It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: lovebeck
a reply to: Thurisaz
Yes, it is. They ranged in age from 3 months old to 11 years old. Jesus, I will never understand what happens in someones mind to make them just totally snap and kill not only their own child, but their SIX young grand children as well. I work with kids and I have to admit, I have a real hard time hearing about kids being killed, especially a three month old infant.
I hope those who want to scream gun control this and that just stop and REALLY think about where they are posting their opinions at. It is inappropriate after a tragedy such as this to muck up the thread with THOSE arguments.
Maybe the mods could start removing them to prevent "thread drift?"
originally posted by: Answer
Here's a piece of information that will hopefully settle your incorrect opinion on this issue:
On May 8, 1792, Congress passed "[a]n act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring:
[E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
Every able-bodied citizen is a member of the militia and should thereby be armed in case he is needed. Only an idiot who doesn't understand the nature of a militia could interpret the 2nd Amendment any other way. When the populace is armed, the security of a free state is ensured. If that's not good enough for you, I can keep presenting the same evidence that was used by the Supreme Court.
Today, the term militia is used to describe a number of groups within the United States. Primarily, these are:
• The organized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903, which repealed section two hundred thirty-two and sections 1625 - 1660 of title sixteen of the Revised Statutes, consists of State militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia.[2] The National Guard, however, is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States, which is a federally recognized reserve military force, although the two are linked.
• The reserve militia[3] are part of the unorganized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903 as consisting of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.
• Former members of the armed forces are also considered part of the "unorganized militia" per Sec 313 Title 32 of the US Code.[2
originally posted by: bhliberal
This is just another reason for strong gun control. Let's watch and see that the perpetrator had a legally obtained firearm. I'm almost willing to bet.
originally posted by: defcon5
originally posted by: projectvxn
People misusing their rights is no reason to take mine.
The biases of all law is that your rights end when they start interfering with the rights of others, especially when it’s a “frivolous right” vs a “fundamental right”. So the publics “frivolous right” to own certain types of weapons ends when those weapons become a danger to the “fundamental rights” of others to be safe in their person. If you guys want to keep your “Frivolous rights” then you better start lobbying so keep irresponsible people from having access to this type of equipment. In other words, if you are a gun advocate, you should be lobbying for stricter controls on who can own guns, not more lenient ones. Something that the NRA is going to eventually learn the hard way.
originally posted by: defcon5
not for individuals to decide they want to personally protect themselves from the government.
originally posted by: Sparkymedic
This was not posted to start a gun rights debate.
originally posted by: smithjustinb
originally posted by: Sparkymedic
This was not posted to start a gun rights debate.
Your OP only included a short summary of the news report. You didn't include any information in the OP that would steer the conversation in one way or another. And now, you're mad at ATS members for discussing the news report you barely summarized in their own way? If you wanted this thread to take a different direction of discussion, perhaps you should have made a better thread. But, I guess that's just a learning process you won't experience, if you're just going to quit on us.
originally posted by: Raxoxane
I know I'm gonna be unpopular for saying this-but please for the love of God,can folks just leave off the "they're coming for our guns" mentality even once? People are dead.Children are dead.This is a hideous tragedy.Must your first concern be that this is about your precious guns? Spare a thought for the loved ones of the deceased first,at least.a reply to: bhliberal
originally posted by: GeisterFahrer
originally posted by: bhliberal
This is just another reason for strong gun control. Let's watch and see that the perpetrator had a legally obtained firearm. I'm almost willing to bet.
Nope. He was a convicted felon. It was illegal for him to have a firearm.
originally posted by: defcon5
A “well regulated militia” today means the State National Guard, not an “unorganized” militia. If the state needs you to be in the militia they’ll draft you into it and provide you the necessary equipment. If you want to live by that law, then feel free to go buy a Kentucky Long Rifle, but it does not give you the right to buy an Abrahams tank and park it in your garage.
If you know anything about history, then you should know that the state militias became the state national guards, and those weapons are there for the state as a whole to protect itself from an out of control federal government (such as what happened in the Civil War), not for individuals to decide they want to personally protect themselves from the government.
originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: bhliberal
What an uneducated thing to say. Get rid of the knives in your houses, the cars on the street and get rid of the alcohol....youre ridiculous. (respectfully speaking)