Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Polite Society (gun owners)
The Omegaletter ^ | Oct. 19, 2005 | Jack Kinsella

Posted on 10/19/2005 12:59:27 PM PDT by txgirl4Bush

1950's-era science fiction writer Robert F. Heinlein observed, in one of his science fiction novels in which he depicted future society as a kind of Wild West in which all citizens were armed and duels were commonplace; "An armed society is a polite society."

In the American West in the 1880's, a man could find himself in a fight to the death over a perceived insult. Shooting a card cheat caught in the act was justifiable homicide in practice, whether or not it was codified in law.

Disrespecting decent women was an offense that could put one on Boot Hill pushing up daisies before sundown. And one thought twice about using a gun to commit a robbery, since the odds were better that even that every other person in the room was armed, as well.

That is not to say I am an advocate of returning to the era of vigilante justice as handed down from the barrel of a .44 Colt. That said, it doesn't change the basic truth behind Heinlein's contention: An armed society IS a polite society. Moreover, an armed society is a safer society.

Consider, for a moment, the terror inspired by the Beltway sniper case. People living in the area surrounding the Washington DC area were terrified by the prospect of being gunned down at random in the streets by a crazed gunman. (Or gunmen, as it turned out)

Had John Muhammed and Lee Malvo had to worry about whether or not every person they saw might be armed with a weapon, the killing spree might never have begun. Throughout America's cities, gang violence runs rampant. Gangs control entire neighborhoods in some cities, terrorizing and victimizing with relative impunity.

Some Los Angles gangs require prospective members to commit a murder as a form of initiation. To fulfill their initiation, they just walk up to a stranger in the street at random, pull out a gun, and shoot him in public in front of witnesses.

Gangsters call that 'making their bones.' Such murders are seldom solved, since random shootings leave little for police to follow up on, greatly diminishing the chance of getting caught. Remove the risk of getting shot by some bystander, and it is practically risk-free.

If the possibility existed that armed passers-by might pull out their own guns and shoot them in return, the practice would suddenly become a whole lot riskier. And a whole lot less common.

I recall a movie I saw once in which a couple of crooks decided to stick up a neighborhood bar. They walked in, took up positions on either end of the bar, and announced it was a stickup. What they didn't know was this was a bar frequented by off-duty police.

Every cop in the bar simultaneously pulled his weapon and pointed it at the bad guys. The robbers, outnumbered thirty guns to two, surrendered meekly in what was a visually hilarious scene.

One of the many terrorist manuals confiscated in Afghanistan included a plan in which various terrorist cells would send its members out knocking on doors in American neighborhoods and then shooting whoever answered the door. When revealed by authorities, the plan sent chills up and down spines across America, as it was intended to do.

But if behind every door was an American armed with a gun, the terrorists' plan would have been noteworthy only because of its stupidity.

The Swiss have the most liberal gun laws in Europe. Every Swiss citizen is required to both own, and be proficient with, his own gun. That is the secret to the famous Swiss neutrality that has kept it free from invasion for centuries. Even Adolf Hitler respected Swiss neutrality. Switzerland, with its armed population of gun enthusiasts, would be too costly to take by force.

A relative handful of well-armed and motivated citizens can hold even the most powerful military forces at bay. Just look at what a handful of armed insurgents -- out of fifty million Iraqis -- have been able to accomplish against the most powerful military forces the world has ever seen.

Pretty much every American concerned with homeland security recognizes the threat posed by our porous border with Mexico. For years, the federal government argued that federal agencies were doing the best that they could.

Until armed members of the "Minutemen' took up positions along the border and illegal immigration was immediately choked off.

Assessment:

The 2nd Amendment says, "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 Supreme Court decided in a landmark case styled "The United States v. Miller" that the 2nd Amendment did not apply to ordinary citizens, but instead conferred a special privilege on the National Guard.

This interpretation was one of those that make you go, "Hmmm." In this view, the 2nd Amendment confers the right to bear arms to the government. It would, therefore, be the only amendment specifically granting a special right TO the government among a series of amendments designed to LIMIT the rights of government and to enumerate the rights of the people.

It is simply ludicrous that the Founding Fathers would convey the right to bear arms to itself. They already conferred the responsibility to provide for the common defense to the Congress.

Did the Founding Fathers feel the need to tell the Congress, (via the people's "Bill of Rights" no less), that the Congress could use GUNS to defend against foreign enemies? What did they think Congress was going to use, absent the 2nd Amendment? Spitballs?

The Supreme Court's interpretation grows even more bizarre when viewed in light of USC Title 10, Chapter 13, Section 311 (a);

"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are commissioned officers of the National Guard."

And, "(b) The classes of the militia are- (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

Note that Title 10 doesn't identify those who are qualified to join a militia, or even those who have, but identifies all able bodied Americans between 17 and 45 as already being members of 'the militia' by default.

Ummm, run that Supreme Court decision by me again? The 2nd Amendment gives the right to bear arms to the militia, but not to ordinary citizens?

Despite propaganda to the contrary, guns are used in America more than twice as often for defensive purposes as they are for offensive purposes. Bad guys choose their victims based on the likelihood they might be armed.

When I was a police officer, our department issued a cruiser to each officer to take home, and to use off duty within the city limits. The idea was to convey the image of a much larger police presence on the street than there actually was. In addition, an off duty officer in his cruiser was automatically available for backup as needed.

It also accomplished something else. In ten years, I never had to lock the doors to my house when I went out, as long as that cruiser was parked in my driveway. The homes of police officers are rarely deliberately chosen by burglars as preferred targets.

Especially if there looks like there might be someone home.

Noted John Stossel in a recent column, "As Alex Kozinski, a federal appeals judge and an immigrant from Eastern Europe, warned in 2003, "the simple truth -- born of experience -- is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people."

"The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do," Judge Kozinski noted. "But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; gunowners; guns

1 posted on 10/19/2005 12:59:29 PM PDT by txgirl4Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: txgirl4Bush
The Supreme Court decided in a landmark case styled "The United States v. Miller" that the 2nd Amendment did not apply to ordinary citizens, but instead conferred a special privilege on the National Guard.

It's a great article, but I have a feeling many FReepers (myself included) will disagree with his characterization of Miller.
2 posted on 10/19/2005 1:05:34 PM PDT by andyk (Go Matt Kenseth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txgirl4Bush

such a book wouldn't last a semester in a public school library in the Wild West these days.


3 posted on 10/19/2005 1:05:47 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (denial is the opiate of the masses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txgirl4Bush
"1950's-era science fiction writer Robert F. Heinlein observed, in one of his science fiction novels...."

Beyond This Horizon (1942), one of RAH's first novels.

4 posted on 10/19/2005 1:09:18 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txgirl4Bush

Nice analysis and comments. I still remember reading that Heinlein book...


5 posted on 10/19/2005 1:10:12 PM PDT by Bhrian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txgirl4Bush
all citizens were armed and duels were commonplace;

if only......

Mr. Miller , I'm with ya !
6 posted on 10/19/2005 1:11:16 PM PDT by injin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andyk

The Supreme Court decided in a landmark case styled "The United States v. Miller" that the 2nd Amendment did not apply to ordinary citizens, but instead conferred a special privilege on the National Guard.
It's a great article, but I have a feeling many FReepers (myself included) will disagree with his characterization of Miller.

i though us v miller was over whether or not NFA '34 was constitutional, and defined what type of weapons were deemed appropriate for militia. and that the case itself only dealt with one specific weapon in the act and whether or not it had been used by the armed forces in combat. and still got it wrong.


7 posted on 10/19/2005 1:18:02 PM PDT by absolootezer0 ("My God, why have you forsaken us.. no wait, its the liberals that have forsaken you... my bad")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: txgirl4Bush

9 posted on 10/19/2005 1:21:06 PM PDT by UnklGene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txgirl4Bush

Instead of dueling pistols, today we use lawyers! :-)

Here's a thought from Jeff Snyder that surely gives one pause to think:

TO BAN GUNS...
...because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding. (Jeff Snyder)


10 posted on 10/19/2005 1:21:44 PM PDT by DHC-2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andyk
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
Trying to remember......
This is an old argument put to rest by another SCOTUS ruling somewhere in the early 1900's. It seems that nowhere is the congress authorized to send the militia overseas, and in fact are very limited in what they can even call them up for. It ruled (could have been an opinion of the court) that the Guard is routinely sent overseas and therefore could not be the militia. It defined the militia as able bodied males withing a certain age range.
------ anybody remember anything about this? ------

GE
11 posted on 10/19/2005 1:22:55 PM PDT by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: txgirl4Bush

Actually, I have met some obnoxious, loud-mouthed, louts at the gunrange. They seem to be self-acknowledged experts on everything.


12 posted on 10/19/2005 1:26:44 PM PDT by jim_trent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txgirl4Bush; Javelina
The Swiss have the most liberal gun laws in Europe. Every Swiss citizen is required to both own, and be proficient with, his own gun. That is the secret to the famous Swiss neutrality that has kept it free from invasion for centuries. Even Adolf Hitler respected Swiss neutrality. Switzerland, with its armed population of gun enthusiasts, would be too costly to take by force. I never knew that! That is the most awesome thing I've ever heard!

Swiss Gun Laws- and some rebuttal to HCI "spin"-- Thread II

13 posted on 10/19/2005 1:27:57 PM PDT by backhoe (-30-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andyk
Miller, when read without any bias, doesn't say much at all about the 2nd Amendment. At issue was the status of a sawed-off shotgun. Could it be outlawed by the National Firearms Act of 1934 or was it protected by the Constitution? Miller and his partner were either on the run or dead when the case reached the Supreme court, thus no one represented their side before the Court. Since no evidence was presented to show this weapon's utility to the Militia, the Court could not rule one way or the other on the question of the Militia's use of such a weapon. The Militia in question is clearly the whole population with their own arms; not the National Guard. And had evidence been presented to show the sawed-off shotgun was a suitable weapon for Militia use, the NFA's restrictions against such guns may have been struck down.

This article is interesting, but the author needs to go back to the drawing board and get his facts straight.

14 posted on 10/19/2005 1:29:44 PM PDT by Redcloak (We'll raise up our glasses against evil forces singin' "whiskey for my men and beer for my horses!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Javelina

Yep, had the Third Reich invaded Switzerland it would've been doubtful even one German occupier would've escaped the fate of being on the wrong end of a sniper's bullet.


15 posted on 10/19/2005 1:30:28 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: andyk
The Supreme Court decided in a landmark case styled "The United States v. Miller" that the 2nd Amendment did not apply to ordinary citizens, but instead conferred a special privilege on the National Guard.

--this is completely untrue.

Miller found that weapons used by the "militia" were protected and wrongly concluded that short-barrelled shotguns had not been used by said "militia" and therefore weren't protected---

16 posted on 10/19/2005 1:33:53 PM PDT by rellimpank (urbanites don' t understand the cultural deprivation of not being raised on a farm:NRABenefactor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: andyk
It's a great article, but I have a feeling many FReepers (myself included) will disagree with his characterization of Miller.

Not just that. The "Old West" picture he paints has a whole lot more to do with Hollywood than it does with Deadwood. ;)

In spite of the Western dime novels that spawned the misconception, the west was a relatively quiet place to live outside of the Indian Wars and a few specific characters.

17 posted on 10/19/2005 1:34:29 PM PDT by kAcknor (Don't flatter yourself.... It is a gun in my pocket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Javelina
National Geographic Magazine highlighted the country of Switzerland in either the late 1970s or sometime in the 1980s. It talked about how all citizens are required to go through training and be armed and ready for war right from within their homes. There was at least one picture about it.

I misplaced that darn magazine and haven't been able to locate it since.

18 posted on 10/19/2005 1:43:40 PM PDT by Ladysmith ((NRA and SAS) 2005 WI PPA/CCW Ping List ~Contact me if you want on/off the ping list~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: txgirl4Bush

Actually, if I recall the Heinlein book correctly, everyone wore guns, but it was almost a ceremonial thing. Many had worn guns for most of their long lives but never had occasion to use them.

The point was, they were there, and, as one dude remarked to me about my 100 pound black dog, "That dawg would make you think twice." The guns made people think twice.

It was Heinlein's point that being armed made for a more peaceful society.


19 posted on 10/19/2005 2:13:17 PM PDT by altura (T.G.I.B.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jim_trent

Personally, I am on my best behavior at the gun range.


20 posted on 10/19/2005 2:13:57 PM PDT by altura (T.G.I.B.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: txgirl4Bush
That is not to say I am an advocate of returning to the era of vigilante justice as handed down from the barrel of a .44 Colt

A .44 Colt? I guess there were some in .44 S&W, but wasn't the .45 Colt much, much more common. These days it would be hard to say which caliber it would be, but I would still go with a Colt caliber, .45 Automatic Colt Pistol (ACP). Ballistics are similar to the old .45 Colt, now called the "Long Colt". It got 'er done then, it can git 'er done now.

21 posted on 10/19/2005 2:55:05 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jim_trent
Actually, I have met some obnoxious, loud-mouthed, louts at the gunrange. They seem to be self-acknowledged experts on everything. so have I and everywhere else the grass grows green. Whats your point? The polite part comes when the some stupid jackass has to think twice before breaking into a house or carjacking you if they are not sure you are armed or not. The whole armed society thing only works in a true 'libertarian' society where if you insult the virtue of my bride...and I shoot you down like the dog you have proved yourself to be. Then everyone just shakes there head and says "he had it coming" and thats it. If I am armed today and do the same thing...I go to jail and all my possessions are summarily removed by some sleaze bag lawyer. So just being armed is not enough, its a whole mindset(whose time has come).
22 posted on 10/19/2005 2:59:51 PM PDT by Vaquero ("An armed society is a polite society" R. A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GrandEagle
It ruled (could have been an opinion of the court) that the Guard is routinely sent overseas and therefore could not be the militia

The Guard is only the militia, or part of it that is, when serving in their state role. Once they are federalized, they are part of the Army or Air Force. We say they are "dual hatted". In point of fact, all Guardsmen are members of the reserve of the appropriate federal service, as well as members of the National Guard of their state.

When I became an Air National Guardsman, I did not need to get a new ID card, as the ID card was the same as I carried as an Air Force Reservists. I did need to take a new commissioning oath, to the state as well as to the federal Constitution.

23 posted on 10/19/2005 3:01:22 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Javelina
Every Swiss citizen is required to both own, and be proficient with, his own gun.

Actually they are not required to own them, they are issued with them. (Men only BTW). They are required to maintain the issued sealed tin of ammunition at the ready as well. Subsidized or Ammunition is available though, and they are required to show some degree of proficiency periodically. All this is because they are in what amounts to the Army, or more correctly the militia. They have to "drill" periodically. When they complete their required militia service, and it's decades long, they are allowed to buy the weapon for a nominal amount.

Shooting contests are still quite popular however, and it's nothing to see a group of youngsters, of both sexes, with rifles over their shoulders on public transportation. (not so) Strangely they haven't had much problem with the Jihadies, even though they have a substantial Muslim "guest worker" population. :)

At one time, but AFAIK no longer, you had to show up with your rifle, or you couldn't vote! Our original militia system was modeled on theirs.

24 posted on 10/19/2005 3:16:42 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
Thanks, I never went into the active reserves.
My suspicion is that they are part of the militia only to the extent that they are males between certain ages. I'll have to look up my information on this. I've got it somewhere - buried where I wouldn't loose it - you know how that goes. I've probably not lost it, but I'll never be able to find it! :)

Cordially,
GE
25 posted on 10/19/2005 3:19:45 PM PDT by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak
And had evidence been presented to show the sawed-off shotgun was a suitable weapon for Militia use, the NFA's restrictions against such guns may have been struck down.

It's really too bad that Miller and his Partner weren't big time gangsters, even at the level of Bonnie and Clyde. If they were ,they'd have had Thompsons or BARs, or both. Even the Supreme Court would likely have ruled that it was permissible to "take judicial notice" that those were suitable for military/militia use.

26 posted on 10/19/2005 3:20:32 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero
So just being armed is not enough, its a whole mindset(whose time has come).

AMEN!
I had to chuckle at my brothers wedding some years ago. I was his best man. All 6 of the grooms men and I were standing around the punch bowl socializing at the reception when the subject turned to firearms. As it turned out all seven of us were armed. Two had ankle holsters, the rest of us shoulder holsters. The ushers were also armed. No one had discussed it, nor was it planned. It is just the "mindset" of the group. I felt very safe.
In the group that I "hang out" (so to speak) with, rarely will you find someone unarmed unless we are at work. I travel in and out of manufacturing plants - most of which forbid firearms. There is one in my truck though.
Kinda like underwear - We don't leave home without it!

Cordially,
GE
27 posted on 10/19/2005 3:29:13 PM PDT by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

There was already evidence, though none presented in court, that a sawed-off shotgun has military application. "Trench guns" were used during WWI and, AFAIK, were in the Army's arsenal at the time.


28 posted on 10/19/2005 4:12:12 PM PDT by Redcloak (We'll raise up our glasses against evil forces singin' "whiskey for my men and beer for my horses!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GrandEagle
My suspicion is that they are part of the militia only to the extent that they are males between certain ages

Active reservists are part of the militia, except when in a duty status, on either inactive or active duty. The same is true of inactive reservists, but they never are in a duty status, unless they are recalled, in which case they are no longer in inactive status. The terminology is a bit confusing, with "active/inactive" duty easily confused with active or inactive status. Active status means participating some amount per year. Inactive status means you are on a list for call up. In my case I'm on the Retired Reserve list of the Air Force (it says so right here on this nice framed certificate I have beside me), but without sufficient career points to be eligible for retired pay, now or when I turn 65. Active duty means well on active duty, full time, drawing pay and benefits proportional to the time served on active duty. Active Duty can be for training (as in two week annual training) or can be for other reasons, such a call up, or so called "man days", to either aid the active force, or for strictly reserve force administration or other none training matters. Inactive duty is the classic "weekend" duty, although in reality it need not be on the weekend. Drills are 4 hours long, for which the member is paid a full day's pay, but does not get any benefits, such as BAQ, or BAS. You get one point for each drill, paid or unpaid, plus one for each day of active duty. Plus you get 15 points per year for participation. Points can also be earned by taking correspondence courses. I took Squadron Officers School and an Intelligence Officer's course that way.

29 posted on 10/19/2005 4:14:26 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: txgirl4Bush

"A relative handful of well-armed and motivated citizens can hold even the most powerful military forces at bay."

Shoot, sometimes you don't even need a 'handful" Sometimes one skinny kid will do:


CASAMENTO, ANTHONY

Rank and organization: Corporal, Company D, First Battalion, Fifth Marines, First Marine Division.

Place and date: Guadalcanal, Solomon Islands.

Entered service at: Brooklyn, New York. Date and place of

Birth: 16 November 1920, Brooklyn, New York. For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while serving with Company D, 1st Battalion, 5th Marines, 1st Marine Division on Guadalcanal, British Solomon Islands, in action against the enemy Japanese forces on 1 November 1942. Serving as a leader of a machine gun section, Corporal Casamento directed his unit to advance along a ridge near the Matanikau River where they engaged the enemy. He positioned his section to provide covering fire for two flanking units and to provide direct support for the main force of his company which was behind him. During the course of this engagement, all members of his section were either killed or severely wounded and he himself suffered multiple, grievous wounds. Nonetheless, Corporal Casamento continued to provide critical supporting fire for the attack and in defense of his position. Following the loss of all effective personnel, he set up, loaded, and manned his unit's machine gun. tenaciously holding the enemy forces at bay. Corporal Casamento single-handedly engaged and destroyed one machine gun emplacement to his front and took under fire the other emplacement on the flank. Despite the heat and ferocity of the engagement, he continued to man his weapon and repeatedly repulsed multiple assaults by the enemy forces, thereby protecting the flanks of the adjoining companies and holding his position until the arrival of his main attacking force. Corporal Casamento's courageous fighting spirit, heroic conduct, and unwavering dedication to duty reflected great credit upon himself and were in keeping with the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service.

RIP Mr. Casamento


30 posted on 10/19/2005 4:18:25 PM PDT by TalBlack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak
There was already evidence, though none presented in court, that a sawed-off shotgun has military application.

Of course there was, but the Supreme Court ruled that the lower court should not have taken judicial notice of that evidence without it being presented in Court. The case had been thrown out before the trial, based on the Unconstitutionality of the law. The Supreme Court overruled that and returned the case to the lower court for further proceedings. However by then Miller was dead, found in a creek with his 1911, with some rounds fired. His partner had plea bargained for a lessor charge, and thus no further proceedings were held. If they had been, such evidence could have been presented in, or in support of, a new motion to throw out the indictment.

IOW, Miller is a darn thin reed upon which the massive edifice of modern gun control us built, at the federal level at least.

31 posted on 10/19/2005 4:20:46 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
This past weekend the History Channel had a program on about Hitler's henchmen and they discussed this planned invasion. Hitler was pushing hard for an invasion of Switzerland and plans were drawn up for the assault, but all of Hitler's top generals were against the plan. They knew what would happen if they tried to invade the Swiss Alps. Keitel, who was the ultimate yes-man, was even against this plan and managed to dissuade Hitler from ordering the invasion.
32 posted on 10/19/2005 4:26:45 PM PDT by Stonewall Jackson ("Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: txgirl4Bush
From the article: "Had John Muhammed and Lee Malvo had to worry about whether or not every person they saw might be armed with a weapon, the killing spree might never have begun. "

Well ... let's not get too carried away.

The sniping of random people from a concealed position in the trunk of an automobile is going to be nearly the perfect crime whenever it occurs.

Malvo, if I recall correctly, had allowed some ballistic evidence to be found at a crime scene unrelated to the sniping that made him a suspect.

If those two killers had confined their activities to just sniping randomly and had chosen a wider geographic area, and finally had allowed a cooling off period between every three or four snipings, we might still be looking for them.

Many serial killers have longer strings of murders and lasted so long because they had no connection to their victims. For that same reason, the victims had no reason to fear attack and no opportunity to answer it.

The reason such crimes don't occur very frequently is because it is extremely irrational.

33 posted on 10/19/2005 11:51:43 PM PDT by William Tell (Put the RKBA on the California Constitution - Volunteer through rkba.members.sonic.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GrandEagle
funny you mentioned lawyers....my wedding 25 years ago in a couple of weeks. was held in Queens NY with the reception in Brooklyn.

I noticed my cousins husband, a city cop had an ankle holster on.

A few days later I brought it up in conversation with my father in law. a self professed trade unionist and serial democrat. He was furious and told me he would have booted him out if he knew. I quietly reminded him that in the crappy neighborhoods that he had scheduled our wedding in we should have been thankful that a trained armed person was there to provide some defense if needed, this socialist mecca of NY City does not allow ordinary citizens to carry. But of course this went on deaf ears.
34 posted on 10/20/2005 3:09:48 AM PDT by Vaquero ("An armed society is a polite society" R. A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero
funny you mentioned lawyers LOL!

I just noticed you are from New York. A couple of years ago I had a project in Waterford, NY - just outside of Albany. That was the only trip where I didn't carry my weapon with me. I felt a bit like I had forgotten my socks. Although the people were great, I felt uneasy the whole trip.
Down here anyone without a criminal record can carry (you still have to have your permission slip (CC permit)) from the Sheriff, but he wouldn't stay in office long if he restricted concealed carry. I don't have "official" figures but I would guess that 10%-15% of the folks you run into are carrying. In my peer group it is probably 50%. If you carry without your permission slip, and you are not committing a crime with the weapon, it is a misdemeanor much like a traffic ticket. If you decide to fight it you will win because the grand jury will never indict you.
However, if you use a firearm to commit a crime, and the "victim" doesn't get you first, you are in very big legal trouble.

Anyway, my stay in Waterford was great! I really enjoyed it. The folks at the plant were most hospitable and the weather was great! I missed an opportunity for a tour of the state capitol building (another FReeper works there) due to work. I got to see Fort Ticonderoga. I'm looking forward to another project up there.

Cordially,
GE
35 posted on 10/20/2005 5:27:50 AM PDT by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

Sounds like you may be one of them. Some people's REAL hobby is arguing. Whether or not it is about guns, Fords v Chevy, the weather or something else is secondary.

The Internet is perfect for that, isn't it. In fact, it is proof that Heinlein was right. The opposite of an armed society is the Internet. Anything can be said without worry of physical retaliation. So more arguments are started here than in any medium I can think of.


36 posted on 10/20/2005 5:28:09 AM PDT by jim_trent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jim_trent

I will pause to ponder that.

interesting point.

BTW I like Mopars over Fords and chevy's.


37 posted on 10/20/2005 5:47:58 AM PDT by Vaquero ("An armed society is a polite society" R. A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson