And before Orlin or Greg make more dumb comments:
In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable; yet, while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion,to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulations as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest.
But, given the type of things gun nuts say, I can see how they might be willing to say that's just a distraction from the meat of the subject: no matter how strong the evidence that's just plain WRONG.
Anyway, this picture is making its rounds on the internet with people wondering if this is real or a sick joke. Of course, given the amount of gun violence in the US, that is a good question. The gun looks fake, but lots of fake guns can look pretty real.
So, where are the truly responsible gun owners? I've been wanting to write about the "pro-gun" crowd being a better argument for strict gun control. Of course, deep down they want to see more guns and more people walking around with guns--even if they are total morons.
But, what better argument is there for serious restrictions on firearm ownership when guns are so much a part of the culture and people want to see them everywhere that we end up with pictures like this? :
Isn't this the logical outcome of all the wanting to see guns everywhere?
I hope you feel really good about yourselves and feel smug about how good you are with your guns.
Anyway, More info on the pic here: http://nolongervictimsblog.wordpress.com/2013/08/20/nolonger-victims-urgent-help-needed-child-abuse/
I saved Texas's comment for future reference, but I didn't figure I'd need it so soon. But since Laci insists on being an idiot, here's Texas's able response:
ReplyDeleteMilitia in its original meaning meant a volunteer force (not paid by tax payer monies or supplied by any government)of an individual who wishes to, if asked, supply himself, his arms, his ammo and his training to defend (insert cause here)as a militia member.
Thus without the right (or the right being infringed upon) of the individual to keep and bear arms there could never be a militia.
Infringed means taxed, charge a fee for, licensed, permitted or otherwise restricted in any way that prohibits or restricts any individual from obtaining and maintaining arms and armament. The exception being an individual who has lost civil rights protections from his felonious actions.
The second civil right belongs to the individual to protect himself and others from another felonious actions, tyrannical governments and such whether the threat is from an individual or group in an unlawful attack. That means protecting ourselves from an outside force or government or from within.
The second civil right is born with the individual, not granted to by the government, but protect from the government like all civil rights enumerated in the bill of rights.
The second civil right is not about hunting altho hunting was a part of living back then, still now to some extent.
The second civil right was not about recreation, altho competition shooting has been around since the invention of the gun.
The second civil right was about the free arming of the individual who wishes to do so for his own reasons who also could volunteer to be a part of or to form a militia for the cause of protecting a community, county or state of residence.
The Texas Rangers was a militia, first unorganized, then organized and recognized by the state of Texas as a self policing, unfunded organization who protected ranchers. The state of Texas then chartered the Texas Rangers and became a state supplied and funded organization and at that point was no longer a militia. The Texas Rangers jurisdiction is the entire state and have power over the State police, local police and more.
As I understand the National Guard formed much the same way and is no longer a militia but a Federal funded arm of the government.
The militia is NOT the military. The military is NOT the militia.
The military is a paid and supplied force by the government and funded by tax payer monies who are to protect the country as a whole from outside the U.S. borders. The military in active force inside the U.S. borders is a standing army which shall not be tolerated.
Any individual who has chosen to arm themselves is a potential militia member. If the mayor of a city or town, a county sheriff or the governor of the state called for a voluntary armed force to protect and defend said area, a militia could be formed. Unless agreed upon by the leaders of other areas or adjoining states, a militia only operates in their home state or county or town.
Unarmed people cannot form a militia.
Add this statement as well Greg, (I knew I forgot something),,,, Put it in order somewhere in my statement if you could Greg, I will thank you for that.
Delete"Regulated" in its original context meant 'Well armed, well stocked, well equipped and well trained'. It does NOT mean controlled. "In order to have a well regulated militia" is just that, a well armed militia. Nothing more.
Done. Poor Laci's head will explode from an allergic reaction to logic.
DeleteWell the photo is obviously doctored up. Look closely at the arm and hand holding the revolver. That is a man's arm and hand. Look at the hand and arm holding the baby. That is also a man's arm and hand. Also look closely at the armpit and chest area. While there is no hair in the armpit, the chest area is as flat as a table. And yet there is supposedly a young woman holding the revolver. I have never seen any woman in the world who is that flat chested. And I have never seen any woman in the world who has arms and hands like that.
ReplyDeleteSince the photo is obviously a fake, why does anyone care about what it supposedly represents?
- TruthBeTold
Why does the photo have to be a fake for you not to care?
DeletePerhaps because it's a silly image that is certainly not representative of any group that we who support gun rights belong to.
Delete"Anyway, this picture is making its rounds on the internet with people wondering if this is real or a sick joke."
ReplyDeleteHas anyone checked with Jon Stewart? He'd likely do something like this and call it comedy. Of course, if memory serves, National Lampoon magazine invented this type of picture using a dog.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/scriptingnews/3116706556/