Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
No, Cubbie this is exactly what I was taught in college history.
Check this out:
Under the Articles of Confederation the states were responsible for raising troops for the Continental Army, for organizing and equipping them, and for appointing officers through the rank of colonel. State authorities called out militia sometimes at the request of Congress and sometimes on their own initiative. When they joined the main army, militia normally shared in its supplies and equipment. The states, however, maintained an interest in supplying and administering the troops of their own "lines" as well as their militia, and the Continental agents had continually to enlist state assistance in their own efforts. Lines of authority crisscrossed at every turn.
Originally posted by Krangthebrain Nope. There was a full military COMPRISED of state militias.
I think you are right about this Krang.
The point is however, the second amendment was included to prevent the government, foreign or domestic, from opressing the people or infringing on their rights.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dback Jon
I wonder what the Founding Fathers would think now of our large standing military, the projection of our power throughout the globe, etc.
I don't think Jefferson, for one, would like it very much.
.... is my MIND. I don't own firearms, but my dad used to. I have fired weapons. I have had a drunk friend almost shoot his own ass off. I believe that women should have a small gun for protection. I think it's GREAT that nazi skinheads are well armed...
Originally posted by andikrist .... is my MIND. I don't own firearms, but my dad used to. I have fired weapons. I have had a drunk friend almost shoot his own ass off. I believe that women should have a small gun for protection. I think it's GREAT that nazi skinheads are well armed...
And let's hold someone's hand, as they led us throughout our lives. Because it is so painfully obvious that, due to the idiocy of others, none us us should be allowed to take responsiblity for their own actions.
Good God man! Just because your neighbor is constipated, doesn't mean you cant take a crap!
Under the Articles of Confederation the states were responsible for raising troops for the Continental Army, for organizing and equipping them, and for appointing officers through the rank of colonel. State authorities called out militia sometimes at the request of Congress and sometimes on their own initiative. When they joined the main army, militia normally shared in its supplies and equipment. The states, however, maintained an interest in supplying and administering the troops of their own "lines" as well as their militia, and the Continental agents had continually to enlist state assistance in their own efforts. Lines of authority crisscrossed at every turn.
Originally posted by Krangthebrain Actually I heard the opposite from a professor of mine, and I trust what he says more than what you "heard" 5-10 years ago. Especially considering the fact that he is a published author who writes about crime and the media's portrayal of crime.
Published means what? Any schmoe can get published now-a-days.
Well, considering that this report that I heard was all over the radio stations and newspapers and from what I have heard about your other profs I believe what the radio reported.
One of the Scandinavian countries, Finland or Sweden I believe -- it is law that each household has to have an automatic weapon. That country (I think it was Finland) also has the lowest home invasion crimes and one of the lowest murder rates in the world.
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 second amendment is not out of date and does not need to be changed. What needs to be changed is the definition of what fire arms are acceptable for the public to own.
Originally posted by Strong Bad Published means what? Any schmoe can get published now-a-days.
Well, considering that this report that I heard was all over the radio stations and newspapers and from what I have heard about your other profs I believe what the radio reported.
That is totally ridiculous. Published by a fricking University Press, Strongbad. But I forgot what Strongbad heard in the media, and in news papers is right. If I were to try and write a research paper from newspapers and radio, I would fail every paper I write. Not considered good sources by the academic world (something that you should look into more).
One of the Scandinavian countries, Finland or Sweden I believe -- it is law that each household has to have an automatic weapon. That country (I think it was Finland) also has the lowest home invasion crimes and one of the lowest murder rates in the world.
It's the Swiss, not the Scandinavians. The people are the army, a milita basically. But it doesn't prove jack really because all of Europe has extremely low murder rates.
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 second amendment is not out of date and does not need to be changed. What needs to be changed is the definition of what fire arms are acceptable for the public to own.
Now I can agree with this. It doesn't need to be changed, but private citizens have no good reasons to own AK-47s and other high powered weapons.
__________________
26-year-old Saermengsi last season rated average 25.1 minutes, with 7.5 hours, 2.7 times and 2.7 backboard secondary attack, he Yifusen general as the replacement came in March Yifusen injuries ever period of time, three matches in a row, his secondary attack will reach 10. By Sun team, he could strengthen outer lane line, but also as the replacement fullback scored his general customary activities in the stadium two wings. On the season Saermengsi-ball hit rate reached 30%. He was in flames and Jones made a three-year teammate, Jones said that the organizers he pitches, but he can also shooting. His shooting is deceptive.
Originally posted by Strong Bad The second amendment is not out of date and does not need to be changed. What needs to be changed is the definition of what fire arms are acceptable for the public to own.
If you have to change what fireARMS are acceptable, then isn't the Amendment outdated? If it isn't outdated, then NO adjustments need to be made to it.
Dback Jon. I would like to see all assault weapons banned (except for military and police). There is not one plausible reason why ordinary citizens should own one. I don't buy the argument for one minute about them being used for hunting because they are built for hunting humans...period end of story. That argument is so weak IMO that it is laughable.
Handguns are a slightly different issue even though those to are essentially built to kill people and to not hunt with...although I know people claim they use their handguns to hunt. I think for the short term I would not press the handgun issue with banning but rather with forced education for all new purchases. Also, mandatory registration and tracking (not sure how that would work) of all handguns accessible by all branches of law enforcement.
__________________
Dream like you'll live forever, live like you will die today. -James Dean
Published on Wednesday, July 9, 2003 by the Associated Press
Going Backwards
Global Arms Survey Finds U.S. Most-Armed Nation
by Edith Lederer
UNITED NATIONS - The United States has by far the largest number of publicly owned firearms in the world and is approaching the point where there is one gun for every American, according to the Small Arms Survey 2003 released Tuesday.
By any measure the United States is the most armed country in the world. With roughly 83 to 96 guns per 100 people, the United States is approaching a statistical level of one gun per person.
But in surprise findings, the survey found that Europeans are more heavily armed than commonly believed while there are far fewer small arms in Afghanistan and sub-Saharan Africa than previously estimated.
According to the independent survey, the crackdown on terrorism after Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States "had little effect on the size of the global stockpile of 639 million known small arms."
The survey said its estimate of the global value of small arms production remains unchanged at about $7.4 billion - with the United States and Russia accounting for more than 70 percent of production. The estimate of the legal small arms trade - $4 billion a year - also remains the same, with the European Union dominating the international export market.
America is now estimated to have between 238 million and 276 million firearms, compared with some 250 million legally owned guns, or 84 for every 100 people, recorded in a July 2001 survey.
The country with the second-highest gun ownership is Yemen, with between 33 and 50 firearms per 100 people, followed by Finland with 39 per 100, the new survey said.
"Contrary to the common assumption that Europeans are virtually unarmed, the 15 countries of the European Union have an estimated 84 million firearms. Of that, 67 million (80 percent) are in civilian hands," the survey said. With a total population of 375 million people, this amounts to 17.4 guns for every 100 people.
The survey of global small arms was released on the second day of a weeklong U.N. meeting reviewing progress toward implementing a U.N. program adopted two years ago to combat small arms trafficking. More than 30 researchers contributed to the project, which is coordinated at the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva and financed by a dozen Western governments.
Peter Batchelor, the survey's project director, said at a news conference that there are still "disappointingly low levels of transparency" about the global arms trade, with only about 20 countries providing annual export reports. Sixty countries are known to be engaged in the legal trade.
"Based on our research, it's clear that the value and the volume of the legal international trade has appeared to decline since the 1990s. This has been led by a dramatic fall in the trade of military weapons, and also certain categories of civilian firearms," he said.
Batchelor said the illicit trade is believed to be worth about $1 billion, or 20 percent of the legal trade.
While small-scale smuggling across borders continues, "the large-scale deals that seemed to be very prominent in the last decade seem to have declined somewhat," he said.
New research is leading to an increasingly balanced, though still incomplete, picture of the distribution of small arms and light weapons, the survey said.
"By any measure the United States is the most armed country in the world," it said. "With roughly 83 to 96 guns per 100 people, the United States is approaching a statistical level of one gun per person."
Although it is has been widely reported that Afghanistan has at least 10 million small arms, the survey said, "careful analysis places the total between 500,000 and 1.5 million weapons."
It also said there probably are no more than 30 million firearms among civilians, insurgents and governments of the 44 countries of sub-Saharan Africa.
"This is enough guns to perpetuate fighting in many countries and raise the danger of criminal violence in many others, but it is not enough to render the situation totally beyond hope," the survey said.
Originally posted by AZCB34 If you have to change what fireARMS are acceptable, then isn't the Amendment outdated? If it isn't outdated, then NO adjustments need to be made to it.
Dback Jon. I would like to see all assault weapons banned (except for military and police). There is not one plausible reason why ordinary citizens should own one. I don't buy the argument for one minute about them being used for hunting because they are built for hunting humans...period end of story. That argument is so weak IMO that it is laughable.
Handguns are a slightly different issue even though those to are essentially built to kill people and to not hunt with...although I know people claim they use their handguns to hunt. I think for the short term I would not press the handgun issue with banning but rather with forced education for all new purchases. Also, mandatory registration and tracking (not sure how that would work) of all handguns accessible by all branches of law enforcement.
I agree 100%
__________________
26-year-old Saermengsi last season rated average 25.1 minutes, with 7.5 hours, 2.7 times and 2.7 backboard secondary attack, he Yifusen general as the replacement came in March Yifusen injuries ever period of time, three matches in a row, his secondary attack will reach 10. By Sun team, he could strengthen outer lane line, but also as the replacement fullback scored his general customary activities in the stadium two wings. On the season Saermengsi-ball hit rate reached 30%. He was in flames and Jones made a three-year teammate, Jones said that the organizers he pitches, but he can also shooting. His shooting is deceptive.
Originally posted by AZCB34 If you have to change what fireARMS are acceptable, then isn't the Amendment outdated? If it isn't outdated, then NO adjustments need to be made to it.
I don't believe so. The 2nd amendment says ... being necessary to the security of a free state ... how much fire power does one need to maintain security of a free a state in our country in modern times. I actually think that there should be a law stating that each law-abiding household should own a gun. I bet we see home invasions drop dramatically.
Originally posted by Strong Bad I don't believe so. The 2nd amendment says ... being necessary to the security of a free state ... how much fire power does one need to maintain security of a free a state in our country in modern times. I actually think that there should be a law stating that each law-abiding household should own a gun. I bet we see home invasions drop dramatically.
So you advocate a machine gun in every house? We do not live in a police state - we are relatively safe. Are you going to train everyone? How big of a problem are home invasions? And how many would be solved by having guns in every house? How many more accidental deaths would that cause?
You actually want to FORCE someone to have a gun? Made in America, of course, by a big business. Don't forget to require each household to buy ammo.
Space Invaders Champion!
That is totally ridiculous. Published by a fricking University Press, Strongbad. But I forgot what Strongbad heard in the media, and in news papers is right. If I were to try and write a research paper from newspapers and radio, I would fail every paper I write. Not considered good sources by the academic world (something that you should look into more).
I agree 100%
Linear Mode
