Its 'insane' for civilians to own semi-automatics?

[Jito463]

So, Trump's pick to head the military health section (not sure what his official title is, or that of the department he's supposed to head) at the Pentagon made an utterly ludicrous statement at his confirmation hearing.

“I may get in trouble with other members of the committee just say how insane it is that in the United States of America a civilian can go out and buy a semi-automatic like an AR-15, which apparently was the weapon that was used,”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...c-weapons.html

Any odds on what Trump will have to say about this (if anything)?

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by Jito463

So, Trump's pick to head the military health section at the Pentagon made an utterly ludicrous statement at his confirmation hearing.



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...c-weapons.html

Any odds on what Trump will have to say about this (if anything)?

Whats insane is that apparently he doesn't recignize the intent of the Founding Fathers as it applies to the Second Amendment.

The FF wanted the citizens to have the very same firepower as the government because the threat of armed revolt was the ONLY way to keep the govenment in check.

Dont get me started on,"Well they only had single shot muskets."

*spoilers*

they didnt.....

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

Whats insane is that apparently he doesn't recignize the intent of the Founding Fathers as it applies to the Second Amendment.

The FF wanted the citizens to have the very same firepower as the government because the threat of armed revolt was the ONLY way to keep the govenment in check.

Dont get me started on,"Well they only had single shot muskets."

*spoilers*

they didnt.....

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

Whats insane is that apparently he doesn't recignize the intent of the Founding Fathers as it applies to the Second Amendment.

The FF wanted the citizens to have the very same firepower as the government because the threat of armed revolt was the ONLY way to keep the govenment in check.

Dont get me started on,"Well they only had single shot muskets."

*spoilers*

they didnt.....

I agree. The intent of the founders was to ensure that "the people" could defend themselves from a tyrannical federal government should they have to.

But the question is "how" did the Founding Fathers envision "the people" being able to defend themselves from a tyrannical federal government? Did the Founders believe that Jimmy and his family of six should be able to fend off the Federal government all by themselves if necessary? Or did they believe that unregulated "posse" of private individuals should be armed and capable of fending off the Federal government all by themselves if necessary?

Many believe that the 2nd Amendment answers this question rather clearly:

"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."

James Madison helps us define a "well regulated militia":

“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
James Madison (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President

I believe that if we consider the meaning of a "well regulated militia" we'll discover that it is:

- Well equipped.
- Well trained.
- Well organized with oversight and a chain of command.

So, who is this referring to? I believe it was the minutemen, the registered "citizen soldiers", who were the precursors to each individual state's National Guard. These were not just any citizen. They were actually each state's primary line of defense from threat or invasion. The state level organization of these minutemen evolved into what we know as the National Guard today. They were well equipped, well trained, and well organized. Each state having a well regulated militia was the greatest defense from a tyrannical federal government. Since these minutemen were well trained, well organized, and well equipped citizens in their daily lives, the right of the people to bear arms was a necessity. I don't believe they envisioned good ol' Jimmy Smith, with his family of six, or some shadowy fly by night cult, or some gang of untrained and unregistered cooks and rebels, having an arsenal capable of fending off a small army. Nor do I believe they envisioned the mentally unstable, suspects of terror, or violent criminals being able to freely wreak havoc on a free society with fully automatic weapons.

A case can be made that a gun control measure is in agreement with both the Constitution and the intent of our Founding Fathers as long as it doesn't inhibit the ability of the individual states to maintain a "well regulated militia".

In light of current events, with wackos and crazies carrying out mass shootings, I have to ask... were they a part of a well regulated militia? Are those arguing against any gun control measure whatsoever a part of a well regulated militia?

Regardless of anyone's take on this... I don't believe the Founding Fathers envisioned a gun saturated Wild West like society, boarding on chaos, with women and children fearing a cloud of bullets in the course of their daily living... fearing to attend church, concerts, election speeches, or sporting events. That would be... insane.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I agree. The intent of the founders was to ensure that "the people" could defend themselves from a tyrannical federal government should they have to.

But the question is "how" did the Founding Fathers envision "the people" being able to defend themselves from a tyrannical federal government? Did the Founders believe that Jimmy and his family of six should be able to fend off the Federal government all by themselves if necessary? Or did they believe that unregulated "posse" of private individuals should be armed and capable of fending off the Federal government all by themselves if necessary?

Many believe that the 2nd Amendment answers this question rather clearly:

"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."

James Madison helps us define a "well regulated militia":

“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
James Madison (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President

I believe that if we consider the meaning of a "well regulated militia" we'll discover that it is:

- Well equipped.
- Well trained.
- Well organized with oversight and a chain of command.

So, who is this referring to? I believe it was the minutemen, the registered "citizen soldiers", who were the precursors to each individual state's National Guard. These were not just any citizen. They were actually each state's primary line of defense from threat or invasion. The state level organization of these minutemen evolved into what we know as the National Guard today. They were well equipped, well trained, and well organized. Each state having a well regulated militia was the greatest defense from a tyrannical federal government. Since these minutemen were well trained, well organized, and well equipped citizens in their daily lives, the right of the people to bear arms was a necessity. I don't believe they envisioned good ol' Jimmy Smith, with his family of six, or some shadowy fly by night cult, or some gang of untrained and unregistered cooks and rebels, having an arsenal capable of fending off a small army. Nor do I believe they envisioned the mentally unstable, suspects of terror, or violent criminals being able to freely wreak havoc on a free society with fully automatic weapons.

A case can be made that a gun control measure is in agreement with both the Constitution and the intent of our Founding Fathers as long as it doesn't inhibit the ability of the individual states to maintain a "well regulated militia".

In light of current events, with wackos and crazies carrying out mass shootings, I have to ask... were they a part of a well regulated militia? Are those arguing against any gun control measure whatsoever a part of a well regulated militia?

Regardless of anyone's take on this... I don't believe the Founding Fathers envisioned a gun saturated Wild West like society, boarding on chaos, with women and children fearing a cloud of bullets in the course of their daily living... fearing to attend church, concerts, election speeches, or sporting events. That would be... insane.

EVERYTHING in your world is filtered by a red lense, you know that?

The militia was abandoned in the 1790s. Now, America is too retarded to be free. So here are, going off the rails on a crazy train.

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I agree. The intent of the founders was to ensure that "the people" could defend themselves from a tyrannical federal government should they have to.

But the question is "how" did the Founding Fathers envision "the people" being able to defend themselves from a tyrannical federal government? Did the Founders believe that Jimmy and his family of six should be able to fend off the Federal government all by themselves if necessary? Or did they believe that unregulated "posse" of private individuals should be armed and capable of fending off the Federal government all by themselves if necessary?

Many believe that the 2nd Amendment answers this question rather clearly:

"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."

James Madison helps us define a "well regulated militia":

“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
James Madison (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President

I believe that if we consider the meaning of a "well regulated militia" we'll discover that it is:

- Well equipped.
- Well trained.
- Well organized with oversight and a chain of command.

So, who is this referring to? I believe it was the minutemen, the registered "citizen soldiers", who were the precursors to each individual state's National Guard. These were not just any citizen. They were actually each state's primary line of defense from threat or invasion. The state level organization of these minutemen evolved into what we know as the National Guard today. They were well equipped, well trained, and well organized. Each state having a well regulated militia was the greatest defense from a tyrannical federal government. Since these minutemen were well trained, well organized, and well equipped citizens in their daily lives, the right of the people to bear arms was a necessity. I don't believe they envisioned good ol' Jimmy Smith, with his family of six, or some shadowy fly by night cult, or some gang of untrained and unregistered cooks and rebels, having an arsenal capable of fending off a small army. Nor do I believe they envisioned the mentally unstable, suspects of terror, or violent criminals being able to freely wreak havoc on a free society with fully automatic weapons.

A case can be made that a gun control measure is in agreement with both the Constitution and the intent of our Founding Fathers as long as it doesn't inhibit the ability of the individual states to maintain a "well regulated militia".

In light of current events, with wackos and crazies carrying out mass shootings, I have to ask... were they a part of a well regulated militia? Are those arguing against any gun control measure whatsoever a part of a well regulated militia?

Regardless of anyone's take on this... I don't believe the Founding Fathers envisioned a gun saturated Wild West like society, boarding on chaos, with women and children fearing a cloud of bullets in the course of their daily living... fearing to attend church, concerts, election speeches, or sporting events. That would be... insane.

Honorable and decent behavior was the norm back then unlike today...Ill comment more later.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

Ill comment more later.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

Honorable and decent behavior was the norm back then unlike today...Ill comment more later.

The home and family has fallen. I believe it all starts with parents.

We had several generations that were really riddled with issues... slavery, the Civil War, a society that felt they could gain truth from the Enlightenment, the soon spiral into epidemic alcoholism under prohibition, world war, economic depression and more alcoholism, Vietnam, the drug culture of the hippy movement, the sexual revolution, more drugs, welfare state, more drugs (rising meth epidemic) and the GWOT. The family can't withstand these blows decade after decade.

These things left lasting effects and we're feeling the culminated impact.

For example, just WWII alone... We had so many men at war, women had to work in factories to support the war effort. These women felt valuable, empowered, and wanted to continue working. In addition, they couldn't wear dresses in factories, so they wore uniform pants. More and more, women preferred the pants to the traditional dresses and skirts. The fashion industry captured this trend and marketed to ladies and so women's pants became norm. That led to a generation of women who abandoned their traditional roles and the traditional forms of modesty. With many men dead, or come back as drunks, women had to take the dominant role in the home.