Mass Killing at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown Conn.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by mpholland

It has always been my take that "well regulated" was to mean trained and disciplined as the main problem with the militia was a lack thereof. I think Madison's original idea of the militia would look somewhat like the national guard. At that point in time, the militia was to be the main military force of the country, huge in comparison to the federal troops. I also believe 1812 changed his attitude on this.

Tench Coxe pretty much summed up the founders feelings:

"The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ...the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them.

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."

I believe this can be construed to mean that the militia, or the common man, should have weapons, at minimum, equal to what the standing federal army has. I also think that maybe they should have thought a bit more about the words highlighted in red.

Let's not forget the declaration of independence either:

"...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.”

"...at minimum, equal to what the standing federal army has."

Yeah, but could they have conceived of the type of weapons and hardware the military now has available? They were speaking from the perspective of a world of single shot muskets and bayonettes. Mortars and cannon at the worst. I just can't accept that we are expected to adhere to 240 year old rules as if nothing has changed and we have no intelligence of our own to deal with that which has changed. Today, the "standing federal army" possesses weapons that can level an entire city, fifty times the size of the largest cities of their day....in the blink of an eye.

Hypothetically, how do you think the founders would react to the knowledge that the nation has grown to over 300 million and a single shooter can suit up in bullet proof and bullet resistant gear and mow down 50+ people in a few minutes?

The constitution also charges the government with the task of ensuring "domestic tranquillity". I believe in trying to solve every violence problem with "more guns" in the hands of private citizens can eventually lead to a breakdown in law and order. And bring about vigilantism and anarchy.

Having spent a little time in Africa, I understand that "Warlords" are rarely agents of any federal or provincial governments. In fact they tend to rise in lieu of an effective governing body. They are usually private individuals who have gained the financial might to buy guns, hire goons and wreak havoc on the citizenry. Do you see what I'm getting at? At what point does the private individual, clothed in the "right" to amass as much of whatever type of weapon he desires----become a potential menace to his fellow citizens?

I think my questions are reasonable and my points valid. I look forward to your response.

Regards,
Dave

[bobabode]

Ohhh, man. Westboro Baptist Church plans to picket the funerals of the kids killed in Conn. Their contention is that these kids didn't love God enough or didn't hate gays enough. This is the sickest thing I've ever heard of. Wow, can they really be this twisted? Now, I'm weeping again.

[icenine]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,6774314.story

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by icenine

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,6774314.story

Problem children aka the Teabaggers don't like judges, Ice. Except for Scalia, maybe. Remember the hatred they developed for Justice Roberts when he voted for Obamacare? They shut up a little bit when their Republican friends pointed out that the Supreme's serve for life.

31 NRA senators have toed the line on the subject and refused to appear on camera to be grilled about their views. Not lecturing you, my friend. Well, maybe a little. Sorry. My post above yours has me a little unhinged at the moment.

[icenine]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Problem children aka the Teabaggers don't like judges, Ice. Except for Scalia, maybe. Remember the hatred they developed for Justice Roberts when he voted for Obamacare? They shut up a little bit when their Republican friends pointed out that the Supreme's serve for life.

31 NRA senators have toed the line on the subject and refused to appear on camera to be grilled about their views. Not lecturing you, my friend. Well, maybe a little. Sorry. My post above yours has me a little unhinged at the moment.

Well hopefully this time something gets done Bob.....too bad something like this had to happen.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by icenine

Well hopefully this time something gets done Bob.....too bad something like this had to happen.

Yep. Tragically. I hope there isn't any of the expiration date nonsense like the last assault weapons ban.

[Oerets]

Reinstating a ban unless it also includes the weapons and mags already in the public. Do just the one without the other will not fix the problem I'm afraid. They need to make owning the assault weapons a Federally Permitted and regulated entity.

Sorry but not just everyone should be able to own a gun! Throw the book at them and lock up offenders. Hell we lock up pot smokers with more time the some weapons offenses.

Barney

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Ohhh, man. Westboro Baptist Church plans to picket the funerals of the kids killed in Conn. Their contention is that these kids didn't love God enough or didn't hate gays enough. This is the sickest thing I've ever heard of. Wow, can they really be this twisted? Now, I'm weeping again.

Somehow I cannot see the parents of all the lost children standing by while those perverts rant and rave. Nor do I see the Newtown police interfering.

[piece-itpete]

The Patriot Riders'll take care of those freaks. Violence and hate is what they want, like the KKK. I think the proper response is to laugh at them.

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

That does look kinda cool.

Damn lot of good all those guns did him....................

Regards,
Dave

Lol my thought too. I tried to find a good pic but they just don't do it justice.

Originally Posted by bobabode

Son of a preacher man, amongst other things, Pete.:rollyes: You know, one of those damn commie, soshalist Methodist ministers.:col:

May Heaven help us all

Originally Posted by mpholland

It has always been my take that "well regulated" was to mean trained and disciplined as the main problem with the militia was a lack thereof. I think Madison's original idea of the militia would look somewhat like the .......... any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.”

Excellent, thanks!

Pete

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

"...at minimum, equal to what the standing federal army has."

Yeah, but could they have conceived of the type of weapons and hardware the military now has available? They were speaking from the perspective of a world of single shot muskets and bayonettes. Mortars and cannon at the worst. I just can't accept that we are expected to adhere to 240 year old rules as if nothing has changed and we have no intelligence of our own to deal with that which has changed. Today, the "standing federal army" possesses weapons that can level an entire city, fifty times the size of the largest cities of their day....in the blink of an eye.

Hypothetically, how do you think the founders would react to the knowledge that the nation has grown to over 300 million and a single shooter can suit up in bullet proof and bullet resistant gear and mow down 50+ people in a few minutes?

The constitution also charges the government with the task of ensuring "domestic tranquillity". I believe in trying to solve every violence problem with "more guns" in the hands of private citizens can eventually lead to a breakdown in law and order. And bring about vigilantism and anarchy.

Having spent a little time in Africa, I understand that "Warlords" are rarely agents of any federal or provincial governments. In fact they tend to rise in lieu of an effective governing body. They are usually private individuals who have gained the financial might to buy guns, hire goons and wreak havoc on the citizenry. Do you see what I'm getting at? At what point does the private individual, clothed in the "right" to amass as much of whatever type of weapon he desires----become a potential menace to his fellow citizens?

I think my questions are reasonable and my points valid. I look forward to your response.

Regards,
Dave

Here I go again. I really was hoping for a response to this, but we somehow got sidetracked to those Westboro freaks.

Anyone care to share a thought?

Regards,
Dave