You’d think something as important as that would have merited something more than a single, poorly worded, poorly punctuated sentence, wouldn’t you?
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” would have stood perfectly well by itself without any blether as to why this was important. “The people shall have the right to form well-regulated militias and, upon membership of the same and subject to their remaining members in good standing, shall have the right to keep and bear arms suitable to the exercise of their militia duties” would do fine as well. But instead… :smack:
Considering the bad guy was already in the house turning the door to the closet the child was hiding in, I’d say in this situation conflict was inevitable. So you disagree that without a functional firearm, this 12 year old girl would likely have been kidnapped or worse. In prior posts, you mention her ability to defend herself with a bat.
I disagree that an average 12 year old child could successfully defend themselves against an average 32 year old man (mugshot) with a bat. I wouldn’t want to defend myself against a 32 year old man in my home with a bat. I think it’s fairly unreasonable to expect that effective self defense can be had with a bat, but that does seem to be the actual disagreement.
It’s not an argument relying on 12 year olds to defend their homes, but it is one that a gun needs to be reliable, and able to be fired by different users.
" Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."
George Mason argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding his compatriots of England’s efforts “to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them . . . by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.” He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. “Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein.
Before 1863, slavery was legal and common. After the Emancipation Proclamation, the 13th Amendment and our bloodiest war, not so much. Laws change, interpretations change. Some judges make some bad calls that infringe on the Rights of the People and crap on the Constitution … that too can change. We’ll see which way the political winds blow. Whatever the courts decide, they are deciding law, not right from wrong.
" … the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 asserted that, “the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state.”
I don’t see where you are getting that from. What I have been hearing is that guns can be a huge force multplier when you would otherwise be helpless. An unarmed 12 year old girl can’t defend herlself against an adult male. A single unarmed man can’t defend himself against 4 or 5 guys. But you give either of them a gun and the playing field gets a lot more level.
If only there was a way to make sure the guys in the black hats don’t get the same weapons as the guys in the white hats. How do you fix it so that the one guy gets the firearm and the other four or five guys don’t?
You know that a thread has jumped the shark when someone is seriously arguing that a bad part about smart guns is that it prevents a 12 year old from using it.
Hey, I am completely fine with the argument that as a matter of statistics the number of kids killed by accidental discharge very small. And that the numbers of deaths prevented by defensive gun use is also very small. But the number of deaths prevented by defensive gun use by a 12 year old having open access to loaded and ready weapon … that is smaller than small and really a completely idiotic argument to make.
You wouldn’t buy a smart gun …fine. The NJ law, if it stood court challenges, would restrict your ability to buy something other than a smart gun in NJ. I understand disleasure with that law. Some people want to buy smart guns and you want to restrict their right to do so (at least one of you pretty much by whatever means neccessary) because it would force you to go after a bad law. That’s the part that boggles my mind.
Are you implying that smart guns would achieve this somehow? You’re trying to make some point but I bet if you think it through, your point doesn’t make any sense.
Yes, to be clear I do disagree. Also I’d like to modify your characterization. The girl called her Mom as the break-in was taking place and was instructed to get the gun. So you can’t start the clock at the moment that the closet door knob was being turned. If there was no firearm in the house, the girl would have done something else.
Judging from another picture, the perp was an above average (fat) 32 year old, who lost some weight by the time he was in court months later. That fact goes in your direction: I just thought I’d add it. Another fact in your favor is that the incident was resolved favorably without anybody’s death or loss of limb.
I certainly would be willing to defend myself against an unarmed attacker with a stick or broom and cell phone in my hand along with active vocal cords, but then I have some training with those methods (I practice in a dojo for fitness reasons). I’ve seen some pretty credible attacks made by small women with about 6 hours of training. All of this is irrelevant though as the 12 year old was untrained presumably. And of course the perp might have a knife or a gun, though apparently not in this case.
Back to the incident. Options an unarmed 12 year old would have include calling 911 and shouting that the cops are on their way. Seriously. That first line of defense can work. I don’t know what type of 12 year old we’re dealing with. My nieces have karate training and if instructed that they are by no means to let someone take them from point A to point B I think they could have put up resistance when they were 12.
The guy had a history of abduction, but there were no reports of on site sexual assault. We can’t rule that out though. That’s a possibility. There’s a typology of sexual assaulters and apparently some look for easy victims and can be effectively resisted. If so, good. I don’t know what that guys psych profile was, other than he claimed he was doing drugs at the time. We don’t even know if he was attempting a robbery.
At any rate, you made a claim about a likelihood that I disagree with.
I’ve poked around for statistics that match resistance technique to outcome in the case of assault: I’ve come up empty. But I haven’t put enough effort into that project. It’s the sort of question a responsible anti-crime organization would do if it cared about its membership’s safety. Serious research, as opposed to fear laden speculation. Yeah, I’m bringing it back to the NRA. I do that purposely. I thought attempts at closing the gun show loophole a year back were a waste of time, given that organization’s political power. Heck a bunch of states have loosened restrictions since then: in Georgia for example you can bring your gun into an additional number of public spaces. I advocate a private sector solution. Specifically gun owners should stop supporting batshit organizations and start advocating scientific research, something the NRA is on record of opposing.
He certainly doesn’t do anything to widen the NRA’s appeal. Their last pow-wow had guest speakers Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum who predictably veared off the topic of firearms. LaPierre himself complained about Obamacare on stage.
Fun fact: we don’t have Obamacare. Obamacare had a public option which Lieberman removed. What we have is Romneycare. And LaPierre, like other conservative commentators, never had a problem with that. No panic about socialism and the like. This conceptualization of the world is unhinged and delusional. And it isn’t the sort of thing you say when you want a broad-based organization.
No, Pierre isn’t interested in widening the base: he prefers a jizzed up and irrational group of check cutters. And why not? The money is pretty green. LaPierre grants himself a salary that is over three times the standard NGO CEO paycheck. (LaPierre gives himself $975,000; the head of Doctor’s Without Borders USA earns $154 thousand. The leader of the Brady Bunch earns $290 thousand. The NRA is an NGO outlier).
They are dependent clauses and the right of the people to bear arms is fully met by the National Guards of the States.
They are if-then clauses and if the first is disproved empirically, the 2nd is expressly not applicable. That’s the clearest reading.
You could also be a judicial activist and read into it a right to self defense. That’s what Heller did: I accept that it is the rule of the land.
Seriously though, I don’t know what the hell they were getting at. I’ll note that the UK’s Bill of Rights of 1689 specifically said, “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;”
That made some sense: you can’t arm one group of citizens while disarming another: citizens have an equal right to bear arms, at least insofar as irrelevant criteria such as religion is concerned. If you’re a wacko though, we get to take your bangstick away. And if one group of responsible adults is limited to popguns, so is the other.
