‘No Way To Prevent This’

[Grandpa's Spells]

Talk about moving the goal posts? Political will and clever implementation are the 2 sides of the issue. You have Nothing becuase there is nothing.

Yes, moving goal posts. Your initial "idea" was:

We have a legal structure that protects legal handgun ownership.
We have case law that supports it.
We have seen prohibitions of legal ownership fail (chicago, dc et al)
The shear numbers of both legal and illegally possessed handguns makes the prospect of mass confiscation ludicrous
We have a culture in both the police and military that if asked to confiscate, most would very likely refuse.

and it was all false or irrelevant. America could change this easily if it wanted to, without confiscation. It doesn't want to yet.

[Pinky]

Hand
Guns
Hand...Gunnnnnnnsssssss
HANDGUNS.

No, some specific handguns and not specific others. Nobody is mass shooting with a 5-shot .357 revolver, despite it being an excellent self-denfense tool.

Mass shootings are trivial when you're looking at the stats on gun deaths, even after excluding those from suicide. The problem is cheap handguns, including your 5-shot revolver. Banning everything but revolvers and other guns that are arbitrarily deemed acceptable for self-defense is unlikely to make a dent in crime involving firearms.

The way forward on addressing gun crime will first involve admitting that guns are already heavily regulated in the US. Pretending that they're not insults gun owners, misleads the rest of the public and makes reasonable discussion impossible. Putting all of our existing regulations on the table would allow for compromise that could lead to more effective regulation, but that's not going to happen. There's too much hysteria, bigotry and fear in the mix.

[Batboy2/75]

The 2nd amendment is not about hunting or sport shooting or even SELF DEFENSE in your home. Self defense from your fellow citizens is just part of the reason behind the 2nd amendment.The 2nd amendment main focus is about your right to defend yourself against your government. This shit isn't hard to look up and read what the founders intended etc. The right defend yourself from a your own government and foreign governments is an unalienable human right.

Agree completely.

This right dictates that you should be able to own and bear the same military firearms the government outfits it's soldiers and law enforcement personnel with.

It does not, and almost nobody believes that. Most military weapons are off-limits or extremely tightly regulated already. The 49th Civilian Bubbas don't need assault rifles to fight a regiment of Marines-turned-oppressors, because the civilians would die in a straight up fight. The Revolution! would be an insurgency. Lone Bubba doesn't need an assault rifle to fight off a SWAT team, because he'll still end up just as dead as if he had a shotgun. Having the same guns isn't an equalizer.

All you have to do is look at what tyrants try to ban and it blows a big gapping whole in your argument. The fact that power hungry governments want to limit ownership of or out right ban civilian ownership of military small arms tells any sane adult that those are the weapons to have. These are the same weapons (and ammunition) that insurgencies try desperately to get their hands on.

Your last paragraph is nothing more than opinion and a straw man arguments. Bubba needs an assault rifle just like Vietcong needed one, the Mujahedeen needed one and why the Syrian rebels need them. They help killing SWAT teams and Marines or any one else trying to kill you and stomp on your rights. Bubba with an AR-15, lying in ambush, outside his house, in an over watch position; will have the opportunity to kill lots of jack booted thugs as the SWAT team surrounds his house. His odds of surviving and killing even more pigs goes up if he has a good plan and or some friends to help. Just because you lack imagination and training doesn't mean your fellow citizens don't.

Reason dictates, have the best tool for the job and a plan to use it. If the type of weapon or arms didn't matter, then the founding fathers would have placed such an emphasis on them and there wouldn't be 2nd amendment. They knew first hand being armed with the latest and greatest was best course of action for staying free.

[nafod]

]The 2nd amendment is not about hunting or sport shooting or even SELF DEFENSE in your home. Self defense from your fellow citizens is just part of the reason behind the 2nd amendment.The 2nd amendment main focus is about your right to defend yourself against your government. This shit isn't hard to look up and read what the founders intended etc.

Awww Bullshit

What the 2nd Amendment was about, is the founders rightfully distrusted huge standing armies owned by the central government, they being the mechanism of tyranny, and so wanted the fighting force to be composed of militia of citizenry. The 2nd Amendment wasn't about being able to oppose the government's military. Its purpose wasn't to allow the citizens to arm themselves to the point that they could overthrow the government when they got the uppity. It was about being the government's military.

[Batboy2/75]

]The 2nd amendment is not about hunting or sport shooting or even SELF DEFENSE in your home. Self defense from your fellow citizens is just part of the reason behind the 2nd amendment.The 2nd amendment main focus is about your right to defend yourself against your government. This shit isn't hard to look up and read what the founders intended etc.

Awww Bullshit

What the 2nd Amendment was about, is the founders rightfully distrusted huge standing armies owned by the central government, they being the mechanism of tyranny, and so wanted the fighting force to be composed of militia of citizenry. The 2nd Amendment wasn't about being able to oppose the government's military. Its purpose wasn't to allow the citizens to arm themselves to the point that they could overthrow the government when they got the uppity. It was about being the government's military.

The resident slave & pussy appears.

You're a prime example of the sad state of education in the USA and the sad state of the US military officer corps. The founders discussed at length the need for the citizens to be armed against tyrannical government.

Move along with your revisionist history gleaned form the writings of slack jawed salves.

[Schlegel]

What the 2nd Amendment was about, is the founders rightfully distrusted huge standing armies owned by the central government, they being the mechanism of tyranny, and so wanted the fighting force to be composed of militia of citizenry. The 2nd Amendment wasn't about being able to oppose the government's military. Its purpose wasn't to allow the citizens to arm themselves to the point that they could overthrow the government when they got the uppity. It was about being the government's military.

James Madison, chief drafter of the bill of rights, specifically wrote about the prospect of defeating a federal army in the federalist papers #46.
He obviously though it a fine thing to retain the power of arms.

New Hampshire's constitution is pretty clear on this, as well:

[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.]

Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
June 2, 1784

Do you think they supposed the people would do this without weapons?

[nafod]

]The 2nd amendment is not about hunting or sport shooting or even SELF DEFENSE in your home. Self defense from your fellow citizens is just part of the reason behind the 2nd amendment.The 2nd amendment main focus is about your right to defend yourself against your government. This shit isn't hard to look up and read what the founders intended etc.

Awww Bullshit

What the 2nd Amendment was about, is the founders rightfully distrusted huge standing armies owned by the central government, they being the mechanism of tyranny, and so wanted the fighting force to be composed of militia of citizenry. The 2nd Amendment wasn't about being able to oppose the government's military. Its purpose wasn't to allow the citizens to arm themselves to the point that they could overthrow the government when they got the uppity. It was about being the government's military.

The resident slave & pussy appears.

You're a prime example of the sad state of education in the USA and the sad state of the US military officer corps. The founders discussed at length the need for the citizens to be armed against tyrannical government.

Yes, you and your firearms will valiantly oppose a military that can circle the world and kick the shit out of any country on the planet, and do it in days. While also fighting another battle with a supply line 12 time zones and about 13 shithole countries long. Ought to be real tough when they just need to drive outside the gate.

How come I never hear the clamoring for huge reductions in our standing Army from you guys?

[buckethead]

Hmm. sounds like an unfixable problem

[powerlifter54]

Gentleman, 2nd amendment is clearly about arming citizens to avoid a tyrannical federal government.

After Ruby Ridge and Waco, confrontations will be like Bundy in Nevada; if Feds want to win they can but they will pay heavily for it casualty wise. Even the most jackbooted thug Fed isn't gonna risk their life for GS-12 pay and a 401k against fellow citizens who can and will shoot back.

But you are ALL addressing the wrong issue.

The problem is CREATINE.

http://nypost.com/2014/05/28/friend-say ... upplement/

A friend of “virgin killer” Elliot Rodger has revealed he was addicted to a muscle-building supplement, which could have triggered his anger before his shooting rampage.
Chris Akin, a friend of Rodger, told the Mirror that the Isla Vista murderer started taking the supplement creatine after a mutual friend died in a bodybuilding accident while trying to lift a 550-pound weight.
Akin, who used to Skype regularly with Rodger, 22, said he observed a change in his attitude after he began allegedly taking the drug daily.

http://www.doyoueven.com/2014/05/articl ... ot-rogers/

The British serial killer who slaughtered six people in a bloody rampage had become hooked on a bodybuilding supplement, a close friend has claimed.
Chris Akin, who knew ‘virgin killer’ Elliot Rodger for several years after meeting him on holiday, said he noticed a sinister change in him over the past four months after he started to take creatine to build up his muscles.
The crazed 22-year-old, who butchered his three flat-mates at his home on Friday before driving round the student town of Isla Vista, California and fatally shooting three others, took creatine every day and was secretive about his dosage, according to Chris.
He claimed he saw the “anger and changes” in the student – the son of Hollywood director Peter Rodger – during their weekly chats on Skype.
Chris, from Chicago, Illinois, said the London-born killer became obsessed with bodybuilding and began taking the muscle-boosting chemical in his quest for a perfect body to attract girls.
While the widely-used supplement isn’t illegal, some users have reported side-effects such as violent mood-swings and depression.
It is believed Rodger was introduced to creatine by others on the website bodybuilding.com, which he regularly used.
Members have reported side-effects from taking the organic acid, including both mental and health issues.
Devastated Chris also claims his pal went off the rails after a friend died in a freak bodybuilding accident earlier this year.
He then turned to creatine to help throw himself into bodybuilding to “drown his feelings1”.
At the same time he began to be bullied online and “endlessly harassed” in private messages by an internet gang.
Chris told the Mirror: “Elliot was a good friend of mine, I had known him for a few years now, we would Skype each other weekly and talk about life.
“Honestly I never thought he would he capable of something this horrid, but I believe I know why.
“He would also tell me how he wanted to get into the bodybuilding lifestyle and started on creatine around four months ago. I could notice the anger and changes every time we spoke on Skype.
“I believe he took it everyday. He wouldn’t answer my questions about his usage but as time went on you could totally tell the changes in his character.
“He wasn’t very different at first, but after a while it seemed like he was getting into dark places emotionally.”

Watcha gonna do when dey cum for you?

[Blaidd Drwg]

Talk about moving the goal posts? Political will and clever implementation are the 2 sides of the issue. You have Nothing becuase there is nothing.

Yes, moving goal posts. Your initial "idea" was:

We have a legal structure that protects legal handgun ownership.
We have case law that supports it.
We have seen prohibitions of legal ownership fail (chicago, dc et al)
The shear numbers of both legal and illegally possessed handguns makes the prospect of mass confiscation ludicrous
We have a culture in both the police and military that if asked to confiscate, most would very likely refuse.

and it was all false or irrelevant. America could change this easily if it wanted to, without confiscation. It doesn't want to yet.

I used to think that the rap you get on this board for being a liberal dolt was unfair. I see now that I was wrong.

In my list (just ONE of several utterly obvious points I drubbed you about your soft head with)

Legal structure,
failure of prohibitions
sheer logistics of confiscation

Not one false, nor irrelevant factor was mentioned. IN FACT, there is little else relevant in the discussion outside of public health stats.

Yes...if we had the political will to devote our GDP to putting men on the moon and outlawing buttsex between consenting adults we could do that. IF we had the political will to put illegal immigrants in death camps we could do that as well. The fact is, we don't.

If you want to cure a public health problem, you are going to have to have to political will to accept where you are now.

[WildGorillaMan]

Gentleman, 2nd amendment is clearly about arming citizens to avoid a tyrannical federal government.

After Ruby Ridge and Waco, confrontations will be like Bundy in Nevada; if Feds want to win they can but they will pay heavily for it casualty wise. Even the most jackbooted thug Fed isn't gonna risk their life for GS-12 pay and a 401k against fellow citizens who can and will shoot back.

But you are ALL addressing the wrong issue.

The problem is CREATINE.

http://nypost.com/2014/05/28/friend-say ... upplement/

A friend of “virgin killer” Elliot Rodger has revealed he was addicted to a muscle-building supplement, which could have triggered his anger before his shooting rampage.
Chris Akin, a friend of Rodger, told the Mirror that the Isla Vista murderer started taking the supplement creatine after a mutual friend died in a bodybuilding accident while trying to lift a 550-pound weight.
Akin, who used to Skype regularly with Rodger, 22, said he observed a change in his attitude after he began allegedly taking the drug daily.

http://www.doyoueven.com/2014/05/articl ... ot-rogers/

The British serial killer who slaughtered six people in a bloody rampage had become hooked on a bodybuilding supplement, a close friend has claimed.
Chris Akin, who knew ‘virgin killer’ Elliot Rodger for several years after meeting him on holiday, said he noticed a sinister change in him over the past four months after he started to take creatine to build up his muscles.
The crazed 22-year-old, who butchered his three flat-mates at his home on Friday before driving round the student town of Isla Vista, California and fatally shooting three others, took creatine every day and was secretive about his dosage, according to Chris.
He claimed he saw the “anger and changes” in the student – the son of Hollywood director Peter Rodger – during their weekly chats on Skype.
Chris, from Chicago, Illinois, said the London-born killer became obsessed with bodybuilding and began taking the muscle-boosting chemical in his quest for a perfect body to attract girls.
While the widely-used supplement isn’t illegal, some users have reported side-effects such as violent mood-swings and depression.
It is believed Rodger was introduced to creatine by others on the website bodybuilding.com, which he regularly used.
Members have reported side-effects from taking the organic acid, including both mental and health issues.
Devastated Chris also claims his pal went off the rails after a friend died in a freak bodybuilding accident earlier this year.
He then turned to creatine to help throw himself into bodybuilding to “drown his feelings1”.
At the same time he began to be bullied online and “endlessly harassed” in private messages by an internet gang.
Chris told the Mirror: “Elliot was a good friend of mine, I had known him for a few years now, we would Skype each other weekly and talk about life.
“Honestly I never thought he would he capable of something this horrid, but I believe I know why.
“He would also tell me how he wanted to get into the bodybuilding lifestyle and started on creatine around four months ago. I could notice the anger and changes every time we spoke on Skype.
“I believe he took it everyday. He wouldn’t answer my questions about his usage but as time went on you could totally tell the changes in his character.
“He wasn’t very different at first, but after a while it seemed like he was getting into dark places emotionally.”

Watcha gonna do when dey cum for you?

The Mirror gets trolled hard by BodyBuilding.com trolls.

http://fitmisc.com/forum/showthread.php ... liot-GTFIH

Seriously, it's like there's a whole battery of tests you have to fail in order to be hired as a journalist.

[Turdacious]

]The 2nd amendment is not about hunting or sport shooting or even SELF DEFENSE in your home. Self defense from your fellow citizens is just part of the reason behind the 2nd amendment.The 2nd amendment main focus is about your right to defend yourself against your government. This shit isn't hard to look up and read what the founders intended etc.

Awww Bullshit

What the 2nd Amendment was about, is the founders rightfully distrusted huge standing armies owned by the central government, they being the mechanism of tyranny, and so wanted the fighting force to be composed of militia of citizenry. The 2nd Amendment wasn't about being able to oppose the government's military. Its purpose wasn't to allow the citizens to arm themselves to the point that they could overthrow the government when they got the uppity. It was about being the government's military.

You really ought to check out the Declaration, the reasons it was written, and the context in which it was written. Might be important.

[Batboy2/75]

double post

[Batboy2/75]

]The 2nd amendment is not about hunting or sport shooting or even SELF DEFENSE in your home. Self defense from your fellow citizens is just part of the reason behind the 2nd amendment.The 2nd amendment main focus is about your right to defend yourself against your government. This shit isn't hard to look up and read what the founders intended etc.

Awww Bullshit

What the 2nd Amendment was about, is the founders rightfully distrusted huge standing armies owned by the central government, they being the mechanism of tyranny, and so wanted the fighting force to be composed of militia of citizenry. The 2nd Amendment wasn't about being able to oppose the government's military. Its purpose wasn't to allow the citizens to arm themselves to the point that they could overthrow the government when they got the uppity. It was about being the government's military.

The resident slave & pussy appears.

You're a prime example of the sad state of education in the USA and the sad state of the US military officer corps. The founders discussed at length the need for the citizens to be armed against tyrannical government.

Yes, you and your firearms will valiantly oppose a military that can circle the world and kick the shit out of any country on the planet, and do it in days. While also fighting another battle with a supply line 12 time zones and about 13 shithole countries long. Ought to be real tough when they just need to drive outside the gate.

How come I never hear the clamoring for huge reductions in our standing Army from you guys?

I and those like me are no different than the farmers & tradesmen that took on one of the military powerhouses of it's day during our Glorious Revolution. A Revolution we won. In my case, and the case of many veterans who have more than 1,000 rounds of practice ammo under our belts, we have real world training and experience dealing out death.

Last time I checked, a bunch of slant eyed buck tooth rice farmers drove us out of Vietnam, a bunch of camel fucking Arabs are undoing our efforts in Iraq and a bunch of savages living in 800 AD are winning in Afghanistan. So much for your globe trotting military.

Also, do you think for a moment that the huge sections of the military wouldn't refuse to fire on US citizens or that they wouldn't take up arms against a government issuing such orders?

How come I never hear the clamoring for huge reductions in our standing Army from you guys?

Because you are retarded, that's why. The 2nd amendment actually appears in our Constitution. No where does the US Constitution ban the establishment of a standing Army.

Also, for years I have been posting on IGx that we should pull out of the numerous of treaties around the world the commit us to long term agreements to defend nations and people I don't give two shits about. If we did this we could reduce the size of not just the Army, but the entire military.

You are a fucking imbecile who has no idea what he swore an oath to depend and uphold. To think, they gave your dumb ass a commission.

[nafod]

What the 2nd Amendment was about, is the founders rightfully distrusted huge standing armies owned by the central government, they being the mechanism of tyranny, and so wanted the fighting force to be composed of militia of citizenry. The 2nd Amendment wasn't about being able to oppose the government's military. Its purpose wasn't to allow the citizens to arm themselves to the point that they could overthrow the government when they got the uppity. It was about being the government's military.

James Madison, chief drafter of the bill of rights, specifically wrote about the prospect of defeating a federal army in the federalist papers #46.
He obviously though it a fine thing to retain the power of arms.

New Hampshire's constitution is pretty clear on this, as well:

[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.]

Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
June 2, 1784

Do you think they supposed the people would do this without weapons?

Do you know you are making my argument for me?

Madison distrusted federal armies, yup. Control it's size, yup.

Google on the writing of the Constitution, there were numerous efforts to ban even the existence of standing armies in peacetime. Nada. Zilch. Didn't pass, but our country has a long tradition of minimal peacetime forces. The massive standing force is a fairly recent invention. Virginias original Constitution...

"That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

Etc.

[Schlegel]

Ban 9mm, .38, .380, and .22? Yeah...Ummm...right.

And more. Easily done once the political will is there.

It's easily fixable

I can draft the reg in about an hour...it will NEVER get signed into law.

You keep moving the goalposts around. I'm not saying this is politically viable today or a good idea. I'm saying the argument that "You can't practically limit access to guns because they're already everywhere" is false.

Use your head, Son. Describe a single viable reg. that would accomplish anything close to your goal. There isn't one. You're attacking the wrong end, banning crack pipes instead of crack.

The above would work once the political will was there. Nobody is claiming the political will is there.

The problem with this is you can fit an entire criminal career supply of ammo in a lunchbox and smuggle it into the country. Only law-abiding hobbyists use large amounts. Police reports show that most criminals fire just a few shots at a time. A tiny addition to the drug trade, and poof, all you've done is inconvenience the law-abiding with no drug trade connections. you'd have to get every country in the world to sign on.

[DrDonkeyLove]

I have no gun comments. Those who think like me have stated my thoughts on the the matter more cogently than I could.

Psychologically the US of Amurikkka started with a Puritan mindset that continues to this day. If something bad happens DO SOMETHING. Find a cause and BAN IT!!!

This kid shot AND stabbed people to death. He did other nutty shit too. His family asked for help because they knew he was batshit crazy. Would anyone on this board not bet their life savings that his bloodstream contained a cornucopia of mind & mood altering pharmaceuticals?

The fact that our mental health system is a disaster is beyond argument. It's also probably beyond repair, thus it's easier to try to ban guns than to actually help the mentally ill in a meaningfully way.

Take a pill and move along son.

[johno]

What the 2nd Amendment was about, is the founders rightfully distrusted huge standing armies owned by the central government, they being the mechanism of tyranny, and so wanted the fighting force to be composed of militia of citizenry. The 2nd Amendment wasn't about being able to oppose the government's military. Its purpose wasn't to allow the citizens to arm themselves to the point that they could overthrow the government when they got the uppity. It was about being the government's military.

It was not either/or. The Founders had two concerns: providing national defense AND preventing tyranny.

As to preventing tyranny, Federalist Papers #46, Hamilton:
But ambitious encroachments of the federal government on the authority of the state governments would not only excite the opposition of a single state….The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the threat of a foreign yoke.

[Schlegel]

Do you know you are making my argument for me?

Madison distrusted federal armies, yup. Control it's size, yup.

Google on the writing of the Constitution, there were numerous efforts to ban even the existence of standing armies in peacetime. Nada. Zilch. Didn't pass, but our country has a long tradition of minimal peacetime forces. The massive standing force is a fairly recent invention. Virginias original Constitution...

"That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

Etc.[/quote]

I'm not arguing that they didn't like standing armies. I'm stating that they didn't like so much, that it was taken as a given that it was a good thing if a militia made up of the people could stand in opposition to such an army at need.

To be specific I'm saying that this:

Its purpose wasn't to allow the citizens to arm themselves to the point that they could overthrow the government when they got the uppity.

is bull.

To then argue that civilian disarmament is consistent with the Founder's ideas is nonsense. The states were clearly envisioned as the directors of the militias, yes, but to argue that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means that the states and only the states have the right to keep those arms is rather later idea.

[nafod]

Do you know you are making my argument for me?

Madison distrusted federal armies, yup. Control it's size, yup.

Google on the writing of the Constitution, there were numerous efforts to ban even the existence of standing armies in peacetime. Nada. Zilch. Didn't pass, but our country has a long tradition of minimal peacetime forces. The massive standing force is a fairly recent invention. Virginias original Constitution...

"That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

Etc.

I'm not arguing that they didn't like standing armies. I'm stating that they didn't like so much, that it was taken as a given that it was a good thing if a militia made up of the people could stand in opposition to such an army at need.

To be specific I'm saying that this:

Its purpose wasn't to allow the citizens to arm themselves to the point that they could overthrow the government when they got the uppity.

is bull.

To then argue that civilian disarmament is consistent with the Founder's ideas is nonsense. The states were clearly envisioned as the directors of the militias, yes, but to argue that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means that the states and only the states have the right to keep those arms is rather later idea.

I'm not making the claim that states and only the states have the right to keep those arms. I am saying that the idea that the founders wanted an Army to defend against external threats and militia to defend against the Army...that is bull. Proof is, they didn't even want a standing Army. Just militia. That would be their defense. It's not hard to find, it's written into state constitutions and in the record of the Constitutional congresses. We don't want no stinkin' Army, militias are fine.

You are arguing essentially that with no Army there would be no need for a militia, since there would be nothing to counter. That makes no sense.

The individual right own is settled law, based on the 2008 case. I'm not arguing that either.

If the concern truly is to retain the power to throw off the yoke of the government forces, then the right to bear short and long guns is pissing into the wind compared to the mobility and firepower of our current forces.

If in fact that was the real concern, it would be smarter and cheaper to be politically active and work towards reducing the size of the armed forces by cutting their funding and moving as much of their power into the national guard units, so there is a closer connection to the states, ala what was going on in the late 1700s. It would be painfully, painfully stupid to simultaneously allow a powerful (and gawdawful expensive) central military and to try to arm the citizenry to the extent that they can overthrow it. That'd be like buying your enemy better weapons than you have and then going and getting your ass kicked. Stupid.

Of course if you are in the business of selling weapons, it'd be like printing your own money if you can get people to think that way.

[Swamp Fox]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... e-Violence

Just Sayin!

[buckethead]

... his bloodstream contained a cornucopia of mind & mood altering pharmaceuticals...

So does half of irongarm, apparently, from other threads

[Schlegel]

I am saying that the idea that the founders wanted an Army to defend against external threats and militia to defend against the Army...that is bull. ...
You are arguing essentially that with no Army there would be no need for a militia, since there would be nothing to counter. That makes no sense.

I honestly don't know how you think that's what I'm arguing. I have never said that they wanted an standing Army and a Militia. I said they were against standing armies, very strongly so. No one has said that the militia was not intended to fight external threats. I don't think anybody thinks that.

Again, I am saying that this idea:

Its purpose wasn't to allow the citizens to arm themselves to the point that they could overthrow the government when they got the uppity.

is false. It was indeed a purpose that they explicitly had in mind. That in no way means that there are no other purposes. I am not claiming that.

[Protobuilder]

Screw the Onion - everybody here has shown how easy the problem is to solve.

[Turdacious]

I WANT TO KNOW HOW CLIMATE CHANGE FITS INTO ALL OF THIS!!!!!