So, some relatives served many, many decades, if not a generation or so ago, most in WWII. No current data or personal experience. No surprise there. I have no “problem” other than to find your ignorance and flip comment re: the current military offensive and without merit. Some people would have apologized after making a comment/expressing an opinion that is offensive to another. But whatever. Besides, we know what they say about opinions, and what they are like…
@jym626 I didn’t read @emilybee’s comment the way you did. I didn’t see her implying that enlistees were playing at soldier. Rather, those who wants to have their AR-15s in their personal arsenals and who want to walk around with them are playing at soldiers.
NoVADad99:
She said
I don’t read it the way you do. It comes across as a flip, snide remark from someone with no clue about the military. And the rude “thats your problem” didn’t help. If it wasnt meant the way she said it, she can clarify and apologize for being insulting. But oh wait… I guess thats “my problem” :-w
“No current data or personal experience.”
Not unless I count my former neighbor’s son who was in Falluja (sp). He was a marine and saw terrible things. We also have friends whose D was Naval ROTC in college and is serving now.
And yes, NoVaDad99 is interpreting my comment correctly.
You are starting to sound like another poster we all know, emilybee, whose friends cousin’s former neighbor’s boss knew someone who…
I still find the flip tone of your post very disrespectful. You have no immediate family member at all connected to the military, so I don’t think you can get how that crack might come across. Enough.
“You are starting to sound like another poster we all know, emilybee, whose friends cousin’s neighbor’s boss knew someone who…”
In case you have forgotten, you asked me! Next time I will remember not to answer any of your question.
I suggest you put me on ignore if you don’t like my comments.
@Dragonflygarden The civilians had the right to keep and bear arms *because * they were the army. If the right to keep and bear arms was an independent right, having nothing to do with the fact that civilians were the army, why was it in the same sentence with the civilians-are-the-army statement?
I asked you if you had any direct experience with the military , since your comment suggested you did not., Your answer confirms my initial suspicions. You do not. You know someone who knows someone or who used to be a neighbor… That sure qualifies…
:))
Enough of the digression. We should be focusing on, and putting energies into fixing the broken mental health system in our country.
"Civilians need to have guns because civilians are the only army we’ve got. And by the way, they need to be regulated. "
–Modern colloquial restatement of the second amendment.
I notice you skipped over the “well -regulated” part. That’s OK, the NRA skips over it too. But in your opinion, what does it mean today?
@LasMa The courts have determined over the years that the right to keep and bear arms is and always has been an individual right. The Bill of Rights does not give us our rights. The Bill of Rights was an attempt by the anti federalists to keep the government from infringing on our inalienable rights. Could you imagine our country without the protections of the 1st, 4th or 5th amendments? I could not. For a great many people the 2nd is just as important.
If we were to do away with the protection of the 2nd, what keeps the others from following?
Just respectfully asking people not to turn this into an overtly political thread.
But carry on.
@LasMa Well regulated means trained. (Post #73) Meaning that the people needed to know how to use their weapons.
Amendments 1 & 3-10 all protect individual rights but somehow in your opinion the 2nd was the only one the Anti-Federalists decided should protect the rights of the government (to raise an army)? Makes more sense that the 2nd was also included to protect the rights of the individual just like the other 9. The introductory clause lists but one reason why it is a good idea to protect the right to keep and bear arms from government restrictions.
It’s always the next generation of voters, government, etc. that rise above the incompetence of the previous. In this case, when my generation comes to age, guns will most likely be restricted to police officers, military, and the like.
So does every state have a requirement that gun owners be trained? (I don’t know this.) I can’t look right now, but I know that some places are either resisting that or want to remove it.
Do you think it’s unconstitutional to prevent criminals and mentally disturbed people from having guns? After all, background checks aren’t mentioned in the second amendment.
What’s your opinion on what the founders would think about civilians being shot in theaters and churches and kindergarten classrooms?
D2 just texted to say she is about to go see that movie (the one which was playing during the shootings). I had to force myself not to text her back to please not go.
It’s hard not to let these events shake your life.
I know, I know, it’s more likely to get killed by a falling coconut than to be killed in a movie theater…
I don’t know what all the states require but I doubt it. My state only has requirements on concealed carry permits. Anyone not prohibited (felon, mentally ill, etc) over the age of 18 can openly carry a gun here. Several states are what is called “constitutional carry” states - no permit is required to carry openly or concealed.
Regarding knowing how to use their guns (trained) I would wager upwards of 95% of owners know how to operate their guns since when you buy them at a gun store you usually get free range time.
There are already laws in place about felons and mentally ill.
I doubt they would like it anymore than any crimes that took place back in their day.
So if the issue is that we need to revamp and shore up our mental health system would that include forced institutionalization again? Currently we cannot force people into treatment and certainly there is no way to force those in outpatient treatment to follow through consistently with a regimen of medication to control psychosis. Given those truths wouldn’t it seem like an easier fix to prevent those people from gaining legal access to fire arms? If it takes longer waiting periods, more stringent background checks and more trigger flags in the system along with closing the gun show loopholes on a national level would that be so bad? I often hear the argument that “law abiding” citizens shouldn’t be impeded from purchasing fire arms. OK then . . . even if I accept that, it seems to me that the enhanced checks and waiting periods would stop those with mental illness and those who are NOT law abiding citizens from gaining access. If your record is clear you would still have nothing to worry about and your “rights” would remain intact.
“There are already laws in place about felons and mentally ill.”
Why should the mentally ill have their right to buy a gun infringed? Or even a felon after they have served their time? Why is that constitutional? It certainly does say anything about the mentally ill or felons in the 2nd.
@emilybee probably for the same reasons most felons aren’t allowed to vote. The American public has agreed to remove most constitutional rights for them.