[ExI] Upon pondering your freedoms

[spike]

> ... On Behalf Of BillK
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Upon pondering your freedoms
> 
> On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 2:55 PM, spike wrote:
> >>...On Behalf Of Damien Broderick
...
> >>opening passage "A well regulated  militia, being necessary to the 
> >>security of a free state"? ...
...
> 
> Spike,
> 
> Damien is poking a stick in the anthill of the gun control 
> argument.  ;)...

Ja, but I am cool with that.  In the past when this discussion was
attempted, it was hijacked by those who could not keep it civil.  Those
elements are no longer posting here.  I trust Damien's civility, and I trust
yours and I trust mine.

>...The militia 
> was "well-regulated" in the sense that its members were 
> subject to various requirements such as training, supplying 
> their own firearms...

Agreed.  The founding fathers' government had not the funds to buy firearms
for every member of the army.  With the well-regulated militia comment, they
tacitly assumed it was the responsibility of the draftees to supply them.
It worked.

... 
> The argument that continues today is whether a personal right 
> to bear arms is necessary for the maintenance of state 
> militias as a counterbalance to US federal militia. It 
> certainly was at the time it was written, as the state 
> soldiers used their own weapons in the state
> military service.   But is it necessary nowadays????

BillK, it is more necessary than ever before, for there is more than one
kind of war.  The old style foreign army invading across the border notion
is gone now, but we are at war.  Osama Bin Laden declared war on the US in
1994.  It took us seven years to notice, but that war has never come to
peace negotiations.  Al Queda is in that hazy gray area between foreign army
and criminal conspiracy, but that war continues still.

In the war against crime, the knowledge that the intended victims might be
armed causes criminals to have respect, and encourages them to go into some
other line of business.  The local mayor of San Francisco was weeping over
the recent supreme court decision, saying that the housing projects would be
harmed by having more guns.  I disagree, for the laws only apply to those
who follow laws.  The criminals in those projects already have guns.  Now
those who pay attention to laws can have them too.  So now we have a great
test case: let us watch over the next few years to see if crime goes up or
goes down in the housing projects.

The well regulated militia argument works for me in the defense against
domestic crime.  Since one or two criminals represent a very small invading
army, then I along with Mister Twelve Gage and Private Buckshot represents a
very small militia.  I regulate myself and Mr. 12 very well thanks.

Check this:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/17/national/main3517564.shtml?source=
mostpop_story

spike