University students urged to carry guns.

Falwell has absolutely fixed a problem. In the event of a mass shooting in a class or dorm, there will be students there with the means of self-defense.

You're ascribing motives and intent to the actions of others without any basis except your own personal political bias. Tell us how you are not doing exactly what you claim Falwell to be doing.

Self-defense is not a political act.
 
You realize that firearms use in the military is tightly controlled by people older than nineteen.

I wouldn't suggest that one of Liberty U's students might decide to avenge himself for a grievance, real or imagined. That would be impossible. My wife is a schoolteachers and she believes that sometimes the temptation would be too strong sometimes if she were armed.
 
NO, well regulated does indeed mean "under the state's thumb."

The militia was the armed body of the state (literally the state). Its existence preceded the formation of the United States. It was subject to law and officered by the local gentry. It was part of government. It does not follow that they were particularly efficient or well-trained. They usually proved to be neither and the whole concept of no standing army was unworkable. There was as much fear of a private army then as there was a fear of a standing army, although I'm not sure either fear was well-grounded. My wife's great-great-great-great-grandfather (give or take a couple of greats) wrote most of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (though Jefferson gets more credit), which included the part of a well-regulated (and well-trained) militia and also that the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by civil power.

The same author also wrote the Fairfax Resolves, which said that we shall not be slaves. But he was a slave owner and that sort of makes everything suspect.
 
NO, well regulated does indeed mean "under the state's thumb."
Click to expand...
NO, it does not. If so, the underlying rationale of the Federalist Papers,
while espousing an in-service militia under control of the authorities, would
have no ready-capable population from which to draw them.

More important to state that the "regulated" term in 2A only refers to the state's
prerogative guts today's 2A rationale espoused by all the pro-2A'rs.

Take care that you do not define away the basic argument for an armed citizenry,
and fall into the trap laid by VOX, the NYT, Bloomberg, and others.
 
BlueTrain said:
NO, well regulated does indeed mean "under the state's thumb."
mehavey said:
NO, it does not. If so, the underlying rationale of the Federalist Papers,
while espousing an in-service militia under control of the authorities, would
have no ready-capable population from which to draw them.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Mehavey, under Article I, Section 8 and particularly the 10A, how was it not the prerogative of the states to regulate the militia?

Article I, Section 8 gives Congress power to call forth the militia "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" and for "organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress..." Note that this provision implicitly gives the states free rein regarding the regulation of those portions of the militia that are NOT "employed in the Service of the United States".

Other than the Article II, Section 2 appointing the President as commander-in-chief once the militia is called forth (presumably by Congress), the Constitution does not discuss the militia further. Thus, it's reasonable to assume that the power to regulate the militia is among the powers "reserved to the States respectively" in the 10A, so long as those provisions in Article I, Section 8 are followed.

Seems like the proverbial thumb to me. :)

The key thing to understand is that the operative clause of the 2A says that the RKBA applies to "the people"—not only to the organized militia, the unorganized militia, or even only to citizens. The Founding Fathers were very concise in describing different subsets of persons in the Constitution and the BoR, and the 2A is no exception. "The people" generally means everyone under the jurisdiction of the United States—militia or otherwise. [It's debatable how the term applied to slaves, but this issue is really only important to historians today. :)]
 
I do not dispute the use of the militia being under the state's prerogative.
I would however dispute that 'regulation/training' extends only to the state, save in time of organization/use itself.
We are on a very slippery slope otherwise, as the state can simply eschew the concept of militia itself, and the 2A falls apart in its very introductory phrase.
VOX, et al, would love that.
 
How the militia is defined in Virginia is covered by statue. The point of "well-regulated" should be obvious. The army is "well-regulated," too. You should not wish it otherwise.
 
Eligible students being permitted to carry legally, could be a good thing.

His comment of "end those Muslims before they walk in." was just... a really, really bad idea. I really think that that he is profiling, and he is inciting a lot of hatred to a people group that is not, as a whole, any more violent than others.

As a Christian, I am fighting a reputation I haven't earned... as someone who hates Muslims, or wants to see them harmed. As someone who unfairly treats others. As someone who judges others. That is NOT who I am. That is not who Christ is.

Conceal carry is a privilege for responsible Americans... I agree with what he said in those regards. If only he'd shut his mouth and left the last part out.
 
How the militia is defined in Virginia is covered by statue.
The point of "well-regulated" should be obvious.
The army is "well-regulated," too.
You should not wish it otherwise.
Click to expand...
Since I spent so much time in it, obviously not. ;)

That said again -- the issue/intent is to have a general population basically trained in the basic use of basic arms to become effective.
If one believes that the general population does NOT need such basic skills -- and the state can provide ALLl irrespective of that
population's inherent capabilities, then you (all of us) are on the descending tail of 2A rationale... as currently written.
 
The main issue with the militia clause is that it was never enforcable. To require the states to form, train and supply militias by the federal government without compensation is against the 10th Amendment.

The Federalist Papers goes into a pretty detailed discussion as to the cost and trouble it would cause to form, equip and train state militias, and points out it was not economically feasible. It does leave the idea of individual private ownership as the solution to the problem.
 
Conceal carry is a privilege for responsible Americans.
Click to expand...

PRIVILEGE?

WOW

Perhaps, as a Christian, you should be looking into living in the UK, France, or some other country where that is a fact:rolleyes:
 
Muslims kill innocents and then we get a ton of knee-jerk media reports about the backlash against Muslims. Drives me nuts on one level. But I also have to remind myself that almost all Muslims simply want the peace and security that I want. Religious distinctions are a distraction in this conflict, and they don't help our cause.
 
Great Idea.

What I would now like to see is maybe some NRA firearms instructors step up to the plate and offer free training. I would do it in a heartbeat if I lived near there.

Note I am not saying training should be mandatory. Only available for those that need or want it.

My contention is that every one who carries a gun for self defense should get some form of quality training. However this should never be mandated by the government.

Regards,

Rob
 
Religious distinctions are a distraction....
Click to expand...
No, they are very real.
To not realize that is suicide.

The problem is that while the long term solution is education, the
West may not last the several generations that takes to succeed.

The West recovering/surviving may require some very unpleasant actions.
 
A great many people in the western world don't like the idea, due to their own personal views about faith, religion, science, what have you, but we are absolutely in a religious war, one that has been going on for over 1400 years now.

Not all adherents to the other side are involved, or even fighting, but it's still happening. Refusing to accept the reality is counterproductive.
 
I see plenty of guns and gun leather with crusader images and symbolism. Also, the all popular "infidel" engravings and such.
Surely all these folks aren't buying these just to look cool. These symbols are inflammatory and quite serious; they all have the meaning of religious war. So,you might wanna think twice about the images you choose to display. The meanings are real, even if the displayer of them isn't.
 
These symbols are inflammatory and quite serious;
they all have the meaning of religious war.
Click to expand...
Images are also the banners around which to rally... and many of those folk
are deadly serious -- caring very little about who they might "offend" at this point.

It only takes one side to make war, though IMHO, much of the West hasn't figured
that out yet.

Some have....
 
FITASC said:
rpseraph said:
Conceal carry is a privilege for responsible Americans.
Click to expand...
PRIVILEGE?

WOW

Perhaps, as a Christian, you should be looking into living in the UK, France, or some other country where that is a fact
Click to expand...

A privilege is a right available only to a particular person or group of people. I say privilege because the right to bear arms is reserved for law abiding citizens.

As far as being a Christian, I am not entirely sure what that has to do with me going to live elsewhere :) I... will choose to believe that you meant that the next time I am in Europe I should stop by the UK and France to visit. ;)
 
I'm sure or would like to think that when Jerry Falwell commented "get the Muslims before they walk in " or words to that effect, he was referring to terrorists like the taliban, akeida or Isis, people hell bound on killing themselves and the world around them.

In anger I too have spoken and have wished that the only way to deal with this terrorists is to just annaihlate the Muslim countries and just get rid of the Islamic state. But then what good is our constitution if we do not adhere to it.

Remember Marcus Lutrell the navy seal saved by Mohammed Galub or Gaub, because of the honor code that afghan has called Pashtunwalli, the village elder granted asylum to Marcus while putting the villagers ,himself, and his family at great risk. To this day his life is in danger, and this type of honor and courage is what we need on the side of Americans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top