Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Defending the House with Guns!


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Defending the House with Guns! Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Defending the House with Guns! - 9/12/2015 7:53:05 AM   
kdsub


Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline
quote:

Maybe they went and robbed a gun hater


Nah... just some dumb ass that leaves his gun in the car... then they'll come back to you someday armed better.

Butch

< Message edited by kdsub -- 9/12/2015 8:25:14 AM >

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Defending the House with Guns! - 9/12/2015 8:13:43 AM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline
I wonder how unsafe the wife in this incident felt beforehand.

Some of my female clients have had unstable boyfriends and husbands who kept guns under the bed or in side drawers. In two cases the women left the relationship altogether (before anything really bad happened.)

For the spouse of an unstable man, a gun has to be an unspeakable menace.





< Message edited by cloudboy -- 9/12/2015 8:15:18 AM >

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Defending the House with Guns! - 9/12/2015 8:41:14 AM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


For the spouse of an unstable man a gun has to be an unspeakable menace.





I'm so glad that women are never unstable.

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Defending the House with Guns! - 9/12/2015 8:56:49 AM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

My firearm protected me and mine once.

Noone even had to get hurt. The group of young gentlemen decided that there was easier prey elsewhere. Maybe they went and robbed a gun hater.

I, two members of my family and a few friends have also had experiences like yours. And even Blumberg has admitted that guns are used to stop crimes far more often than to committ them.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Defending the House with Guns! - 9/12/2015 9:04:07 AM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
Joe, you mustn't blame this on guns. Guns are lovely.


I'm not blaming guns. I'm blaming society whom thinks law enforcement should be tightly regulated, while Billy-Bob, the redneck moron with a shotgun can have all the protections that law enforcement get due to the 2nd amendment, without all the limitations and regulations that do go with it. Put another way; some people can not shout 'fire' in a crowded threater, but, those that have a corrupted viewpoint of the 1st are allowed. Does that sound fair?

If you want the protections of the 2nd amendment; your held to the same regulations, duties, and rules of "A well regulated militia...." (i.e. police officers). As I pointed out, police officers are checked often to see, what, if any life stress-ers are creating a possible problem. Police Officers have families the same as anyone else. Some make bad financial decisions, just like anyone else. Police officers may know many things; but they are human the same as you and me. When 'up against a wall', the mind has a strange way of 'figuring' solutions that no sane person would arrive at. That is why there are internal reviews of the officer's behavior and status. To keep 'insane police officers' from rampaging through town and killing people!

We have people whom have legally purchased a firearm; yet, how stable is the individual? How about four years down the road when any number of 'life's crap' decides to take its toll on the individual? Do we have any routine systems to check the individual with a firearm? Since many of recent mass shootings seem to have two qualities: 1 ) a person experience some heavy difficulties in life and 2 ) Easy access to a firearm.

This is in part because you have, as has been repeatedly pointed out, totally distorted the 2nd. You even once, long ago admitted that your definition of the 2nd is completly at odds with the writters definition but that your superior wisdom overrides it. Notice that last week you ignored the case in St Louis where an 11 year old stopped a home invasion with......a gun.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Defending the House with Guns! - 9/12/2015 9:21:48 AM   
CreativeDominant


Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
Joe, you mustn't blame this on guns. Guns are lovely.


I'm not blaming guns. I'm blaming society whom thinks law enforcement should be tightly regulated, while Billy-Bob, the redneck moron with a shotgun can have all the protections that law enforcement get due to the 2nd amendment, without all the limitations and regulations that do go with it. Put another way; some people can not shout 'fire' in a crowded threater, but, those that have a corrupted viewpoint of the 1st are allowed. Does that sound fair?

If you want the protections of the 2nd amendment; your held to the same regulations, duties, and rules of "A well regulated militia...." (i.e. police officers). As I pointed out, police officers are checked often to see, what, if any life stress-ers are creating a possible problem. Police Officers have families the same as anyone else. Some make bad financial decisions, just like anyone else. Police officers may know many things; but they are human the same as you and me. When 'up against a wall', the mind has a strange way of 'figuring' solutions that no sane person would arrive at. That is why there are internal reviews of the officer's behavior and status. To keep 'insane police officers' from rampaging through town and killing people!

We have people whom have legally purchased a firearm; yet, how stable is the individual? How about four years down the road when any number of 'life's crap' decides to take its toll on the individual? Do we have any routine systems to check the individual with a firearm? Since many of recent mass shootings seem to have two qualities: 1 ) a person experience some heavy difficulties in life and 2 ) Easy access to a firearm.

This is in part because you have, as has been repeatedly pointed out, totally distorted the 2nd. You even once, long ago admitted that your definition of the 2nd is completly at odds with the writters definition but that your superior wisdom overrides it. Notice that last week you ignored the case in St Louis where an 11 year old stopped a home invasion with......a gun.

Come on, Bama...you know that story has to be a hoax.

First...an 11 year-old with a gun? That's only those who want to kill their classmates and teachers.

Second...defense of home and family? Come on Bama, you KNOW that the only reason there's a gun in the home is so somebody "kin go shoot sumpin'".

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Defending the House with Guns! - 9/12/2015 10:22:21 AM   
subrob1967


Posts: 4591
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
"A well regulated militia...." (i.e. police officers).

Police officers are not militia, bozo.


A well regulated militia (according to colonial history):

1 ) A direct chain of command system
2 ) Rules of conduct
3 ) Penalties for violation of #2
4 ) Rules regarding all aspects of duty

Police officers have a chain of command. They must follow laws and regulations. If they do not, they get penalized for them. So 'yes', modern era police officers are the 18th century version of "A well regulated militia....".

Back in the 18th century, most communities did not have a standing police force. How did law enforcement handle highwaymen? Pirates? Natives attacking? They called the militia! The militia was the police force when the local sheriff or 'administer of justice' could not handle the problem on their own. Large cities would be the first to have a standing police force in the 19th century (Boston being the first). Outside of that, militias were the 'backbone' of law enforcement if they needed help.

When my hometown was formed, just two dozen families lived within. It had one 'law enforcement' official whom handled it and a few surrounding towns. In 2015, you would have me believe just one law man could keep my town safe from crime? YOUR AN IDIOT if you think that is possible. It takes a militia group to keep the town safe. We call them the police!



So Joe shows his true colors and wants to go back to the 1800's and own black people.... Got it.


_____________________________

http://www.extra-life.org/

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Defending the House with Guns! - 9/12/2015 10:22:57 AM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

Maybe they went and robbed a gun hater


Nah... just some dumb ass that leaves his gun in the car... then they'll come back to you someday armed better.

Butch

His was over a decade ago, they haven't come back yet, and neither I, my family or freinds have had anyone come back for 2nds.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to kdsub)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Defending the House with Guns! - 9/12/2015 10:24:18 AM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
Joe, you mustn't blame this on guns. Guns are lovely.


I'm not blaming guns. I'm blaming society whom thinks law enforcement should be tightly regulated, while Billy-Bob, the redneck moron with a shotgun can have all the protections that law enforcement get due to the 2nd amendment, without all the limitations and regulations that do go with it. Put another way; some people can not shout 'fire' in a crowded threater, but, those that have a corrupted viewpoint of the 1st are allowed. Does that sound fair?

If you want the protections of the 2nd amendment; your held to the same regulations, duties, and rules of "A well regulated militia...." (i.e. police officers). As I pointed out, police officers are checked often to see, what, if any life stress-ers are creating a possible problem. Police Officers have families the same as anyone else. Some make bad financial decisions, just like anyone else. Police officers may know many things; but they are human the same as you and me. When 'up against a wall', the mind has a strange way of 'figuring' solutions that no sane person would arrive at. That is why there are internal reviews of the officer's behavior and status. To keep 'insane police officers' from rampaging through town and killing people!

We have people whom have legally purchased a firearm; yet, how stable is the individual? How about four years down the road when any number of 'life's crap' decides to take its toll on the individual? Do we have any routine systems to check the individual with a firearm? Since many of recent mass shootings seem to have two qualities: 1 ) a person experience some heavy difficulties in life and 2 ) Easy access to a firearm.

This is in part because you have, as has been repeatedly pointed out, totally distorted the 2nd. You even once, long ago admitted that your definition of the 2nd is completly at odds with the writters definition but that your superior wisdom overrides it. Notice that last week you ignored the case in St Louis where an 11 year old stopped a home invasion with......a gun.

Come on, Bama...you know that story has to be a hoax.

First...an 11 year-old with a gun? That's only those who want to kill their classmates and teachers.

Second...defense of home and family? Come on Bama, you KNOW that the only reason there's a gun in the home is so somebody "kin go shoot sumpin'".

LOL

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to CreativeDominant)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Defending the House with Guns! - 9/12/2015 10:55:03 AM   
kdsub


Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline 		Yea... funny how many guns do... in fact i would say a good many crimes are committed with stolen guns... just this week in my little town there have been two guns stolen from parked cars at our local Wall Mart... we gun owners are just too careless as a whole I'm afraid.

Butch

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Defending the House with Guns! - 9/12/2015 11:10:17 AM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Yea... funny how many guns do... in fact i would say a good many crimes are committed with stolen guns... just this week in my little town there have been two guns stolen from parked cars at our local Wall Mart... we gun owners are just too careless as a whole I'm afraid.

Butch

No, some gun owners are careless. Gun owners as a whole are not. Part of the problem is with the stores, in those cases did Walmart ban guns from the store? If they did it forced the owners to store their guns in less than preffered situations. Here they are only allowed to ban open carry. If the gun owner had his firearm on him it couldn't be stolen from his car.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to kdsub)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Defending the House with Guns! - 9/12/2015 12:26:20 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

A well regulated militia (according to colonial history):



According to the dick act there are no more militia. Consequently your opinions about a non existant organization are less than interesting to the point of irrelevancy

< Message edited by thompsonx -- 9/12/2015 12:27:00 PM >

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Defending the House with Guns! - 9/12/2015 12:39:33 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

No, some gun owners are careless. Gun owners as a whole are not.



This would be your ignorant unsubstantiated opinion and nothing more.


quote:

Part of the problem is with the stores, in those cases did Walmart ban guns from the store?



A store, like an individual has the legal right to say whether they allow guns on their premisis. It is not for some sniviling punk to tell another that they must accomodate you. For you to seek to avoid responsibility it typical. It is always someone elses fault. Does not the gun owner have a responsibility to be responsible?


quote:

If they did it forced


What right do you have to force the store owner to allow you to come in his store armed?


quote:

the owners to store their guns in less than preffered situations.


Just anoter case of a not responsible gun owner that you would excuse.


quote:

Here they are only allowed to ban open carry. If the gun owner had his firearm on him it couldn't be stolen from his car.



Didn't I cite you a case where a "responsible gun owner" was robbed of his new pistol as he left the store?

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Defending the House with Guns! - 9/12/2015 12:43:28 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

In order for your 'argument' to be true; *ALL SIX* would have to be untrue.

You're making shit up again.

If I'm making shit up; it should be easy to produce evidence. Where is your evidence?

Right in front of you: Your claim that the validity of my position depends on irrelevant factors. To say you made that up may have been overly optimistic, perhaps you really believe it, but I thought it a kindness at the time to give your (already questionable) sanity the benefit of doubt.


First off, your 'position' is to attack me on any topic and subject, irrelevent of the topic or subject. That's not a discussion or debate; that's animosity!

Second, you do not have the facts nor the evidence. So you make as much noise as you can to 'battle me'.

Third, you have yet to make an ACTUAL solid arguement....RELATED....to the primary thread.

Fourth, my sanity is quite stable. That you do not have access to my medical records is a good thing! An you would not know a mental or emotional disorder if you were speaking to someone that had such a problem!

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Defending the House with Guns! - 9/12/2015 12:59:31 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
"A well regulated militia...." (i.e. police officers).

Police officers are not militia, bozo.


A well regulated militia (according to colonial history):

1 ) A direct chain of command system
2 ) Rules of conduct
3 ) Penalties for violation of #2
4 ) Rules regarding all aspects of duty

Police officers have a chain of command. They must follow laws and regulations. If they do not, they get penalized for them. So 'yes', modern era police officers are the 18th century version of "A well regulated militia....".

Back in the 18th century, most communities did not have a standing police force. How did law enforcement handle highwaymen? Pirates? Natives attacking? They called the militia! The militia was the police force when the local sheriff or 'administer of justice' could not handle the problem on their own. Large cities would be the first to have a standing police force in the 19th century (Boston being the first). Outside of that, militias were the 'backbone' of law enforcement if they needed help.

When my hometown was formed, just two dozen families lived within. It had one 'law enforcement' official whom handled it and a few surrounding towns. In 2015, you would have me believe just one law man could keep my town safe from crime? YOUR AN IDIOT if you think that is possible. It takes a militia group to keep the town safe. We call them the police!



my freakin' goodness---that police departments share something in common with militia in terms of organizational/administrative structure, does not make them the militia referred to in the constitution. by your definition, the local elks club and the boy scouts are the militia too. I seriously think you need help.


"A well regulated militia...." is not Bob, with his pistol. The framers had in mind a group of individuals whom would handle problems as an organization that protects the citizens from criminals and invaders alike. They had no idea how this organization would evolve over time. Just like they had no idea how firearm technology would change with the passage of time. That you can not seem to understand this basic concept, is your problem, not mine!

With the passage of the Posse Comitatus Act, it further required townships to devise a force of individuals to exist as a police force, rather than (using a modern term) national guard. This organization would have protections from local, state, and even federal laws thanks to the 2nd amendment.

So, Jim the farmer and Bob the deer hunter own a musket. Jim is part of the local militia. Bob is not. If a law came down (through what ever legal group) that muskets can only be used in a law enforcement capability. This would mean Jim the farmer could have and use his musket without change (being as he's part of the militia). Bob however, will either have to hunt deer with some other instrument of destruction or find a new career. That is how the 18th century (an un-corrupted) 2nd amendment operated. Within the last twenty years, the amendment has slowly been 'modified' so that any thug could have a gun. That any person, could have a gun, for any reason. The laws original meaning was forgotten and destablized from existing interpretations.

A corrupt law is one in which one or more individuals use it to gain a financial, political, or philosophical advantage that is well outside the confines or spirit (two separate document types) of the law. When this happens, the law starts to undermine the harmony the nation has enjoyed. None of us should be surprised that tragedies like the one in the OP take place almost weekly now. Because the 2nd amendment is being used and abused in a manner it was not designed to accomplish. The framers never stated firearms would be the sole property of government either. This means that unless one belonged to the local militia, they could have a firearm however they would have to abide by regulations at the local, state, and federal level.


(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Defending the House with Guns! - 9/12/2015 1:07:31 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

First off, your 'position' is to attack me on any topic and subject, irrelevent of the topic or subject. That's not a discussion or debate; that's animosity!



It looks more to me like anal myopia.
First: You are an easy target why not point out your ignorance. You don't seem to have any problem pointing out the ignorance of others
Second: If you did not say such monumentally stupid things no one would "pounce" on you.
third: When you do make a meaningful point you gloat like a third grader doing the happy dance...payback kinda sux huh???
fourth: No one dislikes you...think the relationship between the clint eastwood character and his barber in the movie "grand torino". By the same token no one wants to hold hands with you either.

This is a discussion board with a limited number of members. Get over yourself.

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: Defending the House with Guns! - 9/12/2015 1:11:59 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Couldn't live with events nor see his kids suffer due to his financial problems and actions. An example of the ugly side of capitalism in America!

How many have to die, before we decide to take steps to rein in the bullshit from the gun lobby and the lunatic right?

Would this be a result of the gun lobby or the capitalist right? If financial problems triggered this, then perhaps the best solution would be to eliminate financial problems in society.


This would be the result of a society that ignores the reality for a fantasy. Its been well documented that one does not need a mental or emotional disorder to sudden erupt and kill people (including their loved ones). There have been many instances in which a heated argument led to one side drawing a firearm and killing the other.

That Mr. Short felt he did not have any useful options shows a particular flaw in capitalism. The idea that capitalism does not need government to keep it controlled at all times. In order for capitalism to do well, it needs structure to the chaos of the market. One only has to study the whole of the NYSE to understand this concept of regulated capitalism. Could there been an option that allowed Mr. Short an alternative to events? Dont know...

The gun lobby does not care about average citizens. It cards about the gun industry's bottom line. If sensible firearm laws were proposed that the gun industry felt would lower their profits by even 0.00001%; the gun lobby would automatically oppose it. Most Americans want a number of sensible firearm laws (this includes firearm owners as well). Yet, the gun lobby is so powerful in our nation's government, that these laws are basically destroyed.

Which is why I'm not to surprised at the situation mentioned in the OP. I am sad to here that a fellow citizen had so much grief they could not handle life. Perhaps if people knew and could take action to help Mr. Short, this tragedy could have been avoided. One of those things would be a routine mental/emotional health check that we most states require of law enforcement. If a person is deemed to have a mental, emotional or both disorder that could impact society and compromise their abilities; they are routinely 'benched' until things can be restored if possible. If not, that person might have to find new career.

(in reply to Zonie63)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: Defending the House with Guns! - 9/12/2015 1:29:09 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
I wonder how unsafe the wife in this incident felt beforehand.

Some of my female clients have had unstable boyfriends and husbands who kept guns under the bed or in side drawers. In two cases the women left the relationship altogether (before anything really bad happened.)

For the spouse of an unstable man, a gun has to be an unspeakable menace.


An unchecked firearm that is not secured, when one or more individuals of that household suffer a mental, emotional (or both) disorder; is just asking for problems! Or of children finding dad's gun, thinks its a toy, BAM, junior or someone else is dead. Happens all the time....

Most women's shelters have many stories in which their boyfriend or husband stated he needed a firearm, but behaved more belligerent, aggressive, and stand-off-ish. In which several studies from different schools have pointed out, individuals are more likely to own a firearm. One does not see firearms used so carelessly when the husband is stable, in control, loving, and about as aggressive as anyone else.

Its been show from new sources and psychology study that when someone becomes angry enough; the front section of their brain 'turns off'. That the back half of the brain, the area that handles emotions, has to pull double duty (which it is not able to handle). This is known as 'Blind Rage'. An argument due to money problems (for example) between a pair of adults results in tempers flaring. One moment they are arguing, the next one is crying over the body of the other who has one or more gunshot wounds. Happens all the time!

None of the people 'defending' firearms has a leg to stand on in the argument. They do not have a counter to stuff like this. A person with a firearm in their household are many times more likely to have it used or be used in a situation that created tragedy (i.e. suicide), then to be used to defend from an intruder. The argument that firearms are there to protect against that evil intruder is just bullshit. Do these people subscribe to 'Padlock Monthy'? Do they were a NBC suit 24/7 because they are more likely to die from a tough flu virus than someone murdering them? No of course not. Because the arguments are bullshit!


(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: Defending the House with Guns! - 9/12/2015 1:35:07 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
My firearm protected me and mine once.

Noone even had to get hurt. The group of young gentlemen decided that there was easier prey elsewhere. Maybe they went and robbed a gun hater.

I, two members of my family and a few friends have also had experiences like yours. And even Blumberg has admitted that guns are used to stop crimes far more often than to committ them.


Yes, and your leaving out information in that 'argument'. The majority of those instances in which a firearm was used to stop a crime was....

...In the hands of a LAW ENFORCEMENT individual! A person whom is part of that '...Well Regulated Militia....' mentioned in the 2nd amendment! That you either understood Bloomberg's explanation and are intellectually dishonest, or you did not, in which case your not well informed.

Why is it when it comes to firearm discussions, those on the right are often intellectually dishonest? I can understand one being ignorant or uninformed; but spewing shit they knew is out of context is just low!


(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: Defending the House with Guns! - 9/12/2015 1:38:37 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
"A well regulated militia...." (i.e. police officers).

Police officers are not militia, bozo.


A well regulated militia (according to colonial history):

1 ) A direct chain of command system
2 ) Rules of conduct
3 ) Penalties for violation of #2
4 ) Rules regarding all aspects of duty

Police officers have a chain of command. They must follow laws and regulations. If they do not, they get penalized for them. So 'yes', modern era police officers are the 18th century version of "A well regulated militia....".

Back in the 18th century, most communities did not have a standing police force. How did law enforcement handle highwaymen? Pirates? Natives attacking? They called the militia! The militia was the police force when the local sheriff or 'administer of justice' could not handle the problem on their own. Large cities would be the first to have a standing police force in the 19th century (Boston being the first). Outside of that, militias were the 'backbone' of law enforcement if they needed help.

When my hometown was formed, just two dozen families lived within. It had one 'law enforcement' official whom handled it and a few surrounding towns. In 2015, you would have me believe just one law man could keep my town safe from crime? YOUR AN IDIOT if you think that is possible. It takes a militia group to keep the town safe. We call them the police!



So Joe shows his true colors and wants to go back to the 1800's and own black people.... Got it.



Talk about a moronic, knee jerk reaction to the topic. Did you even engage your brain once in that post?

The answer is 'no' on the grounds that I never stated 'lets go back to the 1800's and own blacks'. Try using that lump three feet above your ass as something besides a paper weight!

(in reply to subrob1967)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Defending the House with Guns! Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.125