It's not a "notion," it's inherent in the original Constitutions of many of the states at the time of their writing. Also, "militia" at the time of the Bill of Rights was just as I described - not a standing army, but common citizens reporting with their own weaponry kept at their homes.
The militia, in eighteenth-century terms, was every able-bodied male over a certain age. NOT the national guard. Plus, the militia assumed that you would have a gun IN YOUR HOME. There's also a phrase in there "shall not be infringed," which means that it almost DOESN'T matter what the rest of the reasoning is, you can't infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Also, your argument about gun control saving more lives is a little dubious, because we DON'T have an accurate measure on how much crimes are prevented by guns when they are NOT fired, but the use of force is just threatened.
Also, we KNOW that conceal-carry states have less crime overall and less gun-crime, and that those who have permits are typically better shots AND have better records than police. There are also recent statistics where something like 75%+ of gun crimes are committed by those already with a criminal record.
I keep iterating this - we should NOT limit the freedom of those of us who are law abiding - the vast majority of gun owners - to kowtow to the irresponsibility of the impulses and criminality of the few. I am a law-abiding, responsible citizen - why should I have to give up my guns?
Besides which, Americans aren't Brits or Aussies. We have a different concept of freedom and who is responsible for personal self-defense - not the state, but the individual.
Except many of the weaker gun-control law areas actually have LESS crime. Concealed-carry states have statistically less crime, and areas with high gun-control measures (DC, Chicago) have HIGH crime rates. BTW, "rednecks" in the south aren't all that poor, they typically sit in the lower middle class, if not a little better. Most of us down here actually have a decent job.
Crime is more properly linked to poverty, not guns.
And the recent rash of shootings? "Gun-free" zones where students - who by most definitions are adults - could not carry firearms to defend themselves.
Hmmm...taking up arms was the only solution to several problems - Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and fascist Italy, the Afghanis kicking the Soviets out, getting the Brits to leave us the heck alone TWICE, defeating Napoleon, etc....
I get your argument, I really do, but I get a bit frustrated when vehement opponents of the war in Iraq who try and attach a "chickenhawk" label and claim it's such an injustice don't think that their cause is worth the ultimate sacrifice.
Taking guns out of criminal hands is EXACTLY what many lefties think is going to happen with all their anti-gun legislation. They often react rather vehemently when ever a gun crime is committed, and believe that simply outlawing firearms will somehow fix the problem. Criminals with guns may make them easy to identify, but it also makes them dangerous to the general populace, and I cannot depend on the police to protect me against an armed opponent.
Semi-auto firearms hold more bullets, and are easier to load and reload. In a self-protection need, I can slap a clip into a semi-auto, pull the slide, and be ready to go in less time than I can load my revolver (unless I have a speed-loader). Semi-autos which are left unloaded with the clip nearby are safer with children around than revolvers.
My objections to firearm limitations, outside of full-auto (which are obtainable with a license in some states) is that the limitations make little to no difference in crime prevention, and the VAST majority of gun owners - something like 99% - do NOT and NEVER WILL commit a crime with a firearm, on top of which we can't get an accurate estimate on the number of times a firearm has been used to prevent a crime. Taking guns out of the hands of the law-abiding serves no real purpose.
That's what's so amusing about the Far Left - they whine and complain so much about both real and perceived injustices, but don't take up arms to defend their causes. If they hate our "occupation" of Iraq so much and believe we're in the wrong, why don't they go fight against us with the most force available?
The general rationale is that the 2nd amendment is the ultimate protection of all the others. You have a decent agreement that we're not really going to overthrow the government with civilian-held firearms, but that entire scenario is a bit of a stretch. However, I CAN defend certain aspects of some of my freedoms with my guns.
The other side of the argument is the bumper-sticker slogan "If guns are criminal, only criminals will have guns" which bears a certain amount of truth - criminals aren't going to disarm in America, and disarming those of us who are law-abiding only makes us more vulnerable to attacks on our life, liberty, and property.
You don't know Louisiana, which is probably the most "religious right" state you can find, and is known for some pretty incredible racism in the 20th century....and we elected a woman governor (Blanco) and an Indian-American (Jindal).
I'm a libertarian-conservative and typically vote practically, and shouldn't have projected that. However, most Republicans hold to some sort of conservative ideals in one fashion or another, and Obama holds none of those. Leftism is bad because it takes from those who earned and gives to those who don't deserve.
And you're right about there not being much difference in parties right now - it was particularly the reason why so many conservative dems wound up elected in 2006, because the Republicans dropped the ball in moving the country like they said they would and wound up with more do-nothing idiocy.
Dang, poor choice of words on my part, and I apologize. I should have said "conservative" and then made it a general statement on those who claim to be Republican and then switch their vote - who I almost automatically see should be conservatives at the base - change their vote for someone who doesn't represent anything that they stand for.
I HOPE not. Louisiana needs Jindal more than US needs him as VP. Also, Jindal only has slightly more experience in government than Obama (which isn't saying much), and has never held down a non-government "real job." If Jindal can help get Louisiana off the bottom of some lists, he'll be considered a success and almost be a walk-in to the Republican nomination in 2016.
Ummm...so you're essentially throwing EVERYTHING that makes you a republican out the window to vote for the most leftist presidential candidate from a major party EVER?
As a conservative (current republicans != conservative), part of me is glad that it's Obama, and part of me is ticked that we couldn't put up something more than a fat old white guy again. Congrats to the dems for finally promoting values you've claimed to hold since the '60s...and which Republicans, until now, have usually beaten you on in appointments to higher office.
How have right-to-work states like Louisiana, where there have been several successful films and a burgeoning movie industry, affected the marketplace? Also, how successful are aspiring actors at getting beyond the "cattle call" stage and actually making a living there? Is it a good place for directors to ply their trade without having to deal with the expense and obnoxiousness of California?
The Rock Band drumming on "expert" probably has the MOST skill required of any of the instruments. The REALLY hard levels require you to be an actual decent drummer to play the thing.
Dems, despite all their bluster, are beholden to big businesses as well. Both parties, particularly at the top, are heavily influenced by both competing and non-competing corporate interests more and more.
Slashdot Mirror
I know, I know, but I'm speaking to the gun-illiterate. "Magazine" doesn't register. "Clip" does.
It's not a "notion," it's inherent in the original Constitutions of many of the states at the time of their writing. Also, "militia" at the time of the Bill of Rights was just as I described - not a standing army, but common citizens reporting with their own weaponry kept at their homes.
No, it isn't. You protect your pen with your sword. Without your sword, I can take your pen with mine.
The militia, in eighteenth-century terms, was every able-bodied male over a certain age. NOT the national guard. Plus, the militia assumed that you would have a gun IN YOUR HOME. There's also a phrase in there "shall not be infringed," which means that it almost DOESN'T matter what the rest of the reasoning is, you can't infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Also, your argument about gun control saving more lives is a little dubious, because we DON'T have an accurate measure on how much crimes are prevented by guns when they are NOT fired, but the use of force is just threatened.
Also, we KNOW that conceal-carry states have less crime overall and less gun-crime, and that those who have permits are typically better shots AND have better records than police. There are also recent statistics where something like 75%+ of gun crimes are committed by those already with a criminal record.
I keep iterating this - we should NOT limit the freedom of those of us who are law abiding - the vast majority of gun owners - to kowtow to the irresponsibility of the impulses and criminality of the few. I am a law-abiding, responsible citizen - why should I have to give up my guns? Besides which, Americans aren't Brits or Aussies. We have a different concept of freedom and who is responsible for personal self-defense - not the state, but the individual.
I may be one of 10 guys around here, if that many, to have shot a Thompson full-auto at a local gun range. Flippin' AWESOME.
Except many of the weaker gun-control law areas actually have LESS crime. Concealed-carry states have statistically less crime, and areas with high gun-control measures (DC, Chicago) have HIGH crime rates. BTW, "rednecks" in the south aren't all that poor, they typically sit in the lower middle class, if not a little better. Most of us down here actually have a decent job.
Crime is more properly linked to poverty, not guns.
And the recent rash of shootings? "Gun-free" zones where students - who by most definitions are adults - could not carry firearms to defend themselves.
No, just in a country where there is forced entry into occupied homes occasionally. Plus, shooting is fun.
I think that those still pop up from time to time, but they fall to the feds as classic Ponzi schemes. 12dailypro was the latest and greatest to die.
Usenet died. Netcraft confirmed it.
Hmmm...taking up arms was the only solution to several problems - Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and fascist Italy, the Afghanis kicking the Soviets out, getting the Brits to leave us the heck alone TWICE, defeating Napoleon, etc....
I get your argument, I really do, but I get a bit frustrated when vehement opponents of the war in Iraq who try and attach a "chickenhawk" label and claim it's such an injustice don't think that their cause is worth the ultimate sacrifice.
Taking guns out of criminal hands is EXACTLY what many lefties think is going to happen with all their anti-gun legislation. They often react rather vehemently when ever a gun crime is committed, and believe that simply outlawing firearms will somehow fix the problem. Criminals with guns may make them easy to identify, but it also makes them dangerous to the general populace, and I cannot depend on the police to protect me against an armed opponent.
Semi-auto firearms hold more bullets, and are easier to load and reload. In a self-protection need, I can slap a clip into a semi-auto, pull the slide, and be ready to go in less time than I can load my revolver (unless I have a speed-loader). Semi-autos which are left unloaded with the clip nearby are safer with children around than revolvers.
My objections to firearm limitations, outside of full-auto (which are obtainable with a license in some states) is that the limitations make little to no difference in crime prevention, and the VAST majority of gun owners - something like 99% - do NOT and NEVER WILL commit a crime with a firearm, on top of which we can't get an accurate estimate on the number of times a firearm has been used to prevent a crime. Taking guns out of the hands of the law-abiding serves no real purpose.
That's what's so amusing about the Far Left - they whine and complain so much about both real and perceived injustices, but don't take up arms to defend their causes. If they hate our "occupation" of Iraq so much and believe we're in the wrong, why don't they go fight against us with the most force available?
The general rationale is that the 2nd amendment is the ultimate protection of all the others. You have a decent agreement that we're not really going to overthrow the government with civilian-held firearms, but that entire scenario is a bit of a stretch. However, I CAN defend certain aspects of some of my freedoms with my guns.
The other side of the argument is the bumper-sticker slogan "If guns are criminal, only criminals will have guns" which bears a certain amount of truth - criminals aren't going to disarm in America, and disarming those of us who are law-abiding only makes us more vulnerable to attacks on our life, liberty, and property.
Wow, thanks for the over-generalization. Why don't you take a look and see how many of those "rednecks" actually commit crimes with guns?
You don't know Louisiana, which is probably the most "religious right" state you can find, and is known for some pretty incredible racism in the 20th century....and we elected a woman governor (Blanco) and an Indian-American (Jindal).
I'm a libertarian-conservative and typically vote practically, and shouldn't have projected that. However, most Republicans hold to some sort of conservative ideals in one fashion or another, and Obama holds none of those. Leftism is bad because it takes from those who earned and gives to those who don't deserve.
And you're right about there not being much difference in parties right now - it was particularly the reason why so many conservative dems wound up elected in 2006, because the Republicans dropped the ball in moving the country like they said they would and wound up with more do-nothing idiocy.
Dang, poor choice of words on my part, and I apologize. I should have said "conservative" and then made it a general statement on those who claim to be Republican and then switch their vote - who I almost automatically see should be conservatives at the base - change their vote for someone who doesn't represent anything that they stand for.
I HOPE not. Louisiana needs Jindal more than US needs him as VP. Also, Jindal only has slightly more experience in government than Obama (which isn't saying much), and has never held down a non-government "real job." If Jindal can help get Louisiana off the bottom of some lists, he'll be considered a success and almost be a walk-in to the Republican nomination in 2016.
Guess you'll wait another 4 years, then. Just about all pols from both sides of the aisle have sold out to one corporate interest or another.
Ummm...so you're essentially throwing EVERYTHING that makes you a republican out the window to vote for the most leftist presidential candidate from a major party EVER?
As a conservative (current republicans != conservative), part of me is glad that it's Obama, and part of me is ticked that we couldn't put up something more than a fat old white guy again. Congrats to the dems for finally promoting values you've claimed to hold since the '60s...and which Republicans, until now, have usually beaten you on in appointments to higher office.
How have right-to-work states like Louisiana, where there have been several successful films and a burgeoning movie industry, affected the marketplace? Also, how successful are aspiring actors at getting beyond the "cattle call" stage and actually making a living there? Is it a good place for directors to ply their trade without having to deal with the expense and obnoxiousness of California?
The Rock Band drumming on "expert" probably has the MOST skill required of any of the instruments. The REALLY hard levels require you to be an actual decent drummer to play the thing.
The second-greatest thing? The addition of the phrase "We picked their play!" into football lingo.
Dems, despite all their bluster, are beholden to big businesses as well. Both parties, particularly at the top, are heavily influenced by both competing and non-competing corporate interests more and more.