Unlike Switzerland, in the US we don't require anyone to have a firearm
all men are endowed by there[sic] creator with certain inalienable rights
That's just sophistry: Clearly, the "well-regulated militia" and the "free state" are meant to be seen as Good Thingstm - the colonists had not just spent two years fighting the well-regulated militia of a free state; in their eyes, they had just fought the brutal armies of a tyrannical oppressor.QuoteDepending on who you ask, it is any able-bodied citizen, so 75%?75% are reservists? That's impressive.
Depending on who you ask, it is any able-bodied citizen, so 75%?
A well-regulated militia is by definition not a state sponsored army.
It is not the right of the militia to bear arms, it is the right of the people.
Amendment ICongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Amendment IIA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.Amendment IVThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
ARTICLE 17MILITIAMilitia; members; military duty; exemptions.Sec. 1. The militia shall be composed of all able bodied male citizens between the age of eighteen and forty-five years, except such as are exempted by the laws of the United States, or of this State; but all such citizens, of any religious denomination whatever, who, from scruples of conscience, may be averse to bearing arms, shall be excused therefrom, upon such conditions as shall be prescribed by law.Right to bear arms.Sec. 7. Every person has a right to bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
QuoteA well-regulated militia is by definition not a state sponsored army.By who's definition?Not your finest legal minds, it seems, who consider them an irrelevance, or an inconvenient truth.The guys in Somalia on the backs of Toyota technicals, with NSVs, they're well-regulated, right?QuoteIt is not the right of the militia to bear arms, it is the right of the people.But you need a well-regulated militia to maintain a free state?That's what the amendment says.If they have no right to bear arms, what do you give them?Loofahs?
I've followed this thread on-and-off but it is quite distasteful to me because this is such a great community and the divisiveness, especially on off-topic subjects is detrimental. I have hesitated to comment up until now; this will be the first and last. AFAIC, everyone is entitled to their opinions, and that includes the hoplophobes. This thread serves no purpose, no minds will be changed.I just hope that we don't have to keep threads about Nerf off the forum and website.
The first ten amendments were put in because several groups felt that they had reason to NOT TRUST the government. Those amendments were NOT considered to be a grant of rights, for they believed those rights were inherent to all men,(all men are endowed by there creator with certain inalienable rights...)
Open season on black boys after a verdict like thisPosted:Sun, 14 Jul 2013 07:25:00 GMTPosted:2013-07-14T08:07:42ZCalls for calm after George Zimmerman was acquitted of murdering Trayvon Martin are empty words for black familiesLet it be noted that on this day, Saturday 13 July 2013, it was still deemed legal in the US to chase and then shoot dead an unarmed young black man on his way home from the store because you didn't like the look of him.The killing of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin last year was tragic. But in the age of Obama the acquittal of George Zimmerman offers at least that clarity. For the salient facts in this case were not in dispute. On 26 February 2012 Martin was on his way home, minding his own business armed only with a can of iced tea and a bag of Skittles. Zimmerman pursued him, armed with a 9mm handgun, believing him to be a criminal. Martin resisted. They fought. Zimmerman shot him dead.Who screamed. Who was stronger. Who called whom what and when and why are all details to warm the heart of a cable news producer with 24 hours to fill. Strip them all away and the truth remains that Martin's heart would still be beating if Zimmerman had not chased him down and shot him.There is no doubt about who the aggressor was here. The only reason the two interacted at all, physically or otherwise, is that Zimmerman believed it was his civic duty to apprehend an innocent teenager who caused suspicion by his existence alone.Appeals for calm in the wake of such a verdict raise the question of what calm there can possibly be in a place where such a verdict is possible. Parents of black boys are not likely to feel calm. Partners of black men are not likely to feel calm. Children with black fathers are not likely to feel calm. Those who now fear violent social disorder must ask themselves whose interests are served by a violent social order in which young black men can be thus slain and discarded.But while the acquittal was shameful it was not a shock. It took more than six weeks after Martin's death for Zimmerman to be arrested and only then after massive pressure both nationally and locally. Those who dismissed this as a political trial (a peculiar accusation in the summer of Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden) should bear in mind that it was politics that made this case controversial.Charging Zimmerman should have been a no-brainer. He was not initially charged because Florida has a "stand your ground" law whereby deadly force is permitted if the person "reasonably believes" it is necessary to protect their own life, the life of another or to prevent a forcible felony.Since it was Zimmerman who stalked Martin, the question remains: what ground is a young black man entitled to and on what grounds may he defend himself? What version of events is there for that night in which Martin gets away with his life? Or is it open season on black boys after dark?Zimmerman's not guilty verdict will be contested for years to come. But he passed judgement on Trayvon that night summarily."Fucking punks," Zimmerman told the police dispatcher that night. "These assholes. They always get away."So true it's painful. And so predictable it hurts.
the moral of the story seems to be, if you are not black and being attacked by a black man, just let him kill you.
Please enter a valid email to subscribe
We need to confirm your email address.
To complete the subscription, please click the link in the
email we just sent you.
Thank you for subscribing!
via Egeo 16