Open carry firearms.. Our 2nd amendment right!!

[immto]

It is a right to bear arms.. Not a privilege that you "retain" only "if" you follow all the rules all the time, or one that you should lose AFTER you have paid your penance to society by spending time in jail.

I do not believe that carrying a weapon is a trait that people should have to get a permit for, because they have to hide the weapon somehow, based on the ever-growing laundry list of legislation that has very much infringed on our right to bear arms.

A well regulated militia means the GOVERNMENT, and in regulating that, THE PEOPLE, which the 2nd amendment states very clearly, have the right to bear arms.

"Due process" does not include state or federal legislation that would make gun ownership, especially open carry, illegal or criminal.

Concealed carry is a different issue. At least with open carry, people know in advance that you are packing heat. To be allowed to carry a concealed weapon, and therefore be "sneaky".. that I agree- should continue to be a permitting designation.

To be clear- I am against parole. I think parole is a good program, but if we are going to release people for good behavior, work achieved, and other noble deeds, proving that the convicted prisoner is rehabilitated, then why even mess around with a parole system? Let them out and set them free. Its not fair to a parolee that they cannot have a gun.

It is also not fair that someone who has been served an order for protection of an accuser, should also suddenly lose their rights to carry a deadly weapon.. and people who are released and awaiting trial, also..
What happened to "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law"??

And as for the people who are mentally ill.. For God's sake, don't the sick ones have guardians? And the ones who aren't too sick to go to school, work, etc.. well guess what? If they want to go around killing everyone in sight in a fit of psychosis, they WILL find a way. Outlawing guns results in only the outlaws having guns.

I do not care so much about the "unsafe" aspect of it. I realize this will result in more shootings and very likely a lot more accidental homicides..

But it will also DRASTICALLY reduce the amount of overall violent crime, as well as theft that occurs in this country on a daily basis..

Who's going to even CONSIDER fucking with you, if you have a .45 pistol strapped to your side.

Cops suck. I say BUY A GUN.

Hm ...
as a european, I never got it what it is the americans have with their guns.

A weapon is an instrument, used for hunting or killing / hurting someone else.

As I suppose not everybody has to hunt for his daily food, the urgent need for this is not there anymore.

Leaves the second cause to have it.

A. Policemen will need it, as he they encounter armed criminals.
B. Criminals will need it, as nothing underlines better your seriousness than a loaded gun at someones head.
Also - as the police is armed and probable victims as well, it might be useful to have.

As not everybody is belonging to A or B, it seems to be a good idea to have a firearm for everybody as well.

But there the problem starts:

A and B might be quicker, better trained in the use of it, or simply more ruthless.
This can get you into trouble.

Also other groups might encounter you in larger number, as C. the Military, D. Terrorists or even E. a foreign army.
A .45er pistol might look cool, but it might not impress C., D. or E. when coming on you with better arms while doing their job.

It might cause A. to call a SWAT - team, because he thought you belonged to B. and they shoot a lot of holes into you and check up later (less risk - hell - you were armed).
Or B. might try to shoot you in the back, as this is the most secure way to get your purse.
Or seeing your .45 come back with an UZI and perforate you.

As it is a law of nature that
- in the long run the bullet always wins against armour
- you will always encounter in the long run someone stronger/cleverer/ better armed

you might keep out of any trouble by not joining any arms race with the above groups.

I therefore sincerely think, that limiting the guns at least to groups A. and B. might ease a lot of situations.

But on the other hand I do not want to be the one who explains this to a whole nation armed up to the teeth

Therefore I just love the Swiss.
In Switzerland (militia army !) every militiaman had until recently his Storm Rifle and a load of 60 rounds ammunition at home. The ammunition was plombed and sealed.
I asked my friend, if there were no incidents.
"No" he said "it´s quite rare. It is strictly forbidden to break the seal."

regards
ze germanguy

First you must realize that having the guns and being brave enough to use them is what made us free...

If we want to stay free we need to keep our guns in case the government needs to be reset.

The second Amendment is not about hunting, it's about freedom and being a European I understand how you wouldn't understand that.

 

[JD_2B]

Hm ...
as a european, I never got it what it is the americans have with their guns.

A weapon is an instrument, used for hunting or killing / hurting someone else.

Uh you forgot to add in "Defending ones livelihood and property"

As I suppose not everybody has to hunt for his daily food, the urgent need for this is not there anymore.

I see you live in a city, close to a market, where people sell food that has already been slaughtered. For some people, slaughtering their own meat is the most humane way of teaching their children about safe gun handling. See, I would rather teach my son to kill a deer, before he EVER ate meat, or at least let him see the cute deer fall down dead, beforehand. But I too am a city girl.. So my gun is for human killing, humans that trespass on my property, especially. I know the true nature of death.. I have faced it on many occassions, and both of my parents died. My son's dad died, also, so he knows about death too. The finality of it, that is.

Leaves the second cause to have it.

A. Policemen will need it, as he they encounter armed criminals.

Ah but which travels faster? A cop car traveling at 80 mph, or a bullet at 800 mph?? As such, I FROG it (Fully rely on Gun)..

B. Criminals will need it, as nothing underlines better your seriousness than a loaded gun at someones head.

LMAO And I guess you think that all gun owners tend to take part in aiming their guns at the heads of hapless victims. Riiiiiiight.. Keep telling yourself that.

Also - as the police is armed and probable victims as well, it might be useful to have.

Oh sure. That would be CORRECT!! A half dozen cops dodging traffic can't protect me and my kid against a violent criminal who just broke into my house, nearly as efficiently as the 6 shooter I own can.

As not everybody is belonging to A or B, it seems to be a good idea to have a firearm for everybody as well.

But there the problem starts:

A and B might be quicker, better trained in the use of it, or simply more ruthless.
This can get you into trouble.

No not really... See for every ruthless A and B, there is an equally vigilant non cop- non criminal citizen, who is fighting for something beyond whatever ego kick, monetary need, or sociopathic tendency the cop and the criminal are doing it for. The armed citizen is fighting for his LIFE. Big difference in adrenaline there. Also, citizens are more than welcome to go to the shooting range and practice their aim, or go hunting, and practice their skills.

Also other groups might encounter you in larger number, as C. the Military,

The military is NOT larger in number. Sorry to bust your little bubble there.

D. Terrorists or even E. a foreign army.

If the terrorists are involved, then we have 1) the already WAY outnumbered military also armed and ready, 2) the cops and feds and all the rest of the Law Enforcement teams, at our disposal, and 3) OURSELVES, which is the biggest group of all. Also, considering the fact that only 2% of Americans can't afford a car, then we all have our own little mini-tanks to go carousing around, taking out the terrorists in, or maybe the foreign army, as well. In fact, this makes our chances even BETTER at destroying such a threat.. especially when civilians with guns are all just as capable of being ruthless as anyone else.

A .45er pistol might look cool, but it might not impress C., D. or E. when coming on you with better arms while doing their job.

No, one would not scare a whole team of people.. but it could kill one of them. And if millions of us have just a .45 to shoot them with, then they are ultimately extremely outnumbered. This is impressive. So, if we had a team of 100,000 people invade the country with tanks and missiles, and their own rifles.. etc.. then all we need are our own cars, rifles, and cool .45s to take their asses out. We would easily outnumber them twenty-fold, just the civilians alone. Next point of yours...

It might cause A. to call a SWAT - team, because he thought you belonged to B. and they shoot a lot of holes into you and check up later (less risk - hell - you were armed).

No not really. Only the ones with a "stockade" of weapons in states that are really stiff about being against gun rights, would have cops doing this, and these are few and far between.. and also, the people stockading weapons would be considered criminals in those states anyways. They probably have an intent to sell them on the black market to criminals, so who gives a flying fuck if they get riddled with bullets? They need to learn to store their shit in a state that allows it.

Or B. might try to shoot you in the back, as this is the most secure way to get your purse.
Or seeing your .45 come back with an UZI and perforate you.

LMAO! First of all, someone looking to steal a purse is generally desperate for money, and has NO intent to kill anyone in the process, for fear of being seen and caught. These are people who generally have either families to support, and do it when rent is due, or more likely, have a drug habit. All they care about is not killing someone, just scaring them enough to get the purse and getting away. Also, do you know how enormous an UZI is, when you try to conceal it???
I mean, do you WANT anyone to take this rant seriously???

As it is a law of nature that
- in the long run the bullet always wins against armour
- you will always encounter in the long run someone stronger/cleverer/ better armed

And I will take them out to dinner, and buy them a lot of drinks.. and be a friend. I will also remind myself that since the government is armed, then so shall I be, because as long as one is armed and one is not, the one hiding behind armor (me) is the one whose freedom and livelihood is most at stake. I will not go down without a fight. Care less about safety- it is my LIFE and LIBERTY you are treading on, son.

you might keep out of any trouble by not joining any arms race with the above groups.

Or you might put a sign in YOUR yard that says "Unarmed homeowner"- but I will put a "no Trespassing, Violators will be shot on sight" sign, myself. =)

I therefore sincerely think, that limiting the guns at least to groups A. and B. might ease a lot of situations.

There is this small town just north of Atlanta, GA, whose mayor established a rule that every resident own a firearm. The incidence of several crimes: robberies, and home invasion, especially, went down 90% the following year. Go figure.

But on the other hand I do not want to be the one who explains this to a whole nation armed up to the teeth

Guess what site you are on? The UNITED STATES Message board. We are definitely armed to the hilt.

Therefore I just love the Swiss.
In Switzerland (militia army !) every militiaman had until recently his Storm Rifle and a load of 60 rounds ammunition at home. The ammunition was plombed and sealed.
I asked my friend, if there were no incidents.
"No" he said "it´s quite rare. It is strictly forbidden to break the seal."

regards
ze germanguy

I love the swiss too.. And every militiaman is a boy of at least 18 years of age, both in Switzerland, and the US. And some of our boys are only 16, to hunt.

 

[Diuretic]

First you must realize that having the guns and being brave enough to use them is what made us free...

If we want to stay free we need to keep our guns in case the government needs to be reset.

The second Amendment is not about hunting, it's about freedom and being a European I understand how you wouldn't understand that.

Non-Americans don't understand the cultural mistrust of government that Americans have. I have to say it must be very unpleasant to have to live like that.

On edit - I also find it very sad that you have to be armed in your own home to have a sense of security. Again, that must be a very unpleasant way to have to live.

 

[germanguy]

Hm ...
as a european, I never got it what it is the americans have with their guns.

A weapon is an instrument, used for hunting or killing / hurting someone else.

Uh you forgot to add in "Defending ones livelihood and property"

As I suppose not everybody has to hunt for his daily food, the urgent need for this is not there anymore.

I see you live in a city, close to a market, where people sell food that has already been slaughtered. For some people, slaughtering their own meat is the most humane way of teaching their children about safe gun handling. See, I would rather teach my son to kill a deer, before he EVER ate meat, or at least let him see the cute deer fall down dead, beforehand. But I too am a city girl.. So my gun is for human killing, humans that trespass on my property, especially. I know the true nature of death.. I have faced it on many occassions, and both of my parents died. My son's dad died, also, so he knows about death too. The finality of it, that is.



Ah but which travels faster? A cop car traveling at 80 mph, or a bullet at 800 mph?? As such, I FROG it (Fully rely on Gun)..



LMAO And I guess you think that all gun owners tend to take part in aiming their guns at the heads of hapless victims. Riiiiiiight.. Keep telling yourself that.



Oh sure. That would be CORRECT!! A half dozen cops dodging traffic can't protect me and my kid against a violent criminal who just broke into my house, nearly as efficiently as the 6 shooter I own can.



No not really... See for every ruthless A and B, there is an equally vigilant non cop- non criminal citizen, who is fighting for something beyond whatever ego kick, monetary need, or sociopathic tendency the cop and the criminal are doing it for. The armed citizen is fighting for his LIFE. Big difference in adrenaline there. Also, citizens are more than welcome to go to the shooting range and practice their aim, or go hunting, and practice their skills.



The military is NOT larger in number. Sorry to bust your little bubble there.



If the terrorists are involved, then we have 1) the already WAY outnumbered military also armed and ready, 2) the cops and feds and all the rest of the Law Enforcement teams, at our disposal, and 3) OURSELVES, which is the biggest group of all. Also, considering the fact that only 2% of Americans can't afford a car, then we all have our own little mini-tanks to go carousing around, taking out the terrorists in, or maybe the foreign army, as well. In fact, this makes our chances even BETTER at destroying such a threat.. especially when civilians with guns are all just as capable of being ruthless as anyone else.




No, one would not scare a whole team of people.. but it could kill one of them. And if millions of us have just a .45 to shoot them with, then they are ultimately extremely outnumbered. This is impressive. So, if we had a team of 100,000 people invade the country with tanks and missiles, and their own rifles.. etc.. then all we need are our own cars, rifles, and cool .45s to take their asses out. We would easily outnumber them twenty-fold, just the civilians alone. Next point of yours...



No not really. Only the ones with a "stockade" of weapons in states that are really stiff about being against gun rights, would have cops doing this, and these are few and far between.. and also, the people stockading weapons would be considered criminals in those states anyways. They probably have an intent to sell them on the black market to criminals, so who gives a flying fuck if they get riddled with bullets? They need to learn to store their shit in a state that allows it.




LMAO! First of all, someone looking to steal a purse is generally desperate for money, and has NO intent to kill anyone in the process, for fear of being seen and caught. These are people who generally have either families to support, and do it when rent is due, or more likely, have a drug habit. All they care about is not killing someone, just scaring them enough to get the purse and getting away. Also, do you know how enormous an UZI is, when you try to conceal it???
I mean, do you WANT anyone to take this rant seriously???



And I will take them out to dinner, and buy them a lot of drinks.. and be a friend. I will also remind myself that since the government is armed, then so shall I be, because as long as one is armed and one is not, the one hiding behind armor (me) is the one whose freedom and livelihood is most at stake. I will not go down without a fight. Care less about safety- it is my LIFE and LIBERTY you are treading on, son.



Or you might put a sign in YOUR yard that says "Unarmed homeowner"- but I will put a "no Trespassing, Violators will be shot on sight" sign, myself. =)



There is this small town just north of Atlanta, GA, whose mayor established a rule that every resident own a firearm. The incidence of several crimes: robberies, and home invasion, especially, went down 90% the following year. Go figure.

But on the other hand I do not want to be the one who explains this to a whole nation armed up to the teeth

Guess what site you are on? The UNITED STATES Message board. We are definitely armed to the hilt.

Therefore I just love the Swiss.
In Switzerland (militia army !) every militiaman had until recently his Storm Rifle and a load of 60 rounds ammunition at home. The ammunition was plombed and sealed.
I asked my friend, if there were no incidents.
"No" he said "it´s quite rare. It is strictly forbidden to break the seal."

regards
ze germanguy

I love the swiss too.. And every militiaman is a boy of at least 18 years of age, both in Switzerland, and the US. And some of our boys are only 16, to hunt.

Thanks for your explanations.I still do not get some points.
I rather doubt that the availability and bravery of using arms only made you free.

The American Revolution was successful, aside from other factors, IMHO because the Americans formed an army able to beat the redcoats (with some help from the French and an Prussian officer called von Steuben). So strictly spoken, only arming people does not help, but to arm and organize them in an army.

The militias were sometimes able to beat sometimes british regulars, but in the long run a standing army was needed. And some allies which borrowed their naval power.

As we might endlessly debate about the question if firearms prevent crime, cause it or at least can make dangerous situations more dangerous, it is a fact, that the US in total does accept a far higher degree of violence than any other country in the western world.

As you simply have more firearms per capita, you have more gun-related crimes.
In small towns, as in your example, this might work, but for large cities it is more than doubtful.


Also, any armed individual, even if well-trained and properly armed, will have no long stand against a well trained SWAT team. So individually you will go down, guns blazing, but down you will go.
If everybody is armed, it still depends upon if everybody will be willing to stand up and fight. And to organize himself into a coherent force and learn to soldier.

So, it pretty much runs down to the question of how many trust you put in your police, your government and your society in general.

But, as said before, I do not see every American to give up his firearm. You really are the best-armed people in the world. Still, the idea to have the same here in Germany gives me creeps.

regards
ze germanguy

 

[Contumacious]

Thanks for your explanations.I still do not get some points.
I rather doubt that the availability and bravery of using arms only made you free.

You know , I'm still try to figure out if you are being intentionally obtuse.

But when I was stationed in Pirmasens, Germany - circa 1970 - there was a discussion that the Germans schools were going to omit from the History books all references to Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany. That is the problem with censorship.

There are numerous resources online that clearly demonstrate that your country's history provides prima facie evidence that the individuals right to bears arms must not be infringed.

.

 

[germanguy]

Thanks for your explanations.I still do not get some points.
I rather doubt that the availability and bravery of using arms only made you free.

You know , I'm still try to figure out if you are being intentionally obtuse.

But when I was stationed in Pirmasens, Germany - circa 1970 - there was a discussion that the Germans schools were going to omit from the History books all references to Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany. That is the problem with censorship.

There are numerous resources online that clearly demonstrate that your country's history provides prima facie evidence that the individuals right to bears arms must not be infringed.

.

Well, you have not quoted the sentence afterwards.
What made you free IMHO was the use of weapons by the Continental Army and the respective militias. That the colonies had many armed men available helped, but was - as I see it - not a prerequisite of a successful war against Great Britain.

As standing armies in these days were connected with tyranny, militias were the preferred way to ensure the defense of the US. (In contradiction, in France and Germany it was one of the demands in the revolution, that there should be conscript armies, to avoid mercenary armies by tyrant kings).

So the early US preferred to have militias and not a standing army.
Even later, when a standing army existed, it was until the late 19th century rather small, compared to the population and the territory of the US.

So, that in the Constitution the right to bear arms was included, might be seen in therefore IMHO in two ways:

- to ensure, that there were always armed and trained men available to form militias.
- to give any individual citizen the right to have firearms.

As the dangers to the US might today be not be met with militias and the state militias - the National Guard - is a pretty much professionalized, one may argue endlessly, if to defend the country individual firearms will help.

But to your point, which connects the lack of ownership of individual firearms with the rise of the Nazi.Dictatorship (please show me where to find the online-evidence sounds very interesting):

When 1933 Hitler was asked by the President to form a government, the Germans had no comparable constitutional right to carry firearms as in the US. So you might have a point.
On the other hand, in 1989 the East Germans overthrew their government by going on the street and shouting "We are the people". No constitutional right to carry arms here as well. But they freed themselves.

I simply think the right to carry arms and liberty are not connected in any way. Otherwise any country without equivalent constitutional provisions would have to be considered as a probable tyranny. Which is - more or less- the whole of Europe.

As I see it, the wish and the right to carry arms is deeply rooted in the US-society.
To change it - if there once the will shall arise - is up to you.
But I still do not get it.

P.S:
The debate to omit all references from the Third Reich in schoolbooks might have been there in the 1970s, although I am not able to trace any reference of significance.
Today, it is still in every history book and I know of no plan or debate to erase it or even forget it.

regards
ze germanguy

 

[Contumacious]

I rather doubt that the availability and bravery of using arms only made you free.

You are correct in stating that the availability of guns in and by themselves will not make us free. The people must be convinced, first and foremost, that they are not slaves and that they have a right to life, liberty property and to pursue happiness.


The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally … enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” — Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833

.

 

[germanguy]

I rather doubt that the availability and bravery of using arms only made you free.

You are correct in stating that the availability of guns in and by themselves will not make us free. The people must be convinced, first and foremost, that they are not slaves and that they have a right to life, liberty property and to pursue happiness.


The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally … enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” — Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833

.

Now there we have the point:

As I have stated before, the French and my countrymen have viewed this a little bit different:
The French decided after 1789 that the Republic is best defended with a huge army of conscripts.
In Germany before 1848, the different armies were sworn in to the King or local prince, or the princes held personal guards of foreign mercenaries.
One of the central demands of the 1848 Revolution in Germany therefore was a conscript army, consisting of the citizens who had the right to vote. This idea was formulated earlier, during the Prussian reforms: "Every free citizen of a state is the natural defender of this state". Therefore national service was the preferred way to check the powers of arbitrary kings.

And this was not connected with the right to bear arms.

Also, in today´s world, with numerous threats like terrorism, potential rogue nuclear weapons etc. a professional army makes more sense to defend the country than a militia.

You should never forget, that Americans have been in the last 200 years in the comfortable position to not have experienced the invasion of foreign enemies on their soil.
And even the attack on Pearl Harbour or 9/11 did not pose a lethal threat to the territorial or national integrity of the US.

Europe has been a bloody battlefield till 1945. Most countries have made in this period the experience of being a battlefield or being occupied by enemy forces.

I daresay, that the idea of defense by militias in the US has not been tested in this period, so the conclusion to draw from it were different on each side of the pond.

regards
ze germanguy

 

[PoliticalChic]

I rather doubt that the availability and bravery of using arms only made you free.

You are correct in stating that the availability of guns in and by themselves will not make us free. The people must be convinced, first and foremost, that they are not slaves and that they have a right to life, liberty property and to pursue happiness.


The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally … enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” — Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833

.

Now there we have the point:

As I have stated before, the French and my countrymen have viewed this a little bit different:
The French decided after 1789 that the Republic is best defended with a huge army of conscripts.
In Germany before 1848, the different armies were sworn in to the King or local prince, or the princes held personal guards of foreign mercenaries.
One of the central demands of the 1848 Revolution in Germany therefore was a conscript army, consisting of the citizens who had the right to vote. This idea was formulated earlier, during the Prussian reforms: "Every free citizen of a state is the natural defender of this state". Therefore national service was the preferred way to check the powers of arbitrary kings.

And this was not connected with the right to bear arms.

Also, in today´s world, with numerous threats like terrorism, potential rogue nuclear weapons etc. a professional army makes more sense to defend the country than a militia.

You should never forget, that Americans have been in the last 200 years in the comfortable position to not have experienced the invasion of foreign enemies on their soil.
And even the attack on Pearl Harbour or 9/11 did not pose a lethal threat to the territorial or national integrity of the US.

Europe has been a bloody battlefield till 1945. Most countries have made in this period the experience of being a battlefield or being occupied by enemy forces.

I daresay, that the idea of defense by militias in the US has not been tested in this period, so the conclusion to draw from it were different on each side of the pond.

regards
ze germanguy

"...a professional army makes more sense to defend the country than a militia..."

What army would that be?

Would that be the one fielded by the United States of America?

The European Union began in 1957 when six countries signed a treaty agreeing that they would cooperate on certain economic matters. They established the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg to interpret disputes about the treaty.

a. In the 1960’s the Court decreed that if acts of national parliament’s acts came into conflict with the treaty, the treaty would take precedence!

b. In the 1970’s the Court stated that it had precedence over national constitutions!

c. Today, whatever regulations are cranked out by the bureaucrats at the European Commission supersede both parliamentary statutes and national constitutions. This includes any questions about basic rights.

d. Neither does the EU have a constitution, nor does the EU have an army or police force for common control of its borders. Thus it has political superiority over member states, but declines to be responsible for its defense. Inherent in this idea of transcending nation-states is the idea that defense is unimportant.


Wahr, order nicht wahr?

BTW, historically, the term militia means all menfolk.

"The Supreme Court, in US v. Miller, (1939) “…militia system…implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence.” It concluded that the militia was primarily civilians.
Today, federal law defines “the militia of the United States” to include all able-bodied males from 17 to 45 andmembers of the National Guard up to age 64, but excluding those who have no intention of becoming citizens, and active military personnel. (US Code Title 10, sect. 311-313)

 

[germanguy]

You are correct in stating that the availability of guns in and by themselves will not make us free. The people must be convinced, first and foremost, that they are not slaves and that they have a right to life, liberty property and to pursue happiness.


The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally … enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” — Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833

.

Now there we have the point:

As I have stated before, the French and my countrymen have viewed this a little bit different:
The French decided after 1789 that the Republic is best defended with a huge army of conscripts.
In Germany before 1848, the different armies were sworn in to the King or local prince, or the princes held personal guards of foreign mercenaries.
One of the central demands of the 1848 Revolution in Germany therefore was a conscript army, consisting of the citizens who had the right to vote. This idea was formulated earlier, during the Prussian reforms: "Every free citizen of a state is the natural defender of this state". Therefore national service was the preferred way to check the powers of arbitrary kings.

And this was not connected with the right to bear arms.

Also, in today´s world, with numerous threats like terrorism, potential rogue nuclear weapons etc. a professional army makes more sense to defend the country than a militia.

You should never forget, that Americans have been in the last 200 years in the comfortable position to not have experienced the invasion of foreign enemies on their soil.
And even the attack on Pearl Harbour or 9/11 did not pose a lethal threat to the territorial or national integrity of the US.

Europe has been a bloody battlefield till 1945. Most countries have made in this period the experience of being a battlefield or being occupied by enemy forces.

I daresay, that the idea of defense by militias in the US has not been tested in this period, so the conclusion to draw from it were different on each side of the pond.

regards
ze germanguy

"...a professional army makes more sense to defend the country than a militia..."

What army would that be?

Would that be the one fielded by the United States of America?

The European Union began in 1957 when six countries signed a treaty agreeing that they would cooperate on certain economic matters. They established the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg to interpret disputes about the treaty.

a. In the 1960’s the Court decreed that if acts of national parliament’s acts came into conflict with the treaty, the treaty would take precedence!

b. In the 1970’s the Court stated that it had precedence over national constitutions!

c. Today, whatever regulations are cranked out by the bureaucrats at the European Commission supersede both parliamentary statutes and national constitutions. This includes any questions about basic rights.

d. Neither does the EU have a constitution, nor does the EU have an army or police force for common control of its borders. Thus it has political superiority over member states, but declines to be responsible for its defense. Inherent in this idea of transcending nation-states is the idea that defense is unimportant.


Wahr, order nicht wahr?

BTW, historically, the term militia means all menfolk.

"The Supreme Court, in US v. Miller, (1939) “…militia system…implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence.” It concluded that the militia was primarily civilians.
Today, federal law defines “the militia of the United States” to include all able-bodied males from 17 to 45 andmembers of the National Guard up to age 64, but excluding those who have no intention of becoming citizens, and active military personnel. (US Code Title 10, sect. 311-313)

Well , unwahr !

You are mixing the question of which kind of organisation is better suited for defense with the question what the EU is.

To define the character of the EU is quite difficult.
It is like the old joke about Hungary in the 1920s, when the US Ambassador makes a toast at a dinner:
"Long live the Republic of Hungary"
"Err - sorry, we are no Republic, we are a Kingdom"
"So, long live your king then"
"We have no king either"
"Sorry again, who is governing then ?"
"Imperial Regent Admiral Horthy"
"An Admiral, do you have a fleet ?"
"No, we do not have any coasts"
"What you call this mess ?"
"Hungary"

To define what the EU is can only be done by describing is, as there is no historical model or any other organization like it.

By definition, the EU actually consists of sovereign nation states, who have agreed by several treaties to cooperate for a better common future.
Then there are specifically defined fields where common institutions are installed to regulate specific fields of common interest (Fisheries, Environment i.e.) or fields where common standards are set by the European Commission.
The EU therefore has only the authority and tasks, it´s members have agreed upon by treaty. So therefore the European Court has only ´precedence in those cases, where it is interpreting the different European Treaties. This may overrule national rule, but only if national rule is contrary to the treaties.

Defense certainly is an issue, but as the EU consists of neutral states (Austria, Ireland), NATO members and non - NATO members, the question of defense is answered by EU member states differently and within their own resonsability.
Same is police or justice. The cooperation between the member states is regulated by treaties. So there us a European Warrant of Arrest, coordinated exchange of information between the national police forces etc. But no European Police.

regards
ze germanguy

 

[Contumacious]

Also, in today´s world, with numerous threats like terrorism, potential rogue nuclear weapons etc. a professional army makes more sense to defend the country than a militia.

Well, The Founding Fathers didn't trust standing armies and neither do I.

Secondly, the federal government infringes on our right to bear arms. Had the federal thugs allowed airline passengers to bear arms those planes would have never crashed against the WTC. They would have been stopped way before that.

.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now there we have the point:

As I have stated before, the French and my countrymen have viewed this a little bit different:
The French decided after 1789 that the Republic is best defended with a huge army of conscripts.
In Germany before 1848, the different armies were sworn in to the King or local prince, or the princes held personal guards of foreign mercenaries.
One of the central demands of the 1848 Revolution in Germany therefore was a conscript army, consisting of the citizens who had the right to vote. This idea was formulated earlier, during the Prussian reforms: "Every free citizen of a state is the natural defender of this state". Therefore national service was the preferred way to check the powers of arbitrary kings.

And this was not connected with the right to bear arms.

Also, in today´s world, with numerous threats like terrorism, potential rogue nuclear weapons etc. a professional army makes more sense to defend the country than a militia.

You should never forget, that Americans have been in the last 200 years in the comfortable position to not have experienced the invasion of foreign enemies on their soil.
And even the attack on Pearl Harbour or 9/11 did not pose a lethal threat to the territorial or national integrity of the US.

Europe has been a bloody battlefield till 1945. Most countries have made in this period the experience of being a battlefield or being occupied by enemy forces.

I daresay, that the idea of defense by militias in the US has not been tested in this period, so the conclusion to draw from it were different on each side of the pond.

regards
ze germanguy

"...a professional army makes more sense to defend the country than a militia..."

What army would that be?

Would that be the one fielded by the United States of America?

The European Union began in 1957 when six countries signed a treaty agreeing that they would cooperate on certain economic matters. They established the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg to interpret disputes about the treaty.

a. In the 1960’s the Court decreed that if acts of national parliament’s acts came into conflict with the treaty, the treaty would take precedence!

b. In the 1970’s the Court stated that it had precedence over national constitutions!

c. Today, whatever regulations are cranked out by the bureaucrats at the European Commission supersede both parliamentary statutes and national constitutions. This includes any questions about basic rights.

d. Neither does the EU have a constitution, nor does the EU have an army or police force for common control of its borders. Thus it has political superiority over member states, but declines to be responsible for its defense. Inherent in this idea of transcending nation-states is the idea that defense is unimportant.


Wahr, order nicht wahr?

BTW, historically, the term militia means all menfolk.

"The Supreme Court, in US v. Miller, (1939) “…militia system…implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence.” It concluded that the militia was primarily civilians.
Today, federal law defines “the militia of the United States” to include all able-bodied males from 17 to 45 andmembers of the National Guard up to age 64, but excluding those who have no intention of becoming citizens, and active military personnel. (US Code Title 10, sect. 311-313)

Well , unwahr !

You are mixing the question of which kind of organisation is better suited for defense with the question what the EU is.

To define the character of the EU is quite difficult.
It is like the old joke about Hungary in the 1920s, when the US Ambassador makes a toast at a dinner:
"Long live the Republic of Hungary"
"Err - sorry, we are no Republic, we are a Kingdom"
"So, long live your king then"
"We have no king either"
"Sorry again, who is governing then ?"
"Imperial Regent Admiral Horthy"
"An Admiral, do you have a fleet ?"
"No, we do not have any coasts"
"What you call this mess ?"
"Hungary"

To define what the EU is can only be done by describing is, as there is no historical model or any other organization like it.

By definition, the EU actually consists of sovereign nation states, who have agreed by several treaties to cooperate for a better common future.
Then there are specifically defined fields where common institutions are installed to regulate specific fields of common interest (Fisheries, Environment i.e.) or fields where common standards are set by the European Commission.
The EU therefore has only the authority and tasks, it´s members have agreed upon by treaty. So therefore the European Court has only ´precedence in those cases, where it is interpreting the different European Treaties. This may overrule national rule, but only if national rule is contrary to the treaties.

Defense certainly is an issue, but as the EU consists of neutral states (Austria, Ireland), NATO members and non - NATO members, the question of defense is answered by EU member states differently and within their own resonsability.
Same is police or justice. The cooperation between the member states is regulated by treaties. So there us a European Warrant of Arrest, coordinated exchange of information between the national police forces etc. But no European Police.

regards
ze germanguy

Es tut mir leid, mein freund, aber du bist nicht recht.

First, "Defense certainly is an issue, but as the EU consists of neutral states ..."

Certainly!

The army that defends EU is the American army.

And almost all of the NATO troops have orders not to shoot back in Afghanistan.

Seems that only English speaking troops can shoot back.

"...sovereign nation ..." means you have borders, and you are serious about protecting them.

And, I know what you are going to say about contemporary American...Quel dommage...


"You are mixing the question of which kind of organisation is better suited for defense with the question what the EU is."

No, I'm implying that the EU has given up both the concept of defense, and of sovereignty.

But I'm not predicting that it will remain so, as Germany is the engine that drives the EU and once it determines how to deal with the energy problem vis-a-vis Russia, things may change.

And it seems that elections are moving the EU to the right, in goose-step, er, in lock-step.


"Europe’s socialized health care was blighted by outrageous (and sometimes deadly) waiting lists and rationing, to name just one example. To name another: Timbro, a Swedish think tank, found in 2004 that Sweden was poorer than all but five U.S. states and Denmark poorer than all but nine. But in recent years, something has happened to complicate the Left’s fanciful picture even further: Western European voters’ widespread reaction against social democracy.

…in Germany, where Angela Merkel became chancellor in 2005, and in France, where Nicolas Sarkozy took over the presidency in 2007. Those developments, as well as the third term that Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi won in 2008, were grounded largely in public recognition of the need for economic liberalization….And in Sweden, perhaps the ultimate symbol of social democracy, voters motivated largely by concerns over unemployment and other economic issues unseated the long-powerful Social Democratic Party in 2006. In its place they installed a center-right coalition led by Fredrik Reinfeldt’s Moderates, who promised to help businesses and lower taxes."

Heirs to Fortuyn? by Bruce Bawer, City Journal Spring 2009

 

[JD_2B]

Thanks for your explanations.I still do not get some points.
I rather doubt that the availability and bravery of using arms only made you free.

The bottom line is, without them, we would not be free.

The American Revolution was successful, aside from other factors, IMHO because the Americans formed an army able to beat the redcoats (with some help from the French and an Prussian officer called von Steuben). So strictly spoken, only arming people does not help, but to arm and organize them in an army.

Arming them comes first. Hard to arm millions of people fast, AND organize them, when firearms are illegal.

The militias were sometimes able to beat sometimes british regulars, but in the long run a standing army was needed. And some allies which borrowed their naval power.

It is silly to say that a rouge group of men who brought over a bunch of plainclothed people to the New World were only "Sometimes" successful. We won, remember??

As we might endlessly debate about the question if firearms prevent crime, cause it or at least can make dangerous situations more dangerous, it is a fact, that the US in total does accept a far higher degree of violence than any other country in the western world.

According to what reliable statistics??? Our statistics compared with those of a shitload of third world countries?
Anyways, who cares if there is more violence here? What does some criminal's safety have to do with protecting the victim 's own life, anyways? The only ones that WOULD be scared are the criminally oppressive.

As you simply have more firearms per capita, you have more gun-related crimes.
In small towns, as in your example, this might work, but for large cities it is more than doubtful.

Duh.. Ya think?? Maybe that is because in a smaller town, the cops and judges and all that, already know who is most likely to be at fault for something. Plus, "gun crime" usually means some kind of illegal possession, which is a technicality, NOT a violent crime, in and of itself.

Also, any armed individual, even if well-trained and properly armed, will have no long stand against a well trained SWAT team. So individually you will go down, guns blazing, but down you will go.
If everybody is armed, it still depends upon if everybody will be willing to stand up and fight. And to organize himself into a coherent force and learn to soldier.

Do you have any idea how many people are in our military? Well, our military is WELL outnumbered by civilians, but even military members want civilians to keep their gun rights. Then, calculate in EX military folks, who are veterans, but still considered civilians. You think anyone not in the military should not have a gun, right? Well I say that is a bunch of bullshit rhetoric, from some fraidy-cat who is more supportive of a big brother system of babysitting, than anyone with the balls enough to take a stand for himself, even if that is only needed to have happen once.

So, it pretty much runs down to the question of how many trust you put in your police, your government and your society in general.

Nope. It has nothing to do with trust at all. We live in a country that is based on the principle of anti-trust in government, based on a continual loop of history, repeating itself over and over and over again, because countries full of citizens choose to put blind faith into their government and lose EVERYTHING as a result- their arms first, then property, choice- and last but not least, their life.

But, as said before, I do not see every American to give up his firearm. You really are the best-armed people in the world. Still, the idea to have the same here in Germany gives me creeps.

regards
ze germanguy

You do realize that this same idea of "no guns for citizens, full trust in government keeping us safe", did happen in Germany, with a not so good turnout, do you not?? You do realize that MILLIONS of people were murdered right there on your country's soil, as a result.. Do you deny this??

 

[ScottBernard]

Getting back to the original post. Geez, what a woman. She actually has sense and her politics aren't about being a chiseler.
I think the Gov can do better when handing out pistol permits, to give booklets out covering all the state and federal laws pertaining use of deadly force; and to give URLs to websites that can offer enhanced personal defense training with your firearm. For example, the Sig Sauer Academy and Thunder Ranch.
I think this will have a great effect in a more safe and knowledgeable armed populace.

 

[Father Time]

I knew there were Libertarians lurking around here somewhere.

You could've just asked. I'm a libertarian.

I'm not too keen on the idea of open carry mostly because it might scare the fuck out of most civilians whereas concealed carry won't until it's drawn.

 

[Emma]

Had the federal thugs allowed airline passengers to bear arms those planes would have never crashed against the WTC. They would have been stopped way before that.

.

True. They may have crashed en route.

But if the passengers would have been allowed to carry guns on the planes, the hijackers would have had them too. They would have had the element of surprise, and I suspect the other passengers would have hesitated before firing on hijackers holding a gun to the heads of the flight crew. I also suspect that everyone on board would still have considered it a "typical" hijacking, rather than a suicide flight, and the planes still would have managed to hit their intended targets. Even if the other passengers fired knowing they would kill the crew as well, the hijackers wouldn't have cared; they certainly didn't fear dying. They WANTED to die.

Now if armed Federal Marshalls were on board, and if the cockpit door was reinforced/bullet-proof and locked, perhaps things would have turned out differently.

As pro-2nd as I am (and even some on the right think I'm too pro-2nd), I don't think it's wise to have a shoot-out at an altitude of 35,000 feet in an aluminum tube. Besides that, even if the Feds didn't have the ban, if the airlines did it would NOT be an infringement of your right to bear arms. They are private entities, not the government.

 

[JD_2B]

I knew there were Libertarians lurking around here somewhere.

You could've just asked. I'm a libertarian.

I'm not too keen on the idea of open carry mostly because it might scare the fuck out of most civilians whereas concealed carry won't until it's drawn.

I personally like the intimidation factor that carrying openly would present. I disagree that it would scare the fuck out of anyone- after all, cops and guards open carry, and while we might be intimidated by that, it certainly doesn't scare us.

The whole point of my proposal to open carry (legalizing this of course) is the simple fact that some armed criminal might be considering taking out a bank or convenience store, and see someone carrying, and uhhhhh think twice before risking life and limb for a lousy few grand, or 50 dollars, whichever the case may be. It is not just prevention of robberies that open carry would effect, either. Women on dates who open carry would be less likely to be raped, killed, etc.. People seeing some armed guy getting out of his car would be far less likely to consider even attempting to jack his Alpine stereo.. etc..

Intimidation is not always a bad thing, I say.

 

[Contumacious]

Had the federal thugs allowed airline passengers to bear arms those planes would have never crashed against the WTC. They would have been stopped way before that.

.

True. They may have crashed en route.

But if the passengers would have been allowed to carry guns on the planes, the hijackers would have had them too. They would have had the element of surprise, and I suspect the other passengers would have hesitated before firing on hijackers holding a gun to the heads of the flight crew. I also suspect that everyone on board would still have considered it a "typical" hijacking, rather than a suicide flight, and the planes still would have managed to hit their intended targets. Even if the other passengers fired knowing they would kill the crew as well, the hijackers wouldn't have cared; they certainly didn't fear dying. They WANTED to die.

Now if armed Federal Marshalls were on board, and if the cockpit door was reinforced/bullet-proof and locked, perhaps things would have turned out differently.

As pro-2nd as I am (and even some on the right think I'm too pro-2nd), I don't think it's wise to have a shoot-out at an altitude of 35,000 feet in an aluminum tube. Besides that, even if the Feds didn't have the ban, if the airlines did it would NOT be an infringement of your right to bear arms. They are private entities, not the government.

Prior to 1965 we were allowed to carry firearms on board airplanes. There was never an incident.

But federal thugs are always looking for pretexts to disarm us. Would-be hijackers would know that their death would be swift and effective.

.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Had the federal thugs allowed airline passengers to bear arms those planes would have never crashed against the WTC. They would have been stopped way before that.

.

True. They may have crashed en route.

But if the passengers would have been allowed to carry guns on the planes, the hijackers would have had them too. They would have had the element of surprise, and I suspect the other passengers would have hesitated before firing on hijackers holding a gun to the heads of the flight crew. I also suspect that everyone on board would still have considered it a "typical" hijacking, rather than a suicide flight, and the planes still would have managed to hit their intended targets. Even if the other passengers fired knowing they would kill the crew as well, the hijackers wouldn't have cared; they certainly didn't fear dying. They WANTED to die.

Now if armed Federal Marshalls were on board, and if the cockpit door was reinforced/bullet-proof and locked, perhaps things would have turned out differently.

As pro-2nd as I am (and even some on the right think I'm too pro-2nd), I don't think it's wise to have a shoot-out at an altitude of 35,000 feet in an aluminum tube. Besides that, even if the Feds didn't have the ban, if the airlines did it would NOT be an infringement of your right to bear arms. They are private entities, not the government.

Prior to 1965 we were allowed to carry firearms on board airplanes. There was never an incident.

But federal thugs are always looking for pretexts to disarm us. Would-be hijackers would know that their death would be swift and effective.

.

i never understood the fanatics who actually want to disarm potential victims.

Why would anyone support gun restrictions that make you less safe and less able to defend yourself.

personally, I'd love to go back to the days where men wore a gun belt and carried a big razor fucking sharp Bowie knife as a back up.

Fuck with me at your own risk, scum bag.

 

[Contumacious]

True. They may have crashed en route.

But if the passengers would have been allowed to carry guns on the planes, the hijackers would have had them too. They would have had the element of surprise, and I suspect the other passengers would have hesitated before firing on hijackers holding a gun to the heads of the flight crew. I also suspect that everyone on board would still have considered it a "typical" hijacking, rather than a suicide flight, and the planes still would have managed to hit their intended targets. Even if the other passengers fired knowing they would kill the crew as well, the hijackers wouldn't have cared; they certainly didn't fear dying. They WANTED to die.

Now if armed Federal Marshalls were on board, and if the cockpit door was reinforced/bullet-proof and locked, perhaps things would have turned out differently.

As pro-2nd as I am (and even some on the right think I'm too pro-2nd), I don't think it's wise to have a shoot-out at an altitude of 35,000 feet in an aluminum tube. Besides that, even if the Feds didn't have the ban, if the airlines did it would NOT be an infringement of your right to bear arms. They are private entities, not the government.

Prior to 1965 we were allowed to carry firearms on board airplanes. There was never an incident.

But federal thugs are always looking for pretexts to disarm us. Would-be hijackers would know that their death would be swift and effective.

.

i never understood the fanatics who actually want to disarm potential victims.

Why would anyone support gun restrictions that make you less safe and less able to defend yourself.

personally, I'd love to go back to the days where men wore a gun belt and carried a big razor fucking sharp Bowie knife as a back up.

Fuck with me at your own risk, scum bag.

Because nowadays government officials are the criminals.

.