But the second guessing is ridiculous. University officials and police had no indication this would have been a mass shooting, they thought it was an isolated incident. When I was in a similar college, in a similar place (Penn State, Happy Valley Pennsylvania) if I had received an email saying a shooting had happened, and to stay at home. After 2 hours I would have gone out anyway, maybe not to class, but certainly to get something to eat or to hang out.
And the NY Daily News today says that the "Well, true enough, per the Constitution, such a right is indeed posited, though we believe the framers had state militias in mind when they framed that posit, not every wacko with a beef."
The framers did not mean state militias you morons! The founders were very intelligent and if they meant that they would have said it.
Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
While this sentence does mention militia, it is not in context without the definition of militia. From Wikipedia
"Militia is the activity of one or more citizens organized to provide defense or paramilitary service, or those engaged in such activity. The word can have five somewhat different meanings:
Defense activity, as well as those engaged in it, when it is defense of the public, its territory, property, and lawsThe entire able-bodied male population of a community, town, or state, which can be called to arms against an invading enemy, to enforce the law, or to respond to a disaster
A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government
An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers, also called an Army Reserve, National Guard, or State Defense Forces
The national police forces in Russia, and other former CIS countries, or the former Soviet Union: Militsiya
In any of these cases, a militia is distinct from a regular army. It can serve to supplement the regular military, or it can oppose it, for example to resist a military coup. In some circumstances, the "enemies" against which a militia is mobilized are domestic political opponents of the government, such as strikers. In many cases the role, or even the existence of a militia, is controversial. For these reasons legal restrictions may be placed on the mobilization or use of militia."
The founders were rebels and the rebeled against an oppressive government, they did not want the new nation to have oppressive laws.
Also, please note the word distinct in the last description, distinct from a regular army.
From the Federalist Papers.
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
Read that quote from Federalist Paper 46, written by Madison, one of the founders that the Daily News is interpreting as not wanted the people to have guns. Where in that do you see that intention? To me that seems to be the opposite. He wants the people to act as a check against the "enterprises of ambition"
Also from the Daily News, "Courageous final act of professor", a story of a real hero, but this man might not be dead if he had invoked his second amendment right to bear arms. He or one of the many other victims of this tragedy may have been able to stop this man in his tracks.
Before we start piling on gun shops "Ready to admit that it's madness for any psycho to be able to saunter into a gun shop and acquire firepower capable of killing 32 innocents?"
Guns will always be around, we can't stop it, if he wanted a gun, he would have gotten one, legally or not, we can control it however, allow law abiding stable citizens to CARRY guns. Perhaps have them take a psychological test, if you pass, give us our rights!
I live in NY and I wish I could carry a gun. For my defense, for the defense of my life, my family and my property. The other day as I was driving with my fiance she asked me to lock the doors, and I said why. She said, "Because when I drive by this section of the city I am always afraid someone is going to jump in the car."
No comments:
Post a Comment