What is the meaning of "militia" in the second amendment?

[CrusaderFrank]

I think it was fairly straightforward for the founders.

• "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
  — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

• Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
  --Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

• 
  
  
  • Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."
    --Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

BRAVO!!!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

OP confuses organized militia from unorganized militia, a doctrine that would develop over time.

OP is living in 1788.

Poster confuses Marxism and the USA

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A militia is always subject to organization by the state.

^ Didn't read the OP

 

[JakeStarkey]

A militia is always subject to organization by the state.

^ Didn't read the OP

Followed the conversation, which you did not.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"False equivalency, as you well know. Police are empowered to enforce the law. A CCW is not."

Largely untrue and beside the point in any case. Self-defense and defense of others is legally and morally an individual responsibility.

Very true. Check the laws. To the point.

I have no question about self defense.

"False equivalency, as you well know. Police are empowered to enforce the law. A CCW is not"

My point is that there is no more reason to assume bad intentions from one person than another. Law enforcement has nothing to do with that point. But you might be reminded that there is such a thing as citizens arrest.

Self-defense is of no less importance than law enforcement.

Citizens arrest is a very dangerous game

Not very smart either.

Right. Helping our fellow man could be terribly inconvenient..

Ask Paul Ryan the Randian nitwit

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A militia is always subject to organization by the state.

^ Didn't read the OP

Followed the conversation, which you did not.

But you didn't read the OP. Your reactionary reflex on the 2nd Amendment is like Frankenstein to fire or Dracula to sunlight...Guns BAD!!!!

 

[Coyote]

Let's get back on topic guys (if you want to discuss each other's hemmerhoids...take it to the FZ).

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

A militia is always subject to organization by the state.

^ Didn't read the OP

Followed the conversation, which you did not.

But you didn't read the OP. Your reactionary reflex on the 2nd Amendment is like Frankenstein to fire or Dracula to sunlight...Guns BAD!!!!

The 2nd amendment?

 

[Wry Catcher]

I think it was fairly straightforward for the founders.

• "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
  — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

• Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
  --Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

• 
  
  
  • Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."
    --Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

In 1788 did we have a standing Army? Was their a National Guard? Did we have professional Soldiers and Police Officers? Were we a rural nation, for the most part?

Is every man between 18 and 45 trained under Congressional guidelines? Do the states arm, organize and discipline them (Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 16)?

None of this is really relevant to the separation of the 2nd's two clauses. The Supreme Court upheld the individual right theory over the collective in Heller and McDonald.

The administrative (as in the 1903 militia statute) does not negate the concept. You still have to look at the intent.

The intent of the 2nd seemed to be security for the nation, not for each individual.

Nonsense. The security of a free State is what the government is empowered to address.

The intent of the 2nd Amendment was to prevent misconstruction and/or abuse of government powers by emphasizing through enumeration that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Heller was decided 5-4, Con's v. Lib's; McDonald too was decided 5-4.

Or it was decided along individual liberty vs authoritarian statist lines.

Mass murder and other murders by gun don't seem to make parents of school kids feel very secure, or any of us when we see guns openly displayed in public.

Well, it is READILY apparent that mass murderers feel very secure where they have reasonable assurance--because of "common sense" gun control--that their victim pool is not carrying; openly OR concealed.

Why do you suppose that is, Cupcake?

I think you're an arrogant jerk. But I digress to a well deserved ad hominem, "Cupcake".

The Second Amendment is NOT sacrosanct. Only a complete fool believes unfettered access to 21st century armaments to untrained and possibly unstable populations is beneficial in a free society.

We don't need and could not organize an armed response to a tyrannical government - a quick look at what is happening in Syria should give pause even to arrogant jerks who believe armed resistance to a despot with a standing military is sensible.

We have the ability to change our national government, state governments and local governments every couple of years via the democratic process. The greater threat to our form of government is when the right to vote is suppressed.

 

[LOki]

I think it was fairly straightforward for the founders.

• "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
  — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

• Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
  --Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

• 
  
  
  • Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."
    --Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

In 1788 did we have a standing Army? Was their a National Guard? Did we have professional Soldiers and Police Officers? Were we a rural nation, for the most part?

Is every man between 18 and 45 trained under Congressional guidelines? Do the states arm, organize and discipline them (Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 16)?

None of this is really relevant to the separation of the 2nd's two clauses. The Supreme Court upheld the individual right theory over the collective in Heller and McDonald.

The administrative (as in the 1903 militia statute) does not negate the concept. You still have to look at the intent.

The intent of the 2nd seemed to be security for the nation, not for each individual.

Nonsense. The security of a free State is what the government is empowered to address.

The intent of the 2nd Amendment was to prevent misconstruction and/or abuse of government powers by emphasizing through enumeration that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Heller was decided 5-4, Con's v. Lib's; McDonald too was decided 5-4.

Or it was decided along individual liberty vs authoritarian statist lines.

Mass murder and other murders by gun don't seem to make parents of school kids feel very secure, or any of us when we see guns openly displayed in public.

Well, it is READILY apparent that mass murderers feel very secure where they have reasonable assurance--because of "common sense" gun control--that their victim pool is not carrying; openly OR concealed.

Why do you suppose that is, Cupcake?

I think you're an arrogant jerk. But I digress to a well deserved ad hominem, "Cupcake".

The Second Amendment is NOT sacrosanct. Only a complete fool believes unfettered access to 21st century armaments to untrained and possibly unstable populations is beneficial in a free society.

We don't need and could not organize an armed response to a tyrannical government - a quick look at what is happening in Syria should give pause even to arrogant jerks who believe armed resistance to a despot with a standing military is sensible.

We have the ability to change our national government, state governments and local governments every couple of years via the democratic process. The greater threat to our form of government is when the right to vote is suppressed.

That's nice and all, but I never mentioned insurrection...

And I fully support proper gun handling/safety training for those who possess them...

And I never mentioned anything about suppressing anyone's right to vote.

And it is still READILY apparent that mass murderers feel very secure where they have reasonable assurance--because of "common sense" gun control--that their victim pool is not carrying; openly OR concealed.

Why do you suppose that is, Cupcake?

 

[Wry Catcher]

The intent of the 2nd seemed to be security for the nation, not for each individual. Heller was decided 5-4, Con's v. Lib's; McDonald too was decided 5-4.

.

But...

What of, if any, beliefs of the founding generation concerning a 'right' to bear arms? After all we know not all rights were enumerated

10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.​

#1 The 10th Amendment is amorphous, if we are to take it literally, it suggests the people should have the power to put on the ballot and vote for or against a Referendum*** (***a general vote by the electorate on a single political question that has been referred to them for a direct decision.)

#2 Hypothetical Question for the People:

"Should the Second Amendment to the COTUS prevent any infringements on The People's right to "arms", gun ownership or possession by the Federal Government, the State Governments or local governments"

Yes or No?


#3 The 10th may also include the right of the people to put forth an initiative+++ (+++the ability to assess and initiate things independently.)

#4 Both seem appropriate given the USSC legislating and Congress not legislating on serious issues.

Of course the problem of monies influence would remain the greatest impediment to democracy in America.

#1 & The 10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."​

"Amorphous"???? Not quite sure about that. Not seeing trouble with ballot initiatives and referendum on the state and local levels. Pre the US Constitution that right was exercised locally by the people. Nothing in the 10th suggests that on a national level. There is NO process for that in the USC.

#2 The USC addresses the federal government and the people as a national body. State and Local laws cannot supersede federal laws. Whether the local governments regulated weapons or not is not open to question: they did. Some laws mandated people own weapons. -- this is where it gets convoluted and messy.

Yes or No? It depends on where one stands on the issue

#3 l have no idea if you are being clear or not, because if you are it sounds like bullshit

#4 . The Supreme Court has NOT been legislating. Your opinions are not truths, and Congress does not have to legislate on serious issues. That is NOT their job. Congress reflects the people

As to the 10th, ""The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The final phrase suggests both the Referendum and the Initiative are an acceptable form of direct democracy; though no mechanism exists today, an example of a remedy is the 17th Amendment, or less burdensome, an act of Congress.

Bullshit? Why go to the dark side?

#4 Distorts reality, Congress is broken, nearly 90% of The People agree. Does Congressy have to do anything? Apparently not.

As for the SC not legislating, it seems the best example is to look at how they voted on Citizens United and McCutcheon v. FEC (once again, 5-4).

5-4 decisions are strong evidence that the COTUS is itself amorphous, at least in part. It is a document written by committee and one where realpolitik and compromise are evident, as was the real threat the founders experienced from GB.

Consider the Second, not passed until 1791, framed by these issues:

• Art. I, Sec. 8 clauses: 12; 15 & 16
• The on going threat from Great Britain [See: Causes for the War of 1812] War of 1812 - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com
• Also in Sec. 8, clause 1

 

[Wry Catcher]

In 1788 did we have a standing Army? Was their a National Guard? Did we have professional Soldiers and Police Officers? Were we a rural nation, for the most part?

Is every man between 18 and 45 trained under Congressional guidelines? Do the states arm, organize and discipline them (Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 16)?

None of this is really relevant to the separation of the 2nd's two clauses. The Supreme Court upheld the individual right theory over the collective in Heller and McDonald.

The administrative (as in the 1903 militia statute) does not negate the concept. You still have to look at the intent.

The intent of the 2nd seemed to be security for the nation, not for each individual.

Nonsense. The security of a free State is what the government is empowered to address.

The intent of the 2nd Amendment was to prevent misconstruction and/or abuse of government powers by emphasizing through enumeration that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Heller was decided 5-4, Con's v. Lib's; McDonald too was decided 5-4.

Or it was decided along individual liberty vs authoritarian statist lines.

Mass murder and other murders by gun don't seem to make parents of school kids feel very secure, or any of us when we see guns openly displayed in public.

Well, it is READILY apparent that mass murderers feel very secure where they have reasonable assurance--because of "common sense" gun control--that their victim pool is not carrying; openly OR concealed.

Why do you suppose that is, Cupcake?

I think you're an arrogant jerk. But I digress to a well deserved ad hominem, "Cupcake".

The Second Amendment is NOT sacrosanct. Only a complete fool believes unfettered access to 21st century armaments to untrained and possibly unstable populations is beneficial in a free society.

We don't need and could not organize an armed response to a tyrannical government - a quick look at what is happening in Syria should give pause even to arrogant jerks who believe armed resistance to a despot with a standing military is sensible.

We have the ability to change our national government, state governments and local governments every couple of years via the democratic process. The greater threat to our form of government is when the right to vote is suppressed.

That's nice and all, but I never mentioned insurrection...

And I fully support proper gun handling/safety training for those who possess them...

And I never mentioned anything about suppressing anyone's right to vote.

And it is still READILY apparent that mass murderers feel very secure where they have reasonable assurance--because of "common sense" gun control--that their victim pool is not carrying; openly OR concealed.

Why do you suppose that is, Cupcake?

Piss on you, again I digress to what you deserve, "Cupcake".

Are you so dumb that you believe mass murderers act logically? Since most are intent on suicide, by their hand or by cop, they cannot be deemed rational. Given their goal, they will still kill as many as they can, notwithstanding someone else having a gun.

BTW, SWAT teams are highly trained, patrol officers are trained, and very few civilians have had similar training which will allow them to react and not panic in such a situation.

Anyone who believes anyone who experiences such an event (a student or teacher without extensive training) can react quickly and effectively, should do some reading on animals - human or otherwise - and their bodies physiological reaction, the acute stress response, aka, fight or flight.

 

[LOki]

None of this is really relevant to the separation of the 2nd's two clauses. The Supreme Court upheld the individual right theory over the collective in Heller and McDonald.

The administrative (as in the 1903 militia statute) does not negate the concept. You still have to look at the intent.

The intent of the 2nd seemed to be security for the nation, not for each individual.

Nonsense. The security of a free State is what the government is empowered to address.

The intent of the 2nd Amendment was to prevent misconstruction and/or abuse of government powers by emphasizing through enumeration that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Heller was decided 5-4, Con's v. Lib's; McDonald too was decided 5-4.

Or it was decided along individual liberty vs authoritarian statist lines.

Mass murder and other murders by gun don't seem to make parents of school kids feel very secure, or any of us when we see guns openly displayed in public.

Well, it is READILY apparent that mass murderers feel very secure where they have reasonable assurance--because of "common sense" gun control--that their victim pool is not carrying; openly OR concealed.

Why do you suppose that is, Cupcake?

I think you're an arrogant jerk. But I digress to a well deserved ad hominem, "Cupcake".

The Second Amendment is NOT sacrosanct. Only a complete fool believes unfettered access to 21st century armaments to untrained and possibly unstable populations is beneficial in a free society.

We don't need and could not organize an armed response to a tyrannical government - a quick look at what is happening in Syria should give pause even to arrogant jerks who believe armed resistance to a despot with a standing military is sensible.

We have the ability to change our national government, state governments and local governments every couple of years via the democratic process. The greater threat to our form of government is when the right to vote is suppressed.

That's nice and all, but I never mentioned insurrection...

And I fully support proper gun handling/safety training for those who possess them...

And I never mentioned anything about suppressing anyone's right to vote.

And it is still READILY apparent that mass murderers feel very secure where they have reasonable assurance--because of "common sense" gun control--that their victim pool is not carrying; openly OR concealed.

Why do you suppose that is, Cupcake?

Piss on you, again I digress to what you deserve, "Cupcake".

Are you so dumb that you believe mass murderers act logically? Since most are intent on suicide, by their hand or by cop, they cannot be deemed rational. Given their goal, they will still kill as many as they can, notwithstanding someone else having a gun.

BTW, SWAT teams are highly trained, patrol officers are trained, and very few civilians have had similar training which will allow them to react and not panic in such a situation.

Anyone who believes anyone who experiences such an event (a student or teacher without extensive training) can react quickly and effectively, should do some reading on animals - human or otherwise - and their bodies physiological reaction, the acute stress response, aka, fight or flight.

That's nice and all, but I never suggested mass murderers were rational...

And I never questioned the training of SWAT teams...

And the verifiable reality of the effectiveness of civilian response to shooting sprees vs the police is that armed civilians end such sprees much faster and with 1/6 of the body count.

Sorry about your luck.

And it is still READILY apparent that mass murderers feel very secure where they have reasonable assurance--because of "common sense" gun control--that their victim pool is not carrying; openly OR concealed.

Why do you suppose that is, Cupcake?

 

[danielpalos]

I believe we need better aqueducts and better roads and more, well regulated militia who are weapons qualified for concealed carry.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The intent of the 2nd seemed to be security for the nation, not for each individual.

Nonsense. The security of a free State is what the government is empowered to address.

The intent of the 2nd Amendment was to prevent misconstruction and/or abuse of government powers by emphasizing through enumeration that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Heller was decided 5-4, Con's v. Lib's; McDonald too was decided 5-4.

Or it was decided along individual liberty vs authoritarian statist lines.

Mass murder and other murders by gun don't seem to make parents of school kids feel very secure, or any of us when we see guns openly displayed in public.

Well, it is READILY apparent that mass murderers feel very secure where they have reasonable assurance--because of "common sense" gun control--that their victim pool is not carrying; openly OR concealed.

Why do you suppose that is, Cupcake?

I think you're an arrogant jerk. But I digress to a well deserved ad hominem, "Cupcake".

The Second Amendment is NOT sacrosanct. Only a complete fool believes unfettered access to 21st century armaments to untrained and possibly unstable populations is beneficial in a free society.

We don't need and could not organize an armed response to a tyrannical government - a quick look at what is happening in Syria should give pause even to arrogant jerks who believe armed resistance to a despot with a standing military is sensible.

We have the ability to change our national government, state governments and local governments every couple of years via the democratic process. The greater threat to our form of government is when the right to vote is suppressed.

That's nice and all, but I never mentioned insurrection...

And I fully support proper gun handling/safety training for those who possess them...

And I never mentioned anything about suppressing anyone's right to vote.

And it is still READILY apparent that mass murderers feel very secure where they have reasonable assurance--because of "common sense" gun control--that their victim pool is not carrying; openly OR concealed.

Why do you suppose that is, Cupcake?

Piss on you, again I digress to what you deserve, "Cupcake".

Are you so dumb that you believe mass murderers act logically? Since most are intent on suicide, by their hand or by cop, they cannot be deemed rational. Given their goal, they will still kill as many as they can, notwithstanding someone else having a gun.

BTW, SWAT teams are highly trained, patrol officers are trained, and very few civilians have had similar training which will allow them to react and not panic in such a situation.

Anyone who believes anyone who experiences such an event (a student or teacher without extensive training) can react quickly and effectively, should do some reading on animals - human or otherwise - and their bodies physiological reaction, the acute stress response, aka, fight or flight.

That's nice and all, but I never suggested mass murderers were rational...

And I never questioned the training of SWAT teams...

And the verifiable reality of the effectiveness of civilian response to shooting sprees vs the police is that armed civilians end such sprees much faster and with 1/6 of the body count.

Sorry about your luck.

And it is still READILY apparent that mass murderers feel very secure where they have reasonable assurance--because of "common sense" gun control--that their victim pool is not carrying; openly OR concealed.

Why do you suppose that is, Cupcake?

What you consider "READILY" apparent isn't. As for your statement about the effectiveness of a civilian response is highly doubtful. Once again, even trained professionals experience the same fight or flight physical reaction even when they are prepared and knowingly go to the firefight.

And stop whining about what you didn't write, what you did is sufficient to identify you as a hack.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

As to the 10th, ""The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The final phrase suggests both the Referendum and the Initiative are an acceptable form of direct democracy; though no mechanism exists today, an example of a remedy is the 17th Amendment, or less burdensome, an act of Congress.

Bullshit? Why go to the dark side?

#4 Distorts reality, Congress is broken, nearly 90% of The People agree. Does Congressy have to do anything? Apparently not.

As for the SC not legislating, it seems the best example is to look at how they voted on Citizens United and McCutcheon v. FEC (once again, 5-4).

5-4 decisions are strong evidence that the COTUS is itself amorphous, at least in part. It is a document written by committee and one where realpolitik and compromise are evident, as was the real threat the founders experienced from GB.

Consider the Second, not passed until 1791, framed by these issues:

• Art. I, Sec. 8 clauses: 12; 15 & 16
• The on going threat from Great Britain [See: Causes for the War of 1812] War of 1812 - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com
• Also in Sec. 8, clause 1

Your examples of a remedy are examples of representative government in action. Referendum and initiative are anathema to a national representative form of government. Anathema!

The Supreme Court has NEVER legislated. Never! Your lack of understanding of the English language is showing. And worse is your statement on the colonial battles with England

2nd Amendment and the causes of the 1812 war?

 

[LOki]

Nonsense. The security of a free State is what the government is empowered to address.

The intent of the 2nd Amendment was to prevent misconstruction and/or abuse of government powers by emphasizing through enumeration that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Or it was decided along individual liberty vs authoritarian statist lines.

Well, it is READILY apparent that mass murderers feel very secure where they have reasonable assurance--because of "common sense" gun control--that their victim pool is not carrying; openly OR concealed.

Why do you suppose that is, Cupcake?

I think you're an arrogant jerk. But I digress to a well deserved ad hominem, "Cupcake".

The Second Amendment is NOT sacrosanct. Only a complete fool believes unfettered access to 21st century armaments to untrained and possibly unstable populations is beneficial in a free society.

We don't need and could not organize an armed response to a tyrannical government - a quick look at what is happening in Syria should give pause even to arrogant jerks who believe armed resistance to a despot with a standing military is sensible.

We have the ability to change our national government, state governments and local governments every couple of years via the democratic process. The greater threat to our form of government is when the right to vote is suppressed.

That's nice and all, but I never mentioned insurrection...

And I fully support proper gun handling/safety training for those who possess them...

And I never mentioned anything about suppressing anyone's right to vote.

And it is still READILY apparent that mass murderers feel very secure where they have reasonable assurance--because of "common sense" gun control--that their victim pool is not carrying; openly OR concealed.

Why do you suppose that is, Cupcake?

Piss on you, again I digress to what you deserve, "Cupcake".

Are you so dumb that you believe mass murderers act logically? Since most are intent on suicide, by their hand or by cop, they cannot be deemed rational. Given their goal, they will still kill as many as they can, notwithstanding someone else having a gun.

BTW, SWAT teams are highly trained, patrol officers are trained, and very few civilians have had similar training which will allow them to react and not panic in such a situation.

Anyone who believes anyone who experiences such an event (a student or teacher without extensive training) can react quickly and effectively, should do some reading on animals - human or otherwise - and their bodies physiological reaction, the acute stress response, aka, fight or flight.

That's nice and all, but I never suggested mass murderers were rational...

And I never questioned the training of SWAT teams...

And the verifiable reality of the effectiveness of civilian response to shooting sprees vs the police is that armed civilians end such sprees much faster and with 1/6 of the body count.

Sorry about your luck.

And it is still READILY apparent that mass murderers feel very secure where they have reasonable assurance--because of "common sense" gun control--that their victim pool is not carrying; openly OR concealed.

Why do you suppose that is, Cupcake?

What you consider "READILY" apparent isn't.

Well, that seems to be a denial of the easily verifiable reality that those mass murderers choose venues where their victims are most assuredly disarmed by administrative means. Correct?

As for your statement about the effectiveness of a civilian response is highly doubtful.

I'll just let you take that up with the Bureau of Crime Statistics.

Once again, even trained professionals experience the same fight or flight physical reaction even when they are prepared and knowingly go to the firefight.

I'm not contesting any of this. Your conclusion from these fact just doesn't agree with the reality of response times and timely identification of the aggressor. Armed civilians are far more effective in ending a shooting sprees than the police.

And stop whining about what you didn't write, what you did is sufficient to identify you as a hack.

Ad-hominem argument, Cupcake.

There was no whining involved; just exposing your resolute dedication to illegitimate argumentation.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

 

[9thIDdoc]

"The Second Amendment is NOT sacrosanct. Only a complete fool believes unfettered access to 21st century armaments to untrained and possibly unstable populations is beneficial in a free society".

Thank God you were not one of our forefathers! We would still belong to the English king.

 

[whitehall]

Why does it matter? The FF merely used the militia as an example of the federal interest in the right to keep and bear arms. There was no question that Americans would retain their right to use firearms for defense, hunting and recreation and the rights were upheld in several Supreme Court decisions.