quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

fr for the whole article

This will probably come as a total shock to most of my Western readers, but at one point, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth. This was, of course, when we were free under the Tsar. Weapons, from swords and spears to pistols, rifles and shotguns were everywhere, common items. People carried them concealed, they carried them holstered. Fighting knives were a prominent part of many traditional attires and those little tubes criss crossing on the costumes of Cossacks and various Caucasian peoples? Well those are bullet holders for rifles.

Various armies, such as the Poles, during the ????? (Times of Troubles), or Napoleon, or the Germans even as the Tsarist state collapsed under the weight of WW1 and Wall Street monies, found that holding Russian lands was much much harder than taking them and taking was no easy walk in the park but a blood bath all its own. In holding, one faced an extremely well armed and aggressive population Hell bent on exterminating or driving out the aggressor.

This well armed population was what allowed the various White factions to rise up, no matter how disorganized politically and militarily they were in 1918 and wage a savage civil war against the Reds. It should be noted that many of these armies were armed peasants, villagers, farmers and merchants, protecting their own. If it had not been for Washington's clandestine support of and for the Reds, history would have gone quite differently.

Moscow fell, for example, not from a lack of weapons to defend it, but from the lieing guile of the Reds. Ten thousand Reds took Moscow and were opposed only by some few hundreds of officer cadets and their instructors. Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed. The Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene. They did not and for that were asked afterwards to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly shot.

Of course being savages, murderers and liars does not mean being stupid and the Reds learned from their Civil War experience. One of the first things they did was to disarm the population. From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers that were. The worst they had to fear was a pitchfork in the guts or a knife in the back or the occasional hunting rifle. Not much for soldiers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
Hamilton most assuredly wanted such a system, but to keep the spoils at home, all the more for the locals, and an aristocracy more developed than the crude monopolies of the British East India Company et al.

Jefferson and Madison recognized this from the outset, and at least partially succeeded against the effort.

And your point is? Basically all I said was the founding fathers wanted to consolidate their power in the colonies which they did. The idea they cared anymore for the freedom of ordinary colonist any more than the ritish did doesn't stand up to a modicum of scrutiny.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn


It most certainly does for those who have troubled themselves enough to be aware of Jefferson, Madison et al. who fought against the private monopolization of political and economic power. They were among the founders, BTW, and were presidents also.

Andrew Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and others to a lesser extent all had some success in limiting the concentration of power to the financial elite, or at least fought publicly against it, however successful or not.

Today, all previous efforts to that end have been brushed aside and we are suffering the consequences, but that does not negate the history of previous successful efforts at keeping the hounds at bay, starting with more than a few of the founding fathers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

Considering there is some 200 Milion rifles, shotguns, pistol etc and the number is growing, all in the US private sector..I fail to see your point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro
And when are all the gun owners going to stop believing that owning guns will end crime. Currently we have in the public domain a firearm for just about every man woman and child....crime still happens.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

You are right, air bags dont. They mitigate the potential damage to the victim.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
You are right, air bags dont. They mitigate the potential damage to the victim.

Think a few armed civilians might have mitigated some of the damage to the victims of mass shootings?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
You are right, air bags dont. They mitigate the potential damage to the victim.

Think a few armed civilians might have mitigated some of the damage to the victims of mass shootings?

Of course not, Yachtie. That shit only happens in the movies. Or does it.....?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Also a handgun ban.... lol... interesting....

Summary of 2013 legislation

Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:

Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
120 specifically-named firearms;
Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and
Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.

Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test;
Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test; and
Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans.

Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;
Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes; and
Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.

Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
Background check of owner and any transferee;
Type and serial number of the firearm;
Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.

A pdf of the bill summary is available here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
Hamilton most assuredly wanted such a system, but to keep the spoils at home, all the more for the locals, and an aristocracy more developed than the crude monopolies of the British East India Company et al.

Jefferson and Madison recognized this from the outset, and at least partially succeeded against the effort.

And your point is? Basically all I said was the founding fathers wanted to consolidate their power in the colonies which they did. The idea they cared anymore for the freedom of ordinary colonist any more than the ritish did doesn't stand up to a modicum of scrutiny.

It most certainly does for those who have troubled themselves enough to be aware of Jefferson, Madison et al. who fought against the private monopolization of political and economic power. They were among the founders, BTW, and were presidents also.

Andrew Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and others to a lesser extent all had some success in limiting the concentration of power to the financial elite, or at least fought publicly against it, however successful or not.

Today, all previous efforts to that end have been brushed aside and we are suffering the consequences, but that does not negate the history of previous successful efforts at keeping the hounds at bay, starting with more than a few of the founding fathers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

How did the off duty officer mitigate the damages to the two who were shot? She didnt.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro



And when are all the gun owners going to stop believeing that owning guns will end crime. Currently we have in the public domain a firearm for just about every man woman and child....crime still happens. We have some 2.3 million people behind bars.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

The military, in Jefferson's time, was to run two years before needing congressional approval again. The military also did not provide arms.

Do you see the problem with pulling up the past to excuse the present?

Actually, no.

Look at Israel and Switzerland.

Yeah, look at Isreal. All peaceful, yes?

quote:

The Swiss does not have a standing army, and havent had one for its entire history.

The Military of Switzerland perform the roles of Switzerland's militia and regular army. Under the country's militia system, professional soldiers constitute about 5 percent of military personnel; the rest are male citizen conscripts 19 to 34 (in some cases up to 50) years old. Because of a long history of neutrality, the army does not take part in armed conflicts in other countries, but takes part in peacekeeping missions around the world.

They have a standing army.

quote:

Israel has a total military manpower of 3,511,190 with a standing army of 187,000. It has never been successfully invaded, even when outnumbered and against countries with better equipment.

Successfully invaded? Curious choice of words. They have been invaded.

The largest army is Chinas, almost double ours. Our reserves double theirs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_active_troops

Something also of note. Israel is 5th highest when looking at the total per 1000 capita in the military and 4th highest when it comes to the active per capita... at 22.2 . The US... 4.7. The Swiss, 2.9.

749,550.... Israel total military.... 7,956,000 their population. Roughly 10% of their country is military.

The US.... 2,927,754 .. total military excluding local state and federal police..... population we already know is around 311,591,917, ... less than 1%.

The Swiss.... 276,130... population.... 7,907,000... 3%.

Both the Swiss and Israel have conscription, the US does not.

quote:

Switzerland has mandatory military service (German: Militärdienst; French: service militaire; Italian: servizio militare) in the Swiss Army for all able-bodied male citizens, who are conscripted when they reach the age of majority,[1] though women may volunteer for any position.[2]
People determined unfit for service, where fitness is defined as "satisfying physically, intellectually and mentally requirements for military service or civil protection service and being capable of accomplishing these services without harming oneself or others",[3] are exempted from service but pay an additional 3% of annual income tax until the age of 30, unless they are affected by a disability.[4]

In all honesty, can we really compare these countries? Pointing to Israel and Swiss as excuses to pull the past as an excuse for the present does not work.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro
And when are all the gun owners going to stop believeing that owning guns will end crime. Currently we have in the public domain a firearm for just about every man woman and child....crime still happens. We have some 2.3 million people behind bars.

When will you people learn that banning guns will not end gun crime.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

The reasoning was simple, to keep the government of the people in the hands of the people.

a. A well regulated militia---The goal
b. being necessary to the security of a free State,---The reason
c. the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.---The means of accomplishing the goal.

quote:

"Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." Tench Coxe, one of the framers of the amendment.

quote:

"Congress may give us a select militia which will, in fact, be a standing army - or Congress, afraid of a general militia, may say there shall be no militia at all. When a select militia is formed, the people in general may be disarmed."

-John Smilie

Then of course there are the words of Mao, the political power comes from the right to own firearms. As long as the people maintain that right, the government is held in check.

The original version of the 2nd amendment was as follows:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of baring arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Congress moved the individual rights to be secondary to the security of a free country, and of course dropped the religious exemption all together.

What this means is that the security of the state is primary, the rights of the individual are secondary but not eliminated. In the modern United States, the National Guard can be nationalized over the objections of the state's governors by executive order, which President Bush used a few times to call up the national guard units of various states for duty in Afghanistan and Iraq.

For this reason, under the Militia Act of 1903, many states established State Defense Forces, the members of which supply their own firearms, ammo and gear. While these forces are intended to support the National Guard, they are not subject to call by the federal government.

Jon Roland made some points in his paper "The Constitutional Militia."

quote:

Essentially, a militiaman is any citizen in his capacity as a defender of the state. By "state" we do not mean "the government", but a community of citizens in possession of a territory. A citizen whose behavior makes him an enemy of the state is not a militiaman, because he cannot both defend the state and attack it at the same time. Furthermore, he may have official duties, such as serving in an executive, judicial, or legislative position, or as a member in the armed forces, which take precedence over general militia duties. Therefore, in the broadest sense, the Militia is all citizens who are not enemies of the state and who do not have official duties that take precedence over their militia duties. That may include officials when they are off-duty.

If you defend yourself against a criminal attack, what you are really doing is not just defending yourself. You are calling up the militia, consisting of yourself, to defend a member of the community, also consisting of yourself, and thereby forming a militia of one. If you ask someone else to help you, you are calling up the militia consisting of the two of you.

Although every citizen has the duty to defend the state, that duty extends only as far as he is able to carry it out. No one has the duty to do what is impossible for him. On the other hand, he has the duty to exercise his abilities to make them as great as he can. His duty does not begin when a situation arises that requires him to act. He also has a duty to prepare to respond to any reasonably foreseeable contingencies.
Complete Article.

All these thoughts on the Second Amendment implies that the state militia and those members of the citizenry are responsible for the defense of the state, and to fulfill this requirement, it stands to reason that they should be able to arm themselves with weapons comparable to, if not exact weapon model, those of the military.

However, there have been restrictions placed on who can own firearms that have stood against the second amendment.

The 1968 Gun Control Act became part of Title 18 of the U.S. Code (Criminal Code), and prohibited the selling of firearms to anyone suspected of being:

under indictment or convicted of a felony

a fugitive from justice

a drug user

a mental defective or having been in a mental institution

unfit for any other reason

Thus when the shooter in the Virginia Tech incident purchased his weapons that he used to commit the act, it was not breakdown of the system that allowed him to purchase weapons that under the law he was not legally allowed to own.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro
And when are all the gun owners going to stop believeing that owning guns will end crime. Currently we have in the public domain a firearm for just about every man woman and child....crime still happens. We have some 2.3 million people behind bars.

When will you people learn that banning guns will not end gun crime.

I don't think anyone is claiming it will end gun crime.

But, when will gun owners acknowledge that the less guns that are available to be borrowed, stolen or otherwise 'acquired', the number of gun-related crimes will fall??
Throwing more guns into the arena = more guns to be had to commit such crimes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro
And when are all the gun owners going to stop believeing that owning guns will end crime. Currently we have in the public domain a firearm for just about every man woman and child....crime still happens. We have some 2.3 million people behind bars.

When will you people learn that banning guns will not end gun crime.

I don't think anyone is claiming it will end gun crime.

But, when will gun owners acknowledge that the less guns that are available to be borrowed, stolen or otherwise 'acquired', the number of gun-related crimes will fall??
Throwing more guns into the arena = more guns to be had to commit such crimes.

Simple, if I want a firearm that is not legally available in the US, if I am willing to accept the consequences if caught with said firearm, I can get the weapon into the states relatively easily.

Short of customs completely dismantling a car, truck, van, boat or 18 wheeler, there are plenty of simple ways to get illegal guns into the states, actually any country for that matter.

quote:

Didn't. You're correct on that part. But your inferring something too.

quote:

That's ludicrous in the manner you're expressing it as opposed to your original airbag mitigation. The airbag mitigates YOUR damage (car occupants). The fact that a firearm could also mitigate damage to someone else is tantamount to your using your car as the mitigation device. Alternatively, it's equivalent to extending your airbag system and protecting them.

quote:

Just as easily could have been, couldn't it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

The reasoning was simple, to keep the government of the people in the hands of the people.

a. A well regulated militia---The goal
b. being necessary to the security of a free State,---The reason
c. the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.---The means of accomplishing the goal.

quote:

"Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." Tench Coxe, one of the framers of the amendment.

quote:

"Congress may give us a select militia which will, in fact, be a standing army - or Congress, afraid of a general militia, may say there shall be no militia at all. When a select militia is formed, the people in general may be disarmed."

-John Smilie

Then of course there are the words of Mao, the political power comes from the right to own firearms. As long as the people maintain that right, the government is held in check.

The original version of the 2nd amendment was as follows:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of baring arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Congress moved the individual rights to be secondary to the security of a free country, and of course dropped the religious exemption all together.

What this means is that the security of the state is primary, the rights of the individual are secondary but not eliminated. In the modern United States, the National Guard can be nationalized over the objections of the state's governors by executive order, which President Bush used a few times to call up the national guard units of various states for duty in Afghanistan and Iraq.

For this reason, under the Militia Act of 1903, many states established State Defense Forces, the members of which supply their own firearms, ammo and gear. While these forces are intended to support the National Guard, they are not subject to call by the federal government.

Jon Roland made some points in his paper "The Constitutional Militia."

quote:

Essentially, a militiaman is any citizen in his capacity as a defender of the state. By "state" we do not mean "the government", but a community of citizens in possession of a territory. A citizen whose behavior makes him an enemy of the state is not a militiaman, because he cannot both defend the state and attack it at the same time. Furthermore, he may have official duties, such as serving in an executive, judicial, or legislative position, or as a member in the armed forces, which take precedence over general militia duties. Therefore, in the broadest sense, the Militia is all citizens who are not enemies of the state and who do not have official duties that take precedence over their militia duties. That may include officials when they are off-duty.

If you defend yourself against a criminal attack, what you are really doing is not just defending yourself. You are calling up the militia, consisting of yourself, to defend a member of the community, also consisting of yourself, and thereby forming a militia of one. If you ask someone else to help you, you are calling up the militia consisting of the two of you.

Although every citizen has the duty to defend the state, that duty extends only as far as he is able to carry it out. No one has the duty to do what is impossible for him. On the other hand, he has the duty to exercise his abilities to make them as great as he can. His duty does not begin when a situation arises that requires him to act. He also has a duty to prepare to respond to any reasonably foreseeable contingencies.
Complete Article.

All these thoughts on the Second Amendment implies that the state militia and those members of the citizenry are responsible for the defense of the state, and to fulfill this requirement, it stands to reason that they should be able to arm themselves with weapons comparable to, if not exact weapon model, those of the military.

However, there have been restrictions placed on who can own firearms that have stood against the second amendment.

The 1968 Gun Control Act became part of Title 18 of the U.S. Code (Criminal Code), and prohibited the selling of firearms to anyone suspected of being:

under indictment or convicted of a felony

a fugitive from justice

a drug user

a mental defective or having been in a mental institution

unfit for any other reason

Thus when the shooter in the Virginia Tech incident purchased his weapons that he used to commit the act, it was not breakdown of the system that allowed him to purchase weapons that under the law he was not legally allowed to own.