Guns, Guardian Angels, Vigilantes, and Dirty Looks

the most important of all

And, people who purposefully physically harm and injure others are why we have prisons and people who kill others are why we have the death penalty, electric chairs and lethal dose poisons.

[EDIT]
I won't say more on this as I have expressed my thoughts on the topic. I do not want to further discussion on this topic to debate or argument. Freedom of expression is a good thing. And, yes, I even appreciate Mielikki's opinion, too.

 

the second amendment of the US constitution:

"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"

this is interpreted many ways but i believe the well regulated militia preceeds the "People" bearing of arms...notice that people is capitalized? as in "the people" or citizens as a whole. no where does it say individuals. it clearly states militia; group, and People; group. where is your militia?

 

In the Guardian Angel Safety Patrol, we are not allowed to carry weapons. One-fourth of the people we arrest are armed, usually with (non-pocket) knives. I have personally participated in around 100 arrests (6 of them by myself) and around 5000 incidents during the course of about 500 patrols. I have been hurt several times in addition to the usual scrapes and bruises. I've have seen people mortally wounded and already dead. I have been in 5 gun incidents. Here are a few observations:

1. If we were allowed to carry weapons, I would quit instantly. Part of my pride in the organization is that we are unarmed out there and dealing with everything (as best we can) with as little violence as possible. A major reason for this is to provide a counter-example for children who are taught by the media and street garbage (redundant) that violence is the means to get respect.

2. It's a sad fact, but we have to be ready to defend ourselves from aggressive garbage. This doesn't mean carrying a gun, but is does require training. If you DO carry a weapon, you need to practice with it regularly, or it will be a detriment to you. Carrying a weapon does not make you safe; it just gives you more options. PRACTICE !

3. By the time you realize the other guy has a gun, it is too late to get your gun out. Most robberies/assaults are by ambush. There are exceptions, but I wouldn't count on it. We actually train to not do anything when a gun is pointed at us. Unless the gun is fired...

4. Most criminals are terrible shots. In one incident, we heard shots about a block away and moved (carefully) to see if we could help. By the time we got there, the shooters were gone. A guy who was there when it happened said the shots were directed at US! We couldn't find any bullet strikes anywhere along the line between the shooters and where we were.

5. Most gang members are good fighters, except against people who fight back.

6. If you are a newbie, you will probably freeze the first time in combat. This is NOT caused by fear, though you are afraid. The cause is that you are in an unfamiliar (hopefully) situation. After a few seconds (eternity) of spazzing, your training will kick in and you will get moving. We accept this in the Angels, and make sure newbies survive the first few contacts. If you've ever frozen like that, get rid of your shame. You will do better next time.

7. If you constantly go around instantly ready for combat, the stress will kill you. It took several years and a wrecked marriage for me to learn this. I've been out of the service for over 27 years and crowds still bother me. For me, alcohol is a good stress reducer, but it causes other problems. If you wonder if you're an alcoholic, the answer is yes.

8. The surest way to defend yourself is to kill the other guy before he has a chance to hurt you. This is generally called murder.

The people who say that more guns means more gun violence are correct. But it's too late, the guns are already out there. Gun laws are, indeed, quite silly, but they are the best we can do. A convicted felon isn't supposed to get a gun. Gee, I wonder if he'll break the law and get one anyway.

If you disagree with any of this, OUTSTANDING! Please tell me what you think. If I seem wise, it's because I spend most of my time as a professional dumbass.

Funny how people who spend a lot of time in fantasyland care so much about the real world.

 

Okay, the US. Constitution was quoted.

If American citizens who reside in the USA are not allowed to carry personally owned firearms or are not allowed to carry firearms owned by friends, by people we know individually, or by family, 'us' as American citizens in the USA would not be able to assemble and, or keep our own militia at any time we decide to make a new militia outside of the existing local, state, or federal government for own defense as per our written rights guaranteed by the US. Constitution from our [American] founding fathers.

The US. Constitution stipulates a mandatory "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It is our heritage and right and is in our US. Constitution. No American citizen residing in the USA must or has to belong to or be a member of a militia before they can own firearms (plural). That is what the US. Constitution mandates. That is the opinion of the American founding fathers.

 

Now, I am going to ignore this thread, altogether.

 

Well, to me as a foreigner the law to own/carry guns
seems pretty outdated. I mean it reminds me of the
Wild West... and those times are long over. I can't
possibly imagine myself carrying a gun even though
my country forces all men to use them. Where? In the
army of course. Unlike(?) in the US, army training is
compulsory here in Poland... and I just don't feel like
going there... Unless they pass the law that transforms
the army into a standing(the right word?) army (well,
the one you sign up for on your own wish).

 

good, because you dont have any valid points. as i stated earlier it is clearly stated in the 2nd amendment of the constitution that we citizens do have a right to form a militia that could and should bear arms, not a bunch of untrained or poorly trained unorganized wannabe soldiers running around shooting" innocent until proven guilty" people. that too is in our constitution but apparently you like to pick and choose which part of it you care to follow...its all or naught. if you dont follow the constitution that would make you a criminal which apparently you abhor so much that it is ok to shoot on sight regardless of innocent bystanders and with no one in imminent danger. feel free to ignore...:raving:

 

Mielikki,

Do you know what the founding fathers were talking about when they used the word "militia?" Because the Minutemen who assembled at Lexington and Concord and harrassed the redcoats all day long until they retreated back to saftey in Boston were exactly the "bunch of untrained or poorly trained unorganized wannabe soldiers running around" that you so snidely dismiss. Those farmers and ordinary townsfolk stood up to the finest soldiers of their era and won independence with very little training or support, especially in the early days of the Revolution. That is what the second amendment is about. If the type of gun controll you seem to desire existed in 1775, we would probably sing "Hail to the Queen" before baseball games today instead of "The Star Spangled Banner."

And by the way, show me exactly where in the Constitution there is mention of any crime such as shooting someone. As far as I know, the US Constitution only specifies one crime, that being treason against the federal government, the penalty for which is also specified: death.

 

It has reached the "Cos the founding Father's said so!" bit

I love watching US citizens fight this one over and over again. It invariably follows the same logical arguments until someone pulls out the "Founding Father's" card. Someone should make a magic card about that.

Is it just an easy way to shame a fellow US citizen into compliance? Or do people over there really look upon these guys as entities that Must Not Be Argued With?

 

Actually Sapper, I tend to think that the Supreme Court has over-broadened the interpretation of the Second Amendment beyond what the creators of the Bill of Rights intended. The right to keep and bear arms was intended to prevent a dictatorship from taking away the citizenry's ability to overthrow said dictatorship. I do not think they forsaw a future where being able to muster out the village men armed with hunting rifles to be pitted against a military armed with tanks and attack helicopters would only be a quick way to get a town depopulated. I certainly don't think the founding fathers intended on protecting the right of Joe Average American to carry a .44 Magnum pocket howitzer that has no particular use other than as a tool to kill other human beings. In this sense, the times have passed by the intent of the Second Amendment.

But taken in the context of the times in which it was written, the Second Amendment (and the men whose bravery inspired it) certainly deserves more respect than was given.

 

erkper,

so the constitution doesnt set the framework for our legal system? what does then? and your second statement is the leading argument against the 2nd amendment so how is that relavent? also, if it wasnt for France we wouldnt even be the great nation we are... too bad we didnt back them against england like they did for us following their own revolution... gotta love those founding fathers...