 |
|
12-21-2012, 10:53 PM
|
#141
|
|
Gator Country Silver
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,407
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by COGatorman
As an attorney, I had the privilege of representing a few Columbine victim families in their suit against our county government for their inadequate response. To qualify that, my representational capacity was VERY limited (my business partner and fellow attorney referred me to help with some issues involving the delay of lack of armed response). I can tell you that at least the folks I spoke with and represented felt that had the school had some armed teachers/principal/security, the outcome that day would have been different and much less tragic. Are they right? I don't really know, but it certainly bears a thought. Our politicians are guarded by armed guards. Our military bases are guarded by armed guards. Our banks, hospitals, and even some grocery stores are guarded by armed guards. Yet our schools are "gun free" zones and innocent kids and teachers get killed. Hardly happens in other armed countries such as Switzerland and Israel - because they don't consider schools any different than other places that need security from invasion/crime.
As an aside, I believe we are on the path to very limited freedoms. The 2nd Amendment is not remotely about the right to hunt or defend one's home from invasion; it was clearly written (and there are plenty of historical documents regarding the debates and discussions about the 2nd Amendment that will bear this out) to provide an armed citizenry against tyrannical government - whether Great Britain or a new federal government to be established. It is simply the RIGHT that guarantees all other rights! As the 2nd Amendment is infringed, so will other rights we take for granted be infringed. The right to free speech, the right to the free exercise of religion, the right to free from a government sanctioned religion, the right to not quarter troops, the right to representation, the right to vote - these all depend on a government that is correctly afraid of its citizens. The right to keep and bear arms is the one right that separates citizens from subjects!
|
And yet, the 2nd amendment is qualified by the necessity of a militia, which is Constitutionally under the control of Congress and it's CIC, the President. The latter stipulations preceded the former. Whatever thoughts and discussions some had prior to the the writing of the Constitution, none of what you describe as the heart of the 2nd amendment was included in the Constitution and the amendment took several years to be added, and with the qualifying first phrase.
|
|
|
|
12-21-2012, 10:59 PM
|
#142
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,440
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Row6
And yet, the 2nd amendment is qualified by the necessity of a militia, which is Constitutionally under the control of Congress and it's CIC, the President. The latter stipulations preceded the former. Whatever thoughts and discussions some had prior to the the writing of the Constitution, none of what you describe as the heart of the 2nd amendment was included in the Constitution and the amendment took several years to be added, and with the qualifying first phrase.
|
The phrasing actually asserts the militia as a per se attribute of the free state, a sine qua non of a genuinely free society. It is not written in a way that concedes that there will ever be a time when the militia, vis a vis the citizen raised force to protect against tyrannical overreach, will ever be unnecessary.
And, I would go further and say that it clearly is still necessary. The mere fact that anyone has interest in using the power of government to disarm the citizenry is all the proof that takes. If the government would never act in a way that would bring it under institutional threat from those weapons, why would it ever want to take them away?
|
|
|
|
12-21-2012, 11:24 PM
|
#143
|
|
Gator Country Silver
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,407
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichiGator2002
The phrasing actually asserts the militia as a per se attribute of the free state, a sine qua non of a genuinely free society. It is not written in a way that concedes that there will ever be a time when the militia, vis a vis the citizen raised force to protect against tyrannical overreach, will ever be unnecessary.
And, I would go further and say that it clearly is still necessary. The mere fact that anyone has interest in using the power of government to disarm the citizenry is all the proof that takes. If the government would never act in a way that would bring it under institutional threat from those weapons, why would it ever want to take them away?
|
The vision of the founders to see a time when weaponry advancements went beyond rifleman was necessarily limited, as would have been the idea of a professional military infinitely more lethal than any grouping of untrained and disorganized citizens (as would be the case now). In fact the training of the militia was under the control of the federal government. If there is still a militia in contemporary America, it is the National Guard, not any random guy hanging out at gun shows.
As to your ending question, the obvious answer - and the one most Americans would agree is the reasoning behind gun control laws - is the danger to all citizens resulting from the easy accessibility of highly lethal weapons. Our national statistics when compared to other nations bears out this concern.
|
|
|
|
|
12-22-2012, 01:20 AM
|
#144
|
|
VIP Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,047
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Row6
The vision of the founders to see a time when weaponry advancements went beyond rifleman was necessarily limited, as would have been the idea of a professional military infinitely more lethal than any grouping of untrained and disorganized citizens (as would be the case now). In fact the training of the militia was under the control of the federal government. If there is still a militia in contemporary America, it is the National Guard, not any random guy hanging out at gun shows.
As to your ending question, the obvious answer - and the one most Americans would agree is the reasoning behind gun control laws - is the danger to all citizens resulting from the easy accessibility of highly lethal weapons. Our national statistics when compared to other nations bears out this concern.
|
what statistics bear out is that laws aren't the answer, be it laws vs drunk driving, underage drinking, theft, rape, murder, suicide, speeding, fraud, illegal drug use, legal drug abuse, graft, prostitution etc.... you cannot legislate against acts that do not make sense morally or practically, see suicide bombers, see child abuse. The answer doesn't lie with another ignored law, it lies with some reality that evil is present.
Taking away guns isn't the answer, further eroding protections of the constitution, or more dependency on the gov't aren't the answers either. I agree it would be cool if there was an answer as easy as let the government solve our problems, but that is pure willy wonka type of out there. There are approximately 75,000,000 gun owners in the US and 11000 gun related deaths a year, so even if that meant 11000 different shooters that is 0.00015 , let alone the 2 or 3 mass shootings that draw attention - that is 0.000000003, so I see the need for hyperbole and overreaction but it aint the answer.
Let's continue allowing nearly irrational fears of tragedy take away what freedom we do have left. Tragedies are going to continue to happen, it sucks, it hurts, but it is reality. Seriously you are more likely to be killed by lightening than a mass shooter in the USA. What happened in CO and CT is awful, tragic, but there is not a law anywhere that would or could have stopped it.
__________________
"Re: Well Jimbo.... Reply
Jimbo has proven he needs to surround himself with good coordinators. He simply is not a high level HC. Right now our coordinators are average at best." compliments of war chant after wake loss, gotta love it
|
|
|
|
|
12-22-2012, 01:51 AM
|
#145
|
|
Gator Country Gold
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Neptune Beach, Florida
Posts: 21,371
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by gator996
Aurora killer (Dark Knight movie theater) did all of his damage with a single Glock .22
|
Some, not all.
|
|
|
|
|
12-22-2012, 07:31 AM
|
#146
|
|
Gator Country Silver
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,407
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sappanama
what statistics bear out is that laws aren't the answer, be it laws vs drunk driving, underage drinking, theft, rape, murder, suicide, speeding, fraud, illegal drug use, legal drug abuse, graft, prostitution etc.... you cannot legislate against acts that do not make sense morally or practically, see suicide bombers, see child abuse. The answer doesn't lie with another ignored law, it lies with some reality that evil is present.
Taking away guns isn't the answer, further eroding protections of the constitution, or more dependency on the gov't aren't the answers either. I agree it would be cool if there was an answer as easy as let the government solve our problems, but that is pure willy wonka type of out there. There are approximately 75,000,000 gun owners in the US and 11000 gun related deaths a year, so even if that meant 11000 different shooters that is 0.00015 , let alone the 2 or 3 mass shootings that draw attention - that is 0.000000003, so I see the need for hyperbole and overreaction but it aint the answer.
Let's continue allowing nearly irrational fears of tragedy take away what freedom we do have left. Tragedies are going to continue to happen, it sucks, it hurts, but it is reality. Seriously you are more likely to be killed by lightening than a mass shooter in the USA. What happened in CO and CT is awful, tragic, but there is not a law anywhere that would or could have stopped it.
|
While I don't agree with you on your comments about guns, I do agree that it is unlikely we can do anything to stop incidents like Newton.
|
|
|
|
|
12-22-2012, 09:09 AM
|
#147
|
|
I'm your huckleberry
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: In my prime
Posts: 10,772
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Row6
It's qualified by the necessity of a militia, which is Constitutionally under the control of Congress and it's CIC, the President. The latter stipulations preceded the former.
|
You can only read the Second Amendment that way by flouting every ounce of precedent for the Bill of Rights in English law, as well as the arguments of both the Federalists and anti-Federalists, not to mention deliberate ignorance of the proposing remarks of James Madison, the author of the Second Amendment and much of the Constitution itself. As MichiGator suggests, it is just this sort of cavalier mendacity that affirms the truth that the need for the militia is timeless.
The opening clause of the Second Amendment when read without sophistry can only be perceived as a prefatory maxim, the timeless truth of that which is self evident to the authors, rather than a conditional statement. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is similarly perpetual. As the Bill of Rights is explicitly an enumeration of natural rights rather than an enactment, it can hardly be otherwise.
I note again that you have yet to appreciate the militia's inherent role as a check upon tyranny. The President may well be able to command the militia against a common enemy, but it is simply illogical to suppose that he could order the militia to oppress itself. And the founders quite openly intended it this way.
You also suggest yet again that it is ludicrous to suppose that a militia can oppose a state with a modern army. My retort is watch the news more, or pay better attention to it. Did Bautista crush Fidel? Why are we having so many problems in Afghanistan? How did we lose Vietnam?
__________________
Credat Judaeus Apella, non ego.
|
|
|
|
|
12-22-2012, 09:21 AM
|
#148
|
|
I'm your huckleberry
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: In my prime
Posts: 10,772
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Row6
If there is still a militia in contemporary America, it is the National Guard, not any random guy hanging out at gun shows.
|
Even Federal Law contradicts you: 10 USC § 311
__________________
Credat Judaeus Apella, non ego.
|
|
|
|
|
12-22-2012, 10:04 AM
|
#149
|
|
All American
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,821
|
If more guns everywhere are the solution to crime ...
... why isn't every airline passenger required to carry one
... why don't the Supreme Court justices, or any court anywhere, allow guns in their buildings
|
|
|
|
|
12-22-2012, 10:10 AM
|
#150
|
|
I'm your huckleberry
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: In my prime
Posts: 10,772
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by gatorlaw71
If more guns everywhere are the solution to crime ...
... why isn't every airline passenger required to carry one
... why don't the Supreme Court justices, or any court anywhere, allow guns in their buildings
|
Slippery slope
No one is advocating this
__________________
Credat Judaeus Apella, non ego.
|
|
|
|
|
12-22-2012, 10:13 AM
|
#151
|
|
Gator Country Gold
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 15,138
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rivergator
I don't know that having an armed people has had a single thing to do with our freedom.
|
Really????
|
|
|
|
|
12-22-2012, 10:18 AM
|
#152
|
|
I'm your huckleberry
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: In my prime
Posts: 10,772
|
It's kind of an eye opening statement, isn't it.
__________________
Credat Judaeus Apella, non ego.
|
|
|
|
|
12-22-2012, 10:23 AM
|
#153
|
|
Gator Country Diamond
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Inside the War Room, No Name City, FL
Posts: 26,903
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by gatorlaw71
If more guns everywhere are the solution to crime ...
... why isn't every airline passenger required to carry one
... why don't the Supreme Court justices, or any court anywhere, allow guns in their buildings
|
The only people allowed to carry guns into courthouses are court security and judges, including Supreme Court justices. But you know that.
Airlines ? Air Marshalls - to the extent they still exist - are the only ones with special training who can carry them, and they are trained to shoot bullets into miscreants if necessary, while flying.
But both of those venues have metal detectors that prospective gun carrying folks have to pass through first, resulting in the fact that only a controlled population of trained persons have firearms, for the specific purpose of quelling any violence. Guns indeed, are the best solution to crime in those instances.
__________________
On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
|
|
|
|
|
12-22-2012, 11:12 AM
|
#154
|
|
Heisman Candidate
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South Florida
Posts: 2,096
|
Columbine High School had an armed security officer on campus at the time of the 1999 shooting that killed 13 people. He even exchanged gunfire with one of the killers. Neither one of them was hit.
|
|
|
|
|
12-22-2012, 11:23 AM
|
#155
|
|
I'm your huckleberry
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: In my prime
Posts: 10,772
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtVandelay
Columbine High School had an armed security officer on campus at the time of the 1999 shooting that killed 13 people. He even exchanged gunfire with one of the killers. Neither one of them was hit.
|
Thus indicating the need to combine perimeter security. Or did you not notice this reply on the other thread?
__________________
Credat Judaeus Apella, non ego.
|
|
|
|
|
12-22-2012, 12:37 PM
|
#156
|
|
Gator Country Gold
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 15,138
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information
It's kind of an eye opening statement, isn't it.
|
In its own naivaty, yes.
|
|
|
|
|
12-22-2012, 02:06 PM
|
#157
|
|
I'm your huckleberry
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: In my prime
Posts: 10,772
|
Watching Red Dawn on EPIX on demand.
Very instructive.
__________________
Credat Judaeus Apella, non ego.
|
|
|
|
|
12-22-2012, 02:17 PM
|
#158
|
|
VIP Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Imperial Polk County
Posts: 3,905
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information
Watching Red Dawn on EPIX on demand.
Very instructive.
|
Love that flick. The remake sucked.
__________________
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president." Author Unknown
"The arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and assistance to foreign hands should be curtailed, lest Rome fall." Cicero 55 BC
|
|
|
|
|
12-22-2012, 02:46 PM
|
#159
|
|
Heisman Finalist
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Inside your head.
Posts: 3,906
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sappanama
what statistics bear out is that laws aren't the answer, be it laws vs drunk driving, underage drinking, theft, rape, murder, suicide, speeding, fraud, illegal drug use, legal drug abuse, graft, prostitution etc.... you cannot legislate against acts that do not make sense morally or practically, see suicide bombers, see child abuse. The answer doesn't lie with another ignored law, it lies with some reality that evil is present.
Taking away guns isn't the answer, further eroding protections of the constitution, or more dependency on the gov't aren't the answers either. I agree it would be cool if there was an answer as easy as let the government solve our problems, but that is pure willy wonka type of out there. There are approximately 75,000,000 gun owners in the US and 11000 gun related deaths a year, so even if that meant 11000 different shooters that is 0.00015 , let alone the 2 or 3 mass shootings that draw attention - that is 0.000000003, so I see the need for hyperbole and overreaction but it aint the answer.
Let's continue allowing nearly irrational fears of tragedy take away what freedom we do have left. Tragedies are going to continue to happen, it sucks, it hurts, but it is reality. Seriously you are more likely to be killed by lightening than a mass shooter in the USA. What happened in CO and CT is awful, tragic, but there is not a law anywhere that would or could have stopped it.
|
Brother you are preaching to the choir. The rest of them aren't listening. Nevertheless you are right on. Rep to you.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
12-22-2012, 02:50 PM
|
#160
|
|
Heisman Finalist
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Inside your head.
Posts: 3,906
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by gatorlaw71
If more guns everywhere are the solution to crime ...
... why isn't every airline passenger required to carry one
... why don't the Supreme Court justices, or any court anywhere, allow guns in their buildings
|
There is an armed man in the passenger compartment of most U.S flights. You should be thankful for that.
__________________
|
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|
