Yes, that's because you didn't see what happens when the bunnies' ravenous, all encompassing hunger isn't sated with tourist's tasty pellets. The horror!
Oh, I think I understand it just fine. The captains of the militia are not federal personnel, their commission would be derived from state authority, and the state decides how to form companies, battalions, regiments, divisions, etc. The Governor of each state also has certain powers to call fourth the militia, how would it make sense for a state official to command a federal militia?
When called upon by the president, it would have been the executive branch's law enforcement division that would see the state militias follow federal command. In other words, U.S. Marshals would have been the federal officials in charge of making sure the militia followed executive command, directing the states, local generals, colonels, captains and so fourth as needed. "The Marshals" and their deputies of the district is specified several times in that act as a recipient of the power and responsibilities that congress was granting in the text of that act; marshal of the district is a position appointed by the president. Curious.
Also, if Sam Brown mustered with only a shotgun, the Captain might have had a problem with that. Congress specified a musket "of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound". In other words, 18 gauge, or.673" diameter. Gee, I wonder why that would be? Ammunition compatibility, perhaps? If your company decides to rely on non-standard arms, it impinges upon the "well regulated" status of your unit. Of course the captain would be expected to keep track of such matters. That however doesn't mean your musket is registered.
but if Thomas Jefferson wanted to know whether any individual in the country had a gun, and what kind, he could have found that information out at literally any time.
Unless he was willing to commit to breaking a substantial portion of the bill of rights, states rights, etc. I cannot possibly fathom how he or any other president could pull that off. Does Carnac the Magnificent's hat come along with the other powers vested in the presidency?
So you cite the same law I did. You may have noticed that it did not provide for the registration of firearms, but it did provide for the enrollment in the militia to the local militia Captain. In the broadest sense, you might say that if every able-bodied white male was expected to own a firearm, and that if you take census of all the people as directed by the Constitution, then you can find all of the white male, firearms are registered...
Well, no, you really can't. If you're the the colonial government, you still don't know which gun is where (unless perhaps it was in your state arsenal), there were no restrictions on buying, manufacturing, or transference whatsoever. A man might have owned just one gun to satisfy his militia readiness requirements, by the same token, he might have owned ten or a hundred. They were not registered, indeed, many manufacturers didn't provide serial numbers which are used in all registration schemes until the 1960's when a change in federal law mandated that feature.
Indeed, American Rifleman had a pretty interesting story about one such rifle sent to Britian in last month's edition. I'm not sure I'd send my prized match winning rifle, but it's pretty inspiring that Hession did. Here's the article on the web
Care to cite that one? Post revolution, it was soon made law (second congress) that every male of an age appropriate to serving in the militia should have his own firearm and associated accessories (Militia Acts of 1792, signed by George Washington himself)
So, for a time, it was basically assumed that everyone had an appropriate firearm. It would make better sense to keep track of the men who did not.
Pre-revolutionary war? I could understand why the vested powers would want to register firearms in the colonies. That's what they did in Britain after all, and look at what it did for them.
Humpback whales. I'm not sure the line between vocal communication (what we'd call speech) or music can be drawn clearly, if at all, but during mating season male humpback whales 'sing' in patterns that seem to have measures, notes and patterns to we humans, and all of the males in a given locality sing roughly the same song, which varies over time, and doesn't necessarily repeat between seasons, kind of like improvisational song of a jam band.
P.S. I propose that humpback whales henceforth be known as the "hippies of the sea"
Basically, yes. Many if not most popular titles are handicapped to the level of the 5-6 year old consoles mentioned earlier, much to the chagrin of PC gamers who buy high end components. What that means is if you have a modestly powerful PC such as those built within the last 2-3 years (or even a budget PC built more recently, with integrated graphics, etc.) you can pretty much ignore the system requirements and get an acceptable experience, but perhaps not at the highest resolutions and quality settings.
remember, your guys are just as guilty of it as the other guys - except every time your guys do it, it STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN of bribery and corruption. At least my guys are ATTEMPTING to make a better world, instead of lining their (and their masters and their cronies) pockets.
I don't know, it often stinks to high heaven of corruption, etc. in both directions. After all, how often are they trying to make a better world for you and me, and mine and yours, rather than their ruling class?
There is no 'right to privacy' in the Constitution
Oh, I wouldn't be so quick to declare that:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The way I see it, they decided it would be impractical, if not impossible to list every possible right that needed protection (and to what degree), but they wanted to guard freedom in a general sense, including the freedom of a person to be free from all substantial arbitrary impositions by the government.
Just because the founders didn't choose to explicitly enumerate that right, that doesn't mean that they believed the government should be able to arbitrarily limit your choice of medical procedures, etc. Without a measure of privacy (which they sometimes took extraordinary measures to achieve), they would have never been able to mount a revolution, from that continuum, I'm pretty sure they would have been fond that ideal.
I've shot hundreds of thousands of rounds over the years, none of which have disturbed or injured another living being, unless you count the bacteria and yeast cells living in the backstop, and perhaps a few blades of grass and weeds. Well, maybe an unfortunate gnat or two got in the way somewhere down the road, but that's just between you and me.
When asked to draw a line to distinguish between a gun designed to kill and one that's not, some people will argue that your trap gun, or any gun is designed to kill, whether or not you use it for that purpose. In fact, shotguns are known to work very well to that end, whether the quarry be little birds or people. An argument could be made that a gun designed for trap would excel at killing people, being designed to produce tighter groups of shot at longer distances, and being light enough to easily follow your target, you know, whatever that may be.
The fact remains: The vast, massively overwhelming majority of people who will ever own the gun represented in this article (or one similar to it) will use it no differently than you use your trap gun... After all, there are entire divisions of organized sport where rifles like this are routine, required equipment. Most people will just shoot pop cans and steel/paper targets with it.
As for your assertion that a semi-automatic.308 is a lousy hunting rifle: it's manufactured to accurately use a cartridge which is widely recognized as neither insufficient nor overpowered for hunting most large game in this country, from varmints on up, millions of people use this cartridge expressly for hunting. There is no discernible operating difference between this rifle and many others which are specifically marketed as hunting arms.
Actually, you've got it backwards. NATO ammo in a.308 chamber is fine, and.308 in a NATO chambered gun is usually OK too. The max pressure on.308 Win is slightly higher than 7.62x51, enough that some auto-loading NATO guns can be over-gassed and run too hard if shot with.308 Win. It's something like 58,000 PSI for NATO and 62,000 for commercial. Also, commercial ammo often uses slower burning powders designed to get higher velocity out of bolt action hunting rifles with longer barrels, further increasing the pressure at the barrel tap on the autoloader.
However, the real significant difference between the two lies in the chamber, and more specifically the headspace. Dimensionally, the unfired cases are exactly the same on the outside. The.308 chamber is tighter, and like you noted, the brass is generally thinner. This is because with the tight chamber, the brass doesn't expand so much. The shoulder/neck on the NATO chamber is a bit different. The NATO no-go gauge is about 10-13 thou longer in the shoulder area. The reasons for this are to make more room for mud, blood and guts between the cartridge and the chamber, so to improve reliability. Consequently the brass is usually made from a thicker, but more annealed (softer) alloy which better expands to fill the gap (this is also why they keep the NATO ammo pressure slightly lower). As an aside, that feature leads to more erratic muzzle velocities, making guns with the.308 chamber more accurate, all other things being equal.
So, if you're running a max pressure commercial cartridge in a NATO chambered gun, you can possibly end up with case-neck separations, stuck brass, damaged extractors, blown-up rifles, etc. But most ammo doesn't quite push the envelope that far, so it would be acceptable to do interchange the two in an emergency.
You're missing the point; they're missing out on an opportunity. They should offer internet streaming of the games 1) because it's apparently in demand and 2) they can use that demand to put advertisements in front of those eyeballs, or 3) offer a subscription to the games for a nominal fee, allowing a subscriber to view whatever particular events they want, when they want.
They could probably be raking in the dough hand over fist, but they're too stupid to see it.
But what if the bar to getting a driver's license was so that you yourself could not pass, despite whatever preconceived ideas you have regarding your driving skills? What if the cost of the test exceeded your meager means? The law of unintended consequences says that people would still drive, but they'd do it illegally as many do now, but more so.
It doesn't take a firearm to go on a random killing spree. Remember the 2009 attack on the Dutch royal family, where the assailant used a compact car? 8 dead, 10 others injured. Remember that one? They're one of your neighbors, who 'enjoy' similar regulations on firearms, similar geographic size, similar social welfare programs, similar levels of employment and education, similar levels of monoculture. The US has none of that in common with your country. Comparing apples to pineapples is a waste of time, an exercise in mental masturbation.
The point isn't that you're more likely to be robbed with a bikestand, or a knife, or a club, or a gun. These things are mere implements. It's the person behind the tool which makes it a weapon. The fact is, you have fewer people willing to use anything as a weapon, for any number of socioeconomic reasons. You're less likely to be robbed if you're in the darkest, dingiest alley in Copenhagen than you in the middle of day in some crime ridden place in the US, period. It so happens that these places throw off the curve for the rest of us. There are counties in the US in which civilian firearms ownership likely out-measures a good chunk of your entire country (all but your military) where crime is uncommon, and murders even more so. Where does that idea fit into your world view?
Sure, if they are asking about YOU, then you have a justification to act cautiously. If they're asking if you saw so-and-so drinking the other night, not so much. Unless you want to protect so-and-so from the consequences of their actions.
Oh, sure they could be asking about your friend, or whatever, probing to find out if you were in the vicinity of a rape which involved a rapist vaguely matching your description, where some young thing got slipped a date rape drug. Oops. Cops are legally allowed to lie to you, that does not go both ways.
During an interview you could unknowingly confess to breaking laws you might not have the faintest clue actually existed in the first place; talking allows them to develop probable cause to search, issue warrants, etc. And if they somehow catch you in a lie, no matter how innocent, and they could all of a sudden be talking obstruction of justice charges and trying to put the screws to you.
Talking to cops is how innocent people (you're guilty of something, though, I guarantee it) wind up in trouble. It virtually cannot benefit you, it is an unlevel playing field, and the only thing that makes some cops happy is fucking with people who think like you.
As of today I found if you have a google+ account and opt to not use your real name in lieu of a username, you can't post replies to comments, even to your own videos. They didn't warn this would happen when you denied to use your real name, and it was immensely frustrating to not have a working reply button, and more so to not know why. Well, there it is.
While I have no habit of spewing vitriol, and write every comment as though I am accountable, I also have no want or desire to make it easy for any number of stalkers to come straight to my own front door; and without compromising their anonymity! Even if I were comfortable with putting my real name out there and associating it with my YouTube content, there's such a small handful of people in the world with my name that it's effectively unique. Talk about opening yourself up to ambush.
What did I do, you might ask? I deleted my G+ identity, and nothing of value was lost. I can now keep in touch with my subscribers. If they keep this up, I will have to abandon their services, and I won't feel the least bit of remorse.
I've never heard that one, and I open carry into a couple banks at least once a month. I'm sure as much as some feds would like to make banks federal property, it's just not the case.
At any rate, I'm not sure how post offices and Washington DC (being a federal enclave) get away with their bans. If we hold that the bill of rights, along with the 2nd amendment, is a check first and only against federal power--which is something many constitutional scholars claim, as well as the supreme court upheld in Barron vs Baltimore, then bearing arms on federal territory is in fact expressly preemptively and expressly allowed.
Since the 2nd amendment has only recently been (partway) incorporated against the states in McDonald vs. Chicago, it really makes no sense that the only places in the country one can't keep and bear arms is on federal territory. It makes double nonsense that if you violate any other federal-level law at a private citizen, you'll surely be held accountable, even though you were not on "federal territory". It only makes sense to say that each and every square inch of land which constitutes this republic is part of the federation of states, and that all federal laws apply everywhere equally, and take precedence over any state and local laws. I'm just not sure what's so hard about it sometimes.
This is about the least uninformed comment in this whole story. Military bases in the US are effectively as much a gun-free zone as your average US high-school. I take that back, there are probably some high-schools in which more students illegally carry guns than your average on-base soldier.
Many military men and women have concealed carry licensees so that they can carry off base, but their personal weapon is stored either in the armory, or in a locked box in their domicile if they live on base, depending on how anti-gun the CO is, it's usually the former. If a soldier maintains a residence off base, they'll usually never bring their firearm on base, because it's not worth the hassle to take it in and out of the armory. Contractors who work on base may also have concealed licenses for their daily lives, but holy shit is their ass in a sling if they ever forget to leave the gun at home.
Were the victims of Fort Hood expected to fight back by making a gun shape with their fingers and loudly yell "BANG!"?
I'm going to say it: there's only one way to prevent these sorts of attacks short of stripping everyone of all their rights and throwing everyone in padded cells for their own protection. It doesn't matter if they're in America, Europe or China: the only foolproof method is to get 'em girlfriends, or at the very least easy access to hookers and jobs.
If these crazy motherfuckers are getting pussy on a regular basis, they won't have or plan shit like this, no less time to even think about it. They'll be too busy thinking about the next time they're going to get some poon. If they're too ugly or crazy to have it given to them, if they have a job they'll at least be looking forward to the next time they can buy it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, that's because you didn't see what happens when the bunnies' ravenous, all encompassing hunger isn't sated with tourist's tasty pellets. The horror!
Oh, I think I understand it just fine. The captains of the militia are not federal personnel, their commission would be derived from state authority, and the state decides how to form companies, battalions, regiments, divisions, etc. The Governor of each state also has certain powers to call fourth the militia, how would it make sense for a state official to command a federal militia?
When called upon by the president, it would have been the executive branch's law enforcement division that would see the state militias follow federal command. In other words, U.S. Marshals would have been the federal officials in charge of making sure the militia followed executive command, directing the states, local generals, colonels, captains and so fourth as needed. "The Marshals" and their deputies of the district is specified several times in that act as a recipient of the power and responsibilities that congress was granting in the text of that act; marshal of the district is a position appointed by the president. Curious.
Also, if Sam Brown mustered with only a shotgun, the Captain might have had a problem with that. Congress specified a musket "of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound". In other words, 18 gauge, or .673" diameter. Gee, I wonder why that would be? Ammunition compatibility, perhaps? If your company decides to rely on non-standard arms, it impinges upon the "well regulated" status of your unit. Of course the captain would be expected to keep track of such matters. That however doesn't mean your musket is registered.
but if Thomas Jefferson wanted to know whether any individual in the country had a gun, and what kind, he could have found that information out at literally any time.
Unless he was willing to commit to breaking a substantial portion of the bill of rights, states rights, etc. I cannot possibly fathom how he or any other president could pull that off. Does Carnac the Magnificent's hat come along with the other powers vested in the presidency?
So you cite the same law I did. You may have noticed that it did not provide for the registration of firearms, but it did provide for the enrollment in the militia to the local militia Captain. In the broadest sense, you might say that if every able-bodied white male was expected to own a firearm, and that if you take census of all the people as directed by the Constitution, then you can find all of the white male, firearms are registered...
Well, no, you really can't. If you're the the colonial government, you still don't know which gun is where (unless perhaps it was in your state arsenal), there were no restrictions on buying, manufacturing, or transference whatsoever. A man might have owned just one gun to satisfy his militia readiness requirements, by the same token, he might have owned ten or a hundred. They were not registered, indeed, many manufacturers didn't provide serial numbers which are used in all registration schemes until the 1960's when a change in federal law mandated that feature.
Indeed, American Rifleman had a pretty interesting story about one such rifle sent to Britian in last month's edition. I'm not sure I'd send my prized match winning rifle, but it's pretty inspiring that Hession did. Here's the article on the web
Care to cite that one? Post revolution, it was soon made law (second congress) that every male of an age appropriate to serving in the militia should have his own firearm and associated accessories (Militia Acts of 1792, signed by George Washington himself)
So, for a time, it was basically assumed that everyone had an appropriate firearm. It would make better sense to keep track of the men who did not.
Pre-revolutionary war? I could understand why the vested powers would want to register firearms in the colonies. That's what they did in Britain after all, and look at what it did for them.
Humpback whales. I'm not sure the line between vocal communication (what we'd call speech) or music can be drawn clearly, if at all, but during mating season male humpback whales 'sing' in patterns that seem to have measures, notes and patterns to we humans, and all of the males in a given locality sing roughly the same song, which varies over time, and doesn't necessarily repeat between seasons, kind of like improvisational song of a jam band.
P.S. I propose that humpback whales henceforth be known as the "hippies of the sea"
Basically, yes. Many if not most popular titles are handicapped to the level of the 5-6 year old consoles mentioned earlier, much to the chagrin of PC gamers who buy high end components. What that means is if you have a modestly powerful PC such as those built within the last 2-3 years (or even a budget PC built more recently, with integrated graphics, etc.) you can pretty much ignore the system requirements and get an acceptable experience, but perhaps not at the highest resolutions and quality settings.
remember, your guys are just as guilty of it as the other guys - except every time your guys do it, it STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN of bribery and corruption. At least my guys are ATTEMPTING to make a better world, instead of lining their (and their masters and their cronies) pockets.
I don't know, it often stinks to high heaven of corruption, etc. in both directions. After all, how often are they trying to make a better world for you and me, and mine and yours, rather than their ruling class?
There is no 'right to privacy' in the Constitution
Oh, I wouldn't be so quick to declare that:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The way I see it, they decided it would be impractical, if not impossible to list every possible right that needed protection (and to what degree), but they wanted to guard freedom in a general sense, including the freedom of a person to be free from all substantial arbitrary impositions by the government.
Just because the founders didn't choose to explicitly enumerate that right, that doesn't mean that they believed the government should be able to arbitrarily limit your choice of medical procedures, etc. Without a measure of privacy (which they sometimes took extraordinary measures to achieve), they would have never been able to mount a revolution, from that continuum, I'm pretty sure they would have been fond that ideal.
I've shot hundreds of thousands of rounds over the years, none of which have disturbed or injured another living being, unless you count the bacteria and yeast cells living in the backstop, and perhaps a few blades of grass and weeds. Well, maybe an unfortunate gnat or two got in the way somewhere down the road, but that's just between you and me.
When asked to draw a line to distinguish between a gun designed to kill and one that's not, some people will argue that your trap gun, or any gun is designed to kill, whether or not you use it for that purpose. In fact, shotguns are known to work very well to that end, whether the quarry be little birds or people. An argument could be made that a gun designed for trap would excel at killing people, being designed to produce tighter groups of shot at longer distances, and being light enough to easily follow your target, you know, whatever that may be.
The fact remains: The vast, massively overwhelming majority of people who will ever own the gun represented in this article (or one similar to it) will use it no differently than you use your trap gun... After all, there are entire divisions of organized sport where rifles like this are routine, required equipment. Most people will just shoot pop cans and steel/paper targets with it.
As for your assertion that a semi-automatic .308 is a lousy hunting rifle: it's manufactured to accurately use a cartridge which is widely recognized as neither insufficient nor overpowered for hunting most large game in this country, from varmints on up, millions of people use this cartridge expressly for hunting. There is no discernible operating difference between this rifle and many others which are specifically marketed as hunting arms.
I wonder: is this unborn child assumed to have a football shaped head, an English accent, and a penchant for elocution?
Actually, you've got it backwards. NATO ammo in a .308 chamber is fine, and .308 in a NATO chambered gun is usually OK too. The max pressure on .308 Win is slightly higher than 7.62x51, enough that some auto-loading NATO guns can be over-gassed and run too hard if shot with .308 Win. It's something like 58,000 PSI for NATO and 62,000 for commercial. Also, commercial ammo often uses slower burning powders designed to get higher velocity out of bolt action hunting rifles with longer barrels, further increasing the pressure at the barrel tap on the autoloader.
However, the real significant difference between the two lies in the chamber, and more specifically the headspace. Dimensionally, the unfired cases are exactly the same on the outside. The .308 chamber is tighter, and like you noted, the brass is generally thinner. This is because with the tight chamber, the brass doesn't expand so much. The shoulder/neck on the NATO chamber is a bit different. The NATO no-go gauge is about 10-13 thou longer in the shoulder area. The reasons for this are to make more room for mud, blood and guts between the cartridge and the chamber, so to improve reliability. Consequently the brass is usually made from a thicker, but more annealed (softer) alloy which better expands to fill the gap (this is also why they keep the NATO ammo pressure slightly lower). As an aside, that feature leads to more erratic muzzle velocities, making guns with the .308 chamber more accurate, all other things being equal.
So, if you're running a max pressure commercial cartridge in a NATO chambered gun, you can possibly end up with case-neck separations, stuck brass, damaged extractors, blown-up rifles, etc. But most ammo doesn't quite push the envelope that far, so it would be acceptable to do interchange the two in an emergency.
In DC it's illegal to own one, for sure. But near impossible? Hahahahaha. Phew. I literally lol'd when I read that.
You're missing the point; they're missing out on an opportunity. They should offer internet streaming of the games 1) because it's apparently in demand and 2) they can use that demand to put advertisements in front of those eyeballs, or 3) offer a subscription to the games for a nominal fee, allowing a subscriber to view whatever particular events they want, when they want.
They could probably be raking in the dough hand over fist, but they're too stupid to see it.
Well, that's something we both agree on then.
But what if the bar to getting a driver's license was so that you yourself could not pass, despite whatever preconceived ideas you have regarding your driving skills? What if the cost of the test exceeded your meager means? The law of unintended consequences says that people would still drive, but they'd do it illegally as many do now, but more so.
So you think guns should be allowed such that the people under attack in the Dutch case could have opened fire to protect themselves?
Car vs a guy with a gun? Car wins. That's how dangerous cars are. Should everyone be allowed to drive cars?
It doesn't take a firearm to go on a random killing spree. Remember the 2009 attack on the Dutch royal family, where the assailant used a compact car? 8 dead, 10 others injured. Remember that one? They're one of your neighbors, who 'enjoy' similar regulations on firearms, similar geographic size, similar social welfare programs, similar levels of employment and education, similar levels of monoculture. The US has none of that in common with your country. Comparing apples to pineapples is a waste of time, an exercise in mental masturbation.
The point isn't that you're more likely to be robbed with a bikestand, or a knife, or a club, or a gun. These things are mere implements. It's the person behind the tool which makes it a weapon. The fact is, you have fewer people willing to use anything as a weapon, for any number of socioeconomic reasons. You're less likely to be robbed if you're in the darkest, dingiest alley in Copenhagen than you in the middle of day in some crime ridden place in the US, period. It so happens that these places throw off the curve for the rest of us. There are counties in the US in which civilian firearms ownership likely out-measures a good chunk of your entire country (all but your military) where crime is uncommon, and murders even more so. Where does that idea fit into your world view?
Sure, if they are asking about YOU, then you have a justification to act cautiously. If they're asking if you saw so-and-so drinking the other night, not so much. Unless you want to protect so-and-so from the consequences of their actions.
Oh, sure they could be asking about your friend, or whatever, probing to find out if you were in the vicinity of a rape which involved a rapist vaguely matching your description, where some young thing got slipped a date rape drug. Oops. Cops are legally allowed to lie to you, that does not go both ways.
During an interview you could unknowingly confess to breaking laws you might not have the faintest clue actually existed in the first place; talking allows them to develop probable cause to search, issue warrants, etc. And if they somehow catch you in a lie, no matter how innocent, and they could all of a sudden be talking obstruction of justice charges and trying to put the screws to you.
Talking to cops is how innocent people (you're guilty of something, though, I guarantee it) wind up in trouble. It virtually cannot benefit you, it is an unlevel playing field, and the only thing that makes some cops happy is fucking with people who think like you.
As of today I found if you have a google+ account and opt to not use your real name in lieu of a username, you can't post replies to comments, even to your own videos. They didn't warn this would happen when you denied to use your real name, and it was immensely frustrating to not have a working reply button, and more so to not know why. Well, there it is.
While I have no habit of spewing vitriol, and write every comment as though I am accountable, I also have no want or desire to make it easy for any number of stalkers to come straight to my own front door; and without compromising their anonymity! Even if I were comfortable with putting my real name out there and associating it with my YouTube content, there's such a small handful of people in the world with my name that it's effectively unique. Talk about opening yourself up to ambush.
What did I do, you might ask? I deleted my G+ identity, and nothing of value was lost. I can now keep in touch with my subscribers. If they keep this up, I will have to abandon their services, and I won't feel the least bit of remorse.
Federally-insured banks
I've never heard that one, and I open carry into a couple banks at least once a month. I'm sure as much as some feds would like to make banks federal property, it's just not the case.
At any rate, I'm not sure how post offices and Washington DC (being a federal enclave) get away with their bans. If we hold that the bill of rights, along with the 2nd amendment, is a check first and only against federal power--which is something many constitutional scholars claim, as well as the supreme court upheld in Barron vs Baltimore, then bearing arms on federal territory is in fact expressly preemptively and expressly allowed.
Since the 2nd amendment has only recently been (partway) incorporated against the states in McDonald vs. Chicago, it really makes no sense that the only places in the country one can't keep and bear arms is on federal territory. It makes double nonsense that if you violate any other federal-level law at a private citizen, you'll surely be held accountable, even though you were not on "federal territory". It only makes sense to say that each and every square inch of land which constitutes this republic is part of the federation of states, and that all federal laws apply everywhere equally, and take precedence over any state and local laws. I'm just not sure what's so hard about it sometimes.
Modern advertising is often a 'friendly' version of coercion, therefore it probably falls into the force category.
This is about the least uninformed comment in this whole story. Military bases in the US are effectively as much a gun-free zone as your average US high-school. I take that back, there are probably some high-schools in which more students illegally carry guns than your average on-base soldier.
Many military men and women have concealed carry licensees so that they can carry off base, but their personal weapon is stored either in the armory, or in a locked box in their domicile if they live on base, depending on how anti-gun the CO is, it's usually the former. If a soldier maintains a residence off base, they'll usually never bring their firearm on base, because it's not worth the hassle to take it in and out of the armory. Contractors who work on base may also have concealed licenses for their daily lives, but holy shit is their ass in a sling if they ever forget to leave the gun at home.
Were the victims of Fort Hood expected to fight back by making a gun shape with their fingers and loudly yell "BANG!"?
Even in the "Wild West" there were gun control laws. In a place like Tombstone you might be expected to surrender your arms while in town.
Naturally. The racketeers behind the ordinance wouldn't want their monopoly unduly threatened.
I'm going to say it: there's only one way to prevent these sorts of attacks short of stripping everyone of all their rights and throwing everyone in padded cells for their own protection. It doesn't matter if they're in America, Europe or China: the only foolproof method is to get 'em girlfriends, or at the very least easy access to hookers and jobs.
If these crazy motherfuckers are getting pussy on a regular basis, they won't have or plan shit like this, no less time to even think about it. They'll be too busy thinking about the next time they're going to get some poon. If they're too ugly or crazy to have it given to them, if they have a job they'll at least be looking forward to the next time they can buy it.