"...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

[Goofball]

This warms my heart. After hearing gun-toters in so many backroom gun threads argue that the main reason the 2nd Amendment exists is so that Joe Public can maintain the ability to rise up against a tyrannical government, I've finally seen it happen. I applaud you, Cookie Thornton, for excercising your right, nay, your responsibility to rise up and overthrow your oppressors.

NRA members, rejoice.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23059784/


http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Sources/Art/APTRANS.gif updated 2 minutes ago function UpdateTimeStamp(pdt) { var n = document.getElementById("udtD"); if(pdt != '' && n && window.DateTime) { var dt = new DateTime(); pdt = dt.T2D(pdt); if(dt.GetTZ(pdt)) {n.innerHTML = dt.D2S(pdt,((''.toLowerCase()=='false')?false:true));} } } UpdateTimeStamp('633380871634200000');

KIRKWOOD, Mo. - A gunman with a history of acrimony against civic leaders stormed City Hall during a council meeting, yelled "Shoot the mayor!" and opened fire, killing two police officers and three city officials before law enforcers fatally shot him, authorities said.
The gunman, identified as Charles Lee "Cookie" Thornton, critically injured the city's mayor and wounded a reporter Thursday night before law enforcers fatally shot him. He had previously claimed he was harassed and stifled in the past by city leaders.
"The only way that I can put into context that you might understand is that my brother went to war tonight with the people, the government that was putting torment and strife into his life," Thornton's brother, Gerald Thornton, told KMOV-TV of St. Louis.
Officials said the man had a history of disruptive behavior, and was convicted twice on disorderly conduct charges for acting out in the town meetings. Ten days before the shooting, Thornton had lost a federal lawsuit against this St. Louis suburb which he said harassed him and denied him his constitutional right to speak at the meetings.
Mayor among wounded
Tracy Panus, a St. Louis County Police spokeswoman, said the names of the victims would not be released until a news conference on Friday. But the wounded included Mayor Mike Swoboda, who was in critical condition late Thursday in the intensive-care unit of St. John's Mercy Hospital in Creve Coeur, hospital spokesman Bill McShane said. Another victim, Suburban Journals newspaper reporter Todd Smith, was in satisfactory condition, McShane said.
Panus said the gunman killed one officer outside City Hall, then walked into the council chambers, shot another and continued pulling the trigger.
Janet McNichols, a reporter covering the meeting for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, told the newspaper the meeting had just started when the shooter opened fire. He started yelling about shooting the mayor while walking around and firing, hitting police Officer Tom Ballman in the head, she said.
The shooter then went after Public Works Director Kenneth Yost, who was sitting in front of Swoboda, and shot Yost in the head, McNichols said.
She also said the shooter fired at City Attorney John Hessel, who fended off the attacker by throwing chairs. The shooter then moved behind the desk where the council sits and fired more shots at council members.
"We crawled under the chairs and just laid there," McNichols told ABC's "Good Morning America" on Friday. "We heard Cookie shooting, and then we heard some shouting, and the police, the Kirkwood police had heard what was going on, and they ran in, and they shot him."
Frequent council meeting visitor
Witness Alan Hopefl told CNN that Thornton was a frequent visitor at council meetings and would be disruptive, sometimes making donkey noises. Hopefl said he was there when the shooting erupted Thursday.
"They just opened up a public hearing, and the attorney was reading the document into the record when Mr. Thornton entered the room, went down one side of the room up to the police officer who's normally there, pulled the gun out, shot the police officer, and then he proceeded to move toward the front of the council," Hopefl said.
The newspaper quoted McNichols as saying Swoboda, and council members Michael H.T. Lynch and Connie Karr also were hit. She identified the gunman as Charles Thornton, whom she knows from covering the council.
http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/ArtAndPhoto-Fronts/USNEWS/080208/AP_MEETING_SHOOTING.gifThe shooting was the latest in a number of such attacks across the United States. A man last Saturday fatally shot five women in a clothing store in an outdoor shopping center in a suburb of Chicago, Illinois. He has yet to be located.
In December, a 19-year-old man opened fire in an Omaha, Nebraska, shopping mall, killing eight people and wounding four before committing suicide.
Thornton was often a contentious presence at it meetings; he had twice been convicted of disorderly conduct for disrupting meetings in May 2006.
Ire at mayor
Most of his ire was directed at the mayor and Yost, McNichols said.
In a federal lawsuit stemming from his arrests during two meetings just weeks apart, Thornton insisted that Kirkwood officials violated his constitutional rights to free speech by barring him from speaking at the meetings.
That case was tossed out on Jan. 28, with the judge saying that "any restrictions on Thornton's speech were reasonable, viewpoint neutral, and served important governmental interests."
Gerald Thornton told KMOV the legal setback may have been his brother's final straw. "He has (spoken) on it as best he could in the courts, and they denied all rights to the access of protection and he took it upon himself to go to war and end the issue," he said.
Kirkwood is about 20 miles southwest of downtown St. Louis. City Hall is in a quiet area filled with condominiums, eateries and shops, not far from a dance studio and train station.
Despite its reputation locally for serenity, the city has grappled in recent years with crimes that brought it unwanted attention.
Near City Hall is a pizzeria once managed by Michael Devlin, who kidnapped 11-year-old Shawn Hornbeck in 2002 and held him for four years before authorities rescued the boy in January 2007. Also rescued was Ben Ownby, another teenager Devlin abducted just days before Devlin's arrest.
Those crimes got Devlin life terms on state charges, as well as 170 years behind bars on federal charges that he made pornography.
City Hall also is about a block from a park now named for a former Kirkwood police sergeant and father of three who was killed by a man witnesses said blamed police for the death of his 12-year-old half-brother two hours earlier.
The man, Kevin Johnson, was convicted in November of first-degree murder and last week was sentenced to death.

[Xiahou]

OMG, we need to ban all guns now! Well played, Goofball. ~:handball:

[drone]

Well, technically the tyrannical government is supposed to be the federal one. ~D

If we're opening up another gun thread, how about the guy who was going to shoot up the Super Bowl, but chickened out at the last minute. And we also have some killings at LaTech this morning, a female student took out 2 others and herself. It's nice to see equality in our school shooters, women have been drastically under-represented.

[Ronin]

OMG, we need to ban all guns now! Well played, Goofball. ~:handball:


why the hell do you have to take the negative road Xiahou?

here we have a man finally taking it to the man and expressing his constitutional rights in a meaningful, well thought out way....any red blooded American should salute this brave soul :laugh4:

why do you hate freedom? :smash:

....AND THE HOME OF THE BRAVE!!!.....play ball! :juggle2:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Meh. And what's the point of this Goofball?

CR

[Goofball]

Altough I was being a bit tongue in cheek which I apologize for, my point is more or less what I was saying.

I am interested in how gun advocates... no, that's not really fair... 2nd Amendment advocates will react to this story. It's easy when it's a school shooting for you guys to say "well, he's just a nutjob using his guns for a purpose neither protected nor envisioned by the 2nd Amendment, so you can't hold that against us."

But here, we have a man who felt so oppressed by his government, that (and I add, only after apparently exhausting all legal means of fighting back) he decided he had to rise up and declare war on them for the greater good.

This is what 2nd Amendment advocates point to as the true purpose behind their need to own guns.

So I ask: do you applaud Mr. Thornton, or disown him?

[Fragony]

Those that represent us are too terrified to have their monopoly on violence, they just don't deserve it they are too scared for that. What use is it when those that should protect us have a complete nervous breakdown when something doesn't go as they wanted it to go. Plans go wrong when people start planning, useless. Step aside, hagunnan, vogala en unbidan

[Goofball]

Those that represent us are too terrified to have their monopoly on violence, they just don't deserve it they are too scared for that. What use is it when those that should protect us have a complete nervous breakdown when something doesn't go as they wanted it to go. Plans go wrong when people start planning, useless. Step aside, hagunnan, vogala en unbidan

I'm assuming that as it is now Friday after work in your part of the world, you have already enjoyed a pint or seven?

:laugh4:

[Fragony]

I'm assuming that as it is now Friday after work in your part of the world, you have already enjoyed a pint or seven?

:laugh4:

Dead serious, state monopoly of violence is rediculous, we can't rely on it so we should have the right to have whatever the hell we want to have.

[Goofball]

Dead serious, state monopoly of violence is rediculous, we can't rely on it so we should have the right to have whatever the hell we want to have.

Oh, okay. I didn't really get that from your earlier post.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

This gives me an idea for a thread where I post an example of news reporter slandering someone and then question the freedom of the press.

[Goofball]

This gives me an idea for a thread where I post an example of news reporter slandering someone and then question the freedom of the press.

By all means, please start that thread.

But I note that none of the usual suspects has answered the question:

Do you applaud Thornton, or disown him?

He has used his gun for the reason you say guns should be owned.

What say you?

[ICantSpellDawg]

He can attack an oppressive government with the arms allowed by the Bill of Rights, but has no right to escape the legal consequences of his actions.

In similar form, even if I attacked the government for legitimate reasons, I would not have a right to escape legal consequences.

I don't applaud those who use their rights inappropriately. What kind of loaded garbage is that? Let me set a trap so that they are either monsters of hypocrites. That would be fun.

What, have Canadians run out of guns to steal from other Canadians and now need to piss all over our glee?

[Goofball]

He can attack an oppressive government with the arms allowed by the Bill of Rights, but has no right to escape the legal consequences of his actions.

In similar form, even if I attacked the government for legitimate reasons, I would not have a right to escape legal consequences.

Big deal.

What, have Canadians run out of guns to steal from other Canadians and now need to piss all over our glee?

:laugh4:

Okay, that made me almost shoot coffee out of my nose.

Siggied.

[Xiahou]

By all means, please start that thread.

But I note that none of the usual suspects has answered the question:

Do you applaud Thornton, or disown him?

He has used his gun for the reason you say guns should be owned.

What say you?It's a completely false dilemna. A crazed shooting spree by a nut upset over parking tickets is not equivalent to opposing a tyrannical government. Why would I disown him? I never owned him in the first place. :dizzy2:

edit:
He can attack an oppressive government with the arms allowed by the Bill of Rights, but has no right to escape the legal consequences of his actions.

In similar form, even if I attacked the government for legitimate reasons, I would not have a right to escape legal consequences.

I don't applaud those who use their rights inappropriately. What kind of loaded garbage is that? Let me set a trap so that they are either monsters of hypocrites. That would be fun.All very true. :yes:


What, have Canadians run out of guns to steal from other Canadians and now need to piss all over our glee?Mysteriously, their gun control failed to end all violent crime- they need someone else to blame now. :wink:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Altough I was being a bit tongue in cheek which I apologize for, my point is more or less what I was saying.

I am interested in how gun advocates... no, that's not really fair... 2nd Amendment advocates will react to this story. It's easy when it's a school shooting for you guys to say "well, he's just a nutjob using his guns for a purpose neither protected nor envisioned by the 2nd Amendment, so you can't hold that against us."

But here, we have a man who felt so oppressed by his government, that (and I add, only after apparently exhausting all legal means of fighting back) he decided he had to rise up and declare war on them for the greater good.

This is what 2nd Amendment advocates point to as the true purpose behind their need to own guns.

So I ask: do you applaud Mr. Thornton, or disown him?

'Disown'. He was obviously a bit wacky, and did not use guns for the purpose of the second amendment, which is to overthrow tyranny, not merely vengeance killings on people you have a beef with. But the whole debate of whether to applaud him for fighting government oppression or condemn him for the killings rests on whether you believe he was being oppressed, and the details in the article are not that clear on his past.

That is the crux of the issue - how many people believe there is oppression and that it needs to be forcefully dealt with. The issue of whether one is oppressed can't be judged by the individual in this case, it must be judged by the public. Are parking tickets and barring from some council meetings oppression? I don't think so.

CR

[Goofball]

He can attack an oppressive government with the arms allowed by the Bill of Rights, but has no right to escape the legal consequences of his actions.

In similar form, even if I attacked the government for legitimate reasons, I would not have a right to escape legal consequences.

I don't applaud those who use their rights inappropriately. What kind of loaded garbage is that? Let me set a trap so that they are either monsters of hypocrites. That would be fun.

Why do you say he used his rights inappropriately? He believed that he was being oppressed by his government. He tried to work within the system by attending political meetings, then by turning to the courts. When he believed he was still being oppressed and had no legal recourse within the system, he rose up in armed rebellion.

I didn't set the trap. 2nd Amendment advocates did.

[Crazed Rabbit]

This isn't armed rebellion, Goofball. It's vengeance killings for parking tickets and being thrown out of a couple meetings. What's he rebelling against? Parking tickets? The city's throwing out of disorderly council meeting attendees?

Just because you kill someone in the government doesn't mean you're in armed rebellion.

CR

[Louis VI the Fat]

Gah! Goofball is right. Back in 1787 the second amendment made sense. But not any longer. America has grown enormously since then!

So the second amendment should immediately cease the present protection of the right to bare arms...


https://img405.imageshack.us/img405/5694/naobesecolor7035awh6.jpg

[Lemur]

Times change. The Founding Fathers called them "bear arms," when in fact I would describe them more as "bear forequarters," or perhaps "bear front legs." I know it's kind of confusing, since bears will rear up on their hind legs for short periods, but let's face it, most of the time they're quadrupeds.

Would you really call these bear "arms"?


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/55048026.jpg

[Xiahou]

Who couldn't support this?
https://img215.imageshack.us/img215/8544/1038tm2.jpg

[ICantSpellDawg]

Why do you say he used his rights inappropriately? He believed that he was being oppressed by his government. He tried to work within the system by attending political meetings, then by turning to the courts. When he believed he was still being oppressed and had no legal recourse within the system, he rose up in armed rebellion.

I didn't set the trap. 2nd Amendment advocates did.

Where does it say in the 2nd amendment that you are supposed to attack the government with guns and other weapons? We need to tell people that going on a one man shooting spree in a government building wasn't what the founding fathers envisioned?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Would you really call these bear "arms"?


That question requires a paws while I research which claws of the Constitution you are re-furring to.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Why do you say he used his rights inappropriately? He believed that he was being oppressed by his government. He tried to work within the system by attending political meetings, then by turning to the courts. When he believed he was still being oppressed and had no legal recourse within the system, he rose up in armed rebellion.

I didn't set the trap. 2nd Amendment advocates did.

Nope. If he was being oppressed by the government it would be a different matter. He wasn't though. It's not an issue of what he believed.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Maybe they meant "bear arms" like "chicken wings" - maybe the 2nd amendment was really the creation of a social safety net for the poor and hungry. "When you can no longer pay your bills or grow enough food, the government must provide you with fried Bears arms on the bone (or bear-fu for vegetarians)."

[Spino]

This warms my heart. After hearing gun-toters in so many backroom gun threads argue that the main reason the 2nd Amendment exists is so that Joe Public can maintain the ability to rise up against a tyrannical government, I've finally seen it happen. I applaud you, Cookie Thornton, for excercising your right, nay, your responsibility to rise up and overthrow your oppressors.

NRA members, rejoice.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23059784/


http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Sources/Art/APTRANS.gif updated 2 minutes ago function UpdateTimeStamp(pdt) { var n = document.getElementById("udtD"); if(pdt != '' && n && window.DateTime) { var dt = new DateTime(); pdt = dt.T2D(pdt); if(dt.GetTZ(pdt)) {n.innerHTML = dt.D2S(pdt,((''.toLowerCase()=='false')?false:true));} } } UpdateTimeStamp('633380871634200000');

KIRKWOOD, Mo. - A gunman with a history of acrimony against civic leaders stormed City Hall during a council meeting, yelled "Shoot the mayor!" and opened fire, killing two police officers and three city officials before law enforcers fatally shot him, authorities said.
The gunman, identified as Charles Lee "Cookie" Thornton, critically injured the city's mayor and wounded a reporter Thursday night before law enforcers fatally shot him. He had previously claimed he was harassed and stifled in the past by city leaders.
"The only way that I can put into context that you might understand is that my brother went to war tonight with the people, the government that was putting torment and strife into his life," Thornton's brother, Gerald Thornton, told KMOV-TV of St. Louis.
Officials said the man had a history of disruptive behavior, and was convicted twice on disorderly conduct charges for acting out in the town meetings. Ten days before the shooting, Thornton had lost a federal lawsuit against this St. Louis suburb which he said harassed him and denied him his constitutional right to speak at the meetings.
Mayor among wounded
Tracy Panus, a St. Louis County Police spokeswoman, said the names of the victims would not be released until a news conference on Friday. But the wounded included Mayor Mike Swoboda, who was in critical condition late Thursday in the intensive-care unit of St. John's Mercy Hospital in Creve Coeur, hospital spokesman Bill McShane said. Another victim, Suburban Journals newspaper reporter Todd Smith, was in satisfactory condition, McShane said.
Panus said the gunman killed one officer outside City Hall, then walked into the council chambers, shot another and continued pulling the trigger.
Janet McNichols, a reporter covering the meeting for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, told the newspaper the meeting had just started when the shooter opened fire. He started yelling about shooting the mayor while walking around and firing, hitting police Officer Tom Ballman in the head, she said.
The shooter then went after Public Works Director Kenneth Yost, who was sitting in front of Swoboda, and shot Yost in the head, McNichols said.
She also said the shooter fired at City Attorney John Hessel, who fended off the attacker by throwing chairs. The shooter then moved behind the desk where the council sits and fired more shots at council members.
"We crawled under the chairs and just laid there," McNichols told ABC's "Good Morning America" on Friday. "We heard Cookie shooting, and then we heard some shouting, and the police, the Kirkwood police had heard what was going on, and they ran in, and they shot him."
Frequent council meeting visitor
Witness Alan Hopefl told CNN that Thornton was a frequent visitor at council meetings and would be disruptive, sometimes making donkey noises. Hopefl said he was there when the shooting erupted Thursday.
"They just opened up a public hearing, and the attorney was reading the document into the record when Mr. Thornton entered the room, went down one side of the room up to the police officer who's normally there, pulled the gun out, shot the police officer, and then he proceeded to move toward the front of the council," Hopefl said.
The newspaper quoted McNichols as saying Swoboda, and council members Michael H.T. Lynch and Connie Karr also were hit. She identified the gunman as Charles Thornton, whom she knows from covering the council.
http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/ArtAndPhoto-Fronts/USNEWS/080208/AP_MEETING_SHOOTING.gifThe shooting was the latest in a number of such attacks across the United States. A man last Saturday fatally shot five women in a clothing store in an outdoor shopping center in a suburb of Chicago, Illinois. He has yet to be located.
In December, a 19-year-old man opened fire in an Omaha, Nebraska, shopping mall, killing eight people and wounding four before committing suicide.
Thornton was often a contentious presence at it meetings; he had twice been convicted of disorderly conduct for disrupting meetings in May 2006.
Ire at mayor
Most of his ire was directed at the mayor and Yost, McNichols said.
In a federal lawsuit stemming from his arrests during two meetings just weeks apart, Thornton insisted that Kirkwood officials violated his constitutional rights to free speech by barring him from speaking at the meetings.
That case was tossed out on Jan. 28, with the judge saying that "any restrictions on Thornton's speech were reasonable, viewpoint neutral, and served important governmental interests."
Gerald Thornton told KMOV the legal setback may have been his brother's final straw. "He has (spoken) on it as best he could in the courts, and they denied all rights to the access of protection and he took it upon himself to go to war and end the issue," he said.
Kirkwood is about 20 miles southwest of downtown St. Louis. City Hall is in a quiet area filled with condominiums, eateries and shops, not far from a dance studio and train station.
Despite its reputation locally for serenity, the city has grappled in recent years with crimes that brought it unwanted attention.
Near City Hall is a pizzeria once managed by Michael Devlin, who kidnapped 11-year-old Shawn Hornbeck in 2002 and held him for four years before authorities rescued the boy in January 2007. Also rescued was Ben Ownby, another teenager Devlin abducted just days before Devlin's arrest.
Those crimes got Devlin life terms on state charges, as well as 170 years behind bars on federal charges that he made pornography.
City Hall also is about a block from a park now named for a former Kirkwood police sergeant and father of three who was killed by a man witnesses said blamed police for the death of his 12-year-old half-brother two hours earlier.
The man, Kevin Johnson, was convicted in November of first-degree murder and last week was sentenced to death.


So when we eliminate the Second Amendment can we also outlaw automobiles? Far more people die in car accidents every year than in gun related homicides? How about knives? What about butter knives? Sporks? Slingshots? Sticks? Stones? What about metal tubes and PVC piping that can be used to make pipe bombs? Fertilizer? Ammonia? Better play it safe and outlaw 'dangerous' language and literature.

To hell with it, let's cut to the chase and implement state sponsored eugenics programs that weed out the wackos, loonies and borderline head cases. No wait, let's endow the State with the right to neuter anyone who demonstrates "unacceptable levels of hostility", you know, so as to prevent violent crimes from being commited in the first place. An ounce of prevention and all that...

Take a stand man! Sacrifice thy family jewels for the greater good!

[ajaxfetish]

I'd like to go on record saying I completely support the criminalization of sporks.

Ajax

[Lemur]

Bears. Armed with sporks. Spork-bearing bears. Bear-sporks. Borks. Yeah, that would scare just about anybody.


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/003_00.jpg

[Strike For The South]

You're supposed to have more people for a rebellion. I like the thought though

[Vladimir]

You're supposed to have more people for a rebellion. I like the thought though

:laugh4: I guess that's why "Army of One" went away.

One soldier shows up on a battlefield:

"Hey, where is everyone?"

(distant voice) "Army of one, HOOAH!"

[Crazed Rabbit]

Gah, the fearsome spork!

Curse the UN, and their ban on sporks in warfare!

Also; fun fact - this shooting occurred, like so many others, in a 'gun free zone' and we see once again it only disarms the victims.

CR

[Tribesman]

Also; fun fact - this shooting occurred, like so many others, in a 'gun free zone' and we see once again it only disarms the victims.

A strange use of words there Rabbit ,"fun fact"..... is that a "fact" that isn't a fact ?
Since two of the victims were armed they were not only disarmed victims were they .:oops:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Oh yes there were police, just like police are allowed to be in pretty much every gun free zone.

And of course the man was going after the mayor and the city council members, not the police.

CR

[Papewaio]

"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."

Aren't the police one form of the well regulated militia? It is about the security of a free State not the Federal Nation... so it could apply from anything from a (well regulated) individual to a State Guard. Compare the functions of what militia used to do (protecting against marauders to warfare) and one would think that Police cover one portion of the spectrum of the duties of a militia.

[Lemur]

Eeeeh, it's pointless to talk about gun control in the U.S.A., just completely pointless. There are more weapons in the hands of adults than there are adults. From a practical perspective, putting the genie back in the bottle is just impossible. And from a political perspective it ain't gonna happen. Everybody who has spearheaded gun control efforts has been hounded out of office.

The people have spoken. Whether it makes any sense or not, we're going to be an armed nation. Wishing it were otherwise is kind of like wishing the wind wouldn't blow.

I say we turn our efforts to spork control.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Listen, I'm not opposed to regulation of firearms - I believe that those with criminal records or mental illnesses should be filtered out of the runnings if the state believes that it is necessary

Apart from that, I believe that everyone else should carry or have heat on hand at all times (except when under the influence).

[Crazed Rabbit]

Aren't the police one form of the well regulated militia?

No.

CR

[Papewaio]

You had better have a better argument then 'No' a bit limp.

Well regulated, check.

For the security of a free state, a bit obvious but, like yeah check.

Non-Federal, check.

People (capitalised would mean the population as a whole, while lowercase would mean people in general). Capitalised, check, lowercase well believe it or not Police are people to so check.

Because of Adam Smith and economic specialisation aren't Police just the logical economic professionalism of one of the areas that militia performed. Aren't you just arguing against capitalism? As the US went from an emerging economy into a powerhouse the roles done by generalists became increasingly professionalized. For instance you wouldn't go to your hairdresser to get your teeth removed nowadays.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I'd sure as heck hope there is a significant difference between a military force designed to prevent invasion by force of the state and a group of peace officers who solve crimes.

The militia was never for solving or preventing crime and was the group of all adult males ages 18-50ish as well.

Just because they both serve to help the state doesn't mean they're the same. :rolleyes:

CR

[Xiahou]

The second clause is not dependent on the first. It's an independent clause- if you can't remember back to grammar school, just google for it. :wink:

I thought we were all operating from the common understanding that the intention of the 2A was as an individual right. We've certainly had enough threads on the issue- are we going to re-tread it again? Isn't there a fresh attack that the gun grabbers can use?

[Papewaio]

I'm not arguing against it being an individual right, I'm saying that it is probably more inclusive then just that of the individual.

BTW since there is no "and, but, for, or, nor, so, yet" it means that the clauses are not definitively independent.

If it was stated "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, so the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." You might be on to something, however even being independent clauses they would still refer to each other. As it stands it would be probably be considered a prepositional phrase... but then again I'm a geek and me gramma not so good.

[Crazed Rabbit]

A very good essay on what the 2nd amendment means:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/07-290_amicus_academicsforsecondamendment.pdf
Specifically in relation to the lawsuit brought against the Washington DC handgun ban.

CR

[Papewaio]

Interesting it strengthens the idea that the militias were supposed to be well regulated (and organised) as opposed to just all the citizens being armed. It seems they wanted both as well armed citizens by themselves would not be coordinated enough to throw down a Federal army.


NOAH WEBSTER, AN EXAMINATION INTO THE LEADING
PRINCIPLES OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION PROPOSED
BY THE LATE CONVENTION HELD AT PHILADELPHIA 43
(1787). In the Massachusetts Convention, Theodore
Sedgwick asked delegates whether they imagined
that a standing army “could subdue a nation of
freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who
have arms in their hands?” 2 ELLIOT’S DEBATES 97; in
Virginia, a delegate argued it would prevent an
establishment of religion: “The extent of the country
is very great. The multiplicity of sects is very great
likewise. The people are not to be disarmed of their
weapons. They are left in full possession of them.” 3
ELLIOT’S DEBATES 645-46.
The Federalist mantra reached its greatest
development in Madison’s FEDERALIST NO. 46, where
the Father of the Constitution (and of the Second
Amendment) considered the benefits both of universal
citizen armament, and of the militia system. He
begins by calculating that a standing army could not
exceed 25,000-30,000 men, who would be opposed by
500,000 militia under State control. He then distinguishes
between citizen armament (“the advantage of
being armed”) and the militia system:
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.

Madison then sharpens the distinction. Citizen
armament is a guarantee of liberties; that is why the
monarchs of Europe cannot abide an armed people.
Alone, it might not sweep them and their armies from
power, but if they added to that a militia system, it
would be sufficient even for that task:
Notwithstanding the military establishments
in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are
carried as far as the public resources will
bear, the governments are afraid to trust the
people with arms. And it is not certain, that
with this aid alone they would not be able to
shake off their yokes. But were the people to
possess the additional advantages of local
governments chosen by themselves ... and of
officers appointed out of the militia, by these
governments, and attached both to them and
to the militia, it may be affirmed with the
greatest assurance, that the throne of every
tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned
in spite of the legions which surround
it.

This is the interesting part:
"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."

They wanted them armed, they also wanted them organised by (State/Local/Council/Town whatever 'subordinate government' (subgov) meant) Militia officers appointed by the subgov.

So I would say every American has the right to bear arms. To have that right bear fruit in its attended purpose of keeping the State Free (and hence its People) they should be organised in such a manner that they can defeat the higher up government. I assume this could mean that smaller local governments should be able to organise to beat their state government and state governments together beat the federal one.

Interesting that the only reason mentioned for taking away guns is individual rebellion against the state. So it would seem again that rebellion is meant to be organised. It also goes into the danger of having the poor supplied weapons by the Union (Federal) government that which can be given can easily be taken away. Each man was to supply their own weapon so that they would have no ties to the Union so that each State could remain free. I think pre-Union the states were more worried about maintaining control and not just swapping one tyrant in England for another in the Union.

[ajaxfetish]

[word geek]In terms of 2nd Amendment grammar, the first part of the sentence looks to me like an ablative absolute (a noun phrase rather than an entire clause). The grammatical construction is common in Latin, rare in English, which explains why it causes so much confusion to all of us native English speakers. The construction can show causation or just condition/context, another potential source of confusion (in other words, it could mean 'in this place where a well-regulated militia happens to be necessary, there is the individual right to bear arms,' or it could mean 'a well-regulated militia is necessary; therefore, there is the individual right to bear arms'). [/word geek]

Ajax

[Redleg]

Face it folks - its well establish in the United States Courts that the individual right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right. What that entails is open for discussion, and has been since the drafting of the orginal document. Two opposing parties with two completely different ideas and desire for a nation developed a compraise that was able to satistify both parties at the time, and the citizens of the nation over the last 220 years have not activitely sought to amend or repeal the amendment since its construction past an initial discussion.

Snooty sarcistic posts about the United State's 2nd Amendment that often come about after some tragic multiple killing by someone of questionable status does nothing to futher the discussion about gun control in the United States. Because frankly that type of arguement will never overcome the ingrained belief in the United States about the individual right to keep and bear arms that is guarnteed in the 2nd Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment is part of a group of amendments that were first put into the constitution because one group (wanting a strong central government) compraised with a second group -(who wanted a weak central government).

A short bit from Wikipedia which gives it a fairily accurate bit of history.


Initially drafted by James Madison in 1789, the Bill of Rights was written at a time when ideological conflict between Federalists and anti-Federalists, dating from the Philadelphia Convention in 1787, threatened the Constitution's ratification. The Bill was influenced by George Mason's 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, the 1689 English Bill of Rights, works of the Age of Enlightenment pertaining to natural rights, and earlier English political documents such as Magna Carta (1215). The Bill was largely a response to the Constitution's influential opponents, including prominent Founding Fathers, who argued that it failed to protect the basic principles of human liberty.

The Bill of Rights plays a central role in American law and government, and remains a fundamental symbol of the freedoms and culture of the nation. One of the original fourteen copies of the Bill of Rights is on public display at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.

The original document proposed by Congress to the states actually contained twelve "Articles" of proposed amendment. However, only the third through twelfth articles, corresponding to what became the First through Tenth Amendments to the Constitution, were ratified by the required number of states by 1791. The first Article, dealing with the number and apportionment of members of the House of Representatives, never became part of the Constitution. The second Article, limiting the ability of Congress to increase the salaries of its members, was ratified two centuries later as the 27th Amendment. The term "Bill of Rights" has traditionally meant only the ten amendments that became part of the Constitution in 1791, and not the first two, which dealt with Congress itself rather than the rights of the people. That traditional usage has continued even since the ratification of the 27th Amendment.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Though delivered in a rather pointed manner, Goofball brings up an interesting point. At what point do we stop saying "bunch of nutters" and start saying "justified insurrection"? The original Revolution probably had only about a third of Americans on board.

[Redleg]

Though delivered in a rather pointed manner, Goofball brings up an interesting point. At what point do we stop saying "bunch of nutters" and start saying "justified insurrection"? The original Revolution probably had only about a third of Americans on board.

Probably determine just like the Revolution and the Civil War - when it becomes "popular" enough become a true bloody civil war.