U.S. gun control movement pushing Congress to act - lawmakers

[webfact]

U.S. gun control movement pushing Congress to act - lawmakers

By Peter Szekely

 

People walk with signs during "March for Our Lives", an organized demonstration to end gun violence, in downtown Los Angeles, California, U.S., March 24, 2018. REUTERS/Patrick T. Fallon

 

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The youth-led U.S. gun control movement that flexed its public muscle with huge weekend rallies has already nudged Congress to enact minor firearms changes, but must remain active if it hopes to win more meaningful regulations, lawmakers said on Sunday.

 

The movement that erupted after the Feb. 14 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, has generated a national conversation about gun rights and has chipped away at legislative gridlock on the issue, they said.

 

"The activism of these young people is actually changing the equation," Senator Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, said a day after hundreds of thousands of protesters rallied in Washington.

 

Tucked into a $1.3 trillion spending bill Congress passed last week were modest improvements to background checks for gun sales and an end to a ban on the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studying the causes of gun violence.

 

"These are two things we could not have done in the past," Kaine said on CNN's "State of the Union" program. "But the active engagement by young people convinced Congress we better do something."

 

The spending bill, which President Donald Trump signed on Friday, also includes grants to help schools prevent gun violence.

 

The Trump administration also took a step on Friday to ban the sale of bump stocks - devices that enable semi-automatic weapons to fire like machine guns - that helped gunman Stephen Paddock massacre 58 people in Las Vegas in October.

 

A key focus of Saturday's march on Washington, which was duplicated in 800 cities across the country and around the world, was an effort to turn emotion into political activism by registering participants to vote.

 

Americans will vote in November on the entire U.S. House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate.

 

Gun control advocates have called for universal background checks on people buying guns, bans on assault-style rifles such as the one used to kill 17 students and staff in Parkland, and large-capacity ammunition magazines.

 

Senator Mark Warner, another Virginia Democrat, declared in the wake of the student-led movement that he would now support bans on such rifles and magazines, which he had voted against in recent years.

 

"I think it's time to change our positions and re-examine them," Warner said on the CBS News "Face the Nation" programme.

 

"I think this time it's going different," Warner said. "I think we can actually get it done."

 

To win significant changes, lawmakers said the young gun control advocates need to maintain their drive in the face of powerful pro-gun lobbying by the National Rifle Association and those who see gun ownership as a right protected by the U.S. Constitution.

 

"If they don't keep it up, those that want no change will just sit on their hands," Ohio Governor John Kasich, a Republican who formerly served in Congress, said on CNN.

 

Two Republican senators, Marco Rubio of Florida and Joni Ernst of Iowa, said over the weekend that while they supported gun control advocates' right to protest, they opposed infringing on the constitutional right to bear arms.

 

Meanwhile, former Pennsylvania Republican Senator Rick Santorum drew an angry response on social media for saying on CNN that, instead of agitating for change, students should "do something about maybe taking CPR classes" or take other training to respond to school shooters.

 

(Reporting by Peter Szekely; Editing by Paul Simao)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-03-26

[farcanell]

5 hours ago, webfact said:

Meanwhile, former Pennsylvania Republican Senator Rick Santorum drew an angry response on social media for saying on CNN that, instead of agitating for change, students should "do something about maybe taking CPR classes" or take other training to respond to school shooters.

Holy bat crap... and this guy was a representative of the people... what a dick!

[farcanell]

5 hours ago, webfact said:

and an end to a ban on the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studying the causes of gun violence.

More holy bat crap!

there was a ban on studying the issue.... Jesus would indeed weep.

[rudi49jr]

1 hour ago, farcanell said:

More holy bat crap!

there was a ban on studying the issue.... Jesus would indeed weep.

Yeah, it was actually illegal (thanks to NRA-lobbying and spineless lawmakers with deep pockets) to study the causes of gun violence. How sick can a country get?

[billd766]

snip>

 

quote " Meanwhile, former Pennsylvania Republican Senator Rick Santorum drew an angry response on social media for saying on CNN that, instead of agitating for change, students should "do something about maybe taking CPR classes" or take other training to respond to school shooters. "

 

Has former Pennsylvania Republican Senator Rick Santorum taken any CPR classes himself or taken any other training apart from trying to keep his snout in the trough?

[Srikcir]

While the children marched in DC for gun control, Trump left DC to play golf at Mar-A-Largo.

Trump had nothing personal to say in support of the march.

But the White House did issue a statement, "Keeping our children safe is top priority of the President's." https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/25/opinions/trump-golf-march-for-our-lives-opinion-obeidallah/index.html

The "President's" what - alternate reality?

 

[impulse]

For every one of those marchers, it would be easy to put together just as many -or more- on the other side of the argument who see our rights being eroded away by our government and who would demonstrate for the right to bear arms to protect ourselves from the same abuses that drove the founding fathers to create the Declaration of Independence, and make sure they enshrined the means to keep a corrupt government in check under the 2nd Amendment.

 

From the Declaration of Independence:

 

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

 

Just as Germany didn't foresee the Nazi's, we don't know who is going to be elected in 10 or 40 or 100 years.  But we do know that once those gun rights are gone, the Gub'ment isn't going to give them back.  

 

[mikebike]

20 minutes ago, impulse said:

For every one of those marchers, it would be easy to put together just as many -or more- on the other side of the argument who see our rights being eroded away by our government and who would demonstrate for the right to bear arms to protect ourselves from the same abuses that drove the founding fathers to create the Declaration of Independence, and make sure they enshrined the means to keep a corrupt government in check under the 2nd Amendment.

 

From the Declaration of Independence:

 

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

 

Just as Germany didn't foresee the Nazi's, we don't know who is going to be elected in 10 or 40 or 100 years.  But we do know that once those gun rights are gone, the Gub'ment isn't going to give them back.  

 

The most nonsensical argument ever on this issue.

 

2018 is not 1776.

 

Even a very large group of concerned citizens armed with their AKs, ARs, pistols, long guns, and shotguns is going to have little or no impact on a modern, trained, hyper equipped US gov't armed force with the will and backing to quell the revolution.

 

If that is the scenario your are packing for the rights you were looking to defend would have long ago gone in the crapper.

[impulse]

2 minutes ago, mikebike said:

The most nonsensical argument ever on this issue.

 

2018 is not 1776.

 

Even a very large group of concerned citizens armed with their AKs, ARs, pistols, long guns, and shotguns is going to have little or no impact on a modern, trained, hyper equipped US gov't armed force with the will and backing to quell the revolution.

 

If that is the scenario your are packing for the rights you were looking to defend would have long ago gone in the crapper.

 

Agree or disagree.  2018 isn't 1776, but governments are still governments and always looking to grab more power.

 

You want to see gun rights influencing an outcome, have a look at the recent Bundy standoff in Oregon.  Had the participants not been armed, they'd have been arrested before the standoff even started.  Whether you agree with the occupiers or not (I don't happen to agree with them), you can't tell me their being armed didn't "have an impact" on their negotiating power.  That's not to say they weren't idiots and on pretty selfish ground.  But they sure got their message out instead of being bundles off to jail on the first day.  Also shows an example of government abuse of power...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/28/us/politics/fbi-agent-indicted-oregon.html

 

[Roadman]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

snip>

 

quote " Meanwhile, former Pennsylvania Republican Senator Rick Santorum drew an angry response on social media for saying on CNN that, instead of agitating for change, students should "do something about maybe taking CPR classes" or take other training to respond to school shooters. "

 

Has former Pennsylvania Republican Senator Rick Santorum taken any CPR classes himself or taken any other training apart from trying to keep his snout in the trough?

Me, me, me, I have...but jeez George what good will CPR do for the blood pouring out of the hole right through him....

[mikebike]

20 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Agree or disagree.  2018 isn't 1776, but governments are still governments and always looking to grab more power.

 

You want to see gun rights influencing an outcome, have a look at the recent Bundy standoff in Oregon.  Had the participants not been armed, they'd have been arrested before the standoff even started.  Whether you agree with the occupiers or not (I don't happen to agree with them), you can't tell me their being armed didn't "have an impact" on their negotiating power.  That's not to say they weren't idiots and on pretty selfish ground.  But they sure got their message out instead of being bundles off to jail on the first day.  Also shows an example of government abuse of power...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/28/us/politics/fbi-agent-indicted-oregon.html

 

Going down the Bundy hole will take us well off topic.

 

Suffice it to say that had the participants been armed people of colour occupying a federal facility in an urban area they would not have been extended the courtesies that the Bundy clan was.

 

Meaning if the Gov't had the will and wanted to remove the Bundys they could easily have done so despite their pea shooters.

Edited March 26, 2018 by mikebike

[impulse]

2 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Going down the Bundy hole will take us well off topic.

 

Suffice it to say that had the participants been armed people of colour occupying a federal facility in an urban area they would not have been extended the courtesies that the Bundy clan was.

 

It's directly on topic when the OP's about a group of people demonstrating on one side of an issue, as if there are no reasonable people on the other side of that issue- or all of them are whacko militia types.  There are issues that go way beyond the sound bites and catchy banners.  On both sides.

 

[mikebike]

Armed occupation of a federal building is NOT a peaceful demonstration.

 

Nowhere near this topic.

[farcanell]

47 minutes ago, impulse said:

government abuse of power...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff

Dude.... how often have you shot yourself in the foot with your own gun?

 

The United States constitution grants congress the power to manage federal property ( including land).... these people are criminals, according to your constitution (or will be once convicted)

 

in instance such such as disputes of this nature, it’s up to the courts to decide... they did, and were ignored.... illegally... and you want to protect their rights to bear arms, whilst they willfully and knowing break the law... wild man!

[impulse]

9 minutes ago, farcanell said:

Wow wow wow.

 

you do realize that the corrupt government that the second amendment was designed to protect against, was the British government, right?

 

and... you do realize that if y’all vote in a despot, he’s just going to take the guns away from y’all, if he wants... even if it’s from your cold dead hands, right?

 

and... you do realize that gun reform, doesn’t nessesarily mean gun prohibition, but more gun regulation... you know... as in “a well regulated militia... right?

 

and... you do realize that the average gun user is not a member of a well regulated militia, right?

 

Yes... there’s some fancy archaic laws in the constitution, but trying to hide behind those words, (in an attempt to justify owning assault rifles etc) is just not going to fly with anyone capable of critical thinking.

 

what would garner more respect from me is the truth, as in... I like my guns... I like shooting stuff with a machine gun... so eff off y’all.

 

As I recall, the militia back in 1776 was a bunch of rabble, and illegal by the then-current laws of the land.  And it didn't matter that they were under the thumb of a British government, just that it was a abusive government.  And had the citizenry not been armed, we'd still be under that abusive British government.  (That alone should pucker any American's sphincter muscles)

 

And, let's be pragmatic.  When the "regulations" get stricter (which even I agree with- to a point), where do you figure they're going to stop?  I'm all for taking guns out of the hands of criminals and the next mass shooter.  But where do you figure the anti-gun advocates will be satisfied?  Because once you slide down the slippery slope where the government takes away personal freedoms, you never know where you'll end up.  The recent erosion of our privacy rights is a perfect example.

 

As for me, I love shooting.  I don't hunt- but I love target shooting.  But more than that, I see the government getting more and more intrusive, and power and wealth more and more concentrated, with the haves settling down in their gated communities with enough money to hire their own armed security.   And that scares me more than the minuscule odds of being a victim of gun violence.

 

[impulse]

19 minutes ago, farcanell said:

Dude.... how often have you shot yourself in the foot with your own gun?

 

The United States constitution grants congress the power to manage federal property ( including land).... these people are criminals, according to your constitution (or will be once convicted)

 

in instance such such as disputes of this nature, it’s up to the courts to decide... they did, and were ignored.... illegally... and you want to protect their rights to bear arms, whilst they willfully and knowing break the law... wild man!

 

Once again, I am not agreeing with their cause.  But you can't convince me that their being armed (and collecting quite a crowd of armed sympathizers) didn't affect the outcome.  Which is the gist of the post I was responding to that claimed:

 

Even a very large group of concerned citizens armed with their AKs, ARs, pistols, long guns, and shotguns is going to have little or no impact on a modern, trained, hyper equipped US gov't armed force with the will and backing to quell the revolution.

 

The point about abuse of government was in relation to the FBI agent who lied about firing his weapon in a portion of the incident where someone was killed.  Which if I recall, is a civil rights violation under the color of authority.

Edited March 26, 2018 by impulse

[farcanell]

1 minute ago, impulse said:

 

Once again, I am not agreeing with their cause.  But you can't tell me that their being armed (and collecting quite a crowd of armed sympathizers) didn't affect the outcome.  Which is the gist of the post I was responding to that claimed:

 

Even a very large group of concerned citizens armed with their AKs, ARs, pistols, long guns, and shotguns is going to have little or no impact on a modern, trained, hyper equipped US gov't armed force with the will and backing to quell the revolution.

 

The point about abuse of government was in relation to the FBI agent who lied about firing his weapon in a portion of the incident where someone was killed.  Which if I recall, is a civil rights violation under the color of authority.

Fair enough...  I think... 

 

In the first instance, we are talking about about a group of armed people that defied the government, despite court rulings on the matter... which was bad... but enabled by gun ownership... right? So wrong... right?

 

in the second instance, we are talking about a person accused ( not convicted) of lying about using his gun... with no conclusive evidence (ballistics etc) beyond witness accounts from those pursued by the law, right?

 

and.. in the second instance, if the charges are proved, the agent in question will be punished per the law.... which the folks in the first instance, where avoiding through an armed position... right?

[farcanell]

25 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

As I recall, the militia back in 1776 was a bunch of rabble, and illegal by the then-current laws of the land.  And it didn't matter that they were under the thumb of a British government, just that it was a abusive government.  And had the citizenry not been armed, we'd still be under that abusive British government.  (That alone should pucker any American's sphincter muscles)

 

And, let's be pragmatic.  When the "regulations" get stricter (which even I agree with- to a point), where do you figure they're going to stop?  I'm all for taking guns out of the hands of criminals and the next mass shooter.  But where do you figure the anti-gun advocates will be satisfied?  Because once you slide down the slippery slope where the government takes away personal freedoms, you never know where you'll end up.  The recent erosion of our privacy rights is a perfect example.

 

As for me, I love shooting.  I don't hunt- but I love target shooting.  But more than that, I see the government getting more and more intrusive, and power and wealth more and more concentrated, with the haves settling down in their gated communities with enough money to hire their own armed security.   And that scares me more than the minuscule odds of being a victim of gun violence.

 

Good points... but are they good enough to advocate maintaining the status quo?

 

 

[impulse]

1 minute ago, farcanell said:

Fair enough...  I think... 

 

In the first instance, we are talking about about a group of armed people that defied the government, despite court rulings on the matter... which was bad... but enabled by gun ownership... right? So wrong... right?

 

in the second instance, we are talking about a person accused ( not convicted) of lying about using his gun... with no conclusive evidence (ballistics etc) beyond witness accounts from those pursued by the law, right?

 

and.. in the second instance, if the charges are proved, the agent in question will be punished per the law.... which the folks in the first instance, where avoiding through an armed position... right?

 

You'll have to do some more research into the BLM, which (like the EPA, FDA and other letter agencies), becomes a law unto itself- passing all kinds of edicts that aren't even discussed in the legislative bodies and only in the courts when someone files suit to contest their rules.  And at the cost of $$ millions in legal fees that make it almost impossible for normal people to fight them.  Some, including me, characterize that as an abusive government.

 

The Bundy case was unfortunate because the family genuinely broke some laws (arson), then hid behind a rally to the cause of BLM abuses of ranchers and the antiquated land rights the ranchers have enjoyed (rightly or wrongly) for generations.  The sympathizers were there to support ranchers' grazing rights on BLM land- which the BLM had changed.  But several issues got mixed into the protest- some valid, some cowardly.

 

My point in referencing that case is that the protesters' being legally armed made a big difference in how the matter was resolved.  It's not that I agree with the cause of the protest.  It's that I was pleased to see the government having to deal with their citizenry without being able to simply walk in and start slapping people around.

 

[impulse]

15 minutes ago, farcanell said:

Good points... but are they good enough to advocate maintaining the status quo?

 

Nope.  I'm all for better background checks, heavy penalties for crimes committed with firearms, and other steps that would reduce the chances of mass shootings.  (and legalizing weed to free up prison space for genuinely violent people)   But that's not going to appease a lot of the anti-gunners.

 

And, being pragmatic, I don't want to see our individual rights eroded any faster than they're already being taken away by our government since 9/11.  Once those rights are gone, history tells us there has to be a revolt to get them back.  I don't see that happening today, but I can't predict what whack jobs may get elected in 2028.  Just like the Germans didn't see Hitler coming.

 

Also, with around 300 million guns already out there, I don't know how you'd keep them away from the bad guys with any combination of laws.  Pandora's box is already open.  Only the good guys would turn their guns in.  And we don't have enough police to live in a society where only the bad guys still have their guns.  That's the other side of this that isn't reported.  Because they never report how many crimes didn't happen because perpetrators were concerned that the victims may be armed.

 

Edited March 26, 2018 by impulse

[farcanell]

10 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

My point in referencing that case is that the protesters' being legally armed made a big difference in how the matter was resolved.  It's not that I agree with the cause of the protest.  It's that I was pleased to see the government having to deal with their citizenry without being able to simply walk in and start slapping people around.

 

Funnily enough, having spent a fair amount of time traveling around the states... I was actually more afraid of running foul of an overzealous cop with a gun, than anyone else, so in part, I do understand this sentiment.... even if it is a chicken vs egg scenario.

[metisdead]

Off topic trolling posts and the replies have been removed. 

[joecoolfrog]

4 hours ago, impulse said:

For every one of those marchers, it would be easy to put together just as many -or more- on the other side of the argument who see our rights being eroded away by our government and who would demonstrate for the right to bear arms to protect ourselves from the same abuses that drove the founding fathers to create the Declaration of Independence, and make sure they enshrined the means to keep a corrupt government in check under the 2nd Amendment.

 

From the Declaration of Independence:

 

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

 

Just as Germany didn't foresee the Nazi's, we don't know who is going to be elected in 10 or 40 or 100 years.  But we do know that once those gun rights are gone, the Gub'ment isn't going to give them back.  

 

Giant Red Herring !

The issue is not about the constitution , its not about the 2nd amendment , its not about imagined government tyrany or loss of freedom.

The issue is the ridiculously large amount of firearms in the USA , many in the hands of criminals , the mentally unstable or otherwise irresponsible citizens.

Consequently people are being slaughtered at a rate that disgraces the United States . That is the problem , deal with it rather than throwing up laughable excuses for doing nothing.

[impulse]

23 minutes ago, joecoolfrog said:

Giant Red Herring !

The issue is not about the constitution , its not about the 2nd amendment , its not about imagined government tyrany or loss of freedom.

The issue is the ridiculously large amount of firearms in the USA , many in the hands of criminals , the mentally unstable or otherwise irresponsible citizens.

Consequently people are being slaughtered at a rate that disgraces the United States . That is the problem , deal with it rather than throwing up laughable excuses for doing nothing.

 

That's one opinion.  But certainly not the only valid one.  

 

BTW, with almost 300 million guns already out there, how would you propose to get them away from the bad guys?  It's pretty easy to get them away from the law abiding people.  But then it's open season on them...

 

Edited March 26, 2018 by impulse

[Odysseus123]

15 hours ago, impulse said:

 

As I recall, the militia back in 1776 was a bunch of rabble, and illegal by the then-current laws of the land.  And it didn't matter that they were under the thumb of a British government, just that it was a abusive government.  And had the citizenry not been armed, we'd still be under that abusive British government.  (That alone should pucker any American's sphincter muscles)

 

And, let's be pragmatic.  When the "regulations" get stricter (which even I agree with- to a point), where do you figure they're going to stop?  I'm all for taking guns out of the hands of criminals and the next mass shooter.  But where do you figure the anti-gun advocates will be satisfied?  Because once you slide down the slippery slope where the government takes away personal freedoms, you never know where you'll end up.  The recent erosion of our privacy rights is a perfect example.

 

As for me, I love shooting.  I don't hunt- but I love target shooting.  But more than that, I see the government getting more and more intrusive, and power and wealth more and more concentrated, with the haves settling down in their gated communities with enough money to hire their own armed security.   And that scares me more than the minuscule odds of being a victim of gun violence.

 

The militia of 1775 were perfectly legal in the colonies and as such were embodied under Colonial and British legislation.

 

First there were the "Trained Band" companies which were a direct link to the English militia.

Secondly were the provisional militia to be raised by the colonies in time of war..

 

Thirdly were the "minuteman" companies which were created by some (but not all) of the colonies.

 

Captain Parker's company which stood at Lexington Common was a perfectly legal Trained Band company hence the extreme reluctance on both sides to fire the first shot.

 

It should be remembered that Britain had rarely deployed troops to the 13 Colonies until the Seven Years War (1756-63).The colonists had raised troops and done the fighting by themselves before that.

 

They had always been in legal possession of a "well regulated" militia.

Edited March 27, 2018 by Odysseus123

[metisdead]

Some offensive posts and the replies have been removed. 

[impulse]

1 hour ago, Odysseus123 said:

The militia of 1775 were perfectly legal in the colonies and as such were embodied under Colonial and British legislation.

 

First there were the "Trained Band" companies which were a direct link to the English militia.

Secondly were the provisional militia to be raised by the colonies in time of war..

 

Thirdly were the "minuteman" companies which were created by some (but not all) of the colonies.

 

Captain Parker's company which stood at Lexington Common was a perfectly legal Trained Band company hence the extreme reluctance on both sides to fire the first shot.

 

It should be remembered that Britain had rarely deployed troops to the 13 Colonies until the Seven Years War (1756-63).The colonists had raised troops and done the fighting by themselves before that.

 

They had always been in legal possession of a "well regulated" militia.

 

By definition, a group (militia) that's out to overthrow the current government is illegal.  And pretty much the antithesis of "well regulated", in spite of how well organized they may be.

 

 

Edited March 27, 2018 by impulse

[Credo]

27 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

By definition, a group (militia) that's out to overthrow the current government is illegal.  And pretty much the antithesis of "well regulated", in spite of how well organized they may be.

 

 

I think the fact that the US was rather small at that time, with what was known to be a lot of territory to the West and it wasn't owned by the US/British, there was a reasonable assumption they could end up with neighboring countries.   

 

I don't know that they expected to be fighting their own gov't.   

 

 

[Odysseus123]

30 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

By definition, a group (militia) that's out to overthrow the current government is illegal.  And pretty much the antithesis of "well regulated", in spite of how well organized they may be.

 

 

No, an armed group is not a legally embodied or "well regulated" militia;

 

The Colonial militia was based on the various act of Parliament in the reigns of Henry VIII,Elizabeth 1and William 111.

 

The order of Colonel Smith to Captain Parker's company was "disperse"  (police action) not "lay down your arms" (military) action.

 

A bunch of rednecks armed to the teeth (without legal authority) out in the boonies is not-and never was-a militia.Captain Parker's company was a legal entity-and they were not deemed to be in rebellion at that time.

Edited March 27, 2018 by Odysseus123

[joecoolfrog]

On 26/03/2018 at 1:41 PM, impulse said:

 

That's one opinion.  But certainly not the only valid one.  

 

BTW, with almost 300 million guns already out there, how would you propose to get them away from the bad guys?  It's pretty easy to get them away from the law abiding people.  But then it's open season on them...

 

It will take time but other countries have managed to restrict the availability of firearms. A good first step would be to drop the fantasy propaganda fostered by the NRA .They have blood on their hands as do the gullible fools who believe the nonsense about armed militias being relevent to the 21st century.