guns

[The Other Side]

Just in case you didnt know...

The militia act of 1792...( later repealed)

The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.
An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.
I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each 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, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That 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. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS ACT that allows guns for PERSONAL PROTECTION.

STOP SAYING SUCH.

PEACE

TOS

In this act, of security of the state, if a white able-bodied man was over 45, he couldnt have a gun. I dont know how old you are SOBER, but Im guessing you are, and you should surrender all your weapons.

peace

TOS

 

[cachsux]

I only mentioned his body armor to point out that, at the very least, the possibility that he might encounter an armed civilian may have had an effect on his decision- making. Had he been in Chicago or Los Angeles, he may not have felt the need to invest in armor.

If there had been someone who had been carrying under the circumstances of the situation as it has been reported would they have taken action? In the smoky chaotic crowded area first instinct would have been to take cover and flee. Pulling ones firearm in poor visibility, with others running around in the area, and with no definite target in those first moments, would have done little good and perhaps made the situation worse. Plus with the fairly quick response of law enforcement I would not want to be standing there gun in hand as they ran in.

 

[cachsux]

Domestic Terrorism.
What Timothy did to the Federal Building in 1995.
And
What happened in Aurora.

Terror = Panic

Negative actions that incite change out of fear or to "protect" the general populace is terrorism. I went with my son to see the Dark Knight Rises and it was easy to see the extra mall security as well as an actual policeman from town. I'm sure this was being played out in many areas that before Friday it would have never happened. Besides 12 dead and 59 wounded how many millions has this killer cost this country by his actions?

 

[ajblakejr]

Negative actions that incite change out of fear or to "protect" the general populace is terrorism. I went with my son to see the Dark Knight Rises and it was easy to see the extra mall security as well as an actual policeman from town. I'm sure this was being played out in many areas that before Friday it would have never happened. Besides 12 dead and 59 wounded how many millions has this killer cost this country by his actions?

Damn good question.

 

[klein]

Why is everyone speaking of Chicago ?
Why not murder capital #2 Philidelphia ? Another US city that has more homicides this year then the 33 Million population of all of Canada !

 

[brett636]

Why is everyone speaking of Chicago ?
Why not murder capital #2 Philidelphia ? Another US city that has more homicides this year then the 33 Million population of all of Canada !

Interesting as philly also has fairly strict gun laws. Hardly a coincidence.

 

[cachsux]

Why is everyone speaking of Chicago ?
Why not murder capital #2 Philidelphia ? Another US city that has more homicides this year then the 33 Million population of all of Canada !

Tell that to the folks who received body parts from the Canadian gay pornstar killer. Too many things about him too appealing to you for you to criticize?

 

[soberups]

The militia act of 1792...( later repealed.......



In this act, of security of the state, if a white able-bodied man was over 45, he couldnt have a gun. I dont know how old you are SOBER, but Im guessing you are, and you should surrender all your weapons.

peace

TOS

Thanks for the history lesson. Thanks for sharing that fascinating (and irrelevant) bit of trivia regarding an Act that has long since been repealed.

You and I have vastly differing opinions over the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

Thats OK with me, since the Supreme Court happens to agree with mine.

 

[soberups]

You keep saying this, but the consitution does not say such a thing. You keep EXTRAPOLATING a few words out of a bigger sentence that has a different meaning.

May I suggest you read up on the militia act of 1791??

Gun were mandated by the founders in congress to "ABELED BODY WHITE MEN" and not ALL MEN.

Peace

TOS

If, as you claim, the Founding Fathers had intended that only white male militia members could have guns, then the 2nd Amendment would read...."the right of white male militia members to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Thats not how the amendment reads, is it?

Not only has the Militia Act of 1791 been repealed , but nowhere in it does it state that only militia members are allowed to bear arms. So even if it were somehow relevant to a debate over the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment...nothing in it supports your assertion that I would have to surrender my guns at age 45.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

""the people"....it doesnt get much clearer than that, and not only does the Supreme Court agree with me, but the 38 states that are "shall issue" for carry permits agree with me. So do the state constitutions that gurantee the right of their citizens to keep and bear arms. And so do an estimated 150 million law abiding American gun owners.

So you go right on ahead and quote repealed "Militia Acts" until you are blue in the face if it makes you feel better. I will keep on packing my Glock 26, and we will call it good.

PEACE

 

[The Other Side]

Thanks for the history lesson. Thanks for sharing that fascinating (and irrelevant) bit of trivia regarding an Act that has long since been repealed.

You and I have vastly differing opinions over the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

Thats OK with me, since the Supreme Court happens to agree with mine.

The point being, SOBER, that the "intent" of the 2nd amendment was for controlling state militias, and NOT private ownership, the militia act of 1792 was a further clarification of the 2nd amendment and it was pretty plain and simple.

It was repealed in 1903 when the NATIONAL GUARD was created to fill the role of the state militias and it also ended the need for the townspeople to harbor weapons in defense of the state.

While the supreme court currently allows guns for private ownership, this isnt what the founders intended, its only what the courts interpret based on political reasoning.

On July 21, Madison again raised the issue of his Bill and proposed a select committee be created to report on it. The House voted in favor of Madison's motion,[SUP][82][/SUP] and the Bill of Rights entered committee for review. The committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment on July 28. On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.
​

This clearly spells out the intention of the second amendment and there is no mention of private gun ownership in this sentence. The preamble says "a well regulated militia," and everything after that first comma is speaking about the "well regulated militia".

You cant extrapolate something between commas and give it a separate meaning.

It was changed later to:

By this time, the proposed right to keep and bear arms was in a separate amendment, instead of being in a single amendment together with other proposed rights such as the due process right. As a Representative explained, this change allowed each amendment to "be passed upon distinctly by the States."[SUP][86][/SUP] On September 4, the Senate voted to change the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause:

A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
​

Then it was changed again:

The Senate returned to this amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words "for the common defence" next to the words "bear arms" was defeated. The Senate then slightly modified the language and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version passed by the Senate was:

A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
​

Lastly, it was finally changed to appear like this:

The House voted on September 21, 1789 to accept the changes made by the Senate, but the amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words "necessary to":

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.
​

On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) was adopted, having been ratified by three-fourths of the States.


Now, whether or not the supreme court agrees with you or not isnt he issue. The issue is whether guns are really a necessity in this country. I dont believe the founders would have sat back and watched mass murder after mass murder and allowed the right to possess guns to remain.

As weapons are becoming more and more powerful, so are the degree of the mass murders. If a person supports the rights to openly buy guns, then you are partly responsible for every mass murder in this country.

As for this shooter, I blame him for the first 15 rounds that the AR 15 fired, and then blame the gun seller and the gun maker along with the manufacturer of the drum magazine for every shot fired afterwards.

There is NO PURPOSE for a drum magazine in the public arena and that SALE alone should cost the retail gun store owner his license to sell guns.

There is NO PRACTICAL purpose to own a drum magazine outside of the military. The sale of the drum magazine should have been the largest RED FLAG raised and the police should have been notified or the sale cancelled.

Irresponsible gun dealers dont care about human life, they care solely about money and profits. They could care less where or when the guns they sell kill people.

Peace

TOS

 

[moreluck]

The Dark Knight Movie Massacre & Why I Carry a Gun Everywhere I Go - Doug Giles - [page]

 

[The Other Side]

The Dark Knight Movie Massacre & Why I Carry a Gun Everywhere I Go - Doug Giles - [page]

RIDICULOUS story about creating a HERO, despite the increase in deaths the HEROS actions would cause.

What a joke.

Peace

TOS

 

[soberups]

RIDICULOUS story about creating a HERO, despite the increase in deaths the HEROS actions would cause.

What a joke.

Peace

TOS

Yes, we would all be SOmuch safer if we just cowered on our knees, unarmed and helpless, while the ARMED lunatics and psychopaths had their way with us. Call 911... it sure worked well at the theater in Aurora!

What a joke.

Peace

Sober

 

[cheryl]

 

[The Other Side]

Yes, we would all be SOmuch safer if we just cowered on our knees, unarmed and helpless, while the ARMED lunatics and psychopaths had their way with us. Call 911... it sure worked well at the theater in Aurora!

What a joke.

Peace

Sober

Response time was 1.5 minutes and the police was there in force. The guy barely made it back to his car when he surrendered like the little coward he was. Its easy for you to criticize what happened that day as you monday morning quarterback the shooting from a perspective that MORE guns would have made people MORE safe.

But you ignore all the FACTS about the shooting that get in your way, your selfishness for guns BLINDS you to the obvious.

The problem with your perspective SOBER, is that its generated out of the John Wayne Syndrome where guys like you want to be a "hero" so bad with your guns as if you are the cowboy in the white hat.

But in reality, guys like you are not heros because you carry a gun, you are the kind of person the public should fear.

In the cities of Compton, Bell Gardens, South Central, East Los Angeles, San Fernando ( all in southern california ) are cities where most of the population is ARMED, would you call all these men in these cities "heros"??

There is a shooting everyday in those towns and people die. Is this your idea of Americans not being on their knees??

What i find odd is your claim that we are UNARMED and HELPLESS while the ARMED LUNATICS and PSYCHOPATHS have their way with us.... how do you define LUNATICS and PSYCHOPATHS??

How does someone make this determination? Should people with mental disorders be allowed to own guns? and if not, would that include those addicted to drugs or addicted to alcohol??

I mean, people addicted to drugs and having gone into treatment doesnt mean they can make good judgements, they have already demonstrated they cant make good decisions, and the same for alcoholics.

Both are mental disorders that impair judgement, and I certainly dont want to see anyone with either of these conditions whether presently or previously to have any access to weapons.

A person who cannot control their lives enough to stay off drugs or alcohol is EXACTLY the kind of person who should NEVER be allowed to own guns.

In this shooting, every right wing kook on the radio keeps repeating the claim that "if only" one person had a gun in that theatre, the outcome would have been different.

But what if there were more than ONE person armed in that theatre??

Lets say there were 5 armed persons in there, and the gas canisters go off and the shooter begins his rampage and the first person takes out his gun and starts shooting, then the other 4 persons who do not know who each other are, take out guns, who are they going to shoot other than each other??

Its the stupid suggestions that make me laugh the best. Now you would have 6 shooters firing inside the theatre and NONE of them would know who the other was or why they were shooting. In the dark, in a panic, in chaos, in the smoke and with all the loudness of the movie sound, it would be a free-for-all and many more people would have been killed.

Clearly, restricting access to assault weapons and magazines that limit rounds is the answer.

When Gov Romney was in office, HE BANNED all the guns used by this shooter and the magazines he had.

When CLINTON was in office, he also BANNED all the guns used by the shooter. IT was BUSH and the GOP controlled house and senate that UNDID the bans on those weapons and THEY should be held partially responsible for thier contribution to this massacre.

Peace

TOS

 

[The Other Side]

View attachment 7056

I dont get it?

What about drunks?

Peace

TOS

 

[cheryl]

I dont get it?

What about drunks?

Peace

TOS

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "What about drunks?" and how that relates to the meme I posted. Illegal and regulated substances are two different issues. The meme/joke is that this individual believes gun laws are enough to keep people from using guns but doesn't see the irony that drug laws aren't enough keep her from smoking pot.

I'm not pro guns, I'm not against them either. To each his own. I'm just skeptical that a law banning them would be able to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and lunatics any more effectively than they keep drugs out of the hands of anyone that seeks them out.

Organized crime and gangs and other professional criminals will be happy to be able to create a lucrative black market by subverting gun control laws, just like they do drug laws.

 

[moreluck]

The reason the police response was so quick is because they were already on the way before anything happened.....they were coming for crowd control They had already planned thinking there would be tons of people for the midnight show.

What really stopped things was that the auto. weapon jammed (as many do) and it slowed down things for the shooter.

 

[soberups]

Response time was 1.5 minutes and the police was there in force. The guy barely made it back to his car when he surrendered like the little coward he was. Its easy for you to criticize what happened that day as you monday morning quarterback the shooting from a perspective that MORE guns would have made people MORE safe.

In the 1.5 minutes that it took the police to respond, the lunatic killed 12 and wounded 58.

The massacre was over before any sort of armed response arrived...which is sadly typical for these situations.

Your assertion that the people in that theater were somehow safer because they were unarmed and incapable of fighting back in any way...is the most utterly ridiculous drivel that I have ever heard.

 

[moreluck]

I forget, is this drivel, dribble or drool ????