 50% of concealed carriers.  I do not think cops are very trained shooters.  They miss quite often.

They may miss quite often in the field when under fire themselves, but that does not mean they are necessarily "poorly trained."  My guess is that most have to qualify at least annually (and likely more often than that, particularly with their service pistol) for every weapon they carry.  I would also guess that the typical concealed-carry holder does not come close to that.  Personally, I think you would be making a sucker's bet.  

Actually, according to my shooting instructor, hinkle is not incorrect in WA.  My instructor spends a LOT of time helping law inforcement in WA and Seattle....most times on the cop's own dime.  He said that the instruction cops receive is minimal, and he needs to spend a lot of time breaking their bad habits that cops have picked up from poor trainers and other cops.  Some of these habits are quite dangerous....which has popped up several times in the news recently.

Qualification on requirements are minimal, and you really need to practice regularly to keep your accuracy up.  I need to shoot about 100 rounds every 3-4 weeks, and even the first 20 shots are pretty crappy....so normally we are at the range practicing every month.

I don't think we are abnormal CWP holders, I see a lot of the same people at the range practicing their skills.

[Deleted]

Oct 16, 2015 22:05:00 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Oct 16, 2015 22:00:25 GMT -5 @hickle said:

I also know regulated does not refer to government regulations.  At the time "well regulated" meant "properly working".

What is so difficult about using all the words?

Nothing.

What's so difficult about keeping them in context to how they were used at the time?

As was pointed out... "well regulated" back in the late 1700's meant "functioning properly". If you get people together in a group as a fighting unit, and they know how to shoot... that's a "well regulated militia" according to 1700's usage of the term... it doesn't matter if they just met. It just meant they can function as a fighting force, when necessary, to hold back the tyranny they are fighting.

[billisonboard]

Oct 17, 2015 18:02:35 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

...If you get people together in a group as a fighting unit, and they know how to shoot... that's a "well regulated militia" according to 1700's usage of the term... ...

Exactly. And that is what the 2nd Amendment calls for.

[Deleted]

Oct 16, 2015 22:37:42 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Oct 16, 2015 22:00:25 GMT -5 @hickle said:

I also know regulated does not refer to government regulations.  At the time "well regulated" meant "properly working".

If you would like to change "properly working" to "properly trained and disciplined" I would agree with you.  Still, the clause refers to the militia, as I think you know.  They did not think about registering guns.  There was no need and it would have served no purpose.  Everybody had guns, and the science did not exist to trace them or test them for ballistics.  The Second Amendment itself referred only to the necessity of being able to raise a defensive force if necessary.  It had nothing to do with CREATING an individual right to keep and bear arms.  You cannot thus base an argument for an individual right to own a gun for whatever purpose the owner wished on the Second Amendment. 

And as I recall, in the dissent to the Heller decision, Justice Stevens pointed out that language specifically approving an individual right was proposed.  Certain states had such language in their own constitutions, and argued for it to be adopted.  It was not.  That language was defeated and was not included in the Second Amendment itself.   

Yes.

Question How do you raise that fighting force if the citizens do not have a right to have guns in the first place?

Answer: You can't.

The Second Amendment creates the individual right to keep and bear arms because arms are required to have a "well regulated" (working and effective) militia.

[Deleted]

Oct 17, 2015 18:06:55 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Oct 17, 2015 18:02:35 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

...If you get people together in a group as a fighting unit, and they know how to shoot... that's a "well regulated militia" according to 1700's usage of the term... ...

Exactly. And that is what the 2nd Amendment calls for.

And... where do you get those armed people to make up that militia, if the citizens do not have a right to "keep and bear" arms in the first place... before they are "called up"?

[billisonboard]

Oct 17, 2015 18:08:46 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Oct 17, 2015 18:06:55 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Exactly. And that is what the 2nd Amendment calls for.

And... where do you get those armed people to make up that militia, if the citizens do not have a right to "keep and bear" arms in the first place... before they are "called up"?

By being part of that properly functioning Militia.

[Deleted]

Oct 17, 2015 18:12:19 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Oct 17, 2015 18:08:46 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

And... where do you get those armed people to make up that militia, if the citizens do not have a right to "keep and bear" arms in the first place... before they are "called up"?

By being part of that properly functioning Militia.

You missed the point of the question (see the bolded)...

Where do you get the people to FORM the militia... if you don't have armed citizens first?

"Militia" is citizen soldiers called up when needed:

Definition of militia in English:
noun

A military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

Militia is not maintained. It's raised as needed, when needed.

[billisonboard]

Oct 17, 2015 18:29:52 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

...
"Militia" is citizen soldiers ...

Exactly. Not general population citizens but rather citizen soldiers.

[Deleted]

Oct 17, 2015 18:38:30 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Oct 17, 2015 18:29:52 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

...
"Militia" is citizen soldiers ...

Exactly. Not general population citizens but rather citizen soldiers.

And again... where do you get them?

(maybe if I make the font bigger you won't miss the question)

Where do you get the "citizen soldiers" if you don't have armed citizens to call them from?

[billisonboard]

Oct 17, 2015 18:47:19 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Oct 17, 2015 18:38:30 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Exactly. Not general population citizens but rather citizen soldiers.

And again... where do you get them?

(maybe if I make the font bigger you won't miss the question)

Where do you get the "citizen soldiers" if you don't have armed citizens to call them from?

From those you have screened and given basic training.

[billisonboard]

Oct 17, 2015 18:47:19 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

...

(maybe if I make the font bigger you won't miss the question)

...

I will get you there when you have set yourself up for it.

[Deleted]

Oct 17, 2015 18:51:54 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Oct 17, 2015 18:47:19 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

And again... where do you get them?

(maybe if I make the font bigger you won't miss the question)

Where do you get the "citizen soldiers" if you don't have armed citizens to call them from?

From those you have screened and given basic training.

Those aren't "citizens"... those are "veterans".

Care to try again?

[Deleted]

Oct 17, 2015 11:50:44 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Oct 17, 2015 11:30:20 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

is it just me who get's tired of this defense?

"any objection to the NRA interpretation of the second amendment means that you are a gun loathing sissy"?

word to the unwise: we like guns just fine.  we own them.  we use them.  we defend the right to have them.  however, that does not mean we see that right as a license to fill your shack to the rafters with all manner of weapons, and to the reckless deployment of said weapons to people that are clearly unsuitable or irresponsible for owning them, simply because of the second amendment.  in fact, we argue that the second amendment has nothing to do with the "right" you think it does.

No, it's not just you.  But it does point to a lack of depth on the part of those who subscribe to and propagate it.  The truth is not that hard to comprehend.  It just doesn't fit their preferred view to do so, so gets negated. 

Its because you and your side want a compromise starting from where we are at now and where people who want to take guns are.  I and many others would like to move in the other direction.  You want to 'limit' and I and many others do not want that.