"Armed citizenry" would have been more appropriate. In that time the militia was the armed citizenry; hence the right to keep and bear arms. The king was not going to give up his colonies in the new world easily.
Hence the reason the conservatives want to stack the court with like minded individuals. The 2A isn't a slam dunk meaning we are guaranteed to have a gun in the home. The amendment is not clear and it is the interpretation of the court that is what the NRA and others are fighting for.I believe the USSC clarified the 2A pretty well in the Heller decision. Still more work to do, but it was a good start.
Sure we do. We need those things, so we seek them. Others do, too, so they try to seek them. We wind up wanting the same thing. To protect what we need, we defend it. To defend it, we need a way to fight. While we could use our fists, fists, rocks, and firearms aren't a far cry from each other.If you really want to get down to it, none of us "need" anything beyond shelter from the elements, water and food. But it's nice to have stuff in addition.
To turn it around, we are now told we "need" things that we all got along perfectly fine without until some expert told us otherwise. Flu shots. Car seats for the babies. There's a good one, my two kids were in a car seat every single ride of their lives until the age/weight they graduated to seat belts. We never- not once- had an accident with them in the car their entire childhood. In retrospect we didn't "need" to have them in car seats at all.
The 2A isn't a slam dunk meaning we are guaranteed to have a gun in the home. The amendment is not clear and it is the interpretation of the court that is what the NRA and others are fighting for.
Per federal law, all able bodied males, 18-45 are a member of the irregular militia. Apply that logic to bound firearm ownership and the "male" and age requirements both disappear for discrimination... then we're all a member of a militia anyhow.Well, my wife is a deputy prosecutor- much more capable at reading the actual constitution and related law than it. So you will miss her read of the law.
Regardless, the 2A does not state things as clearly as I've heard many say. The word militia in there doesn't help either.
Then you have to take in case law - basically where the court rules previously. This is why the uber liberal and uber conservative try to stack the courts with like minded individuals.
While I doubt we will ever know the whole truth and I realize this has the potential to get me labeled as a conspiracy theorist. I don't think this is just a guy who snapped. There was too much planning on his part. I believe there is more to the story and at least what we have been told so far doesn't add up. The 23 or 24 guns is purposeful, the bump stocks were purposeful, the tanerite was purposeful. As mentioned by @denverpilot more guns does not equal more actual lead down range. I could see a maybe four or five guns and that is if he had a few staged for "fighting his way out" or "making a last stand" but 23-24 along with the other things I mentioned is making a statement of some sort. Now finding out exactly what that statement is might take awhile. It could be as simple as crazy runs in the family and he was trying to one up his father.
The last part. Once the discussion degrades to "is it needed" the lines are drawn and there is little chance of changing anyone's mind (or heart).
I know anti-gun atheists and pistol packing bible thumpers. Talk about different perceptions of '"need."
It's a sad secret that cops' training in actual handgun combat is pretty thin. It's well inferior to even amateur competition match shooters. We had cops in our classes and matches because that's where they could get good.
I similarly avoid states that won't honor my permit, or at least allow some kind of protection. The one I ran in to most with my TX CHL/LTC was Illinois, but now they allow travelers the ability to carry in their car (but only their car). In other states, I'd comply with federal transport laws.
Anyway- it seems in America you are either conservative or liberal. I could never identify with either. I guess I'm just a dumb old RINO...
IMO it not the best strategic move by the NRA but was proposed by the founders of our great nation to preserve human rights from being usurped by the King of England who detested the thought of the colonies having the nerve to declare independence and was willing to take over by force.
Regardless, the 2A does not state things as clearly as I've heard many say. The word militia in there doesn't help either.
Then you have to take in case law - basically where the court rules previously. This is why the uber liberal and uber conservative try to stack the courts with like minded individuals.
Who this enemy is you guys keep talking about. Is it LEO? The DOD?
Hence the reason the conservatives want to stack the court with like minded individuals. The 2A isn't a slam dunk meaning we are guaranteed to have a gun in the home. The amendment is not clear and it is the interpretation of the court that is what the NRA and others are fighting for.
Not "protecting my 2 A rights" is basically a rallying cry right now.
We're reached a point of agreement.Well, the conversation was good until the LEO comments. There are bad ones- they are humans and (in my opinion) under paid. I get to meet a lot of the LEOs areound here. The problems they deal with almost daily are not the ones you want to hear about.
The new story that he thought he was going to fight his way out and go to Lolapalooza next, is even more suspect. There’s so much misinformation around this dude, it’s incredible. A couple of weeks into most of these and we have a full profile showing they’re a loon, and we still don’t have that with this guy. Someone is REALLY embarrassed by something they know about this guy.
Who this enemy is you guys keep talking about. Is it LEO? The DOD?
Actually the training for young women is a very good idea.
Also consider a martial art. My wife did KukSulWan but TAE Kwan Do is pretty popular. It is a good defensive philosophy, teaches coordination and much more.
To be honest, "hand to hand combat " is more likely to be needed in every day life than a gun.
Oh yes. We also had our girls in martial arts from the second grade. Our eldest is now a 6th degree black belt and the youngest is "only" a second degree I believe.
Well, the conversation was good until the LEO comments. There are bad ones- they are humans and (in my opinion) under paid. I get to meet a lot of the LEOs areound here. The problems they deal with almost daily are not the ones you want to hear about.
Nate,
Given that he had such a low profile I think it will take some time for the feds to reach a conclusion. It is going to take time to research him and discover his motives.
Well, the conversation was good until the LEO comments. There are bad ones- they are humans and (in my opinion) under paid. I get to meet a lot of the LEOs areound here. The problems they deal with almost daily are not the ones you want to hear about.
I'm game for a muzzle loader as long as the powers that be go back to a quill and ink.Could go to the extreme to only allow a muzzle loader - to satisfy the "what was available then".
I'm game for a muzzle loader as long as the powers that be go back to a quill and ink.
My only point on the LEO conversation is, well, bad taste. And I don't get the "there going to get me" feeling of some. I guess I've met too many "LEOs" that they are not some mysterious three letter term, but actual people.
Those who write the dumbass laws. LEO's are just the enforcers. The cool part about living here in AZ is that the majority of LEO's are avid 2A supporters and would fight right along with us to keep those rights.Again I ask, who are the powers that be? LEO? DOD?
If there is a class action lawsuit coming out of this, my money is on it involving a pharmaceutical company, not firearms manufacturer.
Not likely. Class action needs a deep pocket. Drug companies are much juicier targets than a lone doc with an insurance policy.Or a prescribing psychiatrist.
Not likely. Class action needs a deep pocket. Drug companies are much juicier targets than a lone doc with an insurance policy.
And, depending on the drug, there may be some connections to other shootings.
If it turns out the dude was taking Cymbalta, like some have theorized....holy ****.
Even the most ardent of anti-gunners wouldn't even consider that. Psycho drugs are sacred cows to those guys. No way would they ever approve of putting themselves on a watchlist.So, if a person was prescribed this sort of drug, would you put them on a government watchlist and prohibit them from buying firearms, ammunition and stupid things like bump stocks?
He can have the bullets. And anyone who would rather be a victim than touch a gun can make that choice. That's the beauty of freedom.There is a school of thought that having a gun provides you attacker with one.
And BTW, the bump-stock manufacturer has statutory immunity. It doesn't mean there won't be a lawsuit--plenty of scumbag lawyers out there--but it's very unlikely to be successful.
Yes, crazy and violent people should not have guns
The other issue to think about is that there has never been a mass murderer/shooter/bomber that everyone who knew him said (afterwards) 'we always knew he would do something crazy someday'
Yes, every single one was already known to be strange/hostile/explosive, yadda yadda
As a society we knew he was a powder keg and we stood around and let him do it
Does that suggest anything
Let me think now, which party with their important people, is demanding I give up my gun? hmmmm
I give up.Which party would that be?