It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: lokin
Wow. Just, wow. I honestly thought my comment about some people being non-feeling and selfish was a little too harsh. It's clear to me know it might not have been strong enough.
I know children die every day. I do "cry a river" when I hear about the loss.
I'm not really sure what this whole Macho thing you have going is trying to prove. I need to tell you, it doesn't make you look like a big strong man (or woman), it makes you look like a heartless bully.
I made my original comment because this thread was getting OFF TOPIC and turning into a gun debate. This WAS about the children who died. reply to: Answer
originally posted by: defcon5
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. 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 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
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.
In 1792, Tench Coxe made the following point in a commentary on the Second Amendment:
As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the 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 next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
The earliest published commentary on the Second Amendment by a major constitutional theorist was by St. George Tucker. Tucker wrote:
A 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. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4. This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defence is the ﬁrst law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to conﬁne this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.
William Rawle 1825:
No clause could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.
originally posted by: framedragged
I like how the gun control/2nd ammendment issue never touches the fact that 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides. Most people who survive suicide attempts regret it, but most people who attempt suicide with a gun don't live through it. So it's honestly more of a suicide tool than a killing tool in this country.
you can have your pointless debate about who kills people, guns or maniacs, but the undisputable fact of the matter is that mentally unbalanced and potentially violent people, towards themselves or others, have an ease of access to tools which were made solely for killing.
Anyone going to defend the second ammendment rights of a mentally unbalanced guy planning on a suicide or mass shooting? Or do you honestly believe that that everyone should have access to guns, let the cops and the coroner clean up the mess?
How many gun deaths a year happen because morons give kids access to guns?
originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: butcherguy
I do know that for every 25 'attempts' at suicide only one occurs. Men vs women committing successful is 80/20. 50% of all suicides that succeed are with firearms. Shotguns succeed almost 100% where handguns are about a 50% non success rate.
He should have put it in his mouth and pulled the trigger...
originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
So what are the odds that the shooter was on prescription drugs to control depression?
Most of the other mass shooters were,,,