BREAKING! Congressman Steve Scalise, Aides shot at baseball practice

[txradioguy]

I disagree   The right to keep and bear arms period.  There is no mention of how to bear (open/concealed/on the hip/over the shoulder).  The term shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed.  I'm not a fan of open carry, I don't like the attention it draws but I would not tell someone else they could not open carry

QFT

[endicom]

They are both genuine heroes,and their courage and devotion to duty while under fire NEEDS to be recognized by their department and by the citizens of DC. Anything less is an insult.

They do indeed deserve that recognition.

[sneakypete]

I disagree   

@Mom MD

Ok. I base MY stand on the stated purpose of the 2nd Amendment,which is to insure we always have an armed Militia. Militias not only shouldn't be concealing their weapons,doing so would be counter productive.

For one thing,it's kinda hard to conceal a battle rifle today,just imagine how hard it would be to conceal a 72 caliber Brown Bess. If you are that big,WTH do you need a gun for?

[Mom MD]

@Mom MD

Ok. I base MY stand on the stated purpose of the 2nd Amendment,which is to insure we always have an armed Militia. Militias not only shouldn't be concealing their weapons,doing so would be counter productive.

For one thing,it's kinda hard to conceal a battle rifle today,just imagine how hard it would be to conceal a 72 caliber Brown Bess. If you are that big,WTH do you need a gun for?

There are plenty of soldiers armed with sidearms only.  Not everyone drives a tank.  We will have to agree to disagree

[Smokin Joe]

@Mom MD

Ok. I base MY stand on the stated purpose of the 2nd Amendment,which is to insure we always have an armed Militia. Militias not only shouldn't be concealing their weapons,doing so would be counter productive.

For one thing,it's kinda hard to conceal a battle rifle today,just imagine how hard it would be to conceal a 72 caliber Brown Bess. If you are that big,WTH do you need a gun for?

The Brown Bess was a notoriously inaccurate, if notably reliable, area weapon when used in volley fire from European style formations.

It was the backwoods hunting rifles that brought down English Command and Control on the battlefield, often from behind trees or rocks. As an individual weapon, individually deployed the Brown Bess Musket was, well, a loser, often wildly inaccurate.

The words "of the people" in the RKBA reserve the right to the people, not the militia.
An army (the "militia", as defined in Barclay's Universal Dictionary, 1812) was seen as necessary to the security of a Free State, but keeping that standing army from roving about as brigands or seizing power even more so. Thus every man should be armed, not only to facilitate service in times of need, but  to prevent the misuse of the standing army, and for defense against hostiles of any stripe.

Currently, we have more people in possession of a battle-style rifle using the same ammunition and parts which can generally be interchanged than ever before, some 5 million plus AR-15s out there shooting 5.56 ammo. That has the potential to be a civilian force of unprecedented size.

But concealing a battle rifle is easier than ever.
That's IMI's Tavor SAR-IDF, and it's one of a few listed here http://www.tactical-life.com/firearms/13-bullpups-for-close-quarters-combat/#cqb-bp-iwi-tavor

[sneakypete]

There are plenty of soldiers armed with sidearms only.  Not everyone drives a tank.  We will have to agree to disagree

@Mom MD

HorseHillary! I don't know who told you that,but whoever it was knows nothing about the army.

[sneakypete]

The words "of the people" in the RKBA reserve the right to the people, not the militia.

The people ARE the militia,and the militia IS the people.



So what? Show me ONE army in the history of mankind that has marched into battle carrying concealed weapons as their primary offensive weapons.

And this talk about the accuracy of the Brown Bess is also meaningless. I mentioned the Brown Bess because it WAS the standard infantry rifle of arguably the most advanced military nation in existence at the time the FF's were pondering citizen militias and the 2nd Amendment

[txradioguy]

@Mom MD

HorseHillary! I don't know who told you that,but whoever it was knows nothing about the army.

Actually... as someone who is currently in uniform...@Mom MD know more about what she's talking about than you do.

She is correct there are soldiers assigned nothing g but the Beretta 9mm pistol.

[Mom MD]

Actually... as someone who is currently in uniform...@Mom MD know more about what she's talking about than you do.

She is correct there are soldiers assigned nothing g but the Beretta 9mm pistol.

@txradioguy

Thank you and God bless you for your service

[bigheadfred]

@Mom MD

HorseHillary! I don't know who told you that,but whoever it was knows nothing about the army.

Right. They aren't armed at all--Fort Hood...

[Smokin Joe]

@sneakypete

The people ARE the militia,and the militia IS the people.

Unfortunately, what we have here is a failure....the definition in common use has changed in the last 200+ years, which is why I included the contemporary reference that defines "Militia" as "The Army, in its entirety."

That is the usage the Founders would have meant when they wrote the Amendment. Not the statement that the people were, in essence the Army, which they actually were in the forming United States.

Tell me the snowflakes and no-T pajamaboys out there are the Army now, the brigades of vagina hat wearers, the legions of BLM, and we just might have a problem when the SHTF. We have specialized a tad since then.

The right OF THE PEOPLE to Keep and Bear Arms reserves the right to the people, and not just the army. Yes that includes the ones I cited above, but it includes mothers of small children, great grandpas, office workers, and the like, the good with the not so good. Arguably, the NFA of '34 is unconstitutional, too, considering Miller was never defended before a court ignorant of the military use of shotguns.

[sneakypete]

Actually... as someone who is currently in uniform...@Mom MD know more about what she's talking about than you do.

No,she doesn't. Or are you going to try to tell  me she is a combat arms soldier?

Her mention that "Not everybody drives a tank" shows she knows nothing about the combat arms branches. Tankers ARE issued pistols. If you have a tank,why do you need a rifle? Each tank used to carry weapons like M3 "greaseguns" in them for dismounted use,but I suspect they carry the modern version of the CAR-15 these days.

She is correct there are soldiers assigned nothing g but the Beretta 9mm pistol.

Name one. You see MP's carrying pistols all the time,but they also have rifles,as well as BFMG on some of their vehicles. Medics,officers,and NCO's in conventional infantry units are also issued handguns in addition to their main battle rifles,but I have never seen one in a combat zone that didn't carry both.

Even soldiers in support units are issued rifles. They never need them so you never see them carrying a rifle except for on guard duty or when going to the range once a year to qualify,but each of them does have a rifle assigned to them in the arms room.

[Mom MD]

No,she doesn't. Or are you going to try to tell  me she is a combat arms soldier?

Her mention that "Not everybody drives a tank" shows she knows nothing about the combat arms branches. Tankers ARE issued pistols. If you have a tank,why do you need a rifle? Each tank used to carry weapons like M3 "greaseguns" in them for dismounted use,but I suspect they carry the modern version of the CAR-15 these days.


Name one. You see MP's carrying pistols all the time,but they also have rifles,as well as BFMG on some of their vehicles. Medics,officers,and NCO's in conventional infantry units are also issued handguns in addition to their main battle rifles,but I have never seen one in a combat zone that didn't carry both.

Even soldiers in support units are issued rifles. They never need them so you never see them carrying a rifle except for on guard duty or when going to the range once a year to qualify,but each of them does have a rifle assigned to them in the arms room.

The point was that not all soldiers have a rifle at all times.  Some just carry side arms whether there is a rifle in the locker or not.  And the tank comment was meant that not all soldiers drive the heaviest vehicle available, and not all soldiers carry the biggest gun. But if any soldiers are issued side arms, by your reasoning, then the average citizen should also be able to carry a side arm.

However the second amendment does not apply just to the military, though many of its detractors try to make that argument.

[Bigun]

@sneakypete
Unfortunately, what we have here is a failure....the definition in common use has changed in the last 200+ years, which is why I included the contemporary reference that defines "Militia" as "The Army, in its entirety."

That is the usage the Founders would have meant when they wrote the Amendment. Not the statement that the people were, in essence the Army, which they actually were in the forming United States.

Tell me the snowflakes and no-T pajamaboys out there are the Army now, the brigades of vagina hat wearers, the legions of BLM, and we just might have a problem when the SHTF. We have specialized a tad since then.

The right to OF THE PEOPLE to Keep and Bear Arms reserves the right to the people, and not just the army. Yes that includes the ones I cited above, but it includes mothers of small children, great grandpas, office workers, and the like, the good with the not so good. Arguably, the NFA of '34 is unconstitutional, too, considering Miller was never defended before a court ignorant of the military use of shotguns.

Absolutely right!

[sneakypete]

But if any soldiers are issued side arms, by your reasoning, then the average citizen should also be able to carry a side arm.

OR/and a shoulder arm. Citizens are soldiers due to call up in emergencies.

However the second amendment does not apply just to the military, though many of its detractors try to make that argument.

The 2nd Amendment DOES NOT APPLY TO THE ACTIVE DUTY OR RESERVE MILITARY AT ALL. It is for the "citizen soldiers" who can be called up for duty in times of emergency.

[sneakypete]

@Bigun

Tell me the snowflakes and no-T pajamaboys out there are the Army now, the brigades of vagina hat wearers, the legions of BLM, and we just might have a problem when the SHTF.

Yeah,in case of national emergency,they ARE a PART of the army,and in an emergency call-up,it will be THEY that have to adjust,not the army.

We have specialized a tad since then.

So what? Not everbody in the military is a front-line infantry or other combat arms soldiers. In FACT,front line soldiers are a minority. Support troops make up the bulk of any army.

The right to OF THE PEOPLE to Keep and Bear Arms reserves the right to the people, and not just the army.

The PEOPLE ARE THE ARMY,and the Army ARE "THE PEOPLE".  In America,our military have always been subservient to our civilian leadership. No military dictatorship here.

Yes that includes the ones I cited above, but it includes mothers of small children, great grandpas, office workers, and the like, the good with the not so good.

Yes,and no. It CAN include them if they want to volunteer,but the law can only REQUIRE males between certain ages to pick up arms and report to duty.

Arguably, the NFA of '34 is unconstitutional, too, considering Miller was never defended before a court ignorant of the military use of shotguns.

There is no argument about it,which is why every court since then has refused to look at it.

[Mod2]

Please remember that this thread is about the shooting in Alexandria.

[txradioguy]

No,she doesn't. Or are you going to try to tell  me she is a combat arms soldier?

Her mention that "Not everybody drives a tank" shows she knows nothing about the combat arms branches. Tankers ARE issued pistols. If you have a tank,why do you need a rifle? Each tank used to carry weapons like M3 "greaseguns" in them for dismounted use,but I suspect they carry the modern version of the CAR-15 these days.


Name one. You see MP's carrying pistols all the time,but they also have rifles,as well as BFMG on some of their vehicles. Medics,officers,and NCO's in conventional infantry units are also issued handguns in addition to their main battle rifles,but I have never seen one in a combat zone that didn't carry both.

Even soldiers in support units are issued rifles. They never need them so you never see them carrying a rifle except for on guard duty or when going to the range once a year to qualify,but each of them does have a rifle assigned to them in the arms room.

Pete...i could take your rant apart piece by piece and really the this thread off the rails like you desire...but I'm not going to go down your self created detour.

So BLUF...you're wrong...and you really need to drop this line of distraction.

Now get back on topic.

[Jazzhead]

What do you expect from the resident liberal?   

That's all you've got, name calling?   

How is it "liberalism" to advocate for states to be able to set their own rules regarding the open carry of firearms in public places?    Back in my day, when conservatives had intellectual integrity, federalism and state sovereignty were hallmarks of conservatism.   Folks like you are simply hypocrites, decrying the federal leviathan but clamoring for federal laws that would tell every state that it cannot do a damn thing about folks toting rifles on Main Street. 

[Jazzhead]

So I guess the whole 2nd Amendment thing that already exists and guarantees anyone living in any state the right to keep and bear arms means nothing to you?

States and local communities have traditionally regulated the ability to open carry in public places.   What's right for Texas may not be right for Pennsylvania.   I have no objection to gun ownership.  Own as many instant killing devices as you want.   Use them to defend your hearth and home, if you think that makes you safer.  (Statistics show otherwise, but this is your liberty and your right.)   

But open carry in the public square?   It's up to the community to set such rules, consistent with the Second Amendment. Can you point me to a single case that holds that local rules against open carry violate the Second Amendment?   Those of us who favor leaving such matters to the states simply recognize their traditionally and Constitutionally-recognized sovereignty.  If you think otherwise,  then be honest and admit that you're a liberal.   

[bigheadfred]

Please remember that this thread is about the shooting in Alexandria.

There was a shooting in Alexandria?

I will say this. While I do not condone the actions of this perp. Not here and now.  I do condone  his ability, (although he didn't show too much ability), and the means to give it a try. The power still resides with the people in this country.

[Jazzhead]

I do condone  his ability, (although he didn't show too much ability), and the means to give it a try. The power still resides with the people in this country.

You've got it ass-backwards.

That power is exercised at the ballot box.   Not by force of arms.  What is outrageous is that the people DID make their decision - fairly, within the rules - at the ballot box.  And now idiots with rifles are trying to USURP the prerogatives of the people.

[txradioguy]

States and local communities have traditionally regulated the ability to open carry in public places.   What's right for Texas may not be right for Pennsylvania.   I have no objection to gun ownership.  Own as many instant killing devices as you want.   Use them to defend your hearth and home, if you think that makes you safer.  (Statistics show otherwise, but this is your liberty and your right.)   

But open carry in the public square?   It's up to the community to set such rules, consistent with the Second Amendment. Can you point me to a single case that holds that local rules against open carry violate the Second Amendment?   Those of us who favor leaving such matters to the states simply recognize their traditionally and Constitutionally-recognized sovereignty.  If you think otherwise,  then be honest and admit that you're a liberal.   

The very fact that places...city county or otherwise...set up rules that prevent or restrict how and when a person may carry...concealed or open...their legally purchased and owned firearms is a violation of the Second Amendment.

[txradioguy]

You've got it ass-backwards.

That power is exercised at the ballot box.   Not by force of arms. What is outrageous is that the people DID make their decision - fairly, within the rules - at the ballot box.  And now idiots with rifles are trying to USURP the prerogatives of the people.

Without the 2nd Amendment...the rest of the Bill of Rights would have been ripped up years ago.

IN all honesty...the second Amendment is about the only thing that keeps our Federal government from completely turning into a Liberal dictatorship.

[Jazzhead]

The very fact that places...city county or otherwise...set up rules that prevent or restrict how and when a person may carry...concealed or open...their legally purchased and owned firearms is a violation of the Second Amendment.

Can you cite a single case holding that a community's restriction on open carry in the public square violates the Second Amendment?