Teenager Shot by Vigilante

British law on Citizen's Arrest
Private gun ownership should be one of the hardest things possible to achieve. It should never be a "right" and certainly is not permitted under the US Constitution unless you bend one phrase so far as to persuade the law enforcement process that this is the case.

US citizens who live by the gun have an appalling tendency both to deal death and to die by the gun. How many more have to die in this way before the truth hits you with magnum force?

Please quote what it actually says in the 2nd amendment. Then think about it.

Increased guns reduces gun crime, huh? I remember the case of a lost Englishman who was trying to get directions in your lawless land and was shot by an idiot through the house door. Needless to say American law got the trigger-happy maniac householder off.

Gun crime is clearly the fault of the person who gets shot, therefore the result is not a crime.

Total, absolute and utter lunacy. No need to requote the British figures for gun crime because they must be wrong, I guess.

Come on, the presence of guns both causes and increases gun crime. Without guns, no gun crime. QED.
Logic never was the strong point of the US gun lobby.

Do you want to extend the rule of the vigilante back to the days of lynchings too? I fail to see an effective difference.
____________

British law on Citizen's Arrest
Private gun ownership should be one of the hardest things possible to achieve. It should never be a "right" and certainly is not permitted under the US Constitution unless you bend one phrase so far as to persuade the law enforcement process that this is the case.

It is a right guanranteed by the 2nd amendment of the constitution.

US citizens who live by the gun have an appalling tendency both to deal death and to die by the gun. How many more have to die in this way before the truth hits you with magnum force?

Increased concealed carry has been showed to decrease crime.

Amendment II

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.


The amendment clearly states "A well regulated militia".
I find no reference to Batman wanna-be's.

This amendment is not meant to allow the people as individuals the "right...to keep and bear arms", rather it is intended to permit entities such as the National Guard on behalf of the people to keep and bear arms.

Individual citizens certainly do not constitute a well regulated militia.
They do, however, constitute a well armed mob.

Amendment II

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.


The amendment clearly states "A well regulated militia".
I find no reference to Batman wanna-be's.

This amendment is not meant to allow the people as individuals the "right...to keep and bear arms", rather it is intended to permit entities such as the National Guard on behalf of the people to keep and bear arms.

Individual citizens certainly do not constitute a well regulated militia.
They do, however, constitute a well armed mob.

That's why I said the National Guard when speaking of a well regulated militia.

A bunch of beer buzzed kookoo's in the woods wearing cammo and armed to the teeth is not my idea of a well regulated militia.

But it is what you end up with when the second amendment is misinterpreted and allowed to apply to individuals.

thats also one area of the constitution that demands regulation upon someone or something. They knew without regulating a militia it would be little more than guys in cammo eating old MRE's in the woods making up stories about how glorious their career in the military was.
____________
Proud member of TSWB.

End terrorism by building a school

Interesting interpretation of the meaning.

My dictionary says:
a body of citizens enrolled in military service but serving full time only in emergencies.

This fits the meaning and intent of the term "well regulated militia" somewhat better.

I would feel safer in the knowledge that the people carrying weapons in the streets were trained and professional, with training in law and training in how to deal with various situations.

Your version offers us pick-up trucks with a dozen drunken Bubbas riding in the back shooting out the street lights.

Anyway we drift from the fact that in America you can defend your neighbor's property rights. And in America you can defend yourself when criminals charge you intent on committing great bodily harm and place you in fear for your life.

America isn't what you see coming from Hollywood.

With your incredible lust for violence and mass gun crime I do not believe you ever got past the first stage.

With your incredible lust for violence and mass gun crime I do not believe you ever got past the first stage.

Funny how no one seemed to think this of the US while they were in the UK and Europe during WW2....

Keep and Bear Arms - a time worn excuse for many! States were to regulate militias - not the Feds! In fact even today a Guardsman can BEAR ARMS - but must check his assault rifle into the armory when he goes home. Our founding fathers had little use for standing armed groups and left it to the states to maintain and regulate them. I guess today we have groups that oppose paramilitary groups such as police who abuse the concept of percieved threat to kill unarmed CIVILLIANS. Military groups have RULES OF ENGAGEMENT - Police have PERCIEVED THREAT. Armed civillians are also governed by Percieved threat.
What is needed is laws of engagement for percieved threat. We also need strictly enforced laws which guarantee penalties for instances where firearms are used or even posessed in commission of ANY CRIME.
Were the armed forces prosecuted during WW2 for the hunting of "Werewolves" in western Germany? Some individuals were in Vietnam under similar conditions.What was the percieved threat that caused a Chicago Civilian to get shot while holding a cell phone when stopped for a traffic violation? The cell phone was a percieved threat.
To drive a vehicle is a PRIVILEDGE, to own a firearm is a RIGHT. To drive a car you have to KNOW THE LAWS, and they are VERY SPECIFIc. To own a gun you must only prove YOU ARE NOT A FELON, and also have no MENTAL DISABILITIES - you aren't required to know the laws or even prove you know how or much less when to use it.
Did our VIGILANTE get carried away with percieved threat? Certainly - just like our Chicago Cop and our Vietnam Patrol. Does MADD want to do away with CARS?
____________

Classic WU= 7,237 Classic Hours= 42,079

Knee-jerk reactions and shoot first, ask questions later are the very essence of Hollywood and yours is just another example.

Military groups have RULES OF ENGAGEMENT - Police have PERCIEVED THREAT

I think what must cheese off some people is the Second Amendment presupposes that a person is responsible enough to have self control absent some government central planning committee.

With your incredible lust for violence and mass gun crime I do not believe you ever got past the first stage.

Funny how no one seemed to think this of the US while they were in the UK and Europe during WW2....

British law on Citizen's Arrest
Private gun ownership should be one of the hardest things possible to achieve. It should never be a "right" and certainly is not permitted under the US Constitution unless you bend one phrase so far as to persuade the law enforcement process that this is the case.
US citizens who live by the gun have an appalling tendency both to deal death and to die by the gun. How many more have to die in this way before the truth hits you with magnum force?