Gerald Glatt Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 On 6/7/2017 at 3:52 AM, Gratefuled said: I'll finish by saying that I was just testing the waters. Just to view your opinions. Seems like most are against the armed civilian militia. Probably why it never was accepted. One thing no one mentioned was the fact that an armed civilian is risking his/her life anytime he/she gets involved in a crime that is being committed. I have to wonder how many would put their life on the line. The idea is good but doomed to failure for the reason mentioned above. In one instance a civilian militia man might be reluctant to risk his/her life. In another instance, the armed civilian might be a loose cannon and do more damage than absolutely necessary to bring a problem under control. Anyone applying to be a policeman has to undergo strict psychological tests some of which are in person in front of a board. Some police departments will not hire a war veteran. Especially one who has been in a combat zone for any length of time. Ok, carry on. Don't call me loose, a bit free and easy maybe.........All former grunts were given the strictest testing before we got our weapons....."he drolled when he fogged the mirror.....give him the machine gun. Police departments in the midwest and south give extra points on their test for vets..and count service time for their retirement. It maybe that some vets would hesitate a bit more as they know what a gun can do, as they are asked preform against former vets and countrymen. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerald Glatt Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 On 6/7/2017 at 9:25 PM, AlwaysRt said: It seems a common gross exaggeration used in the argument against allowing the general population protect themselves. To examine the general 'there just aren't that many responsible people, the public can not be trusted' theory we need to make it personal. Would you consider yourself irresponsible, untrustworthy, unable to control yourself from going on a vigilante killing spree? Or do you consider yourself one of the very few elite, superior to the majority of your less worthy fellow citizens? Or is that kind of silly as the general population is in fact responsible and trustworthy and would use force only as a last resort? Unlike the current Philippine policy, a policy of use of force without eminent threat to life or property would itself be an illegal act precludes the "Citizens running around killing drug dealers" that are not at that moment a threat. It may be me and I'm most likely wrong but if a person is a drug dealer he is killing people or trying to weather he is doing it now or tomorrow...is why I like the ball bat gives you a chance to decide weather to turn him over to the law or the mob as he recovers from his sporting accident. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerald Glatt Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 On 6/7/2017 at 9:34 PM, jpbago said: I agree. In Canada we use canes: http://www.torontosun.com/2017/06/06/elderly-women-duel-with-canes-in-grocery-store-parking-lot It is how you train for hockey eh? Grandma to daughter and say your sorry after. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerald Glatt Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 On 6/7/2017 at 10:28 PM, AlwaysRt said: Just because something is not illegal does not mean people do it. In the case of private militias, it is far from common if there are any at all (besides 3 guys having a beer and shooting the cans calling themselves a militia and the zombie apocalypse guys. More of a bonding having fun thing than preparing for battle) The 2nd amendment is pretty simple and makes 2 basic statements (or at least they thought it was simple at the time they wrote it). "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." 1)"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," - Since it is necessary for the government to be armed in order to protect its citizens 2)", the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - citizens have the right to own weapons and the government can not reduce that right You are right as almost always on #2 but with you misunderstood #1. It is necessary for the citizens to be armed to protect themselves from the government. That is what the tall guy Jefferson stated. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerald Glatt Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 15 hours ago, Gary D said: Also the 18th centry to bare arms probably meant to own, not carry. In the 18th century in America you carried weather you wore a jacket or short sleeves, never know could be a brit just standing about with a pound or two is his blouse....good for the revolution or the next few rounds. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlwaysRt Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 2 hours ago, Gerald Glatt said: It may be me and I'm most likely wrong but if a person is a drug dealer he is killing people or trying to weather he is doing it now or tomorrow...is why I like the ball bat gives you a chance to decide weather to turn him over to the law or the mob as he recovers from his sporting accident. Whether with a baseball bat or a gun, if you threaten or attack a drug dealer, rapist or even a murderer. YOU are committing a crime - unless they are an imminent threat to person or property. In the case they are an imminent threat, go ahead and take your bat to a gunfight if you want.... 1 hour ago, Gerald Glatt said: You are right as almost always on #2 but with you misunderstood #1. It is necessary for the citizens to be armed to protect themselves from the government. That is what the tall guy Jefferson stated. hmmm, maybe re-read what I said. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reboot Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 (edited) Deadly force is only legally justifiable in the event that it is reasonable for someone to be in fear of imminent severe bodily harm or death. And that applies regardless of means of defense..from bare hands to firearms. Edited June 9, 2017 by Reboot 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reboot Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 This old guy knew what to do: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerald Glatt Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 14 hours ago, AlwaysRt said: Whether with a baseball bat or a gun, if you threaten or attack a drug dealer, rapist or even a murderer. YOU are committing a crime - unless they are an imminent threat to person or property. In the case they are an imminent threat, go ahead and take your bat to a gunfight if you want.... hmmm, maybe re-read what I said. sorry 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlwaysRt Posted June 10, 2017 Posted June 10, 2017 2 hours ago, Gerald Glatt said: sorry no worries, I ma be AlwaysRt but I am far from Always Perfect 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts