Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Guns, Constitution, Rights, Bans Debate Thread

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Strangerous
Isn't there some sense in harmonising the laws between the various states?

From what I've read on here some states are close to the UK's requirements on storage / security and prohibiting some types of weapons while other states have an almost 'free for all / pick 'em up at Wal Mart' regime. As people can easily drive from state to state this does seem very silly.

I doubt you'll follow us down the road where you have to prove a need (not a want) for anything but a shotty but surely some increase in licencing and storage requirements has to be, at least, debated after so many tragic deaths?


There may be some merit in it, but it'll be very, very tough to get any kind of gun registration/licensing passed anywhere but in the northeastern states and in California. In the south and in most states west of the Mississippi, the populace is very well armed and already very paranoid when it comes to anything that might be perceived as a first step to gun confiscation. The politicians in those states know this and they also know that any vote for any gun control measure is very likely their ticket to defeat in the next election cycle. In other words, its going to get very little political support.

If you need evidence of that, look at how quickly the Democrats crawl up into the fetal position these days at the mere mention of renewing the Assault Weapons Ban of '94. That one piece of legislation did a tremendous amount of damage to the Democratic party in these states and its a lesson they haven't forgotten.




posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkhero

Originally posted by Zaphod58
As someone in the original thread pointed out, guns are tools. You can kill someone with a screwdriver, should we take those away too? I grew up playing Doom, and Duke Nukem, and all those other first person shooters, but have NEVER thought about picking up a gun and killing someone. You can't blame games and tv for something like this happening.

From initial reports he was looking for his girlfriend, and probably had a "If I can't have her, then no one can, and I can't live without her" mentality.



You can't kill 32 people with screwdrivers, and also people can run, can fight.

You can control yourself, but not everybody can, especially those teenagers. When they get mad, they may want to kill other people.



Everyone has the capacity to exhibit self-control unless they are mentally incompetent. Teenagers are fully capable of controlling their emotions well enough not to go on a premeditated killing spree. And to be honest, I'm much more worried about the average idiot 16 year old driving their car than with a gun.

BTW, most states do strictly regulate the use of firearms by anyone under the age of 18. I may be wrong on this, but I also believe its illegal in all cases for a minor to purchase a firearm.



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 05:41 PM
link   
@ vor78

Thanks for that

It's confusing for us Brits (little island and all that) - obviously we have local Govt but things like firearms laws are determined by our national Govt. I know it's bloomin' obvious but I hadn't considered the state re-election dimension - I see what you mean Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

Maybe a stupid question but there's no way national (Federal?) law could be imposed in spite of local views? Or is gun control 'ring-fenced' as only state-level controlled?

[edit on 16/4/2007 by Strangerous]



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Yes, a federal law could be enacted to do this, but you still run into the same problem. It has to pass through the House and through the Senate. Its going to be very difficult to convince the representatives and senators of those states to go along with it given that it'll likely cost them their jobs a few years down the line if they vote in favor of it. There actually IS a bill in the House right now, HR 1022, that proposes a sweeping assault weapons ban, but even if it reaches the floor, I expect it to be rejected, despite today's events.

Gun control will get a ton of airtime in the media in the coming days and weeks, but honestly, I think both parties will generally shy away from it at a state and national level.

[edit on 16-4-2007 by vor78]



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 07:24 PM
link   


posted by Strangerous

Isn't there some sense in harmonizing the laws between the various states? From what I've read on here some states are close to the UK's requirements on storage security and prohibiting some types of weapons while other states have an almost 'free for all pick 'em up at Wal Mart regime. As people can easily drive from state to state this does seem very silly.

I doubt you'll follow us down the road where you have to prove a need (not a want) for anything but a shotgun but surely some increase in licencing and storage requirements has to be, at least, debated after so many tragic deaths? [Edited by Don W]



American states often enter into what are called “compacts.” Because our states claim sovereignly, this poses a problem which state has jurisdiction and how rulings in one state can be enforced in another. See U.S. Con. Art. IV, Sec. 1. “Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved and the effect thereof.”

Such issues as bridge building across state lines, water allotment or allocation, collection and forwarding of child support payments, sharing of revenues in cases where corporations do business in two or more states, lending trained personnel to fight forest fires and police or law enforcement collaboration. There are multi-state agencies such as those that deal with the Great Lakes.

But “harmonizing” state laws? Not likely. We do have an ABA - American Bar Association - sponsored model laws or codes committee. In 1978, my state of Ky enacted a new criminal code to replace a hodgepodge of laws that had accumulated since 1792. Statehood. The ABA model was utilized. Since that time, it has been altered, amended, revised, and corrupted so that it is now no better than the 1792 hodgepodge it replaced. So much for model laws.

Follow you down a road to control guns? Not likely. Americans love their guns. Over my lifetime I have owned 30-40 hand guns, riffles and shotguns. And a Benjamin air rifle. Not so long ago I owned 2 .45 cal pistols, a .38 revolver and a .22 target pistol. Indeed, I have a valid concealed carry permit. I presently have only a Beretta 79S .22 target pistol.

I favor licensing all firearms; the issuance of a title - as in autos and boats - for each weapon. The transfer of a firearm would be completed in front of a court clerk. An ownership fee would be levied on each firearm, perhaps $25 to $500 a year, based on the caliber of the weapon. Each person who surrendered a licensed firearm would receive a income tax credit equal to the scheduled value of the weapon, provided it was not replaced.

Every owner and every person living in the same residence must complete a 6-8 hour gun safety program every 3 years. In any house were a child under 18 resided, the gun owner must have an approved lockable box to store ammo and enough parts of each weapon to render it incapable of firing. I am not in favor of criminal penalties, but instead I’d suggest confiscation and destruction of any and all offending weapons plus an enforcement fee adjusted upwards every time the same person is hailed into court.

11,000 people were killed (homicides) by firearms last year. That’s 30 people every day. The only difference is today we gott’em all at one place, Va Tech. If killing JFK, killing MLK, Jr and killing RFK was not equal to the NRA, then this today is "small stuff" from the gunnies POV.

[edit on 4/16/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Realtruth,

You are right on the money...

Those distances are substantially the norm for all altercations as per FBI stats...

Semper



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 01:28 PM
link   
I apologize if this has been mentioned, but in 2002, at Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Va., armed students disarmed a student shooter and prevented the bloodshed we saw yesterday. Interestingly, the news at the time said the armed students "tackled" or "confronted" the shooter...

3 people were killed.

Guns and Media Bias



Most news reports pointed out that the situation ended when several students "confronted," "tackled," or "intervened." However, Tracy Bridges, Ted Besen, Todd Ross, and Mikael Gross did not merely "confront" Odighizuwa. Bridges and Gross separately ran to their cars to get their handguns once the shooting began. Bridges approached Odighizuwa with Besen's and Ross' aid. Gross was close behind. According to Bridges, "I aimed my gun at him, and Peter tossed his gun down.
...
Unfortunately, the media did not point out that the "intervening" students were armed.


You just don't hear about these...



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   
People are missing the whole point here it's not about Guns in the Virginia Tech incident.

I don't see what this obsession with the guns, where he bought them, why they exist, what bullets were used, what kind of gun it was, blah, blah....

What if this person or any person for that matter decided to mix up a batch of poison and put it in the cafeteria food he would have got the same death results or worse. And they may never have caught him or knew who it was.

The gun in this situation was only a tool of his madness and rage.

This person made a choice, let me repeat that, this person, individual made a choice what his implements of destruction and chaos were a choice that he made alone. Again, it good have been a number of items that cause death.

We need to really focus on what, how, and why he snapped?

[edit on 17-4-2007 by Realtruth]



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Realtruth
What if this person or any person for that matter decided to mix up a batch of poison and put it in the cafeteria food he would have got the same death results or worse. And they may never have caught him or knew who it was.

Sorry but your analogy doesn’t work. At all point well making cafeteria food you’re around many people. Multiple cooks, chiefs and others, someone would notice that you’re putting in poison. And you would get caught.


The gun in this situation was only a tool of his madness and rage.

Yes and it’s a tool that is far to easy to obtain. Something that can cause so much damage should be a hell of a lot harder to get.


This person made a choice,

Yes they made a choice, and the choice was a lot easier to carry out due to the ease that one can get a gun.


We need to really focus on what, how, and why he snapped?

Does it really matter in the long run? They say he snapped because of a relationship problem. Would it make a difference if he snapped because his favorite show got canceled?
Sometimes people just go bonkers and there is no good reason, there is no warning, and with the availability of weapons through many states they are capable of taking as many people with them as possible.

Guns don’t kill people, people do.
Yeah well a person with a gun can kill a lot of people.



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Oh come on. We know that guns should be banned. It's obvious.


Along the same note...

According to NHTSA 43,200 died in motor vehicle traffic crashes in 2005.

The were also 62 million registered vehicles in the US.


According to ncjrs.gov, Americans owned 192 million guns in 1997.

In 1996 there were just about 34,000 gun fatalities.

Now, it goes without saying there are plenty of unregistered cars, just as there are plenty of unknown about guns, but all other things being equal, let's crunch the numbers.

So, in 2005 we have about .0006967 Americans killed per registered car VS about .000177 killed per registered firearm in 1997. That makes cars.. what.. just under 4 times as deadly as guns? (If anyone crunches more recent data, or data recorded on the same year, I'm sure they'll find the same horrifying stats - just using what I can find quickly).

And to think, we drive cars on public roads as a privilege - not even a right guaranteed by the constitution. ... BAN MOTORVEHICLES!



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 03:29 PM
link   
When it comes to guns, bullets, it's all about the multi-billion dollar industry.

Hand guns are made to kill people I will agree with that and it is a very convenient weapon, but to many large corporation make billions every year selling guns, bullets, and many other types of weapons.

They are have one thing in common, control, greed, power and the ability to create chaos.

The powers that be, will never let guns be banned in the USA to much money being made and the politicians get a big portion of that money towards campaigns, dinners, trips, etc...

Guns will never be banned in the USA to much money is being made.



[edit on 17-4-2007 by Realtruth]



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 05:55 PM
link   


posted by Realtruth

When it comes to guns, it's all about the multi-billion dollar gun industry. Hand guns are made to kill people. [Gun makers]T have one thing in common, control, greed, power and the ability to create chaos. Guns will never be banned in the USA to much money is being made. [Edited by Don W]



Here’s why I’m agitated by the NRA and those I call NRA apologists. Guns unlike cars have no utility other than as a killing machine. You cannot take a pregnant woman to a hospital in one, but you could easily kill both mother-to-be and her nascent infant with one or two twitches of your trigger finger. And thereby rendereing a hospital trip unnecessary.

Lollygagging twits mimicking the standard ‘guns don’t kill people do’ litany foisted on the unwary are already out in force. They frequently recite unrelated numbers which serve only to distract serious attention from a murderous national issue.

I’ve posted above that the deaths by guns of JFK, MLK Jr, and RFK in less than 5 years, had no effect on the NRA nor its sycophant adherents. I’d expect religionists would want to be studying this odd social phenomenon which is voluntary self-imposed delusion called denial in defiance of all logic. It's childlike. Equal to religion’s self flagellation. The makings of a real saint!

I first became aware of the counter-democratic electoral practices of the National Rifle Association in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Our Congress has 435 seats divided among the states by population. Over time it has become the mantra that any House seat won by a plurality of more than 5% is considered a “safe seat.” In most electrons this means fewer than 100 are described as NOT safe seats. The NRA picks Members in the NOT safe seats category who supports its cause - the uninhibited sale of guns - and sends lots of money to them. In like manner in those NOT safe seats occupied by a Member of Congress who is ‘not onboard’ and not submissive to their influence, the NRA sends lots and lots of money to his or her opponent.

In the case of all the other 435 seats regardless of the size of the Member’s plurality, if the Member opposes the NRA routine, wthe NRA ill send money to his opponent. In those cases where a recalcitrant Member has no opponent, the NRA will seek out one and fund his race.

The message to Congress is clear. If you oppose the NRA, you will face an expensive election every 2 years, but if you kowtow to our wishes, you can get our money to help you retain or gain your seat. Go along to get along. This practice is patently anti-democratic. It ought to be illegal. Indeed it might well be, as it smacks of electoral interference. Unfortunately, the Republicans and the National Rifle Association have shared the same bed for so long they have begun to look like each other.

[edit on 4/17/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Here are some interesting Stats...


* Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.2

* Of the 2.5 million self-defense cases, as many as 200,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.3

* Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).4 And readers of Newsweek learned in 1993 that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The "error rate" for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."5

* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.6

* Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year.7 Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as "Saturday Night Specials."

* Florida. In the ten years following the passage of Florida's concealed carry law in 1987, there were 478,248 people who received permits to carry firearms.9 FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 39% during that 10-year period. The Florida rate is now far below the national average.10

* Do firearms carry laws result in chaos? No. Consider the case of Florida. A citizen in the Sunshine State is almost twice as likely to be attacked by an alligator than to be assaulted by a concealed carry holder. During the first ten years that the Florida law was in effect, alligator attacks outpaced the number of crimes committed by carry holders by a 146 to 88 margin.11

* States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%;12 and

* If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.13

* Kennesaw, GA. In 1982, this suburb of Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to the modest 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole.15

* Ten years later (1991), the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw was still 72% lower than it had been in 1981, before the law was passed.16

* Nationwide. In 1979, the Carter Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful.19

Justice Department study:

* 3/5 of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun."20

* 74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."21

* 57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."22

* The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general. For example, in Warren v. D.C. the court stated "courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community."23

* Currently, there are about 150,000 police officers on duty at any one time to protect a population of more than 250 million Americans -- or almost 1,700 citizens per officer.26

* Washington, D.C. has, perhaps, the most restrictive gun control laws in the country, and yet it has one of the highest murder rates in the nation.

* Objection: Critics claim criminals merely get their guns in Virginia where the laws are more relaxed. This, they argue, is why the D.C. gun ban is not working.

* Answer: Perhaps criminals do get their guns in Virginia, but this overlooks one point: If the availability of guns in Virginia is the root of D.C.'s problems, why does Virginia not have the same murder and crime rate as the District? Virginia is awash in guns and yet the murder rate is much, much lower. This holds true even for Virginia's urban areas.

The murder rates are:
City

1997 Murder rate
Washington, DC 56.9 per 100,00027
Arlington, VA 1.6 per 100,00028
(Arlington is just across the river from D.C.)
Total VA metropolitan area 7.9 per 100,000

Guns are not the problem. On the contrary, lax criminal penalties and laws that disarm the law-abiding are responsible for giving criminals a safer working environment.

www.gunowners.org...


This is interesting...

Homicide Rates By Country

The idea that making guns illegal, or restricting them in anyway, flies in the face of logic and has no substance other than the emotional...

Semper



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 06:24 PM
link   
What does gunny Heaven look like? Imagine every person carrying his or her own Mac10, and a Model 60 S&W loaded with +P ammo, strapped to his lower leg in an ankle holster. And maybe a Saturday night special in his coat pocket as a throw-away gun in case he should gun down an unarmed citizen.

All too many Americans learned all they know about guns watching John Wayne movies.

[edit on 4/17/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Realtruth,


We need to really focus on what, how, and why he snapped?




BLACKSBURG, Va. - The gunman in the Virginia Tech massacre was a sullen loner who alarmed professors and classmates with his twisted, violence-drenched creative writing and left a rambling note in his dorm room raging against women and rich kids. A chilling picture emerged Tuesday of Cho Seung-Hui — a 23-year-old senior majoring in English — a day after the bloodbath that left 33 people dead, including Cho, who killed himself as police closed in. .....

....."He was a loner......

......A student who attended Virginia Tech last fall provided obscenity- and violence-laced screenplays that he said Cho wrote as part of a playwriting class they both took. One was about a fight between a stepson and his stepfather, and involved throwing of hammers and attacks with a chainsaw. Another was about students fantasizing about stalking and killing a teacher who sexually molested them.....

On the sign-in sheet where everyone else had written their names, Cho had written a question mark. "Is your name, `Question mark?'" classmate Julie Poole recalled the professor asking. The young man offered little response.



This kid was already messed up. He wouldn't even speak to anyone. He refuse to. His writings speaks of abuse. He hated women and rich kids. His hate and bitterness did this to him.

news.yahoo.com...










[edit on 17-4-2007 by Shar]



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Just wanted to point out a issues I have had with these debates. The argument that the 2nd Amendment does not cover individual ownership of firearms is a mute point in Virginia.


§ 44-1. Composition of militia. The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all able-bodied citizens of this Commonwealth and all other able-bodied persons resident in this Commonwealth who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are at least sixteen years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than fifty-five years of age. The militia shall be divided into four classes, the National Guard, which includes the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard, the Virginia State Defense Force, the naval militia, and the unorganized militia.
leg1.state.va.us...


Since if you want to take the line that the 2nd Amendment is only applying to militias, VA law provides for this argument. Since Grover and I are in the militia...my access to weapons is constitutionally protected. I respect Grover's position on this subject, and his arguments are protected by the 1st Amendment...which is protected by the 2nd. Most forget that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not to guarantee the ability to hunt or stop home-invaders; the purpose is a final check and balance against government tyranny and foreign invasion.

"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms."
-Aristotle

“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”
-Mao Tse-Tung

"One man with a gun can control 100 without one. ”
-Vladimir Lenin quotes

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
-Thomas Jefferson

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms... "
-Samuel Adams

"Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
-Patrick Henry



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 06:56 PM
link   
The 2nd Amendment doesn't say that the militia can have guns. It says a militia is necessary to the security of a free state. It says the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. NOT the militia:

“ 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. ”

...can be read as "Understanding that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

In other words, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

(I wish they had said it that way, but it wasn't highly proper English at the time)

A current day example might say:
“ A good income being necessary to the security of a family, the right of the family members' to seek employment shall not be infringed. ”

In other words, the family members' right to seek employment shall not be infringed because a good income is necessary to the security of a family.



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Semper Fortis provided a link showing various statistics about guns and homicides. The numbers are based on per 100,000 population units. The US has 3,000 of those, so the number would need to be multiplied by 3,000 to find the totals in the US. The percentage numbers stand alone. The US is shown at a “9.1" homicide rate giving America a total of 27,300 deaths inflicted unlawfully. Germany with 60 million people, and a 1.6 rate, suffered 960 homicides. About half those of Los Angeles. Eastern Europan countries like Poland had homicide rates of 6, Ukraine 9, Moldova 8, and the Czech Republic low at a rate of 1. Singapore came in as the lowest of the selected countries on the chart at a 0.9 rate. I was very surprised to see Cote d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast) at 6 and old Yugoslavia’s Macedonia at a high 3, and Slovenia at 2. Maybe Bill Clinton did it right? If you just go by results. I wonder what Bush43's Iraq rate is? Off the scale, I'll bet. No, Pollyanna, all politicians are not the same.

And sharing the Iberian peninsula, Spain 1, and Portugal, 3. Even those tough guys from down under, Australia, had but 1.

Maybe we ought to send out some investigators to each of those countries to see how they do what it is they do? Hey, it never huts to learn something. Does it?

[edit on 4/17/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 07:27 PM
link   

posted by Imperium Americana


§ 44-1. Composition of militia. The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all able-bodied citizens of this Commonwealth . .


" . . if you take the line the 2nd Amendment only applies to militias . . Grover and I are in the militia . . [Edited by Don W]



That's the line I take. As regards to the VA Con, I rely on the US Con. Article VI, Sec. 2: "This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof . . shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”“

The “supremacy clause” seems pretty clear to me.

[edit on 4/17/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 07:58 PM
link   


posted by Benevolent Heretic

The 2nd Amendment doesn't say that the militia can have guns. It says a militia is necessary to the security of a free state. It says the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. NOT the militia: [Edited by Don W]



The US Constitution is a work of art! It is beautifully written, concise, coherent and complete. That is, all of it except the Second Amendment. It alone is discombobulated.

I often wonder who wrote it, and why it alone is so badly written. The Revolutionary War 1775-1783, was fought and won under the Articles of Confederation which were in effect until 1789, when the current constitution was adopted. The Continental Congress. They really had militias then. George Washington’s Continental Army numbered 3,000 or so. It was often augmented by militias sometimes numbering 15,000. Let’s look at what the Founders said about militias when we really had militias.

From the Articles: Article 6, Fourth paragraph: “. . every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.” See Avalon Project via Google.

I think the key words are “ . . well-regulated and disciplined militia . . “ which sets militias apart from vigilantes and a mob. We don't have militias today. Note the weapons ae to kept in “public stores” which today we call an armory.

[edit on 4/17/2007 by donwhite]









 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join