Ah, I see now... So robbers are afraid of the people they rob because they might have firearms on them? Hmmmm Actually, one of the problems with many states is that the people that DO carry firearms are REQUIRED to keep them concealed. Having been in states that people carry openly and conceal, I'll guarantee you, nobody ever tried to rob me when I was packing, and they knew it.(Fact that's why I started packing, the garbage stopped) If statistics are your game, why don't you come up with how many armed cops are robbed in relation to how many unarmed are robbed?? That would certainly support your point, if you had one...:)
in fact there's already a "well regulated militia" : it's called the army ! >Absolutely incorrect. A militia is almost the >polar opposite of a standing army. That's right, and I personally have a picture of the Oregon Militia, standing on the beach preped for invaders, in 1942. No uniforms, badges, nothing but citizens protecting their country. >The idea of the founders was that there would >not be a standing army of significant size, but >that ordinary citizens would be sufficiently >armed and competent ("well-regulated") to repel >an invading army. Further, the fact that people on this board wouldn't KNOW how far the idea of the army being the militia is only amounts to proof of how accurate the book 1984 is. They've changed the meaning of the words so most people now can't comprehend a real militia, or regulated. This has been analized by linguists in the past, and the finall result showed the above definition of regulated to be the one intended by the founders.(And no I don't remember where I saw it)
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, I see now... So robbers are afraid of the people they rob because they might have firearms on them? Hmmmm Actually, one of the problems with many states is that the people that DO carry firearms are REQUIRED to keep them concealed. Having been in states that people carry openly and conceal, I'll guarantee you, nobody ever tried to rob me when I was packing, and they knew it.(Fact that's why I started packing, the garbage stopped) If statistics are your game, why don't you come up with how many armed cops are robbed in relation to how many unarmed are robbed?? That would certainly support your point, if you had one...:)
in fact there's already a "well regulated militia" : it's called the army ! >Absolutely incorrect. A militia is almost the >polar opposite of a standing army. That's right, and I personally have a picture of the Oregon Militia, standing on the beach preped for invaders, in 1942. No uniforms, badges, nothing but citizens protecting their country. >The idea of the founders was that there would >not be a standing army of significant size, but >that ordinary citizens would be sufficiently >armed and competent ("well-regulated") to repel >an invading army. Further, the fact that people on this board wouldn't KNOW how far the idea of the army being the militia is only amounts to proof of how accurate the book 1984 is. They've changed the meaning of the words so most people now can't comprehend a real militia, or regulated. This has been analized by linguists in the past, and the finall result showed the above definition of regulated to be the one intended by the founders.(And no I don't remember where I saw it)