What keeps us safe & free...

[King of the Americas]

...has something to do with the 2nd amendment, to me.

I seriously hold that it is our tendency to be armed that has kept us from being invaded for so many years. It is only when we appear to be fat, lazy, and unarmed that we will place ourselves in an invader's way.

No army would wish to fight a well armed civilian population from within it own cities...

...military dictators prefer unarmed citizens.

[Jocko]

From The Second Amendment Step by Step :

Quote:

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

"regulated" - to bring order, method, or uniformity to <regulate one's habits> - *Merriam-Webster

"militia" - all able-bodied males at least 17 and under 45 <refer to excerpt below for more detail>

"right" - something to which one has a just claim*

"keep" - to maintain in a good, fitting, or orderly condition*

"bear" - to be equipped or furnished with*

"arms" - weapons*

"infringed" - to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another*

Sorry, you don't make the cut. Please hand in your weapons immediately.

[Jocko]

The "king" is indeed a male between the ages of 17 and 45.
He is not, however, able-bodied. Therefore, by the terms delineating the Second Amendment, he cannot be a member of the militia and therefore has no Constitutional right to bear arms.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled incoherent raving.

[King of the Americas]

...one of little reason, and less rational...

Here is a New Year's GIFT for you:

You use the term "militia", to limit the number or kind for those whom this amendment was intended for. However, your's is an interpretation that fails to address the nature and use of the inclusive terms found herein, "...the right of the people...".

Notice the authors didn't use the phrase as YOU would have it, "...the right of SOME people, to keep and bare arms, shall not be infringed."

Moreover, I hold that the exact defination of 'militia' is uncommon, and not concrete, period. For example years ago, women would not have been expected to fight, so would you then disallow 'women' the right to bare arms, and even still in past wars were children not asked to fight who were no more than 15???

No sir, so that we might be able to secure a free state, The People's right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. And it IS this 'inclusive right' that has kept us safe as well as free.

[Jocko]

Quote:

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...one of little reason, and less rational...

Here is a New Year's GIFT for you:

Keep your gifts; my taxes bought them for you anyway.

Quote:

You use the term "militia", to limit the number or kind for those whom this amendment was intended for.

No, actually the framers of the CONSTITUTION used the term that way. Did you even look at the link?

Quote:

However, your's is an interpretation that fails to address the nature and use of the inclusive terms found herein, "...the right of the people..."

Predicated on the need of a regular militia. It's the first damn phrase in the Amendment, you illiterate chimpanzee. Read the link and try to argue intelligently, if you can.

Quote:

Notice the authors didn't use the phrase as YOU would have it, "...the right of SOME people, to keep and bare arms, shall not be infringed."

As I said, they DID state it that way. Except they knew how to spell "bear."

Quote:

Moreover, I hold that the exact defination of 'militia' is uncommon, and not concrete, period.

You hold? You HOLD? Based on what? Pardon me for taking Jefferson's word over yours. The term is explicitly explained, which you would know if (here we go again) you had READ THE LINK.

Quote:

For example years ago, women would not have been expected to fight, so would you then disallow 'women' the right to bare arms, and even still in past wars were children not asked to fight who were no more than 15???

I'm saying that's what the Constitution says, yes, and one more time for the intellectually disadvantaged, READ THE FRIGGIN LINK.

Male. 17-45 years old. Able-bodied. These people are not only allowed, but REQUIRED, to keep a working rifle and (I believe) 10 rounds of ammunition.

A few more specific points you conveniently miss:

Women are STILL not put into combat situations. Not then, not now.

Minors have NEVER been deliberately inducted (kids lie about their ages and the military winks, but that's not the same thing).

...and last but not least, the militia is for domestic defense and order, not sent to fight wars.

You claim a Second Amendment right that doesn't exist, and then you "hold" that the law you claim to support doesn't say what it clearly DOES say.

You are not able-bodied. According the the Second Amendment, you have no Constitutional right to bear arms. The issue being unaddressed, the state of Texas has the final say on whether you should be allowed to have a firearm.

Frankly, I wouldn't trust an ignoramus like you with a toaster, let alone a gun.

Quote:

No sir, so that we might be able to secure a free state, The People's right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. And it IS this 'inclusive right' that has kept us safe as well as free.

Hot air and convenient misapplication of the facts. A healthy skepticism of psychos such as yourself who would be King in a friggin' republic is what keeps this country strong.

I know how eager you are to look like a part of the solution, but the fact is that you're a part of the problem.

[King of the Americas]

...but are you acquating 'well regulated' with 'able bodied'?

If so, would you also use the limiting term 'able bodied' to contradict this "...and any former member of the regular armed forces, are by law already members of the 'unorganized' militia.", if they suffered the loss of a limb or other 'disability'?

I hardly believe you could or would try to disarm a veteran because of a disability they suffered defending American's right to keep and bear arms.

Your stance is contradictory at every turn.

Moreover, ALL of the terms you used as well as their definations came from an *"Excerpt from Cornell Law School - Legal Information Institute", and NOT the Constitution itself. There ARE other definations for the terms you provided.

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

The amendment does NOT specify anyone that this amendmend does NOT cover, "...the people..." meaning "ALL of the people" is used and in a completely inclusive manner. Besides the supreme court has ruled over and over and over again that the phrase "...the people..." refers to Individual Rights, and I think that preceeds your little cornell aw school glossary.

[Jocko]

Listen, you impertinent little twerp. This is the last polite response you will see from me until you read the link.

With that understood, let's start dissecting your idiocy.

Quote:

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...but are you acquating 'well regulated' with 'able bodied'?

Of course not. The militia is regulated. The males 17-45 years old are able-bodied. One is an organization, the other is a member of that organization. Want me to draw you a picture, idiot?

Quote:

If so, would you also use the limiting term 'able bodied' to contradict this "...and any former member of the regular armed forces, are by law already members of the 'unorganized' militia.", if they suffered the loss of a limb or other 'disability'?

As I stated, you are the one confused with the terms; I am not. Your question is moot, and quite stupid as well. Members of tha armed services are not in the militia. Civilians are. Got it?

Quote:

I hardly believe you could or would try to disarm a veteran because of a disability they suffered defending American's right to keep and bear arms.

Hey, you're the one trying to prove some loony theory by distorting the Second Amendment, not me.

I have read it and know what it says.
You heard about it on the radio and THINK you know what it says.

I'll say it again (it seems that brute repitition is the only thing that works on that thick skull of yours): The Constitution states that the regular militia is comprised of all able-bodied men of proper age. READ THE LINK, moron.

Quote:

Your stance is contradictory at every turn.

Not at all. You clearly cannot grasp my stance, so I can't be held responsible for your comically inane opinions of it. If you call my argument contradictory, then you accuse Jefferson and Madison of the same.

But what else could one expect from a "person" such as yourself?

Quote:

Moreover, ALL of the terms you used as well as their definations came from an *"Excerpt from Cornell Law School - Legal Information Institute", and NOT the Constitution itself. There ARE other definations for the terms you provided.

They were culled from Constitutional documents that expaned upon the meaning and limitations of the Bill of Rights. If you want to see it first hand, I can easily oblige.

Next time, don't just read the headlines. Try to expect a little more from your own attention spand, chimp.

Quote:

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

The amendment does NOT specify anyone that this amendmend does NOT cover, "...the people..." meaning "ALL of the people" is used and in a completely inclusive manner.

It clearly did not apply to blacks, did it? Aren't they "people"? You're attempting to squeeze through loopholes and wiggle by on false technicalities.

Quote:

Besides the supreme court has ruled over and over and over again that the phrase "...the people..." refers to Individual Rights, and I think that preceeds your little cornell aw school glossary.

I would love to see a SCOTUS decision on the Second Amendment that didn't make mention of the pretext of a militia. Care to put your money where your mouth is, or will I just have to settle for "I 'hold' this to be true"?

Put up or shut up, idiot.

[Ravenwood]

From the United States Federal Code, webbed at this location: http://www.lneilsmith.com/militia.html

Legal Definition of "The Militia"
UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are --

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia;

and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 32 - NATIONAL GUARD
CHAPTER 3 - PERSONNEL

§ 313. Appointments and enlistments: age limitations

(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.

(b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National Guard, a person must -

(1) be a citizen of the United States; and

(2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.

I think that spells it out correctly...even the unorganized militia stipulates "able-bodied".

[King of the Americas]

If so, would you also use the limiting term 'able bodied' to contradict this "...and any former member of the regular armed forces, are by law already members of the 'unorganized' militia.", if they suffered the loss of a limb or other 'disability'?

And your response:

As I stated, you are the one confused with the terms; I am not. Your question is moot, and quite stupid as well. Members of tha armed services are not in the militia. Civilians are. Got it?

*And, "...any former member of the regualr armed forces", would be now be 'a citizen'. MY QUESTION/Stance was how could or would you attempt to disarm a disabled vet who has given up part of his body to protect an American's right to bear arms???

*PERSONAL ATTACKS*
-Listen, you impertinent little twerp
-let's start dissecting your idiocy
- Want me to draw you a picture, idiot
-Your question is moot, and quite stupid as well
-READ THE LINK, moron
-Try to expect a little more from your own attention spand, chimp

Well, that's more than 3 strikes. You've more than earned another year of my ignorance. Damn, and I really was hoping for much more from you than this crap!?

[Jocko]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ravenwood
From the United States Federal Code, webbed at this location: http://www.lneilsmith.com/militia.html

Legal Definition of "The Militia"
UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are --

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia;

and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 32 - NATIONAL GUARD
CHAPTER 3 - PERSONNEL

§ 313. Appointments and enlistments: age limitations

(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.

(b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National Guard, a person must -

(1) be a citizen of the United States; and

(2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.

I think that spells it out correctly...even the unorganized militia stipulates "able-bodied".

Thank you, sir, that was the very document I was trying to scare up.

[Jocko]

Quote:

Originally posted by King of the Americas
<SNIP SNIP SNIP!!!>
Damn, and I really was hoping for much more from you than this crap!?

Yeah, well, sore losers like you are always surprised when they get trounced. As the very capable Ravenwood has already posted the document I was looking for, let me share another little tidbit with you.

You stated that "time and time again, the SCOTUS has upheld Second Amendment rights as individual rights."

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Constitutional Law Search Page will set you straight, Perry Moron.

Quote:

...The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force.

The ONLY case (not over and over) was upheld in the context of a militia, just like I said.

As for insulting you, well, what can I say? You're an idiot. A demonstrable, certifiable, textbook idiot. Is it still considered an insult when it's a provable fact?

Go crawl under a rock... and be sure to turn in your gun as you do.

[Jocko]

Quote:

Originally posted by King of the Americas

Well, that's more than 3 strikes. You've more than earned another year of my ignorance.

You stupid, stupid little man... the only person who has earned your ignorance is you yourself.

I, on the other hand, have earned an education.

There is a difference.

[Crossbow]

Quote:

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...has something to do with the 2nd amendment, to me.

I seriously hold that it is our tendency to be armed that has kept us from being invaded for so many years. It is only when we appear to be fat, lazy, and unarmed that we will place ourselves in an invader's way.

No army would wish to fight a well armed civilian population from within it own cities...

...military dictators prefer unarmed citizens.

Does personal ownership of firearms make a society safe and free?

Nope!

But having a large country that has one national language with secure borders, abundant indigenous resources, distant enemies, and a population that is willing to work with many new things really does help to make a society safe and free.

While many people own hunting rifles, shotguns, pistols, muzzle loaders, and other types of firearms the government will still have tanks, attack aircraft, artillery, etc., and the troops that know how to use it. And if an enemy is prepared to risk going against an actual army defending its own country then this enemy will have few compunctions about cutting down a civilian population armed with simple firearms.

[Ravenwood]

IIRC, the Cheznyians, Somalis & Gold coast people are pretty well armed, But I see very little peace & freedom in those countries. A gun is not a magic talisman that gives you certain "freedoms", it is a tool, like any other. It can put food in your fridge, protect you from harm & provide hours of entertainment, but only if you are skilled & trained to use it properly...If not, it can be the source of a lot of problems...I hear a lot about "rights" from KOA, but very little about the responsibilities that come with those rights. I'm a Life Member of the NRA & ILA. I am a liscensed marksmanship instructor & active in our local political scene. What do you do to protect your precious 2nd amendment "rights" besides complain & try to justify not having to really do something about protecting them KOA?

[Jocko]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ravenwood
IIRC, the Cheznyians, Somalis & Gold coast people are pretty well armed, But I see very little peace & freedom in those countries. A gun is not a magic talisman that gives you certain "freedoms", it is a tool, like any other. It can put food in your fridge, protect you from harm & provide hours of entertainment, but only if you are skilled & trained to use it properly...If not, it can be the source of a lot of problems...I hear a lot about "rights" from KOA, but very little about the responsibilities that come with those rights. I'm a Life Member of the NRA & ILA. I am a liscensed marksmanship instructor & active in our local political scene. What do you do to protect your precious 2nd amendment "rights" besides complain & try to justify not having to really do something about protecting them KOA?

You sound like a veteran KOA debator there, Ravenwood.
Please don't take my tormenting the feeble-minded as an anti-gun stance; on the contrary, I agree that it is an essential right and its placement in slot #2 is no accident.

I also believe in the responsibility of gun owners to train themselves, at least as much as one would learn to drive a car. And moreover, anyone claiming a Constitutional right should know what the hell they're talking about.

There's a lot of laws that would allow KOA to own a gun- but the Second Amendment (technically) isn't one of them.

[Ravenwood]

No problem Jocko, I just get annoyed when people try to wave the 2nd amendment around to justify all sorts of things without knowing what it really means. I am a firm believer that the constitution does not grant us rights, but spells out to the government what they cannot infringe upon or restrict. With rights come responsibilities, & those unwilling to accept those responsibilities do not deserve to enjoy the benefits. By all means, go back to having your fun, I just had to introduce some reality to the king...

[Jocko]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ravenwood
No problem Jocko, I just get annoyed when people try to wave the 2nd amendment around to justify all sorts of things without knowing what it really means. I am a firm believer that the constitution does not grant us rights, but spells out to the government what they cannot infringe upon or restrict. With rights come responsibilities, & those unwilling to accept those responsibilities do not deserve to enjoy the benefits. By all means, go back to having your fun, I just had to introduce some reality to the king...

Total agreement on the frequent misuse (or in the KOA's case, frequent hijacking) of the Constitution, in parts or in toto, to justify some zany idiocy.

All too often, people haven't bothered to learn what the document truly is, let alone what it says, before they cry foul on some imagined abridgement of their "rights."

The KOA is the worst case scenario- too lazy to read up on it and learn, and too arrogant to suffer his ignorance in silence.

Then again, shame on us for arguing Constitutional law with someone who believes himself to be a king...? Could we really have expected better?

[Ravenwood]

I know what you mean...I've given up replacing the old irony meter...it just keeps blowing up.

[Crossbow]

Maybe the next time KOA runs for mayor, he can promise 'A Dime Bag to every Voter and Pistol for every Holster!'

[Kodiak]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jocko
All too often, people haven't bothered to learn what the document truly is, let alone what it says, before they cry foul on some imagined abridgement of their "rights."

Sage comments about yourself, it seems...


Amendment II --

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The Militia was just the reason given for originally instituting the 2nd Amendment. It protects the right of the people, not just the militia."

The second amendment is composed of two parts: the Justification clause, and the Rights clause.

Justification clause: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,"

Rights clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"The justification clause does not modify, restrict, or deny the rights clause."

and

"Justification clauses appear in many state constitutions, and cover liberties including right to trial, freedom of the press, free speech, and more. Denying gun rights based on the justification clause means we would have to deny free speech rights on the same basis." -- Eugene Volokh, Prof. Law, UCLA See http:/www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh/beararms/testimon.htm

---------------------------------

The Second Amendment is an individual right, not a collective right:

The Supreme Court has listed the Second Amendment in at least two rulings as an individual right. -- Dred Scott, Casey v. Planned Parenthood and U.S. v. Cruikshank

The Supreme court specifically reaffirmed that the right to keep and bear arms did not belong to the government. -- United States v. Miller

----------------------------------

"We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not thay are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training".

"We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment."

"All of the evidence indicates that the 2nd Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans."

"The plain meaning of the right of the people to keep arms is that it is an individual, rather than a collective, right and is not limited to keeping arms while engaged in active military service or as a member of a select militia such as the National Guard." -- U.S. v. Emerson, 5th court of Appeals decision, November 2, 2001, No. 99-10331

-------------------------------

"62% of those likely voters sampled believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right, while only 28% believe it protects the power of the states to form militias." -- Associated Television News Survey, August 1999

-------------------------------

"There are 23 state constitutions with "right to keep and bear arms" clauses adopted between the Revolution and 1845, and 20 of them are explicitly individual in nature, only 3 have "for the common defense...." or other "collective rights" clauses."

"Of 300 decisions of the federal and state courts that have taken a position on the meaning of the Second Amendment, or the state analogs to it, only 10 (3.3%) have claimed that the right to keep and bear arms is not an individual right. Many of the other decisions struck down gun control laws because they conflicted with the Second Amendment, such as State v. Nunn (Ga. 1846)." -- Clayton Cramer, historian, author of For the Defense of Themselves and the State_(Praeger Press, 1994), cited as an authority in USA v. Emerson (N.D. Texas 1999)

--------------------------------

James Madison, considered to be the author of the Bill of Rights, wrote that the Bill of Rights was "calculated to secure the personal rights of the people". -- Stephen P. Halbrook, "Where Kids and Gun Do Mix", Wall Street Journal, June 2000.

--------------------------------

"The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respectingthe rights of property: nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people: or of peaceable assemblies by them, for any purposes whatsoever, and in any number, whenever they may see occasion. -- Tucker's Blackstone, Volume 1 Appendix Note D., 1803 - Tucker's comments provide a number of rare insights into the consensus for interpretation of the Constitution that prevailed shortly after its ratification, after the debates had settled down and the Constitution was put into practice

---------------------------------

"The signification attributed to the term "Militia" appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." -- U.S. v. Miller -the Miller case specifically held that specific types of guns might be protected by the Second Amendment. It depended on whether a gun had any military (militia) use, and they wanted some evidence presented, confirming that citizens have a right to military style weapons.

[Jon_in_london]

So the reason 'merica hasnt been invaded is because its gun happy!

oic!

I guess thats why such a gun-shy nation as the Uk has been invaded twice a day and three times on sunday since before 'merica was even invented?

[Tmy]

Allow me to oversimplify things.

I never bought the whole "militia= National Guard" 2nd amendment argument. To get into the national guard dont you first have to go through federal military training? Dont the feds still control the Natl Guard to some point? So why would they add an amendment allowing the army to bear arms? Thatd be silly.

I think Homer Simpson said it best, " If you didnt have a gun then the King of England could just walk in here and start pushing you around. Do you want that?"

[Pyrts]

I ought to point out that the very charming L. Neil Smith, whose website is quoted, is a science fiction writer. He's quite the charmer in person... to a point. But he's more than a tad biased and is not to be considered an authority in law and is not as conversant on history as he could be.

Great Britain has fewer guns than the US, has about the same range of freedom (more in some areas) and doesn't seem to have quite the same percentage of homicides. And if you bother to read Mark Twain's books on life in Silver City, Nevada, you'll discovere that in a free society where EVERY male (except Twain) was armed (he was ridiculed because he didn't believe in guns), that the murder rate was very high.

2-3 murders per night in a place with less than 100,000 people. Nowadays in Dallas, it's uncommon for people to carry guns (some do; most don't.) Our murder rate is under 90 individuals per year for a city area with several million residents.

Those westerners were trained to handle guns. They knew gun safety and all the other things the gun advocates promote. So howcome the homicide and crime rate was 20 times higher than it is in an area where guns are discouraged?

I don't think YOU would feel terribly safe in a well-armed town with 2-3 bodies on the sidewalk every morning.

[crackmonkey]

Jocko - the very site you were referencing contradicts your point.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

...and you were haranguing KOA about not reading the site???

[Jocko]

Quote:

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Jocko - the very site you were referencing contradicts your point.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

...and you were haranguing KOA about not reading the site???

I did not reference that site.

Shall I begin "harangueing" now, or would you like to check again first?

[crackmonkey]

That was a page on the same site you linked to. click on 'Second Amendment Network', click on 'facts', click on 'original intent and purpose of the second amendment'.

Now read the sources you quote, for God's sake...

[Jocko]

Quote:

Originally posted by crackmonkey
That was a page on the same site you linked to. click on 'Second Amendment Network', click on 'facts', click on 'original intent and purpose of the second amendment'.

Now read the sources you quote, for God's sake...

Oh, I see. I needed to thoroughly examine every page on the law search site before I could mention it. Gotcha.

Hope you never have to visit the Enclyclopaedia Britannica website- that would keep you busy for quite a while.

[Tmy]

Quote:

Originally posted by Pyrts

Great Britain has fewer guns than the US, has about the same range of freedom (more in some areas) and doesn't seem to have quite the same percentage of homicides. .

And yet they have far more soccer riot deaths than the US. The Brits are obviously a group of violent peoples who should not be armed.

[King of the Americas]

It is clear upon which side most Americans and American Law reside on this issue.

---

And I can't seem to find a response to how or why they think it is neccessary to disarm wounded war veterans because of their disability...

[King of the Americas]

Where is our military stationed, to best guard the homeland???

You want to know what makes you vulnerable to attack? Think like an attacker. Would you take on a well trained military force equal or great than your own, or would you attacker a less force to gain more land and resources so that you could build a bigger better positioned force???

You want to make yourself vulnerable, then disarm your citizens, open your borders, and limit law enforcement officials, while keeping the citizenery fat, lazy, and stupid.

We have bases in Germany, Korea, Saudia Arabia, Cuba, and everywhere else BUT our borders. Our borders are so soft that the Mexican Army invades regularly to provide cover for illegal trafficers. Less that 25% of all traffic in and out of Mexico is regulated, and our northern border with Canada is even less restrictive.

Taking small arms away from citizens might be the note that sends the fat lady off stage...

---

[Tmy]

Come now, Mexico and Canada are hardly hostiel nations. I think we'd treat our borders differently if we had Iraq across the Rio Grande.

Im more concearned about the Massachusetts/New York border. Lousy Yankee fans!

[King of the Americas]

...how tough would it be for middle eastern terrorists to get into America via Mexico or Canada?

Indeed these two nations aren't willing to invade us but their complete lack of national security should give rise to concern.

[Psiload]

Quote:

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Where is our military stationed, to best guard the homeland???

You want to know what makes you vulnerable to attack? Think like an attacker. Would you take on a well trained military force equal or great than your own, or would you attacker a less force to gain more land and resources so that you could build a bigger better positioned force???

You want to make yourself vulnerable, then disarm your citizens, open your borders, and limit law enforcement officials, while keeping the citizenery fat, lazy, and stupid.

We have bases in Germany, Korea, Saudia Arabia, Cuba, and everywhere else BUT our borders. Our borders are so soft that the Mexican Army invades regularly to provide cover for illegal trafficers. Less that 25% of all traffic in and out of Mexico is regulated, and our northern border with Canada is even less restrictive.

Taking small arms away from citizens might be the note that sends the fat lady off stage...

---

Uhh, "King"... have you looked at a calendar lately? It's 2003, not 1943. I mean, Red Dawn was a cool movie and all... Patrick Swayze back before he did that dancing movie, and made a fruitcake out of himself... but do you really think a large-scale invasion of U.S. soil is a real possibility in this day and age? That notion is just asinine... even for you.

[Kodiak]

Quote:

Originally posted by King of the Americas
And I can't seem to find a response to how or why they think it is neccessary to disarm wounded war veterans because of their disability...

Come to Michigan, KOA.

Not only are disabled Michiganders, veteran and non-veteran, allowed to carry arms if they so desire and are physically capable, Michigan law often goes out of its way to make special considerations...for example allowing only disabled hunters to use crossbows

[King of the Americas]

Invasion and occupation would be all but impossible BECAUSE our civilians are or are thought to be quite heavily armed.

Do 'I' expect a large army to try...? "Not so long as we KEEP our citizenery aware of what keeps us safe."

Now, is it possible that small forces could inflitrate our borders, by substandard security to our north and south, and then once in make several attacks...? "Absolutely. And since our army is off on another continent, it will be up to those IN America to stop them."

I was very bothered by the amount of damage that was caused by the Maryland sniper(s). A group of similarily trained terrorists could reak much havoc IF spread across the U.S.

---

What's worse? I heard someone say the other day, "This War on Terror CAN be won easily, but it will cost you your freedom." Are we SO affraid that we would offer up so easily our freedom for security?

[Psiload]

Quote:

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Invasion and occupation would be all but impossible BECAUSE our civilians are or are thought to be quite heavily armed.

Do 'I' expect a large army to try...? "Not so long as we KEEP our citizenery aware of what keeps us safe."

Now, is it possible that small forces could inflitrate our borders, by substandard security to our north and south, and then once in make several attacks...? "Absolutely. And since our army is off on another continent, it will be up to those IN America to stop them."

I was very bothered by the amount of damage that was caused by the Maryland sniper(s). A group of similarily trained terrorists could reak much havoc is spread across the U.S.

---

What worse? I heard someone say the other day, "This War on Terror CAN be won easily, but it will cost you your freedom." Are we SO affraid that we would offer up so easily our freedom for security?

You, sir... are out of your cotton pickin' skull.

[Tmy]

Are you saying that the sniper would not have been siccsesful if our army was here instead of Germany???

Fisrt off all we do have a substantial police force. Of cousre they can not be everywhere. Thats why the sniper was able to hit so many people. Even if we had deployed teh Nat'l guard, they can be on every corner. Adn woudl you want them to be??

[Jocko]

Quote:

Originally posted by Psiload

You, sir... are out of your cotton pickin' skull.

I object to your use of this language to the KOA.

Picking cotton is work, and you do cotton pickers an ill service by comparing them to a textbook study of inertia such as the KOA. Please apologize to menial laborers around the world immediately.

[kittynh]

Hey, we got Canada and Mexico....
we could keep from being invaded with sling shots! though last time I was in the Southwest I wasn't so sure Mexico hadn't won some sort of war we just didn't read about up North.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

I guess thats why such a gun-shy nation as the Uk has been invaded twice a day and three times on sunday since before 'merica was even invented?

Actually, it is being invaded constantly now. It's just happening so constantly that no one stays in power for long enough for it to be worth being reported. It happens so much that the press doesn't even mention it anymore.

Why it happens so often, you've actually already been conquered 3 times while I type out this post.

...and there it goes again.

Why, it even happens so often that you're invading it right now.