Someone GETS IT!

[Hap]

Originally posted by Kieran
His followup post further fails the litmus test because it is based on the idea that, since we are not charged to be policemen, we have no right to own guns.

Ooopsie.  You got that one wrong too.

I did not say neither do I think citizens have no right to own guns.

The rootin' tootin' Yosemite Sam types have an entire amendment of their very own.

I also think the understanding of the 2nd amendment by the gun guys in here is erroneous.  The general line of thinking that runs "well the framers wanted the citizens to be armed, so they could overthrow the governement when it becomes unjust."

I don't think that's the case at all.  The new Republic was the new kid on the block.  They knew their position was tenuous, and that the regular American armed forces were no match for the armed forces of some nations.  They needed a pool of folk upon which to draw should the need arise.  Also, it would be nice if they owned their own guns so the government would have to buy them and issue them.

I don't think for a minute the framers put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution so Bubba could own a rapid fire hizooka, dress in camos, walk down mainstreet beered up with his malitia buds looking for bad guys to frag.

Hence, the 2nd amendment.


All the Best,

hap

[Maverick]

Toad,

The rsponse times are predicated on someone calling the Police. If the victim is unable to call and the neighbors are unwilling to call, there will be no response until much later than 8 minutes.

While 8 minutes seems a bit long, it is not unreasonable given that it's an average of rural and municipal response times. Considering rural response times are in the half hour to hours time frame it's damn good. In my own home county some Deputies had to drive over 120 miles to respond and it isn't all paved high speed roads. One single call can tie up the majority of the units available in a large area leaving virtually nothing available for a second incident.

At best it will take at least, let me stress this AT LEAST 2 minutes to even start a response in a municipal area. That is assuming a 911 system that is not running beyond it's capacity where an operator is going to answer the ring in less than 20 seconds, takes at least 30 to 90 seconds to determine the proper response (Fire, Meds or Police) then routes the call to the proper dispatch area for response. Then you have to be concerned with unit dispersion, call load (is there a single unit in the entire district not tied up on other calls) and distance to respond or ability (motor vehicle, bicycle or foot response) to respond and travel time to arrive in the area. Then there's the factor that they just can't go busting inside the building willy nilly since there are tactical considerations. Location of situation, number of assailants, location of all assailants, approach vectors with cover and or concealment for both suspects and responding Officers, determining suspects from victim and bystanders.

There are quite a few things that will be impacting any response to a situation once the call is received. Most of the folks who live in the area really have no clue what is involved or the constraints the respondants have to deal with on an every day all shift long situation.

In effect, if you believe that the Police are going to protect you, you have serious fantasy / reality conflicts. The Police will do what they can but they can only respond after something happens. You are on your own until then.

[dmf]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Im not a veteran.
but if I were I would be really offended at that remark

That is one of the more sad an pathetic comments I've seen on these boards in a long while.

Utterly digraceful

Me too

[Maverick]

Depending on the state laws, remember that the vast majority of laws are state, county and municipal based, arrest authority can be both broad and restrictive for non sworn people (citizens).

In many cases it is broad in that you as a citizen can affect an arrest for certain misdemeanors and felonies. In other cases it is restrictive in that a citizen may not make an arrest for crimes that they did not personally observe. That is one proviso that sworn Officers have well in excess of private citizens in Arizona. That authority is granted by the criminal code.

With the power to arrest also comes great responsibility given the bias the law has towards innocence of the accused. Making an arrest in error can have consequences for the arresting person far in excess of the original crime of the person being arrested.

The concept of what the 2nd amendment does not revolve solely on one situation, that of either self defense or defense from tyranny. It revolves on all events where a weapon, properly used can and does have a beneficial outcome.

The concept of the Bill of Rights is also not one of granting rights to the individual, it is one of safeguarding rights of the individual from infringement by the actions of the state. The state does NOT grant rights, the rights are already granted by virtue of being a citizen, the state simply tries to restrict or reduce rights and is prohibited by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. No where in the 2nd does it say the State is granting a right. It states instead the right shall not be infringed.

There's a big difference between granting something and being prohibited from restricting something. If you grant something, by definition, the granting authority may also remove it or deny it. IE a license.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Toad
Why worry?

You only have to avoid being killed by your attacker for about 8 minutes (on average) and the cops will show up to rescue you.

Link

Of course, that was in 2003; surely things are faster now because... uh.. well, it should be faster?


That's not all that long; just stay alive through 16 TV commercials and the cops will likely get there.

The Police. God bless em for their efforts and good intentions
  Can protect me from next to nothing.
They are. As far as crime goes  and violent crime in particular merely a reactionary force. And based on the amount of increased local and state sponsored roadside extortion schemes cleverly disguised as seatbelt and inspection sticker checkpoints. designed to increase revenue of their local townships,states and insurance companies (by way of surcharge)

I do NOT blame the police for this movement as I am sure few if any of them including the gung ho ultra militant types among them got into law enforcement for this purpose. But rather the local and state governments they work for.

They are becoming less of a preventative and protective force every day
and serving more and more as armed revenue collectors.

the bottom line though is police can in the majority of cases react to a crime once it has been committed.
In the very vast majority of cases only the victim of a crime. Ad violent crime in particular has the power to react to that crime while it is in the process of happening.

When the government cannot protect the people. the people MUST protect themselves.

Such protection and self protection would fall directly in line with
the  unalienable right to "LIFE, LIBERTY . the right to keep and bear arms, the right to self defense, and whatever natural rights you might want to throw in there.

not to mention in defense from based on what one sees and reads about in the news every day about an increasingly(on both sides of the isle) corrupt and tyrannical government.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Hap
Ooopsie.  You got that one wrong too.


I also think the understanding of the 2nd amendment by the gun guys in here is erroneous.  The general line of thinking that runs "well the framers wanted the citizens to be armed, so they could overthrow the governement when it becomes unjust."

the SC of DC seems to dissagree with you.

The second was designed rather intentionally to include all of those things. for all of those reasons

[Hap]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Im not a veteran.
but if I were I would be really offended at that remark

That is one of the more sad an pathetic comments I've seen on these boards in a long while.

Utterly digraceful

My apologies for what I said.  

Any and all who took umbrage are corrent and I am wrong for having said it.

Regards,

hap

[wrag]

Originally posted by Hap
The lynchpin (ohhh a pun) of the argument is the very mistaken definiton that a priviate citizen is a law enforcer and on par with Officer Krupke.

Then the 2nd Amendment "we like guns, we want guns, give us more guns" guys showed up.  Barney Fife was Sheriff Andy Taylor's sidekick in "Mayberry" played by Don Knotts with Andy Griffith as Andy.

He was known for his enthusiam and ineptitude.

hap

HMMM..........

As I recall a Citizens Arrest has PRIORITY over ALL other arrest?

[Maverick]

Nope it doesn't.

[wrag]

Originally posted by Hap
Redress is always available through the ballot box.  A powerful recourse as we all witnessed this last election.  And which I mentioned in my first post on this thread.

Also, a much more powerful example can be found from about 1970'ish through the early 1980's.  And really it's the best I know of.  During that period of time, many religious folks in America set about to find out what citizens could do within the law to achieve ends they desired.

They put forth an enormous amount of effort to gain seats in local government such as on school boards and the like.  From there, they continued in their very legal efforts to effect change.  The rest is history.

I can't recall what year the GOP's platform, or talk in their convention centered much about "family values," but that's where those ideas stemmed from.  The whole Murphy Brown thing.  Some of you may not have been born yet.

So the ballot box is one avenue of recourse.  And another is to do all the grunt work to get your guys on the ballot at the local level and keep doing it until the national level is affected.

More to the point, the original poster hailed the article he read.  The author of the article gives us an example of the police and citizens (not police) arriving to catch a bad guy and says their "authority" is equivalent.  My word, not his.  But it captures the sense he is trying to convey.

The author is of the article is wrong.

Why do you think police wear uniforms and have badges?

It's not a "fashion" thing.

All the Best,

hap

Think maybe someone doesn't KNOW the law?

Ask a law enforcement person about Citizens Arrest.

Further if you bother to check your history MOST law enforcement in local areas were created to ASSIST the population of that area in catching criminals.

Your Law Enforcement powers, at least until fairly recently, were as great as those within the Law Enforcement community.

If you wish to retain such you might want to look further into the legal system.

One major difference is local law enforcement has a much better legal backup (District Attorny, etc) then the average citizen.

It's all on record.  Don't take my word for it! Look it up!

[wrag]

Originally posted by Hap
Ooopsie.  You got that one wrong too.

I did not say neither do I think citizens have no right to own guns.

The rootin' tootin' Yosemite Sam types have an entire amendment of their very own.

I also think the understanding of the 2nd amendment by the gun guys in here is erroneous.  The general line of thinking that runs "well the framers wanted the citizens to be armed, so they could overthrow the governement when it becomes unjust."

I don't think that's the case at all.  The new Republic was the new kid on the block.  They knew their position was tenuous, and that the regular American armed forces were no match for the armed forces of some nations.  They needed a pool of folk upon which to draw should the need arise.  Also, it would be nice if they owned their own guns so the government would have to buy them and issue them.

I don't think for a minute the framers put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution so Bubba could own a rapid fire hizooka, dress in camos, walk down mainstreet beered up with his malitia buds looking for bad guys to frag.

Hence, the 2nd amendment.


All the Best,

hap

You don't think?  (perhaps you should read some before you open your mouth ot start typing?)

Never read the militia act that Congress was setting up?

Never read the U.S. Army operations setup?

Are you a Citizen of the U.S.?  Between the age of 14 and 60?

Then you SIR are in the militia!  

SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO........ ............ Does that make you a bubba?????

The requirement was that each would have a firearm of the CURRENT type used by the CURRENT military.

As a Vet, I find your constant references to bubba, barney fife, and the VFW unnecassary, attempted belittlement, and OFFENSIVE SIR!

Further IMHO You are in essence comparing many on this board to cartoon charactors.

Are you attempting to be funny?

If so.................... You're NOT succeeding!

Furthermore, from you comments, IMHO you don't know the law, or your rights, or American history.

READ the writtings of the founders!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They said allot that you apparently have NOT read!

Here is some to get you started................

[Ah, Congress: Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. — Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788]

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American." - Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

"The right is absolute ... government has no authority to forbid me from owning a firearm ... the debate is not about guns. It is about freedom." - Cal. State Sen. Tom McClintock, 6/9/2001

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the Second Amendment ... as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." - U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, 1982

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." —Daniel Webster

"The fundamental force behind the Second Amendment is to empower the people and give them the greatest measure of authority over the tyranny of runaway government." - U.S. Rep. Bob Schaffer, 2002

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington

GUN CONTROL: "The gun control debate generally ignores the historical and philosophical underpinnings of the Second amendment. The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not
a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of that time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms." -- libertarian U.S. Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), "Gun Control on the Back Burner," Nov. 6, 2006.




"He who is unaware of his ignorance will be only misled by his knowledge." —Richard Whately

[Kieran]

Hap, two points:

1. I responded to your comment "we are not nor have ever been in charge, other than the ballot box". I disagree with that statement.

2. The 2nd amendment is one of the natural reactions to British rule in the American colonies. Refresh your memory on the Intolerable Acts and you can see why Americans wanted to be sure the government could never again abuse the populace. No, it doesn't mean the framers of the Constitution wanted everyone armed; what it did mean was it wanted to be sure the population could not be disarmed.

I think we can argue all day about the finer points of the issues, but here's what I want to be very clear about:

1. If we take your original statement and extrapolate that out it can be read to state we have given our government authority to take care of us, as in, do what's best for us. The problem with that is extreme leftists and socialists will use that logic to push laws that take away individual rights and freedoms under the assumption we (the populace) are not smart enough to make decisions ourselves (other than select the right people to tell us what to do, that is- ironic, huh?).

2. It is patently obvious the framers of the Constitution intended our people to retain the right to own guns. Once again extreme leftists and socialists will argue what the framers really meant was something else entirely.

The way you read, the need for the 2nd amendment has passed. You might argue that successfully, but not by saying the framers intended something they did not. What they intended is abundantly clear, and the historical record provides ample evidence as to why it would be interpreted that way.

Want to do away with guns? Fine, but the argument had better be based on a deteriorating social condition within the country, or something more contemporary. Trying to change history is gonna be a loser.

*Edited some grammar. May happen again. Content unchanged.

[Hap]

Originally posted by wrag

READ the writtings of the founders!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Am working on the Federalist Papers as you speak.

Thanks for the time you to took to post.

I apologize for the VFW crack.

I'm sorry I said it.

All the Best,

hap

[Hap]

Originally posted by Kieran
you can see why Americans wanted to be sure the government could never again abuse the populace. No, it doesn't mean the framers of the Constitution wanted everyone armed; what it did mean was it wanted to be sure the population could not be disarmed.

I'd be eager to read some writings in the public domain at the time where some of the signers said so.  Because if they exist, they show their intent and motivation and we don't have to guess.
As to "the framers . . . wanted everyone armed," I have never thought that was the case.

As to they "wanted to be sure the population could not be disarmed" I do not think they ever gave it a seconds consideration.  It wasn't even part of their thinking.  Owing a firearm was too important to basic survival.

I read in here, though not in the same words that it is still important to basic survival.  2 reasons I've seen:  1) crime and the need protect you and yours from bad guys.  2) the need to protect you and yours from our own government.

I think the 2nd has no merit to date.  With the exception of the NSA spying thing.  Which spooks me.  Though I expect that to settle back where it should be.

The 1st has more merit, but not to the degree that many hold here I say.

All the Best,

hap

p.s.  As to the "Act" Intolerable and otherwise, I think the Crown's expectation of a robust mercantilism in America ran afoul of the Colonists desire to get more of the pie.  And if not more of the pie, then representation in the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

[Kieran]

Hap,

You seem like an intelligent guy. Can you tell me what the Intolerable Acts were and why they were enacted? Their impact on the American way of viewing government?

I gotta tell you, it's difficult to combine pre-United States under British rule with the Constitution without coming to the same conclusion. To put it bluntly, I could argue the first 10 amendments are almost point-for-point a reflection of the American reaction to that time period.