The Ability to Wage War

Good Points Phillip,

The sad reality about guns is that most people who own them and carry them are not mentally prepared to use them and thus when confronted with a hostile situation wind up becoming the victims.

And by the way - you can carry a concealed weapon into a church in Missouri. But you must have permission from "the Pastor".

I told my deacons - Guys don't even ask. I'm going to be the only one packing.

 

You are right.

My wife asked me if I could actually take another human life (when I started my training). Boy, was that a hard question to answer. That question had better be settled in your mind before you let someone know you have a gun or they will take it while you are thinking about it.

After the Fort Worth shootings (in church) it looks like pastors are going to have to be packing.

I, along with policeman in our church, have carried our guns (concealed) during major youth events. Our church is right on a major highway out of Dallas and we have had child molesters come in and start talking to the kids. We had to have one arrested (he had warrants in Missouri) just two months ago. He came in with a wheel-chair and wound up watching the kids playing beside the church.

Our local sheriff escorted him to the local jail for extradition.

I know this sounds off the subject line, but it seems like the question here is does the 2nd amendment mean for the citizens themselves to be armed against tyranny of our own country and if so, where do we draw the line between a terrorist act and preventing government abuse?

 

"Which history - Swiss history supports the militia - they've had a democracy and been at peace a lot longer than our record."

It has been useful to the world powers to have a civilized neutral nation ergo, Switzerland.

 

Correct! How else could all these thieves steal and get away with it except for "Numbered Swiss Bank Accts"?

I used to wonder how they could stay neutral (especially in WWII) but thinking about the anonymous numbered accounts that are virtually untouchable by anyone but the acct holder, it all made sense!

 

Correct! How else could all these thieves steal and get away with it except for "Numbered Swiss Bank Accts"?

I used to wonder how they could stay neutral (especially in WWII) but thinking about the anonymous numbered accounts that are virtually untouchable by anyone but the acct holder, it all made sense! </font>[/QUOTE]Especially now that we are finding out that a lot of Nazi gold (much now unclaimed) was stored in Switzerland, along with cash embezzled by the Hitler cronies.

 

By the way, I mean NO offense to those who may be citizens of Switzerland. (unless you are hoarding nazi gold and not sharing )

 

No Militia is effective if it is unorganized and unprepared - does not the organization and the equipping of the militia in effect create a standing army?

Without organization and training and preparation all you have is a armed mob. There is no invading army in the world who would not welcome such a reception in place of a well organized, dug in, standing army. </font>[/QUOTE]A militia could be trained at the county level and armed at the citizens expense. The federal government could provide guidelines so as to keep training among the states uniform and up to date.

I would give up one weekend a month to train for the defense of my county. Especially now that our National Guard units are being sent overseas. I don't think this was there intended purpose.

 

Armed at the citizens' expense?

Isn't that like a tax?

IE. you could arm yourself with what you could afford?

"Hi, I'm reporting for duty and all I can afford is a 12 ga. single shot shotgun my granddad left me. Where do you want me to fall in?"

Your idea of a militia is sounding more like a Barney Fife outfit all the time.

 

Just make sure you keep that one twelve-guage cartridge in your shirt pocket.

 

LINK

Your idea of a militia is sounding more like a Barney Fife outfit all the time. </font>[/QUOTE]Suggestions are always welcome for consideration. Thanks for showing up!

 

Source

 

poncho,

I have only a minor disagreement, with the history presented in the first quote (I couldn't find it in the Halbrook article, but I skimmed through it quickly).

There is a hidden history of the Second Amendment which is long overdue to be written. It is this: during the ratification period of 1787-1791, Congress and the states considered two entirely separate groups of amendments to the Constitution. The first group was a declaration of rights, in which the right of the people to keep and bear arms appeared. The second group, consisting of amendments related to the structure of government, included recognition of the power of states to maintain militias. The former became the Bill of Rights, while the latter was defeated.[3] Somehow, through some Orwellian rewriting (p.132)of history, as applied to the issues of the right of the people to keep and bear arms and the state militia power, that which was defeated has become the meaning of that which was adopted.

First of all, there are two different periods of ratification, one of the Constitution itself, 1787-1788, the other for the BoR, 1789--1791. This confusion of the two periods compounds the following mis-statement, that there were two entirely separate groups of amendments. The amendments were proposed by some of the states to Congress as part of their ratifications. They all included a mix, though Massachusetts and South Carolina's can be said to have been more heavily concentrated on structural changes. The amendments were digested and catalogued by Madison, who presented some of them to the House as a resolution which they debated. After going through the process of debate, a group of twelve of them were sent to the states for ratification, which were all "rights" changes and not structural changes (see From Parchment to Power: How James Madison Used the Bill of Rights to Save the Constitution by Robert Goldwin, an excellent account of Madison's efforts to guide the amendments through to prevent structural changes). There were not two separate groups, either presented to Congress by the states in their ratification of the Constitution, nor presented by Congress to the states for their ratification of the amendments. If that is from Halbrook, it is probably my only disagreement with him. I've read several articles by him and he is an excellent historian of the Second Amendment.

 

Thanks FTR.

 

My pleasure.

Was the first quote from the Halbrook article? I've got it somewhere here at home and will look it up if so. I'm puzzled that Halbrook would say such a thing.

 

Third paragraph I believe.

Maybe he (Halbrook) made a mistake. History hasn't always happened as written. It can change as we learn more also I reckon.